• Why Does it Have to be Because You’re a Minority?

    Boycott the Academy Awards? I do it every year.

    Generally, I don’t comment on cultural issues unless they run tangent to my law enforcement or libertarian topics. Since libertarianism involves individualism and not group-think, I believe the Oscars boycott initiated by Jada Pinkett Smith, of whom I am a fan, and Spike Lee, of whom I am, not so much, trips the wire.

    Upset a good movie didn’t get nominated. Join the club.

    Apparently, they are upset that there aren’t more black artists nominated for Academy Awards. I don’t think it’s a stretch to infer that Mrs. Smith feels a personal affront that her husband, Will Smith (one of my favorite actors) was not nominated for his performance in the movie Concussion. I haven’t seen it, yet, but, because Will Smith is in it, I will see it.

    White out!

    At first glance, it appears they might have a point. From what I understand, the vast majority of the “Academy” is white and male. Now, does this automatically make them racist? Of course not. In fact, the accusation is quite insulting. However, it can make one wonder, legitimately, about certain types of “diversity” in Hollywood. However, another category the white-male “Academy” fits into, based on its voting track record, is liberal, progressive—essentially—politically left. If Smith and Lee don’t think blacks get a fair shake in Hollywood, try being politically conservative. It’s rare for conservative people to be nominated for, never mind win, Academy Awards they should have been considered for.

    Maybe you just suck.

    The problem I see is the dominant liberal media and educational culture that teaches minorities to presume that whenever they fail, it is, ALWAYS, because of their minority status. Someone gives you bad service, it’s because you’re gay, you don’t get that job, it’s because you’re Hispanic, you don’t get that promotion, it’s because you’re a woman, or you don’t get that Academy Award—well, it must be because you’re black.

    Did they really deserve it?

    So, what happens if the boycotters get their way, and the Academy becomes more diverse—racially, anyway? Will we look at future black winners and wonder how or why they were chosen? All of the nominees will be good actors, but were the winners the best or did their race push them over the finish line? It is likely that, from now on, minority winners will be looked upon as if there is an asterisk after their names–even by other minorities or themselves.

     

  • Fortunate to Have the U.S. Constitution

    Fortunate to have the U.S. Constitution

    If you ever wonder how fortunate we Americans are to have the U. S. Constitution, look no further than our cousins across our northern border or to our former parent across the pond. Nearly 600,000 people in the United Kingdom have signed a petition attempting to prevent Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump from visiting the kingdom. The British Parliament is actually—yes, really—debating the issue.

     

    United Kingdom

    “Suzanne Kelly, the woman behind the petition drive, told USA TODAY she is ‘delighted’ that the petition has resonated with so many people.”

    “Kelly said if people who peddle hate speech have been banned from Britain, then Trump should be barred, too. She said some people were not aware that “free speech is not the same as hate speech.”

     

    Canada

    Back in 2010, the vice provost of the University of Ottawa sent conservative commentator Ann Coulter a letter warning her about Canada’s “hate speech” laws. The Vice Provost, Francois Houle, wrote, as reprinted in Salon.com,

    “I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws delineate… “free speech”… in a manner that is somewhat different than… in the United States.”

    “… Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.” [Bold text, Salon.com]

     

    “Hate speech” seems to depend on political perspective.

    Is it just me, or do both examples of so-called “hate speech” seem coincidentally similar to simple opposition political speech? While millions of people oppose Trump and Coulter’s political views, millions also support them. Take, for example, Canada’s position on free speech, according to Houle. If I were to say all left-handed people should be shot on sight, put in prison, or deported, that could rightly be described as hate speech. However, even in that case, I’m not doing those things nor am I calling for anyone to act. I’m merely stating my, albeit disgusting, view of what I think should be done with lefties (Hey, some of my best friends are left-handed). Again, it’s my opinion. And, while this is a ludicrous example used to make a lucid point, Canada and the U.K. clamp down on free speech for much less than the leftie-hater above. Just ask Mark Steyn.

     

    An opposing political policy may be bad, even stupid, but is it hate?

