Gun Control Rampage

Before I continue with this post I want you to see the video of the latest shooting of the two WDBJ-TV news reporters in Moneta, Virginia. Click here for the link. (Warning: this is a graphic video). As you can see from the video, the gunman held his Glock pistol in clear view for upwards of 20 seconds. No one in the area saw it until it was too late. This is a sad reminder of how important situational awareness is, and how we must be on guard at all times. Remember to live in the Yellow Zone. Perhaps if someone with situation awareness and a CCW permit had been on the scene this tragedy would never have happened.

Just hours after a racist black shooter (per his personal manifesto) gunned down two white journalists in cold blood. He blamed his rage on the June 17 shootings of nine black worshipers in a Charleston, S.C., church, grievances he had while working as a reporter with the two victims and discrimination he faced as a gay black man. He even had their name printed on his hollow point rounds.

"Why did I do it?" read the fax purportedly from Flanagan, who reported for the WDBJ-7 under the name Bryce Williams. "I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15."

"Yes, it will sound like I am angry...I am."

The fax came in at 8:26 a.m., some two hours after reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward were gunned down in in Moneta, Va. In it, the writer claimed that the initials of the Charleston victims were scratched onto the bullets used Wednesday. The frightening missive also praised Virginia Tech gunman Seung Hui Cho, calling the man who killed 32 people in a 2007 rampage in Blacksburg, "my boy."

"Yes, it will sound like I am angry ... I am. And I have every right to be. But when I leave this Earth, the only emotion I want to feel is peace.”

Top Democrats & freedom haters jumped on the ban guns bandwagon. The bodies of the victims were not yet cold!

Obama’s paid mouth piece Josh Enerest quipped:

“This is another example of gun violence that is becoming all too common in communities large and small all across the United States,” Earnest said. “And while there is no piece of legislation that will end all violence in this country, there are some common-sense things that only Congress can do that we know would have a tangible impact in reducing gun violence in this country. Congress could take those steps that would not infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.”

Hillary Clinton piled on with her call for more expanded background checks saying:

“We have got to do something about gun violence in America,” she told reporters. “And I will take it on.”

“There’s so much evidence that if guns were not so readily available, if there were universal background checks … that maybe we could prevent this kind of carnage,” she added.

Likewise, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe used the killings to call for stricter gun control, saying, “There are too many guns in the hands of people who should not have guns. That is why I’ve long advocated for background checks. … This is why we need to restrict access to guns.”

Unfortunately, emotion plays better than facts in times of tragedy — and that’s what Obama, Clinton and McAuliffe are banking on. Contrary to McAuliffe’s insinuation, the murderer passed a background check in order to buy his gun. But leftists won’t stop with more checks because, as McAuliffe said, they’re after “restricting access.”

The the always reliable freedom haters Gabrielle Giffords, Mark Kelly and Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, all chimed in with more calls for taking away American’s rights and false statistics. Like “Forty percent of guns sold in the U.S. are done so without a background checks”

The root cause of this latest shooting was mental derangement. Vester Lee Flanagan had a long history of antagonizing and, in some cases, terrifying colleagues at TV stations where he worked prior to his murder of WDBJ reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward.

The disgruntled former television reporter who murdered two of his former colleagues during a live interview Wednesday morning had a long history of erratic behavior at various workplaces, including acting aggressively toward co-workers and claiming racism was behind uncomplimentary evaluations.

According to Fox News:

“Flanagan, who reported under the name Bryce Williams, was hired by WDBJ, based in Roanoke, Va., in March 2012. He only lasted 11 months at the station, and The Roanoke Times reported that his outbursts alienated and terrified co-workers.

"He quickly gathered a reputation as someone who was difficult to work with," station president and general manager Jeff Marks told reporters Wednesday. Justin McLeod, a former WDBJ reporter, told the paper that Flanagan "had anger management issues that went beyond anger management."

"Photographers flat-out refused to work with him," McLeod added. "He called them all racists. He threw that word around a lot. Nobody believed it."

According to documents filed in connection with a racial discrimination suit against the station by Flanagan in 2014 and seen by The Daily Beast, WDBJ colleagues said he often made them feel "threatened or uncomfortable." In one incident, Flanagan allegedly rounded on a station cameraman who was shooting b-roll footage using a shoulder-mounted camera.

"I’m not trying to be an [expletive], but the shaky video isn’t going to work," Flanagan allegedly told the cameraman before turning to an interview subject and saying, "I’m sorry sir, the footage he just shot is completely unusable."

In November 2012, Flanagan was reprimanded by station bosses for wearing an Obama sticker, a violation of a non-partisan condition of his contract. But matters came to a head in February 2013, when Flanagan was told he was being dismissed.

According to court papers, an agitated Flanagan responded to the news by angrily saying, "I’m not leaving. You’re going to have to call the [expletive] police. Call the police, I’m not leaving. I’m going to make a stink and it’s going to be in the headlines."

…..

“Flanagan is less fondly remembered by former colleagues from WTWC, the NBC affiliate in Tallahassee, where his contract was terminated in 2000 for "bizarre behavior and fighting with other employees," as his former boss put it.

Don Shafer, who currently works as news director for XETV in San Diego, described Flanagan as "a good on-air performer, a pretty good reporter. And then things started getting a little strange."

Shafer said that Flanagan "threatened to punch people out, and he was kind of running fairly roughshod over other people in the newsroom." Former WTWC colleagues told The Daily Beast that Flanagan behaved so poorly toward two female co-workers that the husband of one of the women "came this close to coming into the station and pounding the hell out of him."

Kimberly Moore Wilmoth, who worked with Flanagan at the Florida station, recalled him to the Associated Press as "off-kilter" and someone who "never really made himself part of the team."

Recalling one of a number of incidents, Wilmoth said co-workers meant to tease Flanagan for a story he did on a spelling bee that made it sound as if the winner would get a case of Girl Scouts, rather than cookies sold by the group.

"The next day, somebody had a Girl Scout emblem on their desk and we made some copies of it and taped them to his computer," she said. "If he had only laughed, we would have all been friends forever. But he didn't laugh ... he got mad. And that was when I realized he wasn't part of the collegiality that exists in a newsroom and he removed himself from it."

After he was fired, Flanagan sued WTWC for employment discrimination, claiming that he and another black employee had been called "monkeys" and that a station manager had told him "blacks are lazy and do not take advantage of free money." The case was eventually settled out of court.

Greg Sextro, a former WTWC producer, denied Flanagan's claim that he was discriminated against, telling The Daily Beast that the station had been accommodating to Flanagan and colleagues had repeatedly offered to help him with his news writing.

"The fact that he kept his job was because he was an African-American gay man," Sextro told the site. "That’s pretty hard to say no to."

