…Because Evil Persists

In his anti-execution documentary Into The Abyss, Werner Herzog asked a prison chaplain, “why does God allow capital punishment?” In my last post I responded that the better question is, “why does God allow sociopaths to continually victimize innocent people?” Not one filmmaker or movie star has asked that question. I’m here to tell you that the arguments against the death penalty are philosophically shallow and intellectually vapid.

One of the statements made by Delbert Burkett, father of convicted murderer Jason Burkett – whose partner in crime was executed by the State of Texas in 2010 – was, “killin’ Michael Perry isn’t gonna bring those people back. It’s not gonna raise anyone from the dead.” That’s a comment made by every anti-death penalty celebrity in the world, particularly in the US. Capital punishment is useless because it doesn’t bring back the victims, they say. It’s cruel and unusual punishment. We never have the right to take a human life.

(The same group of people will demand abortion rights in the name of a woman’s right to choose and find ways to dehumanize a human fetus to rationalize murder to their so-called consciences. Go figure.)

That argument is emotional at best. It carries no truth. If our aim was to bring back the dead, then there would be no point to punishment at all. Why sentence someone to life in prison? I mean, it’s not going to bring their victims back from the dead. Why would we send a man to prison for kidnapping and raping his ex-wife? It’s not going to stop her nightmares or put a stop to her fear of quiet parking lots. Why should we send a man to prison for stealing cars and breaking into homes? It’s not going to replace the lost sense of security that his victims deal with now.

See how silly that argument is? If we’re not using the death penalty at least in part for punishment, then there would be no point – and punishment is half of the point. The other half is deterrence. Those who oppose the death penalty claim that it doesn’t deter anything. I wholeheartedly disagree, and the numbers prove that argument wrong.

According to the numbers, when the Supreme Court halted the death penalty for a few years in the early 1970’s, murder rates skyrocketed almost overnight. It took time for the death penalty to be re-instituted, and once it began to gain traction again in the 1990’s murder rates dropped by nearly half. During a long portion of time, many murderers confessed and later said they did so because they knew they wouldn’t be executed for their crimes. As for complete deterrence, nobody has any illusion that the death penalty will put an end to murder; if elimination were our standard for punishment, we still wouldn’t be putting people in prison. Capital punishment has been proven to deter murders, but we’ll never really know how many people have been stopped from committing murder for pecuniary gain because nobody in their right mind will admit that they considered committing a murder. Those who would admit it are likely in dire need of regular phenobarbital treatments, anyway.

It’s not as if I have never struggled with my belief in the death penalty. Because I carry a gun, I have considered at length whether I would be willing to take a life if the situation called for it (I don’t think you should carry a gun unless you ARE willing to kill, and you’d best know how you feel and what you think about doing it before you end up needing to in self-defense). I won’t know until and unless I ever have to commit the act, and I hope like hell that I never have to, but I’ve also been faced with death in my duties as an EMT and I have given death a lot of consideration – both my own death and that of others. My faith tells me I should forgive. My faith also tells me I should be able to balance justice and mercy, and know when the greatest lesson will be learned from one or the other.

So many criminals in our society depend on the faith-based mercy of others. That dependence has been fulfilled so often that it has morphed into expectation. I have met so few inmates who actually intended to change their behavior that I have a hard time believing that any of them care to change. I have met many, however, who struck me as being so evil that their very presence in the room made the hair stand up on the back of my neck. I’ve worked with inmates whose self-serving behavior and subsequent excuses screamed “PSYCHOPATH!”

Our justice system will never be perfect, but we have to be willing to accept that there is evil in this world and there always will be no matter what we do. As long as human beings are running the show in this world there will be imperfection. Evil will persist no matter how much we wish we could reason everyone into being good. We have to be willing to accept being uncomfortable once in a while to make sure evil doesn’t win. That means that we have to accept that not all life is indispensible; those who have made the choice to objectify others and make victims out of innocent people forfeit their lives, even to the point of execution.

As for the argument that it’s cruel and unusual punishment…horsefeathers. Ask the victims about the fear and extreme pain they experienced before they died. Ask their surviving friends and family what they experience every day after losing their loved one.

The Toughest Story Ever Told

Just a few days ago, I posted about parents who don’t know how to set limits for their children. Tonight I’m going to address the opposite end of the spectrum. A friend forwarded me a link to a video that made me nauseous. I will warn you, the following is not safe for work nor is it safe for children. It is the full, unedited footage of Arkansas County, Texas judge William Adams beating his then-16-year-old daughter over downloading music and video games online in 2004:


From what I’ve been able to piece together, his daughter Hillary had been told to remove the file-sharing service known popularly as Kazaa from her computer. In fact, he apparently didn’t even want her to have the computer in the house in the first place. Hillary has ataxic cerebral palsy, which is a condition that affects motor function and balance. Typically it causes tremors in the hands and feet. Hillary, against the odds, learned to play piano (and she has some pretty amazing talent) and developed a keen interest in computers and related technology. Against his wishes Hillary signed back on to Kazaa to download games and music. Her mother found out and punished her for it, but when her father came home, he doled out the abuse you see in the video.

What I am about to say is not easy, but I think it speaks to my experience.

When I was a kid, I wasn’t all that bad. My mother had some pretty impossible expectations of me, but I never sneaked out of the house, never stole the car, never smoked or drank – pretty much the worst that can be said about me when I was a kid was that I wasn’t interested in school work. I loved reading, writing, and studying music, but not what I was being taught at school. I was caught stealing gum on a couple of occasions when I was little. I remember stealing baseball cards once. That was the worst I did as a child. Now, if you had asked my mother, she would have told you that I was violent, dangerous, disrespectful and incorrigible. She even went to Tough Love meetings when I was a kid (and you have no idea just how embarrassing it was much later to read about the founders of the group and the quandaries that parents who attend meetings really face – kids who drink, party, use narcotics, commit grand larceny, that sort of thing, none of which I ever came close to doing). I wasn’t innocent…I did things from time to time that genuinely deserved a spanking or being grounded. I also wasn’t the demon my mother made me out to be.

My father quite obviously did not like to punish any of us. When we had done something that merited a spanking, he didn’t chase us down – he told us he was going to spank us, turned us over his knee, gave us three swats and that was the end of it. In fact, the only time I saw my father shed tears was on the few occasions that he spanked me or my siblings (he cried the night before he told my mother he was done, but that’s a different story). All three of us knew as kids that dad did not like doing things that hurt us and that was the part that made us straighten up. My mother, on the other hand? She may have loved me as her daughter, but she has never really liked me. The majority of her aggression, when not directed at my father, was directed at me.

She crossed the line from discipline into abuse on several occasions. At one point she took a swing at me with a cooking spoon and broke the spoon. One evening, my parents came home to find that my siblings had finished their chores, but I had slacked off all day and was rushing to get mine done when they got home. My father took my siblings out for a reward and left me at home, an act that I protested in my room in tears. My mother came thundering into my room with one of my father’s leather belts, swinging wildly, hitting me everywhere from head to foot. I went to my first day of the fifth grade with belt-sized bruises on my neck and forearm. To this day I cannot explain why I answered as I did when teachers asked me what happened: “I fell.”

