Gun Control Advocates Are Their Own Worst Enemies…And Therefore Ours.

Posted on May 3, 2013 by Mike McNeff

 

Gun Control Advocates Are Their Own Worst Enemies…And Therefore Ours.

I’m so sick and tired of the bullshit politicians put out about firearms I could scream…actually, I do scream…at the television. Like when VP Joe Biden gives his sage advice on using a shotgun to defend your home…both of his suggestions being illegal in most states and violate basic firearm safety rules. http://bit.ly/1295b27 Way to go Joe. He and Dick Cheney ought to go hunting together. Then there’s Colorado democratic Rep. Diana De Gette and NY Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, main proponents of gun control, who are ignorant of how guns work and don’t understand the language in their own bill. http://bit.ly/15bmuCF. Or President Obama, who doesn’t know the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a fully-automatic rifle. http://bit.ly/15bnbvK

These idiotic statements not only point out the lack of knowledge most politicians have about guns, but their lack of knowledge on the entire issue of violence. Let’s start off by putting things in perspective. Despite horrendous incidents of mass murder, the violent crime rate in the US has dropped by 50% since 1992. http://bit.ly/134ePBL This is despite the fact there are more guns owned by citizens. http://bit.ly/ZWG6Cg

 In 2011, an estimated 14,612 persons were murdered in the United States. This was a 0.7 percent decrease from the 2010 estimate, a 14.7 percent decline from the 2007 figure, and a 10.0 percent decrease from the 2002 estimate.
 There were 4.7 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, a 1.5 percent decrease from the 2010 rate. Compared with the 2007 rate, the murder rate declined 17.4 percent, and compared with the 2002 rate, the murder rate decreased 16.8 percent.
 Nearly 44 percent (43.6) of murders were reported in the South, the most populous region, 21.0 percent were reported in the West, 20.6 percent were reported in the Midwest, and 14.8 percent were reported in the Northeast. Source: FBI 2011 Uniform Crime Report

All of this decrease in violent crime has taken place with guns still prevalent in American society. So, apparently, guns are not the major cause of violent crime. Introducing gun control will not have an effect on violent crime, as the proponents of gun control have already admitted. See my blog We Know Control Won’t Work.

So why do they want gun control? Well, they don’t actually. Gun Control is a political euphemism for complete gun confiscation with gun control being the first step. Here’s the proof.

Senator Diane Feinstein said, “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!” http://bit.ly/10REg87 Missouri democrats introduced a bill calling for the confiscation of all semi-automatic guns. Missouri citizens would have 90 days to leave the state, render the guns inoperable or turn them into law enforcement. http://bit.ly/10RtRcu Minnesota democrats introduced the same bill. http://bit.ly/10RFuA5 Washington State democrats introduced a bill that gave county sheriffs the authority to enter homes without a warrant and search for guns to see if they complied with a regulatory scheme. When it was pointed out that provision was blatantly unconstitutional, they said they didn’t know the provision was in the bill…the bill they introduced…riiight. http://bit.ly/10REZpE Connecticut democrat Rosa DeLauro introduced a bill to give people a tax credit in exchange for turning in their guns. http://1.usa.gov/10RtzCk In the wake of Katrina, New Orleans police illegally confiscated firearms from all citizens at the order of the mayor and police chief. http://bit.ly/10RNe5k The city is now paying damages for violating the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. For even more confiscation statements see http://bit.ly/10T1ef3 The democrats want to confiscate all the guns in the country. When they say they don’t, they’re lying. They don’t give a damn about the United States Constitution and they’re becoming more obvious about it.

This whole gun control thing is not really about the guns. It’s about my constitutional rights. Either the constitution means something or it doesn’t. I know gun control isn’t about protecting our children. If it were, we would have armed guards in all of our schools, like we do in all government buildings, protecting our politicians, banks, corporations, celebrities, etc, etc, etc. And please explain to me how you can be upset at the murder of 20 children by gun and not the murder of 1.2 million children by legal abortion in this country every year.  http://bit.ly/122oqcT

I’m well aware of the difference of opinion on the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Some say it’s only referring to the militia. Some say it’s to allow the citizens to control the government. Pick your poison, I really don’t care because it is clear to me that the right to bear arms is as much a personal constitutional right as the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments.

The Second Amendment says:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Notice that language that says “the right of the people?” That same language is in the First and Fourth Amendments. There is no question those rights give power to the people and are a limitation on government. The other amendments I referenced talk about persons or the accused entitled to protection from the government, So, how does that interpretation not apply to the Second Amendment? Now, I don’t like either political party, but why is it mostly the democrats that want to control the way Americans live? When they are in power, they spew out legislation and regulations like there is no tomorrow and each one of those laws and regulations diminishes our freedom.

If it’s okay to infringe on this constitutional right, what other rights can these people decide don’t matter anymore. Our freedom is being attacked every day. When I turned 65 I was told to fill out a Medicare information form. I told them I didn’t want to go on Medicare, even though it would reduce my premiums by $500. I had good insurance and I saw how more and more providers were turning away Medicare patients. I was informed I had to go on Medicare, I didn’t have a choice.

I’d been concerned about where our country was headed , but his really hit home. My freedom of choice was taken away from me. Think about this folks. If you don’t insist the constitution be followed by the government and have the means to back it up, we are going to lose a lot more than our right to bear arms. Think I’m overreacting? Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer said, “Those of us who are pro-gun control have to admit that there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms… once we establish there is a constitutional right to bear arms, we should have the right admit, and maybe they’ll be more willing to admit, that no amendment is absolute after all.” http://bit.ly/15bfwO7 Screw you, Schumer. All of my rights are absolute.

Having said all of the above, I’d actually be in favor of expanded background checks…if I could trust the government not to develop a database to use for future gun confiscation. As you can see by the quotes I’ve provided, I can’t. That’s why gun control advocates are their own worst enemy…and therefore ours.

Next: My concluding thoughts on gun control and the cause of violent crime.