This guy was a bomb ready to go off at any time. Because he was Black and Gay he continued to get a pass. No one in the media is talking about that aspect of his actions. There were plenty of warning signs just like in so many killings in the past. Blame the guns and not the shooter is pure nonsense. If someone like Flanagan wants to kill someone they will find a way whether it’s a gun, knife, ax, shovel, or a bomb.

Fortunately I have been watching some interviews of legitimate security, law enforcement, and mental health professionals on Fox TV this morning and they all say that this shooting was not a gun issue but a mental health issue.

The Common Denominator in All Mass Shootings: Paxil, Ritalin, Zoloft, Prozac

The following is a republishing of an important article written by Dan Roberts from AmmoLand.com. It reveals the real truth about mass shootings that bureaucrats and lawmakers are choosing to sweep under the rug: psychiatric drugs. If you want to know the real reason why mass shootings are taking place, this is the "inconvenient truth" the media won't cover.

Here are parts of the article by Dan Roberts:

“Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years, and multiple other instances of suicide and isolated shootings all share one thing in common, and it's not the weapons used.

The overwhelming evidence points to the signal largest common factor in all of these incidents is the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes.

Multiple credible scientific studies going back more than a decade, as well as internal documents from certain pharmaceutical companies that suppressed the information show that SSRI drugs ( Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors ) have well known, but unreported side effects, including but not limited to suicide and other violent behavior. One need only Google relevant key words or phrases to see for themselves. http://ssristories.org/is one popular site that has documented over 4500 " Mainstream Media " reported cases from around the World of aberrant or violent behavior by those taking these powerful drugs.

The following list of mass shooting perpetrators and the drugs they were taking or had been taking shortly before their horrific actions:

• Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold's medical records have never been made available to the public.

• Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather's girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

• Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.

• Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.

• Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.

• Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.

• Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.

• Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.

• A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed standoff at his school.

• Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..

• A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.

• Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.

• TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.

• Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.

• James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.

• Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania

• Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California

• Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.

• Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.

• Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic's file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.

• Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.

• Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.

• Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.

• Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.

• Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family's Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.

• Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara's parents said ".... the damn doctor wouldn't take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil...")

• Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002, (Gareth's father could not accept his son's death and killed himself.)

• Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family's detached garage.

• Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.

• Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.

• Woody __, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.

• A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.

• Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and "other drugs for the conditions."

• Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazepine.

• Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.

• Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.

• Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.

• Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his New York high school.

Missing from list... 3 of 4 known to have taken these same meds....

• What drugs was Jared Lee Loughner on, age 21. killed 6 people and injuring 14 others in Tucson, AZ?

• What drugs was James Eagan Holmes on, age 24. killed 12 people and injuring 59 others in Aurora Colorado?

• What drugs was Jacob Tyler Roberts on, age 22, killed 2 injured 1, Clackamas Or?

• What drugs was Adam Peter Lanza on, age 20, Killed 26 and wounded 2 in Newtown Ct?"

(Note: A person in California (and other states) are banned from purchasing firearms if they are taking psychotropic drugs, have been diagnosed with mental illness, or found guilty of incidents of rage.)

Those focusing on further firearms bans or magazine restrictions are clearly focusing on the wrong issue and asking the wrong questions, either as a deliberate attempt to hide these links, or out of complete and utter ignorance.

Despite Obama’s claim of increased gun violence, such violence has actually drastically decreased over the last couple of decades. In fact, in 2010, the gun homicide rate was 49% lower than in 1993, according to a 2013 Pew Research Center study. The downward trend appears to have remained steady since 2011 — all while gun laws have been loosened and gun ownership has increased.

Thanks in part to leftist rhetoric, though, just 12% of Americans believe gun crime is lower now than in the early 1990s. In fact, the 2013 Pew study reveals 56% erroneously believe it’s higher.

Unavoidably, false information leads to faulty judgment, such as one absurdly ignorant tweet saying the county where yesterday’s murders occurred supported Romney in the last presidential election, so it must be gun-friendly. Evidently this person hasn’t heard of Chicago, Baltimore, Ferguson, or any other inner city Democrat poverty plantation where murder and violent crime are rampant.

Yesterday’s killings were perpetrated not by a county, a community, a tool, or the Second Amendment but by a sick individual driven by racial and anti-heterosexual hatred. His hatred — not his gun — drove him to kill. More to the point, the killer wasn’t a Romney voter but reportedly was reprimanded for wearing an Obama button during campaign coverage. That’s a report the American leftwing media won’t bother getting around to.

Heartbreakingly, this unchecked hatred cost the lives of Adam Ward, who was engaged to be married to a coworker (who saw the murder happen while watching the broadcast in the control room), and Alison Parker, who was also dating a coworker and by all accounts was a vibrant and joyful woman.

Adam and Alison’s deaths should not be used as props for political gain. Instead, they should motivate us to counter the hatred that drives killers to take innocent lives and inflict unspeakable heartache to satisfy their delusional sense of vengeance.

Guns in the hands of responsible, law abiding citizens save lives!!

Training The Military In CCW

Recently there appeared an article on Fox News.com regarding Indiana’s Republican Governor Mike Pence using National Rifle Association trainers to train members of the Indiana National Guard on how to use concealed weapons. Pence directed the state's military bases and training centers to beef up security in response to recent terrorist attacks in Tennessee.

The Fox Report states:

“According to a survey by The Associated Press, Indiana is the only state to enlist the NRA's help in the training, which the gun-rights group says it will conduct free of charge for any guardsman who wants to carry a concealed handgun.

Although National Guard members traditionally have not been allowed to carry weapons while conducting most stateside duties, Pence is one of 14 governors who decided to arm them in the wake of a gunman's attacks last month on two U.S. military sites in Chattanooga that left four Marines dead.

Gun control advocates argue it's inappropriate for a state to involve a political lobbying organization in training members of the military, and even some National Guard officials from states that allow guardsmen to carry weapons question why a civilian organization is needed.

"This is a military problem to deal with, so we're going to deal with it with the military," said Lt. Col. Joel Lynch, a spokesman for the Arkansas National Guard, which is handling the training of its Guard members itself.”

The Article goes on to state:

“Guy Relford, an NRA instructor who recently trained about 65 Indiana guardsmen at an armory in Franklin, said his "basic pistol" course delves into safety scenarios on when and when not to shoot.

Without training, the National Guard has "dramatically increased the possibility that someone could hurt themselves or others with a gun," Relford said.

The AP survey of the 14 states that have armed their National Guards shows that most states had members of the military or law enforcement conduct the training. Only Indiana, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky and Oklahoma said they allow guardsmen to carry concealed weapons. At least seven others — including the largest state of California — allow Guard members to carry weapons in plain sight. Officials in Alabama declined to release information about their firearms rules for guardsmen, while the Texas National Guard wouldn't say if concealed handguns were allowed.

"The fact is, our folks are very comfortable in using weapons and using discernment in when they use those weapons, so having an outside agency involved is a little bit of a surprise," Capt. Will Martin, a spokesman for the California National Guard, said of Indiana's policy.

