Archive
Faith In…Nothing?
As it has become well-known in the past 20 or better years, there are certain groups who take it upon themselves to “protect” our rights. It sounds like a noble cause – a brave group of lawyers, preventing things like civil rights violations and ensuring alleged criminals receive counsel. However, that is the assumption of those groups, but not necessarily their actions.
In Jackson, Ohio, a portrait that had hung in a school since 1947 was recently removed, after the (Freedom From Religion Foundation) FFRF and (American Civil Liberties Union) ACLU filed lawsuits. The groups would have us believe that the portrait was heinous, and portrayed the sort of thing that should never be seen in schools. The expected backlash was so bad, the people who were supposed to have reported the portrait are still referred to as John Doe-plaintiffs by the groups. Nothing like invoking your rights while you cower, eh?
Just what was this awful, heinous, picture? What could cause so much outrage and belly aching? What could possibly be so inflammatory? Why this bust of Jesus Christ, which hung so long in the school:
The Head of Christ, by Warner Sallman
Created in 1941 by a Chicago painter named Warner Sallman, the painting grew in popularity to become one of the most popular depictions of Christ of all time. The calming gaze was apparently too much for some though.
The painting was removed, even though the school was not ordered to take the work down, because the school’s insurance company refused to cover legal costs to argue the case in the courts. The superintendent then said the school could not afford the costs on their own, and ordered the picture to be taken down.
The painting actually was not owned by the school district itself. The painting belonged to a group who attended the high school, and was a Christian service group, the Hi-Y Club. The ACLU and FFRF claim the club gave the picture to the school district, but the district denied any such arrangement was ever made, and said that the painting still belonged to the group.
The main issue seems to be another attack on religion in general (Christ was a Jew, he was the basis for Catholicism and Christianity, and he is considered a prophet in Islam). There is no one religion being targeted. So, under the guise of protecting civil rights, and ensuring the continued separation of church and state (which is always a specious claim at best), the ACLU and FFRF have forced, through legal intimidation, the painting’s removal. To preserve free speech, they must quash…free speech.
Read more on the case via the Montreal Gazette.
“I Am Not A Dictator!”
“O Duck Luck, ” says Hen Pen, “the sky is falling!”
“Why, how do you know it?” says Duck Luck.
“ObamaChicken Little told me.”
And so goes the story of another famous alarmist, Chicken Little. President Obama has attempted for the past few weeks to raise alarm about the awful “cuts” that would affect everything. The economy will be hurt and crippled for years, other results include millions of furloughed federal employees, and a non-functioning military. All because those darned Republicans would not agree with him to further increase spending.
The rights so valued and inherent in each of us has slowly continued to erode away, and with a president such as Obama, it will be a long four years.
Read the whole article at Conservative Daily News, here: http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/03/i-am-not-a-dictator/
“I am not a dictator!”
Failures of Gun Control
Now, off the bat, I will admit the title could be misleading – after all, it is not about how a failure to control guns has created a new problem, but rather, it is about how some liberal academics would like to frame the gun control argument. It is actually the absurdity of the far left and other educational elites, that continues to hurt their causes the most.
Just how bad was this egregious attack on the 2nd Amendment? Read my entire skewering of an anti-gun academic here: http://freeradicalnetwork.com/failures-of-gun-control/
Image via Gothamist.
But He’s OUR Criminal!
For the entirety of his two terms in office, belittling and lampooning by the media and left in general, was the typical reaction of progressives to George W. Bush. He was a buffoon, a cowboy, and an idiot, they would have us believe. Bush was a maverick, willing to start wars and carry out the missions from previous administrations (invading Iraq was to finish his father’s war, many on the left claimed).
It seemed like Bush’s mere existence was enough to make some progressives apoplectic, or send them into an angry, profanity-laden, rant.
Read the full post, here: Conservative Daily News
The Left, and Throw-Away Humanity
While the left is content to spew their opinions and opine on subjects that they are dangerously under educated about, the chasm between what they claim and what they do continues to grow wider. The left claims to care so very much about the people, and whatever shortcomings that they face. The reality between the left’s over-reaching legislation and their over-spending, is that they will happily use whatever they must in order to further their own flawed claims and defective logic.
Read the rest at Conservative Daily News
Tools for useful idiots
Playing Dirty
Bailofrights tackles one of the main issues plaguing the right in Playing Dirty. How should right take on the left’s insidious framing of the language to suit their claims? Read on, and find out.
Why The Left Doesn’t Want Safe Schools
Who would have a problem with police in schools?
The recent rampage in Newport, Connecticut has the entire country talking about gun rights, safety, and the protection of young, innocent schoolchildren. Fixing the woeful measures of school protection, is a commonly held belief, across politics of all stripes. How best to protect those schoolchildren, however, has any number of suggestions, and just as many critics.