 

 

 

Posted in Civil Rights, Democracy, Freedom, Gun Control, Liberty, Obama, Rule of Law, US Constitution | 1 Comment

The Surviving Boston Bomber: A US Citizen Entitled To Full Constitutional Protection.

Posted on April 21, 2013 by Mike McNeff

I’m interrupting my blog series on the Second Amendment to put in my two cents worth on the issue of whether or not to declare Dzhokar Tsarnaev, the surviving Boston bomber, an enemy combatant.  It’s not a difficult question for me.  The answer, in my opinion, is no.

I find it unsettling that members of congress are calling for Tsarnaev to be charged as an enemy combatant.  These same members of congress have been vocal on the unconstitutionality of the recently defeated gun control proposals.  They are right about that, but wrong on Tsarnaev, which makes them inconsistent, in my view.

Tsarnaev is an American citizen who has not denounced his citizenship nor was he captured fighting with enemy forces against American soldiers on foreign soil, which could be construed as a denouncing of citizenship.  He committed his illegal acts on American soil.  He must be afforded all of the constitutional protections any other accused American citizen would receive or just like gun control, the government is ignoring the United States Constitution.

I’ve read the US Supreme Court cases on Hamdi and Padilla concerning citizen enemy combatants.  I don’t think they answer the question.  Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban after America entered that conflict.  The court ruled he could be charged as an enemy combatant after he was given the opportunity to present evidence to an impartial magistrate that he wasn’t an enemy combatant.  Padilla was arrested as he reentered the United States after reportedly being trained by Al Qaeda to build and detonate a dirty bomb.  The supreme court  declined to hear his case and he ended up being charged and convicted in civilian court after three and a half years of confinement in a navy brig without charge, where he was subjected to enhanced interrogation.

Tsarnaev became a naturalized citizen on September 11, 2012.  Now it’s conceivable that evidence may show he obtained his citizenship fraudulently by lying on his application and falsely swearing to his oath of citizenship.  If that’s the case, perhaps his citizenship can be declared null and void.  But if that’s not the case, he should be charged with treason in addition to the other charges they are going to file against him, and his case proceed like any other criminal case against an American citizen

Prosecuting Tsarnaev in civil court doesn’t affect the ability of the FBI to interrogate him as much as they want.  Miranda Warnings are not a right unto  themselves as they are simply an evidentiary issue.  Failure to read the warnings to a suspect who is in custody prior to interrogation only renders anything he says inadmissible in court.  In this case, it appears the authorities have all the evidence they need to convict Tsarnaev, including a confession both brothers made to their carjack victim, which is admissible.  They don’t need any more admissible statements.

I wish all of our elected officials would forget about politics and get down to properly governing this country.  The penchant for all of them have for forgetting the principles in our Constitution is disturbing.  In this case, it appears to be more political grandstanding, a sure road to a bad decision.  The more we strictly construe the constitution and apply it’s language to everything government does, the more we can minimize the political strife that is preventing our country from moving forward.

The Constitution is most important touchstone our elected officials should consider before proposing legislation, taking action or opening their mouths.  After all, they took an oath to defend and uphold it.  When they fail to do so, they are taking away freedom from all of us.

Posted in Afghanistan, Boston Bombing, Civil Rights, Counter Terrorism, Courts, Freedom, Gun Control, Rule of Law, Taliban, Terrorists, Treason, US Constitution | 7 Comments

Gun Control And The Mentally Ill…The Joke Is On Us

Posted on April 19, 2013 by Mike McNeff

The main focus on the misuse of firearms in this country is mass shootings, even though just plain career criminals’ commission of violence with guns is much more frequent and injures and kills many more people every year.  But this focus is understandable because groups of innocent people are killed in these tragedies.  In the Newtown shootings, it was the most innocent of people.

As we know, those who committed the majority of these horrible acts were mentally ill.  How is it they fell through the cracks?  The answer, first of all is they didn’t fall through cracks, because the mental health system is full of chasms, not just cracks and the main culprit here is the government.  The joke is on us.  http://fxn.ws/ZDklIT

Since the shootings at Columbine High School, congress has made many promises to fix the mental health system through legislation and appropriations.  State legislatures have also.  Congress’ promises have mostly turned out to be hollow.

The link I’ve provided here is an excellent report by the National Alliance On Mental Illness (NAMI) on mental health spending in this country from 2009 through 2011.  It shows the massive cuts in mental health spending at all levels of government. http://bit.ly/11mwYLq

Police officers come in contact with mentally ill persons every day.  The most common scenario is responding to a call of a person acting out that usually goes, “The subject has a history of mental illness and stopped taking his meds.”  Most of the time officers can talk the guy down and convince him to voluntarily go to the hospital, but all too often the situation turns into an armed barricaded subject or a hostage situation.

My experience is that until the person credibly threatens violence or acts out violently, police play hell on getting a mental health professional giving the okay for taking him into custody on a mental health hold.  Mainly this is because a person has a constitutional right not to be taken into custody unless there is substantial evidence he is a danger to himself or others.  Another reason is the lack of  funds to pay for mental health folks to respond on scene. Most of the time the legal threshold is pretty easy to figure out, but there are some interesting exceptions, and if the wrong decision is made, civil liability can rear its ugly head.

The difficult cases occur when a person stops taking their meds and the result is they stop bathing and maintaining hygiene, stop eating and start walking naked around the neighborhood.  They have no family or the family is tired of dealing with him and won’t come any more.  In two cases I was involved in, the neighbors would call when the situation got bad.  They were the ones feeding these people and trying to keep them clean and putting up with some pretty bizarre behavior.  Then officers got involved and in my two cases the beat officers worked up a plan to monitor the situation and coordinate with the neighbors to keep these people on their meds and feed them.  Officers often bought food and supplied clothes with their own money.  Why did they have to do this?  Because these acts didn’t amount to these people being a danger to themselves or others according to the mental health professionals.  This determination puzzled us because without the help of good people, they would have starved to death. The neighbors and officers took care of these two people until they died.

