Within hours, maybe minutes, of the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords, Liberal pundits began to point fingers at right wing extremists which, apparently, applied to Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican candidate for Vice President. Of particular concern was the “cross-hairs” image, used by Palin to establish which Democrats to target in upcoming elections. Evidently and, coincidentally after-the-fact, such violent imagery and rhetoric was said to have led to the carnage in Tucson. The cross-hairs image was referenced by Barbara Walters (on The View) when she stated,

“…and certainly cross-hairs are very scary…”

I wonder how scary Ms. Walters thinks a depiction of the President getting assassinated is?

Back in 2006 I wrote a blog post, for RedBlueChristian.com, about a docudrama depiction of the assassination of President George W. Bush. Note that the TV movie was produced in the U.K. Per The London Standard,

Held up by a secret service bodyguard in his dying moments after being shot in the stomach, this is President Bush being assassinated.

Surrounded by a crowd of panicking onlookers, the American leader is pictured just seconds after being gunned down by a sniper following an anti-war demonstration.

Of course, this 2006 docudrama is just a drop in the bucket of violent left-wing rhetoric – rhetoric which typically goes unreported by the mainstream media.

Regardless of the political affiliation of our elected officials, let us remember to treat them all with the respect and dignity they deserve, especially when they are maligned by those who truly would hope to do them harm.

So… where’s my blessing?
I’m particularly touchy on # 2, although it does take some of your own understanding to grapple with # 6.

###

Grandma would command a lot more respect in one of these babies!

###

Estimates vary, but do the math
The country has gotten riled up over a lone madman using a firearm to kill 6 people, somehow coming to the conclusion that we need to implement stricter gun control laws. Consider that if 0.001% (that’s one thousandth of one percent) of the firearm owners in the U.S. decided today to shoot and kill 6 people, we’d have 4,800 people killed. Seems to me that, under current laws, over 99.99% of firearms owners in the U.S. pretty much keep control of their actions.

###

Now this is cool
One thing, though… might it be done to our infrastructure as well?

###

Another advertisement for the home school industry.

###

Global Warming Denier?
From the New Mexico Independent, Martinez picks former astronaut, global warming denier to head energy, natural resources department. Alternate title, “Martinez picks first and only scientist to walk on the moon, global warming realist to head energy, natural resources department”.

In light of the recent Tucson mass shooting, and the negligent discharge shooting (as it now appears) at a high school in the Los Angeles area, the usual cries are voiced regarding gun control. Over the past 15 years, however, it seems that gun control lobbies have lost more battles then they’ve won. Lately, an interesting, if not entirely expected tactic they’ve taken, is that of placing their crosshairs on the purchasing of ammunition. After all, so the thinking must go, if one does not have any ammunition then one’s firearm suddenly becomes nothing more than a club.

Last year, California gun-control advocates introduced, and passed AB962, which would have forced citizens who desired to purchase “handgun” ammunition to conduct the transaction in a face-to-face setting, providing photo-ID, residence address, and a thumbprint (i.e., registering themselves and their actions with the state). Signed by then Governor/Terminator Arnold Schwarzennegger, the bill was touted as promoting our own safety. From the governor,

Although I have previously vetoed legislation similar to this measure, local governments have demonstrated that requiring ammunition vendors to keep records on ammunition sales improves public safety. These records have allowed law enforcement to arrest and prosecute persons who have no business possessing firearms and ammunition: gang members, violent parolees, second and third strikers, and even people previously serving time in state prison for murder.

Such thinking must surely have been inspired by the fact that so many gang-bangers get their handgun ammunition at places like Walmart or through on-line vendors (/sarcasm).

AB962 was set to go into effect in a few weeks.

Word has come in, this morning, that AB962 has been successfully appealed in court. From an NRA news announcement,

The lawsuit—funded by the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation as part of a joint Legal Action Project—was prompted in part by the many objections and questions raised by confused police, ammunition purchasers, and sellers about what ammunition is covered by the new law.

