Latest Entries »

I saw this story today of this guy who won a million bucks in the lottery and then died by cyanide poisoning – http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/08/authorities-investigating-after-tests-reveal-chicago-lottery-winner-died/.

Nothing strange about a guy winning the lottery, happens every day. Unfortunately, nothing really strange about a lottery winner being taken out by some jealous person anxious to get their hands on the winnings. I don’t know the statistics, but I’m sure it happens from time to time. What I found strange was the comment by the medical examiner.

“It’s pretty unusual,” said Cook County Medical Examiner Stephen Cina,  commenting on the rarity of cyanide poisonings. “I’ve had one, maybe two cases  out of 4,500 autopsies I’ve done.”

Maybe it’s just me, but I would think a case of homicide due to cyanide poisoning would be really rare. I mean really rare. I don’t think that one or two out of 4,500 deaths is all that rare. Am I wrong here?

Cook County, IL is the second most populous county in the nation with over 5.3 million residents. An article in the Chicago Sun-Times found that over 41,600 people die every year in Cook County. So 4,500 deaths is just over 39 days worth in a given year. So Cook County sees a cyanide poisoning death every 39 days (or maybe even about 20 days as the examiner said “one or two”)? Wow, that seems a bit more than rare to me.

About 40 people die each year in the U.S. from being struck by lightning making the odds about one in a million of being hit. Now that’s my idea of rare. But one in a few thousand? Not so much.

I’m not trying to put forth any kind of conspiracy theory here, just that life in the big city must be a lot different, especially for a rural guy like myself. For a city that just rang up over another 500 homicides last year, I suppose dying in other ways than natural causes really is the norm. You may recall that Chicago was the locale of the infamous Tylenol poisonings of 1982 in which cyanide was involved. Seven people died as a result. Of course, the medical examiner reported that the ratio is 1/4,500 so nearly 10 die every year in Cook County from cyanide poisoning anyway based on his statement.

Turns out cyanide is actually pretty commonplace in our everyday lives and is probably a much larger factor in smoke inhalation fatalities than we ever knew. Here’s a good background paper if you want to learn more – http://ww.dead-planet.net/chemical-terrorism/med_cbw/Ch10.pdf.

As for me, I’m sticking with the good old rural life. Sure seems safer. Maybe a deer will jump out in front of my car and kill me. That happens a couple of hundred times a year out of the 43,000 fatalities annually in auto accidents. Wait a minute. That’s one out of every 215 auto related deaths due to deer. Hmmm, maybe Chicago isn’t so bad after all even with the cyanide…

Libyan missiles found heading to Hamas

If you’re a regular reader of Spellchek, you already know that President Obama was sending arms to Hamas via Turkey via Egypt through the Sinai smuggling tunnels to Gaza. You also know this is why U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed and allowed to die by Obama as a fall guy to pacify Israel. Now more of this is coming to light in the media. Via PJ Media.

A stunning story out of Egypt on Friday (HT: Jonathan Schanzer at FDD) after a raid in northern Sinai uncovered a cache of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles bound for Hamas-controlled Gaza. The discovery was made in Be’r al-Hefn near Arish in an area known as a transit point for materials headed for the smuggling tunnels running from Sinai into Gaza.

The most remarkable part of the story is that the missiles were American-made, arriving from Libya according to multiple reports.

Unfortunately, the story then follows the accepted MSM narrative that the U.S. was innocent of any involvement of arms to Syria or Hamas or AQIM or Hezbollah. They link the Fox News article for support. Interestingly enough, the official U.S. intelligence source quoted in the story tips you off to the Lebanon/Hezbollah link which isn’t part of the narrative.

The U.S. source said: “The U.S. can absolutely say that we did not provide arms  to Syria … that is because it is a splitting-hair defense. The interim Libya  government in November 2011 offered to allow arms to be passed along to ‘Syrian  Freedom Fighters’ and that those weapons could go through Turkey and Lebanon.  The distribution then went from there.”

