Friday, March 15, 2013


American Cop Magazine is, as far as I can tell over some years of reading, written and published by "Real Cops" (And Corrections Workers) for such persons---And, not for such political slaves as head up too many department and like academics.

I do not know if you will like or dislike the articles reproduced below; But, you might exercise you intellectual honesty by reading and considering them.

Shoot To Kill?

Explaining Deadly Force Can Be Tricky.
Kids can ask the damnedest questions. I’ve stood in front of a variety of tiny urchins in my time and I’ve learned the hard way: you have to be ready for anything! Apparently, one of my law enforcement brethren from the FBI wasn’t quite so prepared when he showed up to my 11-year-old daughter’s “career day.” Asked by one of the innocent tykes why the FBI didn’t try to shoot the guns out of the bad guys’ hand, he gave this thought-provoking response, “That’s not the way we train. At the FBI we shoot to kill!” Alrighty

I’m pretty sure one of two things was going on when that friendly Fed wowed my daughter with his best Dirty Harry impersonation: he either gave in to a long-repressed urge to use what he thought was a really cool line, or he slept through his use of deadly force class at the academy. Whatever the case, I’m betting the adults in the audience, even if they didn’t know exactly why, probably winced when they heard his verbal gem. Who could blame them? The thought of officers shooting to kill just has a ring, which goes against the grain. The concept plays well in the military, but not so much in law enforcement; while we are paramilitary in nature, our goals are different. We’re not out to kill or destroy our enemies; we’re out to stop them. If death were the goal, no adversary should, theoretically, ever survive a gunfight with law enforcement.

With the exception of a stray, bleary-eyed Fed or two, I thought this was old stuff. We use deadly force when it’s reasonable and necessary to stop the threat. As I began trying to explain this and many other aspects of deadly force to my now extremely inquisitive daughter, I once again realized just how tough it can be to explain what we do and why we do it. As we bounced from topic to topic and my daughter poked, prodded and questioned, I realized her questions were a fair representation of what any interested member of the public or press would ask in a similar situation.

When I was finished, and my daughter was reasonably satisfied, I realized my explanation might be good for more than just an 11 year old with an inquisitive mind. It might even help out a future Fed or two who find themselves caught in the merciless crosshairs of youthful innocence.
The Human Factor
When it comes to deadly force and critical events like OISs, law enforcement likes to explain itself by quoting policy and procedure, points of law, or by explaining tactics and techniques. While that’s all well and good, we shouldn’t forget the human factor. Deadly force is an emotional issue by its very nature, and thus elicits an emotional, if not visceral, response from the public and press, who already tend to view our actions with an uninformed, if not jaundiced, eye. By not offering up our side of the human factor, we lose an opportunity to educate the public and sway them over to our side.

It’s much easier to attack a faceless, nameless officer than the person with a family and a long history of volunteer work, community involvement, awards for bravery, etc. Reminding our audience an officer is a human being with a wife, husband, daughter, son and parents who love him helps to personalize the officer and remove some of the anonymity typically surrounding an officer involved in a shooting.

Too often the brass ineptly struggles to publicly defend their officers actions. By continually being on the defense, we often give up the initiative to the press who ignore, misquote or misrepresent the facts. Strongly reminding our audience it’s the suspect’s actions that led to his being shot is always a good place to start. For the spin-doctors, every bad guy we shoot was a “nice guy,” had a stellar career about to take off, and looked exactly like the ancient picture of the smiling, chubby-faced kid they dug out of some musty old yearbook. However, the message we must continually push back at the media is: in this particular instance, the gang member, career criminal, parolee was doing (insert suspects actions), forcing our officer to use lethal force to defend his (or someone else’s) life.
Meat And Potatoes
Even though it’s been said time and time again, here it is once more: We do not shoot to kill, we shoot to stop the threat. This is the basic philosophy underlying law enforcement’s use of deadly force. In essence, it means the bad guy is doing something so threatening (typically endangering the life of another) that officers must act immediately to stop the assailant from continuing or completing the act — and the law allows us to use deadly force. In the vast majority of cases, the officer’s handgun is used most often.
We typically aim for the chest area, commonly referred to as the center of mass, and for good reason. Harsh as it may sound, the quickest way to stop someone and their threatening behavior is to rupture major vessels and internal components (hearts and lungs), causing major blood loss, and destroy the central nervous system so signals cannot be sent to the body. Since our goal is to stop the suspect as quickly as possible, it makes sense we aim for the area with the greatest concentration of these vital components — the chest.