…

Many of the nation’s largest mail-order and online ammunition retailers had already announced that they would soon end sales to California residents. If the law had gone into effect, it would have required that “handgun ammunition” be stored out of the reach of customers, that ammunition vendors collect ammunition sales registration information and thumbprints from purchasers, and that vendors conduct transactions face to face for all deliveries and transfers of “handgun ammunition.”

AB962 was just another in a string of laws which do nothing more than restrict the actions of law-abiding citizens. Let’s hope that continued resistance to a Nanny-State mentality will help set the tone for the real hope and change our country needs.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room! From a news report headline, Gunman opens fire at school board meeting.

A gunman held the Bay District School Board hostage Tuesday in a videotaped drama, ultimately opening fire on them before being shot and disabled by Mike Jones, the district’s chief of safety, security and police. After being shot several times, Clay Duke, 56, turned his pistol on himself in front of the stunned group, ending his life with a shot to the head, Panama City Police officials said.

The chilling video, if you desire to watch, was aired on CNN.

How could this have happened? After all, the school board meeting was being held in a GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONE. Per David Codrea,

In accordance with the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, employees of the District, parents of students, and visitors (with the exception of law enforcement officers) shall not possess, discharge or attempt to discharge a weapon as described in School Board Policy 7.203 on any facilities or real or personal property owned by the School Board.

Unfortunately, a “gun-free zone” mentality usually equates with a “reality-denying” state of mind.

###

You just point, and shoot… right? If you watch the video referenced above, you may be asking yourself, “How could he miss at such a close range?”.

That’s a good question.

Let’s discount the fact that there is a possibility that the gunman intentionally missed (it doesn’t, after all, seem to fit in with his other actions). To better understand how the gunman missed I think one should first understand the dynamics of what happens when shooting a handgun.

1. Physics is involved. There is a cartridge chambered in a gun barrel and, when fired, propels a projectile (the bullet) through and out of the barrel. Obviously wherever the barrel is pointed is the direction the bullet will travel.
2. This then brings us to the human element – that of pointing, or aiming, the weapon in the direction of the intended target. Semiautomatic handguns typically have two sights on top of the slide: a front sight, and a rear sight. To achieve proper sighting, there is a thing known as a “sight picture”, which is the lining up of the target, the front sight, the rear sight, and the shooter’s eyes. This is not an insignificant point, as even the slightest variation in alignment will result in the bullet going somewhere not intended. This problem is only exacerbated with shorter barrels, which give a shorter distance between the front and rear sights.
3. Congruent with sight alignment is the shooter’s stance. When a handgun is fired there is a recoil from the force generated by the gases coming out of the barrel. To best control the effects of recoil on the shooter’s arms and body, the shooter should essentially stand leaning forward a bit, so as to use their weight to help absorb the recoil forces.
4. Another aspect of shooting properly is that of the shooter’s grip on the handgun. A proper grip, with two hands, also helps control the effects of recoil, thereby allowing the shooter to reacquire the target in his sights.
5. Lastly, shooting accuracy is also determined by the shooter’s proficiency at “trigger control“. Any errant movement on the handgun at the time the bullet is fired will affect the sight alignment, thereby sending the bullet off course. If the shooter “anticipates” the recoil of the handgun, he will inadvertently shoot high and to the right (if he’s right handed). If the shooter “yanks” the trigger, instead of gently squeezing it, he will shoot low and to the left.

In viewing the video of the school board shooting, it appears the shooter’s stance was leaning back, he had no sight alignment (the gun was not at eye level), he shot one handed, and he exaggerated the recoil effects not only on the upward swing but in returning to acquire his “sight picture”. While it seems unlikely for him to miss at such close range, in my opinion, none of his actions contributed towards him shooting his intended victims (which is very lucky for them).

###

Let everyone sing (except, perhaps, those feeling closed in?) For the introverts out there who may be apprehensive at this most extroverted time of the year, here are some tips to help alleviate the stress:

• Hide in plain sight: On a group excursion to a mall or shopping district, while everyone else is distracted by shiny things, you can wander off… for some alone time.
• Sit in a dark room: Take the kids… to a movie.
• Make a “sacrifice”: Volunteer for supermarket duty. …you can stroll up and down the aisles, sing along with the piped-in music (Christmas carols, I presume), commune with nothing more demanding than Brussels sprouts and canned pumpkin.
• Have a project: I’m a fan of jigsaw puzzles during long stretches of house time with others. Set it up on a table and there it sits, for days, where anyone can work it when the mood strikes.

