Cardinal Coalition

Wisdom doesn't mean ignoring the obvious, Senator Obama

2008-05-12T08:16:00.001-07:00

If the long Palestinian war against Israel and the current situation in Iraq with al Sadr and in Iran regarding their nuclear program have taught us nothing else, it is those we fight in the Middle East believe negotiation is a sign of weakness to be exploited and lies are, for them, an ethical and expected tactic in negotiation.

Though the lesson has been taught, it is also evident that many on the Left, including Senator Obama, have chosen to ignore that lesson. Senator Obama’s stated last week in North Carolina, “I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.”

History, something Senator Obama apparently ignores, tells us that FDR and Truman did not talk to our enemies, at least not while in a shooting war. Unconditional surrender was the order of the day in WWII. President Kennedy did talk to Khrushchev, but we were not in a shooting war with the USSR.

Talk didn’t stop Germany. Talk didn’t stop Japan. Talk didn’t stop North Korea. Talk doesn’t stop those who are determined to act. This willfully ignorant naiveté is what scares me most about the Left. While there is a time and place for talk, there is also a time and place where talk must turn to action, and the Left seems institutionally incapable of getting to that time and place.

This kind of talk from the Left’s standard bearers makes it easy for me to pull the lever for Senator McCain in November.

Hillary talks tough?

2008-04-22T09:21:00.000-07:00

In an interview on Good Morning America...

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

I wonder if she means obliterate like she means she supports the 2nd Amendment. Not to mention the fact that it's a bit late to try to position herself to the right of Obama on national security and foreign policy.

Wait, can I say that?

2008-02-25T08:03:00.001-08:00

There has been much noise from the Left the last several years about "censorship" in the U.S.A. Of course, the world in which many of these folks live has very little in common with reality. Below is a bit of the real stuff, just for comparison.

Pakistan removed from the Internet by ZDNet's Richard Stiennon -- 4:30 PM Eastern (US). The telecom company that carries most of Pakistan’s traffic, PCCW, has found it necessary to shut Pakistan off from the Internet while they filter out the malicious routes that a Pakistani ISP, PieNet, announced earlier today. Evidently PieNet took this step to enforce a decree from the Pakistani government that ISP’s [...]

OK, I'm over it now. McCain it is...

2008-02-08T08:32:00.001-08:00

Here's my two cents.

You can't teach a political party anything. If you could, Republicans would still be riding the Contract With America horse, we'd have a Fair or Flat Tax, SS would be privatized, and there would be massive Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. I could change parties, stay home in November, or vote Democrat, but how does that advance a single conservative principle? For all extents and purposes, the race is decided, so, moving on.
Any Republican to the right of Joe Lieberman is better than 100 Democrats to the left of Joe Lieberman.
2. All politics is compromise. It may be a search for perfection, but it will never reach the pinnacle. Consequently, I will take any opportunity in a general election to advance a single conservative principle
Really, wouldn't you rather see a Basset Hound in the White House than a socialist Democrat? I would. The Second Amendment implications alone of a Democrat Senate, House, and White House decide it for me.
Can you think of a single bad law that a Democrat Congress would pass that John McCain might veto? I can. Can you think of many bad laws that will sail through a Democrat controlled government? I can.

Why/how do I arrive at this point? McCain v. Democrat...

	McCain	Democrat
War/Foreign Policy	1	0
Economy	1	0
1st Amendment	0	0
2nd Amendment	1	0
Borders	0	0
Taxes	1	0
Pro-Life	1	0
Pork	1	0

Now the way I count it, That's six of eight very important issues I can advance at least a small amount by voting for McCain if he gets the nomination, as opposed to going backward on these six issues if I stay home or vote Democrat.

That's enough for me.

Stymied

2008-02-07T10:44:00.000-08:00

I just don't know what to think. I just foudn out that Mitt Romney has dropped out of the hunt for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination. I'm still trying to get my mind around it.
"I must now stand aside, for our party and our country," Romney told conservatives.
Evidently, he made the announcement at the CPAC convention in Washington.

My problem with Romney's exit is that there is no longer any reason for McCain to pretend to be conservative. With Romney in the race, McCain had some external force driving him to be more conservative. Now, there is no conservative in the race.

My only hope now is to regain a Republican majority in Congress. At all costs, we HAVE TO WIN BACK CONGRESS!!!

Now, go make it happen!