Eric Dietz, a professor at Purdue University who studies homeland security issues, said his research suggests causalities in some active shooter situations could be reduced if someone, such as a guardsman, has a concealed handgun.

Although more known for its role as an advocacy group, the NRA also frequently conducts handgun training programs for civilians. Relford says most Guard members don't get pistol training from the military, and those who do are taught using the standard 9mm. Pence's policy applies to a vast array of firearms ranging from a .22-caliber up to a .357 Magnum.

There are also legal and philosophical considerations because the military's overarching focus is on threats abroad, not at home, which is the traditional role of law enforcement.

Allowing different states to adopt different training methods also goes against the grain of military orthodoxy.

"You don't want to have the Indiana National Guardsmen trained a certain way that may be different from Illinois or Kentucky. There does have to be a standard across the board," said David Harris, a former adjutant general of the Illinois National Guard and now a Republican legislator, who supports the idea of arming guardsmen.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence criticized Pence for recruiting the NRA, suggesting the organization is "first and foremost" a "lobbying organization."

I wanted to present as much of the article as I have to set the context for what I am going so say.

There may be some validity to Lt. Col. Joel Lynch’s statement stating that the military should train these Guard Men and women on a national basis. But this only applies to how to shoot and basic handgun safety. Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) laws and procedures are Complicated and different in every state.

For a ranking of the 50 states on their laws, regulations, procedures on concealed carry and the purchase of firearms click here.

In most cases soldiers, sailor, and airmen do not receive adequate handgun training. Even Marines are not very well trained in the use of their 9mm Beretta M9. My nephew, a former Marine, received a mere 4 hours of training in the use of the M9. Most other members of the military receive far less or no training in the use of a handgun. The primary weapon of soldiers is the M-16 or MP-4 rifle not a handgun. The military does not waste time or ammunition on handgun training. This does not apply to military members of security forces (such as embassy and base guards), Special Forces, and criminal investigators such as Army CID.

The photo shown above is of the 9mm Beretta M9 the official side arm of the United States Military. With its 5 inch barrel, all metal construction, and weighing 34 ounces unloaded it is not a preferred concealed carry handgun

Civilians get more training in the use of handgun safety than the military. As an example my daughter and I recently participated in a handgun safety course. It was 8 hours long and covered basic firearm safety, shooting, and maintenance. In order to obtain a CCW permit in most states the applicant is required to complete not only a handgun safety class, but also a class on laws and regulations pertaining to the concealed carry and use of that firearm. These classes generally include the use of the firearm, types of handguns to carry, the proper holsters to use (inside the waistband or outside the waistband), proper concealment, when to shoot, and what to do after you shoot. The latter is most important as when the police arrive they do not know who the bad guy is and might shoot anyone holding a gun.

For years the NRA has been educating and training adults and children in the proper use and storage of firearms. They also have comprehensive classes to train the firearm trainers. The NRA does many things for its over 4 million members besides firearm training. Yes they have a lobbying are (the Institute for Legislative Action – NRA-ILA), but they also offer education, on-line training, publications, and insurance. They are not, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence states; “a lobbying group.” That’s what the Brady Campaign is along with numerous other left-wing gun-grabbing organizations.

Recently Detroit Police Chief James Craig called for responsible, law-abiding citizens of Detroit to carry weapons in the city’s high crime urban areas. In a city plagued by chronic unemployment and crime and guarded by a dwindling police force, residents of Detroit are increasingly taking protection of themselves, their families and property into their own hands. Those who do so responsibly have the blessing and backing of Detroit Police Chief James Craig.

“When you look at the city of Detroit, we’re kind of leading the way in terms of urban areas with law-abiding citizens carrying guns,” Craig said recently

In a recent interview on Fox News Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee County in neighboring Wisconsin called for more CCW permit holders in support of his deputies. He believes that these responsible, moral, and law-abiding citizens cannot only help reduce crime but they can have his deputies back in light of recent budget cuts. In January 2013, Sheriff Clarke was featured on a series of public radio ads that said citizens could no longer rely on the police for timely protection and should arm themselves. Later that month Clarke appeared on the CNN program Piers Morgan, with Milwaukee Mayor and gun-control advocate Tom Barrett, who attacked the notion that citizens could no longer rely on calling 9-1-1. The appearance sent David Clarke into the national spotlight. I have heard this sentiment from other law enforcement officers.

Since 2002 Sheriff Clarke (a Democrat) has received on average 76.25% of the votes for his office. He receives phenomenal support from his community. Other police chiefs and sheriffs across the nation have taken a stand on concealed carry weapons as Chief Craig and Sheriff Clarke. They realize that a responsibly armed citizenry helps reduce crime. As CCW permits go up crime goes down. Criminals are fearful and wary of an armed citizenry. They don’t know who carries a firearm and who does not. This is a proven fact that the left-wing mainstream media and gun-grabbers either ignore or refuse to acknowledge. All they care about is their personal agendas.

You can take each example of mass shootings in the United States and ask the question “what would be different had a responsible gun owner with a CCW permit had been there?” This applies to Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Charleston, and Memphis. According to the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Units mass shootings have two things in common, 1 of course is a firearm, and 2 the profile of the shooter. The second being far more important and dangerous that the first. No matter what the anti-gun media like Mother Jones, USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other left-wing publications say guns are not the reason for mass shootings. Yes, they may be a tool like a knife or a bomb, but it’s the profile of the person behind that gun that is the problem — just like the terrorist getting on the plane. The media ignores the illegal immigrants that have committed many crimes and are still walking the streets of cities like San Francisco and instead take up the clarion call for more gun control. Keep in mind that Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez did not possess a legally obtained firearm but one stolen from an irresponsible federal officer. According to Beitbart.com 30% of the homicides in the United States are committed by illegal aliens.

According to Breitbart:

“The US Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Programs publishes an annual report on the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program; a report that includes data on the number of criminal aliens incarcerated each state prison system and each county jail. It takes some prodigious digging to find the data, but it is there.

But our mainstream media, our self-described guardians of the First Amendment, consciously avoids the effort and declines to put a public spotlight on the problem or demand public scrutiny and public accountability. Why?

The answer is that public debate on the problem of illegal alien crime does not serve the progressive political agenda. The issue is swept under the rug and anyone who raises it is called a racist.

This is media malpractice of historic proportions, and publishers and editors are the unindicted coconspirators in those 7,085 murders.”

We are a nation with a diverse population of over 321 million, with well over 100 million households with legal gun ownership, of somewhere between 270 – 310 million legal firearms of all types.

There’s no universal gun registry, and thus not a simple way to pin down the exact number of firearms in the U.S.

