The Moral Use Of Violence

There are too many who falsely claim that Jesus the Christ was against all uses of violence, war and weapons. I call those persons "pathological pacifists". If they are Catholic, they are also in opposition to the teachings include in  the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Paragraphs 2263, 2264, and 2308; 
The last referring to the right of self-defense for Governments; None of them prohibit, in any way, armed self-defense.)

EXAMPLES OF MORAL USE-OF-FORCE:   Tours (732 AD); Las Navas de Tolosa (1212 AD); Granada (1492 AD); Lepanto (1571 AD); Chocim/Khotym (1621 AD); Vienna (1683 AD); Navarino (1827 AD);  The use of American violence from 1775 to 1781 (Sparked by resistance to a tyrants attempt to seize the military grade weapons of the People) which violence established the USA;. The Royal Navy's efforts, with military violence,  as to suppressing the Trans-Atlantic slave trade;  The greatest spilling of American blood in our War Between The States, as both kept the Union together and ended involuntary physical slavery in the USA;  The violence, from bayonet to A-Bombs, as ended the gross human rights violators that were Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan; The violent military acts of the Korean War which prevented South Korea from becoming a starvation-state, starvation being physical, mental and spiritual in the North; My home town's use (2013 AD) of the "mere" pointing of a legally carried pistol to stop a most severe beating of a woman (Withing shouting distance of the police station); The use of the too-few rounds in her pistol of a woman who retreated to her attic after a home invasion, which barely drove off a potential murderer or rapist; And, like defenses of self, family, friends, neighbors and others by effectively armed persons.

.

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
then.

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

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

THIS BOILS DOWN THE MINIMUM DATA NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND 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.

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 troops.  i 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. 

.

Our Real "School Choice"

OUR REAL "SCHOOL CHOICE"

WELCOME TERRORISTS

ALL COLUMBINE HIGH/SANDY HOOK SCHOOL OR VIRGINIA TECH STYLE SHOOTERS, MOHAMMEDEN JIHADISTS, “GANG BANGERS”, RAPISTS, ARMED ROBBERS AND OTHER LIKE VICIOUS CRIMINALS SHOULD TAKE NOTE THAT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, LICENSED TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS OR LEGALLY CARRYING THEM OPENLY HAVE BEEN FORBIDDEN TO BRING THEM INTO THIS SCHOOL.

THE POLICE WILL NOT ARRIVE UNTIL SOME TIME AFTER THE SURVIVORS, IF ANY, SUMMON THEM.

OR

NOTICE TO TERRORISTS

ALL COLUMBINE HIGH/SANDY HOOK SCHOOL OR VIRGINIA TECH STYLE SHOOTERS, MOHAMMEDEN JIHADISTS, “GANG BANGERS”, RAPISTS, ARMED ROBBERS AND OTHER LIKE VICIOUS CRIMINALS SHOULD TAKE NOTE THAT THERE ARE ARMED AND WEAPONS TRAINED STAFF WITHIN THIS SCHOOL.

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". )

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).

HOMOSEXUALITY

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."

School Notice To Terrorists

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Media Bias Vs, Guns & Self-Defense

At this time their is much debate as to the People's keeping and bearing of arms. It appears that most of the fire-and-light is on the part of the supporters of the fullest exercise of "Second Amendment Rights" and most of the smoke (To us a "politer" expression) is from the opponents to that exercise.