That was not the first nor the last time my mother lost her temper in such fashion. What’s more, my teachers thought my father was the abuser. Fifth grade was my first year in the D.A.R.E. program, and when the officer teaching us asked if we’d ever seen our parents consume alcohol, I raised my hand only to find I was the only one with my hand in the air. That afternoon, my mother raged at me for telling them that my dad was an alcoholic – an accusation I had never made. To the day my parents divorced she never stopped bringing it up. Well into my adult years, she would pull that incident out of her hat and dangle it in front of me as if to say, “see? You were a major pain in the ass when you were a kid!” Well into my adult years, I feared correcting her.

The one time I tried to remind her of the times she had beaten me, screamed insults at me, or grabbed me by my shirt collar and shaken me until I saw stars, she again lost her temper. Even now she would vehemently deny that it happened. Maybe she really has forgotten that she did those things; I don’t know what her frame of mind is and I can’t make that accusation. What really confused the hell out of me as a kid was how she could blow a gasket at home and, once we got to church half an hour later, she could turn on the charm and nobody had a clue what was going on at home. When other people were around, my mother had a great sense of humor. She was very witty and was a lot of fun to be around. Once we got home, though, she wasn’t happy unless she was angry, arguing with my father, or going over some drama with me.

In my EMS work, I go on a lot of domestic violence calls. Every time we go to another one, I always walk away from the victim who has just been beaten half-senseless and still refuses to press charges against her animal of a boyfriend and wonder to my partner how so many of them can return to their abusers so willingly. One night, we got back to the station and I crawled back into my rack and it suddenly made sense. It’s not just because they have nowhere else to go. It’s not just because they have no money. They genuinely love these men and they believe even as they are being abused that they can fix them.

I love my mother. I wish more than anything that I could have a relationship with her but she became so vengeful and vitriolic after my parents divorced in 2004 that I simply couldn’t be around her anymore. My therapist has since remarked that in the two years since I stopped trying to force myself to work things out with my mom, I’ve become a much more easygoing person (yes, I see a therapist – I think everyone should see a therapist). Like any person in a bad relationship, though, I had to recognize the situation for what it was and remove myself from it if I hoped to maintain my sanity. Loving a person does not mean we need to do all we can to fix them, even to our own detriment. Eventually we have to say goodbye and hope that they fix themselves in the interim.

I have no trouble believing that Hillary, too, was a good kid. What I fail to understand is why, after being told not only about the offense but that she had already been punished, he felt it necessary to go off the deep end over a file-sharing service. My father never threatened me, he never growled at me, and he certainly never cussed at me. This man says some pretty unbelievable things to his disabled 16-year-old child while literally beating her until she screams for him to stop. Then he jabs his finger in her face and threatens to beat her again over slight offenses.

Incredibly, when answering for the video, he said, “it was a long time ago…I really don’t want to get into this right now because as you can see my life’s been made very difficult over this child.” He had the temerity to make light of the incident. William Adams has no business being a judge. Hillary has said that it’s “a heavy thing to do” to ruin her father, and she is correct – but the man has reportedly ruled that the testimony of children is “fantasy”. I would not want him on the bench any longer than I would want my mother on the bench. There is a tremendous difference between a spanking and a beating, and this man has obviously not learned that difference yet.

The Courage of a Lone Wolf

I live in Phoenix. Texas is home for me, though; I grew up with guns. I grew up with gun safety lessons (don’t ever point a gun at anyone or anything you aren’t prepared to shoot, don’t ever put your finger inside the trigger guard until you are prepared to shoot, and don’t ever even look at dad’s guns cross-eyed lest you get the spanking of your life and find yourself grounded until you’re 50). I grew up with the understanding that guns are a tool, and like any tool, if misused they can do incredible damage.

I also grew up with the realization that it’s not guns that kill people. It’s people that kill each other, and they don’t always use guns to do it.

Mexican drug cartels have all but overrun the country. It’s gotten so bad that more have died in violence perpetrated by Mexican cartels than in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. The Mexican government is all but incompetent; they claim moral superiority because they don’t apply the death penalty, yet their crime rates are in the stratosphere, jails and prisons are outrageously overcrowded and corruption is the only way to survive. After years of listening to liberals in America scream and cry for harsher gun control measures and watching them stumble over themselves, I have finally seen and heard an argument that seems genuinely dangerous to our Second Amendment freedoms: the outright lie that 90% of all guns seized in Mexico (where guns are all but completely illegal for civilian ownership and usage) come from the United States.

Like any good lie, there is a grain of truth to it. What is it? Well, 90% of all traceable guns seized in Mexico can be traced back to the US. As of 2009, the truth of that number meant that only about 17% of the total number were actually coming from the US. The rest are coming from other foreign sources and can be easily spotted because of their markings (China, Russia and various Middle Eastern countries are the most popular, along with Belgian-made rifles that are often stolen from the Mexican army and some police agencies).

If you read the numbers as reported by Fox News in April of 2009, you’ll see a name that has come up since then. Two years ago, ATF agent Bill Newell gave the correct numbers to Fox, putting the lies perpetrated by liberals and the MSM to rest. You’d think it was once and for all, but it wasn’t.

Enter “Project Fast and Furious”, also known as “Project Gunwalker”.

According to whistleblowers Larry Alt, Darrin Gil and John Dodson, all ATF agents, Fast and Furious was intended to catch straw buyers in the act. The idea was to enlist the aid of a handful of gun stores, allow straw buyers to “pass” background checks in order to buy guns (AR-15’s and AK-47’s were popular) by means of the ATF and colluding organizations giving the green light for the sales, then stopping the buyers before they made it across the border and the weapons ended up in the wrong hands.

Unfortunately, we found out all too late what really happened. It was the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010 that shone a spotlight on Fast and Furious. Two of the guns recovered at the scene of his killing were traced back to a single US gun store, right here in Phoenix. How did they get into the hands of drug runners and human smugglers? The ATF let it happen. Fast and Furious was an abysmal failure. The news has gotten worse since the news broke, too. At least three murders in the US and more than 200 in Mexico have been linked to F&F guns, and the prediction is that hundreds – possibly thousands – could be linked by the time the dust settles.

The name of the Phoenix gun store that has gotten caught up in the ATF’s massive mishandling is very well known to me. I am a customer of Lone Wolf Trading Co., and have been since moving to Arizona. It is the only gun store I have ever shopped at, whether for guns, ammunition, grips, slings, skins, cleaning kits, you name it – I am not personal friends with Andre Howard or his staff, but when I walk in you’d think I was. They all recognize me. Even when I haven’t been in a full year they still recognize me. When I heard the store’s name come up in the reports about F&F, I was floored. I couldn’t believe they’d engage in that sort of business – I have been there when they have turned people away for background check failures.

As it turns out, they weren’t willing participants in the government cluster. ATF supervisors swore to Howard that none of the guns he sold to known straw buyers would ever reach Mexico. When the feces hit the oscillating rotator, however, Howard started searching for answers. In March of this year he retained a lawyer and called a meeting with the ATF heads who had enlisted his help for F&F. He taped the meeting (along with others), during which ATF agent Hope MacAllister and US Attorney Emory Hurley promised him that the guns sold from his store were stopped before they crossed the border. But in at least one Spanish-language publication, those same ATF and US Attorney spokesmen blamed Lone Wolf for selling guns directly to the cartels. Interestingly, the Washington Post pretty much let the ATF off the hook with essentially the same argument, just dressed up differently. Remember our buddy, Bill Newell, who gave corrected numbers on what was being found in Mexico? Suddenly he was being named as complicit in the coverup.