There are estimates, however. According to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey – the leading source of international public information about firearms – the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns. That’s an average of 89 firearms for every 100 residents — far ahead of Yemen, which comes in second with about 55 firearms for every 100 people, or Switzerland, which is third with 46 guns for every 100 people.

There are certain types of firearms that do require registration in the United States: those subject to the National Firearms Act, including machine guns, shotguns and rifles with barrels shorter than 18 inches, and silencers.

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which handles that registration, there were more than 3.1 million National Firearms Act-registered weapons in the U.S. as of March 2012. That includes more than 488,000 machine guns and more than 2 million “destructive devices” such as grenades, which are also classified under the law.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau 64.9% of the population own their homes, (the highest in the world) — that’s 208.3 million people. According to a report by the Pew Research Organization an average of 33.5% of households report having a firearm in the house. Using these numbers it would appear there are 70 million households with one or more firearms in the homes.

It is very difficult to obtain accurate figures when it comes to firearm ownership. People will answer many questions regarding politics and life style, but are very reluctant to talk about their gun ownership. They just want to keep that information private as they don’t know how it will be used. I know that I would not answer the questions whether I owned a firearm or not. It’s just not anyone’s business.

With that the number growing it’s a wonder there aren’t much more gun-related homicides. The answer is simple. The vast majority of legal gun owning people are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

This debate will go on forever as long as the gun control lobby refuses to see or use the facts pertaining to gun ownership and gun crimes. They will report on an emotional basis using the latest gun-related tragedy to support their agenda. Mike Pence has taken the correct track to train his National Guard in the use and carry of a concealed weapon. This training must be comprehensive and cover all aspects of concealed carry including the carrier’s responsibilities, the laws of that particular state, the possibility of civil liability (something there will always be), insurance, and accurate close-range shooting and the protection of innocent bystanders. This is not what the military does, they train to shoot a rifle accurately. Not even law enforcement does this much training.

The Evolution Of A Gun Owner

Over the years my thoughts, beliefs, and positions of firearm ownership have evolved. As a young boy living in Ohio I owned a single-shot bolt action .22 caliber rifle. I used to go into the woods near our home and shoot at tin cans and such. I also went hunting several times with my Navy vet neighbor and used one of his shotguns. Hunting never really appealed to me. As I grew older and became more interested in other things such as cars, girls, and making money for these things I forgot about the gun.

Once I entered the work world my focus turned to career. Eventually I got married to a girl that had a terrible tragic act of gun violence in her family and was terrified of firearms. I never thought of owning a firearm as my family began to grow. The thought of firearm ownership was virtually non-existence in my brain. I was very ambivalent on the general issue of firearm ownership. I did not much care if people owned or did not own a rifle or a pistol. It was their business – not mine. In one of my boyhood friends, who I grew up with and got into mischief with, owns many firearms including revolver and semi-automatic pistols. He also has a Concealed Carry Weapons permit (CCW) in his home state of Ohio, Michigan, and Texas where he and his wife vacation in the winter.

As my career grew and I spent considerable time traveling throughout the United States, Europe, Central America, and Asia both for business and with my family Firearms were not on my mind. Neither was personal self-defense beyond being on the watch for possible problems. Instead I became a serious armature photographer with a proclivity for better and more expensive cameras and lenses. This was a serious avocation that I still have.

Several years ago I went to a local shooting range with my brother, his son, and my daughter and rented a semi-automatic pistol. I believe it was a Beretta 92FS. I discovered that I enjoyed the sport of shooting and did not do too bad hitting the paper targets where I was supposed to. My interest in firearms was germinating.

Being a conservative and dedicated to the Constitution of the United States I began noticing the numerous articles and reports in the mainstream media pertaining to gun violence and the rise of the gun grabbing crowd who used these reports as the basis for their agenda. I began to realize that the gun banning crowd were either ignorant of the facts or eschewed them to advance their agenda based on the emotion of the day – or both.

For the past 30 or 40 years both the Federal and State governments have been not only taking extreme liberties with the Constitution they have been shredding it some cases. Regulations and policies of agencies such as the EPA, Department of Education, and the White House have been eroding our liberties on almost a daily basis. Sometimes the Courts throw up roadblocks to these infringements to our rights; most times they remain silent and allow the infringement to stand. Probably nowhere is this more evident than in the issue of our Second Amendment rights. The gun grabbing progressive left basis their arguments on emotions and the news of the day (or days when it comes to the 24-hour cable news outlets and the Internet). Most of these emotions rise when there are incidents of mass shootings by criminals, terrorists, or deranged individuals. These incidents, while newsworthy and tragic are not the norm and are rarer than people dying from lightning strikes.

Despite the hyperbole generated by groups such as “Moms Demand Action” and “Mayors Against Illegal Guns,” FBI statistics prove we are more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than as the result of a mass shooting.

Columbine, Aurora and Sandy Hook are all battle cries designed to rally the troops into action, and pushing lawmakers into introducing stricter gun control measures. Although mass shooting incidents are unquestionably tragic, they also get perhaps far more attention than they deserve due to their rarity.

The FBI published its “Study of Active Shooter Incidents” in September 2013 at the request of President Barack Obama, and under the authority of the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act, to investigate “violent acts and shootings occurring in a place of public use.”

The report indicates that from the years 2000 to 2013, 486 Americans lost their lives in active shooter situations, which works out to approximately 37 deaths per year. Compare that to being killed by what everyone considers that rarest of circumstances–being struck by lightning.

Americans are 38% more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than by an active shooter.

“According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, over the last 20 years, the United States averaged 51 annual lightning strike fatalities,” wrote U.S. Air Force Flight Surgeon Capt. Rocky Jedick in 2012.

What else are you more likely to die of than being killed by active shooter? Let’s have a look.

Riding a bicycle – 800 people were killed by bicycling accidents in 2010 alone.

Falling Down – 26,631 died from injuries sustained in various types of falls from 2010 – 2011.

There are an estimated 300 million firearms in the United States. Compare that number to the 30 people killed in mass shootings each year.

Certainly, I am not trying to negate the value of the lives lost to shooting incidents each year. However, when we’re talking about laws and policy making which will affect literally tens of millions of Americans we have to keep things in perspective.

How about that most used argument pertaining to having firearms in the house with children. After a New York Times blog was published suggesting that parents shouldn’t allow their children to visit the homes of playmates where family members are gun owners, writer Dr. John Lott decided to investigate further.

Lott reported in National Review Online:

“For all children younger than 10, there were 36 accidental gun deaths [in 2010, the latest year then available], and that is out of 41 million children. Perhaps most important, about two-thirds of these accidental gun deaths involving young children are not shots fired by other little kids but rather by adult males with criminal backgrounds. In other words, unless you send your child to play at a criminal’s home, he/she is exceedingly unlikely to get shot.”