The "media" (Even FOX News) appears to be immersed in an anti-gun OR anti-self-defense OR both bias. This is best generally described in Chapter-2 of the book cited below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best individual illustration of the claimed general bias, as noted above, is in the Appalachian Law School case where: A criminal began "shooting up" occupied class-rooms, killing three; Two students retrieved their guns from their cars; And, took the mass-murderer into custody, before he slaughtered more,  by the "mere" pointing of their hand-guns. (This and the material below is paraphrased from Mr. Lott' book.)
       A week after this incident a Lexus-Nexus search found 208 stories about this event. Only four mentioned that the savior-students were armed. Some stories stated that the murderer was "tackled" OR "dropped his gun" after being "confronted" (Without mentioning the use-of-arms) or the statement (Lie?) that three students "pounced" on the criminal, Etc..
       However, sixty-eight stories described the gun the murderer was carrying. (Implying that only criminals, especially murderers, carry guns?)
       Several newspapers used the "space constraint" excuse to cover-up their failure to report facts, The AP may have exercised outright fraud in editing out the defenders' guns from stories.
       Mr. Lott provided many other examples of citizens using guns, by firing or "mere" pointing to defend themselves. 
======================================================================
It may be that "dead bodies" or massive wounding is more "newsworthy" the lesser wounding or "mere" pointing of guns. However, in this time of hot-and-general debate about guns and the Second Amendment, it would appear fair, if "politically incorrect"to report on all armed self-defense cases in every newspapers' general circulation areas. [Of course, many citizen and self-defense use of firearms are not reported to the Police out of a fact-based fear that their means of self-defense will be seized and, as likely as not, never returned to the citizen OR they will be criminally charged with some tyrannical anti-gun law (Think Chicago!). This is specially important: To poorer citizens who may not be able to afford another gun; Or, as increasing their physical danger in the case that criminals or their friends/family might return and "waste them".
=======================================================================

BOOK REFERENCE: Lott, John R.; The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong; Regnery Publishing, Inc.; Washington, DC; 2003.

COMMENTS ON AUTHOR: There is no doubt but that Mr. Lott has his own bias. However, that "bias" appears to be based on facts, is not "Arbitrary and  capricious, based on will rather than judgement"; And, is held in in the light of our Constitution, traditions of freedom, and the basic soundness of our American traditions.

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".

Guns, Teachers & "Feelings"

I am not interested in the "feelings" of school staff and others who would be "uncomfortable" with armed staff or even police officers in the schools. I am not interested in those who throw up such "what ifs" as potential law suits if some innocent person is shot by lawfully armed persons or the more-than-ignorant proposition that such armed persons will "challenge" terrorists, "crazies" and other criminals to invade our schools and massacre our children. (Such persons, even if mentally ill, look for "easy targets".)

I am interested in acceptance of the fact that more trained and authorized persons, carrying concealed weapons and on-site, reduces the probability that such horrid crimes will be fully successful in our schools (As well as shopping centers, retail businesses, theaters and other places). Such trained persons need not be peace officers, the cost of which to protect large buildings is within the reach of only such schools as used by the elite.
Unlike too many, I understand that those educators who rely on feelings rather than facts and baseless speculation  are those who have driven so many public schools into effective failure to educate our children---Who they would now make defenseless against evil men.

The basic question to be asked of the above-cited teachers is: Which is more important: Your “feelings” about guns OR the lives of “your” children?

Excellent training DVD  Shoot Him To The Ground: Tactical Point Shooting For The 21st Century as available from Paladin Press.

"Jihad" Vs. Wisconsin Supreme Court

With the primary election of Feb. 19, 2013 the citizens of Wisconsin continued the process of either reelecting Justice Patience Roggensack to a seat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court or replacing her with Marquette University Law Professor Fallone.. It is now fitting-and-proper to consider some facts about the ongoing (Artificially kept alive?) controversy about Justices Prosser and Bradley.

Justice Bradley has claimed that Justice Prosser physically attacked her. We should consider that  her position on a court does not  preclude her from seeking redress for that, alleged, offense in other courts.
1.She might have files charges against Mr. Justice Prosser in Dane County. I do not know if she did;  But, even the special persecutor appointed to review this matter would not prosecute as to any State Criminal charge.
2. She might have asked for a presentment to a Federal Grand Jury as to anyone of the far too manly Federal laws now burdening our legal system and the People. I do not know if she did; But, no Federal indictment has some to our attentions.
3. Justice Bradley might have filed a civil action (ie "Law Suit") in our State or Federal courts for the "Tort"  she alleges; But, it would appear that she has not done so; Perhaps, because she cannot meet even the lower "preponderance of evidence" test for civil Vs. the higher "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" test required for criminal convictions.

Then, why is those unproven allegations continue to be "thrown up" at the our fellow citizen-voters?  That affair was, as might be expected, used against Mr. Justice Prosser who continued to receive the trust of the voter.

Then, alleged journalists, political assassins and others attempted to use the above-noted matter against Mr. Justice Gableman, who the sounder citizens reelected to office. Now, the same unclean crew is attempting to link that fairy tale to Justice Roggensack.

