novatownhall blog

For the record, I think BHO was born in Hawaii. I also think he is a lying Socialist — but I repeat myself. What I do know is that, according to his biography, Obama never worked in a for-profit business, and he did pursue drug use enthusiastically. This is not the forge that makes the mettle for a good leader or chief executive. The president is both Commander-in-Chief of the US Military, and CEO of the Federal Government. Obama has had three-and-a-half years of OJT. So far, he only appears to have enthusiasm for improving his golf game. We need someone far better.

MSM Asleep in 2008?

It amazes me that we still do not know this man’s grades from law school, but, we know that Romney beat some up kid in high school.  Really?  MSM sent close to 100 reporters to go dumpster-diving through Palin’s trash, yet we still do not know what did Obama write to become the editor of the Harvard Law Review.  He has the distinction of being the only editor in its history who never published a single article in the Review. The man is a cipher to this day because the MSM refuses to really investigate him in the same way it would vet any Republican.

The figure to the right is from a booklet made by Obama’s promoter, Acton & Dystel, in 1991. The purpose of the fourth estate is to shine a spotlight on all candidates who seek public office. Considering how one cannot get a job as a bank teller without a transcript from ones Alma Mater, that Obama’s past is still subject to speculation is an extraordinary failure to investigate that demonstrates the public trust has been violated by the media. Obama has not been vetted when running for office — ever.

The trouble I see is that the big three, ABC, CBS and NBC, their affiliates and subsidiaries, have confused reportage with editorial writing. Furthermore, they have confused the public trust with the party planks of the Democrat Left. The large newspapers in our great cities, the NYT being the flagship of that dieing industry, are equally complicit in this willful desire to protect the image of a charlatan at the expense of the American public. We have not been served by this booster-ism disguised as news. The Washington Post’s recent spat of front-page, Democrat-water-carrying might not be as laughable had they ever troubled themselves to apply this degree of scrutiny to candidate Obama. The masthead of the papers should be changed to include the Obama Zero, as should the icons of the Big Three. Is this the final nail in the coffin of the big-media impartiality lie?

Here we have an embarrassment. This is not only embarrassing to our president — for the obvious reason that he is caught in a blatant lie.   It goes far beyond that. This is an embarrassment for every journalist and reporter in the country who refused to dig into the background of an unknown whose résumé was paper thin. A candidate with so little accomplishment, was hailed as our savior?!? The professional cynics in lieu of a thorough check of his background, soiled themselves showering this wisp-of-a-man with undeserved, fictional accolades. Then, more importantly, there is the embarrassment to the nation — we voted for an unknown with all the care and consideration we reserve for the choosing of a high-school class president. It was not only a willful suspension of disbelief, it was a willful suspension of intelligence. It was hysteria. Then lastly, there is the embarrassment we as a generation will suffer before posterity, for we will endure the collective shame of this error in judgement for decades to come.

I did not write this, but I believe I know the person that did (I know several people that it would fit, so I’m not positive which one it might be). It was good enough (even though anonymous, given the political climate today) that I thought it worth passing onto our readers.

Thought I’d pass this on. Pass it on to whomever you think it might be useful:

A Response to “If I Only Had a Gun”

On April 10, ABC ran a persuasion piece done by Diane Sawyer entitled “If I Only Had a Gun.” The purpose of the piece was to convince people that if one were in a situation in which he or she was attacked, especially by someone with a gun, the very last thing that person would want is a gun of their own to defend themselves with.

Because of a growing concern over a hostile political climate, I am choosing to write this response anonymously. I am a self-defense, firearms, and tactics instructor who teaches the defensive use of firearms to private citizens, police officers and private security. I am also a competition self-defense pistol match director. I have been used as a source for firearms information by journalists in this country and in Europe.

There were some helpful aspects to Ms. Sawyer’s piece, but on the whole her belief that only people who can pay for private protection should be protected colored the whole piece, and there were fundamental errors at the root of her expose.

The ability to own and carry (“keep and bear”) firearms is a right. That right morally requires the responsibility of training and proficiency, but the lack of living up to that moral responsibility does not take away the right. The first amendment guarantees the right of freedom of the press. That right also morally requires the responsibility of telling the truth, getting your fact straight, and the like, but the mere fact that journalists do not do this does not take away their right to freedom of speech in the print or broadcast media.

