Friday Digest
Guns, Liberty and Demo-goguery
"[T]he right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave." --John Adams
The price of forfeiting LibertyThe primary consideration in the mass murder in Aurora, Colorado, last week is the issue of Essential Liberty, as Mark Alexander observed yesterday. The natural right "endowed by our Creator" to keep and bear arms is, as James Madison's Chief Justice, Joseph Story, put it, "the palladium of the liberties of the republic." So given that some are pushing to take away that right, here are a few of our observations.
If at least one concealed-carry permit holder had been allowed to carry a firearm into that theater, the killer could have been stopped. Unfortunately, it is unlawful to carry a concealed weapon in Aurora, though that can't preempt Colorado law, and the theater itself bans carried weapons, so the only one with a weapon that night was the perpetrator. Neither Aurora's gun restrictions nor Colorado's laws against murder stopped this incident, and taking more rights from the law-abiding won't stop the next crime, either.
We wonder if the Left ever pondered this: Why don't mass murders take place at gun shows or NRA conventions? Answer: The bad guys aren't dumb and look for so-called "gun-free zones" where they can kill at will. Suggesting that violence is a "gun problem" ignores the real issue -- the now-generational socio-pathology instituted by the Left.
Of course, those inconvenient truths didn't stop the leftist chorus of gun grabbers.
New Jersey Demo Sen. Frank Lautenberg pontificated, "Let's stop wasting time and start saving lives. We have to face the reality that these types of tragedies will continue to occur unless we do something about our nation's lax gun laws." Therefore, the Senate added an amendment to the pending cybersecurity bill banning magazines with a capacity higher than 10 rounds.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg recommended that America's police officers should strike until more draconian gun control laws are enacted. "I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say we're gonna go on strike, we're not gonna protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe."
Setting aside the sheer legal idiocy of this remark -- police officers are forbidden from striking precisely because of the potential threat to public safety, which Bloomberg was forced to admit -- the mayor sounded just like an urban politico who has a 24/7 police escort. Perhaps he should set the example by discontinuing his security detail and displaying a "Gun Free" sticker. After all, if he's assaulted and seconds count, the NYPD will only be minutes away!
Even Mexican President Felipe Calderon chimed in, saying, "Because of the Aurora, Colorado, tragedy, the American Congress must review its mistaken legislation on guns. It's doing damage to us all." And he would know, since Obama was practically gift-wrapping guns for Mexican drug cartels.
Not only did Obama's lemmings carry water for him on gun control, but the Leftmedia piled on as well. The Associated Press's Steven Hurst "reported" that, "controlling access to guns would appear, on its face, the simple answer to preventing public massacres like the movie-theatre tragedy in Colorado." We note that this was not an opinion column, but a "news article."
Perhaps the most egregious offense, however, was when ABC's Brian Ross fired a round at the Tea Party with his now-infamous remark that the murderer, "Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado," is mentioned "on the Colorado Tea Party site, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year." With his unsubstantiated innuendo, Ross carelessly smeared an unrelated "Jim Holmes of Aurora," all for the sake of a political point against the Tea Party.
On a final note, Barack Obama couldn't resist the temptation to personalize it: "My daughters go to the movies. What if Malia and Sasha had been at the theater?" Of course, if Malia and Sasha had been in the theater, nobody with so much as a nail clipper would have been allowed in that mall. But then our kids don't all travel with a Secret Service entourage. The bottom line: We mustn't allow the Left to take away our Liberty. If we do, we become slaves.
This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award
"I also believe a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals, that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities." --Barack Obama
Memo to Barack: AK-47s are usually in the hands of enemy soldiers shooting at our armed forces, and, thanks to you, in the hands of drug cartels terrorizing Mexican streets.
Government and Politics
News From the Swamp: Taxes and Spending
The White House released a new report that the expiration of numerous tax rates on Jan. 1 will hit 114 million families earning annual income below $250,000 with an average tax increase of $1,600 next year. The report's purpose is to blame Republicans for insisting on "cutting taxes once again for the wealthiest few." In fact, the GOP insists on extending the current tax rates for all income earners, recognizing that any tax increase in the current economic climate would spell disaster for the economy. The Democrat leadership says they are perfectly willing to let all taxes rise in January if Republicans don't go along and raise taxes only on top wage earners. This is nothing more than callous political brinksmanship.
The Democrat-controlled Senate followed through on its threat, voting 51-48 to raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year, including roughly a million small businesses. The Democrats' plan also raises the death tax from 35 to 55 percent and expands the number of filers subject to it. Nor does the plan "fix" the Alternative Minimum Tax, which will hit the middle class. The bill has virtually no chance in the House, but Democrats are now on record approving what even the Senate Finance Committee admits "represents an almost $3,400 tax hike on 28.8 million middle-class families."
The U.S. Treasury recently published troubling news about federal spending and debt. Their report indicates that the federal government has already accumulated a budget deficit over $1 trillion for fiscal 2012 with less than one quarter remaining. Based on current spending, Treasury estimates the budget deficit for fiscal 2012, ending Sept. 30, at $1.35 trillion -- the fifth straight year of deficits over $1 trillion. During that time, the total federal debt has risen from $9 trillion to $15.87 trillion. But Democrats would have us believe the real problem is that small businesses don't pay enough tax.