###

Death and taxes, together forever When asked about the enormous estate tax, despite the deceased individual having paid taxes their entire life, the response, “You won’t be paying anything because you will be dead,” seems to me to expose the liberal mindset for what it is.

Obama said that the huge electoral loss last Tuesday was essentially a failure to communicate, and not a vote of no-confidence on his policies.  The policies are sounds, so he says, but they’re not working fast enough.  Except that countries like Germany, which adopted austerity policies rather than spending ones, is going gangbusters coming out of this recession.  And we’re not.  That’s what the voters were saying.

And apparently, blaming stupid voters and their anger, rather than facing facts, is an international problem.

ObamaCare price controls will raise health care prices.  We know this because that’s what it has always done in the past.  Joseph Antos, who oversaw a study that created the Medicare reimbursement system, knows of what he speaks.  Americans are already seeing some of this, and voted out those who supported it.

Is the electorate getting more conservative?  The New Republic seems to think so.

Fox was more fair and balanced than MSNBC in covering the election.  That’s not some right-wing claim; it’s the opinion of Time magazine, NPR, Mediaite and US News.  No card-carrying members of the vast right-wing conspiracy among that group.  Of course, being less biased than MSNBC is like saying that you are located somewhat south of the North Pole, with the network having exclusively liberal commentators on for the coverage.  America apparently noticed, since Fox beat the ratings of CNN & MSNBC.  Combined.

(Still, it’s Fox that Obama chooses to do battle with.  He doesn’t want fair coverage, he wants favorable coverage.)

Sorry, no cartoon this week.  Nothing really stood out.  Try again next week.

More links this week since I didn’t get around to it last week.

What’s keeping this recession going for so long?  Ask James Madison. Yes, that James Madison.

The 6th Circuit judge that upheld the health care reform individual mandate to buy insurance has really redefined terms in order to make his ruling.

With that reasoning, Judge Steeh thoroughly unmoors the commerce clause from its concern with actual economic activity that Congress can regulate to a more amorphous realm of “economic decisions” which apparently include the decision to NOT enter into commerce at all.

A better example of an activist judge you’re not likely to find soon.

Roger Ebert, in reviewing “Waiting for Superman”, acknowledges that the private school highlighted does better than public school, proclaiming “Our schools do not work”.  His solution?  (Wait for it…)  More money for public schools, for the ones that don’t work instead of encouraging what does work and at typically a lower cost per student.  Liberal education policies are now just talking points rather than reasoned arguments.

Remembering a sociopathic mass murderer, who is extolled by liberal students T-shirts everywhere.  (No, not Charles Manson. I’m talking about Che Guevara.)

The Rise of the (Conservative, Christian) Woman in American politics.

Juan Williams responds to the NPR sacking.  Ah, the tolerant Left in action.

And to close it out, two cartoons to make up for missing a week.  I just love Chuck Asay.  (Click for larger versions.)

One of the ongoing themes that I endeavor, with little success, is to identify critical ideas on which the progressive/left and conservatives (and for that matter libertarians) differ in their views of political and social matters. If have the good fortune to have two liberal/progressive dialog partners here. In recent conversations over the last few months this difference has arisen and I wonder if this point of difference is applicable to a wider groups, i.e., right/left, and significant.

The key point in to consider is that the progressive/left in question has abandoned  the 10th Commandment while the right has not. The 10th commandment speaks against coveting one’s neighbors possessions. A simple ethical generalization of this is that this is an injunction against considering one’s economic condition by comparison with ones neighbor. Read the rest of this entry

It is apparently a self-conceit of progressives/liberals that they are friendlier to notions of liberty than are conservatives. While Libertarians (who are concerned with matters of liberty) disagree with that, today in a comment this was offered:

Name a liberty or freedom other than “the freedom to not be taxed” or “the freedom to screw over others” and progressives support it. (Guns is the only possible exception, but I’d argue that progressives who oppose gun rights generally throw it into the “freedom to screw over others” category.)