As you can see, even when further evidence of direct U.S. involvement in arming our so-called enemies comes to light, the media won’t follow the story through to its conclusion and connect all the dots. That’s a very inconvenient truth. Wouldn’t want that out with the inauguration right around the corner, would we? However, as time goes by the American public will hopefully get enough of these snippets of truth exposed so that they’ll have to face the real truth. Your President is guilty of treason. He is actively complicit in supporting the realignment of the entire MENA region as it fits his ideology. You’ll see more this year as Mali becomes the new focus.

More reading on the Benghazi story.

http://spellchek.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/the-truth-behind-benghazi-will-blow-you-away/

http://spellchek.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/senate-security-committee-releases-benghazi-report-review-board-report-reviewed-here/

http://spellchek.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/benghazi-accountability-review-board-arb-report-analysis/

http://spellchek.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/president-obama-may-be-forced-into-becoming-a-politician-yet/

http://spellchek.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/the-cia-denies-authority-to-detain-militants-in-benghazi-turns-out-they-really-do-have-it/

http://spellchek.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/the-benghazi-cover-story-is-coming-after-the-election/

http://spellchek.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/benghazi-clear-as-mud/

http://spellchek.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/the-obama-legacy-is-now-complete-blood-stained-hands-in-benghazi/

http://spellchek.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/the-true-benghazi-cover-up-means-asking-the-right-question/

The Wall Street Journal reported via Newsmax that Glenn Beck was rebuffed in his bid to buy Current TV from Al Gore who preferred Al-Jazeera instead.

Before pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera bought Current TV, the fledgling cable
news network founded by former Vice President Al Gore, conservative commentator
Glenn Beck had pursued purchasing the company — and was rejected.

The
Wall Street Journal revealed that when Beck’s TheBlaze TV sought ownership of
the Current broadcasting network, the bid was rejected because the principles of
Beck’s company did not align with those of Current.

“Other suitors who
didn’t share Current’s ideology were rebuffed,” reporters Keach Hagey and John
Jannarone wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze approached Current
about buying the channel last year, but was told that ‘the legacy of who the
network goes to is important to us and we are sensitive to networks not aligned
with our point of view,’” according to a person familiar with the negotiations.”

The former vice president confirmed the sale Wednesday that reportedly
netted $500 million, saying in a statement that Al-Jazeera shares Current TV’s
mission “to give voice to those who are not typically heard; to speak truth to
power; to provide independent and diverse points of view; and to tell the
stories that no one else is telling.” Gore will take home $100 million for his
20 percent stake in the network.

Current TV, Al Gore, Al-Jazeera, Hamas? All aligned with the same point of view. Take a look at this video.

Hamas PM Ismail Haniya Salutes Al-Jazeera Network for “Fighting on the Foreign Front”.

Al-Jazeera fighting “honestly and justly on the foreign front”. They should feel right at home here in America as part of the fourth branch of government.

The U.S. Senate homeland security committee has released its report on Benghazi. You can read it here – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2012/12/30/latest-senate-report-flashing-red-on-benghazi-attack/?intcmp=related

It differs little from the report released earlier by the State Dept. Accountability Review Board (ARB) report. You can read it here – http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

Both reports conclude the U.S. State Dept. was at fault for failing to respond to mounting security threats. Both reports also conclude that the intelligence community didn’t provide specific “actionable” intelligence prior to the attacks. In contrast, Libyan interim President Mohammed el-Megarif contends his government passed on information regarding a “credible threat” 48 hours prior to the attacks – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libya-we-gave-us-threeday-warning-of-benghazi-attack-8145242.html

The Senate report findings include these seemingly contradictory claims. First it lists this finding.

Finding 3. The absence of specific intelligence about an imminent attack should not have prevented the Department of State from taking more effective steps to protect its personnel and facilities in Benghazi.