Campaign Trail: Team Obama Runs a Deficit
Barack Obama's re-election campaign appears to be adopting the same spending strategy that he's applied to the whole country: deficits. Team Obama spent more money than it collected in June, dumping $38.2 million into television ads in a number of battleground states where the race has turned into a dead heat with Mitt Romney. By contrast, Romney spent $10.4 million on television ads during the same time frame. Obama still maintains a large cash advantage over Romney, with $97.5 million in the bank, compared to Romney's $22.5 million, but super PACs have been helping Romney rapidly close the fundraising and advertising gap. High-dollar donations from repeat contributors have also put Romney ahead in several battleground states.
One way Obama may be able to keep Romney's super PAC allies at bay is by sending federal attack dogs after them. Months ago, the Obama campaign published a list of wealthy Romney donors with "less-than-reputable" records while offering no proof of the allegations. The intent seems to have been to shame Romney supporters into silence. Now, the IRS is auditing one of those donors. Frank VanderSloot can't recall being audited before and said, "I can't help but wonder whether there is a connection." Do we detect sarcasm? Two weeks after being contacted by the IRS, VanderSloot was notified by the Department of Labor of an impending audit of workers on his Idaho ranch who were there under the federal visa program. VanderSloot only has three employees under the H-2A visa program, and they have been with him for five years. That's the Chicago Way of immigration enforcement.
Hope 'n' Change: More Bad News About ObamaCare
According to a study by the consulting firm Deloitte, almost one in 10 U.S. employers will stop offering health insurance for employees as ObamaCare takes effect. In a survey of 560 unidentified companies, Deloitte discovered that 9 percent of employers will drop employee insurance coverage within three years, 81 percent will continue coverage, and 10 percent were unsure. Smaller companies were more likely to dump coverage, whereas large companies with 1,000 or more employees were more likely to maintain their plans. An important note is that this study was concluded in April, three months before the Supreme Court's ObamaCare ruling.
The Congressional Budget Office released a revised report this week, reflecting the Court's ruling and indicating that business owners will pay some $4 billion more in taxes under the "Affordable" Care Act than the previous estimate. Individuals will be pummeled with another $1 billion in taxes. However, in the twisted accounting of Washington, the law will now cost $84 billion less over the next 10 years. How raising taxes reduces the cost of something is beyond us. Ironically, the law will now cover millions fewer people. That's the original problem that was supposed to be remedied by the Left's massive takeover of the health system.
New and Notable Legislation
The House amended its 2013 Defense appropriations bill last week to bar funds from being used to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies on military installations. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) sponsored the amendment, and it passed 247-166. It would block chaplains' salaries and funds to run facilities like chapels that perform same-sex marriage services because they run afoul of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Obama administration refuses to defend DOMA in court, and is permitting same-sex marriages to take place on military bases in spite of the fact that DOMA is still law. King's measure merely reinforces DOMA and offers specific repercussions for those who openly violate it. The House bill still faces reconciliation with the Senate version, not to mention the president's likely veto.
The House voted 327-98 on a bill to audit the Federal Reserve. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who will retire after this term, has long advocated at least this much to place a check on the Fed's power, while Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has long opposed it for obvious reasons. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) once supported an audit, but we doubt he will make time in this legislative session to put his vote where his mouth was.
Economy
GDP Takes a Hit
"Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.5 percent in the second quarter of 2012," reports the Bureau of Economic Analysis this morning. That's down from 2.0 percent growth in the first quarter. Economic growth is so anemic, the Federal Reserve is once again pondering -- drumroll, please -- "doing something" to spur it on. Because it worked so well before. Not to worry: As Obama told us last month, the "private sector is doing fine."
How fine? The Obama "Recovery" has generated cumulative 6.7 percent growth, an average of 2.2 percent per quarter. By contrast, the Reagan Recovery produced 18.5 percent growth, an average of 5.7 percent per quarter.
Keen Sense of the Obvious
"The economy is not growing fast enough. Unemployment is very high." --Treasury Secretary Timothy "Turbo Tax" Geithner
The BIG Admission?
"Just like we've tried their plan, we've tried our plan, and it worked." --Barack Obama
Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh replied, "That is quite an admission. I don't know how else to look at this. He is admitting that this has been the plan all along, and that everything has gone right."

Spread the Poverty
Barack Obama spent so much time talking about the exit strategy from the war in Afghanistan that he forgot that we need one for the War on Poverty. The number of poor Americans is higher than it's been in decades, and economists and think tanks across the political spectrum are predicting that it will soon reach the levels of the 1960s. Scarier still is that poverty is cutting a wide swath across several socioeconomic levels. Suburban poverty is spiraling out of control. Even middle and upper-middle class people now find themselves on food stamps.
Not to worry, though. As House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said last week, "If you talk to economists, they will tell you there are two things that are the most stimulative that you can do -- one's unemployment insurance, the other's food stamps, okay?"
But Hoyer missed one "economic stimulant": disability. In 1956, the government added disability insurance to the list of Social Security benefits. Since then, the ratio of those working to those collecting disability has declined from 65 to 1 in 1967 to just 16 to 1 in 2012 (down from 19 to 1 when Obama took office). The Social Security Administration reported that in June the number of people collecting disability reached a staggering 8,753,935. That's more than the populations of 39 states.