Just this week, I was inquiring at my daughter’s middle school whether I could get her excused (for the year) from gym class. She spends 20+ hours a week outside of school training at gymnastics and doesn’t lack one bit for physical exercise. What she does lack is time for homework. I had a nice chat with the school principle who informed me that he would love to do that, but state laws prevent that. It seems that somebody decided that there is a problem with childhood obesity and to help with that they’ve put a stop-gap to anyway of getting dismissed from gym class. He told me that another parent of a gymnast has been trying for 2 years to find a loophole unsuccessfully. Just another example of progressive nanny-state legislation snip snip snipping your freedom away. 

From the wiki article on “nanny state”:

For example, politically conservative or libertarian groups in the United States (especially those that support the free market and capitalism) object to excessive state action to protect people from the consequences of their actions by restricting citizen options.

Liberals on the other hand have used the term to describe the state as being excessive in its protections of businesses and the business class —protections ostensibly made against the public good, and the good of consumers. This usage applies to the international context as well, where the “public good” is used to refer to people in general, and where the state is viewed as being excessive in its protection of native business over foreign (rival) businesses

[Emphasis mine]

I’d point out I have not ever seen the liberal usage noted above, however the point in question in the above is that liberals in fact (as viewed by non-liberals) continually push state actions which prevent people from the consequences of their own (voluntary) actions. This is a restriction of freedom which does not fit into the “not to be taxed” or “screw others” category. The sorts of actions which this includes are countless and continually pushed and have been pushed more and more over the years. Apparently progressives (like JA who offered the above comment orginally) are not even aware that these sorts of regulations and laws are a restriction on our freedom. 

If you ask a Libertarian about the differences between the right and left regarding liberty they (and bloggers Shannon Love at Chicago Boyz and Timothy Sandefur at Freespace) who are both self-professed libertarians assert that while conservatives fall short of liberals regarding freedom in two categories of liberty (sexual and procreative) in all the other matters the left either falls short  or is the same (e.g., religion) and in both of their estimation when these were weighed together all in all the right was either more favorable for liberty than the left. 

To clarify,

A coalition of Mexican mayors has asked the United States to stop deporting illegal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. to Mexican border cities, saying the deportations are contributing to Mexican border violence.

Meanwhile, President “Mexicans were here before America was an idea” Obama is trying to pitch the notion that there is no “us” and “them”, with regards to illegal immigration [sic].

Sorry, Mr. President, but we’re not buying this whole one-world idea and, just as a reminder, you swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States of America.

So… where’s the oil now? Either Obama really is the Messiah he was portrayed as, and it was his mere presence alone that healed our earth; or, maybe, we aren’t quite up to predicting global effects of non-globally sized events? A couple of months ago, it wasn’t difficult to find commentaries declaring that we were were on the brink of planetary destruction, that the Gulf of Mexico would never recover, that oil spill was a foretaste of the effects of Global Warming Climate Change, that God was allowing this disaster as punishment for our sins on Mother Earth. Yet now we see that Obama really has the power to heal the Earth – scratch that – Yet now we see how inadequate we might be in our attempts at extrapolating data, on a global scale, over extended time periods – well – even short time periods. Common sense should tell us that our efforts would be better served by addressing known issues that we currently face, as opposed to potential issues we might face. (also see Joe Carter’s post)

###

Illegal aliens allowed to get a New Mexico drivers license… so, why not allow them to purchase firearms as well (why should that “right” be infringed upon?). The argument for giving illegal aliens drivers licenses is that it provides for better enforcement of insurance, etc. If that were so, then why not allow illegal aliens to purchase firearms, thereby giving them direct access to the right of self defense?

###

Well, at least they weren’t burning the books (but a pragmatist would have donated them to a local library). Or have a used-book sale or something to recoup some money?

###

When in doubt, ask someone who has actually followed the rules. Gabriella, a naturalized U.S. citizen, educates a Tucson City Council member on why the City of Tucson should not sue the State of Arizona over SB1070.