Under pressure, even the best-trained police officers will suffer some reduction in skill level, especially when faced with their own possible demise. Given the vagaries of gun fights (speed of the event, distance, bad luck, inexplicable results, missed shots, moving targets, opposing wills, incoming rounds), officers must aim for the area they have the greatest likelihood of striking. The chest not only houses major organs and blood vessels, it’s the widest part of the body and one of the slowest moving (compared to arms and legs). When the outcome of missing your target might be death, it’s common sense to pick the target you’re most likely to hit under pressure, and which will yield the results you’re looking for.
The question usually following such an explanation is, “Isn’t that likely to kill someone?” Yes, there is a high likelihood the suspect might die from well-placed shots to the chest, the head, or any other place we might strike him. The caveat is: it’s not our intent. In fact, whether he lives or dies as a result of our lawful actions is immaterial. It sounds harsh, but it’s true. If we fire one round and it grazes the suspect’s chest or even misses, but he surrenders, we’re just as satisfied with the results. The goal is what’s important — for the suspect to stop the threatening actions requiring us to use deadly force in the first place!
The uninformed often claim this explanation is merely an exercise in semantics. They couldn’t be more incorrect. The differences between our intent and the possible, even probable, results of our actions may be subtle in outcome, but are profound in meaning. This is most typically demonstrated by our immediate transition to life-saving mode as soon as the situation is stabilized and officer safety issues addressed. Whether we render first aid ourselves or request medics to respond, the implication is clear: we have done what needs to be done, we have stopped the threat. Now our role is to help save the life. If our goal was to kill, we’d simply let the subject die.
No Movie Magic
Can’t you just shoot to wound? Just like in a classroom of kids, you can rest assured the media will raise this silly question every time. After all, in the world of make believe (Hollywood) the public repeatedly sees this accomplished successfully. In the blink of an eye, the fearless hero draws his gun and shoots the gun, knife, club or whatever right out of the villain’s hand. He’s so accurate he rarely causes any damage to the bad guy’s paw. Sure makes a pretty picture and a happy ending in the land of make believe. That it has no basis in real-life gun fighting unfortunately seems to have escaped the notice of many of our citizens.

There is no such thing as a “minor” gunshot wound when you’re the officer on the receiving end of those wounds. All of our tactics, techniques and training are geared towards stopping the threat — immediately and decisively. Lollygagging around trying to “wing” the bad guy is not only prohibitively difficult (if not nearly impossible), it also provides him the time and opportunity to continue his threatening behavior. If that behavior is directed at you, it might result in punctures to your own vital organs, a bereaved family and another police funeral. And that is something we just can’t afford.
By T.I. Goetz

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

A Summary On/Of "Islam"

Friday, February 22, 2013

Impossible To Insult "Islam" Or Mohammed!

It is impossible to insult "Islam". Why? Because that criminal-terrorist ideology approves, encourages and often commands the use of: Murder; Genocide; Rape; The sexual abuse of very young children; Stealing from and lying to "unbelievers"; Aggressive war upon the slightest excuse; Punishment of criminals by torture (Once common to other belief-systems or cultures, but given up over time);  And, the other horrors taught by that fellow Mohammed.

Mohammed (Of Mecca and Medina, the inventor of "Islam") cannot be insulted as he taught the propriety of the above-noted evils AND, in his personal life (Held up, by "Muslims", as the finest model for male behavior) was a murderer, bandit, treaty breaker and general liar and the perverted sexual abuser of a
nine-year-young girl-child.

Although Christians have committed the above-noted crimes, they generally come to the conclusion that such acts were offenses against God and declare that truth. "Muslims", by contrast, "danced in the streets" about hearing of the murder of innocents at New York's "Twin Towers".  I have yet to hear or read of any collective apology (By any Mullah, Iman, Ayatollah or other "Islamist")