Income Redistribution: The Follies of Youth Votes
Once upon a time, it was easy for scofflaws who wanted to escape those oppressive student loan payments to have the debts discharged in bankruptcy court: a few legal maneuvers and voila! no more onerous debt. These welchers caused lenders to "eat" the financial loss -- money that otherwise would benefit the local community.
When private lenders still handled most student loans, that scenario rarely occurred. But now the government is in charge of 90 percent of the business, and Obama's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is exploring ways to reverse the protections for these non-governmental lenders. In particular, Obama wants to rescind laws that prevent student loans from discharge in bankruptcy, but his plan only includes money lent by the private sector -- government-backed loans would not be included.
It's just another indication that the current administration doesn't care about private business. Meanwhile, Obama can make another shameless pander to middle-class Americans and solidify the youth vote without really providing meaningful help. Since nearly all student loans now come from the federal government, any changes to private lenders won't affect most borrowers -- at least not yet.
Money for Nothin'
"Canyon" is a masterwork of 20th-century art inherited by the children of the late Ileana Sonnabend. What makes it unique, however, is the outrageous tax burden attached to it. The New York Times reports, "Because the work, a sculptural combine, includes a stuffed bald eagle, a bird under federal protection, the heirs would be committing a felony if they ever tried to sell it. So their appraisers have valued the work at zero." Never mind that fair-market appraisal, in accordance with the law, though. The IRS appraised "Canyon" at $65 million and billed the owners $29.2 million in taxes. We've all seen or heard of ticketing blitzes when a local government needs revenue. With over $15 trillion of public debt and a stagnant economy, this may be the federal equivalent. The heirs, who have already had to sell nearly $600 million in art to cover estate (a.k.a. "death") taxes, are challenging the IRS in tax court.
Hot Air's Allahpundit set out the Kafkaesque choices facing the family: They can "(a) keep it and come up with $29 million, (b) sell it and go to jail for that, (c) refuse to pay the tax and go to jail for that, or (d) accept the feds' valuation and come up with the $29 million, then donate the sculpture to charity and take a relatively small charitable deduction every year for the next ... 75 years." Perhaps there's another way: They could donate the piece to the IRS.
Fracking Benefits
In news that should have the environmental lobby dancing in eco-friendly confetti, a report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that energy-related CO2 levels have dropped to 5,473 million metric tons (MMT) in 2011, down from a high of 6,020 MMT in 2007 and nearly to 1995 levels -- and they're still falling.
Yet instead of emitting joyful noise pollution on the news, ecokooks remain virtually mum. That's because a primary reason for the drop is the emergence of hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," as an efficient means of extracting natural gas from the ground. As Investor's Business Daily reports, "Increasingly, power plants are turning to natural gas because it has become abundant, and therefore cheap. And though technology is improving our ability to reduce emissions from coal usage, natural gas is still a much cleaner source."
To ecofascists, however, fracking represents great evil, poised to trigger earthquakes and incinerate tap water (an astounding lack of evidence to support these claims notwithstanding). Ergo, attributing fracking's contributions to the significant drop in CO2 emissions simply isn't an option. When it comes to the narrative the Left has worked so hard to create, facts can be such stubborn things.
Around the Nation: High on High Speed Rail
California Gov. "Moonbeam" Jerry Brown gave the state a thumbs-up on a new high-speed rail project despite a nearly $16 billion budget deficit -- all to support "investment in the future." The train will eventually link Sacramento and San Francisco to Los Angeles at a low-end price estimate of $68 billion, though real cost might surpass $100 billion -- assuming it's ever completed. The project includes an initial $2.6 billion in state bonds authorized for the construction of 130 miles of railway through Central Valley that unleashes another $3.2 billion in federal funds as long as construction begins by the end of this year. All this despite the cities of Stockton, Mammoth Lakes and San Bernardino filing for bankruptcy protection, and Compton looking to follow suit.
Gov. Brown supports the railway because the "legislation will help put thousands of people in California back to work" and "by improving regional transportation systems, we are investing in the future of our state and making California a better place to live and work." Sound familiar? It's the same rhetoric Barack Obama has used for over a dozen failed federally backed "green" energy projects like Solyndra.
Brown should follow the example of Republican governors in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin by rejecting federal funds on railway projects destined to become trains "to nowhere." Only by cutting spending and tackling runaway public pension costs will the Golden State see a brighter future. "Investing in the future" by way of boondoggles doesn't solve the problems of today.
Security
Who's the Leaker? Depends
Needing good news to bolster his re-election chances, Barack Obama received just that thanks to some well-placed leaks to an adoring mainstream media about national security items, such as the "kill list" of terror suspects. Responding to pressure to find the leaker, Attorney General Eric Holder put two federal prosecutors on the case, and they determined that the Pentagon isn't responsible. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, thought she knew the culprit, but to make sure that the buck did not stop with Obama, she said, "I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks." Indeed, Obama adviser David Axelrod sat in on meetings about the "kill list," and The New York Times' story on the matter cited a dozen advisers.
Obviously, however, Feinstein got a talking to because she walked back her charge a day later. "I was asked whether the White House might be responsible for recent national security leaks," she explained. "I stated that I did not believe the president leaked classified information. I shouldn't have speculated beyond that because the fact of the matter is I don't know the source of the leaks." White House Press Secretary Jay Carney insisted that it's "an insult and preposterous to suggest that this White House would leak ... classified information for political gain." Sure thing.