Many centrists and most Republicans support the placing of armed police, either active or retired, in schools. The reasoning goes, as police, they have received plenty of training, both with firearms, and with person-to-person interactions. Met with a threat, police’s first instinct is surely not carelessly to open fire – that is the last option, when talking and negotiating have proven ineffective. Trained to use words first, and lethal force last, is how the police operate.
While thinking about that, and attempting to find problems and flaws with police in schools, I may have inadvertently found a reason why some progressives do not want cops in schools. Much progressive rhetoric relies on the belief that authority is inherently bad, and it should always be questioned, and sometimes engaged physically.
I think here lies the crux of their problem with police in schools. How on earth could police officers who provide safe learning environments be a bad thing? While there are some progressives who actually fear the inanimate object that is a firearm, seeing a mature, responsible authority figure at school with that firearm, would tear down tenets of the progressive orthodoxy.
Students would see and interact with a policeman everyday, learning that police are not the overbearing monsters that many on the left would have the public believe. Add to that the effect of a sidearm tucked safely away in a holster, and the child learns that the gun is not the randomly-firing, crazy-tool-with-a-mind of its own, either. Opposing police in schools also creates a problem with many progressives’ claim that only highly-trained, responsible, licensed people should be allowed to have firearms at all.
If you allow children to see this same responsibility daily, and the children also grow to respect the policemen as more than just an authority (as someone who has sworn to place his own life in between the children’s’ lives and any threat) and you would cause all sorts of short-circuiting with liberal narratives. The schoolchildren will experience cognitive dissonance between the media who love to show the most atrocious police stories possible, and the friendly school protector. The children will also be able to ask the policeman questions and learn from him.
Once that sort of erosion of progressive dogma starts – where would it end? The progressives, already outnumbered, might be forced to defend more of their often illogical and baseless claims, in futile attempt to remain relevant. Why it could be the end of the entire progressive false reality. To me, the positives far outweigh the imagined negatives, and the course is clear – show the children we care enough to protect them from both evil threats, and the misguided progressive claim that guns are inherently evil, and that people should not be able to protect themselves.
The Progressive “Reality”
Ministry of Propaganda
“Doublespeak” is a term inspired by “double-think” in Orwell’s famous dystopian novel, “1984″. According to oxforddictionaries.com, it means “deliberately euphemistic, ambiguous, or obscure language”. I would say it means, “saying something to say nothing”. Regardless, no one group of people has done more to further the spread of doublespeak than the American left.
Left-wing author, George Lakoff calls it “framing”, and advocates its use to regain rhetorical ground that the left lost to Republicans. By changing terms like “partial-birth abortion” and “tax-relief”, Lakoff claims that progressive ideas would be more pleasing to the ear, and therefore more readily adopted by Americans. It is not the idea that is the problem, it is the description of the idea, he would have us believe. Never mind that the actual actions are as morally corrupt as ever, it should sound good.
The moments when progressives actually deviate from their politically correct speech, can be disastrous for them. Just this week, a Michigan state Congressman, Doug Geiss, threatened that there, “would be blood” if right-to-work measures became law in the state. President Obama himself uttered the infamous line to Joe Wurzelbacher, about spreading the wealth around, in response to Wurzelbacher’s candid question.
Democrats and progressives use four of the same tactics, over and over again, either to create their desired environment, or to change one that they do not like.
- Create divisions were there are none, or there are none necessary. There was no reason to creating animus and promote class hatred when Obama took office. His huge spending plans and burgeoning deficits meant someone had to pay though – so enter the “filthy 1%”, said to have not earned their money honestly, or who are like robber barons (so go the hackneyed talking points). Another attempt at this, that ended in a conservative barrage of rebuttals, was the left’s “War on Women”. That attempt to create a narrative met with limited success.
- Simply call something other than what it is. “Taxes” and “tax increases” are not so anymore – they are “paying one’s ‘fair share’”, and “revenue increases”. People understand and hate taxes, so to sell them to Americans, the left has to call them something that they are not. It has gotten so out of hand with tax-related issues, “tax cuts” are occasionally called “subsidies”.
- Utilizing projection and shifting blame to look like the left is innocent of the problems that they have caused. We see the left gin up crowds of angry unions and other supporters, and when those same groups act out, violently, the left tries to claim the right provoked it. As the Obama spending grew exponentially, the left was all too happy to parrot the messages that “Bush was every bit as bad” and “Obama inherited the mess”. We have seen a little less of the shifting as Obama’s spending blew past any Bush spending, and continued upward. Another quashed point of the left was the tie between Bush and Cheney and various corporations. This was largely due to Obama’s hiring numerous people for his administration, who were close with corporations, coupled with Obama’s multi-million dollar loans to failed energy companies, headed by campaign bundlers.