F&F originally began with a paltry $2M budget in 2005 and it worked relatively well. In 2009, however, the program was drastically expanded. Obama administration officials expanded the scope, personnel and budget by more than ten times what Bush had given the green light for and on top of all of that requested an additional $12M in funding. Under Obama and Holder’s DOJ, it became a vehicle for something else entirely. Over the past nine months, bloggers David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh – along with a group of anonymous current and former ATF agents known as CleanUpATF – have hounded the story and dug up facts and articles that the MSM and gun-ban proponents have deliberately ignored at the behest of the Big O. Michelle Malkin has also followed the story, along with Laura Ingram.

Remember how, in early 2009, Fox News presented correct numbers on the guns that were really being recovered in Mexico? Democrats and their anti-gun rights shills couldn’t have been more upset about having their lies exposed. They needed something to make the numbers work. Here’s where F&F becomes useful to Obama and the Holder DOJ: they expanded the scope, gave it an enormous budget, and instructed the head of the ATF to make sure that the guns sold actually did make it across the border. The hope would be then that crimes would be committed and the guns would be recovered – but that the Mexican government, who was not informed about the expanded program, would be none the wiser about how the guns had made it there in the first place.

The MSM, which has largely ignored F&F, had very quietly backed away from claims that 90% of guns seized in Mexico came from the US. Well, in June of this year, MSNBC finally had the numbers that Obama wanted in the first place. They had a reason to report that a large majority of the guns retrieved from a major cartel bust had come from the US. Without a single word about F&F or the ensuing melee, MSNBC parroted fudged numbers provided directly to them by ATF heads in emergency CYA mode. And it shouldn’t surprise any of us that the report that came from the ATF was ordered by Democrat nitwit Dianne Feinstein and two unnamed fellow senators – you’ll recall Feinstein being behind the original calls in 2009 to take further steps to ban guns. She has said multiple times in the past that she would love to see all Americans have their guns confiscated.

If the story hadn’t leaked and a few good agents hadn’t done the right thing, we would never have known the truth. Those classifying themselves as moderates and progressives would have easily gotten behind new laws that would have put us on the short path to decimating the Second Amendment. Even with the truth coming out, however, a willingly complicit liberal media has aided and abetted the Obama administration in taking a scandal far more egregious than Watergate ever was and turning it into nothing. It isn’t even being discussed in debates. Press heads aren’t even bringing it up with Obama, and the few times he has been questioned he has flatly denied knowing anything about it.

It wasn’t just the courage of those agents that helped. Andre Howard should be commended for doing what needed to be done not only to protect himself, but to try his damndest to expose an operation that he knew was wrong. No matter how much cheaper I can get it elsewhere, I will never go anywhere but Lone Wolf. It is appalling to me that the media is so willing to indict Mr. Howard and let the government off with a free pass.

What Radicalization?

Sheila Jackson-Lee, a Democrat who represents a portion of my hometown (Houston, TX) in the House of Representatives, opened her yap in a hearing of the Homeland Security Committee yesterday and shined a bright light on the ignorance of liberals when it comes to radical Islam:


First, she brings up Vernon J. Merrill, who wrote a letter detailing how radical Islam is spreading like wildfire in our prisons – then points out that he bombed an abortion clinic. The problem is that I can’t find a single article about the man and have no way to verify what she’s claiming. Her point is that the man listed is a Christian militant – and she says, “information is welcome, condemnation is not.” I’m sorry, but how is it that the intel being quoted by the former head of the New York Department of Corrections is NOT welcome information? Then she goes on a bent about how Christian militants also wish to undermine America. Sure, they’re out there, but when was the last time you saw a Christian preaching conversion or death? When was the last time you saw a Christian trying to commit mass murder? Sorry, abortion clinic bombings are as horribly wrong as what the occupants of those clinics do but that’s not mass murder and there’s not a church in this country that would be stupid enough to train people to do that. To accuse Christians of militancy and trying to bring down America is beyond absurd. It is a patently outrageous lie.

Dare I mention where I used to work for the umpteen jillionth time? Meet Mack Gordnattaz, whom I met while he was incarcerated with the juvenile corrections facility in Phoenix. He openly fantasized about having a son whom he would raise to be a Muslim jihadist and assassin. Here’s Luther Davis, the “legend” of my academy class (every prison academy has one), and the most violent little bastard I ever came across among juveniles. He was extremely racist; he openly hated white people and spoke frequently of wanting to kill Americans for the sake of jihad (he was also illiterate and had a mother and grandmother who thought he walked on water). I knew of others in adult prison, but these two will be out in a couple of years while the others I knew were in for life.

While Fox News reported that not all of the witnesses at today’s hearing agreed with radical Islam spreading in our prisons, I noticed a sharp disparity between the witnesses. Democrat Laura Richardson openly called the hearings “racist” and decried the fact that Islam was being singled out:


Rep. Peter King (R-NY) rightly calls her out for her one-sided comments. He is correct in that every single time the subject of gang members and similar criminal organizations have extended beyond the prisons, nobody has never had a problem with it – as long as they were white. Now all of a sudden it’s a problem (never mind the fact that not all Muslims are black or Middle Eastern or whichever skin color you prefer – Jose Padilla was radicalized and he was Hispanic).

I’d pose this question to Rep. Richardson: who the hell else is plotting to blow us all to kingdom come?!?

Democrat Bennie Thompson felt it necessary to point out prison statistics:


His most astounding remark was about murder victim James Byrd, Jr. He said, “let’s not forget that James Byrd was dragged to his death on a back road in Texas by right-wing gang members who were radicalized in jail.”


Of the three men who murdered Byrd, Shawn Berry hadn’t done hard time and there was almost no evidence to prove that he was a racist. The other two, Lawrence Brewer and John King, had done hard time and had been documented members of the Aryan Brotherhood – they had joined the gang for protection. What they did was reprehensible, but they were hardly right-wing and his comment that they were part of a “right-wing gang” was a completely perverse accusation that conservatives are racists.

Then, Thompson makes the comment I have been waiting to hear from a Democrat: the Adam Gadhan “gun show” video. He says that Gadhan announces that you can legally buy fully-automatic guns at gun shows, and “that is correct.” Horsehockey. Fully-automatic weapons are illegal for civilian sale or ownership without a federal firearms license, and those are not easy to obtain. He talks about 250 people on a terror watch list being cleared to buy guns – how many of them were cleared under the unbelievable “Fast and Furious” operation? He is, of course, shooting his own argument full of holes (pun definitely intended); he starts out by claiming that radical Islam isn’t much of a threat, then he ends up right back at radical Islam actually posing a threat. Then he says that we’re not in danger from people who are already locked up, but he follows that by saying that we’re in danger from gangs who use prisons as a base for criminal operations. This guy doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.