Meanwhile, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) opined: "A number of those leaks, and others in the last months ... are frankly all against national security interests. I think they're dangerous, damaging, and whoever is doing that is not acting in the interest of the United States of America." Kerry, of course, is an expert on doing things "against national security interests." In his infamous 1971 Senate testimony, he charged his fellow American soldiers in Vietnam with horrendous war crimes. Maybe after all these years he's learned his lesson.

Immigration Front: Obama Plan Is Expensive
The White House recently made quite a power grab with Barack Obama's executive order effectively implementing the DREAM Act without congressional action. For the next two years, Obama's Department of Homeland Security will no longer enforce deportation law on the children of illegal aliens, and those who are old enough to work will be granted work authorizations. To qualify, one must have been in the country for five years, have no criminal record and be enrolled in high school, college or the military.
Predictably, the plan will cost a lot of money. The Associated Press reports, "The Obama administration's new plan to grant temporary work permits to many young, illegal immigrants who otherwise could be deported may cost more than $585 million and require hiring hundreds of new federal employees to process more than 1 million anticipated requests." No wonder Obama wants to hike taxes. He needs more voters.
Warfront With Jihadistan: Violence in Iraq
On Monday, multiple attacks throughout Iraq killed at least 115 people and wounded hundreds more, making it the deadliest day of the year in Iraq. In one attack, three carloads of gunmen pulled up to an Iraqi army base and opened fire, killing 13 soldiers. The deadliest attack occurred just north of Baghdad in the town of Taji, where a double bombing killed over 40 people and was timed to hit as police rushed to help victims of other explosions minutes earlier. The government and Shiite targets and the well-planned timings bore the fingerprints of al-Qa'ida, whose Sunni leader just last week warned of a new offensive, seeking to sow instability across the country.
Ever since Barack Obama pulled the last U.S. troops from Iraq last December, al-Qa'ida and other Iraqi militants have maintained a steady pace of attacks, attempting to increase the instability of the Iraqi government, created by the deepening political divisions between the Sunnis and Kurds on one hand and Shiites on the other. "Al-Qa'ida is trying to send a message that it is still strong and can choose the time and places to attack," said Shiite lawmaker Hakim al-Zamili, a member of parliament's security and defense committee. He further said that Iraq's inability to gather intelligence about possible strikes, or to stop them despite tight security, shows how weak the government is in protecting the Iraqi people. A full-blown Iraqi civil war is a real possibility.
On Monday, the Obama campaign released -- with no small irony -- a video praising the president for "ending the war" in Iraq. While Obama and his minions might think that simply pulling troops out ends a war, they are sadly mistaken. The Iraq War was over and won by U.S. troops under President George W. Bush's troop surge, leaving Iraq in relative stability with a nascent democratic government. All Obama did was remove U.S. stability and influence from Iraq, which cost us greatly in blood and treasure, and left Iraq open to decay and civil war. Iraq is still far better off than it was five years ago, but that could change all too quickly.
Syria Deteriorates
Syrian officials on Monday issued a blunt warning that outside intervention in the country's continuing civil war would be met with chemical and biological weapons, a sure sign that President Bashar al-Assad's regime is increasingly nervous about its prospects for survival. A Syrian official clarified that such weapons would never be used during internal fighting, which must be a great relief to those Syrians who continue risking their lives fighting the Syrian Army in the streets.
The usual suspects made the usual vapid statements meant to show resolve against Syria's threat. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: "It would be reprehensible if Syria is contemplating using chemical weapons." State Department rep Victoria Nuland trotted out the hackneyed phrase that the use of chemical or biological weapons would be "completely unacceptable." But all Barack Obama could bring himself to say was that Assad and his thugs "will be held accountable by the international community and the United States should they make the tragic mistake of using those weapons."
The bottom line is that Syria has chemical and probably biological weapons -- at least some of which likely came from Iraq in 2002, as we said at the time -- and the Assad regime will stop at nothing to avoid the fate recently suffered by Libya's Moammar Gadhafi. So Monday's announcement should not change the basic calculus of the Syrian uprising for any nations considering jumping in -- including the United States. But those who'd hoped for a more forceful response from the leader of the free world to an open threat of chemical weapons were greatly disappointed.
Department of Military Readiness: More Green to Move Our Armed Forces
Every day it takes thousands of gallons of fuel to complete our military's missions. And while it's a little more complicated to refuel a jet fighter than it is to pull up to the pump to fill up the family car, in each case it costs money to keep the vehicle going. With a globally armed force, we spent $17.3 billion on fuel in FY2011.
Yet the stated goal of both the Navy and Air Force -- which together consume over 80 percent of the petroleum used by the Department of Defense -- is to use more alternative sources in the near future. A Congressional Research Service report revealed that the Navy seeks to ensure that at least 50 percent of its total energy consumption comes from alternate sources by 2020, with the Air Force seeking the same with domestic aviation fuel by 2016.
The biggest drawback is the price. The Navy's "Great Green Fleet" demonstration project last week burned 450,000 gallons of synthetic fuel -- a single day's supply -- which cost $26 per gallon, while another recent pilot program by the Air Force consumed 11,000 gallons of synthetic jet fuel at a staggering $59 per gallon. Normally, jet fuel runs less than $5 per gallon. Moreover, supplying the needs of the military could be an issue for biofuel makers, as the projected biofuel supply runs some 500 million gallons short of what the Armed Forces have mandated by 2020.
To understand this push toward alternative fuel, though, one just has to follow the money. Solazyme, who supplied the biofuel for the Navy demonstration, was a recipient of a $21.8 million "stimulus" grant, while Air Force biofuel maker Gevo is connected to Vinod Khosla, a venture capitalist who's donated over $400,000 to Democrats since 1996. Khosla's firm owns 27 percent of Gevo.
Culture
Faith and Family: Boycotting Chick-fil-A
It's already an anomaly in the business world because of a "closed on Sunday" policy, but the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain finds itself in the middle of a controversy over same-sex marriage that it didn't create. Instead, news reports spun an interview with CEO Dan Cathy as revealing that he's opposed to same-sex marriage when he was simply extolling the virtues of the biblical principles of traditional family upon which his company bases its policies and supports in the community at large. When asked about supporting traditional values, Cathy said he was "guilty as charged" -- but he made no mention of same-sex marriage in his remarks.
This misrepresenting of Cathy's words has now led two of America's big-city mayors, Boston's Thomas Menino and Chicago's Rahm Emanuel, to condemn the company with unconstitutional threats. While Menino vowed to make it "very difficult" for the chain to open a restaurant within Boston's city limits, Emanuel was more blunt: "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values." He then turned around and welcomed to the city Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who thinks white people should become Scientologists to prevent them from being "devil Christians" and "Satan Jews." At least he doesn't make chicken sandwiches.
The obvious question, then, is what the values of Chicago (and Boston) are. Perhaps they match those in British Columbia, where Lee and Susan Molnar, a couple who formerly operated a bed and breakfast, were fined $4,500 by the province's Human Rights Tribunal for refusing to rent a room to a same-sex couple in violation of their Christian beliefs. The Molnars have since left the business rather than compromise their values.
Radio host and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is leading a nationwide effort to support Chick-fil-A by patronizing the chain next Wednesday, Aug. 1. It may require a little travel from Boston or Chicago, but we'll see just how popular biblical values remain in a country that still regularly asks for God's blessing.
Village Academic Curriculum: Penn State Punished
Former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was recently found guilty of molesting numerous boys dating back to 1998. Former FBI director Louis Freeh conducted an investigation to determine if long-time head football coach Joe Paterno, who died earlier this year, or any school administrators had knowledge of Sandusky's crimes or did anything to stop them. Freeh's report was scathing, concluding that numerous figures in the scandal not only failed to act but also sought to protect the university and its football program at the expense of the victims.
Last weekend, the university responded by removing a prominent Paterno statue from outside the stadium, and on Monday, the NCAA came down with its own punishment. While the NCAA didn't issue the "death penalty," which would have shut down the football program for a time, it did fine the university $60 million (which will go to the victims), ban the school from bowl games for four years, reduce the number of scholarships available and vacate all the school's wins since 1998. The last of these sanctions drops Paterno from being the winningest coach in college football history to 12th on the list.
The moves generated a sharply divided response. For our part, we think St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bernie Miklasz got it right: "Penn State isn't the victim here. Any penalties imposed on Penn State don't compare to the repercussions, the pain, the lifelong agony that will be felt by the victims of Jerry Sandusky's brutal crimes. This all went down on Penn State's watch, and the school let this sickening, sordid behavior continue. If you are inclined to feel sorry for Penn State, take a deep breath, pause, and think about the real victims in this atrocious scandal. When we consider what the real victims have endured, and what they will have to live with, the health of Penn State football is irrelevant."
And Last...
The president has been hitting people up for donations for many years now, but he's become more desperate of late. Team Obama has even tied fundraising to weddings, anniversaries and birthdays as they try to match Mitt Romney's fundraising prowess. A recent email to supporters encouraged them to "pitch in whatever you can" in exchange for being entered to join him at his own birthday party in August. Gee, second prize must be joining him and Joe Biden. What got our attention, though, was actually the first line: "My upcoming birthday next week could be the last one I celebrate as President of the United States." Wow, that's the happiest thing we've heard all week!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team
319 Comments
Bud in Colo
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:18 AM
In regards to the Aurora shootings, I doubt that anyone could have hit that shooter in the dark & done any damage with the body armor he had. That said, that are many incidents where an armed citizen has protected his/her family or stopped a crime. However, our fabulous media never reports these things. All they do is join in with the liberal politicians and call for more controls, which do nothing. Limiting magazine capacity? Seems we tried that, doesn't work. The 2nd amendment is even more relement today, than when it was written.
Gary Brown for president, 2012 in Northwest Iowa
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 12:15 PM
I would be president if you all would elect me, I do not believe in big government, even though it now exists, I do believe that government should issue to every citizen who desires one, any weapon that a citizen might wish to own, within reason. No tanks, aircraft, naval vessels, or missles of any sort, but, high powered rifles and hand guns for sure. Not only issue them to interested citizens, in the act of issuing the weapons, train the recipient of the weapon in how to clean and care for the weapon but also how to shoot it accurately and without fear. Teach them "rules of engagement" that accurately reflect situations a person might actually face and how to appropriately react if/when such situation may occur. Let's actually have a well armed, highly trained citizenry who is armed, supplied with enough ammo to protect one'self and to be able to practice as much as each individual feels is appropriate for his/her own needs. That's what I call, Gun Control. Let the citizens control the weapons and the government at the same time.
WTD in Arizona
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 6:15 PM
Good way to achieve the trained citizenry would be everybody do a hitch in the USMC. And wouldn't we be far better off now if a majority of the population were gung ho, Semper Fi ex-Marines !
Merry Colin in Arizona
Saturday, July 28, 2012 at 11:38 AM
No such thing as an "ex-Marine"!
WTD in Arizona
Saturday, July 28, 2012 at 4:16 PM
Point well taken, and that's why we wouldn't have the chaotic society we face today
Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 12:33 PM
If you believe that no one could have hit that shooter in the dark of a theater, 1.) you have not been to a theater lately and 2.) your level of handgun training is sorely lacking.
I carry every where I go and shoot hand guns at least twice a month the other remaining weeks of the month are long distance shooting and tactical M-4 shooting. I can guarantee that had I been in that theater with my HK USP .45 they would have carried the body of the shooter out of the theater instead of 12 dead and 60 wounded.
Gary Brown for president, 2012 in Northwest Iowa
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 12:35 PM
Bully for you, we need more people who carry and know how to use their weapons.
John Q Citizen in Colorado
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 1:42 PM
Bud, I beg to differ with you, a trained law enforcement official or former soldier could've dispatched the deranged individual. Even with 'full' body armor taking a shot in the chest would hurt really bad, possibly knock the person down and at least gotten his attention. Had it knocked him over he could've been disarmed and subdued by others rather quickly and in all likelihood lessening the impact of his actions.
Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 2:12 PM
I am ex 82nd airborne, shoot approx 5000 handgun rounds per year at 8" or less targets some static some moving. The shooter would have died on the scene. body armor or not. I shoot the 20X40" body size targets at 50 to 100 yds but mostly smaller 6-8" 3 to 10 yds to be able to hit head target if body armor is a concideration also to be able to hit a half of a head as it pears around cover. I just pray I never have to shoot anyone as I hope I am never in a auto accident, but, I have auto insurance in case I do. In a stressfull situation you do not rise to the occasion, you fall to your level of training.
RK Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 4:06 PM
I agree with all the above, I am also professionally trained yet I would like to add an observation. I am not dishing those who are trained or skilled, I am going to make my comments dealing with those who aren't professionally trained as the above commentator or myself. I love, :You fall to your level of training. It is so true.
In the piece it said, "If only one citizen...
It is my understanding he was wearing body armor. A weapon with the exception of a few military weapons cannot penetrate body armor.
I noted prior both my wife and I for certain reasons to have a carry permit. We go to the movies as a chill out time. the local theature chain says "No weapons allowed in theature." Our personal weapons are therefore is holstered and in the car. There reason is the same as mine. To many people in a darken location crammed with people capping off rounds. If he had body armor, how much higher would the death toll be via friendly fire or collateral damage? This would give all the ammunition (Pardon the pun) they need to restrict gun rights.
I also view this as a owner right to restrict what goes down or is carried on their property. Theatures are not public domain, it is private property therefor some of the rights do no apply. Go to your nearest mall. You will probably see a sign of no no weapons or pictures. Again, as a property owner, this is their right.
We need to balance our rights. Any suggestions?
Jack in Memphis
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM
First off, fact of the matter is that if a person with a concealed weapon, a few hours practice on a gun-range, and a modicum of courage had been there that night, there would have been many less dead, and many less injured. Second, If I'm on someone else's property would you say that I still had a right to protect my own life. I would think most would agree I would. A theater can post a rule that says guns not allowed. People have three choices. 1.) don't go in. 2.) remove the gun. 3.) go in with the gun and ignore their rule. I think every family grieving in Aurora wishes someone had chosed option number 3.
Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 8:44 PM
Before you pop off a round be sure of your target and shoot when you know what you will hit. Rounds down range do not equal hits. aimed rounds down range produce results. F**k the idiot zelots who have no clue about cause and effect and who want to take away guns from those who are not a threat to good people to prevent sickos from obtaining fire arms who would kill for kicks and giggles. The average american does not own their weapons to commit crimes.
Captain Bob in Columbus, Ohio
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 1:41 PM
RK, I too agree "with all of the above" but I disagree with you. First, it would not have been necessary to penetrate his body armor to have stopped him. Do yu belive the movie hype that bullets just bounce off it? (maybe you are watching too many movies?). If they hit the armor they cause pain and welts and are certainly distracting. What if a defensive shooter missed the body armor and hit an arm or leg or even his head? What if a good shooter aimed at and hit his head on purpose? Are you saying that anyone who puts on body armor is now impervious to being shot anywhere or at all and can just roam and kill at will until they decide to surrender? Second, if you go to a theater where guns are banned and choose to leave your defense gun in your car, you are a fool. Either ignore the sign (who would know?) or don't go in. If enough people (even non-gun owners) said "I'm not patronizing this theater because their "No gun" policy creates a danger to us all", attendance would drop and the management would rethink their dumb policy. You are making it easy for the bad guys by meekly adhering to idiotic corporate policy.
Huapakechi in Lake Park MN
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 8:42 AM
Don't count on law enforcement to hit the intended target. They do not practice near enough.
Wilson in Dallas
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 2:39 PM
The shooter DID NOT have body armor. There were NO ceramic plates, meaning he was NOT wearing armor. Stop listening to the moronic media for the "facts".
Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas
Saturday, July 28, 2012 at 5:07 PM
Wilson,
It is my understanding that the shooter was wearing soft body armor - presumably without SAPI plates. As you know: soft body armor is rated by the degree of protection it offers, which amounts to the what kinds of rounds it will stop. No soft body armor will stop a high-powered rifle round at close range, but CCW holders don't carry rifles on their persons. So we're left with pistols. This is where it gets complicated, as the penetrating ability of the round must exceed the resistance level of the armor. Of course a shot to the head or pelvis is usually debilitating and doesn't hit the armor at all. But there are plenty of pistol rounds that will punch through most soft armor, and some that will punch through ANY soft armor.
The problem, of course, is that the kinds of rounds with the best stopping power (hollow points), are most vulnerable to being stopped by a soft vest. The kinds of rounds that penetrate best (high velocity hardball spitzers), are less effective when the target has no armor and are vulnerable to over-penetration. So it's a trade-off.
Or is it? The best bet is to carry two high-power pistols: one with high-velocity hardball rounds and the other with high-velocity hollow points. (Plus having two pistols means that all the weight is not on the same side of your body, and is more comfortable than carrying a single pistol.)
Huapakechi in Lake Park MN
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 8:47 AM
Or you could mix your load with both types of ammunition. Two guns doubles your concealment problems.
Scott in California
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:27 AM
A question to the left wing anti-gun crowd; if outlawing civilian ownership of firearms is supposed to prevent gun-related crime, how is it that there is still gun related crime in countries like England, Australia and Japan, which have laws on their books that, for all practical purposes, prevent their residents from owning firearms? The answer is simple on its face; criminals don't comply wit such laws!! In fact, they LIKE such laws, as it keeps their victims unarmed.
Juan Vega in Coral Gables, Florida
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:27 AM
I left Cuba in 1961. The first thing that the Castro communist government di was to take any civilian owned weaposn aways- even pellet guns. When Russian generals pondered about invading the US, they were worried not just about the military- but and armed citizenry. The movie Red Dawn may have been fiction but it reflected the Russian concern. Now I am sick to my stomach that stupid people elected a Marxist that knows that if he stays in power and keeps taking us leftward that sooner or later he will have to face the wrath of God and a well armed citizenry. Pompous asses like Mayor Bloomberg are traitor and usel idiots.
mark in massachusetts
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Juan,I don't know how you did it but congratulations on escaping the tyranny of Cuba.You may have not been born here but you sound like an American Patriot.Tu estas muy intelligente!
Tom Clifton in Memphis
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Never frequented the place before, but it just became my favorite fast food place!
Tom Clifton in Memphis
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:32 AM
Sorry, put that comment in the wrong place.
Cara in Colorado Springs
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:35 AM
We eat at Chick-fil-A about twice a week anyway, but we'll make it a point to eat there next Wednesday. It's absolutely hilarious to see these crazies come out of their skin when a CEO makes a comment that they don't agree with, but if a racist like Farrakhan wants to come to Chicago, they welcome him with open arms. Chicago values indeed. Typical liberals... once again getting hysterically intolerant about the free speech of someone who has faith in God while celebrating those who make hateful remarks about Jews, Christians, the Tea Party, etc., etc., etc., etc.
RK Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 4:02 PM
I agree with all the above yet I would like to add an observation.
In the piece it said, "If only one citizen...
It is my understanding he was wearing body armor. A weapon with the exception of a few military weapons cannot penetrate body armor.
I noted prior both my wife and I for certain reasons to have a carry permit. We go to the movies as a chill out time. the local theature chain says "No weapons allowed in theature." Our personal weapons are therefore is holstered and in the car. There reason is the same as mine. To many people in a darken location crammed with people capping off rounds. If he had body armor, how much higher would the death toll be via friendly fire or collateral damage? This would give all the ammunition (Pardon the pun) they need to restrict gun rights.
I also view this as a owner right to restrict what goes down or is carried on their property. Theatures are not public domain, it is private property therefor some of the rights do no apply. Goto your nearest mall. You will probably see a sign of no no weapons or pictures. Again, as a property owner, this is their right.
We need to balance our rights. Any suggestions?
RK Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM
My comment ended up in the wrong location. I am behind chik,,,,for it is a private company and a privately owned company has certain rights just as the boy scouts. I will eat there tomorrow in support of there rights
Huapakechi in Lake Park MN
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 9:07 AM
Embrace the liberal policy of "don't ask, don't tell". Nobody will know that you are armed unless the situation requires you to use your handgun.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein
Bill DFelice in McKeesport,PA.
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:36 AM
The movie thater's policy: A no gun zone,ia only for the Law-Abiding.Notice,the red headed jerk,didnot adhear to the ploitical death trap.He was so bold in picking Citizens made helpless by political runamuck local ordinances/news medis mantra. The local Aurora government,is complicate with the theater,in aiding+abedding mass murder.
opigg in Searcy, AR
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:37 AM
We always hear from critics who want to take away our guns when some nut, terrorist, evil person, etc. kills innocent people. They never consider or say something good about guns when they are used to save someone from harm or minimize harm from lawbreakers. There are many more instances of people being helped or saved by the use of a gun than innocent people being killed. In general anti-gun people are irrational and not well informed. If they educate themselves it is only from a preconceived viewpoint that guns equal bad.
Captain Bob in Columbus, Ohio
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 2:07 PM
Excellent observation, opigg. To add, when some idiot asks me (because they know that I am "pro-gun" why do I object to more restrictive gun laws to save nnocent lives, I reply, You tell me, if that nutcase, instead of shooting those people in the theater, had used his car to run down and kill a couple dozen people standing in line outside the theater, would you be asking for more car control laws or banning car ownership? They usually just stand there for a moment with their mouths open while this sinks in and then say something like, "That's not the same thing!" I then say, "Tell me the difference." At that point they usually give up by thinking/saying that I'm too stubborn to understand what they are saying. Try it. You'll like the reactions that you get. when you make them see their dumb reasoning. :)
Gary in Prophetstown
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:38 AM
I can't help but think that the "gun debate" is yet another indictment of our educational system! On the matter of whether or not people should have the ability to defend themselves I often go back mentally to grade school teaching, like- Which creatures do wolves attack and eat? Sheep or Mountain Lions? Duh!!!
Bill DFelice in McKeesport,PA.
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:40 AM
The "Death Tax"needs put to death.
Son of Liberty in Colorado
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:41 AM
With our guns we are freemen, without them we are slaves waiting for the slaughter.
The right to keep and bear arms - A right is something God bestowed on me at birth.
Keep - Its mine and you can't have it!
Bear - I have mine on me and its loaded.
Huapakechi in Lake Park MN
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 9:09 AM
An unloaded gun is a paperweight.
Gemma in UpState NY
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:42 AM
I dunno about Aurora but seems like we are going to hear about shootings a lot it is an election year of the worse president in history who has the goal to disarm the civillian population. Why dont peole understand history? Look the first thing any dictator does is disarm folks. Thanks
Jay Winters in Fort Mill, SC
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:42 AM
When will I go next to Chick-Fil-A? TODAY!!!
John in Highlands Ranch, CO
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Re: Penn State's Penalties: These penalties were simply a slap on the wrist. If something like this were to happen to another university now, they would be better off to try to hide it than reporting it if this is all the punishment they were to get. PSU's activities absolutely DEMANDED the death penalty: if the NCAA can't use it at PSU, then get it off the books. They could have at least said ZERO scholarships for the next 4 or 5 years. That would have been almost as good as the death penalty. What SMU did pales in comparison to what PSU did!!!!!
Jim in Alabama
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 1:22 PM
I disagree with John and with Mr Alexander on this one. One - "Penn State" did nothing. It is an institution made great by the contributions of many individuals over its long history. It is also an institution into which many completely blameless individuals have invested good faith, hard money and future plans. Two - "Penn State" will simply pass the cost of this penalty on to the innocent and then the new administrative replacement team will imitate Obama on one of his apology tours, ad nausium. Puffery without content. They will bow to a punishment, the actual weight of which will fall on the heads of the students, who will pay more, on the Penn State athletes who will play less, and on the families and employees of the local businesses who will be devastated by the backwash of this travesty. It is the essence of our Judicial system that the son should not suffer punishment for the sins of the father. How is there one jot of difference here. This is tyranny and injustice plain and simple.
Uncle Bill in Pittsburgh, PA
Saturday, July 28, 2012 at 3:49 PM
Well said, Jim. I don't really feel that NCAA has any business butting in at this point anyway- Penn State and JoePaterno (and Jerry Sandusky for that matter) did not commit any FOOTBALL offense, so I can't see their concern. I can't see leveling all this punishment upon a lot of people who had nothing to do with it. The NACC have overstepped their self-granted authority- Sandusky is going to jail- Paterno is dead- others were fired- the statue is gone- the guilty have already been punished. All this other "punishment" is meaningless and mean-spirited overkill, and makes NCAA look like an bunch of self-righteous buttinskies seeking signifigance in an issue that does not require their unhelpful hysterical overreaction. Why not just hang everybody on campus? That would teach them!
Mike in Pittsburgh, PA
Sunday, July 29, 2012 at 8:40 PM
VERY well said...the NCAA is engaging in punishing a bunch of people who did nothing, and is trying to say a FACT (Paterno's victories) never happened, Sounds rather liberal, don't you think? Let's re-write history so that it is more to our liking, and punish people whose only crime is that they go to Penn State. Seeing the NCAA take a moral position on anything is laughable in itself, but this is definitely "mean spirited overkill".
EKS in Blue Springs
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:43 AM
We eat at Chick Fil A at least once per week and will continue to do so. We also plan to be at one on August 1st. They happen to be one of our favorite places to dine. It is good to see someone that closes on Sunday to observe its beliefs.
MD in Parkersburg
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM
Love Chick Fila, great food and I congratulate the owner who stands up for his beliefs. We need more like Him!
Bill DFelice in McKeesport,PA.
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:44 AM
What should be done about Syria? Nothing!
John Q Citizen in Colorado
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM
No American lives should be put into jeopardy in Syria. However we need to have friends taking a good long look into the Bekka Valley, this is the most likely place to find both Syrian and Iraqi chemical weapons. If not then I am nearly positive that terrorist training bases will be found there and we could eliminate them.