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

A Short Lesson As To Islam


Defining Islam---Again

1.      Islam is NOT a religion; But, is a criminal-terrorist movement-or-ideology not far
different from the KKK or Nazi-Party (Sharing the same principles of hate-of-Jews and all real religions, use of violence and the other horrors taught in Mein Kampf and the Koran;
2. Islam (Like the KKK, Mafia and the SS brand of Nazism) has/had a very thin veneer of religion;
3. The false-prophet Mohammed (Who was a murderer, liar and treaty breaker, bandit and the perverted sexual abuser of a nine-year-young girl-child) declared perpetual war against all "unbelievers" (Until they join Islam or accept the slave-like state of dhimmitude), a war which continues in our era in the Sudan, Thailand, parts of the Philippines,,Fort.Hood and New York City on "9/11";
4. Most Mosques are, to some extent, funded by the most regressive, medieval and anti-civilization branch of Islam (ie Wahhabism) and use that sect's hate literature, much printed in Saudi Arabia;
5. Lying to "unbelievers" is one of the standard and common responses of Muslims to any questions, about their ideology, from "unbelievers", including before the Courts in the USA whose authority Muslims do NOT recognize;
6. Muslims "behave themselves" ONLY until their part of any local, regional or national population reaches certain levels (eg France; "Londonistan"; the Nordic nations; Dearborn, Michigan);
7. The true believers of Islam must believe that the words of the the Koran are directly from its Allah (Not the same as Arabic speaking Christians) and, along with the sayings and examples of Mohammed, are totally binding on them;
8. The declared goals of Islam include: The destruction or effective suppression of all ideologies other than itself and of all real religions; Rule of all nations by only Muslims; Replacement of all legal systems other than Sharia; Subjection of all women and all non-Muslims to the will of male Muslims; And, the other horrors of that Nazi like movement.
9. The allowed, approved and too often commanded methods of Islam and Muslims to achieve those goals include: Murder and mutilation; Rape and enslavement; Genocide;
Perpetual war with "unbelievers" until they become Muslims or accept the slave-like state of "dhimmitude"; Lying to "unbelievers" as the approved and commanded tactic of Muslims as to "pointed questions" regarding Islam; AND, the consideration of any resistance to or complaints about Islam as an attack which the "faithful" are required to counter-attack, very often by physical attack.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Islam And Slavery

The Koran views slavery as a “permanent fact of human existence” and “explicitly guarantees Muslims the right to own slaves” (See “Islam's Wretched Record On Slavery”; Front Page Magazine; 11-10-02; By Mr. Serge Trifkovich), In that article Mr. Trifkovich gives further evidence of he horrors of slavery in general, but especially as to the length of such slavery by “muslims”, the working-to-death or castration of most such slaves. (Unlike the USA or Brazil or other places where the descendants of slaves are form a great part of the populations, the lack of such descendants in Arab nations, along with the record of Arab enslavement of Blacks, support the fact that such slaves were not allowed to breed, it being “more economical” to enslave work ready adults.)

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

"The Closing Of The Muslim Mind": A Book Review

REILLY, Robert R.
The Closing Of The Muslim Mind; How Intellectual Suicide
Created the Modern Islamist Crisis
ISI Books; Wilmington, DE, USA; 2010
ISBN 1-933859-91-1

I must confess that I lacked that sound knowledge of philosophy/theology to fully understand the fullness of the first chapters in this notable book. However, my avocational interest in history allowed me to plow through to the "practical" chapters and content. Although I have provided you with some other reviews far below, my own comments follow here.

1. There was an Islamic "golden age" when many Muslims took the best that other cultures, in their world, to develop Islamic thought. The author noted that the influence of "Athens" (ie Logic and critical thinking) allowed some Muslims to look to "cause and effect", one of the bases of the scientific method, and to use logic in an effort to understand anything, including the nature of God/Allah. Much of what had been lost in the West of "Athens" (And other intellectual treasures in lands conquered by Islam) was saved and sent back to the West. During this time much of what some of today's Muslims present (Perhaps as "disinformation") to non-Muslims as evidence of the flexibility and openness of Muslims.
2. During that era some Muslims used the above methods to develop critical-and-scientific thinking and began the development of physical science in the Muslim world.
3. To the detriment of the Islamic world, Muslims and all others in this world The persons controlling policy and teachings in Islam attacked the intellectual methods noted above and condemned all such thinking as shirk (ie Heresy) and harram (Forbidden), to the extent that the possibility of the death-penalty was a possible-probable fate for any Muslims who wished to use the noted and rational approaches to knowledge and thinking.The focus became blind obedience (Of course as guided by the legalistic "thinkers" of the newer and retrograde Islam), It was maintained that nothing could occur without the direct intervention of Allah, even to the extent that Hydrogen and Oxygen could not become water without His allowing such. This newer Islam eliminated any NATURAL LAW, in the physical or moral worlds.
4. I do note that Mr. Reilly did declare that the above came out of the Sunni branch of Islam; But, also noted that today's use of the Internet and the influence of the extremist Islam supported by the oil-rich Saudis has been spreading this view to other Islamic communities/sects.
5, This blind obedience and lack of moral Natural Law has led to a wide-spread:Lack of consideration of any "unbelievers" or outsiders as real human beings; And, a willingness to put into active effect those Koran-based teachings which allow or encourage, and often command, the use of murder, rape and enslavement, genocide, and the other horrors presented by Mohammed as the actual and unalterable (Since Mohammed's death) words of Allah. There is also an expressed preference for the "use of the sword" to "spread the word".
6. Some years ago I forced myself to read Hitler's Mein Kampf. After reading the Koran I found too many parallels (Hatred of Jews, Anti-Intellectualism, desire to destroy all other ideologies/religions, a glorification of violence, Etc.) to be willing to accept either as a guideline for human-humane behaviors and society.