Why?"  Because those on-the-left only agree with the decisions, given in the sacred secrecy of  the voting booth, of the People when such choices fit in with their anti-democracy and against-the-common-good positions. The above-noted and unclean attacks are but an effort to make the majority of the  State Supreme Court into the camp of the Left.

How Many Rounds In Citizens Guns?

There is much current debate as to what limits, if any, should be placed on the number of rounds citizens should be allowed to have in their firearms---Especially those semi-automatic rifles, most specially those which "look like" those "scary" true, fully automatic, "assault rifles".

Estimates for trained soldiers have indicated that it takes from 30 (In urban combat_ to
250,000+ for Viet Nam, where rotary-machine guns were commonly used to kill an enemy.

In the heat, fear, uncertainty of a home/business invasion I doubt that we can expect too much more of citizens, even at the point-blank ranges in such events, as: The usual such "invasion" is by three thugs; And, it generally takes three+ rounds (Dependent on placement) to immobilize (Or kill) an enemy soldier or a criminal   For those who have forgotten their grade-school mathematics:  Three-thugs X Three rounds each = Nine rounds which is more than in Mr. Joseph Biden's double-barreled shotgun or the seven-round limit imposed by New York's pro-death (For law abiding citizens) Legislature and Governor.

Of course, an evil-minded persons could easily obtain a WMD as could kill or maim hundreds/thousands of persons----Without the technical knowledge applied by Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City or twice by Mohammedan terrorists at the Twin Towers in New York. (I will not list or describe these weapons here lest someone use them.)  Of course any such act-of-tyranny as taking modern weapons away from the People might  result in patriots using such WMD!

Mentally Ill Vs. Dangerously So & Guns

I am becoming more-and-more disturbed  about the far too many politicians, news commentators/reporters, those opposed to the fullest exercise of Second Amendment rights and others of that ilk who loosely  substitute the terms  "mentally ill"  OR "emotionally disturbed", for the more accurate term "dangerous mentally ill" as to those who should not be allowed to obtain firearms.

It is fit-and-proper and legally/constitutionally-sound  that someone should be declared "Dangerously Mentally Ill" only after a fact-based and contested hearing before a judge-and-jury, in accordance with our 1000 year old system of laws and our Constitution. Why? Because to tag any citizen as being "dangerously mentally ill" takes from such citizens as many civil and political rights as a conviction of a felony---And, deserves the same legal protections.  

At this time there are too many government units (eg -- The FBI) who will accept the unverified and non-judicial comments of some (Anonymous?) Psychologist/Psychiatrist/Other-persons as sufficient "Proof" to deprive citizens of a basic civil right.  Even super-sane me (If, and only if,  you accept my self-diagnosis)  once consulted a psychologist, with my wife, to iron out some marital problems---Which smoothing did occur. .

 Should I or some child with home/school problems who sees a school psychologist or some active-duty member of the Armed Forces/Veteran for whom war/other-problems has resulted in s/he seeking counseling, and other like and law-abiding citizens be deprived of a basic civil right without "due process of law"? [I believe we have another, of too many  Federal Laws which provides for both criminal and civil prosecution for "Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color Of Law" which should deal with and punish those who would do so to those who are not dangerously mentally ill.

the FBI has reportedly placed entire groups of innocent military veterans on the "no buy"  list and that without "due process of law".

 I suspect that only a very small percentage of those with "emotional problems" are dangerous. This is probably a small/smaller portion  that of semi-automatic rifles with 10+ round magazines  used in unlawful shootings.

Some Notes On U-Wisconsin

TO THE EDITORS, THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL:

On Nov. 20, 2012 you published a front page story with the headline "Big Ten plus two" as to expansion of that football league. The UW connected headlines I would rather see would be: "UW Freezes Tuition Fees"; Or, "UW Cuts Non-Teaching Employees By 30%"; Or, "UW Does Cost-Benefit Analysis Of Sports Programs"; Or, "UW Eliminates Remedial Education & Affirmative Action".  

Of course, all of such wishful thinking stories would be basic to the reformation of UW towards what should be its basic and overriding goal--The provision of a quality education at a reasonable cost to Wisconsin's youths.

======================================================================

The University of Wisconsin's most recent and most unreasonable tuition increase is a duplicate of the Democrat Party's policies which drove our State's general budget towards bankruptcy and our overall economy down.