Then within the same finding it states this based upon a 1985 committee report finding included in the Inman Report.

it would be foolhardy to make security decisions on the basis of an expectation of advance warning of peril

Lets see if we can keep up with their logic to this point. Both reports cite numerous accounts of security incidents and threats in the months leading up to the attacks. Both reports cite no specific or actionable intelligence immediately prior to the attacks. Then the Senate report finds that an absence of that specific intelligence shouldn’t have prevented the implementation of more security. Then immediately thereafter the report states ”it would be foolhardy to make security decisions on the basis of an expectation of advance warning of peril”.

Got that? Lots of previous security threats none of which are specific which aren’t required to increase security but would be foolhardy to rely upon to increase security. If that’s not a clear example of clear as mud, I don’t know what is. That’s your taxpayer dollars at work for you folks.

The Senate report goes on in finding 4 to cite the responsibility of the host nation to protect “consular” (key word) facilities and quotes the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Yet, both reports highlight that this was no diplomatic facility. It was a U.S. special mission, or mission, and an annex used by another government agency (read CIA). Why should the host country be required to protect a non-diplomatic facility? Of course when you’re conducting a covert, multi-agency operation in overseas facilities, you shouldn’t expect highly visible host country security, should you? No, that’s why you employ contract security such as the “February 17 Brigade, a Libyan militia deputized by the Libyan government but not under its direct control” as the report stated previously.

The report goes on to detail the reasons why the February 17 Brigade was utilized and the concerns surrounding their abilities throughout 2012. This is where reports such as this are less than useless. The attempt is made to show a pattern of security concerns and the lack of action taken in response to said concerns to mitigate the blame for the administration taking action once the attacks commenced. The reports can’t address the nature of these non-diplomatic missions because it’s classified. Security wasn’t increased because it would draw attention where none was wanted. So blaming the State Dept. or the host country is like blaming the dog for eating your homework after you used it to wrap your leftover steak.

The rest of the report is merely protocol reviews and recommendations for reviewing security at other locations globally. Again, a waste of time and your taxpayer dollars because none of that applies to covert ops as this was.

It does address the botched media narrative of not labeling a terrorist attack as such in finding 9 claiming the administration was “inconsistent”. Really? There was nothing inconsistent whatsoever. The administration was nothing but consistent in distributing its talking points to ensure this event was not labeled a terrorist action. It was only after the video cover-up story imploded and third-party accounts finally pressured administration officials to abandon the non-terrorist labeling.

Here is part of the conclusion.

Conclusion The deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans at the hands of terrorists is a tragic reminder that the fight our country is engaged in with Islamist extremists and terrorists is not over. U.S. and Western diplomats, and other personnel operating in the Middle East and other countries where these terrorists use violence to further their extremist agenda and thwart democratic reforms are increasingly at risk.

How many ways can I say “bullshit”? When you engage in arms trafficking to Al-Qaeda as well as regime destabilization as in Syria, you’re playing a dangerous game. The tragedy of the deaths of 4 Americans needlessly is blood on the hands of this administration pure and simple.

Despite Congressional hearings, review board reports and much speculation from the pundits, no one yet has been able to answer the biggest question of all concerning Benghazi. Why was Stevens targeted? The focus remains on who knew what and when concerning the timeline and cover-up. Those are merely political angles. Not that they aren’t important when you have potential treason as well as 2016 Presidential race implications. However, we need the same commitment to uncover why Stevens was targeted and why he was allowed to die with three other Americans. I believe I have the answer and you won’t find it anywhere else but here.

We need to go back to Oct. 23, 2011. That is the day the National Transition Council declared the liberation of Libya after Muammar Gaddafi had been captured and killed three days earlier. The following months created  tremendous chaos in security in Libya in which the huge weapons stockpiles acquired by Gaddafi were subsequently transferred out of Libya.

Move forward just a few weeks later to November, 2011. That’s when Ambassador Chris Stevens established the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi. Officially, we are told the purpose of the special mission was to bolster the democratic transition in eastern Libya. The Accountability Review Board report made no attempt to investigate the true purpose of the special mission, rather it focused on the inadequate security throughout the timeline.

