Posse Incitatus

The Boy Scouts make the Smith and Wesson mistake

It wasn’t that long ago that the forces of gun control were in the ascendant.  The ‘assault weapons ban’ and the threat of lawsuits against lawful gun manufacturers by big city mayors left the firearms industry reeling.  The tobacco settlement (remember that?) was still a hot issue and there was a widespread believe that gun prohibition could be achieved simply by driving the firearms industry into bankruptcy through wave after wave of lawsuits.

It was in this environment that the venerable firm of Smith and Wesson tried to cut a deal with the Clinton Administration and dodge the worst of the lawsuits. 

With great fanfare, the company signed an accord to be more responsible in selling guns and in return it would be spared the litigation scourge.  As an extra bonus, several mayors hinted that S&W guns would be adopted by their own police forces.

The latter provision almost immediately fell apart as procurement regulations prevent that kind of pre-selection (though it is telling that the majors offered this – it is the Chicago way, after all).

Still S&W figured they had dodged the worst of the litigation threat and could get on with business.

Er, no.

By cutting a deal with gun controllers (who by definition are never going to buy guns) S&W destroyed its reputation with gun owners.  Sales collapsed.

Now I should mention at this point that S&W was owed by the British firm of Tomkins PLC.  They regarded it as an investment, nothing more, and of course their leadership had a British sensibility regarding firearms (that is to say, they found them icky and loathed the people who bought them).

Smith and Wesson was finally sold (at a huge loss) to a consortium of American investors who immediately revoked all of the agreements and then proceed to produce the .500 Magnum, the most powerful production handgun in the world.  Press announcements trumpeted the .500 Magnum’s ability to kill any thing that walks on the North American continent.

Sales surged and they been a going thing ever since.

The Boy Scouts are making the same mistake.  No doubt they look at diminishing participation, official scorn from Democrat office holders and say to themselves “Gosh, this gay thing is killing us.  We should just flip and save what we can.”

The problem here is that like Smith and Wesson, they are misjudging the times.  Yes, it is true that scouting is not as popular as it once was, but this is a feature of helicopter parents and there being less children in general.  Scouting is still held out to be unapologetically masculine, which makes it anathema to many millennials.

The primary supporters of scouting are therefore traditional religious groups, i.e. the ones who are likely to object to endorsing homosexuality and who support the time-honored notion of manly men and feminine women.

By shifting the burden onto these affiliates, the Scouts are not only committing an act of cowardice (“Hey, we’re not bigots, it’s those people, over there!”) they are destroying their own base of support.

I’m sure the leadership has been told that there are thousands of young men who would just love to go scouting but object to the gay thing.  I think a bigger issue is the loss of corporate donations.

However, I suspect that the people who didn’t like the Scouts for banning gays aren’t going to like them much better even with gays.  There is still that annoying love of country and God businesses.  Maybe if they dropped those and became truly inclusive, membership would increase.

More likely, the Scouts will see their brand destroyed and their core supporters leave.

The problem here is that once one betrays one's core values, there isn't much left.  Either the Boy Scouts are dedicated to a time-honored traditional vision of American manhood or they are just like everyone else, living on the moment and standing for nothing in particular.

If they truly lived their values, they should have been willing to accept that there may only be a few thousand Scouts, but each was a paragon of virtue.  Maybe in time the pendulum would swing the other way and the Scouts would be vindicated and admired for their refusal to cave.

Instead, they've chosen an easier path, though it may end up being a harder one when all is said and done.

The Broken Windows Theory as Applied to Liberalism

We've all heard about the "broken windows theory," which former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani made famous when he was elected and re-elected to lead the city in the 1990s. Simply put, the theory posits that if minor transgressions such as graffiti, public drinking, broken windows and litter are allowed to occur and no efforts are made to clean things up, this sends a permissive message to criminals.