    In Britain and Canada, “promoting hatred against any definable group…” can be described, as in Donald Trump’s case with Muslim immigration, a political opinion. Although I don’t agree with Mr. Trump’s broadly sweeping proposal, I do agree with increased scrutiny of any group responsible for more than 99% of the terrorist, suicide attacks in the world.

     

    European and Canadian governments are intellectually lazy on free speech

    When opposition political speech is defined as “hate speech,” simply because one opposes divergent ideas, western democracies are treading into a totalitarian tide. Let’s not, in America, succumb to this intellectual laziness, such as appears to be happening on too many of our college campuses. You may not like my speech, but that doesn’t automatically make it “hate speech.”

     

  • Seattle Chief O’Toole, Being Recognized for “fixing” a Problem that Didn’t Exist

    First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama has invited Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole to sit with her at her husband’s State of the Union Show tonight. I say show because, though I hoped for a nod toward unifying our divided country, President Obama intends to spotlight an empty chair representing those killed by “gun violence.” I wonder if Chief O’Toole will ask why not an empty chair to represent fallen police officers? I wonder if the thought would even occur to any of them?

    I don’t hold it against Chief O’Toole that she’d accept such an invitation. After all, she is a liberal hero in a traditionally male role. From what I understand, the White House invited her for all she has done to rescue the SPD from its KKK-esque, “lawlessness” as determined by the DOJ and for her efforts to restore the SPD to “competence,” as defined by the political left—meaning, the ruining of a formerly enormously successful police agency.

    There is a huge problem with the above premise: The SPD needed no rescuing or restoring. Before the Department of Justice arrived in town, the Seattle Police Department was already considered one of the finest and most emulated law enforcement agencies in America. If it weren’t for Seattle’s leftwing losers in City Hall and their bending to the will of a fraudulent DOJ investigation and conclusion, the SPD would still be known as one of the best police departments in the nation, and I—and many other prematurely, retired officers—would still be serving the people of Seattle.

    The problem, is what the progressives see as “wrong” policing are just methods with which they disagree, politically. Their objections are not based on whether a law enforcement department is effective. The left objects to the way law enforcement needs to be done, in reality, to be effective. If that weren’t the case, the DOJ wouldn’t need to fabricate problems with police departments, that don’t exist, or foster myths such as “Hands up don’t shoot,” to create problems that don’t exist.

    Think about it. We still have people, highly respected and highly educated, who maintain the police are out to kill young, black men. Last night on The Kelly File, Tavis Smiley, when asked about the current police public relations problems, blamed the cops for the problem because they shoot young black men. Smiley asserts this falsehood despite clear evidence from Obama’s own DOJ and FBI statistics that show no evidence that police officers are shooting young black men in any numbers that amount to an epidemic—not even close.

    The political left needs to reinforce the false narrative they started. This is why, tonight, Chief O’Toole will be among the window dressing Obama intends to feature during his show. President Obama is recognizing a police chief who is being acknowledged for her work “rehabilitating” a police department that needed no rehabilitation.

  • Blame the Police, First—Well, If You’re a Seattle Liberal Democrat

    Democrats always say, elections have consequences—yes, they do

    When dealing with police issues in Seattle, you must keep in mind something liberals are always telling us: elections have consequences. I’m perpetually perplexed by how much Seattleites (and Washingtonians for that matter) complain about the state of certain things in their city (and state): transients, drugs, crime, traffic, etc., but keep electing liberal Democrats. Hey, folks, A = B! Electing liberal Democrats equals getting certain things: transients, drugs, crime, traffic, etc.

     

    Have you voted for liberal Democrats?

    I wonder how many of the folks in the Magnolia, Ballard, and Fremont neighborhoods, who are complaining (albeit, rightfully so) about their transient and camper/RV problems, have voted for the liberal Democrats now running the city (state)?

     

    Mayor Murray fails to show up to neighborhood meeting

    Mayor Ed Murray, a nice guy on a personal level, failed to show up at the neighborhood meeting to address the neighbor’s frustrations. Well, of course he didn’t show up. Their concerns fly in the face of the liberal Democrat agenda. I heard one homeless advocate give her, oh, so helpful, comment. She said the neighbors shouldn’t blame the homeless because the majority of them aren’t causing the problems, and the police should be dealing with those who are. However, according to people like her, the “majority” of homeless not causing problems are pretty much all of them.

     

    But, Officer, it’s not me

    When I was still an active police officer, I was amazed at the number of times I’d be on a call with folks living under the freeways, in city parks—hell, before I retired, there were a couple living in tents right on the sidewalk on Broadway! Anyway, almost without exception, standing in the filth, these “homeless” had created for themselves, they would implore us that they always clean up their messes and that it was other people making the mess. I’m telling you, it was amazing how often “homeless” folks would say this.

     

    Productive, honest Seattleites mean nothing to Seattle’s leaders

    Listen up, folks. The good people of Seattle are of no concern to Seattle’s liberal leaders. That’s because the good people are self-reliant, resourceful, productive, and honest. Far left, liberal Democrats have no need of you—until election time, that is. Then, they’ll come ‘round to collect what they see as your automatic vote. You may actually need help right now, which the liberal Democrats normally love, but the problem is you don’t need the kind of help they want to give you.

     

    Same number of cops since the 1970s

    Do you realize the city of Seattle has about the same number of cops in 2016 as they had in the 1970’s? Did you know that the population since the 70s has grown from the 500,000’s to over 670,000 people today? Did you know that Seattle has a larger population than Boston, but has over 500 fewer police officers? Did you know that of Seattle’s sworn police officers, less than half of them work in patrol responding to 911 calls? Did you know that the fraudulent DOJ consent decree sapped even more officers from patrol, taking even more cops off the street? Did you know this is what your liberal Democrat elected city leaders have done to your city? Finally, what do you think they’ll do if you continue to elect liberal Democrats?

     

    Blame the police, first

    And, did you know, despite the staffing realities mentioned above, the Seattle City Council still chooses to place the blame on the police. According to KIRO7.com Seattle City Council Member Sally Bagshaw gave her view of the transient, camper/RV problem: “…the solution begins with better police responses.” Sure, make it so there are not enough cops to begin with. Then create an environment where cops are, as they say, damned if they do and damned if they don’t, when conducting proactive patrol, and then blame the cops when you fail in your responsibilities to make public safety the priority it is supposed to be. But, then again, isn’t that the story of Seattle’s liberal Democrats?

  • Gun Buyer Background Checks and Gun Registration Are Not the Same–Not At All!

    Police and libertarian issues

    With the increase in news reports, I’ve been writing a lot about gun issues, lately. When I write about firearms/gun rights it’s under two headings: one, as a police issue. The cops will not be there to protect you. If you are ever in a position to need a gun, you will have seconds to act while the cops won’t be there for minutes. This is also a libertarian issue. Put succinctly, the Second Amendment.

    Does Bill O’Reilly support gun registration?

    Last night on FOX News’, The O’Reilly Factor, I heard Bill say people should use “common sense” when it comes to “gun registration” while he was delivering “Talking Points” about background checks. He mentioned people drive and have to register their cars, as if cars and guns are similar. Americans aren’t under the threat of liberals wishing to confiscate their cars (well, maybe SUVs).

    Registration and background check are not the same thing

    I hope Bill isn’t conflating firearms purchaser background checks with gun registration—they are very different issues. I hope he understands that, if gun dealer checks my background, I check out okay, and then I purchase my firearm, that should be the end of the transaction. That weapon then belongs to me to do with, legally, what I will. If that means giving the gun as a gift to a family member or friend, that is my business as a law-abiding American.

    Gun registration provides government the tools for confiscation

    However, if I am made to register my gun, to let the government know what guns I have, how many I have, and where I live, in the unlikely (but, still far too likely for comfort, these days) event that our government descends into further liberal lunacy, this would allow the government to have everything it needs to try to take my guns or to prosecute me if I no longer have them.

    A guard against government tyranny

    Our Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment to guard against government tyranny. If this is the case, and we know it is, who could think that registering guns with the very government guns are kept to defend against makes any sense?

     

     

  • Obama’s Second Amendment Steam-Roller Continues

    Every morning, it seems I awake to more rights violated

    There exists a great deal of angst regarding President Obama’s latest attempt to circumvent Congress. I’m among those. It’s not as if the executive order will be all that far-ranging, but it’s yet another step that affects law-abiding gun owners and not criminals. I’m tired of getting up every morning wondering what other of my rights this progressive government is trampling. Still, some of the “gun violence” measures the President is “invoking” will need congressional approval, as they require funding, in order to take effect.

    Strong support for background checks

    The increased background checks portion is an interesting one. On its face, of course, background checks are important when done within reason. Anti-gun pundits and some pro-gun folks, for that matter, have been citing strong support in the polls for background checks.

    Trends shift with more information

    But, here’s the interesting part: More often than not, after Americans become familiar with the nuances of such a law, policy, or, in this case, executive order, the trend in favor tends to shift toward the other side of the argument.

    Background check before transferring gun to close family member

    For example, once people find out that the background check mandate could apply to a father giving a gun as a birthday gift to his son—with an additional sixty or more dollars plus the time involved, people begin to see how onerous—and useless—such regulations can be. Criminals won’t comply, only the law-abiding will.

    Professor Nicholas Johnson writes it like it is in the WSJ

    Today in the Wall Street Journal, Nicholas Johnson, a law professor at Fordham University, puts the situation into perspective in his column, “A Glittery Gun-Control Distraction.” Essentially, with his executive order, President Obama is expanding the definition of “gun dealer.” Now, a person who sells a few as one gun could be mandated to obtain a federal license (government permission) or wind up in federal prison.

    This has been shown a failure in the past

    Johnson explains this was the original result of progressive gun legislation back in the 1960s–to license more gun-selling Americans. Initially, the progressives praised it as a success. However, in the end, the law was a failure (ineffective for the purpose intended) because, the progressives posited, it resulted in “too many” FFLs issued in America. In the 1990s, under President Clinton, the policy was reversed and FFLs fell by 79% between 1994 and 2007. Humorously, the progressives, now, saw this reversal as a success. What’s that definition of insanity, again?

    Moving furniture…

    Now, here goes President Obama, as Johnson writes, “…moving the furniture around again.” This is a perfect demonstration of the “do-something” disease meant to politically placate the easily placated. People on the left who just want to hear pretty words designed to pacify but that will accomplish nothing in reality except to burden honest American gun owners.

    Finally, the President shows emotion

    The President, now, famously, came to tears over this issue. I won’t question his sincerity. A madman shooting little schoolchildren should make all of us shudder to our cores. However, when I think of his emotionless speeches regarding so many other issues, also highly emotional for Americans, such as about people whose lives have been snatched away by Islamist terrorists, by the most brutal methods imaginable, it just leaves me baffled.

     

     

     

  • Drug Dealers Get More Respect Than Gun Dealers in Seattle.

    First victim of Seattle’s gun tax

    According to Richard D. Oxley, MyNorthwest.com, Seattle government has notched its first victim of the city’s new, draconian gun tax. Precise Shooter has stopped selling firearms and ammunition and will soon move its business out of Seattle and King County to Lynnwood in Snohomish County.

    How can a constitutional right have a sin tax?

    The Seattle City Council compared the guns and ammo tax to the added taxes on cigarettes and alcohol—so-called “sin” taxes. Well, a law-abiding person owning a gun isn’t a sin, and, the last time I checked, the U.S. Constitution did not guarantee an American’s right to keep and bear cigarettes and alcohol.

    City getting exactly what it wants

    City Council Member Tim Burgess argues, “… the gun tax money will go toward research and other means to fight gun violence in the city.” Call me a cynic, but I think, by moving out of the city, Precise Shooter is giving the city exactly what it wants. No gun shops in Seattle.

    Not the gun-shop owner’s fault

    I am not criticizing Precise Shooter. In the article, the owner, Sergey Solyanik, explains how his business cannot remain profitable with the tax because his shop focuses primarily on selling guns and ammo. I assume this is unlike other stores where firearms and ammunition are only a part of the business.

    Seattle has more respect for illegal drug dealers than for legal gun dealers

    Well, another job well done by Seattle’s progressive bullies. Mr. Solyanik may as well have been a drug dealer on a Downtown corner—oh, wait. Even illegal drug dealers get more respect from Seattle government than legal gun dealers do.