Just as I am writing this, MSNBC is trying to create doubt that it was union members who tore down an Americans For Prosperity tent in Lansing, Michigan. - Using the lap-dog media to carry the left’s messages. The media serve as both a bullhorn and magnifying glass for whatever claims the left wants to proffer. Media will both “investigate” negative claims, smearing through implications while doing it, and give the left a soapbox to stand on as they promulgate slurs and lies. News personalities will happily promote a false narrative, sharing what they consider correct information, rather than legitimately correct information. Soledad O’Brien famously tried to lecture Joel Pollack about liberation theology, and failed miserably. At the latest presidential debate, Candy Crowley attempted to correct Mitt Romney’s point that Obama never called the Benghazi attack, a “terror attack”. Of course Obama did not, but Crowley making the incorrect point led many people to take it as gospel from the debate moderator.
The left has done this for so long now, I fear that there are actually some people on the right who may think it is already too late to turn back the fake, fallacious claims of the left. The left has had so much time to invent, spew, and support their dogma, the American people now believe in that brand of reality. Some in Congress seem to take a resigned, “oh well” view of the whole fiasco, and for their parts, become willing sacrificial lambs and scapegoats to the stories. More shockingly, some in Congress seem to look at the left’s success with these measures, and begin to think, “Hey – to get our messages out, maybe we should try that too!”
So, how do you oppose this? How are you supposed to fight so many marshalled sources of false information? Creating your own medium to offer your own narrative is too costly and laborious. Do you appear on the left’s favored programs, and pick fights with the bogus-information dealers? Possibly, but you would only have one chance to do that. A first step is to illustrate as much as possible the divergence between the reality of the country, and what the left claims the reality is. Aim for the issues and places with the biggest divergence. And do not do it without expecting numerous excuses, and be prepared to defend your own claims. It is very much a “parry-and-thrust” exercise, but there is no reason not to expect to win always – after all, the truth is on our side.
Tuesday’s Gone (or Why the Left Will Lose)
Tuesday the nation goes to their polling places, and makes the most important decision they have ever made. If that sounds hyperbolic, it should not. The current president has shown himself more than willing to accrue bills and pass them on to future generations than any other president. This president has shown more wanton disregard for American life and liberty than any other as well. Obama, more than any other president, has sought to insert differences were there are none, incite hatred where there was none, and prevent the normal activities of Americans from occurring.
Obama campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter
The left wasted any chances that they had winning a presidential re-election a few years ago. The people represented by Democrats, took a backseat to the left’s dream of massive healthcare overhaul, and the passing of Obamacare, with numerous legislative tricks, near-bribes, and threats. After the Democrat-controlled Congress forced Obamacare through, they held “town hall” meetings that scared them, as many of the taxpayers slowly began to learn of the implications of Obamacare: new, massive government oversight, huge new tax bills, mandatory compliance, just to name a few.
As if ignoring some of their most loyal voters was not enough, Democrats seemed to find all new special interests to kowtow to, with the Obama inauguration. The country saw massive amounts of money given to unstable businesses under the guise of support of “green energy”. Later the country learned of the owners’ and CEOs’ ties to the Obama administration. Big campaign bundlers saw money thrown at their businesses, even after it was known that the business models were completely unfeasible.
Seeing the old supporters’ devotion die away, Obama seems to have decided to build new coalitions – all with their own price tags, of course, but none paid by Obama, himself. Why would he spend his own capital when he has a massive taxpayer base to draw from? The green lobby, the illegal immigrant communities, and the newly built (and reliant) throngs of welfare and food stamp recipients. Threaten them with the loss of their goodies, and you have a reliant, reliable, voting base. If you can create more of them, than supporters that you have lost as a result of the welfare costs, it works out – it is a wonderful, government, pyramid scheme.
The left’s standard-bearers are often surly, abrasive, and falsely aggrieved. Harry Reid is happy to share rumors from nameless sources to smear Mitt Romney. Nancy Pelosi sponsors and supports legislation with unknown contents. Asked tough questions, both Stephanie Cutter and Debbie Wasserman-Shultz keep straight faces while spewing lies and feigning ignorance. Jay Carney parrots the same talking points he is given, usually not even attempting to answer the questions asked of him.
The president formerly campaigned on the transparency he would usher in – the most transparent administration ever, he promised. Asked questions about the most recent scandals, Obama tells us frequently, “It’s being investigated, and I cannot speak on it…” Then he sends proxies, like Jay Carney, out to the podium to say nothing to the press pool. The president has repeatedly balked at providing details on scandals, like Fast & Furious and the Benghazi slaughter. Instead of telling the American people any details, everything is an ongoing investigation, or that the records are “sensitive.”
If the country had a true, fourth estate, instead of a complicit puppet of the administration, we might expect some forced answers. Instead, many reporters seem perfectly happy to tow a party line for Obama, asking the lightest and most worthless of questions. The reporters want to retain their access to the White House, so it is best not to ask any tough questions that may endanger that (worthless) access.