The only actual witness who said there’s no evidence of radical Islam spreading in prisons was Bart Udeem, the professor from Purdue. All he could point to were the “low number of confirmed cases”. Outside, an imam who was protesting said the hearing was unfair and singled out Muslims. Inside, the only people on the Committee who attacked the hearings did so by essentially calling them politically incorrect and didn’t know their facts. There’s an important pattern here…take a look at the witnesses who testified that radicalization is becoming a serious problem: Patrick Dunleavy is retired from the executive staff of the New York Department of Correctional Services; Kevin Smith is a former federal prosecutor from California; and Michael Downing is a deputy chief with the LAPD. These are men who have decades of experience in working with the criminal element. They know what they’re talking about. I would like to know what experience Bart Useem, Laura Richardson, Sheila Jackson-Lee and Bennie Thompson have in law enforcement.

None? Okay. Stop calling these questions politically incorrect and face reality. The sad fact is that Islam knows perfectly well that a good portion of America is afraid of offending them (such as the aforementioned braindead Democrats). They are using that against us. Taking away our basic rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure isn’t stopping them from plotting to kill us. Taking away our guns will only make us sitting ducks. Plugging your ears and going, “LA LA LA LA LA LA, LA LA LA LA LAAAAA” isn’t going to make the threat go away. They are thanking Allah for your ignorance while they plan to slaughter you. We all know what’s going to happen when they start trying to kill us; you’ll run and hide in the corner, and the rest of us who have real spines will be the ones who grab our gear and run toward the danger. You don’t want to fight? Fine. Get out of the way and let us do it. When it’s over you can go back to calling us racists and screaming about how it’s Unconstitutional to fail to provide for people who refuse to work.

The only sanity I found was when those with the experience and the backbone to apply it were speaking:



Standing on Our Own Two Feet

In the past couple of months, I’ve been Aunt Mel pretty well constantly. I’ve gone from playing hero to playing house, playing kid-friendly songs on my guitar, and playing horsie. Aunt Mel briefly became a mountain to climb, then became the rescue crew for a game of, “oh no, I’m falling!” Today, just a tad earlier than expected, my two little grasshoppers – along with my brother and sister-in-law, naturally – started the journey to a duty station in Europe. They were supposed to go to Maryland, but that changed as things frequently do in the military. If Bill Cosby were still doing his remake of “Kids Say the Darndest Things”, he’d have made a small fortune with my niece and nephew. Today my nephew turned one year old, and over the past couple of months we’ve had many conversations (usually consisting of either “da” or me shaking my head and going, “aaaaahhhhh!” while he laughs at me). My niece will be three in July. She’s been walking for a while; my nephew, however, took his first real steps during their time with us and eventually began walking around all on his own. It was pretty cool when one of his early independent walking streaks was directly towards me (and the phone in my hand).

I love my brother and his sense of honor in serving our country. I love my sister-in-law for supporting him no matter what. I just wish they weren’t going to mainland Europe.

There are so many things going on right now that make me question whether this country is headed in the right direction. Just in the past week, here in Arizona, two illegal immigrants have committed serious crimes – one shot a police officer, the other allowed his 8-year-old son to play with his handgun and shoot a 2-year-old. The cop killer had been in a California prison and was incorrectly classified before release, so he wasn’t deported. According to US law, he was illegal, therefore not allowed to possess a firearm; that’s not to mention the fact that he was also a convicted felon, so legal or not STILL would not have been allowed to possess a firearm.

The other case saw a man in this country illegally possessing two .22-caliber guns, one handgun and one rifle. The handgun was on the floor next to a stuffed animal when his daughter saw it and thought the gun was a toy as well. It wasn’t until her 8-year-old brother shot her 2-year-old daughter in the face that she realized the gun was very real. The gun’s owner, as an illegal, was not allowed to possess a firearm. All of this happened in the space of a week.

Now, we have President Obama – the Big O, as I refer to him – claiming that the border is secure enough that we can “start the legalization process.” Really? How do you plan to pull this off? How are you going to talk a House Republican majority into going along with it? I promise, if an executive order is issued, you will immediately alienate all of the middle-of-the-road voters who pulled for you in the last election. It’ll also be the quickest way to get every conservative voter who didn’t vote last time to get out and make sure you’re booted out next time.

We still have drophouses being found in Phoenix. We still have massive drug busts going down involving illegals. We still have murders being committed by illegals. We’re talking about an entire community working to hide each other in plain sight and doing far more than washing dishes and picking crops (that’s what the liberals would have us all believe, that these folks are here to do the jobs that Americans supposedly “wouldn’t do”). They’re not just Mexicans, they’re not just from Central and South America. They come from all over. Here in Arizona, however, they happen to primarily be Latino. That’s not racism; it’s plain-and-simple fact. We’re just a few hours’ drive from the Mexican border.

I often wonder what kind of country we’re leaving for the next generation. What will they inherit? A justice system gone from being in crisis to being in shambles? Insurmountable debt that will be a drag on their hopes and dreams? Indoctrination of liberal, altruistic beliefs that charity must be forced and not from the heart? Laws that prevent them from defending themselves?

My nephew didn’t start walking overnight. He’d already taken his first steps before they got here, he’d just never walked without help before. It’s a difficult process; his little legs are still getting used to it. He’ll walk several steps, then fall flat on his butt. Sometimes he gets back up but more often than not he’ll just get on all fours and crawl. He never cries when he falls. He actually laughs. Sometimes he even does a little dance where he sits before crawling toward whoever he was headed for. He doesn’t give up, though. When he decides he wants something he goes for it until it’s in his tiny, slobbery little hands.

I once worked with a guy who had come out of a hardscrabble life. He’d grown up in poverty, resisted pressure from his family to quit school early and get a job to help provide for the family, worked his way through college, and ended up graduating at the top of his class and getting job offers from top-notch companies…all without owing a dime in student loans or taking a single red cent in government funds. He is, to this day, extremely proud of his accomplishments. I can only hope that the spirit that drove him – the true American spirit of standing in the face of adversity – will be absorbed by my niece and nephew. Men like my brother and my friend are willing to do what needs to be done to make this world a better place. Nothing in our Constitution guarantees that the government will be there to make the experience of working toward success easier.

It gives us the freedom to stand on our own two feet.

More on the Shooting in Arizona…

I’m in Arizona. Right now, my roommate is in Tucson. From every corner of the state everyone is losing their minds. A candlelight vigil just ended a short time ago at the Arizona State Capitol building; when I received an email alert from my conservative network, they specifically begged everyone to leave the political shirts, banners and other nonsense at home. Conservatives did exactly that. Guess who refused to leave their printed political slander behind?

The liberals. Those bastions of all that is good in this world have already made this out to be a crusade of conservatives against a Democrat. Sarah Palin’s PAC website has been held up by God only knows how many sources as the supposed cause of this tragedy. People are pointing out that a map on her website marked with a symbol described as “crosshairs” – a symbol which is actually a surveyor’s symbol, not a target or a bullseye – are supposedly calls for violence. Liberals whom I have long respected for their ability to have a civil debate and genuinely listen to those with whom they disagree are now pointing to screenshots of that map and claiming that it’s proof positive that conservatives are at fault for this.