The Human Right of Self-Defense by Kopel, Gallant & Eisen

2008-02-06T06:00:00.001-08:00

Read it here from the BYU Journal of Public Law.

The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms.5 The UN and allied NGOs further declare that insufficiently restrictive firearms laws are themselves a human rights violation, so all governments must sharply restrict citizen firearms possession.
This Article investigates the legal status of self-defense by examining a broad variety of sources of international law. Based on those sources, the Article suggests that personal self-defense is a well-established human right under international law and is an important foundation of international law itself.

Of course, as in so much of what the UN does, there is little basis in reality for their conclusions. Disarming civilians is currently the answer to tyranny, genocide, global warming and really, really bad body odor.

Focus

2008-02-04T09:20:00.000-08:00

First, I want to state my support for Mitt Romney. I think Romney is the best and the only conservative candidate for the Republican party. That said, I also want to point out that it will generally be more important for us to focus on restoring a Republican majority in Congress.

Let's remember that the primary role of the presidency is to set the foreign policy of the United States and to be the Commander-in-Chief of the military. The only domestic policy roles the president plays are to recommend a budget for the government and to set monetary policy. While it is vitally important for the United States to keep up the war against radical Islamists, it is equally important to keep our nation from sliding into socialism. Without a homeland worth protecting, why bother?

Now, I understand that my previous statement is extremely defeatist, but I'm trying to grab some attention for the 2008 congressional race. Recently, former Congresswoman Anne Northup (who lost her seat to Democrat John Yarmuth) decided to run for her former office. She faces a strong opposition. In the 2006 mid-term election she lost to Yarmuth by a slight margin. So, I'm hoping that Northup will be able to retake her seat. I'm also hoping that the Republicans can retake their majority.

One thing I would really like to see is War on Terrorism veterans deciding to get into the race for Congress. Imagine how much better things might be if those who have actually fought to defend the America were the ones who were setting her political course. In Robert A. Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers (not the movie), society had decided to restrict citizenship to those who have served in the military. Let those who value society enough to risk their lives defending it have the majority of the political control over that society. While their are some flaws in this philosophy, I generally support the idea of an elevated status for veterans (mea culpa: I am a 14-yr veteran of the Army) within society.

In the end, is important is to remember that, God forbid, if Clinton or Obama should win the presidency, it will be even more vital for Republicans to wins back congress in order to serve as check against the move of socialist domestic policy. Let's start discussing how to get Congress back in Republican control.

Makes no difference to me, but that wasn't a choice

2008-02-01T11:32:00.001-08:00

I am a regular participant in national polls. I know that sounds odd, but it's true. I don't know anyone else who does, but my phone rings regularly with calls from groups like Gallup and Zogby. If I have time and feel like it, I answer questions.

The problem with most polls are how the questions are asked. I just completed a national poll where questions were asked, in essence, X is African-American, a woman, a Mormon, or 72 years old. will that make me much more likely, somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely, much less likely, or not sure that I'd vote for him/her for President on the basis of race, sex, religion or age.

These questions assume you are prejudiced. Period. You're either more or less likely to vote for a person because of their race, sex, religion, or age. This poll can only deliver a result that shows the assumed prejudice. Why wasn't there a choice for those (like me) who couldn't care less about these distinctions?

These choices should be about policy and philosophy of government. Sadly, many will go to the polls in the primaries and general elections having made their decision base upon one of the superficial "reasons" represented in the poll above. Even worse? Those of us who do not, will probably get the government they deserve.

DailyKos blog mentions possible Yarmuth/Northrup rematch

2008-01-29T05:33:00.001-08:00

See it here.

One of our Congressional toughest races last year was John Yarmuth's 51-48 victory over Mitch McConnell's protégé, Anne Northup. Northup had held this Louisville seat for ten years, beating challenger after challenger. Like McConnell and Tom DeLay, she always raised oodles of money from lobbyists and those Republican sweethearts, oil companies, tobacco companies, and drug companies, among others.

Since his election, Yarmuth has proven to be an excellent progressive representative. In fact, his Progressive Punch score is 94.3% progressive, ranking him #33 of 433 in Congress.

I think Yarmuth is beatable. So do a lot of Dems I've been speaking with. It will be an interesting year.

Weird Oprah for President / Vagina Monologues Moment

2008-01-24T14:46:00.000-08:00

Cross-posted on Blue Grass, Red State and RedState.com.
This just seems like one of those things that would be talked about on The Oprah Winfrey Show. A Sumter, SC doctor convincing people to vote for Barack Obama while performing checkups.