Finally, the left plays a dangerous game with Americans when it comes to disaster relief. Obama visited Joplin, Missouri, but it was after a trip to Europe, six days later. When the BP oil disaster occurred, it showed the administration’s true colors. We saw the Obama response, finally, after 14 days of nothing. Just in the last week, we have seen the president’s response to hurricane Sandy. FEMA runs out of water, citizens are using hallways and stairwells as latrines, others in New York are rummaging through garbage for food, and Obama campaigns. For a president that espouses and so willfully uses the power of the federal government, to NOT do so in this situation is inexcusable.
Senior Adviser to the President, David Axelrod
If it is still unclear, my point is this: the American left is morally, and monetarily bankrupt. In their hurry to jump over each another to make their sound-bytes, and to score points against their “enemies” on the right, the left either sold or lost their souls. To gain the support of their new, special-interest friends, they abandoned their old supporters, the people who made up their fathers’ Democratic Party. The new, more progressive left, clashes with a pragmatic America, that would rather have jobs and income than welfare and hand-outs. The new left abandoned their old ideals, and seemed to become a fully Keynesian, tax-and-spend monster, whose appetite for “goodies” could never be sated. The left is now more excuse, than execution.
After Tuesday’s landslide, the left will face two choices: continue with their big government planning and spending (which they have attempted and seen wholly rejected by Americans, since 2010), or reject the past few years, and once again embrace some sort of pragmatic and realistic reforms that help the country as a whole, not just their friends and sycophants. Given THIS sort of rhetoric, I fear the left still has not learned its lesson.
The Administration Of Death
Barack Obama
While I recognize that the title seems hyperbolic, I aim to make the case that the Obama administration runs the most anti-life, and pro-death, government that the United States has ever had. I think the government’s last three-plus years, have given rise to the most lackadaisical support of life, we have ever seen. Many times, over and over again, we have seen the president and his sycophants either endorse death, or attempt to excuse away the death of others, both innocents and people who have lost their lives as a direct result of the administration’s policies.
One of the most flagrant disregards for the ultimate sacrifice of others, was the slap in the face delivered to some fallen soldiers’ families. As Commander-in-Chief, and the person who has the ultimate say on military matters, one might think that having a soldier under your command lose their life, one of the very least things you could do would be sign a condolence letter to the soldiers’ families. Not Obama. He has repeatedly been shown to use an auto-pen for form letters of condolence to soldiers’ families.
Obama has also authorized, and carried out, the assassination of an American citizen by drone. Granted, the assassinated had aided and abetted terrorists, but he was still an American citizen, with the supposed rights of a trial by his peers, and due process. Whether or not Obama actually felt bound by these rights, seemed not to matter – he sent the drones anyway, and gave the go ahead to kill, without trial. A step, with which even Salon, taken aback, actually said was a “…step beyond where even George Bush would go”.
Should I bring up the “Fast & Furious” scandal, which the administration is still hoping will somehow, just, go away? Giving his testimony before Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder, bluntly refused to apologize to or to even acknowledge, slain border agent, Brian Terry’s family. As he sat before the House Judiciary Committee, wriggling and struggling for words that would somehow allow him to tell the truth, and avoid any blame, Holder was given an opportunity to provide documents and evidence to the Committee, which it had requested for months, and he repeatedly offered nothing. Even though memos and other documents implicated Holder and his lieutenants in the scandal, instead of finally taking responsibility for the thousands of Mexican deaths and the death of Brian Terry – Holder merely offered excuses.
Sidenote: Holder’s testimony was in the late Spring of 2012, and as of late Summer 2012, there still has not been an apology or acknowledgment of responsibility over the failed gun running operation.
We were witness to one of the most recent, and telling examples of this seeming pre-occupation with death, at the Democratic National Convention. A party platform that relished the thought and promise of widespread, and easy, on-demand abortion was center-stage. While some pundits tried to defend this with the thought that, “Well, the democrats have no record to run on, and the economy is atrocious - let the Democrats turn to social issues…” And so, from all the social issues that the Democrats could have turned to, and supported – from the poor, the homeless, bettering care for returning veterans – the Democrats turned to the snuffing out of lives to build their platform. A spokeswoman from NARAL (Nancy Keenan), Planned Parenthood, and the infamous Sandra Fluke, were only a few of the participants at the DNC, proud to trot out the “right to” abortion, masquerading as a human-right. Maybe we should have expected this when a president who supported infanticide won the last election?
Finally, in the newest flirtation in the left’s macabre and twisted relationship with death, awareness was given to the administration of a threat against embassies and consulates in the Middle East. Approaching the anniversary of September 11th, and with warning of Muslim backlash against a movie about their Prophet – despite as long as a 48-hour window of warning – the Obama Administration did nothing. Rumors of unarmed and massively under-gunned security at the American facilities fell on deaf ears, and led to the deaths of an ambassador (and his body’s subsequent desecration) and deaths of numerous other personnel. Despite the raising of an Arabic-language flag, espousing the aims of the Muslim Brotherhood, over an American embassy in Egypt, and the taking down, ripping apart, and burning of the Stars and Stripes, the administration still insists on continued billions of dollars in aid to the Egyptian government. Obama has issued an apology to anyone upset by Americans exercising their right to free speech, and the American media, still in love with the Obama administration, sought to excoriate Mitt Romney for issuing a presidential statement that Obama would not, or could not, bring himself to issue. A muted response has been the administration’s reaction to spreading violence and breeches at other embassies and consulates. In Libya, the post where murdered ambassador Chris Stevens lost his life, Obama has dispatched the Marines – 50 of them…This, as news sources report an angry crowd of hundreds threatening the American embassy in Yemen, and as warnings go out to other embassies to remain on guard.