Let’s step back for a moment to Oct. 24th, 2011. On that night, the Yarmouk Industrial Complex in Sudan was bombed. Much of the complex was destroyed including an ammunition plant and approx. 40 shipping containers. Israel was identified as most likely responsible. The Yarmouk complex was where the WMD’s of Saddam Hussein were alleged to have been stored and in recent years Iran has been utilizing it to transfer arms to Hamas in Gaza via Egyptian tunnels. The loss of the stockpiles at Yarmouk was substantial and the newfound Libyan supply helped to fill that void.

Ibrahim Menai is the Bedouin leader of the Swarke tribe in Egypt and owns the majority of the smuggling tunnels used to supply arms to Gaza via the Sinai Peninsula. He gave an interview to CNN Nov. 19, 2012 and made this statement.

 ”Weapons that are smuggled to Gaza come mostly from Sudan and recently from Libya during the security vacuum that followed the revolution in Egypt.”

Let’s go backward again to February of 2012. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave an interview to CBS reporter Wyatt Andrews. She said this concerning arming the Syrian rebels.

“First of all, as I just said, what are we going to arm them with, and against what? You’re not going to bring tanks over the borders of Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. That’s not going to happen.

So maybe at the best, you can smuggle in automatic weapons, maybe some other weapons that you could get in. To whom, where do you go? You can’t get into Homs. Where do you go? And to whom are you delivering them? We know al-Qaida. Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al-Qaida in Syria? Hamas is now supporting the opposition. Are we supporting Hamas in Syria?”

The Secretary of State does not openly wonder if our arms transfers intended for Syria are ending up with Hamas. She would know. So far we have Gaddafi overthrown in Libya and his weapons caches exposed. Within weeks, the U.S. establishes its “Special Mission” in Benghazi headed by Amb. Stevens. Stevens was a known Islamist sympathizer. He was admired by the Palestinians and also coveted the non-existent role of Ambassador to Iran. Stevens was alleged to have been the coordinator of shipping both arms and Jihadist recruits to Syria.

You’re probably seeing where I’m going with this by now. Stevens was coordinating arms to Hamas. That was a red line for Israel. Sept. 6, 2012, just five days prior to the Benghazi attacks, a Libyan flagged ship named Al Entisar docked in a Turkish port just 35 miles from the Syrian border. It carried a massive shipment of Libyan arms headed for the Syrian rebels. It was Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin that Stevens met with on 9/11 just hours before the attacks commenced. Reports have centered on the idea that the meeting with the Turk Diplomat was to discuss stopping Libyan arms shipped via Turkey to Syria from ending up in the hands of Libyan extremists as reported by Fox. I contend the opposite. Both Stevens and Turkey favor Hamas.

Bear with me. We need to cover some ground before we can tie it all together. We know the special mission was never a consulate and that the CIA operated an annex just a short way from the special mission. Speculation has been that the CIA held and interrogated prisoners there. This explains the low-profile mission and related security denials to keep it so. From the Fox report.

A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan  militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was  being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and  annex that night.

According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there  were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA  contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners  from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this  location.

The Libya annex was the largest CIA station in North Africa, and two weeks  prior to the attack, the CIA was preparing to shut it down. Most prisoners,  according to British and American intelligence sources, had been moved two weeks  earlier.

The CIA, though, categorically denied these allegations, saying: “The CIA has  not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was  issued. Any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is  uninformed and baseless.”

I addressed the CIA denial of detention authority in this post. They did have it under an exemption in the President’s executive order. You now have a motive for the attack. You also have an explanation for the lax security. The video cover-up was purely for political purposes. The question of why Obama would let four Americans die has yet to be answered. First I have to include another question.

Why did Obama spend an hour talking to Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, a man Obama despises from a country he refuses to visit due to ideological differences, during the Benghazi attacks? What was so important that the call couldn’t be rescheduled so Obama could focus on the attacks in the situation room with the live drone feed provided? The answer to that is why all of this must be covered up at all costs.