So you can see that without a formal adjudication a person is incompetent or a danger, law enforcement hands are tied and if mental health professionals don’t want to deal with a person like the ones described above, there is no official determination of mental illness that goes into the National Instant Background Check System through which all background checks for gun sales are run.

This system is set up to accept and store reporting information from the states on persons who have been adjudicated as mentally ill, but many states don’t report these adjudications and others on do so partially.  There are 1.2 million such records on file, but the GAO says there should be an estimated 2 million more.   This problem shouldn’t be that hard to fix and congress authorized $125 million to spend on the problem, but has only appropriated $5 million in grants so far.  http://lat.ms/11mI56Z  Apparently, even the DOD and DEA are slow to make required reports.  Once again, it’s government’s failure to enforce current law that’s the main problem.

In the recent go around in congress over gun control, the proposed background check expansion was defeated.  The defeat is blamed on the NRA and other gun rights groups.  As usual, it’s more complicated than that.  In reality, there was support for expanded background checks among gun owners, including NRA members.  The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms even helped draft the bill.  The problem is in some the language of the bill, which is a common problem when trying to rush legislation on a complicated and much contested issue.

For instance, President Obama, expressed incredulity that gun rights groups said a national registry was not prohibited.  He said the no registry provision is in the bill.  He was right that the bill did prohibit the Attorney General from building a registry, but it did not prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense or any department not under DOJ from doing so.  If time had been allocated for adequate hearings on the bill, I’m sure this problem could have been solved along with other inartful language problems in different sections that could cause lawful gun owners problems when traveling across the country because of different state laws.  In addition, reasonable provisions the gun rights folks asked for were ignored.  Here is a link to the bill. http://1.usa.gov/ZDjQOT 

I think the bill was an honest attempt to solve some problems.  The backers of the bill need to go back and work on it to clear up issues, which in my mind are all fixable, and come back and put it through the legislative process in a methodical and transparent way.  The public never wins when legislation is developed behind closed doors and rushed through the process.

Congress has to stop flying around and banging against walls as a response to every crisis that afflicts our nation.  Crisis are usually a result of serious problems that need to carefully studied and worked to an effective resolution with the utmost transparency.  This is the only way to avoid needless battles and unintended consequences.  Congress’ failure to do this is an injustice to us all.

The issue in mass shootings is mental illness, not guns.  When congress wastes precious time and money on meaninless laws for political purposes instead of laws that will effectively deal with real problem, they are not serving the people of America. That’s no joke.

Next in this series, “Gun Control Advocates Are Their Own Worst Enemies…And Therefore Ours. ”

Posted in Stories | 1 Comment

Gun Control: We Know It Won’t Work – Part 1

Posted on April 15, 2013 by Mike McNeff

This blog is the first in a series on why gun control, as currently proposed, won’t work. It’s unfortunate that politicians are using the emotions of tragedies to try an ram worthless laws down Americans’ throats, but that’s what they do. Here’s one thing I’d like you to consider at the outset. If a proposed law needs heart ripping emotion to get the majority of American’s to agree with it, the law and its purpose are seriously flawed. Gun control is not about public safety. It’s about politics.

The politicians who are leading the fight for gun control know these proposed laws won’t work.  We already had ten years of assault rifle ban, from 1994 to 2004,that had no effect on gun crime at all. That’s mainly because the great majority of gun violence is perpetrated with pistols, 72.5% in 2011. http://1.usa.gov/134dXNH  That’s why the law went away. This year, under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice put out a report that admitted the proposed laws won’t do anything to stop gun violence. http://bit.ly/XxDbTU  Even VP Biden admitted these laws would not stop mass shootings or reduce gun violence. http://bit.ly/1345El4  It’s also interesting that gun control is become such an issue when violent crime in this country has dropped by 50% since 1992. http://bit.ly/134ePBL  This is despite the fact there are more guns owned by citizens. http://bit.ly/ZWG6Cg

Currently, there are tens of thousands of federal and state gun laws in this country, most of which are not enforced or so weakly enforced, might as well not do it at all. Yep, that’s a fact folks. Here are some examples. Of the over 72,000 cases of denial of the sale of a firearm pursuant to the information on federal transfer forms submitted in 2010, only 62 were considered for prosecution. Of those, only 44 were prosecuted and only 13 of those resulted in a conviction as of  December, 2011. VP Biden says this is because “we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that  checks the wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.” http://bit.ly/15blK0h  So, how is the government going to enforce these new proposed laws?  Experience shows they’re not.

I’m a retired police officer and lawyer and was a prosecutor for a number of years. It is a fact that in most prosecutions involving enhanced penalties for committing a crime with a firearm, the firearm allegation is dropped for a reduced sentence in plea bargaining. This means the armed criminal serves much less time and is back on streets committing more crimes more quickly. Tragic cases on point: President Obama, in a Chicago speech about gun control, mentioned the murder of Hadiya Pendleton, a young Chicago high school student. The killers in that case were gang members with criminal histories and the shooter was on probation for illegal use of a firearm. http://ti.me/10VvwxJ  Janay McFarlane, the sister of  the young lady who sat behind the President Obama at that speech, was murdered in Chicago a short time later by a man with a long arrest record. http://bit.ly/10Vxr5t  Search warrants of the suspects’ homes in these cases turned up more guns. How does this happen in Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun control laws in America? Well, this is a glaring example that gun control doesn’t work, but what else could be a problem?

It could be the criminal justice system directs its resources inefficiently. Currently, almost half of the prison population in this county is made up of drug offenders.  http://bit.ly/ZWv6EV  Now I don’t want to generalize here because I’ve dealt with my fair share of violent drug dealers, but I’m willing to bet a good portion of those in prison are users with multiple possession charges.  About 12% of the drug prisoners are in for marijuana violations. http://bit.ly/ZWv6EV  I don’t know about you, but I would rather have a person in prison for illegal possession of a firearm than possession of marijuana.  My point is this: If we strictly enforce current gun laws and impose maximum sentences, we would reduce gun violence. If we give longer sentences to criminals who commit crimes with victims instead of criminals committing victimless crimes, we could keep a lot more dangerous people off the streets, something gun control can’t do. If we change our anti-drug strategy to free up more prison space, we can put more violent prisoners behind bars instead of a worthless probation or parole, especially considering the vast majority of probationers and parolees reoffend, around 65%-70%. http://bit.ly/ZWIFnZ 

Congress has to start thinking about legislation that will be effective and not legislation simply for political purposes.  The “gotta pass something” syndrome is stupid and won’t protect anyone. Never has.