First of all, Jared Lee Loughner (the shooter) posted often on FaceBook, MySpace and YouTube, and he was in dire need of a straightjacket and a Thorazine drip. He was likely a left-leaning nutcase who had obsessions with illiteracy and the Mayan prophecy about 2012. He believed that the government was engaging in mind-reading and mind control. He believed that the community college he was attending had somehow stripped all of the students of their Constitutional rights because of mind-control practices. He was a few fruit loops shy of a full bowl, and he started posting threats as far back as December 13 and 14…he said, “I don’t feel good. I’m ready to kill a police officers. I can say it.” The next day, he wrote, “Wow…I’m glad I didn’t kill myself. I’ll see you on national TV. This is a foreshadow..why doesn’t anyone talk to me?”

What happened was a tragedy on a level that is difficult to comprehend. Federal judge John Roll was killed, as was 9-year-old Christina Green. Also among the dead were at least three senior citizens and one of Giffords’ aides, Gabriel Zimmerman. Gabrielle Giffords herself was shot point-blank in the head; the bullet went all the way through her brain and exited through her forehead, and by the Grace of God she is alive and responding to doctors.

In all of this, the media has not talked once about how this incident ended. A private citizen, exercising his Second Amendment rights, fired at the shooter, hitting him; that person and one other then tackled Loughner. Why will you never hear about it? Because if you did, it would prove our long-held belief (one that has been proven many times over) that an armed citizen can stop a criminal in his tracks. How many more would have died if that man had not been armed at the store this morning?

What I cannot fathom, however, is how multiple media outlets – not the least of which is Keith Olbermann – are already laying the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of conservatives. Olbermann himself claimed that Republicans had “targets on their opponents’ faces”, when in reality that was NEVER done by Palin or her staff. Rather than mourning the loss of six innocent people without prejudice, they’re refusing to let a good crisis go to waste. They lost no time in laying this on our doorstep.

We’re not taking the blame for it. I’m not going to sit back and remain silent while liberals do their level best to make us out to be monsters. Shame on each and every one of you for turning this into a political circus. Shame on Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik for saying, “the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.” Shame on every single person who has pointed the finger at Sarah Palin and her followers for somehow egging this tragedy on.

Shame on all of you.


Libertarian Pacifism: A Pacifism by Any Other Name Wouldn’t Smell as Sweet

Note:  This post is not aimed at all Libertarians.  There are some Libertarians who are not pacifist.  I am only discussing those who advocate pacifism while hiding behind the Constitution.  I am in agreement with many who state that wars should be declared and stated with a clear purpose by our government; to do anything less and drag a war out longer than necessary is, in and of itself, immoral.  This post isn’t meant to be a discussion on war-gaming.  It is, instead, a philosophical post.

Ayn Rand correctly identified the source of all conflicts in the world when she said:

Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate. (The first is dictatorship, the enslavement of their own citizens, which is the cause of wars.)

As long as there are societies on earth who endorse collectivism or dictatorships in any form, whether secular or theocratic, then there will always be wars.  Collectivism is any system of governance defined as that which demands the sacrifice of the individual to the collective with altruism (or in some cases simply the psychosis of its dictator) as its justification. 

My inspiration for this post came after reading an article entitled Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.  Mr. DiLorenzo utilizes the term “Neo-con” quite a bit.  I want to state upfront that the proliferation of all these new terms, Neo-Con, Neo-Liberal, Neo-Keynesian, Neo-Communist, Neo-Fascist, are simply attempts at continued muddying of the real argument which is between collectivism vs. individualism.  That is the only descriptive consideration that matters when discussing man’s inalienable right to be free; the rest is simply meant to confuse people’s minds and complicate the issues.

Let’s be frank–there is no discernible difference between Libertarian pacifism and Left-Wing pacifism.  Pacifism is pacifism and the justifications for it no matter from which group it arises are equally misguided.  Ayn Rand had this to say about pacifism:

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

Leftists justify their pacifism usually by intoning their committment to peace.  Peace cannot be achieved by the absence of all conflict.  It can only be achieved by the destruction of all collectivism.  Human existence is defined by conflict; the hiring of one person over another who is better qualified, the victory of this hockey team over that hockey team, the victim of a robbery or rape who pulls his gun against his victimizer in order to defend the value which is his or her’s continued existence.  Those who wish to pretend that in order to live one’s life by trying to ignore conflict simply because they don’t like it–will never learn how to achieve the greatest value of all which is their life and by default their happiness. 

Pacifist Libertarians tend to justify their pacifism on the grounds that all cultures are equally valuable and have the right to exist on their own terms without interference from other cultures.  However, the notion of multiculturalism is equally flawed in its premises.  The idea that all cultures are equal in their value necessarily demands that you therefore believe all collectivist cultures have value.  You cannot claim, as many Libertarians do, to stand for individual freedom while at the same time trying to justify the existence of collectivist cultures; that is called “wanting to have your cake and eat it too.”  That is a demand reality imposes on any individual who wants to stand for individual freedom.

From the article Diversity and Multiculturalism:  The New Racism at The Ayn Rand Institute:

Advocates of “diversity” are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they see the world through colored lenses, colored by race and gender. To the multiculturalist, race is what counts—for values, for thinking, for human identity in general. No wonder racism is increasing: color blindness is now considered evil, if not impossible. No wonder people don’t treat each other as individuals: to the multiculturalist, they aren’t.

Advocates of “diversity” claim it will teach students to tolerate and celebrate their differences. But the “differences” they have in mind are racial differences, which means we’re being urged to glorify race, which means we’re being asked to institutionalize separatism. “Racial identity” erects an unbridgeable gulf between people, as though they were different species, with nothing fundamental in common. If that were true—if “racial identity” determined one’s values and thinking methods—there would be no possibility for understanding or cooperation among people of different races.

Some ask, “What about America’s melting-pot?  Isn’t that multiculturalism?”  No.  It’s not.  America was devised by its Founders to elevate the individual over the government.  All other nations throughout history elevated the government over the individual.  Freedom of the individual over the government provides a country where all men, of all cultures, backgrounds, and religions come to be free “as individuals” within the American culture of individual freedom.  Can they uphold their roots and honor and celebrate them?  Absolutely.  But, America is not defined by those various cultural roots–she is defined by the individual which is, in and of itself, a “culture.”

I will agree with Mr. DiLorenzo’s statements, as well as Ms. Rand’s statements, that many times war is used to justify the theft of liberty by a nation against its own people.  He says:

Of course, all of this high-handed talk about the Republican Party supposedly being “the party of great moral ideas” is also a convenient smokescreen for the economic greed that is its real motivation, and has been ever since the party first gained power. As Rothbard further explained: “On the economic level, the Republicans [in 1860] adopted the Whig program of statism and big government: protective tariffs, subsidies to big business, strong central government, large-scale public works, and cheap credit spurred by government.” It hasn’t changed much since.

I am in complete agreement with this assessment; both parties are guilty of crony capitalism which is the politically correct term for Fascism.  The only difference is–the Democrats are more open about it while the Republicans like to pretend they are not engaged in it.  Presidents Wilson, FDR and George W. Bush, to name a few, were all guilty of growing government under their administrations during a time of war.  I have no argument with that assertion.  What I do challenge is the notion that a  nation’s citizens cannot demand limited government at home, which necessarily entails separation of the state and economics for the same reasons and same purpose we have separation of church and state, while at the same time protecting itself from threats over-seas.  Many Libertarians say that’s what they want too but then reveal themselves by saying the phrase “protecting itself from threats over-seas” means “bring the troops home from everywhere and cease and desist active conflict”.  Yes.  That’s called “pacifism”.  If you are not actively fighting but instead you are sitting on your weapons–that is pacifism.  If your enemy has already declared war (which the Islamists have) and you are not acknowledging the need to fight back actively–that is pacifism.  If you are not fighting–you are being “passive.”     