So, what should we make of all this? Ordering an executive “hit” on an American citizen, an attempt to excuse away a federal agent’s death without taking any responsibility, a platform leaning heavily on abortion for support, and a very weak response to deaths of State Department personnel – it all points, to this author, to an administration that simply does not value life. This administration seems to use, squelch, or squander lives for whatever purpose, then toss them aside with their roles fulfilled. Life is nothing more than a means to achieve any number of ends. Use it for political gain, use it for votes, use it to send a message to our friends (or our enemies) – it does not really matter what the aim is, because there will always be more life to continuously throw at the problems. It is all so macabre and counter to everything we as Americans value, isn’t it? History books and our teachers tell us American men and women fought noble wars, and freed people from oppressive regimes, so that they could follow their own destinies and achieve what they could. Freed people from oppressive regimes, would no longer would have to worry that their lives would be used up or wasted by regimes who wanted the oppressed people’s’ blood and sweat for their own greedy and destructive purposes. Risking American lives, and losing so many, was ultimately worth it, so that others might enjoy the sanctity of life and personal freedoms that we Americans held in such high esteem. Now, it seems like such a sad day to see so much blood and destruction being wastefully used, for so little to show for it.
Third Time’s A Charm
In a stunning, and perhaps, ultimately fatal decision, for the Democratic party, a vote was held at the Democratic National Convention. The vote was simple, only consisting of two amendments to the party platform.
Amendment 1
We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.
Amendment 2
Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.
Amazingly, after calling for the first voice-vote, the chair, a stunned Antonio Villaraigosa, heard the amount of “no’s”, and sensing the fallout from a negative vote, actually uttered the words, “Let me do that again…” After the second vote, on the same issues, with the same negative vote, he began to look around anxiously, as though he was looking for another Democratic politician to coming running onstage to save him. The sponsor of the amendments, former Ohio governor, Ted Strickland, began to look around anxiously as well. Amazingly, a third vote was then held. An overwhelming amount of “no’s” were once again heard from the Democratic delegates. In the attached video, angry delegates, having voiced their disapproval three times, and finding themselves ignored, were left to shake their heads and boo, as Villaraigosa, claimed the motion passed by its required 2/3 majority.
Antonio Villaraigosa, and the infamous third vote
While politicians and pundits on the right, frequently mention the administration’s lack of support for Israel, to have seen such a flagrant display as we did this afternoon, was shocking – and I suspect not only to those of us on the right, but judging by his response, to Villaraigosa as well. The lack of support, or even a willingness to acknowledge God, was shocking as well. With so many speakers and guests at the DNC, seemingly supportive of a pro-abortion stance, should this really surprise anyone?
Perhaps, the overwhelming takeaway from these three votes, was the fact that the Democrats were so willing to blatantly called the vote as they wanted it to go – not as it did. After the claims of fraud and Black Panther voter-intimidation in the last presidential election, and even more recent events of the finding of 30,000 dead “voters” in North Carolina, and the Obama administration/Justice Department fighting Florida’s attempt to clean voter rolls, you might think that Democrats would be willing to try to rebuild their image, into something that is more respectable, and into something that resembles what the party was in its glory days. Or, do Democrats just not care about playing by any rules anymore? Are they content to just throw away even a semblance of fairness and the notion of considering any ideas differing with their own? With such flagrant and wanton disregard for rules of order and bulldozer-like tactics, will other Democrats seek to attach themselves to such a machine, that is bound to quickly burnout, or will they see the errors, and cut themselves loose, seeking ideals closer to their own, elsewhere?
(the video of the Democratic delegates’ votes can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8BwqzzqcDs via ABCNews and YouTube)
The Failure of Gun Control
The most recent gun-related tragedy in Aurora, Colorado has led to new calls for gun control laws and measures. The likes of Diane Feinstein, Sally Kohn, and Michael Bloomberg, have all claimed that extending prohibitions on firearms would necessarily curb the violence associated with them. It seems like a simple claim, with a self-evident conclusion: artificially the lower supply of something, and there is a lower supply available, right? It sounds like such a black and white issue. Cut off the supply of something, and the available supply begins to dwindle, and it eventually runs out. Then the product is gone, and so is the problem.