Next blog: Gun Control and Mental Health: The Joke Is On Us.

 

Posted in Civil Rights, Courts, Freedom, Gun Control, Rule of Law, US Constitution | 2 Comments

About Gay Marriage

Posted on March 30, 2013 by Mike McNeff

I’ve been silent for a long while. I was going to start again after the election, but then I thought I’d wait for the fallout from it. I never thought there would be so much fallout and that the world would move so fast. My bad.

The subject I’ve chosen to write about for my first blog of 2013, is an emotionally charged one. It involves the most personal of relationships. It involves religion. It involves the government. It involves politics.

I’m going to talk about gay marriage in the United States of America.  As a firm believer in freedom and liberty, I support gay marriage. I believe in the human spirit and that a committed love between two people should be celebrated, no matter what their sexual preference may be.

I think you can tell from my previous blogs that I am a fiscal conservative. I believe in a limited government, the rule of law and a strong national defense. I’m a firm believer in the Second Amendment. I believe that people should take care of themselves, but if a person truly needs help, the help should come from family, neighbors, friends and the community, not the government. Politically, I’m  independent. I don’t attach myself to any party or political movement.  I firmly believe in the United States Constitution.

As long as the government interjects itself into our personal relationships by sanctioning them through marriage, then it is clear to me that the constitution, pursuant to the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, requires that gays have equal access to the institution of marriage. I personally don’t believe the government should have anything to do with it, but that’s the way it is.

In reality, two responsible adults can determine the conditions of their relationship. If they want to share assets, they can come to an agreement.  If they want to share benefits from employment, they can agree to that and negotiate with employers.  I actually think this is a moot point because I think employment benefits are largely going by the wayside.  Benefits are simply becoming too expensive.  But if the employer has them and the employee is worth it, they will agree to the share between partners.  If employer does not agree, within the parameters of the constitution, the employee can go someplace else. That’s called the free market.  The government simply doesn’t have to get involved. But that’s just my opinion. Of course, if discrimination is involved, then the remedy is legal action.

Many people object to gay marriage, mostly because of so called religious principles.  The religious argument always confuses me.  In my mind, if God, Allah, Buddha, Yahweh, Krishna or whatever name a deity goes by, is all knowing, all loving and all good, then that deity should be happy to accept love between any two people and sanction their relationship.  I certainly don’t see that in comments by people arguing for the religious side against gay marriage…indeed against gays in general. In fact, I find many of these comments to be disturbing in their demeaning tone and underlying theme of hatred.  I just don’t see how truly religious folks can think that way, if they truly believe in the principles of love and understanding.

I find their position even more disturbing in light of the disclosure of rampant and pervasive sexual assault upon believers by their religious leaders, much of which we have learned were swept under the rug by various religious denominations.  You would think this would be a much more serious concern than gays loving each other and wanting their relationship sanctioned. Maybe my priorities are askew…but I think I’ll stick to them for now.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe people have the absolute right to their religious beliefs, they just don’t have the right to force their beliefs on others. I don’t think a religion can be forced to accept gay marriage, but they can’t force others, through or not through the government, not to accept gay marriage.  Like a lot of issues, it’s a balance between two competing rights.  I would just remind everyone, that when we start demanding the government diminish or abolish the rights of a segment of the population, we are leaving open the door to diminish or abolish rights we cherish.

Many gays think conservatively about the same issues I mentioned above, but they sure as hell aren’t going to vote for a political party or movement that demeans and excludes them. For any reader who considers themselves a republican or conservative, you might start rethinking your position on gay marriage if you want any chance of turning this country around. Such a turnaround can only be accomplished by winning elections, and that means votes. Besides, supporting gay marriage is the right thing to do.

What does this have to do with law enforcement or terrorism? Plenty. Our country is in decline in terms of economic power, individual freedom and liberty, education and common sense. The cop on the beat is the person feeling the brunt of society’s frustration. Easing one set of frustrations will go a long way in making things easier for them. As long as we stand divided on issues, the more we are a target for terrorism. We need to pull together folks. Our future depends on it.

 

 

Posted in Democracy, Freedom, Rule of Law | 8 Comments

A Comedian To Lecture Our Troops

Posted on May 1, 2012 by Mike McNeff

I decided I was being a little harsh on this blog lately, so I thought I’d tone it down. I shouldn’t have watched the news. You know, politicians would be the funniest people on earth if their decisions didn’t kill so many people.

The news reported that Leon Panetta, US Secretary of Defense, was going to Afghanistan to talk the troops about how their bad conduct is hurting the war effort. Hmmm, I began to wonder. How about recent decisions by our government hurting the war effort? Let me expound.

1.  Let’s start with a no brainer.  We’ve told the enemy we’re leaving. Now that’s gotta scare the Taliban into surrendering! This is especially true since the government announces every day that the Afghan security forces are not ready to defend their country.   I can see the white flags now! Oh, wait…they’re being waved by us!

2.  We support a corrupt regime. The people of Afghanistan are the victims of Karzai and his band of criminals. The people don’t support him and his government. How does our government expect to win under these conditions? The stupidity of all this is mindboggling.

3. Massive cuts in personnel and programs for all armed services.

In terms of defending our country against one threat, we’re good. In terms of defending our country against multiple threats in multiple theaters of operation, we’re screwed. We have been for at least two decades. Don’t think this going to happen? READ YOUR HISTORY!! History is our greatest teacher. If that doesn’t work for you, read The Next One Hundred Years by George Friedman. He makes predictions based on geopolitical history. Massive cuts at this dangerous time is crazy. Oh, I firmly believe we need to cut waste in the military, but that starts at the Pentagon, not with the troops and their weapons.