Dr. Brenda Williams told the me after the event that : "Earlier today, I had a speculum up a young woman's vagina and she said to me, 'Dr. Williams, why do you support Obama?'"

"And I said to her, 'Well, you just keep breathing in and out, and I will tell you what is so marvelous and splendid about this young man.'"

Presumably the speculum in the vagina made the patient curious about Obama.

Dr. Brenda Williams is right about one thing, though:

Williams also told the me about growing up in segregated Georgia where, as a child, she believed she would be sent to jail for "putting one toe" on the grass in public parks.

She said, "I think about those things and then I think of Barack Obama as president of the United States. And I know that America is on the brink of another revolution."

I think it's a crying shame that Billary Clinton wants to take that revolution away from America.

I wonder what the patient's vagina would say about the 2008 Democrat primary.

Northup Buzz Goes National Fast

2008-01-17T10:39:00.000-08:00

CBS News: Northup Eyeing A Comeback

Congressional Quarterly: GOP Ex-Incumbent May Be Back

Politics1: Northup may seek rematch

The Hill: Northup weighs repeat bid after Roberts responds to call of duty

Courier-Journal: Northup pondering rematch

Roberts suspends campaign, Northup considering run

2008-01-17T07:18:00.001-08:00

Former U.S. Rep. Anne Northup is considering trying to win back the House seat she held for 10 years after the decision by presumptive Republican nominee Erwin Roberts to suspend his campaign.

Roberts, the favorite to challenge first-term Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth for the 3rd District seat, announced yesterday he is putting his campaign on hold after learning his Army Reserve unit is being activated.

That could provide Northup with an opportunity to revive a political career that appeared all but dead just a few months ago.

Kentucky campus firearms bill stirs stink

2008-01-17T05:55:00.000-08:00

(Read the entire Kentucky.com article here.

Rep. Bob Damron's House Bill 114, which would allow university students, employees and visitors to carry a firearm in their vehicle, has generated resistance from Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Kathy Stein (D, District 75, People's Republic of LFCUG*).

In Frankfort, state Rep. Kathy Stein, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the bill amounts to "micromanaging" institutions of higher education, and the legislation is unlikely to get out of her committee for a vote in the full House. "Meddling in the affairs of the universities and community and technical colleges is not high on our list of priority issues," Stein said.
That infuriated the bill's sponsor, Rep. Bob Damron, D-Nicholasville, who said he plans to step up his work to force the bill past Stein, whom he labeled a "gun-control Sally."
Damron said he thinks he now has more than 50 co-sponsors and could win if Stein doesn't block House Bill 114.
The Jessamine County lawmaker, who is not on the Judiciary Committee, predicted his bill could get approved by 10 of the 15 committee members and would pass on the House floor 85-15. He declined to identify the members who would vote for the bill but said the list of co-sponsors gives a clear indication of overwhelming bipartisan support.
Damron said that putting a roadblock in front of his bill was "like sticking a knife in my eye."
He said Stein represents the "same old anti-gun group, the blatant gun-control mentality that doesn't sell in Kentucky."
"She's gun-control Sally up here," he said from his Frankfort office. Damron said Stein is using a "pocket veto," in which a committee chairman prevents a bill from being considered.
He said he could respond in one of several ways: having committee members ask Stein to let the panel vote on the bill; get the House leadership to ask her to let the bill proceed; gather a "discharge petition" to force the bill out of the committee; or get House leaders to assign the bill to another committee.
A lobbyist from the National Rifle Association will come to Frankfort next week to step up work on behalf of the bill, he said.
"I never imagined this was going to be a major battle," Damron said.
Kentucky's public universities do not allow firearms to be brought onto campus, with the main exception being the weapons used by campus police.
As an example of the universities' opposition, Eastern Kentucky University President Doug Whitlock said he is licensed to carry a concealed weapon but does not bring a firearm to the Richmond campus because it is against university policy.

Now, why are responsible, law-abiding adults denied the right to have the means to protect themselves on university campuses? Must be because campuses are so safe, right? Of course, I don't think you'd find many people to listen to that nonsense at Virginia Tech.

Representative Stein a member of the Appalachian School of Law Advisory Committee must not remember the January 16, 2002 shooting which was ended by students retrieving personal firearms from their vehicles.