###

Two exo-solar planets transiting the same star… geekfest time.j

###

The Ghosts of World War II. Have not confirmed the validity of these images but, if true, an interesting use of Photoshop linking the past with the present.

Tossing around charges of racism seems to be in vogue, as of late. Indeed, with some playing not only the race card, but just about the entire race deck of cards, is it incongruous that there are Black members of the Tea Party?

Uncle Toms? Oreos? Or, maybe, just concerned U.S. citizens?

I wonder, are these individuals predisposed to intolerance?

Is there a turn in the tide regarding gun rights? As a result of the recent Supreme Court ruling on 2nd Amendment rights, a DA in Wisconsin will not prosecute certain state laws restricting the use or carrying of firearms. Some of the laws he will not prosecute include:

prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;  prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, including firearms;  prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings;  and prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol may be sold or served.

###

Besides not letting them learn to read, black slaves couldn’t own guns either. Justice Clarence Thomas likens restrictions to the 2nd Amendment to tactics used by racists. From his opinion on the McDonald v. Chicago suit,

Militias such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, the White Brotherhood, the Pale Faces and the ’76 Association spread terror among blacks. . . . The use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves from mob violence.

By the way, Otis McDonald, of McDonald v. Chicago, is black.

###

And lastly, regarding the 2nd Amendment, a cogent and well thought out argument. Excerpt,

In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.

It is the right of revolution.

Written not by a Tea Partier or Right-wing Gun Nut, but by a very liberal author at Daily Kos.

###

Well, if we can’t ban gunsmoke, then how about… smoke?

Under the new law, smoking is prohibited in indoor and outdoor areas frequented by the public, including sidewalks, parking garages, bars, restaurants, stores, stadiums, playgrounds and transit centers. Lighting up outside is also banned in places that are within 20 feet of indoor areas.

###

There won’t be any smoke around our family meal, though. In Family Meal as Therapy, we read,

…there is something about a shared meal–not some holiday blowout, not once in a while but regularly, reliably–that anchors a family even on nights when the food is fast and the talk cheap and everyone has someplace else they’d rather be. And on those evenings when the mood is right and the family lingers, caught up in an idea or an argument explored in a shared safe place where no one is stupid or shy or ashamed, you get a glimpse of the power of this habit and why social scientists say such communion acts as a kind of vaccine, protecting kids from all manner of harm.

At risk to my standing at my place of employment, I make it a point to have dinner with my family. It matters.

###

What about Jeremiah 29:10? Never read a Bible verse; especially Jeremiah 29:11.

[I am working on a project that may become a book on the most influential evangelicals leaders of our generation, since 1976, and the impact they’ve had on the church and their times. I will introduce them briefly on this blog from time to time. Who should be on this list?]

#36  Ralph Reed. Political muscle  b.1961 

 Ralph Reed is “perhaps the finest political operative of his generation,”[1] and has certainly been the most bare-knuckled evangelical political brawler of the last 20 years. As executive director of the Christian Coalition (1989-1997), he built one of nation’s most effective grassroots organizations and played a pivotal role in the election of the first Republican Congress in 40 years. Under his leadership, the organization grew from 2,000 over 2 million members and supporters in 3,000 local chapters.

Reed’s departure from the Coalition to form his own consulting firm in Atlanta provided a vivid demonstration of the importance of leadership.  The group was never the same, and today it is a shell of the organization it was in its heyday. Reed went on to have a successful career as a political consultant to both corporations and candidates. He headed George W. Bush’s southern campaign and transformed the Georgia Republican Party, building first-time Republican majorities in the State House and capturing the Governor’s Mansion and both U.S. Senate seats. 

Reed made a run for public office, but he found that his work as a political operative and consultant involved associations and tactics that didn’t bode well as a candidate. As one of the toughest of the modern political players, the ugly and risky strategies he used in high-profile political races did not look statesmanlike (or of a high ethical standard) in the bright light of a candidacy, and he was soundly defeated in the Georgia Republican primary for Lt. Governor in 2006.