If there is no sense of order and accountability, anti-social behavior will proliferate. Criminals are more likely to commit more serious crimes such as dealing drugs, committing armed robbery or assaulting innocent victims. 

But if a municipality cracks down on the little things, maintaining a sense of order and stability and making it clear that perpetrators of illegal acts will be arrested and prosecuted, this helps stem the more serious crimes. 

It occurred to me that the typical liberal Democrat in 2015 subscribes to an anti-broken windows theory belief system when it comes to how people conduct themselves in matters large and small. Democrats, for example, are quick to demonize police and sympathize with rioting thugs when all hell breaks loose as it did in Baltimore last April. They frequently take up the mantle for dirtbags such as cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of a 1981 slaying of a police officer in Philadelphia. For three decades, he's been a cause celébre of leftists.

The libs believe in libertine sex, despite AIDS and a bevy of loathsome venereal diseases, sexual assaults, a sky-high divorce rate, millions of abortions and the ghoulish spectacle of Planned Parenthood trying to make money by selling body parts of babies murdered by the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion.

The libs believe in generous welfare benefits, lots of paid vacation time, an unrealistically high minimum wage, and "free" healthcare for all. Never mind that we have an $18 trillion national debt, companies are off-shoring jobs and only hiring part-time and temp workers, and millions of health care consumers have had their policies canceled, seen stiff rate increases and/or lost the ability to continue seeing a certain doctor. Oh, and by the way, how's Greece doing these days? Want to see the future of America? Look toward the Parthenon. 

"It's the law of the land" is a convenient catch-phrase when liberals boast about a Supreme Court ruling upholding Obamacare or gay marriage, but not so much when it comes to sanctuary cities violating federal immigration laws and states/cities whose marijuana permissiveness goes against federal drug laws.

The Obama administration frequently shows contempt for the law of the land, allowing sanctuary cities to do as they please, using the IRS to harass conservative political groups, and unconstitutionally implementing disastrous immigration policies that are flooding our nation with criminals and illiterates who will burden the welfare state, hospitals, schools and law enforcement.

Recently, President Obama commuted the sentences of dozens of drug dealers sentenced to prison, all in the name of "fairness." Yes, many of these convicts committed nonviolent crimes; however, dealing dangerous drugs such as heroine or cocaine leads indirectly related crime (armed robberies, carjackings, murders, prostitution...), not to mention untold ruined lives. Once again, a liberal takes up for the dirtballs. 

The chaos and moral listlessness that are strangling our nation continue to worsen, thanks to the left wingers' abhorrence to the rule of law, true justice and accountability. Naive, idealistic visions of "fairness" and "diversity" rule the craniums of these misguided souls.

Perhaps the coup de grace for broken windows liberalism is the administration's egregious agreement with Iran regarding development of nuclear weapons. The agreement is chock-full of vague language and loopholes you could drive a Mack truck through. In many cases, the nations sitting on boards or commissions established to review disputes are populated by the likes of Iran, Russia and China. Moreover, throughout the negotiations process, Iranian Islamofascists continued spouting the "Death to America" vitriol. Yet Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are as naive and simple-minded as kindergartners. Like sheep being led to the slaughter.

Pray. That's about all I can say.

State governors take the lead in protecting our troops - and our nation

It’s been a busy week here at the ranch, but we must take time to note some interesting developments in the self-defense movement.

In the first place, it is fascinating to see the number of state governors who have followed the Posse’s advice.  This is not surprising.  Governors are far more accountable to the voters than the federal government (many states have recall provisions for Governors, so even they are lame ducks they can be forced from office early) so they are clearly more responsive.

Governors understand that if National Guardsmen are assassinated, they will ultimately bear the moral  as well as political responsibility for denying them the means of effective self-defense.  (The president understands this as well, but doesn’t care.)

Meanwhile, the media has succeeded in creating yet another mass shooting, this time in Louisiana.  And of course it is in a “gun free zone.”