What complicates America’s situation is–we are not living in a fully free society under true laissez-fair capitalism.  That is the reason we keep growing government every time we find it necessary to wage a battle against collectivist threats from elsewhere.  I submit, it most certainly is possible to have and maintain limited government and fight necessary wars against collectivists who threaten their free-state neighbors.  The pacifist Libertarians promote the false premise that war must necessarily equal big-government.  These are mutually exclusive concepts; they are not dependent on each other for their existence–necessarily.  A free-nation can remain an economically free nation under laissez-faire capitalism and fight a war to defend itself; the keyword is defend —in other words–not subjugate–which is what tyrannical nations feel it necessary to do against their neighbors when losing their grip on power.  The promotion of the idea that a free nation engaged in a war to defend itself will necessarily result in the growth of its government–is simply a false premise.  Whether that free nation’s leaders grow government or not is another matter entirely and those issues can be dealt with apart from the issue of war itself.

Another aspect that is problematic for America is that we have spread ourselves too thin.  I am in complete agreement with most Libertarians who assert we have too many troops stationed in too many areas of the world where we should no longer be; the Middle East is not one of them, however.  There is no discernible difference between Adolph Hitler, a secular collectivist, and the collectivist theocratic tyrants of the Middle East.  Hitler was driven by national socialism and his irrational hatred for the Jews.  The collectivist theocrats of the Middle East are driven, not only for their hatred of Israel (take note also a free-society–though with a similarly mixed economy like the U.S.), but also by the notion they are doing the will of their God by fighting the infidels for the purpose of creating the conditions of the return of the Twelfth Imam.  Libertarians often state that the Islamists hate us because we are “occupying their land”–but, they rarely, if ever, address the theocratic reasons the Islamists give us in their own words as to why they are fighting us.  Usually the Libertarian will just say, “Those are just words” or “That’s just an excuse”.  Ironically, those are the same excuses the Left-Wing pacifists give in regards to their reasons for upholding pacifist ideas.

All collectivist societies need war to uphold their control on their populations.  That is why it is so imperative that America beat back the march towards statism in our own country and restore true laissez-fair capitalism as opposed to the mixed disaster we currently employ.  If America’s leaders are indeed using war as an excuse to uphold crony capitalism then that is an issue we as citizens need to confront them with; it doesn’t necessarily translate into “therefore, we can’t fight necessary wars anymore.”  From Ayn Rand:

Observe that the major wars of history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones. For instance, World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia, who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was started by the alliance of Nazi Germany with Soviet Russia and their joint attack on Poland.

By no means am I implying that it is the duty of America to transform all of the collectivist societies of the world into bastions of free-market capitalism–no matter how appealing that notion may be.  In fact, that is the only way there ever will be peace in the world–the supremacy of free capitalist societies upholding freedom of the individual.  What I am saying, however, is that it is the duty of the American government, indeed it is the one primary duty of any government of a free-society, to protect its citizens from collectivist tyrants who now need to turn their attention to warring with the free-societies around them in order to maintain their power and hold over their own citizens.  By no means am I even suggesting that the citizens of our country who do have problems with armed conflict from a moral or religious perspective should not be allowed to reserve their tax dollars from being used for that purpose just as those who don’t approve of abortion shouldn’t be forced to have their tax dollars used for that purpose.  However, we do not have that ideal system at the moment and that is a discussion for another time.

Pacifism is driven by guilt over the necessity of justifiable war.  It is an unearned guilt.  Many people are driven in their objection to war by the deaths of “innocent” people.  The truth of the matter is, any “innocent” deaths created in the Middle East by America and it’s allies–i.e. other free-societies–are not on the heads of America and its allies.  The deaths of those people are on the heads of the tyrannical collectivists who enslaved their people to begin with.  A free-nation, just as a free-individual, has the right to protect itself from the force of others who would impose their tyrannical will.  The death of innocent people in a war is no different than that of a woman stepping between you and the mugger you were aiming your gun at and who happened to get shot in the cross-fire.  The mugger’s death is called justice.  The woman’s death is called an “accident” and the guilt of that accidental death is not on the head of the one defending himself but instead lies with the mugger. Whether tyrannical force stems from a tyrannical dictator against it’s more free neighbors or from a mugger in Central Park against a jogger–is irrelevant.  The morality and ethics of the two situations are the same; and it always, without exception, boils down to the individual over the collective, and since capitalism is the only economic system which upholds the freedom of the individual it is only capitalism that can save the world from the constant threat of war.  From Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand:

     Observe the nature of today’s alleged peace movements.  Professing love and concern for the survival of mankind, they keep screaming that the nuclear-weapons race should be stopped, that armed force should be abolished as a means of settling disputes among nations, and that war should be outlawed in the name of humanity.  Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships; the political views of their members range through all shades of the statist spectrum, from welfare statism to socialism to fascism to communism.  This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens; it means that they are opposed to the use of force against armed adversaries, but not against the disarmed.

It is those who, like our friends Cindy Sheehan and Sean Penn, uphold collectivist economics, socialism, communism, or fascism while at the same time preaching peace.  They hold the incorrect premise that we have wars because various populations are poor or subjugated by the more free societies.  Free societies under laissez-fair capitalism have no “need” for war since their citizens and government have plenty of creative fuel on which to draw derived from the very freedom of its citizens.  It is Cindy and Sean who are the hypocrites.  It is they who want to “have their cake and eat it too.”  Reality, from a philosophical perspective, cannot and will not ever allow opposing ideas to occupy the same philosophical space.  They want peace–but, they promote tyranny; and it will always be the reality of that dichotomy that will not let them, in the end, have their way.  It is they who are promoting tyranny.  It is they who stand with the likes of Hugo Chavez.  It is they who, by virtue of what they advocate, are actually continuing that which they say they hate the most–war.

Free Fahlman

Rob Targosz was a good man.

He was a 12-year veteran of the Gilbert Police Department, named “Officer of the Year” twice. He was a problem-solver, always coming up with new ideas, and known for his smile and good nature. To this day his friends and family miss him. On April 30, 2006, Rob was on his GPD motorcycle unit on his way to a DUI enforcement post when a red Ford Mustang blew a red light at the intersection of Apache Blvd. and Price Rd. (also the frontage road for the Loop 101). The Mustang obliterated Rob’s unit, causing injuries that he would succumb to the next day; the driver and a passenger jumped out of the Mustang and fled on foot. The passenger, 20-year-old Ryan Moore, felt some remorse and later returned to the scene and turned himself in. Four hours after the wreck, 20-year-old driver Tyler Fahlman was located at his father’s North Scottsdale home. The car was registered to his father.

At that time, four hours after the incident, Tyler blew a .083 on a breathalyzer test. That’s four hours of his body metabolizing alcohol; a human adult typically metabolizes alcohol at a rate of about one drink per hour. That means at the time of the wreck, his blood alcohol content was probably .20 or higher.