My hope is that all teachers whose classes touch on Islam, all non-Muslim religious leaders, all elected and policy setting appointed officials, editors-and-publishers, TV "talking heads", senior military and diplomatic staff and all other "thought leaders" become aware of Mr.Reilly's work and thoughts AND integrate them into their policies, teachings, commentary, editorials, sermons, etc.. As to Christian leaders who become aware of this book, failure to read, understand and apply its lessons could well be considered a sin against that religion or treason against its daughter, Western Civilization (Or, such of it as is left to us). The same treason could be assigned to the other noted persons who do the same as well as "misconduct in office" or very unprofessional conduct.

Of course, it would be best if the like Muslim officials, teachers, etc. took this book's lessons to heart and returned Islam to a rational and golden age.

Saturday, March 09, 2013

Drones & Islamic Terrorism

Many persons. in and out of government object to the use of drones to attack and kill terrorists in the Middle East on the basis of claims that: Military action is inferior to addressing the underlying causes of terrorism (Economic, political, etc.); Or, because of the killing or maiming of children and others in such attacks.

They should attend to the following facts:
1. The primary cause of terrorism in today's world are the teachings and mandates of the criminal-terrorist ideology known as Islam.
2. Even the second chief source of terrorism, the illegal drug trade, is marked by the primary production of opium in Muslim run nations.
3. True believing Muslims who shelter or otherwise assist terrorists are morally responsible for their own injuries and deaths ----And that of the children behind whom they hide.
4. True believing Muslims hold that death, as a result of Jihad, is a great reward as it insures entry into Paradise and have no reservations about such activities as training children to be homicide bombers.
5, True believing Muslims have been responsible for the killing of many children in their own lands and other (eg On "9/11"; Random rocket attacks against Israel) places.
6. Aggressive Islam has never responded to any political/social/moral conversations; But, only to the use of military force.
7. It is better to combat that ideology far from the USA.
8. It is hard to state: But, it is better that the children of those who shelter and aid terrorists be killed that the USA's children be murdered or that the same fate be randomly applied to the Jewish, Christian, Druze and Muslim children of Israel.
9. As some have claimed that "boots on the ground" are able to gather useful intelligence not available through drone use, the use of those drones appear to have saved the lives of many of our and our allies troopsi AGREE!!!!!
10. We might consider the use of armed drones against armed invaders crossing our Southern border or against the mountain-top observers for drug smugglers, both of whom seem immune to normal police actions.
Any American citizen, outside of the physical borders of our nation,  who takes shelter with terrorists or, in such places, aids them in their inter-nationally illegal attacks on others is either a terrorists or an "enemy combatant" or both. As such s/he is subject to deadly military attacks and that without arrest and trial. Such persons have, by their actions, have surrendered their rights under the Constitution.

What then is a "terrorist"?   I offer the following definition:  Any person who is not a member of the armed forces (Including some police units) of a recognized government who attacks the Armed Forces of a recognized government or its allies or the civilians under their protection OR is such a member, but conducts such attacks in violation of his own nation's armed forces but conducts such attacks against the laws of his nation or the well set "laws of war" including being lawfully clad in the uniform of his nation. Persons who shelter such terrorists or provide them with weapons, food and other aid might well be also considered a terrorist and be subject to the same military, without-warning and deadly  attacks by military forces.

When does a revolutionary or an insurgent or, even, a "terrorist" become a patriot? Probably after they win their war with what then becomes State terrorism.  However, some "terrorists" do combat tyranny. Those in Libya, having now won, are seen as "patriots", Soviet partisans fighting out-of-uniform and behind NAZI lines and our political ancestors of 1775 were such.. The matter of Syrian combatants is "still up in the air".