But what of other, perhaps less obvious dangers lurking in and around the home? Lott continued:

“Indeed, if you are going to worry about your child’s safety you should check into other, perhaps less obvious dangers lurking in the playmate’s house: swimming pools, bathtubs, water buckets, bicycles, and chemicals and medications that can cause fatal poisoning. Drownings alone claimed 609 deaths; fires, 262 lives; poisonings, 54 lives. And don’t forget to ask about the playmate’s parents’ car and their driving records if your child will ride with them: After all, motor-vehicle accidents killed 923 children younger than 10.”

All firearm deaths are tragic and worthy of investigation and debate. But any such debate must be based on honesty, something that’s sorely lacking from the left.

The gun grabbing crowd and left-leaning mainstream media has become so vocal in their emotional cries against guns, including guns in the hands of law enforcement officers (LEO) that cops are now reluctant to protect themselves against criminals by drawing their weapon.

Last Monday white police officer who was beaten unconscious and bloody by a man in Birmingham, Ala., and about the ugly reactions to the incident posted afterward on social media. It turns out that the comments, which celebrated the beating and intimated that the assailant overpowered the cop, were not only obscene but factually incorrect.

CNN reports via station KPIX that the detective said he resisted the impulse to use force against the suspect, whom he had stopped because his vehicle fit the description of one used in a string of burglaries, because he didn’t want to become the latest white police officer accused of needlessly killing an unarmed black man. The officer, whose identity remains unknown in order to protect his family, told reporters:

According to a recent report by Pew Research Center report national views on firearm ownership has not changed much in the past two years. The only real exception is the growing support for more background checks to wed out the mentally disturbed. The Pew report states:

“While there is broad support for several specific gun policy proposals – and opinion on these measures has not changed significantly since 2013 – the public continues to be more evenly divided in fundamental attitudes about whether it is more important to control gun ownership or to protect the right of Americans to own guns.

Currently, 50% say it is more important to control gun ownership, while 47% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns.”

I have learned to view my world in four zones. The first I call Zone White. This is the zone where most people live. It is a luxury zone. It is the zone where you walk about on the street, mall, or theater paying little or no attention to things or people around you. It is a zone where you do not practice situation awareness. You see people, mainly young adults and people in groups walking about with earphones in or on their cell phones oblivious to what is going on around them. When something happens they are usually victims. I prefer not to live in this zone!

The next zone is the Yellow Zone. It is here that you walk or drive about being aware of what is going on around you. You constantly scan people and goings on in you near proximity. You are cautious and aware. This is my preferred zone.

The third zone I call the Orange Zone. This is where you perceive a potential problem or a person who might cause a problem. Yes, this is profiling. We all should profile our surroundings if we intend to protect ourselves or our families. An example might be walking to your car in a parking structure or stopping at your local ATM to withdraw some cash. Be aware. Even if you have a CCW permit and are carrying a firearm get out. Flight is better than fight. You are not a LEO. Do not act like one. Just get the hell out. Don’t stop at that lonely ATM or the gas station pump or AM/PM shop.

The fourth zone is the Red Zone. This zone pertains to those who are legally armed. Now you have to make a life changing decision – defend yourself and loved ones or become a victim. This is where you draw that weapon telling the potential perpetrator to stop and call 911. If the potential perp is mentally disarrange or and out and out criminal you will probably have to shoot. Now you problems will really begin. All responsible CCW permit holders know this and hopefully are well trained. You can find out more about this by clicking this link to download the free 20 page book from the USCCA. It’s worth your time if you are CCW permit holder, or considering too becoming one. Even if you self-defense shooting is righteous and justifiable you will still probably have to spend thousands of dollars to defend yourself from criminal or civil trials.

I hope you’ll never have to defend yourself or your family from a violent criminal.

And let’s be honest, chances are you never will. (Well, unless you live in certain parts of Detroit, Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc… you get the picture!) But you know what, that’s not really what we’re talking about here.

Let me explain.

Since 1977, house fires are down 64.5%. Yet you and I still have fire extinguishers all over our houses and we still pay for fire insurance every single year.

Cars are significantly safer than they were only twenty years ago. Yet you and I still wear our seat belts and buy collision insurance.

Chances are you and I will never be in a serious auto accident and our houses will never burn down. But we still prepare for these kinds of events!

Why do we do this? Because that’s what responsible people do. And responsibly armed Americans make sure they’re educated, trained and properly insured. We plan for the possibility, not the probability.

If you are a CCW permit holder of a legal firearm or carry a firearm in those states that do not require permits you no doubt are a responsible firearm owner. But you still could be liable to criminal or civil trials. Organizations like USCCA have information, resources, and insurance that will assist you in this event. They are well worth a look see.

As a solid believer in the Second Amendment and the words “shall not infringe” I began my evolution to where I am today – a proud, safe, and responsible gun owner. I have taken and passed an 8-hour gun safety class and intend to continue my education and training. I wish not for me or my family to be a victim and will exercise my Constitutional rights to bear arms as long as they are not taken away by a dictatorial government.

In the meantime continue your training and be vigilant to the attempts by the gun grabbers to keep up their efforts to infringe on your Second Amendment rights. They have a mission – so do you!

Perception Management of Radical Islam

“We're in a new world. We're in a world in which the possibility of terrorism, married up with technology, could make us very, very sorry that we didn't act.” — Condoleezza Rice, Former U.S. Secretary of State

The term “Perception Management” (PM) has firmly entered the public lexicon. The Department of Defense even defines PM in one of its manuals, so the military folks obviously take it very seriously.

Perception management is a type of strategy that is aimed at guiding the motives, emotions, and conclusions of another party by means of using different approaches to alter that party’s perception of past events and the projections of future events. This particular type of strategy has been used in military operations in attempts to gain advantages over enemies, and has also found use in the business world among competitors. The goal is to alter the perception of the opposing party in a way that provides the manager with an advantage that can be used successfully to score a victory or otherwise defeat that opposing party.

There is some difference of opinion regarding whether the task of perception management must remain firmly rooted in the use of verifiable information that is presented in a manner that is likely to trigger the desired outcome, or if the strategy allows for the selective use of certain facts while ignoring others or even leaving room for the inclusion of data that is questionable. For those that focus on the use of verifiable data only, the task is to assess all the available information, then determine the best way to present those facts in a way that is likely to cause recipients to react in a certain manner. Sometimes referred to as spinning, here the focus is not on attempting to mislead per se, but instead to call more attention to certain bits of information while downplaying the importance of others. When successful, this approach has the benefit of having provided all the information, although in a format that definitely slanted the point of view in a specific direction.

At other times, the process of perception management includes the selective use of available data. In this scenario, certain facts are presented completely and concisely, while others are either presented only in part of are left out altogether. Doing so makes it easier to create a particular perception that can be sold to consumers, the citizens of a given country, or to a rival of some sort, assuming the opposing party is not privy to and does not discover the omissions.