We have a lengthy record of additional security request denials. We had intel 48 hours prior that the attacks would take place. There was a dry run attack on June 6th. The Red Cross had recently been attacked close by. The British Consulate motorcade was attacked forcing the Brits to close their Consulate. Lots and lots of prior warnings, part of 230 security incidents in Libya with 48 in Benghazi alone. The CIA had already moved the prisoners out in preparation (do you wonder why no one is allowed to conduct an interview with the 30+ survivors in a German hospital?). Yet we allowed the attacks to go forward and 4 Americans died. That doesn’t happen by accident.

I believe Stevens was coordinating both arms and fighters to Syria and Hamas with the full knowledge of the White House. Israel is the sworn enemy of Hamas and it’s no secret our President is pro-Islam and supports the reshaping of the Middle East at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, the President has signed off on $900 million in aid to rebuild the Gaza Strip as part of an overall $5.2 billion dollar international aid package. To suppose that you can separate Gaza from Hamas is ludicrous. Hamas has been at the center of a bidding war for control of Gaza between Iran and a coalition of players including the U.S. and Qatar. Hamas is no longer Damascus based and the Iran-Hamas-Hezbollah alliance isn’t what it was. Hamas is more than happy to whore itself out to the highest bidder as it plays both sides.

It only makes sense. The U.S. now has the richest Middle Eastern states helping to lure Hamas away from Iran. However, Iran still supplies the bulk of its arms so reallocating Libyan heavy arms to Hamas to further strengthen its position against Iran was a no-brainer particularly with the weapons already in the region. Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, would have become aware of the U.S. covertly arming Hamas (and possibly Hezbollah or other factions of Al-Qaeda). That was not acceptable. So what happened?

Obama knew the attack was coming. He also knew that Israel was aware of arming Hamas. He, or his advisors, calculated that they could finger Stevens as having gone rogue on arming Hamas (his record backs it up) and thus the lack of response during the attacks. I would bet that Obama was on the phone with Bibi giving him a play-by-play via drone feed that he wasn’t going to stand for Steven’s treasonist activities and he let him die to get off the hook with Israel.

Very damning assertions to be sure. But it explains all facets of Benghazi. Why it happened, why we allowed it to happen, the Turkish connection, the Israeli connection, the video cover up, the survivor stonewalling, and the cover up at all costs approach the administration is conducting still today. The fall guy list is ever-expanding. CIA Director David Petraeus, AFRICOM Gen. Carter Ham, 4 dead Americans in Benghazi, 3 State Dept. members. Whatever it takes to keep a lid on this. The strong likelihood exists that the U.S. has funneled arms to Al-Qaeda as well as Hamas. They may have been used against Israel as well as against us in Benghazi.

There are also assertions that leftover WMD’s from Gaddafi, such as mustard gas, were moved from Libya to Syria by the CIA. Was Stevens involved here as well? Could the WMD’s also have been transferred to Hamas? Remember the cryptic message given by Paula Broadwell’s father about something much bigger?

There really should be no real surprises here. The CIA has been conducting covert ops forever and destabilizing regimes is everyday business. Those with ties to Islamist extremists fully support the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of the MENA (Middle East North Africa) region and like it or not, that includes Obama and Stevens. Obama is the POTUS and recognizes he must maintain an outward support for Israel so Stevens became a victim of circumstances.

Conviction for treason is very difficult and highly unlikely in the case of Benghazi. All the players are being systematically shut down. Barring some new revelation, Benghazi will likely end up in the dust bin of history as just another scandal without justice. History will also show the true ambitions of a treasonous President whose ideology and core commitment to Islam are now official U.S. foreign policy, which this blogger renewed recently.

So there you have it. President Obama let 4 Americans die to cover his tracks of transferring arms and soldiers to Al-Qaeda and Hamas and get him off the hook with Israel. Let’s not forget that Obama could have easily chosen the path of hero and moved assets in to save the 4 Americans. He still would have destroyed the evidence at the 2 Benghazi locations, he could have still run the video cover-up narrative, and we would have an entirely different outcome. Why not? He needed a sacrificial lamb for Israel so Stevens had to die.

There are many other theories out there as to what really happened in Benghazi, however, I don’t think you’ll find another one that answers every question, including the Israeli and Turkish angles. We’ll let history decide.