Our present Administration's massive arming of civilian agencies makes some wonder about its motives. Perhaps they remember that America's first revolution was sparked into a full war when a overbearing and despotic government attempted to seize then modern military arms from the People and are taking measures to enable civilian (Not military personnel who, except for some generals, support the Constitution) goons to enable such seizures. 


Thursday, March 07, 2013

Our Real "School Choice"








The Costs Of NOT Having Guns For Defense

Some few days ago I heard, on TV,  an anti-gun proponent decry the medical and other costs of the People's common and considerable access to guns.

But, what are the medical, psychological and other "costs" to unprotected people  (The police are always too few and too late to protect)  who are killed, physically and emotionally  maimed and lose forever that part of their lives which were expended in honestly earning the money to obtain what lawfully belongs to them---When they are unable to effectively and immediately protect themselves by the use (Or, as is more common, the "mere" pointing) of a gun?

I doubt that the dollar sum of either groups of people will ever be known. But, it is unreasonable, non-factual and lying to declare that the costs of one are greater than the other.

(My practice at-arms is such that I can declare that I can save much money for the police, courts and prison systems by my ability, at the usual home-defense distance of 15-feet, of accurate and very rapid-fire placement of bullets following the FBI's protocol of "two to the chest and one to the head". )

Wednesday, March 06, 2013

Homosexuality---A Review

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

"Homoaidia" Not "Homophobia"

The term "homophobia" should not be used as that word is based on the word for "fear", which emotion is not the usual reaction to (Male) homosexuals. I suggest the term "Homoaidia" based on the word for the usual and natural reaction to such creatures, disgust or revulsion.

The only time a "fear" based word should be used is when discussing male homosexuals as disease vectors (HIV/AIDS) or when considering those who sexually abuse boys.

Monday, October 17, 2011

Bible Does Condemn Homosexuality

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel of 17 October 2011 (Page15A).


Bible does condemn homosexual acts

It is absolutely incredible that Mark Achtemeier, in his op-ed "Celebrating this servant of God," would argue that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality as sinful (Perspectives, Oct. 11).
I have read through the Greek New Testament multiple times, read the Torah in Hebrew, translated the Aramaic portions of the Bible, edited a book on the text of Scripture and teach Greek and Hebrew at the college and seminary level in the Milwaukee area.
Old Testament texts such as: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Lev 18:22) and New Testament texts such as Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and many others, mean, in Greek and Hebrew, exactly what they mean in English.
Achtemeier's denomination decided, in the 1920s, to turn away from its former faith in an infallible Bible, an act that led to the resignation of the cream of the faculty of his denomination's seminary, Princeton, at that time.
If he agrees with his denomination that the Bible is filled with errors, let him say so. But to argue that the Bible does not condemn homosexual acts is an egregious misuse of the plain meaning of many passages.
(Author's Name Left Purposely Out)

Monday, November 01, 2010

Male Homosexuals & Disease Vectors-Revised

Milwaukee Magazine's August, 2007 issue contained the story "Gay in the City" which brought to my mind the possible need to cut away all questions of religion or morality when the behaviors of male homosexuals are discussed and limit debate and actions to the purely scientific base of proven public health practices.

From a purely scientific point-of-view, most male homosexuals (Who have clearly demonstrated a general lack of self control and sense of the "common good") represent a disease vector as do the plague bearing fleas on rats, the flies and cockroaches who hang about "unprotected" food and garbage, mosquitoes who carry malaria and other diseases and other like threats to the health of all People.

If the general and Jewish-Christian foundations of morality are ignored (As is the constant drum beat of the homosexual lobby) and only the science of successful public health programs is applied, the best prevention of any epidemic or endemic disease, including HIV/AIDS, is to liquidate the disease vector(s) most responsible for the spread of the attacking illnesses. Therefore, we kill rats and fleas, destroy flies and cockroaches as much as is possible, destroy mosquitoes and ...!

Of course, I cleave to those standards of human-and-humane behaviors held up by traditional Christian and Jewish standards and maintain that the best reaction is: Love the sinner and hate the sin" AND not the views held up (If not reflected in practice) by Muslims and their cousins, the NAZIs.

Monday, February 01, 2010

Defining "Political Correctness"

The following is the 2007 winning entry from an annual contest at Texas A&M University calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term. This year's term was 'Political Correctness'.

The winner wrote: "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."