I urge Representative Stein to overcome her natural Liberal bias and give her fellow Representatives the opportunity to vote it up or down on its merits.

Readers, now would be a good time to contact your State Representative.

(*Lexington Fayette County Urban Government)

Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind.

2008-01-09T05:35:00.000-08:00

"To grant that there is a supreme intelligence who rules the world and has established laws to regulate the actions of his creatures; and still to assert that man, in a state of nature, may be considered as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, appears to a common understanding altogether irreconcilable. Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed that the deity, from the relations we stand in to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature....Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind."

- Alexander Hamilton (The Farmer Refuted, 1775)

Without that "eternal and immutable law", there is no basis for "natural rights", which follow only from that transcendent point of view. Man, without that view, is only an advanced animal, and his rights are an animals rights. In other words, whatever he can claw, bite, and take from those around him is that to which he is entitled.

There are no "rights" in the animal kingdom but domination and submission, excepting the occasional accommodation between those of nearly equal power. One, who by reason of whatever power (physical, mental, political) he or she can exercise, can wrest whatever supposed rights they may from us, and moreover, are completely justified.

Approval: Bush - 35%, Congress, 25%.

2008-01-07T05:37:00.000-08:00

Why is Congress 10 points lower than the President? Here's one reason. (from PatriotPost.US)

Congressional Democrats did a poor job of projecting an aura of fiscal responsibility in 2007. It was left to President George W. Bush, then, to rein in spending by issuing vetoes on profligate bonanzas like the politically popular SCHIP expansion. Earmarks did not die the well-deserved death that Democrats promised, either. Reform legislation was significantly watered down early in 2007, and efforts to shame lawmakers by publicly linking them to their earmark amendments fell flat. But since when was it possible to
shame a congressman into spending less, anyway? The fate of the $555-billion omnibus spending package and the $459-billion defense bill remains undetermined, but, collectively, they contain 11,000 separate earmarks, including such gems as $100,000 for signage in L.A.’s fashion district, $250,000 for a culinary school in Washington State, and $213,000 for olive-fruit-fly research in France. (Yes, France.)

The Solution To The Smoking Dilemma

2008-01-06T18:38:00.000-08:00

Kentucky's first great statesman was known for being a great compromiser. Henry Clay's Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 were two of his most notable legislative feats, balancing the interests of slaveholding states and abolitionist states decades before the eruption of the Civil War. Today, many parts of Kentucky need new compromisers to answer a new call for legislative moderation.

Compared to the freedom of men, most of the issues we face today are trivial. Nonetheless, freedom is still at stake.

Today, many citizens and business owners want to be able to legally smoke tobacco products within certain businesses such as restaurants and bars. Many other concerned citizens and business owners want to restrict their freedoms to do so because the smoke may unintentionally harm other people inside those same businesses. Many feel that their financial livelihood is on the line. Many feel that more basic freedoms are being challenged. The latter argue that these are scenarios where one's freedoms ends where another's nose begins - that a person's right to voluntarily smoke is overruled by another's right to a more healthy lifestyle.

These are both legitimate points. That is why compromise is necessary.

The solution to this question of liberties does not have to lie in legislative bodies. However, public servants often face intense pressure to "do something." If any legislative body in Kentucky chooses to "do something," the solution it chooses should respect both of the legitimate arguments above, with no unfair exemptions for anyone.

The only solution available to sensible legislators is one which may not make everyone happy. The ramifications of pragmatism are not always enjoyable, but often rewarding and certainly endurable. Most importantly, in a situation such as this, only a pragmatic answer is respectable.

Legislative bodies in Kentucky should act to create and enforce local smoke zoning ordinances by which each business must choose whether or not smoking will be allowed within its walls and to clearly post the smoking status of the business in a visible place near entrances. At least 3 smoke zoning classifications need to be established:

1 - No smoking.
2 - Smoking during certain times and places.
3 - Smoking.

The effects of these ordinances would not delight everyone, but pragmatic answers rarely do. However, this answer is the only answer that respects the legitimate arguments of the two opposing forces in this debate. People will be allowed to smoke inside some businesses. Business owners will be allowed to choose whether or not to allow smoking. People who choose healthier lifestyles can do so.

The interests of the legislators themselves should not be overlooked. They do face pressure to do something. This is something they can do that respects all parties. Pressure on them would be alleviated, and they would be free to conduct other business. They can even take credit for "doing something."