This is due to the UW Regents and administrators refusal to make the same level of budget cuts and Governor Walker used to bring his Administration "out of the depths" and into a new day. The very token "cuts" touted by UW's President are not reflected in the "bottom line" of its budget---Yielding an insulting increase in tuition. Below are only a few real cuts as must be made to make UW follow the government principles presented by our Governor and as so recently confirmed by the People.
1. As students should be qualified for university-level academic work before admission, UW must abolish all "remedial" education programs, their staffs and costs.
2. As UW has not been found guilty, by our laws-and-courts, of any pattern of racial or other illicit discrimination, the like abolishing of all "affirmative action" (ie Reverse discrimination) programs, their staffs and use of questionably legal substitutes for "quotas".
3. All fees from copyrights and patents  payable to UM must go directly to either that school's general fund (And NOT to some out-of-control spin-off entity) or to the General Fund of the State for allocation to the universities and more-reality-centered technical colleges.
4. With the  exception of professors, building-and-grounds maintenance, police and library services fully eliminate all current jobs with "Assistant", "Associate" "Special" and "Deputy" (Such staff are not immune to those lay-offs which have so attacked so many of our fellow citizens!)
5. Freeze all pay increases for all staff until tuition increases are, over the prior five years, no greater than inflation AND our State's true unemployment rate is less than 6%.

If the Legislature does not have the collective courage to force such changes then they should, at the least, turn UW back over to the People by having the Regents elected
(eg Two from each Congressional District to establish a truly democratic basis for that Board).

========================================================================

Wisconsin's unemployment rate is still much too high. Student debt is at a all time high..  Many UW graduates are asking "Do you want fries with that sir?" OR leave for other States where their UW education pays taxes in those places.. There is even a (Sort of?) freeze on raises in faculty pay within the University of Wisconsin system. UW still maintains costly remedial course work for those students not prepared for university level work.  UW still maintains a costly, top heavy, load of various administrators who do not teach or "do research" or provide, by themselves, direct library, maintenance and like services.

Yet, the UW Regents have authorized the increase of the salary for the UW-Milwaukee provost to $317,362/year!

I still maintain that the best means of correcting the waste, inefficiencies and corruption within UW is to have the Regents democratically (eg Two from each Congressional District) and directly elected by the People. I note that my elected State officials have not responded to that recommendation. [Perhaps, you should ask Governor Walker and the appropriate chairs in the Legislature about that issue/recommendation.]

However and failing that, I suggest that the Regents have fallen so far from reality that they need "professional help". I suggest the Psychiatry Department of UW's own medical school.  That would only be just as that school rejects superior students for less qualified, "affirmative action", applicants.  [Why, they might find their own and very personal Dr. Nidal Hasan.]

There is the question: Are the "Provost"  positions really necessary for the proper administration of UW? The job descriptions available for Department Heads and Deans seem to "cover the ground" as to administrative duties. If some of those persons cannot be trusted to "do the job", they should be replaced. Internal conflicts should be referred to the President or Regents for resolution, giving another reason to eliminate the Provost position.

If, and only if, the Provost positions are to be retained, I suggest that UW actively recruit such from the Commissioned Officer staffs of our excellent military service academies, the various (Graduate level) Staff colleges maintained by the Armed Forces and the academies of the USCG and Merchant Marine. Those persons have demonstrated a commitment to excellence, service and loyalty which seems too rare in the academic world.

====================================================================

I have received a letter, from UW-Madison's "Interim Chancellor" David Ward,
noting that UW's Medical School does apply "affirmative action" as to its students.

If your (Or any other person's) physician is UW Medical School graduate AND a "person of color" or female or otherwise eligible for "affirmative action", you (And they) might wish to inquired more closely as to that person's qualifications at the time of entry into medical school and, for example,  "class standing" at the time of graduation. (IIf any such physician refuses to provide relevant information, that person's services should be rejected and s/he reported to the State "Medical Board" & their employer).

Those UW-Madison students who obtain their medical services through on-campus clinics should specially note the above.

The admission of anyone other than the best, academically qualified students to that Medical School can be considered on a scale ranging from foolishness to criminality.