We have made this point before but it bears repeating:  By showering these killers with attention, publicizing their manifestos and turning them into celebrities, the media is creating an incentive for other disturbed people to commit similar crimes.

The victims are quickly forgotten in a shuffle of numbers, but the perps achieve lasting notoriety.

At some point during the last few years, I would have expected sane publications to impose a ban on the names of these killers, since the evidence is crystal clear that media exposure creates more of these attacks.  Alas, our media is stuck on stupid.

No doubt they cover up whatever guilt they might feel by shifting the blame to an inanimate object.

Taking a longer view, what the past week has done is shift the discussion in a way that would have previously seemed impossible.

National Guard citizen-soldiers are now authorized to carry personal weapons in several populous and otherwise "normal states" - such as Michigan and Indiana.  Not only that, but the Adjutant General of Michigan has gone on record as saying that he would like his troops to continue to wear their uniforms in public - a stark contrast to the cowardice shown by the Pentagon's leadership.

Other states have taken similar measures to ensure adequate force protection. 

Concerned citizens have also stepped up (particularly in Tennessee), offering to protect federal installations on their own initiative.  This not only shames and humiliates the Dept. of Defense's dithering incompetents, it continues the process of "normalizing" armed citizens.

The fact that the government is too lazy/ideological to protect its own troops has also convinced yet another wave of people to purchase and obtain carry permits for firearms of their own.

The result is that America just became a more difficult target to attack, and it did so in spite of the president's actions.

There can be no doubt that the Obama administration is deeply hostile to firearms in just about every way.  They hate private ownership and seem oddly committed to keeping active duty military personnel disarmed as well.  Defenders of the administration can point to the law enacted in 1992, but I don't think any serious observer believes that if the president asked for it to be repealed, the GOP wouldn't oblige him within minutes.  In fact it is because the attempt to repeal it would face a certain veto that the governors and citizens have been compelled to act on their own.

Despite this clear policy preference, the United States is now more heavily armed than at any point in my lifetime.  For that we can all be deeply grateful to the president.  I would deeply cherish an interviewer asking him how proud he is of this "legacy."

The Straight Talker

Donald Trump is about as subtle as a heavy metal mosh pit. His blunt talk turns off many people, but it also greatly appeals to those who are sick to death of scripted, bland politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouths and pander shamelessly to various focus groups.

A few years ago, I compared Trump to an untalented galoot who a basketball team sends in to hack the opponent's best scorers under the boards, giving up fouls but snagging a few rebounds and hampering the other team's offensive fluidity while keeping his teammates out of foul trouble.

Predictably, the Democrats and mainstream media have been aghast at the Don's supposed hate speech. They are reacting in knee-jerk fashion with the usual cliched accusations against the Republican/conservative psyche. Parrot parodies, if you will.

But, like Bernie Sanders on the left, Trump has struck a chord with millions of Americans who are beyond disheartened and cynical about the current bleak political landscape and the nation's funk. Let's hope New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who just a few days ago threw his hat into the ring, returns to his somewhat caustic persona that helped him face down the Garden State bullies (teachers' unions, public employee unions and fellow politicians who never met a property tax increase they didn't like).

So far, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina seems to have been the only GOP candidate who isn't afraid to tell it like it is. Let's hope Trump brings all of the Republican candidates out of their consultant-constructed, uber-cautious shells and into the fray.

But let's be clear: Trump isn't the solid conservative some of his supporters believe him to be. He has supported abortion rights, universal government healthcare, higher taxes for the wealthy and destructive tariffs that would worsen an already sickly economy. However, if he helps eradicate the stupor-like demeanor of his opponents, and makes "the emperor has no clothes" an accepted part of the dialogue, he will have performed a valuable service.

Rant on, Donald. Millions of Americans are deeply discouraged, disgusted and depressed about our nation's serious, deep-seated problems. We need straight talk, and we need it now.

Arm our troops now!

