So POTUS really does stand for "Professor of the United States"

For those who still have the stomach for it, here's the latest helping of "It's not me, it's you" from the POTUS.

Some gems:

U.S. President Barack Obama said his administration is open to some "legitimate criticism" for failing to adequately explain its strategy to counter Islamic State, though he chided Republican presidential candidates for criticizing his policy without offering an alternative.

So, it starts with the notion that someone else needs to handle the problem, that observing that what is being done (BTW, What IS being done?) is not working means you need to offer an alternate idea.  Not that I agree with any of them, but there are lots of people offering ideas, form banning Muslims entrance to the US, to carpet bombing, to boots on the ground.  The POTUS sees none of them as reasonable, hence what he wants is an alternative he agrees with.  Lots of luck!

Again, I may not agree with them and it is clear the POTUS does not, but they are being offered. Besides, it really is not anyone else's job to solve this issue - that is what you were elected for; the smart, intellectual, effete, lecturer is surely not asking others to solve issues for him.  It is more likely he is looking for arguments that can be used to deflect attention from the lack of effectiveness of whatever policy it is he is using.  For instance, extreme focus on Islamophobia helps keep people from noticing that POTUS has no plan for realistic and reliable vetting of those entering the country - while the FBI Director notes that Daesh is quite capable is creating fake passports.  Better to cry and point at how mean someone else is than acknowledge that one is incompetent.

Then he doubles down on the "messaging" notion.

"Now on our side, I think that there is a legitimate criticism of what I've been doing and our administration has been doing in the sense that we haven't ... on a regular basis ... described all the work that we've been doing for more than a year now to defeat ISIL," he said, using an acronym used to describe Islamic State.

This is, of course, the equivalent of those apologies that are not apologies.  You know, the type that do not say "I am sorry I did this" but say "I am sorry if anyone was offended by this".  The POTUS is saying here that he and his administration have not made any missteps in their policy toward Daesh - they simply have not told us the right story in the right way so that we would all believe that they are doing well.  Of course, this is complete BS - it is not the story they tell that is the issue, it is the observables that tell the tale.  Daesh continues to grow, continues to influence, continues to slaughter and our efforts are for naught.  There is an attack on Paris right after POTUS says they are on the run, an attack in San Bernardino that is met with cries for self-defense restriction and persecution of "hate speech".  When an administration says it is taking action, yet there is no objective change in the situation (in fact it gets worse), then it is not a messaging failure - it is a policy failure, a failure of leadership.

The task is to secure our nation and its citizens, not to find just the right way to explain the lack of action. The task is not to make enemies of your fellow citizens (e.g., gun owners and those who think slowing down the process of immigration until the vetting process catches up) but to find ways to protect all of your citizens, all Americans.

A national survey by the Pew Research Center found 37 percent of respondents approve of the way Obama is handling terrorism, while 57 percent disapprove, the lowest rating he has received on the issue.

That, Mr. POTUS, it not a messaging failure - it is your constituents telling you that they need you to step up and do something meaningful.  That something is not to use terrorism on the home front as a means to imposing the restrictions on firearm ownership that you have been pushing for year. that answer is not to try to get tough on Americans, to send out your Attorney general to threaten to prosecute hate speech while ignoring the issues.  The answer to that is not to spend your time trumpeting diversity, but unity.  Those numbers reflect the fact that what is being done is not working.

Now you can, as has been your approach, tell us why we are all wrong, that you are smarter than the rest of us, lecture us on what is important, on how our daily lives look to you.  You know, you can use that style of speaking you like that makes every sentence seem to begin with "How can I put this to you idiot rednecks?".  But listen up - some of us have more education than you and see right through that.  Some of us would like to see you do something other than talk about how smart you are all the time.

Obama also used the interview to criticize Republican frontrunner Donald Trump for exploiting the fear of blue-collar men who have had trouble adjusting to recent economic and demographic changes.

Obama said Trump is exploiting their "anger, frustration, fear."

"Some of it justified but just misdirected. I think somebody like Mr. Trump is taking advantage of that. That's what he's exploiting during the course of his campaign," Obama said.

Here again is where the lecturer shows that he can't see through his own facade, can't see how impressed he is with himself, that he is, in essence, wearing the emperor's new clothes, is clearly out of his depth, is a partisan and nothing more.  It's all "blue-collar men" - you know those dastardly white, confederate flag-waving, gun owning, racist, idiots folks.  You know, the same people he has spent the last 4 years blaming for everything that goes wrong.  But who's in charge? If there is fear, who caused it?