 It is also another reason why the People should directly elect (eg Two from each Congressional District)  UW's Regents. Please advise me if you support this proposal and will (When?) submit enabling legislation. (At the very least, Regents should be appointed on a democratic basis with equal representation to all parts of the State.)

=======================================================================

From information received, it appears that the Law School of the University of Wisconsin is still inflicting a "stuck in the 1960s" style of that very anti-equal-rights and anti-accomplishment called "Affirmative Action".

I expect (Hope?) that those persons entering UW's Medical School or PhD programs in such real graduate programs as Mathematics,  Chemistry (For Which UW is justly world famous) and Physics are not selected on the basis of anything other that "best candidates available" without regard to race, gender, etc..

I suggest it is well past the time when UW's Regents should stop such practices. As far as I know UW has not been judicially found culpable (At least in recent memory) of any pattern of racial discrimination. Therefore, such programs should be halted AND, in fact, all "Affirmative Action Officers" employment with UW terminated to a great savings for a stressed-out university budget.

                                                                            July 26, 2011

Dear Governor Walker:

During this time of so much heat (And very little light) as to the Federal Budget AND Wisconsin's redistricting, recall-elections, CCW controversies, local (If not State) "budget crunches", it may be difficult to focus on the cost of higher education to the youth of our State.

Yet, it is the time for you to use the courage you have and the budget-reform-skills you have demonstrated and take such measures as will bring the University of Wisconsin back under the control of the People (Through their elected representatives OR by direct election of the Regents) and insure that the tuition-and-fees charged by that dis-organization is NOT increased beyond the same inflation rate as used, for example, for increases in Social Security payments.

As it appears that the Legislature has a very firm track-record of NOT demonstrating the needed courage to do-the-job, direct election of Regents (ie Two from each Congressional district to satisfy constitutional and fairness standards; Without any Regent having any employment or other interest in UW).

Some financial controls could be had by requiring that not less than 50% of all copyright and patent fees paid to UW employees go directly to the General Fund for allocation, by the People's representatives, for Wisconsin's higher education programs. (If research now supported by such funds is worth-the-while, private investors will support such. Otherwise, those moneys, belonging to the People, will go to the various hobby-horses of academic elitists.)

                                                                        June 10, 2010

TO THE EDITORS, THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL:

Thank you for pointing out the (At the least) inappropriate behavior of UW's President and Administration in making a very political appointment, without the usual search for a "best candidate", of Mr. Michael Morgan to a $245,000.00/year job. I am pleased to see that you are going beyond the prior limit of such stories as pointed out the questionable financial arrangements of some UW physicians to the heart-and-core of  maladministration within UW---The President's office. (It might be interesting to determine if some of  the politically appointed Regents had any involvement in this matter!)

In this and many other matters, UW's Administration (And the Regents) have morphed well away from the People AND the most common standards of honesty and decency expected by our fellow citizens.

Again, I urge the Legislature (During the 2011 term) to enact such laws as would require the direct election (eg Two from each Congressional District to insure a State-wide representation) of the Regents by direct vote of the People. As a supporter of democracy and openness in government, your editors should consider seconding this proposal in their editorials.

It appears the UW-Milwaukee Professor Amanda Seligman (Letter published 25 November 2009) is out-of-contact with economic realities as to the cost of public, university, education to poor and lower middle class students and their families. If she thinks that the debt load of such UW students is low she, as a professor, should reexamine the data and redefine what she means by "low" rather than define her statement in terms of that too common thinking error "glittering generalities".

As she will, no doubt, rush to examine basic data, I suggest that she compare the following factors: The cost of a (Full time) UW education over each of the last twenty years; The mean and median rise in (Full time) faculty salaries and fringe benefits over those same years; The increases in Wisconsin's cost-of-living and tax-loads over those years; And, the mean and median of personal income in our State over each of those years.

I suggest that she (And too many others) are out of contact as to who receives the most value from UW. It appears to many that the tenured faculty and senior administrators of that non-system have been using UW as a "milk cow" (Or, to be more modern, ATM) for too many years through both their lawful payments, gray-area payments and just plain thefts and corruption.

I again suggest that the Regents be required, by a "soonest" law, to be equally distributed over the State (eg Two per congressional district) and, in the near future, directly elected by the People. This might bring the UW-ATM over-users back into contact with reality.