One of the few areas where gun control and gun rights supporters agree is that our military members - that is our trained soldiers - have the unquestioned right to possess firearms.

And yet, despite repeated attacks on them, no effort has been made to provide them with the means of self-defense.

ISIL may be many things, but it is not stupid.  Its leaders have shown ingenuity and adaptability, deftly countering our tactics at every turn.

It is therefore to be expected for them to treat uniformed military members - who by regulation may not carry weapons - as ideal targets.

It's a pretty simple calculation:  Attacking US Marines in Iraq or Afghanistan is a sure way to die a speedy death.  If their expert marksmen don't put a hole in your skull, their fire support and tactical aviation will reduce you to a smoking hole in the ground.

But here in our own country, they are literally as helpless as schoolchildren.  Open fire on Marines in a recruiting center, and they are powerless to return fire.

And when I say "literally, " I mean it.  If those Marines had been off duty or even private citizens, they could have carried pistols for their own defense.  No, it is the genius of our current leadership that those service members who are most visible are most vulnerable.

I don't expect the GOP in Washington to do anything, but for those governors out there with ambitions of being in the White House, this would be a great opportunity to demonstrate leadership by authorizing National Guard troops under their control to carry weapons for their own defense.

 

Why I like the deal with Iran

I must admit that over the last few years I’ve lost most of my motivation to write about foreign policy.  I suppose it’s a function of the deteriorating environment.  Sort of like providing the color commentary on a game where your team is losing in a blowout:  Just not something you want to dwell on.

I am however moved to do so because I find the news of the Iran deal oddly encouraging.

Of course it’s a crappy deal and of course we are basically licking the Ayatollah’s toes (and paying to do so), but there’s a certain relief that comes when you know that the worst case is in fact the scenario we are dealing with.

It’s clarifying and removes a lot of the tension, sort of like being fired after months of worrying about it.  “Okay, now that happened, let’s go find another job.”

Here is the thing:  Iran isn’t going to abide by the agreement and it isn’t going to wait to break it.  The mullahs have been very consistent in their treatment of Obama and I expect that to continue now that they got all their money back.

Basically, they just proved that they could spit in his eye and he’d say “thank you” and ask for seconds.  They have zero reason (or inclination, for that matter) to be subtle about this.

Which is fine.  Personally, I’d much rather Iran had the bomb tomorrow rather than five years from now.  Let’s get it over with and make sure that posterity knows exactly who is responsible for what.

My sense is that the Iranians will use all their new cash to launch a major offensive in Arabia as well as incorporate Iraq as a protectorate – and if we speak up, they’ll hold the precious deal hostage.  In about a year, they’ll abrogate it anyway.

Again, clarity is our friend.  I’m tired of the lies, prevarications and obfuscations.  We’re overdue for a major no-holds barred war and I’m not getting any younger.  We’ve chosen our path, so we may as well get on with it.

Supremely Disappointing

I have written about the U.S. Supreme Court serving as a check on the most power-hungry, overreaching administration in our nation's history. But in the past few weeks, the Supreme Court has disappointed conservatives with its Obamacare and gay marriage rulings, as well as a less-publicized but equally destructive ruling against the state of Arizona's voter ID law. 

The Obamacare rulings are bad enough, but there is a possibility of Congress -- even with a Democrat president post-2016 -- successfully reforming Obamacare and at least instilling some flexibility and market competition into our healthcare system.

Tens of millions of people, including many who voted for Barack Obama and thought they supported Obamacare -- would undoubtedly get behind bipartisan legislation that truly improves their health care. If they have experienced higher premiums, inability to continue a relationship with a longtime physician, limited access to services and the like, preconceived ideological preferences and partisanship could easily take a back seat to practicality.