But there is a problem with that logic – firearms are not consumable items. Firearms are not used and thrown away, or expended. They are, like other tools, used over and over. While an artificial control would dry up the expansion of supplies, it still would not eliminate the supplies that the left would claim are causing all the problems. Despite the protestations that the sheer number of guns are the problems, some statistics have been pointing toward falling violent crime rates over the past few years.
The main issue I take with the progressive thought processes on gun control, is their insistence that guns would only be safe in the hands of trained, certified, fully capable professionals. Again, on its face, this seems like a decent notion – practice makes perfect, right? It seems to follow, that hours of safely handling and operating a firearm should make a nearly accident-proof firearm user, right? Then, these ultra-safe, and responsible firearms carrying professionals, would somehow protect the citizens, who would have had their own firearms seized.
The only problem with this thought, is that despite all the training in the world, and acclamation with firearms, police and soldiers still are not completely safe with them. There are miles long lists of firearms accidents and friendly fire mishaps among professionals. There have never been more methods of tracking and making weapons safe, and yet – even amidst these professionals, accidents still occur.
Among the best trained civilian police forces and SWAT teams, there are numerous stories of trigger-happy members killing civilians who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
- In Lima, Ohio, in a drug bust turned bad, police shot and killed a new mother, Tarika Wilson, after an officer opened fired on her – her one year old child, who she was holding suffered injuries as well (he was shot in the shoulder, and the baby also lost a finger). It was later discovered that police had even expected the presence of children, but went forward with a raid anyway.
- In Fairfield, Virginia, a 17-year police force veteran, investigating an illegal sports gambling operation, accidentally discharged his .45 caliber pistol, and killed an optometrist with no prior record. A firearm trainer later offered two reasons Salvatore Culosi Jr. was shot by the officer – “ignorance and carelessness”. He added, the Heckler & Koch gun was “very reliable” and did not have “a hair-trigger”.
- In one of the most egregious accidents of highly trained professionals’ neglecting safety and training protocols, in Pima County, Arizona, a SWAT team broke into a home, where they proceeded to shoot a Marine who served and survived two tours in Iraq. Pima County SWAT officers killed Jose Guerena while Guerena attempted to defend his family with his AR15, because he thought intruders were kicking his door down (as he lived in a high crime area). The police department has offered numerous stories and revised events several times, in trying to explain how they killed a man who never fired a shot at them, while they hit him over 60 times.
(The Cato Institute has compiled a long list (and map) of bungled SWAT actions by police. The map makes it plain to see that the deaths of both officers and innocent civilians are not limited to any particular geographic region. )
These three examples are by no means an indictment of any police force or SWAT teams either – I have the utmost respect for the people who risk their own lives daily, in an attempt to make the country a safer place. The examples illustrate the faulty reasoning in progressive logic that by only allowing “professionals” to carry firearms, will not eliminate firearms accidents. All things being equal, we must realize that police and soldiers are human beings too, and are therefore subject to the same accidents and irrationality as anyone else. There are far more examples of law enforcement officers being provoked or attacked by angry mobs, only to hold their fire, arrest the leaders of the violence, and defuse the situation.
Can practice and familiarity make people safer with their firearms? Of course it can. But then, if people are proficient in their use, and respect firearms as they should – then we would not have any reasons to take them away, would we?
(Picture credits: Tarika Wilson – Reason.com, Salvatore Culosi Jr. - washingtoncitypaper.com, and Jose Guerena - expertwitnessradio.org)
Tarika Wilson and her son
Salvatore Culosi, Jr.
Jose Guerena
The American Quislings?
Vidkun Quisling, Norwegian Leader, Nazi-collaborator (1887-1945)
For those of you unfamiliar with the term, “Quisling”, no, this is not an article on some rare flora or fauna (or whatever else you may think a Quisling is). Read on, and take the term to heart – we are sure to see plenty more pseudo-Quislings as election time draws nearer…
A “Quisling” came about in the Second World War, and draws its name from a Norwegian politician, named Vidkun Quisling. Even before the Germans considered invading Norway, Quisling traveled to Berlin and sought to convince Hitler how valuable a country like Norway would be under the German swastika. Vidkun lost his name to the term, invented by the British press, after it learned of Mr. Quisling’s actions when Norway faced an imminent German Nazi invasion. Perhaps the closest American parallel that I can offer, would be a cross among: a band-wagon rider, crossed with Benedict Arnold, crossed with Nero. You might be thinking, surely no one’s that disgusting a character – but Mr. Quisling fit the bill. Facing a German invasion, Quisling, who had already been a member of a fascist party in Norway, and received support from Germany, simultaneously declared himself leader of the country, and ordered Norwegians to throw down their weapons and not attack the now “friendly” occupiers, the Nazis.
For a position of power in the new occupied government, Quisling sold his soul, and attempted to sell his country’s as well. His collaboration with evil, his disregard for the safety and well-being of others, especially his own countrymen, has made him infamous in Europe – he is the European equivalent of our own aforementioned, Benedict Arnold. So, how have I arrived at a column about a new American version of the infamous Quisling? I have simply taken a look at the past three plus years of American government and “leadership” – that is how. And while the crisis of leadership we now have in America is of the voters‘ (and non-voters’) creation, whereas Quisling’s own actions lead him to a short stint in charge, I see more than a few parallels in the behaviors and attitudes of our leaders and the Norwegian.