Two years later, Fahlman finally pleaded guilty and received a nine-year sentence. During sentencing, his father and sister reportedly made very emotional pleas to be lenient on him. He just made a mistake, right? Well, it continues. I have recently discovered a Facebook page dedicated to him. It’s called “Free Fahlman” and it was set up by his sister and one of his best friends. Here’s the description:

“Show your love for a brother on lock down. We all make mistakes, that’s what life’s about. I hope all that were Ty’s REAL friends understand this and always keep him at mind. Hopefully we can all compose a shrine of pics and memories of Ty on “FREE FAHLMAN” to reflect upon from time to time. Ty: Do your time, Don’t let your time do you.”

It gets better. The page is still public – for now – and there are some amazing comments there.

A white boy from Snottsdale (I live in the city, I can get away with making fun of it) named Travis Heisler, who apparently thinks he’s a gangster, said, “dedicating “IM FREE” by PIMP C (R.I.P.) to ty , so many of us miss you brother, stay up, we will see you soon.” Another friend named Derek Cardoza tells Tyler – who is a writer and was studying film at Scottsdale CC – that he’s “laying the foundation” for when his buddy gets out of prison. I guess the wannabe mafioso theme runs in his friends, because another one named Gavin Carpenter said, “Happy birthday brother, keep your head up buddy we are holdin it down for you until you get home. Arnold is coming out with a new movie with Sylvester Stallone, Jet Li, Bruce Willis, Jason Statham, Danny Trejo, Randy Coutour, and Stone Cold Steve Austin..sickest cast ever, called the Expendables! Stay up playa we will see you in no time. -GIP.” Gal pal Gena Lee Nolin wrote, “Thinking about you Ty.. I hope that you’re still writing and dreaming about the days to come. That your visions and the words you write will someday be for all of us to see.. I believe it!”

The most disgusting post of all was early in the section from a friend named Robin Pels. She said, “I think about Ty often and just think the whole situations sucks. They (the law officials) could have turned this into a positive instead of ruining so many lives. Ty has a lot to offer and could have done so much for the topic other sitting in a cell..makes me sick.”

You had your two cents. Now, since the officers, family and friends who loved Rob are unable to speak because of the jobs they still love, I’m going to have MY say.

You all say that he made a mistake. According to Robin, it’s apparently sickening to you that law enforcement wanted to see justice done because there was oh so much good Tyler could do now. Here’s the problem…Tyler was first cited for underage drinking in 2003, when he was just 16 years old. His father called the police himself to “teach him a lesson.” It didn’t stick, because just three short days later, on April 13, 2003, Tyler was arrested for underage drinking, driving under the influence, giving false information and having liquor in a vehicle – after crashing daddy’s Mercedes into a house at 0400 and trying to back up and drive away. He got a measley 24 hours in jail and some community service along with an expunged record. Just five months later, in September 2003, he was cited for underage drinking yet again, this time while hosting a keg party at his parents’ house. One month after that, in October 2003, he was arrested for DUI again. He got a year of probation and was required to attend AA and a MADD impact panel. His record was expunged a second time. He was cited for speeding just one month before the April 2006 wreck in which he flew past cars stopped at a red light, went through the light and hit Rob Targosz.

No…a “mistake” would have been what happened if he’d been sober when he hit Rob. I might have bought the idea that it was a mistake if it was the first time he’d gone driving while drunk. What I fail to understand is how so many people can be so loyal to a person who continually defied the laws not only about drinking, not only about driving, but BOTH repeatedly. I might be able to understand supporting him while he does his time if, in his and your remorse, you all felt that he deserved what he’d gotten and he needed to serve all of his time.

Tyler has been at ASPC Eyman for nearly two and a half years now. He’s got just five years left; he may well get out of prison in half that. In his prison mugshot, he wears a smirk that I cannot abide, one I’ve seen on many prison inmates and ICE detainees. When making his statement, Tyler claimed that he saw the burning wreckage but wasn’t thinking that someone might be in it – he was thinking about how he’d wrecked his father’s car. That isn’t a mistake, either, and calling it “selfish” is letting yourself off the hook. Try inexcusable. You knew before you got behind the wheel that what you were doing was wrong. If you don’t know it now, then I cannot find an ounce of respect for you or for your friends. Rob’s wife, children, family and friends will never have him back. Our prisons are full of people who just “made mistakes” that landed them there. Claiming to not understand what you did wrong does not now and never will absolve you of the consequences of your actions. Since a slew of arrests, probation, AA meetings and impact panels (not to mention crashing a car into a house) didn’t teach you, what else was the public supposed to do – wait for you to kill someone else? Your dreams may one day be realized, you privileged little brat, but listening to you and your family and friends talk about how unfair your sentence is disgusts me. I’d really like to know which of you stuck-up trust-fund pricks were at the kegger that landed his THIRD underage drinking arrest. I never would have been able to get away with anything remotely like that when I was a kid.

Incredibly, the maker of the site had the patent nerve to post a picture of the Steve Benson memorial cartoon paying homage to Rob Targosz. I wanted to vomit.

Pointing the Finger

Yesterday morning, Scott Roeder walked into a church in Kansas and shot Dr. George Tiller to death. Tiller was well-known for being one of only three doctors in the entire country who provides late-term abortions (abortions performed after a fetus reaches 21 weeks). I’d heard of Tiller many times on the news and thought what he did was ghastly, but never would I have ever thought it justified to kill him. I still don’t think he should have been murdered.

A quick summation of my views on abortion: I am mostly pro-life except for my belief that morning-after pills are acceptable in cases of rape. I believe that once a fetus forms a brain and a beating heart it is a child, and terminating that child is murder. In particular I believe that late-term abortions are a heinous crime that never should have been legalized, as it has been proven that late-term babies are capable of understanding that their life is in danger (the belief that it’s a reflexive action to try to escape an abortion doctor’s suction tool does not negate that fact). I believe that this sort of abortion is little more than society’s way of absolving us of accepting responsibility for our actions, because we all know that a very likely consequence of having sex is pregnancy–and a woman’s right to choose can be exercised before it gets to the point that she decides she doesn’t want this child to ruin her life.

That said, I still wholeheartedly condemn Scott Roeder’s actions. The law expressly forbids vigilantism. Taking the law into your own hands and meting out justice as you see it is every bit as illegal as the original crime, and with good reason. If vigilantism were legal innocent people would routinely be targeted. But in no way does any fact justify Dr. Tiller’s murder. My heart goes out to his family.

Now, liberals, you have a prime example of a conservative condemning this action. I have read countless comments on multiple blogs from liberals who have already tried and condemned all Christians and conservatives for Dr. Tiller’s murder. It is a crime to do so this quickly, every bit as it was a crime for Roeder to pick up a gun and pull the trigger in a church to take vengeance in his own way. By pinning this on all of us is as hypocritical as you claim we are. You scream for tolerance, yet you cannot tolerate our beliefs. The crime scene hadn’t even been fully processed before you were all pointing the finger at us for this crime. Within hours, a reader named Dave posted a comment on my post Stop the “Christian Taliban?”:

“When christchuckers continue to kill gynecologists and fertility doctors; then celebrate that murder; while condemning their own gay sons and daughters they will be referred to as the Christian Taliban. If you don’t like it, get the f*** out of my country and move to Saudi Arabia.”