But the ruling against requiring voter ID's is truly ominous. Our nation has been overrun by illegal immigrants -- many who crossed the Mexican border -- as well as immigrants brought into this nation by the Obama administration from dangerous, unstable nations in the Middle East and Africa. The notion that our voting process would be compromised even worse than it presently is never dawns on the liberals who forever claim right wingers are trying to suppress votes. For starters, these folks don't and won't acknowledge that voter fraud is all too common.

But beyond dumbing down the voting process and greasing the skids for more fraud, the court's ruling is, in actuality, insulting. It buys into the silly notion that obtaining a photo ID is somehow a monumental task, a great hardship, a major inconvenience. It goes along with the faulty logic that legal, properly regulated voting isn't at least as important as buying beer, getting a hotel room for the night, renting a car or boarding a commercial airliner. Just about everything else we do requires a photo ID, but not voting? Come again? Things get more unbelievable by the day.

Conservatives have been let down time and time again by justices appointed by supposedly conservative presidents. Justices David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts have repeatedly disappointed. Some have speculated that Justice Roberts was so concerned about the beating the court took in the wake of the 2000 Bush V. Gore fiasco, that it did not want to be seen as overruling a law that was passed by elected representatives and signed into law by the president. Never mind that the methodology used to pass the law was ethically and constitutionally questionable, and the law itself abysmally written -- perception trumps reality. Go-along-to-get-along, as they say.

It's also quite possible that judges at all levels treasure their independence and overvalue their role in the system of checks-and-balances. That they simply love the attention they get when they rule against the conventional wisdom. For example, the Supreme Court ruled in recent days that the EPA had overstepped its authority with its sweeping emission control regulations directed at electric power plants -- regulations that would have dealt a death blow to the coal industry and spiked electricity rates. Doubtless, the green weenies have their panties in a wad over this one, but perhaps their fulminations simply stroke the justices' egos about how important they are and how much consequence their actions have.

There has also long been a running joke about explaining the inexplainable: blackmail. When the most idiotic, incompetent general manager in pro sports history, Matt Millen of the Detroit Lions, managed to keep his job for seven long years despite turning the team into a laughingstock, people snidely suggested Millen must have something on the team owner, the late William Clay Ford. (In the old days, it was, "he must have some compromising photos," or perhaps audio recordings of conversations, a la Richard Nixon.) Now, it could be video, emails or other tools of blackmail.

Does Obama have some devastating information about Justice Roberts or his wife that he kept hush-hush to ensure Roberts' support of the Obamacare mandate in 2012 as well as Roberts' rewrite of the language a few weeks ago? The court ruled that those who applied for subsidies on the federal Obamacare website are eligible for them despite the law clearly stating that only those receiving subisidies through state-established exchanges were eligible.

Methinks the blackmail theory is a bit outlandish. Ego, a desire to be prominent in future historians' accounts of U.S. history, and fear of a Bush V. Gore-type backlash from the media probably played big roles in the recent rulings on Obamacare and gay marriage. Those factors, plus the disturbing, growing school of thought that the U.S. constitution is a "living, breathing document." (Sort of like Obamacare itself, which has proven to be a non-stop chameleon).

Beware of "living, breathing documents." They tend to facilitate tyrannical, authoritarian rule. We're definitely headed in that direction.

Some good news for freedom, bad news for gun control

One of the few civil rights success stories of the last few years has been the rehabilitation of the right of self-defense.

This week Maine joined a growing list of states that has deregulated concealed carry entirely.   Once known as "Vermont-style", this system dispenses with training and permit requirements and treats American citizens with the dignity and rights that was once our birthright.

In other news, we've now learned that gun used by the illegal immigrant to shoot that poor woman in San Francisco came from a government agent.  No word yet on how it was misplaced.

Similarly, the FBI has now admitted that the Charleston shooter (whose name I refuse to write) should in fact have been denied permission to purchase his weapon but the background check system was no functioning properly.

The whole logic of gun control is predicated on the government being responsible enough to administer it.  So much for that idea.