- A sense of entitlement: “We belong here.” Democrats read far too much into their capturing of Congress in the first two years of Obama’s term, and they gave Americans, Obamacare (but yet no budgets). What they saw as some sort of mandate, we now see was voter weariness at republican swagger and spending. Voters may have thought, “well, the republicans are spending like democrats – wonder if the democrats are really any worse?” And of course, we see that they are much, much worse. The Senate continues to languish, with no budgets in three plus years, and the stonewalled House, seeking documents from a law-breaking attorney-general, who seeks to cover his own tracks on an illegal and botched operation in the southwest, passes legislation that is constantly tabled in said Senate.
And do not forget Obama’s infamous quips: “We won.” and “You would think they’d be saying ‘thank you!’“ - Belief that their way is the best or only way: Of course, the American people needed Obamacare, right? Through various tricks and legislative maneuvers (including near-bribes for supportive votes in Congress), the democrats went against the prevailing public opinion that Americans did not want the healthcare over haul. All that work to shove the faulty, expensive, and ultimately destructive measure down the gullets of Americans, and now the bill itself looks sick, and could be buried in the next session of Congress, under Congressional authority to regulate taxes…
- Using their position for themselves, rather than for their countrymen: Numerous very expensive vacations, bringing large entourages of yes-men and security ring a bell? So many holes of golf in only three years of a presidency. While we are in the most serious economic miasma since the Great Depression of the 1930s and 1940s, and the president finds all this time to play golf and sight see? How about bridges to nowhere and Big Digs? Earmarks and pork barrel projects for everybody – what better way to ensure your re-election, than to give the voters a few crumbs every couple of years?
How about various congressmen and women, allegedly using their inside knowledge of upcoming votes on legislation to enrich themselves from stock trades, or using their power to gain entry into “closed” (nearly impossible to join) IPOs? There are numerous other examples of the American people struggling to make their ways and pay their bills while fat cats in D.C. fill their pockets – and yet much of the vitriol those same folks in the government spew is against the so-called rich…
There is no imminent invasion, there is no impending army on the American doorstep – but make no mistake, we are on the edge of a precipice. Changes are necessary, or the dire possibilities will become events that cannot be avoided. Whether it is a fundamental change in America – a moral and cultural shift toward the selfish – or “just” economic ruin, the current state of politics and leadership in America is an unhealthy, untenable one. Are the politicians willfully selling the country out? Maybe, I think that there are far more that are merely ignorant of the results of their actions, and (thankfully) do not fit the tightest definition of a Quisling.
There are many examples of power-hungry politicians, and those who would do anything to get their required face-time on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox, but to me, it seems like there are so many more these days. I cannot remember anything resembling this media circus when I was growing up – perhaps it’s just the increase in outlets that has allowed so many more politicians to interview? Perhaps it is the symbiotic relationship between the networks and politicians, knowing that one line or one claim, could instantly create a personality that might be repeatedly asked to return?
Regardless, this notion that everyone is in it for themselves, is wearing very thin. The idea that, “this is America, and you can become anything”, used to come with the understanding that you did not walk on people or act like a cut throat to do it. Whatever happened to that notion?
Obamacare Has Been Breathed Life – Where Do We Go From Here?
I awoke this morning, too late to catch live news of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Obamacare, and its Constitutionality. A quick look at Twitter, however, both shocked and stupefied me. Confirmation came about the forgone conclusion, that the justices’ votes would be split along a 5-4 line. However, the actual members’ votes, and the way that they split, came as a shock to most on the right.
The Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
We know now, that the court found the Obamacare fiasco/law, legal and Constitutional. The man who most on the right worried about, Justice Anthony Kennedy, actually voted against upholding the law. Kennedy was also credited with one of the harshest opinions for the minority dissent. On page 65 of the dissent, the justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas found that: “For the reasons here stated, we would find the Act invalid in its entirety.” (emphasis mine)
While many on the right may have heard the decision, and immediately decided to fret, and engage in their best Chicken Little impressions, I think that there are some very important take-aways from today’s proceedings:
- The battle for universal healthcare is far from over. Indeed, that the battlefield that Obamacare is fought upon is merely shifting, from the Supreme Court, back to Congress, as the law and its funding mechanism, is finally classified as it should have been all along – as a tax, and not as a penalty. It was penalty-based funding that would have sunk the whole thing under the Commerce Clause. As tax-funded, it is my understanding that it will now be actually easier to kill in Congress.
- The short, but powerful, addendum by Justice Thomas, which stated, yet again, that the Commerce Clause is not a club, used to compel action, but that it is a whip, used to correct actions already taking place.