Among the not-quite-true intimations of the piece was that the police have far superior training compared to the average concealed handgun permit holder. With the exception of SWAT teams, most police agencies have very poor training. In fact, it’s not really training. It’s annual, slow-fire-from-known-distances to pass some minimal state requirement (much like the minimum requirement for most concealed handgun permit holders).

But many concealed handgun permit holders are not satisfied with the bare minimum. No one makes them carry a gun. They have chosen to, and they feel obliged to be good with it. Many concealed handgun permit holders (not all) are ardent students of the shooting martial arts. Now there are police officers who are dedicated to studying the shooting disciplines, and some of them are outstanding shooters. But such police officers are rare. Most police officers carry their gun simply because they are required to do so as a part of the job, and so are satisfied if they can make the minimum scores for their qualification.

Self-defense pistol competition is a great place for those who carry a gun to test their abilities. These competitions have gained in popularity, and most people who carry a gun could easily participate in one a week if they chose to.

These competitions regularly require moving to and shooting from behind cover, decisional shooting, avoiding “innocent” targets and engaging only threat targets, all done under the pressure of a timer. Fast times and clean shooting wins. Slow times and misses or mistakes lose.

You would think such competition would be a police officer’s dream, particularly because in all likelihood his or her department provides nothing similar, but surprisingly few police officers participate. Most competitors are private citizens with concealed handgun permits. When police officers do show up, most of them place in the bottom half of shooters. I’ve seen police officers fumble reloads, shoot non-threat targets (either because they missed the indicators that they were non-threats and deliberately shot them, or because they missed the target they were shooting at and hit the non-threat), and shoot so slowly that I could have eaten a sandwich in the time it took them to solve the scenario. Some of these officers never come back out of embarrassment. Others stay and improve.

In Sawyer’s piece she displayed footage of actual shootings in which the upright citizen prevailed, but then went on to say that we should not pay any attention to these actual instances, but rather should make our decision based upon a “scientific” classroom scenario that she set up.

The problem with the scenario was the person who played the part of the criminal shooter. She co-opted a highly skilled firearms instructor to play the part. That’s simply skewed journalism. None of the mass-shooters have had that level of skill. What would have been more telling is if Diane Sawyer herself played the part of the criminal shooter. That situation would more approximate the skill level of the murderers in actual incidents.

The piece was helpful in one aspect though, enough for me to recommend to my clients that they watch it. Those who stood still while reaching for their own gun were shot by the highly-trained shooter. It reinforces what I constantly preach: Don’t stand flat-footed, get off the “X.” Your first order of business is to get to where you are safe. You need to buy yourself time to get to your gun. You are behind the power curve when you start against a drawn gun.

One of Sawyer’s points highlighted how different her moral make-up is than mine. In one of the scenarios, a young lady was able to return fire and hit the shooter, but not without herself being hit. It was obvious from Sawyer’s reaction that she deemed this completely unacceptable. The message was, “You may get the shooter, but not without you yourself being shot,” with the implicit conclusion, “It is therefore not worth it to have a gun.”

That’s where Ms. Sawyer and I differ. If taking a bullet means that I can save my family members, friends, or scores of innocent people from a murderous rampage, I’m willing to do it. Without shooting back, there’s a good chance I’ll die in the carnage anyway. If I’m going to die anyway, I’d rather my life count for something and that my death serves to save innocent life. That moral conviction is what separates Diane Sawyer from most concealed handgun permit holders.

There are several things I find outrageous in culture today. I suppose the one that is greatest is that cowardice is praised. The final part of the article talks about what I would hope would be nearly anyone’s reaction … that if there were a choice of being killed in the saving of many lives, that some would rather run from the scene and than with a chance of saving lives reasonably high, run toward it. Why do we listen to cowards that openly proclaim that getting hurt saving lives is a bad thing? Why don’t we call such cowards to account?

In a military situation, we might praise a person for going beyond what is demanded of all men; we demand of all men that they stand and fight with their comrades unless ordered to retreat. We call it bravery to move forward into an advantageous position at some small personal risk to save comrades. We call it heroism to perform a task at great personal risk to save the lives of others. Those that would run from the scene would be stood up and rightfully shot for cowardice in the face of the enemy. Hopefully Ms. Sawyer is not advocating and honoring cowardice.