Our soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen are tired. Our military has the highest operations tempo in its history. Almost triple over the past. The stress on our service personnel and their families is tremendous, unnecessary and a failure of command authority.

China is going through a massive build up of their military. Russia is on a deliberate path of regaining control over the lost soviet empire and rebuilding its military strength. Iran and North Korea are getting more dangerous every day. In fact, recently Iran touted they we’re biding time because the US was cutting its military and withdrawing from Afghanistan. There was no mention of soldiers and Marines taking pictures of dead terrorists. Do you understand that Afghanistan is neighbors or near neighbors with Russia, Iran and China? They are watching what we do there…very closely.

Obama cut the F-22 program. In case you don’t know, the F-22 is a stealth air superiority fighter with cutting edge performance. Shortly thereafter, the Chinese unveiled their stealth air superiority fighter. The Russians introduced the SU 30MK, a fighter with performance equal to the F-22. This is not looking good for us to maintain air superiority in a conflict, an essential ingredient for victory.

Russia, China and North Korea are also advancing their space programs. We’re not. Obama ended our space program. It doesn’t seem to sink in to our leaders that air superiority includes space. Satellites with lasers and manned space platforms with various high tech weapons could make us blind and deaf with ease, not to mention be launching stations for current tactical and strategic weapons.

I  think you get the picture.

4.  I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating here. You can’t fight a “nice” war and expect to win. War is about destroying the enemy. That means killing him, destroying his supply capabilities, his organizational infrastructure and utterly demoralizing his supporters. Political correctness has no place in our society, let alone on the battlefield. When we run around in circles wringing our hands over pictures taken by our troops we cease being a feared military force and simply become targets.

Yes, our politicians are comedians all right. Instead of playing their silly games in Afghanistan, we need to get out now. Obama has no stomach to fight to win. There is no way for a “strategic withdrawal” with any positive result. Our government needs to face reality, toss politics aside and do the right thing…bring our troops home. They don’t need a lecture from a comedian.

Posted in Afghanistan, China, Iran, Marines, military, Obama, Panetta, Russia, soldiers, Stories, Taliban, Terrorists | Leave a comment

Another Sterling Politician Criticizes American Soldiers

Posted on April 20, 2012 by Mike McNeff

The news today reports that Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan, is also criticizing American Soldiers over the pictures with dead terrorists. Now there’s a sterling character for you! Karzai heads a government that is corrupt from the top to the bottom…with him raking off hundreds of millions of dollars from American aid and depositing the money in personal foreign bank accounts. He also is getting paid off by the opium traffickers…that would be the Taliban.

There are a lot of reasons we are not accomplishing the mission in Afghanistan, but one of the main reasons is the people of Afghanistan know the Karzai government is riddled with corruption as they are the victims of it. They don’t support the government or trust it. Our government knows this, but doesn’t do anything about it. Isn’t that wonderful? Doesn’t that just make you want to support and trust our government?

Our government is sending our fighting men and women over there to support this corruption. The soldiers all know how corrupt the Afghan government is and they don’t like it one bit…especially when a fellow soldier loses his or her life in this conflict. Can you blame  them for being cynical and angry?

So politicians like Stephen Smith and Barack Obama criticize our troops for videos and pictures they take of dead terrorists, but they don’t dare criticize Hamid Karzai for his corruption and that of his government…corruption that is contributing to the failure of the mission in Afghanistan and costing the lives of good men and women.

Remember, the soldiers and Marines who were involved in the video and picture incidents are under investigation and face charges. We all need think real hard about how despicable, hypocritical and unjust all of this is.

Posted in Afghanistan, Counter Terrorism, Marines, Obama, soldiers, Taliban, Terrorists | Leave a comment

Politicians Who Criticize Soldiers Over Videos and Pictures With Dead Terrorists

Posted on April 18, 2012 by Mike McNeff

 

Today’s headlines read:

“Defence Minister Stephen Smith says photos showing US soldiers with the remains of suspected Taliban suicide bombers in Afghanistan are ‘terrible’ and ‘contemptible’.”

“The White House has condemned as ‘reprehensible’ photographs showing US soldiers with the mangled remains of suspected Taliban suicide bombers in Afghanistan.”

We saw the same headlines when a video of US Marines surfaced showing them urinating on Taliban terrorists the Marines had just killed in a battle…which means the Taliban terrorists were trying to kill the Marines.

Those of you who follow my blog…which isn’t that many…know I try to follow the high road and give deference to all sides of an argument. So, here’s my position on these honorable politician’s statements…

FUCK YOU AND THE WHITE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!!!!!

Stephen Smith, I find contemptible that you don’t have the balls God gave a chipmunk and I find your support of Australian  combat troops in Afghanistan to be appalling in its lack of sincerity. You idiots sent them there! Don’t even think you have any right whatsoever to criticize the finest military on the face of earth! The US Military will go anywhere, kill anyone who need to be killed (and there are a lot of people in that category), piss on them and take their pictures if they so choose! You, Sir, unless you been involved in combat arms, which you haven’t because you’ve been nothing but a low life politician all your life, can kiss their ever lovin’ asses. About that white horse…wasn’t there something about over reacting to the “Skype Scandal?” Of course you didn’t retract anything you did in that mess, even though a good man’s reputation was unjustly sullied and he was returned to duty. You just couldn’t admit you were wrong, could you?

The White House…aka Barack Obama…damn if the same facts don’t apply to you! Let me look here…excuse me while I search the record…damn, you’ve never been in the military either! You’ve never been in a battle where a bunch of terrorists tried to kill you and you survived. You’ve never felt the exhilaration of survival, being the victor and the emotion that goes with it. Why? Because you’ve been nothing but a low life politician your whole life. As the commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces your response to all this bullshit should be… “Investigate what???!!!” And that white horse? President Obama, I’m waiting for the day your promised “transparency in government” starts to happen in your administration. You’ve been nothing but business as usual.