In essence PM is not spin doctoring because perception managers don’t spin facts. They create facts and then sell them to the world as truth. Using these methods, a major untruth can be established so quickly and overwhelmingly across the world that no digging after the fact can make a dent in public consciousness that it actually isn’t true at all. And that’s what makes it so dangerous.

Examples of PM might be considered as: The sinking of the Battleship Maine, which got us into the Spanish-American War; the sinking of the Lusitania, which caused public opinion to enter World War I, the shooting at Fort Hood by a Radical Islamic terrorist shouting “Allāhu Akbar” was “work place violence”; and that Islam is a religion of peace and only a few nut jobs carry out terrorist activities.

Here is a quick test

Savages go on a shooting spree at the offices of a satirical magazine. While they're murdering journalists, the killers shout:

1. Hail Mary full of grace…
2. John 14:6
3. Shema Yisrael
4. Allahu akbar

A captive is beheaded by:

1. The Salvation Army
2. The Book of the Month Club
3. The National Geographic
4. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)

In Europe, demonstrators carry signs calling for "Death to the Jews" and proclaiming "Hitler was right!" are:

1. Octogenarian Nazis
2. Members of the Church of Scientology
3. Representatives of Jimmy Dean Pork Sausages
4. Moslems

Someone who plants a shrapnel-packed bomb near the finish line of a marathon is likely to belong to:

1. an Ashram
2. a Reform synagogue
3. a Masonic Lodge
4. a Mosque

You’ll probably get death threats if you:

1. Produce something called “Piss Christ”
2. Make a movie that presents Moses as a psycho
3. Call Tea Party members terrorists
4. Do or say anything which shows Mohammed in an unflattering light

The response to the latest Religion of Peace atrocity – the attack on a humor magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris that left 17 dead, 21 wounded — was craven, inane and utterly predictable. This count does not include the three Radical Islamic Killers.

The facts so far known and verified by the French authorities pin the attack on three French citizens – all Muslims. According to a report by Fox News the terrorist attack was sponsored by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) from its base in Yemen:

“Shortly after the massacre in Paris, a series of tweets went out from a known Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula Twitter account. They show images of the Paris massacre with photos of al-Awlaki and Samir Khan (editor of Inspire magazine, who was killed along with al-Awlaki).

An intelligence source told Fox News that the tweets suggest foreknowledge of the Paris attack.

On Friday, U.S. government sources confirmed to Fox News that 34-year-old Said Kouachi, who, along with his brother Cherif, was responsible for the attack in Paris, travelled to Yemen in 2011 and trained with or fought along side AQAP, and one of his goals was to meet with the Al Qaeda branch's leadership. A U.S. intelligence assessment described to The Associated Press shows that Kouachi was trained in preparation to return home and carry out an attack.

Soon after the Al Qaeda member claimed responsibility for the Paris attack on Friday, The Associated Press reported that the branch's senior cleric Sheikh Harith al-Nadhari issued a recording on the group's Twitter feed commenting on the "blessed raid on Paris." He denounced the "filthy" French and called them "the heads of infidelity who insult the prophets." He praised the "hero mujahedeen" who he said "taught them a lesson and the limits of freedom of speech."

In a recent report by Fox News Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen has released a video claiming responsibility for last week's deadly attack by two gunmen on the offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris:

“Nasr al-Ansi, a top commander of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP as the branch is known, appeared in an 11-minute Internet video posted Wednesday, saying that the massacre was in "vengeance for the prophet."

Al-Ansi also said in the video that France belongs to the "party of Satan" and warned of more "tragedies and terror." He says Yemen's Al Qaeda branch "chose the target, laid out the plan and financed the operation," though he produced no evidence to support the claim.

The attack by two brothers, Said and Cherif Kouachi killed 12 people, including eight staffers at the magazine, which had reportedly drawn their ire for repeatedly depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. Muslim orthodoxy holds that any depiction of Muhammad is blasphemous.

An eyewitness heard the gunmen say in French, "We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad!" as they fled the newspaper office, while another witness claimed the gunmen addressed him before fleeing, saying, "Tell them this was Al Qaeda in Yemen."

It did not take long for major media in the West to begin to alter the facts and the truth.

The White House and State Department refuse to use the words “Islamic” or “Radical Islamic” when talking about the latest or any other act of terrorism committed by Radical Islamist. Instead they use the word “Extremists” lumping all acts of terrorism together. They don’t even call Al Qaeda or ISIL radical Islam. In this way they are presenting us with a new set of facts — facts that are intended to led us to a new truth. In essence they are managing the perception of what is happing around the world when it pertains to Islam. The motives for doing this are unclear, but one must consider Barack Obama’s background and various statements he has made about Islam over the years.

It is the job of a conscientious and diligent press to challenge the action and statements of those in authority over us — this why we have a First Amendment in our Constitution. When a free press becomes the spokespersons for authority bad things happen. This is what happens in totalitarian states such as Germany under the Nazis, Russia under the Communists, North Korea, and Cuba.

Below is a video clip of CNN’s Christiane Amanpour reporting on the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo in Paris last week refused to use the words “Islamic Terrorism” or even “Terrorism” but instead used the word "Activists" when referring to the actions of the two Islamic gunmen. This video of her is introduced by Greg Gutfeld of Fox News and reported extensively across the Internet.

Of course what would one expect from a woman of Iranian heritage and married to American James Rubin, a former US Assistant Secretary of State and spokesman for the US State Department during the Clinton administration and currently an informal adviser to former US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and President of the United States Barack Obama.

There are other quotes from CNN contributors in this clip warning of an overreaction to the killings by “right-wing” activists. It should be noted that no such action has ever happened – even in the wake of 9/11.

Activists are people championing a cause. Most right-wing act activists are peaceful marchers. Many left-wing activists use violence – note the recent demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri and New York City.

Martin Luther King was an activist. Gandhi was an activist. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are activists. They don’t walk into an establishment with AK-47s and start indiscriminately blasting away. Major Nidal Hasan is a terrorist.

As Gutfeld states in his comments on Christiane Amanpour:

“I get it. The enemy is pre-ordained. It's us. Which means Howard Dean is right. This is a cult, a cult of apologists. But Dean is also right when he says this is not a religious issue, which means, if I don't see Islam when I fight terror, then you cannot see Islamophobia when I fight it.

What should we see instead? Again, a death cult, one that needs no understanding, just eradication. It would be nice for moderate Muslims to help, but if they don't, we can handle it, it's nothing personal, Muslims. Just step aside.

Finally, where did this cult learn to punish language? From the Quran? From Al Qaeda? How about Harvard, and our modern cult of hate speech activists, who see language as violence, creating speech codes with penalties? Seeing "activists" silence critics so easily must make them drool with envy.”

Gutfeld is pointing out how language and the management of perception is why we cannot mount effective attack on Radical Islam.