The function of government itself, also, should not be overlooked. If forced to choose one side or the other, legislative bodies will likely revisit the topic more often that what is prudent, anger more people than necessary, and spend too much time and money debating the issue.

This solution is one which can be enacted quickly, if only our legislators would rise to the occasion in the spirit of our first great statesman, the great compromiser Henry Clay.

One Piece of Legislation The General Assembly Should Pass . . .

2008-01-06T18:37:00.000-08:00

has not been written yet.

Someone needs to file a bill that does the following, and keep in mind that I am neither a lawyer nor a legislator, so the wording would surely be a bit different and probably 500 times longer than what I am about to write.

Prohibit the Kentucky Lottery Corporation or any associated entity from marketing or advertising every game that it operates - no billboards, print ads, radio ads, television ads, internet ads, etc. Only a small section of newspaper could be used to print, in a small font, the winning numbers.

Here's why.

1) Proposals to start the KY lottery, and now expanded gambling, were and are so heavily based on this helplessness theory that states that people are going to do it anyway, so we (the state, the legislators, whatever) might as well make a few dollars off of that activity and try to do some good works with it.

First off, this is akin to the bad parents who host, or allow their kids to host, drinking and drugging parties at the parents' homes. The parents often say, "Well, I just think that the kids are going to drink anyway, so they might as well do it here where they're safe." That's just terrible logic, lazy parenting, and lazy governance.

If the helplessness theory is correct, people do not need extra enticement in the form of advertising to be convinced to gamble. If "people are going to do it anyway," the Kentucky Lottery Corporation does not need to advertise. Advertising is a way to get people to do what you want them to do. That's why politicians buy advertisements around election time - to get people to vote for them. That's why advertising companies develop techniques, conduct market research, etc. They get paid big bucks to generate even bigger bucks for their clients. If "people are going to do it anyway," the Kentucky Lottery Corporation is pointlessly wasting revenue. The money they spend on advertising could and should be spent on "education," without causing a drop in revenue generated by the lottery because of the Law of Helplessness.

2) It is inherently wrong for the government to profit off of its citizens' stupidity and misfortune. That is what is happening with lottery generated dollars. A lot of people play. Very few are lucky. Most are unlucky. For every person who is not lucky, the state benefits. That is just wrong. The state has no morals because it has no conscience, however legislators should not allow the government that they help operate to anticipate people's misfortune in a game owned and operate by the KLC with a plan to redistribute the money they lost playing that game. This is obviously quite different from insurance. The state should encourage people to be wise with their money, not give it to the government so the government can give a little bit of it back to them through social programs, give some of it to themselves and other bureaucrats, and give some of it to others.

3) The lottery could be decribed as being very similar to a regressive tax. It hurts poor people more than it does rich people. Poor people play more often than middle class or higher (financially speaking) people. A poor person who spends $50 per year on lottery tickets, the coveted scratch-offs, etc. on a $25,000 a year salary spends .200% of their income on lottery tickets, presumably trying to get rich but actually just giving more money to the government and essentially paying higher taxes. A person who makes $60,000 a year and spends $50 on tickets only pays an additional .083% of their income to the government, although it should be recognized that they are doing so voluntarily but in a game that they are encouraged to play by KLC advertising - that's what we are trying to change. But poor people are more inclined to play this game, and right now the KLC is encouraging them to do so even though they are already poor and getting poorer playing the lottery.

4) Kind of a side note. The holiday themed lottery advertising is particularly revolting. For a state owned and operated corporation to advertise so that it may benefit from people's stupidity and misfortune is terrible. However, to encourage people to buy scratch-offs for their loved ones as Christmas presents is simply beyond asinine. This kind of stuff has to stop. Besides, I didn't see any ads telling people to get scratch-offs for their Jewish loved ones during Hanukkah. Why is the Kentucky Lottery Corporation discriminating like that, based on religious preference? (Hint: tongue in cheek)

If people didn't spend their money on lottery tickets, they would probably buy things and pay sales taxes, so the state is not going to lose that much money. However, I am not even proposing that anyone propose a bill closing down the lottery. All that needs to be done is to prohibit the KLC from advertising.

Ramifications of Today's Matchup

2008-01-05T22:08:00.001-08:00

UK back under .500, Barnhart considering move to Sun Belt Conference

Hillary Clinton Goes Berserk Over Change

2008-01-05T22:04:00.001-08:00

I guess this was some sort of Arby's ad or something because Hillary Clinton apparently believes that "change is good." "Making change," "continuing to make change," having "made change." Changing one's campaign strategy . . .

The illusion of the Hillary freight train has been completely derailed by Sens. Barack Obama and John Edwards. I think she will still pull away with the nomination, but with such strong percentages of Democrat voters not voting for her in their primaries you have to think that her already polarizing reputation will be magnified.

If Obama pulls away with it, I think he would be defeated most easily by Rudy Giuliani or John McCain, both of which would make a good President on all of the important factors.

McConnell Nonsensical Target For Dems

2008-01-05T22:01:00.001-08:00

The Senior Editor & Political Analyst of the Cook Political Report, Jennifer Duffy, seems to think that targeting the Bluegrass State for electoral votes might make sense, but that targeting Senator Mitch McConnell does not.

Duffy:

“[Democrats] have been working for months to put Kentucky in play. Now, Kentucky as a state -- that makes sense to me. McConnell as their target makes a lot less sense to me. He's got $10 million in the bank. He is as good a strategist as I have ever met -- I used to joke if i ever ran for office I would want him to be my campaign manager. He's just going to be really hard to beat, and pretty much everybody Democrats have approached to run against him has taken a good, hard look and walked away…”

Andrew Horne does not rate in the "pretty much everybody" category, interestingly. I guess he and Greg Fischer are more like "everybody else," or "the wannabes."

Something I think is going overlooked right now is McConnell's ability to pull voters to the polls, not just for himself, but for other Republican candidates in the commonwealth. Erwin Roberts, for example, could benefit greatly from high Republican turnout in Louisville in the race for Kentucky's 3rd District congressional seat. John Yarmuth (D - KY / San Francisco) is giving away money, but that doesn't take away from the fact that a majority of Louisvillians do not agree with a high percentage of his votes, several of which are quite exploitable. Given a choice and a few good reasons to go vote, people like Roberts have a legitimate shot at knocking mediocre Democrats out of office - especially in the State House and Senate.

Video:

A Concise view of candidates

2008-01-04T12:17:00.000-08:00

It is sometimes helpful to have a thumbnail view of candidates. LiberalCCW offers some here. Agree with him or not, it's funny.

An officer's first-hand look at the Omaha mall shooting

2008-01-04T08:31:00.000-08:00

)If you know a police officer, do them a favor and point them at this article at Policeone.com)

Policeone.com has an exclusive article by Sergeant Jeff Baker of the Omaha Police Department about the Westroads Mall shooting in Omaha. Though written by an officer for other officers, we can learn from this article, too. I'm sure you will want to go over and read the whole piece, but here are a few cogent quotes.

An active shooter, the apex predator. A calm, deliberate and seemingly remorseless gunman with a high-powered military style rifle. Multiple magazines at his disposal, each brimming with ammunition capable of passing through concealable soft body armor. Unlimited places for the murderer to hide and a target rich environment full of civilians in a "gun free zone," a massive shopping mall of about 135 stores at Christmastime.

(emphasis mine) Sgt. Baker doesn't explicitly say so, but this statement leads me to believe he isn't impressed with gun-free zones.

I’m just gonna say it: Responding to this incident proved jarringly scary.
As the supervisor dispatched with district cars when the call was first broadcast, fear crept in that we would not get there in time — this despite a 100-plus mph response on a congested freeway leading to the mall.

Could not get there in time. We do well to remember that policemen respond to threats, they seldom have the opportunity to prevent them. I am not denigrating the police for this. It is simply a fact. Over 200 LEOs were on site. After the shooting was over.There will never be enough policemen to prevent stop incidents like this.

The shooting had been confined to one store, and had been committed by one suspect who was already dead. By the time the day ended some 13 hours after my shift began, I was completely spent, both emotionally and physically. So too were dozens of other involved officers.

Know ahead of time: Responding to an active shooter is unfathomably stressful.

We often talk about what we would do in a live-fire encounter. We seldom talk about the aftermath. Fight or flight is very powerful. Adrenaline is awesome, and so is the inevitable physical crash after the adrenaline rush subsides. The mental effect is also profound. This is not the condition we would want to be in while answering questions from the police after a live-fire incident.

The law officer is cognizant of the increasingly violent realities of the world, and while praying it doesn’t happen in our hometown, we’re sober-minded enough to accept the fact, given sufficient time, it probably will.