It’s been a well-guarded secret that we here at Spellchek are the official spell checkers for Santa and his sometimes illegible wish lists he gets annually. No small feat when you consider the tally has now exceeded 7 billion worldwide seeking rewards for being good all year. So I thought I’d give you a glimpse of what we’re up against in deciphering these lists. For example, here’s one from Steve at Motor City Times.

Dear Santa,

I’ve been really, really, really good this year. Could you please send me a Vette for Christmas this year? Thanks in advance.

Steve

Without Spellchek running interference, Steve would have received this gift.

thCAEL90HC

Thanks to Spellchek, Steve will instead be receiving this gift.

thCA0O95JS

Here’s another. Everyone’s favorite Robot at Mind Numbed Robot had a little glitch in his list.

Dear Santa,

I’ve been awesome again this year Santa. Please send mucho lube. Thanxx.

‘Bot

Based on that, the Robot was going to get this.

thCAVMWIDH

More appropriately, the Robot will be receiving a case of this instead.

thCA447DYY

As you can see, we provide an invaluable service to Santa in making sure that everyone gets what they really want for Christmas. With that in mind, we’d like to wish all a very Merry Christmas!  To those who have linked or commented on Spellchek, a hearty thanks to all. In particular, thanks to the following.

To Jim at Conservatives on Fire,

To Larry at Political Realities,

To John at Sentry Journal,

To Matt at Conservative Hideout,

To Mike at The Classic Liberal,

To Chris at WyBlog,

To Mike at That Mr. G Guy,

To Doug at Doug Ross Journal,

To Doug at The Daley Gator,

To Phillip at Texas Conservative News,

To Linda at No one of any import,

We’d especially like to wish a Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah and say thanks for contributing to Spellchek.

p.s. No guarantees on the gifts, I’m just the spell checker. Talk to Santa.

Here is a link to the entire report of the State Dept. role in the Benghazi attacks -http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2012/12/18/accountability-review-board-report-on-benghazi-attack/

As a public service, I will save you the time of reading through the report and summarize it here with this statement.

Oops!

There you go. Nothing much worth reading as it says nothing more than we could have done better, sorry dead guys. I suppose it does confirm what many of us have been saying for months, that the Benghazi facility was not and never was a Consulate, it was a U.S. Special Mission Compound (SMC). Of course, the report doesn’t delve into just what that ’special mission’ was most likely because fronts for arms trafficking don’t go over so well.

So there you go. Today we saw the fall guys resign and the next Democrat Presidential nominee, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, walks away scot-free with no messy stains to deal with in the 2016 campaign.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is leading the charge to get the 1990′s assault weapons ban revised and reinstituted in response to the Newtown, CT school shootings. Via the Huffington Post.

“Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?” Feinstein wrote on her campaign website. “These weapons are not for hunting deer — they’re for hunting people.”

On Sunday Feinstein laid out details of the bill.

“It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively,” and ban the sale of clips of more than ten bullets, Feinstein said. “The purpose of this bill is to get… weapons of war off the streets.”

This is pure symbolism designed to make the public feel as if the government is doing ‘something’ and keeping them safe. Similar to the creation of the TSA which was never designed with real security in mind, only to give the appearance of security so people would keep flying. It was an economic policy, nothing more.

Banning assault weapons is the same ludicrous logic, particularly concerning limits on clip sizes. Think that limiting a clip to ten bullets will slow down a madman? Watch this video clip.

This fact is not lost on the anti-gun crowd. They realize that the path to banning all privately owned guns requires steps and this is just one of them. When future mass shootings still occur even after a new assault weapons ban is implemented, we’ll then move another step toward an outright ban on sales.

Epic traffic stop is comedy gold!

This traffic stop is entertainment of the highest quality. We here at Spellchek give it our highest rating. In fact, we may have to create a new rating just for this. So grab yourself a bowl of popcorn and get in your favorite easy chair and enjoy!