This surprised observers who had seen nothing but success from the the young wunderkind:

Many thought “the young man who at 33 graced Time magazine’s cover in 1995 as “The Right Hand of God” might appear there again, perhaps a decade from now, taking the oath of office on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. Instead, there was Reed, just 45 but with crow’s-feet carved gently into his temples, offering a meager group of supporters a curt concession speech in a hotel ballroom in Buckhead. He had lost the primary to a little-known state senator named Casey Cagle in a 12-point landslide, Reed’s once invincible lead in the polls and fund raising eroded by a year of steady revelations about his ties to the convicted former G.O.P. superlobbyist Jack Abramoff. In the political vernacular that Reed loves to employ, he was waxed.”[2]

Nonetheless, Reed remains one of the brightest and most sought-after political consultants in the nation and is extending his public voice through The Faith and Freedom Coalition advocacy group, which he started in 2009. He also published an insightful political thriller called Dark Horse that demonstrated Reed’s knowledge of both national politics and Christian conservatives. 

[2] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1218060,00.html

 [I am working on a project that may become a book on the most influential evangelicals leaders of our generation, since 1976, and the impact they’ve had on the church and their times. I will introduce them briefly on this blog from time to time. Who should be on this list?]

#33.  Richard Land. Lobbyist  b.1946 

 Conservative evangelicals are inclined to oppose East coast elite, Washington insider, Princeton-Oxford educated, career lobbyists. That is unless he’s their lobbyist.

Enter Richard Land, the chief Washington lobbyist of the Southern Baptist Convention and a key part of the fixed conservative set in the culture wars.  Land has presented what he sees as Southern Baptist interests to policymakers and media for more than 20 years. Land is clear where the bulk of Southern Baptists will come down on most issues. But except for the convention resolution process once a year, there is really no mechanism for Land and the SBC agency he heads, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC)—the official policy voice of the SBC—to derive the SBC position. Land often develops his own position and builds support from key players in the denomination. He knows well what will sell in the SBC, which helps him steer clear of positions that would attract the ire of Baptists across the country.

Land is a formidable public spokesman and culture warrior. “People think they’re going to be dealing with some bootstrap preacher,” said Larry Eskridge, a the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals at Wheaton College. “But he can match pedigree and training with the best of them.”[1]

He helped stop the 16-million-member SBC’s  slide to the left in 1979, and he has a hand in most of its key policies, from its 1995 apology for having supported slavery, to its 1998 statement that wives should submit to the leadership of their devout husbands.

While most ERLC positions are predictable—most recently its stubborn opposition to even nuanced climate change legislation—Land does occasionally surprise.

In 1994, he was a signer of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document,  not a popular expression of ecumenism in the SBC.

 In 2010, Land announced the denomination’s support for establishing a path to U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants. Land said that after borders are secure, there needs to be a way for them to pay back taxes, take a civics course and get in line with others seeking legal status. Similar to many ERLC positions, the reasoning on immigration is both spiritual and political.

The spiritual: “It is love your neighbor, do unto others. This is a kingdom issue. They are disproportionately suffering because they are forced to remain in the shadows because of their illegal status.”

The political: “Hispanics are hard-wired to be social conservatives unless we drive them away. They are family oriented, religiously oriented and pro-marriage, pro-life … tailor-made to be social conservatives.”[2]

 Land’s positions are not always the winning ones within the convention. In 2010, he took a hard line on responses to the Gulf oil spill; one writer called him the “drummer in the right-wing parade of blame” of the the environmental movement and the Obama administration, while treating British Petroleum gently.[3] A more balanced resolution for SBC action passed overwhelmingly at the 2010 convention and although Land later expressed his support, he privately sought to undermine it at the committee level.

 Land, who Time magazine called “God’s Lobbyist,” exercises great power because of his intellect and persuasive skills, but also because of his ability to choose his tactics as a SBC powerhouse—either leading (in times when he has deep personal convictions) or following (when he can claim to be only a spokesman for the denomination).

 He’s done both with great effectiveness in a generation of public evangelical engagement in the halls of power.

[2] Tennessean.com, June 8, 2010

[3] http://baptistplanet.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/richard-lands-misanalysis-of-the-deepwater-horizon-catastrophe/