We sent these men and women over there and hamstrung them at every turn for political correctness, the bane of our American society. We play the mindless political games at the expense of these young people who went into combat believing in what we told them…mostly lies. More than a few have died because of strange penchant to fight nice wars, instead of just relentlessly killing the enemy like we did to Germany, Japan and Italy.

Doesn’t it sink in to those pea brains in Washington that WWII took four years and every war since then has taken no less than ten with no clear cut victory? Why? WWII was a no holds barred war. We broke their military, their society and their will. In every war since then…all the nice wars…we’ve let our society break us. I don’t think we should’ve been involved in most of the wars since WWII, but damn it, if we’re going send our young folks to war, let’s do it right and let our military do the job unhampered by political correctness. Let them go in and ruthlessly kill the enemy.

For those who don’t know, every winter the Taliban retreats to the mountains to rest, recuperate and rearm…and we let them! We don’t follow them and make them fight in the winter. We let them have their winter break. You might think this is nice of us…but this costs the lives of American soldiers and those of our allies. It also prolongs the war.

Of course, no one gives a rat’s ass about what I think…except maybe for some Marines, soldiers and Apache pilots I know…

The above may be offensive to some…tough shit…get over it. It felt good!

 

 


Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

The book Cartel and the “War On Drugs” in America

Posted on April 17, 2012 by Mike McNeff

 

 

Cartel- The Coming Invasion of Mexico’s Drug Wars by Sylvia Longmire is a important book for all Americans to read. Longmire is a former intelligence analyst for the federal government, where her focus was drug enforcement. Her book lays out the problems with the past and current US drug enforcement policy and the growing threat the Mexican drug cartels pose to America’s national security. She correctly points out the primary impediment to an effective policy are the politicians at all levels of government, but most importantly the politicians in the federal government who never have formulated a strategy the coordinates the national drug enforcement effort.

Longmire’s research is detailed and accurate where it can be. Some information in the book comes from questionable sources, such as the Mexican government. Indeed, information from the US government often doesn’t jive with what the law enforcement officers in the street see, as Longmire points out.  Longmire also makes a few assumptions I don’t necessarily agree with. For instance she says the guns of choice are semi-automatic weapons and the majority of them are smuggled into Mexico from the US. The guns of choice of the Cartels are in fact fully automatic weapons, the sale of which is tightly controlled in this country. US gun dealers are not  major suppliers of this type of weapon.

The evidence strongly suggests these automatic weapons are being smuggled into Mexico from other countries and from corrupt members of Mexico’s own military along with grenades, RPGs and other military grade weapons. For sure, many of these weapons were manufactured in the US and sold to America’s allies, but it doesn’t mean they were smuggled into Mexico from the US. Of course, we unfortunately know a supplier of thousands of semi- automatic weapons that were smuggled into Mexico was none other than the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in a botched sting operation. This fact is tragic on so many levels, it is hard to comprehend the total damage that operation has caused.

Longmire does point out the irony that Mexico prohibits its citizens from owning guns. The cartels get all the weapons they want, but the average Mexican citizen can’t own a gun for self-defense. We can only guess if things would be a little different in Mexico with an armed citizenry.

All in all, Longmire has done an admirable job of exposing the growing danger to our country posed by the Mexican cartels.

I spent eight years of my life investigating drug smugglers and dealers on both the Arizona/Mexico border and the Washington State/Canadian border. I always get a feeling of frustration when I hear about the “WAR ON DRUGS.” The politicians declared the war on drugs, but they never prosecuted the war. It was and remains political pabulum.

War is defined as a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. Wars are won by killing the enemy until they surrender or there are no enemies left. The law in the United States prohibits law enforcement from hunting down and killing drug dealers and smugglers within the borders of our country. These people must be investigated, arrested and tried in a criminal court before any punishment can be exacted upon them and death is not on the list of punishments. So, within our borders, we can never have a war on drugs.

The law doesn’t prevent the United States from hunting down and killing drug dealers and smugglers in countries that cannot or will not effectively deal with these criminal elements. The law doesn’t prevent us from destroying stock piles of drugs waiting to be smuggled into this country. Harken, I hear howls of objection to the above statements.

Consider this. The United States unilaterally uses drones to conduct air strikes against terrorists in Pakistan and, at times, Somalia. We have killed hundreds of people in these strikes. International law prohibits us from doing so, but it certainly doesn’t prevent us from doing so. Our country sent Navy SEALs into Pakistan, without permission from the Pakistani government and the SEALs shot and killed Usama Bin Laden. International law and Pakistani law prohibits those acts, but it didn’t prevent them…and neither the Navy SEALs nor President Barack Obama, the man who ordered the raid, will be prosecuted for these crimes.

If the United States wanted to, we could use drones to conduct air strikes against the drug cartels in Mexico. I guarantee the government knows where drugs are stockpiled along the Mexico border, because we knew back in the 1980s. Now the cartels operate even more in the open, so we must know. We should go in and destroy those stockpiles, if we are indeed fighting a war on drugs. There is nothing to prevent us from doing so. We should also send Navy SEALs, Delta Force, Marine Recon, Green Berets and anyone else we can think of into Mexico, Colombia and Peru to assassinate cartel leaders when we know where they are, because…you guessed it, there is nothing to prevent us from doing so.

We should also shoot down aircraft that cross our border flying at two hundred feet with no navigation lights and no flight plan at night. They are most likely drug smugglers, but they also may be terrorists carrying a tactical nuclear device. Aircraft sneaking into this country is a serious threat to national security. Most people do not know U.S. Customs actually had a plan in the 1980s to use modified and updated F-80 jet fighters to do exactly that. There is nothing to prevent us from doing so because of the national security aspect of the border violations. It’s fascinating to me that the US has never considered using military aircraft to prevent border incursions by unknown aircraft. I guess instead of being fascinated, I should be terrified!