I have a major problem with this. First of all, the last time an ABORTION doctor (note, they are not gynecologists or “fertility doctors”) was murdered was 1998. That was eleven years ago. Right now, liberals are talking about this as if it happens all the time, and it’s simply not true, so please stop that angle. Second, not one sane Christian in this country has celebrated any of the acts that have ever been committed against abortion doctors; it is only the fringe groups who badly misquote and take the bible completely out of context who attempt to use their religion to justify their actions. Just because a handful do that does not mean that I’m at fault for their stupidity. Finally, not one person has been able to give a single accurate reason for labelling Christians the Taliban, because Christians in America don’t beat and execute women for being caught without a male escort in public. Don’t preach at us about extremism when that is the tactic you’re using to discredit us.

This incident has already proven my point about emotion vs. reason. A reasonable, rational person is capable of stopping before reacting and thinking about what would and wouldn’t be appropriate. Liberals, for the most part, react to everything based on an emotional gut reaction and they speak and act before they even try to think about the insinuations they’re making. We wonder why we aren’t getting anything done, well, here’s the reason, staring us dead in the face: too many are too unwilling to see anything from the other side’s perspective before they write the other guy off. Like it or not, libs, it’s usually YOU refusing to talk to US. You’ve just proven that.

If you really want to get the ball rolling to being a more tolerant society, stop pointing the finger at someone else and take a long look in the mirror. If we take little else away from Dr. Tiller’s murder we can at least learn that lesson.

Don’t Listen to Me…I’m Just a Right-Wing Extremist

I’ve been really busy lately and am now as sick as a dying dog (my friends would argue that it’s my refusal to take a break that’s to blame), but since the local pharmacist is going to take TWO HOURS to fill my prescription for codeine, I’m going to channel the body aches, the fever, the racking cough and the near-migraine into a blog. (I bet it’s nothing compared to Steve’s predicament–being a tax guy who just blitzed the end of tax season!)

So much has happened in the news this week that I’m not sure where to start, but it all ties in. I guess I’ll start where the madness began: the DHS report released on Monday, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. Unfortunately, I’m not kidding. They actually released this report. Our liberal readers will jump up and down and scream, “they released a report on left-wing radicals in January!!!” Here’s my beef: that report released earlier this year named specific groups, listed the aims of those groups and highlighted specific incidents (such as bombings, break-ins, flooding homes and threatening personal violence) and gave police reports as their sources. The report on “right-wing extremism” does no such thing. It’s very vague. And here’s how it starts off: “the economic downturn and the election of the first African American President present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.” It claims that white supremacist groups are on the rise, and points out “opposition to abortion or immigration” as key indicators of right-wing extremism. Its sources? Not police reports…more like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has named the American Legion a “hate group” for opposing illegal immigration.

Go read it for yourself. Put down your drink before you do, or you’ll be choking on it. Trust me.

It’s no coincidence that the report was released just days before the massive Tax Day Tea Party protests across the country. It was no secret that this was coming, organizers started over a month ago planning this shindig. The Tea Parties were a throwback to the historic Boston tea party, when American colonists dumped shiploads of tea into Boston Harbor to stop the tea tax levied by the Crown without any say in the colonies. Today, we’re angry about being told that it’s our “patriotic duty” to pay more taxes (don’t give me any of that “it’s only the rich” BS, either, because ALL taxes will rise eventually thanks to the Democrats’ outrageous spending). Yesterday’s massive nationwide protests are the backlash that was inevitable, and all of those registered Republicans who couldn’t stand to plug their noses and vote for McCain showed up with people from all walks of life to send the message that we’re not interested in being taxed to death. The aforementioned report is the Democrat government’s version of a preemptive strike.

Not that they really needed it. The MSM did a remarkable hatchet job all on their own, no doubt in an effort to protect Barkey’s messiah-like aura. Anderson Cooper stooped to the level of sexual innuendo by calling them “teabagging” parties, fat bastard James Wolcott from Vanity Fair put his fingers in his ears like a two-year-old and said, “they didn’t appear on the front page of my newspapers, so I WON’T believe they happened!”, and CNN’s Susan Roesgen whined that it was offensive to call Obama a socialist (this after gushing over a paper-mache effigy of Bush with devil horns and a Hitler ‘stache as an “excellent lookalike”). The message? If we don’t agree with you, we’re going to do our level best to make you all look like the radicals that our Democrat DHS says you are!

Then, today, in an amazing, brazen act of hypocrisy, Obama went to Mexico and held hands with Felipe Calderon (well, not really, but what happened is just as nauseating as watching Bush hold hands with the same Saudi king that Obama bowed to not long ago), declaring–and I do quote–“how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws because even under current law, trafficking illegal firearms, sending them across the border, is illegal. That’s something we can stop.”

This is where Philip goes, “oh, REALLY?”

I’d like to know exactly how Obama plans to do that. He not only refuses to secure the border, he also openly announces a brewing plan for amnesty–all the while accusing those of us who want the current laws enforced EXTREMISTS. How does he intend to pull off this heroic act? Send the National Guard to the border to seal it off with orders to let any “workers” coming North to pass by? How does he think the drugs are getting here? How ’bout we look at something that happened right here in Phoenix. In 1999, Phoenix police officer Marc Atkinson spotted a suspicious vehicle and pulled it over. The three men inside hid around a corner and ambushed Atkinson; an armed American citizen had the cojones to return fire in defense of the fallen officer and hold one suspect for officers responding to the scene. Today, that citizen would be labeled an extremist along with the rest of us.

But not only does Barkey swear to stop the flow of cash and guns South and the flow of drugs North, he yet again repeats the tired, debunked lie that 90% of all of the guns being used by the cartels come from the United States (I’m not gonna re-iterate my point, just read it here). The Arizona Repugnant repeats that lie and instead of “reporting” the story of Obama’s visit to Mexico, it gives a personal spin that makes it reek of a badly-placed editorial. So much for journalistic ethics.

What’s really funny is that in a related piece, the same freakin’ paper points out that a .50-caliber anti-aircraft machine gun was recovered in Mexico, mounted to a truck. Where’d it come from? Not the US, but you wouldn’t know that from the tacit omission by the writer who submitted the garbage for print.

If we can commit $350 million to stepped-up enforcement on guns and drugs on the border, then we can sure as hell start enforcing the immigration laws that our government has, so far, refused to enforce. Guess what? This human cost that you’re pointing out here, Barkey–THIS IS THE HUMAN COST OF IGNORING THE LAW AND GIVING A FREE PASS TO THOSE WHO FLAUNT IT. We don’t need reform. Our immigration laws are the way they are for a reason, and guest workers have the H2-A guest worker visa now to make themselves legal with. Stop bending over for the shamnesty crowd or you become the laughingstock you say your predecessor was.

But don’t listen to me. I’m just a right-wing extremist. I believe in the rule of law, liberty for all law-abiding citizens and LEGAL immigrants and small government that allows me to keep what I work hard to earn.

All the things that spell disaster, right?

Hmph…no pun intended.