GUNS ( Part 6: Defund the Police and Defend Yourself )

Mixed Messages in the Era of Gun Control

But let’s take this one step further.  We have established that the cops have a 6.5% hit rate in armed encounters.  If we are seeking to defund the police and effectively reduce their presence, one can logically assume that crime will increase. Nature abhors a vacuum.  Without law enforcement, the citizenry will have to rely on themselves for security.  And nobody drives that point home better than a democrat administration in the White House, whose anti-police and anti-gun rhetoric has driven gun sales through the roof.  Ironically fueled by government stimulus checks, the FBI broke its record for background checks for gun sales, and concealed carry permits in March. According to Forbes, “background checks for gun purchases and other firearms related actions totaled 15.96 million in the first four months of 2021”. And since the start of the pandemic “more than 8.4 million Americans have purchased guns for the first time”.  Gun manufacturer Sturm Ruger reported a “50% spike in quarterly sales and more than doubled its profit.” So Mr. Biden, America is listening and responding appropriately to secure their safety.   So here’s the dilemma: if more Americans are forced to rely on firearms for there own security while the government reduces our police presence, how does that mesh with the government simultaneously seeking to restrict the citizen’s access to a firearm? And here’s where the statistics become very inconvenient.  If law enforcement, trained professionals are scoring only a 6.5% hit rate on assailants, how exactly will the relatively untrained citizen score in a similar situation? The Biden Administration seeks to impose a ban on “assault weapons”, an ill-defined construct that lumps the AR-15 sporting rifle into that category, a rifle that accounted for 61% of all civilian rifle sales in 2016 according to CNN. There are more than 15 million AR-15 rifles in the hands of American citizens today. So how is such a popular firearm that even CNN states was “designed for close, confusing combat”, an apt description for say, a home invasion, deemed unfit for civilian use? Without launching into that argument, we all know why. It has been the weapon of choice in certain high profile mass shootings and serves as the most effective poster child for the narrative of not allowing a “military style weapon designed to kill people “ in the hands of the public.  It’s modular, it’s ugly, it looks evil, it’s black and that’s probably racist. It also serves as the “camel’s nose under the tent”, the observation that in other countries that have instituted all-encompassing gun bans, they started by demonizing one type of firearm, banning it in the name of public safety, only to incrementally expand their definition of what is “allowed” until they were all eliminated.  And the party of science is choosing to ignore the data.  The Clinton era assault weapon ban, misleadingly titled The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a 10-year prohibition on the manufacture of certain semi-automatic firearms, ill-defined as “assault weapons”, as well as large capacity magazines greater than 10 rounds.  Despite notorious ant-gun Senator Diane Feinstein crowing that the 1994 ban was “effective at reducing crime”, the data is clear that the legislation resulted in no statistical change in criminal activity, or firearm homicides. In actuality, the homicide rate with firearms was less in the three years preceding the ban. Christopher Koper, a professor at George Mason University concluded “the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was in effect”.  Of course, good liberal that he is, he suggested, “it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period”.  May have.  Possibly. Just give it time.  Uh-huh.  But back to the premise at hand:  The government, who we have established is forcing us to fend for ourselves, is intent on eliminating the most popular rifle in America, popular due to it’s ease of use, customizable features, effective caliber, handling, manageable recoil and magazine capacity?  Which gun do the pros use, you know when the SWAT team shows up to clear the building?  I want that one. Why do I want a Kitchen-Aid mixer in my kitchen?  Because that’s the one the Cake Boss uses.  And yet, the government expects the citizen to be restricted in his choice of equipment, restricted in the number of rounds in his magazine and yet still have the skill to stop the threat, even when our professionals, armed with the best equipment, training and unlimited magazine capacity have shown that they only score a hit on their intended target 6.5% of the time.  So we are expected to perform better than the professionals, with less training and less rounds in the magazine.  You have to be kidding.  And the ten round magazine restriction, law already in most blue states, is creeping its way through Congress as we speak.  Going back to Sheriff Ken Campbell: “If armed with a firearm containing 16 rounds (15 round magazine plus one in the chamber)” statistically  “12-13 rounds will may miss the target entirely.  Of the 3-4 rounds that [score hits on] the attacker, none may be effective in immediately stopping the attack. If restricted to a 10-round magazine it’s likely that all 10 rounds may miss the target and the citizen will be “unable to stop the attack”.  Comments by liberal author Stephen King who said in 2013 “If you can’t kill a home invader with ten shots, then you need to go back to your local shooting range”, are totally out of touch with the reality of armed engagement.  But Sheriff Campbell astutely points out, “it’s not about hunting”.  Andy Cuomo infamously bellowed in his grating downstate accent: “No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer”, while promoting banning magazines greater than 10 rounds for New York State’s preposterous SAFE Act.  Similarly Joe Biden latched on to the ridiculously unrelated hunting theme with this patronizing nonsense: “talk to responsible gun owners-they’ll tell you there’s no possible justification for having hundreds of rounds in a weapon.  What do you think the deer are wearing, Kevlar vests?”  No, Joe I don’t. But it’s unlikely that deer are going to break into my house. Besides, dummy, most high-powered rifle rounds will penetrate Kevlar…… providing you are able to hit it. Of course, the preposterous notion behind this whole magazine restriction nonsense is the assumption that the attacker, specifically those engaged in a mass shooting incident, can be stopped when they pause to reload. More hooey. Not only is it unlikely that the criminal will choose to adhere to your magazine restrictions, but Sheriff Boone showed in a live fire exercise that, even with a relatively unpracticed shooter, the difference between emptying two 15-round pistol magazines into a target and five 6-round magazines was somewhere on the order of four seconds.  With a seasoned shooter, this was reduced to less than two seconds. He placed a runner 25 feet from the shooter and had them speed towards the shooter when they perceived the shooter was engaged in a reload.  In none of the exercises was the runner able to reach the shooter before the reload was complete. You could argue that a potential hero could be closer or could surprise the shooter from cover, but that would require a lot of luck and a huge set of….intestinal fortitude.  Statistically, experts recommend running for the nearest exit, specifically advising, in order of preference, evacuation, barricade yourself, prepare for attack if cornered, distract the attacker, and lastly swarming the suspect with improvised weapons.  Doesn’t that sound appetizing? Unfortunately, there have been few instances where such a disarming has occurred, most notably the Tucson shooting incident where a 61 year-old woman managed to wrestle a magazine away from the shooter.  But in another high profile supermarket shooting, it appeared that two potential heroes lost their lives in an attempt to disarm the attacker.  It may actually be more dependent on assessing the skill of the attacker. And frankly, the government and the media shouldn’t be promoting this nonsense. Wait until he attempts to reload, then rush the attacker.  Seriously? But none of this would apply to a home invasion where we are right back to the statistics game.  If confronted with an attacker or, worse yet, multiple attackers in your home, with no means of egress, with the likelihood of you scoring less than 6.5% hits on your attacker, how many rounds do you want to have in your magazine?  And you have to assume that if the attacker is armed as well, it is unlikely that he is concerned about adhering to your state’s magazine capacity restriction laws.  Sheriff Campbell summed up his study best; “Proposed magazine bans are absurd.”   