- The ruling decided, once and for all, that Congress cannot compel Americans to purchase anything by threat of force or penalty.
- Unfortunately, today also showed some people on the right, can be as easily stirred up, and they will react like those on the left. While I will admit to being confused at first to the ruling, as I let it slowly process, my reactionary feelings ebbed, and as usual, I began to see some of these silver linings emerge.
- I found it interesting too, in dissent that the Justices mention that the job of the Supreme Court is to promote and protect the structural freedoms of the American people. I sort of took that as a, “hey – people wake up, and realize what is going on in this country – pay attention to what is occurring in your name.”
All in all, the result was depressing to me, but with so many doors opened by the decision, I think the sum of the eventual outcomes will paint Roberts as less a goat, and more a hero. The only problem now is, will Congress actually step up to the plate and do what the people want – and will those same people hold that same Congress responsible in November?
It’s Those Darned Kids Again!
The recent comments of Hilary Rosen have both inflamed millions of stay-at-home-mothers, and ruined any Democratic battle plans for a spring and summer-long “War On Women” that might have been used against the GOP to bolster Barack Obama’s election efforts. The incendiary language she chose was quickly used against her by members of her own party, as they speedily scrambled to put space between she and they. My reaction, was at first, complete amusement (as I am bound to find myself whenever I see the left cannibalizing itself). Then, I stopped laughing for a moment, and began to consider the validity of the whole “War on Women” the left claims it is helping to fight. I realized that there were two things wrong with the left’s premise though: while there may be some attacks aimed at women (and it has been my experience that those attacks come from the left, not so much that they are decried by the left), and more importantly, there is a much longer, ongoing “War On” occurring few may realize – a “War on Children.” Thinking through the newly realized war, I think that there is much more information and support available to prove it.
You'd be crying too...
The left has long supported “on-demand” abortions. Walk into your nearest clinic, tell them you have an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, and that is it. It is simple and straightforward. The clinics would rather not know any more than they must. Is the mother-to-be, underage? Is she a victim of abuse? The clinics do not seem to care so long as they can provide abortions to “fix problems.” This seems like a massive over looking of the welfare of a young girl who may find herself pregnant, but surely the snuffing out of the unborn life is an attack as well? It is a double attack on young people. Quoting the president himself, he infamously said that he did not, “…want them [his daughters] punished with a baby.” A baby can be a blessing, a surprise even, but a “punishment”? That is disgusting.
The First Lady has criticized both home nutrition and school lunch programs, and we have seen some schools go so far as to ban lunches students bring from home. Americans have been given a nice new, easier to understand, color-coded plate, “thing” to use as a nutritional guide so we eat more healthy meals. (I am unsure how exactly the healthier eating habits are being measure, but the government has its best intentions at heart). In Los Angeles, a massive school-lunch overhaul, costing millions of dollars, ended with rejection by the students, who were throwing away unopened food and uneaten entrees - but at least there was one good lesson learned from that fiasco. The school children created a de facto black market for junk food, probably learning more about economics at lunch than in the classrooms all year. The school’s economic lesson – well, they increased spending ten-fold from 2006 to 2010, on fresh fruits and vegetables, instead of serving canned.
Continuing on schools, and the mess they have become – how about the left and their cozy relationship with teachers’ unions? The teachers work hard, pay dues to their unions, and then see those dues used for things like election recalls in Wisconsin. Reports came to light at protests in Wisconsin of the union members and teachers getting bogus sick notes to join the crowds, and there were even reports of teachers bringing their confused students to the mess (YouTube video here – listen closely at :08). So teachers take days off from school, under the guise of sickness, leaving the students with substitute teachers, while they chant and protest the governor’s request that they pay a small portion of their own retirement or healthcare plans. So it seems, some teachers’ greed comes before the welfare students that they claim to want to protect.
I would be interested to hear more from school reformers, who have run into brick walls while trying to fix schools. Union and special interests target people like Michelle Rhee, while she tried to fix Washington D.C.’s schools (and was actually seeing some good results after actually firing some 200 teachers). Despite her resignation, the left continues to push back against voucher programs and school choice.
Although these are just three major efforts to affect the children, there are plenty more, easily identifiable progressive tactics and plans in action in the “War on Children.” Things like trying to prevent McDonald’s from adding toys to Happy Meals and forcing McDonald’s to offer approved food items, attacking Newt Gingrich’s suggestion that children who are a certain age be allowed to do menial labor in their own schools (and earn a paycheck to help their families), and continuously pushing their brand of learned dependency – it all has the terrible effect of turning a bright, able, capable generation, into a needy, dependent one, unable to even think for itself. The fact is, the left does not think too highly of children, or else they would treat them with a modicum of respect.
The left’s style really seems crimped by the mere existence of children, and if the left had its way, kids would just kowtow to the left as the left would love to have them do, then everything would be copacetic. But, like so many on the right, kids aren’t stupid, and they know BS when they see it. So, once again, it seems like the left has met its match.