Fueling the Western paralysis in dealing with radical Islam is the late 20th century doctrine of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is one of those buzzwords that does not mean what it should. The ancient and generic Western study of many cultures is not multiculturalism. Rather, the trendy term promotes non-Western cultures to a status equal with or superior to Western culture largely to fulfill contemporary political agendas.

On college campuses, multiculturalism not so much manifests itself in the worthy interest in Chinese literature, Persian history, or hieroglyphics, but rather has become more a therapeutic exercise of exaggerating Western sins while ignoring non-Western pathologies to attract those who see themselves in some way as not part of the dominant culture.

It is a deductive ideology that starts with a premise of Western fault and then makes evidence fit the paradigm. This is classic Perception Management.

A multicultural approach to the conquest of Mexico usually does not investigate the tragedy of the collision between 16th-century imperial Spain and the Aztec Empire. More often it renders the conquest as melodrama between a mostly noble indigenous people slaughtered by a mostly toxic European Christian culture, acting true to its imperialistic and colonialist traditions and values.

In other words, there is little attention given to Aztec imperialism, colonialism, slavery, human sacrifice, and cannibalism, but rather a great deal of emphasis on Aztec sophisticated time-reckoning, monumental building skills, and social stratification. To explain the miraculous defeat of the huge Mexican empire by a few rag-tag, greedy conquistadors, discussion would not entail the innate savagery of the Aztecs that drove neighboring indigenous tribes to ally themselves with Cortés.

For the multiculturalist, the sins of the non-West are mostly ignored or attributed to Western influence, while those of the West are peculiar to Western civilization. In terms of the challenge of radical Islam, multiculturalism manifests itself in the abstract with the notion that Islamists are simply the fundamentalist counterparts to any other religion. Islamic extremists are no different from Christian extremists, as the isolated examples of David Koresh or the Rev. Jim Jones are cited ad nauseam as the morally and numerically equivalent bookends to thousands of radical Islamic terrorist acts that plague the world each month. We are not to assess other religions by any absolute standard, given that such judgmentalism would inevitably be prejudiced by endemic Western privilege. There is nothing in the Sermon on the Mount that differs much from what is found in the Koran. And on and on and on.

In the concrete, multiculturalism seeks to use language and politics to mask reality. The slaughter at Ford Hood becomes “workplace violence,” not a case of a radical Islamist, Major Nidal Hasan, screaming “Allahu Akbar” as he butchered the innocent. After the Paris violence, the administration envisions a “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism,” apparently in reaction to Buddhists who are filming beheadings, skinheads storming Paris media offices, and lone-wolf anti-abortionists who slaughtered the innocent in Australia, Canada, and France.

The likes of James Clapper and John Brennan assure us of absurdities such as the Muslim Brotherhood being a largely secular organization or jihad as little more than a personal religious journey. Terrorism is reduced to man-caused violence and the effort to combat it is little more than an “overseas contingency operation.” The head of NASA in surreal fashion boasts that one of his primary missions for the hallowed agency is to promote appreciation of Muslim science and accomplishments through outreach to Islam. The president blames an obscure film-maker for causing the deaths of Americans in Benghazi (when in reality, it was a preplanned Al-Qaeda affiliate hit) — and then Obama makes it a twofer: he can both ignore the politically incorrect task of faulting radical Islam and score politically correct points by chastising a supposedly right-wing bigot for a crime he did not foster.

For the useful idiot, multiculturalism is supposedly aimed at ecumenicalism and hopes to diminish difference by inclusiveness and non-judgmentalism. But mostly it is a narcissistic fit, in which the multiculturalist offers a cheap rationalization of non-Western pathologies, and thereby anoints himself both the moral superior to his own less critical Western peers and, in condescending fashion, the self-appointed advocate of the mostly incapable non-Westerner.

Multiculturalism is contrary to human nature. Supposedly if Muslims understand that Westerners do not associate an epidemic of global terrorism and suicide bombing with Islam, then perhaps Muslims — seeing concession as magnanimity to be reciprocated — will appreciate such outreach and help to mitigate the violence, all the more so if they also sense that they share with the more radical among them at least some legitimate gripes against the West.

In the psychological sense, multiculturalism also serves as a way of dealing with affluent Western guilt: one does not have to put his kids in an inner-city school, visit the barrio to shop, or invite undocumented aliens over for dinner, when one can both enjoy a largely affluent and apartheid existence in the concrete, while praising the noble Other in the abstract. In the European context, the liberal French or British elite welcomes in the Muslim Other for low-wage jobs and to feed his multicultural sensitivities — only to outsource the immigrants to outlander suburbs that devolve into no-go zones even for the police. In the Clinton context, when Hilary lectures us that we must understand and even empathize with the minds of our enemies, we assume that Chelsea is not on the barricades trying to fathom what drives the violent “Other.”

Ultimately multiculturalism is incoherent, claiming that all cultures are equal, but then (privately) disturbed that Iranians behead gays or Saudi women cannot drive a car — or radical Muslims prefer to live in Europe than among the believers in Yemen. Yet even multiculturalism cannot quite equate honor killings with the glass ceiling.

Radical Muslims both emigrate to the West and yet, once there, seek through Sharia law to destroy the very foundations of what made the West attractive to them in the first place. Clean water, advanced medicine, entitlement support and free speech ultimately cannot exist in a society that routinely assassinates the outspoken satirist. In a less dramatic sense, the entire open-border, La Raza movement is based on the anomaly that the United States is such an inhospitable and racist place, while Mexico is such a benevolent homeland, that 11 million risk their lives to reach the former and abandon the latter.

For Muslims of the Middle East, there is a clear pathway to economic prosperity and a secure lifestyle; countries as diverse as South Korea, Japan, and Chile are proof of it. Within wide parameters, success only asks adherence to a mostly free market, some sort of freedom of expression, religious tolerance, a separation of science from orthodoxy, the rule of law, and consensual constitutional government — along with a cultural ethos of rough parity between the sexes, merit-based evaluation instead of tribal favors, and tolerance for ethnic and religious minorities.

Fail that, and human misery follows of the now familiar Middle East sort, in turn followed by the tired blame that the Jews, the Americans, the Europeans, or the West caused these self-generated pathologies.

If the Western establishment were truly moral, it would reject multiculturalism as a deductive, anti-empirical, and illiberal creed. It would demand that critics abroad first put their own house in order before blaming others for their own failures, and remind Western elites that their multicultural fantasies are cheap remedies designed to deal with their own neuroses.

Finally, it would also not welcome in newcomers who seek to destroy the very institutions that make the West so unlike the homelands they have voted with their feet to utterly abandon.

Killing Patton

“Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory.” — George S. Patton.