We don’t do any of the above, because we don’t and never have fought a war on drugs. Instead, we send courageous law enforcement officers into the streets, fields, forests and deserts every day and night to enforce a crazy and sad patchwork of ineffective laws made even more ineffective by overworked prosecutors and a court system that constantly decides cases by a margin of one vote. These law enforcement officers do their best despite being hamstrung and far too many give their last full measure acting as the thumb in the dike.

This raises the question that has gained more and more traction over recent years and that question is “Should we legalize drugs?” I don’t have a definitive answer to that question, but I do believe we need an open-minded national dialogue to figure out the answer. I personally have come the conclusion that we should seriously consider legalizing marijuana. It remains the main money maker for the cartels and if we can substantially cut into their profit, we should do so. Will it cause damage to our society? Most likely, but I don’t see it doing any more damage than alcohol. I propose we legalize marijuana nationally under a two year sunset law. This means marijuana will be legal for two years and unless the law is affirmatively continued, marijuana will be illegal again. That way we can do a two year test to see exactly what effect legalizing marijuana will have on our country.

It boils down to either we actually wage war on drugs or we start seeking more effective ways of dealing the this country’s drug habit than we do now. This will require political courage and leadership, which are traits we have not seen for decades in this country. Unfortunately, the future doesn’t indicate any political courage or leadership on the horizon any time soon.

Posted in Cops & Police Families, Counter Terrorism, Democracy, Drug Cartels & Drug Smuggling, Drug Fighting Tactics, Law Enforcement Agencies, Police | 16 Comments

Interview with Author Paul Anthony

Posted on April 7, 2012 by Mike McNeff

Paul Anthony

Paul Anthony is a prolific British writer of novels, poetry and screenplays. Many readers have enjoyed his stories such as Bushfire, The Fragile Peace, The Legacy of The Ninth and The Conchenta Conundrum. Paul is also an indefatigable promoter of fellow authors. Today I’m interviewing Paul about his writing, his books and his take on authors and publishing today.

Captain Whidbey Inn

Paul and I are sitting in the bar at the beautiful and historic Captain Whidbey Inn on Whidbey Island lying off the coast of Washington State. Stephanie and Felicia    have brought Paul a cognac and I have

Feliciahave brought Paul his cognac and I have

Stephanie

my bourbon. We are enjoying our drinks, the view of Penn Cove, which now the color of royal blue with full, white clouds floating by.  We are contemplating a game of darts. Loyd and Kathleen, the owners of the Inn stopped by and chatted. They are great supporters of the Whidbey Island writers community.

There are some interesting characters in the bar tonight. Detective Inspector Billy Boyd of Scotland Yard and some of this team are here.  Robin Marlette has joined the British contingency with his group. The drinks are flowing and the group seems to be getting a little boisterous with conversation and laughter.

“Well Paul, I think we should begin

Loyd and Kathleen

the interview before it gets too loud in here.”

“If I know coppers,  it’s probably wise.

“Why don’t us tell us about your background.

“Well, Mike, I was born in Southport, Lancashire, which is a seaside resort on the north west coast of England. My dad was  a serving soldier who ended his service at the Drill Hall TA Centre on Manchester Road, Southport. He was taken prisoner by the Japanese at the fall of Hong Kong on 25th December, 1941 and released by the Canadians when they overran the camp four years later at the end of the war. He was a Company Sergeant Major who was repatriated to this country via Australia and Canada where he was given medical care to give him back some quality of life. So my younger days were spent in an army garrisons in Yeovil, Somerset. He is a story of great courage in himself and has been an inspiration to me all my life.”

“I can see why.”

“Mum was an office worker in a local factory throughout the second world war. I was their only child. I schooled in Cumbria before joining the police cadets at the age of sixteen. I’m married to a fabulous woman who was a ‘modern matron’ at one time before

Captain Whidbey Inn Tavern

she retired from nursing recently. She specialised in orthopedics.”

“I have the highest respect for any spouse of a police officer. Very few people know the toll our past profession can cause on a family. Tell us about your children.”

“I have two sons and a daughter. My oldest son is a detective in West Cumbria and my daughter in law is a police sergeant there. My youngest son is a personal trainer who is currently in America on a fact finding tour of gyms in New York, Chicago and California before he returns to develop his career further. He’s also works in the Criminal Justice System with young offenders.  My daughter is a hairdresser married to a serving soldier stationed in Afghanistan. We are looking forward to him returning home soon. And I’ve got five gorgeous grandchildren to dote over.”

“As I mentioned before, you’re a prolific writer. Why do you write?”

“I’ve always written in some way or other. When I joined the police as a cadet I began writing poems and still haven’t stopped. I’ve got hundreds of them in note books here, there and everywhere.”

“That sounds like a good title for a song!”

“Ohhh, bad joke, Mike.”

“Sorry. I couldn’t resist. Please go on.”

 

View of Penn Cove from the Inn

My first few poems reflect my working life when the police earmarked me for development and sent me to work in a coal mine for six months – at the coal face with a pick and Davy’s lamp – or on an outward bound course for six months on Lakeland’s high ground. Another time I worked in a mental hospital treating drug addicts and alcoholics as part of my training and development.”

“That’s very interesting. The police service actually sent you to do these jobs as part of your training and development?

“Yes, that’s what happened to young cadets in those days – they were training you for a life long vocation, not a job”

“In my mature years I joined the Open University and took an Honours Degree in Social Sciences (specialising in Economics) to add to some management diplomas I had. You’ll know yourself that police are avid writers – they have to be writing reports and statements and stuff. But when I finished my degree course my wife suggested I wrote that work of fiction I always intended. So I did.

“My first published work, The Fragile Peace, was published by myself with a vanity publisher in 1996 (Kindle didn’t join us until about 2007 or thereabouts) and has

The Library at the Inn

sold over 25,000 printed copies. I was  a serving officer at the time and police regulations required me to publish under a pseudonym so I did so and I still hold to my pen name Paul Anthony. I have recently negotiated the termination of the contract for Fragile Peace  and am now able to put a revised second edition into both print and ebook/kindle format. So that happened in March. Best thing about March is that I am also published ‘Moonlight Shadows’ and ‘Scribbles with Chocolate’. So I had a ‘triple book launch last month.”