All About Guns: The gun show loophole

We see it all the time in the news:  the dreaded gun show loophole.

Supposedly this is a way that wanted felons and active terrorists can simply stroll into the arms bazaars known as gun shows and buy whatever they want without the shadow of a background check.

"Close the gun show loophole!" the media cries, and their argument would be compelling - if it were true.

Here I must pause to note that once again the people writing about firearms and this "loophole" are the ones least likely to actually purchase a gun at gun show.

Given the low academic requirements (and dismal career prospects), it is hard for me to beat up on the journalism school grads who peddle this lie, but I am less charitable towards politicians who almost certainly know better.

The fact of the matter is that there is no actual "gun show loophole" in either state or federal law.  Gun shows are simply a temporary market; all applicable regulations remain in place.

Thus, if you live in a police state that requires a license to own a firearm, that rule will still be in effect at a gun show.

If you are purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, an instant background check is required  - whether you are in a shop or at a gun show.

I can put it no more plainly than this:  there is no loophole.

Now there are enlightened states that allow the transfer of firearms from owner to owner without government intervention.  These sales are entirely private affairs, much as one might sell a lawn mower or chainsaw.

It is these sales that gun control advocates wish to ban.

Their logic is sketchy but their goals are clear:  To regulate every aspect of gun ownership.  Their desired end state is total prohibition, but these people are nothing if not persistent.

The fact remains that there is no loophole, but the great hope of the prohibitionists is that if they repeat the lie often enough, people will agree to what they want and they will have successfully snuffed out a little more of our freedom.

Let there be no mistake, however, this is a mythical creature fabricated by talking points.  Like the words "assault weapon" and "high-powered" it exists purely to feed on public ignorance.

 

 

Spitting in the Face of PC B.S.

I love it when people are politically incorrect. Metaphorically speaking, I give the finger to P.C. all of the time, and have no qualms about it. I could no more work in academia than I could hurl myself off the Golden Gate Bridge. Call it anathema.

A few days ago, in a knee-jerk, parrot-like reaction to the Charleston, S.C., church massacre committed by the deranged racist Dylann Roof, NASCAR pleaded with its fans not to display the rebel flag at the Daytona XFINITY race on July 4. But, as this piece attests, scores of fans thumbed their nose at the request and proudly flew their flags.

A few years ago, the gay Nazis were up-in-arms about an executive of fast food chain Chick-fil-A making public statements in opposition to same-sex marriage. Dan Cathy, son of the late Chick fil-A founder, Truett Cathy, was simply espousing his traditional Christian beliefs.

Additionally, the elder Cathy's charitable foundation, WinShape Foundation, had donated money over the years to organizations not sympathetic to gay/lesbian causes. As the book of Matthew declares, "Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house."

In other words, don't be afraid to proclaim your faith, even if there are left-wing idiots who reflexively call you a "hater" or a bigot. (Regrettably, such crass simpletons proliferate and are egged on by the corrupt media.)

In response to the Cathys' religious actions and statements, the gay/lesbian community attempted to organize a widespread boycott of Chick-fil-A restaurants, and many campus groups tried to have the restaurant removed from their universities. But they had no idea of the backlash to come.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee initiated a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day movement. More than 600,000 people RSVPed on Facebook for Huckabee's appreciation event, according to Wikipedia. On Aug. 1, 2012, Chick-fil-A restaurants experienced a large show of public support across the nation with the company reporting record-breaking sales. A consulting firm projected that the average Chick-fil-A restaurant increased sales by 29.9 percent and had 367 more customers than a typical Wednesday. Good stuff!

Millions of Americans have been far too passive while the PC bullies run roughshod over our language, culture and traditions. But it's just like your parents taught you way back in grade school: You need to stand up to bullies, not cower and let them have their way. 

Conservatives, traditionalists, those with strong religious beliefs ... all need to get in the face of the PC police and let it be known we won't succumb to their crap any longer.