On November 20, 2014 I posted a book review of Mark Bowden’s book “The Finish, The Killing of Osama bin Laden.” As I wrote I did not think much of Bowden’s book nor his research. I am always suspicious of books about recent events as too many of those interviewed for the book give self-serving reports and are prone to withhold bits of information that may put them, their colleagues. or bosses in a negative light. They also are guilty of embellishing the roles they may or may not have played in the subject of the book. This is certainly true of the Bowden book.

I have just finished reading Bill O’Reilly’s and Martin Dugard’s book; “Killing Patton – The Strange Death of World War II’s Most Audacious General.” It is not only well written and informative, but the descriptions of the combat at the battle for Fort Driant, at Metz, The Battle of the Bulge, and the Crossing of the Rhine are as thrilling and gripping as if written by Tom Clancy or Brad Thor.

O’Reilly and Dugard give us a primer on the characters, strategies, and politics involved in the European Theater during WWII. Characters such as General Patton, General Eisenhower, General Bradley, Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery, Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Eva Braun, and “Wild Bill” Donovan are profiled in the book. This gives those readers, who are not familiar with WWII or too young to know much about these major characters, some basis to understand the forces that were hostile to George Patton.

Here is what Senator John McCain had to say in his review of the book on Amazon.com:

“In Killing Patton: The Strange Death of World War II’s Most Audacious General, Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard have written a lively, provocative account of the death of General George S. Patton and the important events in the final year of the Allied victory in Europe, which Patton’s brilliant generalship of the American Third Army did so much to secure.

The fourth book in the bestselling Killing series is rich in fascinating details, and riveting battle scenes. The authors have written vivid descriptions of a compelling cast of characters, major historical figures such as Eisenhower, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, and others, as well as more obscure players in the great drama of the Second World War and the life and death of Patton.

O’Reilly and Dugard express doubts about the official explanation for Patton’s demise from injuries he suffered in an automobile accident. They surmise that the General’s outspokenness about his controversial views on postwar security, particularly his animosity toward the Soviets, our erstwhile allies, might have made him a target for assassination. They cast a suspicious eye toward various potential culprits from Josef Stalin to wartime espionage czar “Wild Bill” Donovan and a colorful OSS operative, Douglas Bazata, who claimed later in life to have murdered Patton.

Certainly, there are a number of curious circumstances that invite doubt and speculation, Bazata’s admission for one. Or that the drunken sergeant who drove a likely stolen truck into Patton’s car inexplicably was never prosecuted or even reprimanded. But whether you share their suspicions or not this is popular history at its most engrossing.

From accounts of the terribly costly battle for Fort Driant in the hills near Metz to the Third Army’s crowning achievement, its race to relieve the siege of Bastogne in the Battle of the Bulge, the reader experiences all the drama of the “great crusade” in its final, thrilling months.

The authors’ profiles of world leaders and Patton’s contemporaries are economic but manage to offer fresh insights into the personalities of well-known men. Just as compelling are the finely wrought sketches of people of less renown but who played important parts in the events.

There is PFC Robert Holmund, who fought and died heroically at Fort Driant having done all he could and then some to take his impossible objective. PFC Horace Woodring, Patton’s driver, who revered the general, went to his grave mystified by the cause and result of the accident that killed his boss. German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel’s young son, Manfred, exchanged a formal farewell handshake with him after learning his father would be dead in a quarter hour, having been made to commit suicide to prevent the death and dishonor of his family.

These and many other captivating accounts of the personal and profound make Killing Patton a pleasure to read. I enjoyed it immensely and highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in World War II history and the extraordinary man who claimed Napoleon’s motto, “audacity, audacity, always audacity,” as his own.”

If anything, the book, as many of O'Reilly's other ones in the Killing series, serves as a general historical overview piece, albeit one with mystery and intrigue laced into it in attempts to keep the reader engaged. Though it is styled to be a work of nonfiction, it sensationalizes a controversial ending of a greater-than-life individual who was both idolized and rankled by the people, military, and government.

No doubt General Patton’s greatest achievement during WWII was his Third Army’s relief of the 101^st Airborne who were holding the crucial crossroads town of Bastogne and holding back the Nazi’s winter counteroffensive through Belgium’s Ardennes Forest known as the Battle of the Bulge.

On December 16, 1944 the Germans began a massive armored and infantry attack aimed at splitting the allied lines and driving to retake the port of Antwerp — the only viable port for supplying the allied forces in Europe.

Hitler’s grand plan besides halting Allied transport over the channel to the harbor of Antwerp was also to split the British and American Allied line in half, so the Germans could then proceed to encircle and destroy four Allied armies, forcing the Western Allies to negotiate a peace treaty in the Axis Powers' favor. Once that was accomplished, Hitler could fully concentrate on the eastern theatre of war.

Had Hitler’s grand plan worked Western Europe would have looked much different in 1946. Had the Nazi’s been able to negotiate an armistice with the Americans. British, and French they would have still had problems facing the much greater Soviet Army.

No doubt eventually the Red Army would have prevailed and pushed far beyond the Elbe River where they halted per the agreement made by Eisenhower. They would have reached the Rhine and had control of not only Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary and the Baltic States they would have total control of Germany.

Patton knew this was possible as did his intelligence officer. He knew his Third Army was the only tool that could break the German siege at Bastogne. To spearhead this drive he chose the 4^th Armored Division with the tip of the spear being led by his favorite tank commander Creighton Abrams. It was Abrams who taking a risk by bypassing German troops on his flanks to drive into Bastogne and relieve the embattled troopers of the 101^st on December 26^th.

This was no doubt the greatest feat of arms by an American Army. Fighting horrible weather, snow and ice covered roads, rough topography, and Germans Patton saved Eisenhower’s bacon and proved himself once again as America’s best combat general. For this he was rewarded with orders to pull back and tack up defensive positions after the bulge had been cleared on January 25, 1945.

Patton wanted to push forward into Berlin and felt he had the tools to do it. But as was the case in the closing of the Falaise Pocket and capturing thousands of retreating German soldiers Patton was restrained. Instead Eisenhower chose Montgomery to enter into German. Once again Patton was done in by politics. O’Reilly and Dugard detail all of this in the book. As I student of WWII History I know they have their facts correct.

I have always admired George Patton and believed he was very much needed to defeat the Germans from North Africa, through Sicily and France. Through all of this Patton made many enemies in the United States and Soviet Union. Much this was caused by Patton’s own ill-conceived remarks pertaining to the Soviet Union. In fact Josef Stalin wanted him dead. This is all detailed in Killing Patton.

The book is an easy read. It is a page turner. If you’re a fan of military history you will enjoy this book. You will not only learn a few things about Patton and the politics surrounding WWI you will certainly enjoy this book. Yes, I highly recommend this book.

As an aside several years ago I visited the George S. Patton Memorial Museum in Southern California. The museum is located on the grounds of Patton’s desert armor training grounds in eastern San Bernardino County. It is a great place to spend a few hours to learn more about “Ole Blood and Guts.”