The public knows very, very little official information surrounding the Sandy Hill school shootings in Connecticut. Outside of the names and ages of the deceased, most of what we hear is just speculation and accordingly the story seems to change by the hour. However, there are some things we can comment on such as the reactions of people.

We know that those who call for gun control measures aren’t even serious about a solution. These are ‘feel good’ solutions for those who believe we must do something, that even an ineffective measure is better than doing nothing. That’s not true. An ineffective measure that infringes upon my right to protect myself and my family is worse than doing nothing.

There are various efforts underway to ban assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and enact ever stricter gun control laws across the country. These are steps designed to minimize the casualty count, not anything to address the core issue and prevent an attack from ever occurring.

The fact is this. If you are serious about preventing the use of firearms in a crime, you must not only ban the sale of any and all firearms, you must also confiscate all privately owned firearms across the country as well as securing our borders to insure none can be transported in. Are you in the anti-gun crowd also willing to secure the borders? Any measure short of this is merely symbolic. Background checks, registering ammo, trigger locks, gun safes, gun free zones, or limits on types or amounts of guns or ammo are all window dressing. Regulating the manner in which legal gun owners obtain or use their weapons is nothing more than punitive. Criminals pay no regard to the laws that affect lawful gun owners.

Unless the country is willing to undertake a civil war in which you can find enough members of law enforcement willing to go door-to-door and shoot their fellow Americans who will refuse to give up their guns willingly, gun control is futile. I suspect that most in the hard-core anti-gun crowd would not also be willing to undertake border security. After all, if you can’t ensure that ANY weapons ever enter the country and end up in the hands of criminals, what is the point?

The contention from the anti-gun crowd is that limiting accessibility will prevent otherwise lawful people from the temptation to use them in a panic or out of character situation. That is the Bob Costas argument in the case of the NFL player who recently killed his girlfriend and then himself. Would he have used some other potential weapon like a baseball bat to accomplish the same result? We’ll never know. Would he have then killed himself if he didn’t have a gun? If one’s mindset is to take your own life, driving your car into a brick wall would suffice, wouldn’t it? Detractors will say if he didn’t have easy access to a weapon in that moment of panic, he likely would have chosen a different course even just moments later. Maybe, maybe not.

Which gets to the core issue. Gun violence is a result of a mindset. There are many factors that go into that mindset. Society, culture, parental upbringing, values, morals, ethics, surroundings, etc. establish the mindset. A propensity for violence must exist even if that person hasn’t outwardly acted upon it. That’s why we can see people who don’t fit the profile suddenly snap much to the shock of their closet family and friends who will tell you they have never exhibited that type of behavior before.

Banning guns certainly isn’t about safety and saving the lives of innocent children. If true, we would have no cars for fear of drunks getting behind the wheel. Why not prohibition instead? Why allow cigarette production? In fact, wouldn’t banning schools solve the problem? Home schooling for all. Problem solved! If it’s really the children we’re trying to protect, why not ban skateboards and trampolines and any other device you can think of not necessary to life that could potentially cause harm?

Why do we allow people to rebuild their homes in flood prone areas? In tornado alley? Why isn’t little league football banned yet because of the concussion problems? How far should we go in protecting ourselves from ourselves? Sound ridiculous? Should we ban the name Sandy since it’s common with the school shootings and the hurricane this year? Now that’s ridiculous. But so are advertised gun-free zones which only serve to comfort the criminal by providing the satisfaction that they will not face any resistance in conducting their criminal act in places like schools and malls and movie theaters and other places of large gatherings of defenseless people.

Is there a one size fits all solution for preventing violence? Of course not, we’re imperfect humans. By focusing on the symptoms rather than the cause, we’ll never successfully minimize violence to everyone’s satisfaction. Wouldn’t it seem logical that the place to start is the family unit? Where children have their morals and values instilled upon them by their parents? Which leads to the larger issue of the breakdown in society of family values. And the sanctity of marriage. And not relying upon the public school system to raise our children. Yes, the types of arguments that drive you progressives out there nuts. It’s taken a village to get us to this point. It will take just two people at a time to undo it. The parents.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 46 other followers