Even though Louisville is one of the safest metro areas in the country, bad things do happen to good people in supposed safe places. A couple of posts ago, I linked to "The Dangers of Concealed Carry Permits", wherein the gentlemen asked why anyone would want to carry in a K-Mart in a low crime area. He obviously stays in Condition White, an irresponsible and foolish way to face "the increasingly violent realities of the world". Fear should not rule us, but inform us, and that information should help us prepare. I end with one last quote:

Anxiousness can build with serious momentum during your response to the scene. The physical taxation your body is put under is exacerbated by this psychological reality. Your dedication, training, superior tactics, determination and sworn oath as a law enforcement officer will propel you through the barrier of the human instinct to run from — not toward — the sound of gunfire.

Thus, fear does not have to be the enemy of the police professional. Fear keeps you "on the yellow" and prepared to react with extreme prejudice when the Moment of Truth arrives.

Clinton Could Win 24 Percent of GOP Womens Vote, Pollster Says

2008-01-03T07:31:00.000-08:00

According to a Cox Newspaper story, Mark Penn, the pollster and senior strategist for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, said Thursday that nearly a quarter of Republican women could defect from the GOP if the New York senator is the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.

At a breakfast with reporters, Penn said his internal polling suggests Clinton might win as much as 24 percent of Republican women in the 2008 general election because of the “emotional element” of electing the country’s first female president.

I find this patently offensive. This implies that nearly 1/4 of republican women would be willing to ignore their morals and basic philosophy in order to vote for “Hill”. I just don’t see it happening. The republican women I know (and love) are smart, well educated and way too savvy to jump ship because Hillary also has “girlie bits”.

That said, if you look at the overall picture we are cranking out generations of voters that are the product of a flawed public school system and schooled by television and pop culture. These newly minted voters, many of which are completely unschooled in civics and in ethics turn out to be Hillary's best chance of being elected. America is getting stupider and we show it every day. When thousands of people will fight for tickets to see a Hannah Montana (A musician pretending to be a fictional musician..) concert is it any shock that they would vote for Hillary because she has boobies.? Hillary may get 24% of the vote but I dare say it won't be from Republican women voters.

Cross posted at http://themikester.is-a-geek.net/

Camped Out Senate Candidate Will Remain on Atlanta Tower

2008-01-02T18:25:00.000-08:00

TV reporter turned politician, Dale Cardwell was hoisted more than 300 feet up the Corey Tower near downtown Atlanta on Tuesday morning. He said he expects to remain there “for days,” sleeping in an insulated sleeping bag and eating military rations.

I like this. I like this a lot. Imagine the progress we could make as a nation if we could get elected politicians to sit on towers for long stretches of time. Maybe we could get some lawyers to join them. Full story at Fox News.com.

Cross posted at http://themikester.is-a-geek.net/

Who is more partisan, McConnell or Yarmuth?

2007-12-31T08:43:00.000-08:00

I'm sure this will surprise many people (mostly Democrats), but according to the Washington Post, but Mr McConnell doesn't even come close. John Yarmuth is the most partisan member of Kentucky's Congressional delegation. Mr. Yarmuth is a liberal's liberal, and proudly proclaims it. It's really the other members that surprised me.

Senate	Name, Party	Votes Missed	Votes with Party
	Jim Bunning Republican Next election: 2010	2.0%	88.5%
	Mitch McConnell Republican Next election: 2008	0.2%	91.8%

House	Name, Party	Votes Missed	Votes with Party
	Ed Whitfield Republican, District 1	3.5%	88.4%
	Ron Lewis Republican, District 2	1.4%	93.7%
	John Yarmuth Democratic, District 3	2.9%	97.2%
	Geoff Davis Republican, District 4	6.0%	92.8%
	Hal Rogers Republican, District 5	2.8%	93.4%
	Ben Chandler Democratic, District 6	2.0%	95.0%

Quick recap: Partisanship of Kentucky delegation by party line votes.

Yarmuth
Chandler
Lewis
Rogers
Davis
McConnell
Bunning
Whitfield

Update: I know Jefferson posted this earlier, but I wanted to put up more info. Also, I am not saying Mr. Yarmuth shouldn't be so partisan. What upsets me is the relatively low numbers for the Republicans. Of course, that may explain some of the difficulties of the supposed Republican majority of years past.