GUNS ( Part 3: Shooting Incidents and Training )

Shooting Incidents and Training 

For those of you that have seen the body-cam footage, it is remarkable how quickly these incidents escalate from routine to life threatening.  Rarely is there opportunity for de-escalation when what starts as a professional interface with the public degrades into brawling and grappling for a firearm.  Often the officer has been struck, or his weapon has been compromised.  He is undoubtedly angry.  His authority has been tested; his well-being is in danger.  He may be injured.  He is caught between the desire to be safe and the requirement to do his duty. The adrenalin is flowing and the fight-or-flight response is in high gear.  You’re essentially on autopilot where we become victims of our own physiology: blood is shunted from places where you don’t need it to places where you do.  Your blood is diverted from your GI tract to your skeletal muscles and you often off-load waste you don’t need, thus the effect of peeing yourself…. or worse. All the better to take flight.  Your heart rate increases as blood is pumped to your muscles and your airway dilates to allow you to take in more air, oxygen to fuel your engine. You sweat to cool your muscles, your hands shake from the epinephrine surge.  Your pupils constrict, you get tunnel vision, better to see distance and focus on your escape.  Your brain’s higher function isn’t required, only the instinctual desire to escape or fight.  At this point the situation has deteriorated to something primal.  

Training can mitigate much of this fight or flight response and, of course, the best response is not to get into this level of confrontation to start with.  But that would involve either a level of social working skills that officers may not possess, skills that may expose them to a greater potential for injury should the efforts fail, or the option of not showing up to the confrontation at all. And when the interaction deteriorates into combat, how much training do officers actually receive in high stress confrontations?  In speaking with a State Police officer, the answer is: not much.  Officers are required to qualify with their sidearm at the range to meet minimal standards of marksmanship.  But slow-fire marksmanship is altogether a different skill than shooting under stress. In recent years practical shooting has become very popular in the civilian sector with competitions and courses available to the gun owner. IPDA (International Defensive Pistol Association) in particular, offers shooters the opportunity to run courses that present the participant with scenarios that require quick decision making, marksmanship and using cover while being timed, perhaps the best simulation of real life shooting situations this side of actually taking fire.  The Police apparently have no such program in place.  They are often required to practice on their own, purchasing their own ammunition.  And as many of you might know, finding ammunition these days is a feat in itself.  Ammunition stores have been depleted by a run on ammunition as the Biden Administration introduces more anti-gun legislation and news of rioting and lawlessness dominates the airwaves.  Common handgun ammunition is virtually impossible to find and, when it is available, can command prices as high as a dollar a round, up from Trump era prices in the range of 16 to 20 cents a round for 9mm, for example.  The situation has become so bleak that many defensive pistol courses, offered by firearms training schools like the SIG Academy or Gunsite for instance, have had to cancel their classes and students have had to drop out when they are unable to find or afford the 2500 rounds required for enrollment.  Even professional shooters who compete internationally in IPSC (International Practical Shooting Confederation), a more technical precision shooting competition, have had to limit their practice time and reduce their appearances at competitions when they routinely digest over 20000 rounds a year.  Practice has become either unavailable or unaffordable and alternatives like dry-fire drills, air-soft guns or even using the more affordable and available .22 caliber round does not simulate the recoil, the noise, or the skill of reacquiring your target after each shot that comes with using the real thing.  

No Free Lunch

If it were not for a violation of parliamentary procedure that voided its inclusion, we would be adding a new dimension to that old axiom, “there is no such thing as a free lunch.”

Hidden within the $1.9 Trillion Covid Relief Bill passed by the House resided yet another preposterous Democrat proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.  Interesting in that a body of elected officials, the majority of whom have never worked in the private sector let alone ever run a business, are essentially telling business owners how to run their businesses.  Absurd. You should know if this indecent proposal was acted upon what the ramification would have been, who would be most adversely affected? The service industry, particularly restaurants that are currently reeling under the yoke of pandemic related shutdowns.  It would be,Welcome America, to the era of the 50-dollar sandwich.

 The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour and has been the standard since 2009.  In the restaurant industry tipped workers, such as waitstaff and bartenders, may be paid a sub-minimum wage as low as $2.13 an hour.  

Appalling, shrieked the liberals! But little known is that if the employee fails to reach minimum wage with tip subsidy, the employer is required by law to make up the difference.  Granted, this can create a roller coaster of income troughs and valleys but servers fare well under this system. 

Mr. Swift’s college age nieces are known to bring home $800 a night on busy weekend shifts at more upscale establishments, and gentleman waiters at his white tablecloth haunts in the city have retired well to their lavish homes in seaside communities. And how much of this cash reward is actually reported on income tax returns or is subject to creative accounting?  Who wouldn’t enjoy a tax-free revenue stream? Not a bad deal.

The restaurant industry is not for the faint of heart, and proprietors operate on a slim profit margin.  Rent, insurance, licensing, equipment, food spoilage, and staff salaries all take a huge bite out of the bottom line. Throw in horrific hours of operation, dealing with a fickle public, and managing a staff of mostly twenty-something malcontents, and the risk often outweighs the benefit.  Once a restaurant gets past it’s first year in business, the failure rate tends to drop, but still, according to Cornell University, 26.15% will close their doors before their first anniversary.  The median lifespan of a restaurant startup with fewer than 5 employees based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics is 3.75 years.  According to Forbes, the larger the restaurant, the greater the chance of success, yet the failure rate overall in a CNBC study “seemed to settle at around 60%.”  Yet, here we are in the midst of a pandemic where 1 in 5 restaurants have closed their doors, many forever, average revenue for those that remain open is down as much as 20%, and our government is seeking to increase their overhead.  Genius. 

As the owner of Joe’s Diner in Phoenix observed in a Wall Street Journal article: “Dang if they don’t kick us when we are down.”

The WSJ reports that the wage increase would have the effect of increasing direct labor costs by $5 to $10 an hour. 

Consequences of such an increase in operating costs would result in more restaurant closures, or at the minimum, cost cutting measures that strike at the largest operating cost, and terminate workers.  Again, in that same WSJ article, the CBO reports that raising the federal minimum wage could deliver raises for up to 27 million workers, lifting 900,000 of them above the poverty threshold but at the cost of 1.4 million jobs. And what about other effects downstream?  Will restaurant patrons respond to higher prices on the menu by lowering the traditional tip scale? And armed with the knowledge that the full time waitstaff is being paid at a rate that equals $30000 a year, will diners feel less inclined to fork over an additional 18% in gratuity, especially after being gouged for that 8 ounce sirloin? So add it up: increased cost of items on the menu, and a tip inflated by that increased tab will result in a reduced tip or, here’s a novel idea: let’s stay in.  Reduced traffic, reduced revenue, closed business. And what about the quality of service? With a guaranteed income, and potentially facing a public less likely to reward you for merely doing your job, will the quality of service decline proportionately now that the server isn’t required to grovel for tips? And how about the other long term workers on your payroll that have been loyal and worked their way up to a higher salary? How is it fair that a new worker will start at $15 an hour when the old battle-axe, who has been toiling in the trenches for years working her way up to $10 an hour, will receive the same $15 an hour as the new recruits? She’s going to want more and she has a valid argument in her favor.  Ka-ching!  Did you hear that?  That’s the sound of your profit margin getting squeezed.

We can see what the result would be, like all the other socialist proposals coming out of Washington: we will become Europe, where dining out is a rare event, the dominion of the wealthy, and an expensive proposition at that. The statistics will worsen, where larger restaurants will stay afloat, but the smaller mom-and-pop eateries, the places that are affordable, unique in offering what is often adventurous ethnic cuisine, the places that give a neighborhood charm, will become few and far between.  And ironically, who owns these smaller start-ups? Immigrants and people of diverse backgrounds, precisely the folks that Democrats claim to protect.  NPR interviewed an Hispanic restaurant owner in Boston yesterday, unable to make ends meet in this era of pandemic- forced shutdowns and reduced in-person dining capacity, and now expected to face a $15 minimum wage: “I can’t charge $50 for a sandwich”. We came close to that litany becoming a reality! 

Impeachment Theater

There is so much going on in the news it is overwhelming.  Federal debt reaching 100% of GDP with more spending proposed, Andy Cuomo satisfying his critics by demonstrating that he is indeed as corrupt as we thought he was, the teacher’s union steamrolling over Joe Biden’s education policy, Trump acquitted once again as the media rails against him.  It is indeed a target rich environment.  Where to turn my sights?  If this is the Biden Administration’s idea of a “return to normalcy” it’s going to be a busy four years.

Alas, let’s have a look at the Senate impeachment trial and acquittal.  With only a handful of Republican Senators onboard for this theater of the absurd, and that would include the usual RINO suspects: embittered Mitt Romney, the Maineiac Susan Collins, Alaskan Lisa Murkowski, Nebraskan Ben Sasse and Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, no one with any political acumen suspected that a guilty verdict would be forthcoming.  45 Senators agreed with Rand Paul that “this sham of a trial is unconstitutional”, making “this trial dead on arrival in the Senate”. But in all probability, that wasn’t the point, nor the intent of the exercise.  The goal has always been to wound Mr. Trump, subject him to a death by a thousand cuts, and in this latest impeachment incarnation, to prevent him from running for office again.  With the democrats calling for impeachment long before he even took office, and some suspect as early as that escalator ride in Trump Tower, the left has sought to discredit, impede, obstruct, and destroy everything from cabinet appointees to policy, hobbling the Trump Administration with sideshows to distract the American public from his accomplishments.  Distractions included two impeachments, the Mueller Russia-collusion investigation, a Ukrainian phone call, a tax return witch-hunt, assorted “whistle-blowers”, and even a porn star.  And if a case were to be made for Mr. Trump being, in essence, a despicable character, why on earth would you bring forth a cast of minions with an even higher despicable quotient?  I bring you the likes of Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, Schiff, Waters, and Swalwell to name but a few.  If the media ever wanted to engage in dumpster diving on the other side of the aisle, this lot serves up a smorgasbord of lies, scandal, guilt by association and swarmy backroom dealings.   And now with acquittal take 2; cue the predictable outrage from the media.

With so many medial outlets crying foul, it is difficult to choose but one as an example of excess.  Politico, desperately trying to portray itself as objective, but following NPRs proven tactic of an attack-appease-attack narrative in their reporting, led with “This Acquittal Sends Three Dangerous Messages to Future Presidents” as a headline.  With quotations and analysis from various sources, a majority of content negative, they engaged in predictable subterfuge with the adjective game.  “Brilliant impeachment presentation”.   “Failed to convict in either trial-despite overwhelming evidence.”  “Lack of conviction sends chilling message”.  Brilliant is hardly the word I would use to describe our elected officials given their recent conduct.  Perhaps frothy or maybe rabid would suffice.  Overwhelming?  Based on the fact that he used the word “fight “ multiple times in his rally speech, and in particular: “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” That should be an embarrassing line of attack after the defense produced a montage of democrats using the same admonition ad nauseum.  Apparently the only thing these mental midgets really should fight for is a thesaurus.  And “chilling”?  Really? Like they’re promoting a new Steven King thriller, speaking of rabid leftists. When adjectives aren’t enough, they resort to a few well-placed nouns and a couple of action verbs: “Trump was not exonerated”.  “Exoneration……will embolden those and their ilk who stormed the Capitol”.  By “ilk” I have to assume you are referencing Hillary’s “basket of deplorables”.  Or perhaps Obama’s “clinging to their guns and religion” crowd. You know……..Republicans. 

It’s amazing how these catch words circulate among the media’s talking heads.  As if “insurrection” wasn’t enough, find me a media outlet that hasn’t attached “deadly” to it.  With recent evidence suggesting that the Capitol police officer died, not from getting his head bashed in with a fire extinguisher as the media would portray it, but from a cerebral vascular accident (a stroke), with no external signs of trauma, hours later.  A tragedy that anyone died for sure, but it would appear that the only person who died directly as a result of violence at the Capitol was the ill-fated, unarmed female protester, veteran Ashli Babbitt, who when lifted by protesters to breach a broken window into the Speaker’s Lobby, was shot by a Capitol Police officer.  I haven’t heard President Biden calling for non-lethal marksmanship like shooting her in the leg, a tactic he once suggested should be employed when police officers are dealing with assailants of color.  And why isn’t anyone alarmed that breaching a window conveyed a death sentence? I certainly don’t see Ms. Babbitt’s name adorning the back of NFL player’s helmets. Wrong color, wrong riot, perhaps. But Politico made some bold statements that can’t be ignored.  “Republican Senators had closed minds and would put party and personal political advantage over loyalty to the country”.  Seriously. And the four tortuous years of democrat obstruction, baseless accusations and hypocrisy wasn’t an example of partisan politics, of putting party before country?  Please.  Don’t you recall that politician that said, “Elections have consequences?”  You remember him. Why then, did you refuse to accept the results?  

But perhaps the worst commentary from Politico was the following diatribe: “The disgraceful sacking of the Capitol was, like Pearl Harbor and 9/11, a seminal day in American History and, like them, it can be easily distorted in the future, spawning a thousand conspiracy theories.  The House managers laid down an ironclad narrative, well documented and crisply reasoned, that will forever guide discussion of this event and prevent later, self-serving distortions of what happened.  They worked to engrave the story in our national memory”.  Wow. Do these people actually go back and read this nonsense after they write it? Where to start?  How about sacking?  As in Attila the Hun, or the Vikings perhaps?   Maybe they were inspired by the guy with the horned headdress.  What BLM rioters did to New York City and Minneapolis…..now that was sacking. I haven’t seen anyone wearing Nancy Pelosi’s Nikes or selling AOC’s signature white pantsuit on eBay as a result of Capitol looting.  Nor has anyone declared, like they did last summer, that looting is a form of redistribution that should be tolerated. Was this vandalism, yes.  Destruction of property, check.  But certainly a minor league, half-hearted example of sacking as compared to the wanton destruction of our cities in a series of riots that were most often defined as “peaceful protest” by the left. And comparing the Capitol riot to Pearl Harbor and 9/11?  Absolutely disgusting. This has to be the result of public school education when we allow the teacher’s union to educate our children.  You should be ashamed of yourselves.  Pearl Harbor saw 2335 American servicemen killed, 1143 wounded, and 68 civilians killed in an unprovoked attack by the Japanese Imperial Navy in 1941.  The United States, then a neutral country in the conflict, suffered 4 battleships sunk, 3 cruisers sunk, 4 battleships damaged, 3 destroyers damaged and 188 aircraft destroyed.   How dare you make this comparison and dishonor the memory of those lost when the bodies of sailors still rest in the overturned hulk of the USS Arizona. And 9/11 should be recent enough that the memory of that horrific day should be fresh, preventing you from making such a misguided comparison.  2606 American civilians in the towers and the complex as well as all 157 passengers aboard the two aircraft lost their lives.  All the buildings in the World Trade Center complex were destroyed, the collapse of the towers resulting in damage to an additional ten buildings surrounding the complex.   I don’t recall seeing any congressmen leaping to their death from the 80^th floor of a burning building. Any of these crazy comparisons coming from the left, comparing Republicans to Nazis, the Capitol riots to the Holocaust, Pearl Harbor or 9/11, are reprehensible, and need to stop now.  In these hyper-partisan times, journalists should choose their words more carefully.  Who then is more complicit in inciting violence anyway? And regarding the comment that the events can be “easily distorted”.  Well isn’t that exactly what we are witnessing by the democrats and the press?  Aren’t these over the top comparisons themselves distortions?  “Spawning a thousand conspiracy theories?”  Theories like Trump incited the violence, or he of the horned headdress and facepaint is a QAnon kingpin instead of the mentally impaired miscreant he turned out to be?  And don’t even get me started on the “ironclad narrative, well documented and crisply reasoned” without allowing me to don my hip boots.  Did anyone who stayed awake long enough to listen to the argument, find any of it crisply reasoned? It was all showmanship and subject to interpretation. Even Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal, who for four years has been behaving like Trump ran over her puppy, declared that “democrat floor managers were at their best when they were direct, unadorned, and dealt crisply with information and data, as they did most of the time.”  Crisply again. When exactly was that, Peggy? It is apparent that Ms. Noonan longs for the days of Reagan when decorum and civility reigned.  Those days are over, sweetie. What upset her most was  “when vandals strolled though the abandoned Senate chamber and rifled through the desks of senators. Those are literally the desks of Mike Mansfield, Robert M. La Follette, Arthur Vandenberg, John F. Kennedy and Barry Goldwater. They each had, in accordance with tradition, carved or otherwise had inscribed their names in them. It looked to me like history itself was being violated.”  Easy there, old girl.  It was wrong, it was unlawful.  But we are not a monarchy and the king’s scepter was not being used as a toilet plunger.  It was the People’s House that was violated, a house that now, surrounded with fencing and razor wire, conducting business that offends half the nation, looks to be one step further removed from representing “We the People”.  The one thing Politico did get right was quoting Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor who stated, “We were left with a show trial”. In the same article, Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow for Human Rights and Constitutional Governance at the Family Research Council, called it “an act of rage and vengeance rather than sober deliberation” Bravo. Somebody is paying attention.  And as far as “engraving the story in our national memory”, I suspect that they accomplished that goal, but not in the way they anticipated.  Witness Congressman Jamie Raskin digging deep, invoking his children and stifling a sob, in a performance worthy of Academy Award consideration.  Laughable in its disingenuousness.  But if Cuomo can get an Emmy for his coronavirus ruse, then certainly Raskin should garner attention from the Academy for this performance. This is what I will have forever “engraved” in my memory: the shameful partisan bickering, the disdain for the Constitution and the refusal to accept election results.  The disenfranchising of half of American voters to thwart the agenda of a duly elected president.  And to unconstitutionally persecute him after he has left office to assure he cannot disrupt their progressive agenda.  Even the Supreme Court took a pass on this political theater. What a disgrace. 

Jencompetent

 I will apologize in advance.  I have been watching the impeachment circus and I am particularly ornery.  Gird your loins.  

My, my, aren’t we living in a world of delicious contrasts?  I was watching yet another dull performance by the entirely lackluster Biden press secretary, Jen Psaki, when it suddenly occurred to me that she was reading her responses to questions from the press.  So much for spontaneity.

But for starters, who exactly is Jen Psaki? Well, of course, if you read the Biden Administration propaganda, she would be “leading the first all-female senior White House communications team in US history.”  First this, first that……so what.  You do recall that Trump had in his senior advisory staff more women, and women with children, than any previous administration.  No?  Well, that doesn’t surprise me.  So Biden had to resort to the one-upmanship game and have an “all female” team.  Bravo.  I wouldn’t expect a democrat administration to actually tout their qualifications.  And at the risk of wading into the most obvious of one-liners: perhaps they just had to pass the Biden sniff test.  Sorry.  So back to Jen: After graduating from the College of William and Mary she joined John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign as deputy press secretary.  She then served a short time as spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee before joining the 2008 Obama-Biden campaign as traveling press secretary, riding that horse through the 2012 reelection.  She served as deputy press secretary, then deputy communications director under Obama.  That’s more deputies than a season of Bonanza.  Google it, kids.  In 2011 she was senior vice-president and managing director at a Washington PR firm before returning to the Obama team.  She then served as spokesperson for the State Department under John Kerry then returned to the Obama White House as communications director for his final two years in office.  During those unfortunate years when Trump was in the White House actually accomplishing something, Jen made the predictable democrat leap to CNN as a political commentator and was vice-president for communications and strategy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace before leaving for the Biden –Harris transition team.  Deputy this, spokesperson that, vice-president of this, that and the other propaganda machine.  It’s all so fascinating.  Basically a whole lot of propagandizing at a podium, speaking policy for somebody else with little in the way of substance or education.  And about that turn at the podium, where it certainly appears to me that she is reading her responses to questions from the press.  Turns out: she is.  Apparently the Biden White House Press Office has, according to the New York Post, “come under fire for reaching out to Capitol reporters to quiz them about the questions they’ll ask during scheduled briefings.”  Now that would explain things.  It is glaringly obvious that after fielding a question, the appallingly unspontaneous redhead looks down at the podium and appears to be reading her response.  And she is not paraphrasing, nor is she consulting notes……Jen is actually reading the answer verbatim.  Didn’t Obama try this trick with the teleprompter?  Not cool.  After four long years of being subjected to the likes of Jim Accosta and “gotcha” journalism, we are now going to allow a democrat White House to tilt the playing field?  Of course we will, it’s a democrat in the White House. And when left to her own devices Jen, like her boss, has made it a habit of sticking her foot in her mouth.  She famously tweeted a reference to then Judiciary Committee chairman, Lindsay Graham as “LadyG”, an obvious homophobic slur, and disparagingly made reference to Trump’s Space Force, in levels of snark that a Republican spokesperson would never survive.  Her demeanor is haughty, dismissive, and largely unimpressive and her press conferences are for the most part uninformative as the fawning press serves her up softballs in the in this honeymoon period after the inauguration, a honeymoon Trump never experienced.  She also attacked “conservative Twitter”, as if there is such a thing, for pointing out the obvious fact that she repeatedly fails to answer reporter’s questions.  Townhall.com astutely pointed out that she repeatedly makes claims that she intends to “circle back” and eventually answer the question.  In one of the most convoluted attempts to explain incompetence ever, she stated: “I often note I’m going to circle back.  I hate to disappoint conservative Twitter, but I’m going to circle back on a number of things, as we often do directly.” Huh? A brief perusal of her press conference video, offered up by the Internet in this young Administration, yielded over 16 “circle back” references and, of course, she never does.   In Jenspeak this may simply be code for “I have absolutely no idea,” something McEnany and Huckabee would never have been allowed to get away with. 

Now back to my contrasts.  You do recall Kayleigh McEnany, Trump’s press secretary?  The accomplished woman who the leftie lunatics are trying to cancel, trying to assure that she cannot find employment.  Ever.  Because she did her job and did it well. She faced the most aggressive, partisan, hostile reporters in the history of the White House Press Corps.  McEnany attended the Academy of the Holy Names, a college prep school for girls in Tampa, Florida.  She graduated from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and studied abroad at Oxford.  She spent three years as a producer on the Mike Huckabee Show before matriculating into the University of Miami School of Law.  She then transferred to, and earned her law degree at Harvard Law School.  She interned for a few politicians, most notably George W. Bush in his 2004 campaign.   She also appeared on CNN where she was initially critical of Trump as being an “inauthentic” Republican before changing her opinion, a change the left leaning news outlets attributed to her seeing an opportunity to advance her career.  Regardless, the woman is accomplished.  In her position as press secretary, she was glib, poised, she parried attacks, and if she didn’t know the answer, she sifted through her notes and found it.  She never “circled back”.  Yet Yahoo News correspondent (I know, I laughed when I typed it) Brittany Shepherd called Jen Psaki “a refreshing change of pace” likening McEnany to “having a really bad ex-boyfriend”.  “We were getting essentially abused by Kayleigh for so long…. calling us fake news and inciting her followers and followers of the president to not only harass us online but obviously go to deadly ends from some people with that threat.”  Obviously? Deadly? Oh, boo-hoo.  So when a Trump administration representative stands up to your partisan attacks you claim you are being abused?  Suck it up.  You might be more concerned with your phenomenal lack of self-awareness in not recognizing the absurd double standard.  Simultaneously, while fending off the “deadly” name calling from the Trump White House, the press was busy lobbing the hard questions at then candidate Biden like: “What flavor milkshake did you get?” Conservative columnist Gavin Wax, meanwhile, was lambasted as being sexist when he compared McEnany to Psaki side-by-side stating: Stunning and smart press secretary Kayleigh vs. ugly to the bone Jen Psaki.  Kayleigh was TV ready every morning.  Psaki can’t bother to prep or do her makeup”.  Unfortunately the “ugly” comment overshadowed the fact that Psaki indeed does seem either unprepared or is clearly not smart enough to handle the position. Even the Daily Dot, as anti-Trump as any of these no-name leftist “news” outlets, called Psaki’s briefings “a rather staid affair”.  Staid, now that’s being kind.  

But why should Jen Psaki be forced to think on her feet, try to be captivating, or even to have a command of the subject matter when they’re gaming the system? The Biden Administration checked the box, and appearance is all that really matters, qualifications be damned.  And so the charade continues, this bizarre dance the democrats do with their complicit press, all the while pretending the game isn’t rigged in their favor, when in actuality the fix is in.  But what you should be most concerned with, is not that the game is fixed, but their arrogance in thinking we don’t know it’s fixed. 

Biden's Wealth

 Joe Biden, once the self-proclaimed poorest member of Congress. Middle Class Joe, a 47-year public servant who averaged no more than $100000 a year in his career in politics.  A man whose humble beginnings and hardscrabble life on the mean streets of Scranton, not to mention his face-off with Cornpop, is the stuff of legend.  In 2009, while serving as vice-president, CBS described Biden as “the least wealthy administrative figure” with an estimated net worth of only $27012.  But what attracted Mr. Swift to today’s topic was an article in the Bloomberg Report that praised Mr. Biden for his selection of……wristwatches, particularly the Rolex Datejust he wore at the inauguration.  The article glowingly goes on to state, “Biden has been known for wearing larger-sized steel sports watches.  He’s been seen, most famously, in his blue-dial Omega Seamaster Professional 300m with its distinctive bracelet.  He’s also worn a Seiko 7T32-6M90 Chronograph on the campaign trail as well as a 42mm Omega Speedmaster Professional “Moonwatch”.   Even GQ magazine, perhaps the most liberal leaning waste of trees imaginable, praised Biden as “an adroit watch collector”, praising his choice of the inexpensive Seiko as well as the pricier Omegas and a vintage Vulcain Cricket in his collection.  Yes, the Seiko is indeed inexpensive and despite its high bling quotient it is merely an affordable wristwatch that can be had for just over $100, perhaps purposely used on the campaign trail to further the Middle Class Joe narrative.  But wait a minute.  That Rolex he wore at the inauguration retails for $6300, and the Omega selections check in at $3600 for the Seamaster and $5400 for the Speedy.  Even the Vulcain, a vintage timepiece, costs $2400.  So good old Joe, the man of the people, has a watch collection that prices out in the range of $18000, and those are the timepieces we know of, hardly a collection affordable for the masses he claims to represent.  But let’s be clear, I don’t begrudge Mr. Biden his indulgence in haute horologie.  On the contrary, I praise him for his investment and interest in classic timepieces.  Where I’m going to ding him, however, is the hypocrisy in sporting such indulgence, and being praised for it in the media, when we just spent four years attacking Donald Trump for his wealth and extravagancies, seeking to dissect every component of his empire and attempting to release and scrutinize his tax returns.  Even on their way out the door, the media took a parting shot at Melania Trump for her selection of a pricey designer handbag. 

So in the interest of fairness let’s dive a little deeper into Joe’s empire.  Eric Trump infamously tweeted out “The salary of US Senator is $174000 per year.  This is Joe Biden’s house….seems legit (eye roll emoji).  This was accompanied by a photograph of the 10000 square foot DuPont mansion, an estate purchase by Biden in the mid-1970s supposedly for $185000.  Biden reportedly used the home as a base of operations for his 1988 presidential campaign referring to it as “The Station”.  But the media, particularly USA Today leapt to his defense claiming the home was scheduled for demolition and Biden purchased it and renovated it, and besides, he no longer owns it.  Some defense.  So this was indeed when Biden was still a Senator, scratching out a meager existence on his public servant salary and yet he was able to purchase what appears to be quite the extravagant property for only $185000 and he still had the funds to be able to renovate it.  Uh-huh.  Mr. Biden must be particularly handy.  If that 10000 square foot monstrosity was in such a state that it was scheduled for demolition and sold for a mere $185000, to anyone who has ever engaged in a home improvement project, I ask you how exactly was he able to afford that renovation?  I smell a rat. And as far as the defense that he doesn’t own the property anymore, that is indeed the case.  After living in the home for some 20 years, he sold it for $1.2 Million to none other than John Cochran III, the vice-chairman of MBNA, the largest employer in Delaware.  You know MBNA, the credit card company that retained then 21-year old Hunter Biden as a consultant for an undisclosed sum during the same period of time that Senator Joe Biden supported legislation promoted by the credit card industry and opposed by consumer groups, according to CBS News. Yeah, that MBNA.  And as reported by BPR Business and Politics, shortly after the home sale MBNA executives “contributed generously to Biden’s campaign in a series of coordinated donations that sidestepped the contribution limits by the company’s PAC.”   MBNA employees “poured more than $200000 into Biden’s senate campaigns over two decades making the credit card company Biden’s largest source of campaign money.”  Further defense by USA Today’s fact checkers went on to declare that the Internet attacks on Mr. Biden, stating that he owns four properties, are not true.  As you may recall, Trump repeated the accusation in the presidential debates.  But, according to USA Today, he only owns two.  And what two properties are those? According to the Daily Times, his primary estate in “pricey Greenville and his 6-bedroom vacation house near Cape Henlopen State Park”.  Well that seems reasonable doesn’t it?  But let’s be more specific.  The four-acre lakefront Greenville property outside of Wilmington, was reportedly purchased in 1996 for an “estimated” $350000.  Biden then built a 6500 square foot residence now estimated to be worth $3 million. Once again, don’t let the media blur the timeline.  Biden purchased this property and built a luxurious residence on it in 1996 when he was still a Senator making $133600 per year.  And the beach house, with “ocean views and multiple outdoor decks, that backs up to Henlopen State Park,” coincidentally land that Joe Biden helped return to federal status, was acquired in 2017 and was purchased for $2.75 million, although USA Today defends the accusations of the pricey land acquisition as now only estimated to be worth $1.9 million. Only. Additionally, Joe also rented a $5 million 12000 square foot home in the upscale neighborhood of McLean, Virginia after his vice-presidency for $20000 per month. Disturbingly, this tony neighborhood is called home by many of our elected officials.  Allow me to digress but how exactly does that work on their $174000 a year salaries?  McLean obviously must have low-income housing. But USA Today and multiple mainstream media outlets go on to rationalize this extravagant lifestyle by stating that Joe no longer earns a Senator’s salary and in fact hasn’t since assuming the office of the Vice-president in 2009 when his salary jumped to $10 million from speaking engagements and book deals, leaving him with a current net worth estimated to be $9 million.  That’s correct.  Joe Biden, who can barely string a sentence together, was reportedly paid $10 million for speaking. 

So aside from the mathematically impaired and those prone to believe the nonsense spewed out by the mainstream media, this all sounds just a tad sketchy.  And what dated house basement was Joe sitting in for his presidential campaign that was repeatedly described by the media as a “modest A-frame? How exactly did Joe Biden purchase and renovate a 10000 square foot mansion in the 1970s on his meager Senator’s salary? And how was he worth an estimated $27012 in 2009 and yet in 1996 he was able to purchase 4 acres of lakefront property and build a residence worth an estimated $3 million? And let’s not forget the swarmy MBNA dealings when Hunter was paid as a consultant while Senator Joe was supporting legislation to prevent consumers from declaring bankruptcy when crippled with credit card debt.  That legislation, with the support of Obama, eventually passed.  According to Politico, in 2006, the day the Bidens took over Paradigm Global Investors, Hunter and Joe’s younger brother James, “laid out [their] vision for the fund’s future”: “Don’t worry about investors….we’ve got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden. At the time, the senator was just months away from both assuming the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and launching his second presidential bid.  James Biden made it clear he viewed the fund as a way to take money from rich foreigners who could not legally give money to his older brother or his campaign account.  We’ve got investors lined up in a line of 747s filled with cash ready to invest in this company”.  Does any of this pay to play scheme sound at all familiar?  And the timeline seems particularly interesting in that it coincides with Joe Biden’s sudden increase in net worth.  So with all the focus on Trump’s finances and tax returns, it would appear that the hypocritical media needs to take a closer look at the Biden Family empire and their business dealings in both real estate and finance.  Recall the adage: trust a man who made a fortune, then went into politics more than a man who went into politics to make a fortune. 

Inauguration No Show

 So where were they?  Where were the hoards of White supremacists, Neo-Nazis and armed militias that were set to storm the capitol and disrupt the inauguration?  And not just the Capitol.  Wasn’t there “credible” Internet chatter that signaled a coordinated attack was to take place not just in Washington, DC, but in state capitals across the country? Where were the Proud Boys, whose messages suggest, according to the Wall Street Journal, that “the far-right group interpreted the President’s words as a call to action”?  So let me get this straight: they interpreted the president’s words? And what words were those?  Mr. Trump tweeted, prior to his January 6 rally: “be there, will be wild”.  And in the first presidential debate, when Trump debated both Mr. Biden and the moderator Chris Wallace, when he was asked repeatedly to denounce White Supremacists, part of his response was to tell the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.”  After his speech at the January 6 rally, Mr. Trump said “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore”.  Apparently those were interpreted as “cryptic” calls to action. Interpreted by whom?  Georgia Wells, Rebecca Balhaus and Keach Hagey, three writers for the WSJ, and some disgruntled Parler users posting on breaks from playing Call of Duty on their Playstations?  Seriously? Even the leader of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio, was, according to text messages to the Journal, not even present at the rally and “said he ordered his members not to storm the Capitol and would denounce any who did”. Apparently Mr. Tarrio needs to reassess his leadership role in the organization.  And about that organization, again quoting the WSJ article: “estimates from researchers vary…from a few hundred to up to 10000 men.” Uh-huh. So are these members engaging in Internet machismo, or are they assembling regularly to train with weapons and tactics?  I suspect the former.  So essentially we turned Washington DC over to martial law, a Beirut look-alike based on the internet chatter from a bunch of knuckleheads who interpreted “fight like hell”, be there, will be wild” and stand back and stand by” as a call to arms?  How embarrassing.  And all the posturing in the fawning media by our elected officials, feigning bravery in their “41 minutes of Terror”, and convincing a gullible public that our sacred democracy was under attack.  Even going so far as to suggest that our own National Guard, brought in to protect their sorry backsides, had to be vetted due to their predominantly male and Caucasian makeup.  Disgusting.

Yet here we are in the new dawn of the Biden-Harris debacle-to-come, when the only assault that took place yesterday was on the Democrat Party Headquarters in Portland, Oregon by none other than Antifa protesters.  Hilarious. You just can’t make this stuff up. Apparently 150 antifa protesters vandalized the Democrat office before moving on to attack an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement facility (ICE) just hours after Biden was inaugurated.  You just can’t make these people happy. The buildings were vandalized and the “activists” sprayed graffiti on the ICE building. The protesters reportedly marched to the democrat Headquarters chanting “F*** Joe Biden” brandishing “pepper ball guns, shields, rocks, batons, irritant spray, knives, crowbars and Molotov cocktails” according to Newsweek.  Really.  Peaceful protesters, no doubt.  But definitely not seditionists or insurrectionists. I wonder if the FBI will mount an investigation and employ facial recognition and Internet scouring to hunt down these far-left extremists? Sure they will.

But this was a win-win tactic by the Democrats all along.  They got away with painting Republicans with a broad brush, labeling us all as insurrectionists intent on disrupting our democratic process.  They used it to harass Senators Cruz and Hawley and continue relentless attacks on Trump.  All plainly obvious tactics to eliminate opposition to their leftist agenda.  Prevent Trump from ever running for office again and remove the threat of those that would take his place, the up and coming Republican stars. If the predicted attacks had actually occurred, then we would have been branded permanently as domestic terrorists. But the fact that no attacks occurred will be trumpeted as a win for democracy and our preparedness in thwarting the evils of White Supremacy and Racism.  Successful mostly because we already arrested all the White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis after the Capitol riot: all eight of them.  It’s all a stretch of course, but so far with the support of the propaganda arm of the democrat party, the mainstream media, they have been able to connect the dots.  So let the fawning resume, as Biden assumes the office of the Presidency and lets loose with a flurry of executive orders to undo the Trump policies that gave us unparalleled economic growth.  Biden’s economy will initially benefit from pent up demand as we emerge from under coronavirus lockdowns, and will benefit from the vaccine as it becomes more widely and effectively distributed.  But soon gone will be energy independence and, as we re-enter the Paris Climate Accord and rejoin the WHO, as we add $1.9 trillion to the $900 billion last month to the $2.9 trillion from the spring to our national debt, as we dole out unemployment benefits that will cause half of unemployed Americans to stay on the sidelines, as we increase the minimum wage, as we “equitably” distribute small business loans based on race, as we open our borders to waves of immigrant caravans, we are destined for economic disaster.  China and Russia are poised to eat our lunch.  We can only hope the Senate has an epiphany and holds the line against what is essentially a massive redistribution of wealth, an abdication of our position as leaders of the free world and an end to America as we know it.

The Second Dose Gamble by the Party of Science

So last weekend Joe Biden, our dementia-addled President-elect and de facto leader of the “party of science”, wants to release all the vaccine stores being held in reserve for the second booster dose for those who already received the first dose, in stark contrast to the Trump administration’s plan.  That way we can “get more shots into American’s arms now” said Biden’s spokesman, relying on the manufacturers to increase production so hopefully the second doses will be available when needed. Of course this is against the recommendations of the FDA and the drug manufacturers whose clinical research has indicated that roughly 28 days after the first dose, the recipient will only have approximately 50% immunity, thus requiring the second dose to reach its full potential of 95% effectiveness.  A delay in receiving the second dose would be detrimental to achieving full immunity potential and goes against the protocols established in the clinical trials. Bloomberg called it a “second dose gamble” and even NPR reported that the “second shot carries many of the logistical challenges as the first one, plus the added challenge of ensuring that the second dose is actually available”.  So under the Biden proposal, potentially more people will be vaccinated but with reduced effectiveness.  Genius.  Perhaps he is being advised on medical policy by Dr. Jill Biden.  
But hold on:  not more than 5 days later, after criticizing the Biden plan, the Trump administration abruptly reversed course and indicated that they will release the additional doses.  Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar now believes that the “manufacturing is predictable enough that we can ensure second doses are available to people from ongoing production”.  Federal officials, according to the WSJ, said “there is enough supply to ensure booster shots will be available and that they won’t extend the current recommended dosing schedules”.  Uh-huh.  So what changed in five days?  Is this a policy change based on science, on manufacturing or on politics? And where did the FDA disappear to in the midst of this debate?  And if there is indeed such a glut of vaccine due to ramped up production, why can’t we set aside the second dose now to ensure that it will be there in 28 days rather than assume the risk?  I don’t know about you, but after enduring the first dose, I want to be damn sure the second one is waiting for me rather than relying on some bureaucrat advising me that manufacturing is “predictable enough”.  Besides, the problem may not actually be in the production, but in the logistics, and those logistics are currently controlled by the government.  Witness New York’s botched roll out with vaccine discarded when no one showed up for their appointment leaving nurses scrambling to find local firefighters and police….. anyone who fit the state’s qualifications to receive the allocation before it expired.  In Florida, seniors lined up for shots until the pharmacies ran out, while some locations were offering it to anyone within earshot.  Doesn’t instill much confidence.  Remember the nine most frightening words in the English language:  “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”. 

We Are Star Crossed

At face value alone can anyone look at Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and tell me these are the best elected officials America has to offer?! Take a good close look: do their mannerisms, their rhetoric, the timbre of their voices, their apparent intellect, their overall presentation inspire confidence, suggest strong national leadership qualities? Forget their politics for a moment: Examine their accomplishments when butordinary citizens like the rest of us struggling to make our way in the private sector. What singled them out for their lofty ascension to elected office. I don't get it, it is as if a curtain was drawn and there they are, a cast of characters in a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta fumbling and bumbling along in an endless plot of pratfalls and misadventure! Less than towering pillars of virtuous convictions and harbingers of great thoughts this lot. Save for a notable talent for self-aggrandizing and securing personal gain through inside trading and power brokering, career politicians through and through, as opposed to statesmen of proven expertise and impeccable credentials. Again politics aside, see them and their supporting friends and acolytes for what they are, who they are, and the tenor of their demonstrated social agenda and personal morals. Step back and take a good hard look. Now add their political record of intent, purpose and accomplishment to your appraisal. Ask yourself: do you see a marked separation of personal gain and professed biases to that of national interest in their legislation and policy making-, or a suspicious commonality? Has office holding disproportionately established their good fortune or inordinately amplified it? What do you see? What I see is more personal gain in not only petitioning for the job but holding the job, and again that word inordinate, in describing government perks in keeping the job. And in that I contend their constituency in kind anticipate personal gain over that of national interest in their voting preference. Voila, the Socialism stars have aligned!