“I’m looking forward to reading ‘Moonlight Shadows’ and ‘Scribbles and Chocolate.’ As you know, I already have an autographed copy of ‘The Fragile Peace.’ What are some of the things you write about?”

“I don’t write about things I don’t know anything about. I don’t do cook books, cupcakes or gardening books, for example. And I don’t do ‘police procedural’ books because

The Library At the Inn

true police procedure changes on a regular basis as the law and relative practices and procedures evolve. I write thrillers from within my imagination based on the life I have lived. I was a uniformed police officer, a traffic motor cyclist, a motorway patrol officer, an antique specialist, a hostage negotiator, a detective inspector in charge of a highly specialised unit, a protection officer,  a surveillance officer, an undercover detective, a regional crime squad detective, an instructor, and a special branch detective.

“My working life centered on public order, serious and serial crime investigation, murders, rapes, drug dealing, armed robberies and the sharp end of the stick stuff. A lot of my time was spent investigating terrorism from Irish extremists as well as Muslim Fundamentalists and other such international groups. I am lucky, and actually quite proud, to be able to say I have worked with some of the most remarkable people you could imagine in the military, the police and the intelligence services of this country.

“I have commendations from various organisations and national bodies for work over long periods relative to criminal investigation, espionage and terrorism. I write about what I know and twist into the imagination to present my stories to fiction readers the best way I can. Writing in these genres requires plot and patience and the ability to retain a sense of proportion between what is fact and what is fiction.

“There have been occasions when I have protected our Royal family, various ‘at risk’ individuals, prime ministers and others. I once had the pleasure of protecting Princess Grace of Monaco (Grace Kelly, the former actress) when she visited a flower show in Cumbria many years ago. She stayed with her host for about a week, if I recall correctly, and although she was never ‘at risk’ I got the job of ‘protecting’ her from the media. Well, that’s probably the best job you could ever have wished for. What a beautiful woman; but what a wonderful lady she was. Pure class with a smile that remained in the mirror even after she’d left.”

“Can you tell us a little about what did you do in your small specialised squad?
“Mike, you and I have walked similar paths in life and some things are
not talked about. Let’s just say we write fiction, but know when to hold back on
fact. We choose our way and walk it with a silent pride.”

“I should’ve seen that answer coming! I would say your experiences give you plenty of ideas to write about. What is your creative process?”

“I would say that every book I have written has been crafted beside the pool on holiday discussing possible plots with my editor… oh, I mean my wife, of course. I tend to write headings of what happens in a chronological order. Then I join the headings together with sentences that grow into paragraphs and then chapters. At some time, it all comes together inside my head and I just tap it out on the old black and whites. I can never write a story from A to Z without deviating from the straight and narrow.

“Life is about human relationships so I carry sub plots and plots within plots as I write because that is true life. I can write a murder, for example, but wouldn’t you like to know what is going on in the minds of the investigators, the suspects, and the culprit? So I often introduce romance or trauma into the stories as I tap away on the keyboard.

“Life is never A to Z, there’s lots of stop off points along the way. Anyway, every 50 pages or so, my wife reads and edits my work and then, before I write another word, I go back to page one and read before I write. At page 100, my wife does the same again and when I revisit the work I start at page one and read through to page 100 before I write another word. By this ‘50 page and review’ method the work is under constant review and mistakes can be rectified at an early stage.

“Once this is done, I send the work to a friend who reads for plot, analysis, reality, truth, wisdom and general marketability. My son in law and I also write film scripts and television scripts so he gets the work next. He is part of the ‘editorial team’ too and is my ‘line by line’ editor.  Then we start again at page one and work through to the end. We make our own book covers from photographs and juggle about until we get it right. We take the process very seriously and may well ‘bed down’ the book for a week or two before revisiting it with a fresh mind. I, and my team, my associates, are my editors, book cover designers and marketers. That’s the way I prefer it because it works for me and we get a lot of fun out of what we do.”

“Well, it certainly seems to work! Tell us about the Independent Authors Network.

“If you already have your own website and multi marketing plan then you may not need this network. But that presumes you have the finances, time, and the technical ability to manage your own website. Having your own website may leave you a little isolated but it does give you the ability to ‘blog’ avidly in your own space and time without having to submit an article to a ‘clearing point’ or ‘door-keeper’ for inclusion.

“For myself, I can recommend the network wholeheartedly. The service from William Potter and his team is second to none. There is a high degree of excellence in delivering a first class website to members of the Independent Authors Network and this is reflected not just in the sharpness of imagery on individual pages, but the presentation of one’s work, and a growing membership. Personally, I showcase my books from this network and blog articles and writing material from my blogspot site.

“It’s what you want that counts and everyone has their own opinion. One of the wonderful things about the network is the ability to forge cyberspace pals across the pond and elsewhere. I swop tweets and emails with authors like William Potter, John  Betcher, Nick Rose, Morgan Nyberg, C.C.Cole, Kenneth Hoss and…. oh so many…. Check the site out. It is magnificent.  But then I will admit to being biased since I won the featured authors contest recently with over 3,500 hits in one month to my page. Funny thing is, I didn’t even know about the contest until I’d won it. I was so busy marketing my books to cyberspace that I didn’t fully familiarize myself with the website. Yep! FIVE GOLD STARS for #IAN1.

“Care to leave us with any last words of wisdom?”

“Life is just a book. You begin with a title and end with a full stop. The important thing is to enjoy the chapters in between.

“Those are wise words! Are you ready for the dart game?”

“Can I pick my team?”

“Of course, your my guest.”

“I think I’ll chose my British mates.”

“Any particular reason?”

“Why, yes. I created them!”

Learn more about Paul and his writing at

http://www.independentauthornetwork.com/paul-anthony.html

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments