In the 1940’s and 50’s, famed Author George Orwell surmised that both the English language and civilized society were in decline.
After a press conference held last week by Emeryville, California Police Chief Ken James, it’s easy to see a decline in both language and critical thinking skills in our country. And as Orwell thought, indeed civilized society may very well be in jeopardy.
It happened on February 14th. Taking to the microphones and cameras in his suburban San Francisco community, Chief James stood at a podium with the requisite group of serious-looking, professionally dressed, pouty-faced people standing behind him (it appears that Emeryville Mayor Kurt Brinkman was one of them). In part, the Chief said “one issue that always boggles my mind is that the idea that a gun is a defensive weapon. That is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon.”
From there, Mr. James went on to say that “a gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power. Police officers don’t carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner and face any oppositions we may come upon. If it was a defensive measure, why did we lose 55 officers nationwide last year to gun violence? And unfortunately, in just the two months of this year so far, we have lost two officers to gun violence in the state of California alone.”
So, how shall we begin to analyze the logical fallacies here? Let’s start with this: a gun is an inanimate object. A gun doesn’t think; it doesn’t feel; it has no intentions or aspirations; and despite what the Emeryville Chief of Police says, a gun does not have “offensive” or “defensive” tendencies.
In this regard, guns and footballs share something in common. Neither a gun nor a football is “offensive” or “defensive” in its essence. Yet each of them can be utilized by a human being for either offensive or defensive purposes. In short, whether a gun or a football is used for offensive or defensive purposes depends on who possesses it.
Having established this, consider these words again: “a gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power. Police officers don’t carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner and face any oppositions we may come upon.”
Really, Mr. James? I won’t bother doing “grammar police” work here (“oppositions” is not a word, and placeing “we” and “they” as the subject of the same sentence is problematic as well).
But seriously, does Chief James believe his own definition of a gun? If a gun is nothing more than something used to “intimidate and show power,” then why would police officers carry them? And is it the role of police officers to “intimidate?” Is it ever the job of a cop to “show power?”
I would answer both these questions with an emphatic “yes.” At times police officers absolutely need to “show power” and to appear intimidating in the face of lawless threats, and I suspect that most cops, if they were honest, would agree.
Yet James probably would not want to publicly say “our job as police officers is to intimidate” – especially not in California’s very left-wing Bay Area – because he would steer himself in to yet another public relations debacle, appearing as though he’s making excuses for police officers displaying “excessive force.”
But if James’ assertions are true, and a gun is merely something used to “intimidate and show power,” and can never be used for defensive purposes, then police officers should abandon them immediately. Law enforcement officers should be about the business of defending property, themselves, and the citizens they serve. If a gun isn’t helpful for those types of efforts, as Chief James insists, then it’s time for his police force to hand them in.
And here’s another implication of Chief James’ illogical remarks: If a gun was really something to be used for defensive purposes, then cops would never get killed. Well, in a perfect world, maybe this would be true. But in the real and imperfect world in which we all live (and this would include Chief James), even the best defensive plans sometimes are insufficient to save a life.
I mean no disrespect here to law enforcement officers, or to Chief James. On the contrary, I respect the profession of law enforcement enough to point out the recklessness of this man’s words.
I also realize that we live in a time when logic, critical thinking, communication, and the ability to draw inferences and to consider the implications of one’s words are skills that are in short supply. Yet the demand for them has, perhaps, never been greater in our nation’s history.
A gun in the hands of a criminal is a dangerous thing. The power of law enforcement in the hands of people who can’t think or speak logically is, perhaps, even more so.
Astoundingly we have seen the media turn into hypocrites in recent days.
Shock of shocks... how can it be?
But when the President that an overwhelming majority of media members voted for, was running for President, they parroted his message of compassion, and American humility, and the need for us to talk to our enemies instead of torturing them.
Being in the solid minority of media members who held that we either kill the guys who are trying to kill us, or at the very least, extract information about when they are next going to try to kill us, I couldn't have disagreed more strongly.
Then President Obama threw some curve balls at the media that supported him. He kept all of President Bush's senior defense advisors. Kept his Secretary of Defense. And even increased the use of drones and kills by drones in the war on terror.
The media that supported him--predictably--didn't say much about it, because they were never principally all that upset about the stuff they were criticizing President Obama's predecessor about. They were merely pandering to public opinion because they hated President Bush (mostly for stuff unrelated to the war, like abortion and sex) and they knew that piling on in the area of defense, torture, and such would increase the overall fury and drive Obama to victory. (Notice how it didn't even matter that John McCain held many of the same beliefs, and they pummeled him just the same.)
In recent days, however, President Obama's drone program has come under observation. He has killed American citizens without the benefit of a trial or a verdict. He has ordered the deaths of Americans--in fact--without so much as charges or indictments.
And I'm okay with that.
In broad general principles Americans have always viewed those who betrayed the nation--and by betrayal it is easy to agree that collaborating with those who have taken an oath to eliminate us all fits the definition--deserve to lose their rights as citizens, and be counted among the enemy dead.
There were Americans among the dead in Japan and Germany following World War II and there was no need to shed tears because they had shifted loyalties to align themselves with those who sought our end.
In the war on terror, these "Americans" have surrendered their identities, loyalties, and abilities for the purposes of strengthening the efforts of those who would nuke us all if they but had the capacity to. In a technically legal sense--as in only on paper--they may be Americans. But they have taken different names, different looks, different views, different languages, and different locales as "home." So how are they yet "Americans?" Further the taking up of arms (which should be meant to include laptops with strategic plans, attendance in training camps, and the assistance in jihad against U.S. targets, persons, and interests) is the most overt act of treason, betrayal, and threat that can be communicated. Some have gone so far as to create dogma and propaganda for the enemy asserting overt threats against their nation of origin. For these reasons and more, if they die as a result of a drone strike, Americans should not be confused about the issue of conscience. They are responsible for their choices, and we are responsible for ours. The neutralization of their threat makes Americans safer.
The media makes many of these arguments in their defense of the President. They are rational arguments, and I agree with them.
But many of these same priorities and neutralizations can be achieved by capturing the same operatives. However in capturing them, there is one added bonus: information.
If capturing these individuals and interrogating would yield us greater knowledge of coming plans and attacks, doesn't it make sense that harvesting that information and then letting them sit and think about their sins would be equally beneficial? What if after sitting and thinking about things over long periods of time we could even recruit 1-3% of them to become covert operatives for us? What if we could get them to re-infiltrate old networks, former circles that we can't penetrate, and continue the stream of information for us long term? Doesn't this ultimately make much more sense?
The media will scream, "What you're advocating is torture." But it doesn't have to be...
Torture consists of methods used where bones are broken, permanent damage is done to the subject's body, and long term effects emerge as part of that person's physical reality. One only need to look at the difficulty Senator McCain has pulling his arms back and you understand that true torture took something from his life that he can not reclaim.
But water-boarding does none of that... Sure it scares the jihad out of them. It makes them believe they are about to see Jesus. But it is not torture. Because it is not torture, we have used it in the training of our own forward serving military men and women in SERE school.
And for the jokers who would still try to argue "morality," does one honestly believe that water-boarding--but allowing the person to continue living--is less moral than turning them into vapor?
The agenda driven media has had its naked partisan fervor exposed.
Common sense would tell us they are wrong. Based mostly on moral confusion...
Because while killing evildoers is more honorable than letting them kill again, getting them to give us greater amounts of information so that we can stop their attempts before they start is even more honorable.
It's just so sad that the majority of talking heads can't understand the difference between the two.
Long before homosexual activist Floyd Corkins entered the D.C.-based Family Research Council (FRC) with the intent to commit mass murder, I warned from the rooftops that the hard-left Southern Poverty Law Center’s anti-Christian “hate group” propaganda might spur such bloodshed. With a column headlined, “Liberal violence rising,” I wrote, “The SPLC’s dangerous and irresponsible (‘hate group’) disinformation campaign can embolden and give license to like-minded, though less stable, left-wing extremists, creating a climate of true hate. Such a climate is ripe for violence.”
Tragically, my deepest fears were realized.
Then, in August, days after Corkins was heroically disarmed by FRC employ Leo Johnson, whom Corkins shot in the arm, I penned another column titled “Fanning the flames of left-wing violence.” I plead with the SPLC to end its “dishonest and reprehensible” strategy of “juxtaposing FRC and other Christian organizations with violent extremist groups” in a transparent effort to marginalize them.
“I appeal to your sense of goodwill. This is not a game. Lives are at stake,” I implored. “I know you have good employees (I’ve met some) who believe they’re doing the right thing; so, please, validate that belief. It’s time to remove your metaphorical ‘hate group’ Star of David from mainstream Christian organizations before another of your ideological allies spills blood.”
I no longer believe the SPLC has a sense of goodwill. In fact, based on FBI evidence and the group’s own actions (and inaction), I and many others are left with no other inference but this: The SPLC – a left-wing extremist fundraising behemoth – may be intentionally inciting anti-Christian violence.
Just days ago, Corkins pled guilty to a number of charges, including domestic terrorism. FBI evidence revealed that he was both motivated by and utilized the SPLC’s “anti-gay hate map” to target and locate his intended Christian mass murder victims.
Further evidence reveals that the “hate map” – more accurately labeled “hit map” – even provided the exact location of FRC and other Christian groups found on Corkins’ hit-list with little red dots to helpfully pinpoint their precise locations.
Corkins told the FBI after the shooting that he intended to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches (which he brought with him) in victims’ faces.” Prosecutors said that he planned to leave FRC after the attack and go to another conservative group to continue his reign of terror. A handwritten list of three other groups was found with his belongings while an investigation of Corkins’ computer revealed that he identified his targets on the SPLC website. The other groups were also maliciously listed by the SPLC as “hate groups.”
Motive to kill? Fomented. Who to kill? Provided. Where to kill? Pinpointed, with easy access to driving directions. The only thing the SPLC did not do was purchase Corkins’ gun and drive him to the crime scene.
Here’s why, to my own aghast bewilderment, I’m left with little choice but to believe the SPLC may be intentionally inciting anti-Christian violence. As noted by the FRC, “Even after an attempted mass murder of the FRC staff, the ‘hate map’ is still prominently featured on the SPLC website today – which shocks most conservative pundits.”
“Shocks” is an understatement.
“When Congresswoman Giffords and several others were shot in Arizona by Jared Loughner, the left went into overdrive blaming Sarah Palin for a map that had a list of political targets on it. After the fact, we learned that Loughner was apolitical and he clearly had not used Sarah Palin’s map of political targets. That did not stop the left from blaming the right,” noted RedState’s Erick Erickson. “By the way, Palin took down her target map after the controversy. The Southern Poverty Law Center? Crickets …”
What other explanation is there? I understand that it’s difficult to admit you’re wrong, especially when the scheme seemed so delicious at the time. But once FBI evidence conclusively proves that you were, to a large degree, responsible for inciting an act of domestic terrorism, most reasonable people would take a deep breath, take a step back, admit fault and hobble forward in an effort to rehabilitate a reputation in ruin.
Is the SPLC a left-wing extremist group? Absolutely. Are they anti-Christian? Without a doubt. But few would have believed, until now, that they might intentionally, with malice aforethought, seek to incite anti-Christian bloodshed.
Scandalously, the Obama administration continues to maintain deep ties with this radical organization.
“The Southern Poverty Law Center has a long history of maliciously slandering pro-family groups with language and labels that incite hatred and undermine civil discourse,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “In the issues of family and marriage, Christians are literally in the crosshairs of radical homosexual activists, and the SPLC is fueling the hatred and providing the targets. The SPLC should be held accountable for its reckless acts. Even more disturbing than the SPLC’s irresponsible behavior is the fact that the Obama administration is in bed with this group,” said Staver.
“It is ironic that Christians who believe in natural marriage have been isolated by radical homosexual activists and demonized as ‘homophobes’ and ‘haters,’” he concluded.
Weeks before Corkins pleaded guilty of terrorism and assault with intent to kill, a study from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point entitled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far Right” said the “violent far right” exhibits an intense fear or dislike of foreign people, “including people with alternative sexual preferences.” The SPLC’s warped view of reality has been adopted by the Obama administration.
“What the SPLC and other homosexual activists are doing is intentional and dangerous,” said Staver. “It is time to end the dangerous rhetoric and resume a civil discourse on the subject of natural marriage and morality.”
Indeed if, God forbid, this SPLC “hate group” propaganda leads to another act of left-wing terrorism like that at FRC, this dangerous group should be held legally – perhaps even criminally liable.
In the meantime, to the media, I say this: If you dare, even for a moment, give any credence whatsoever to this deadly SPLC “hate group” nonsense, you too will have blood on your hands.