I am not a Trump fan, but yes, Trump is popular because he says out loud what others will not, can not, and have not. But he did not create this "anger, frustration, fear" - that one is on you and your desire to turn the country upside down, your having made enemies of many people by vilifying them and expecting them to just take it.  Trump is simply willing to express the anger when others have not.  It is a POTUS who is willing to divide by pointing at "blue-collar men" (code words - kind of like "thugs") who has created that situation, the fear, anger, frustration.  Your assertions about people who cling to "god and guns", comments about "If I had a son" when discussing a criminal who was killed by a Hispanic male defending himself, among many others, have been the source of those feelings.  Your willingness to set Americans against each other, to demonize large segments of the citizenry for political and social purposes has created this anger - on all sides - from blue-collar men, to Black Lives matter, to Caitlyn Jenner.

Yes, Trump is clearly the candidate of anger.  After 7 years of your social justice war where God-fearing, gun-owning, blue-collar men and women have been blamed for all our society's ills (even though they have been its bedrock for centuries), where they must watch their every word and speak the language of buzzwords and social justice or else Loretta Lynch will prosecute them.  After years of politicians of both parties lying to their faces, people are happy to see a candidate who will say the things they have wanted to but couldn't.

And finally; POTUS - this is from a white-collar, academic, professional, more-highly-educated-than-you, gun-owning, reformed Obama voter.  The fact that reality does not match how you describe it is not a failure of messaging - it is a failure of leadership.  You come across like so many other academicians I know - seeing as I work among them - overly impressed with yourself, condescending to others, totally disconnected from reality.

You have, as a community organizer (or agitator) done just what you set out to do - capitalize on the anger of a given segment of the population. Now you criticize someone else for doing the same thing.

So much wasted air!

So, President Obama talked more about terrorism and our resolve.

"President Barack Obama said on Thursday that U.S. intelligence professionals did not have any specific or credible information about a pending attack on the United States, but warned Americans to remain vigilant going into the holiday season."

Vigilant is good - but prepared to act is also good.  And remember that the Attorney General promises to prosecute anyone who says bad things about any minority.  Situational awareness is important - but sadly the vast majority of our citizenry, including our president, seem pretty clueless most of the time.

"Obama, speaking to reporters during a visit with advisers at the National Counterterrorism Center outside Washington, said the United States had prevailed over much greater threats and would prevail over this as well."

No clear plan here, just a feel good "We can do it".  That's a community organizer for you.  It's a "Trust us" message.  Of course, it is SNAFU.

""When terrorists pull off a despicable act like what happened in San Bernardino, it tears at our hearts, but it also stiffens our resolve to learn whatever lessons we can and to make any improvements that are needed," he said."

Seems to me the only lesson learned was that one should never let a good crisis, a tragic killing, go to waste in the service of their agenda.  The only lesson seemingly learned was "This gives us a chance to take the most effective means of protection away from law-abiding citizens."

There was a time when I was an Obama supporter - voted for him twice in fact.  There was a time when I thought he was intelligent enough to back up his oratory with sound and effective action.  All these years later I have had to admit that what others told me was true - this was a man who was not and is not ready for the task at hand.  He leads the country like a community organizer, divisive, polarizing, seeking to capitalize on the "anger of the oppressed", but with no real plan for dealing with the true challenges in the world today.  He sees our biggest problem as people might say mean things about other people.  He has not solutions or even creative things to try.

In over his head, he is.

They are all wetting the bed...

...over at Huffington Post over sheriffs around the country suggested that legally armed Americans be prepared to defend themselves.

First, this is not new - hopefully anyone who is permitted to legally carry a handgun is already carrying to defend themselves against crime - and murderous terrorism is certainly a crime.  Sheriffs, who are elected officials, have been suggesting this for some time and many are prominent opponents of gun confiscation measures.

As usual, the bed-wetters concerns have more to do with how this advice might affect the "innocent", while they seemingly do not care how the terrorists might affect the innocent, or how disarming their fellow citizens might affect the law-abiding.  Their answers always seem to assert that things are just fine, no need to be concerned about terrorists, because most Muslims are really good people. Well, all terrorists are not Muslims, nor are all criminals.

So while it may certainly be that Muslims are really good people, it is also true that the vast majority of people we encounter on a daily basis are not criminals.  That does not give me warm fuzzies or a good reason not to be ready for those who are, for those low base rate violent possibilities that are out there.  We do not and should not need to profile based on religion; we can profile based on behavior.

Carry on!

CDC and research on "gun violence"

As the haggling over the budget begins, one point that will likely get further attention as a potential bargaining chip is the ban on government-funding for CDC research that will "advocate or promote gun control".  Of course, this ban is often bemoaned among progressives.

It is not at all clear why it is assumed that the CDC would be any better at doing such research than are the multiple private sector organizations who explore and exploit such issues.  The main problem from a research standpoint has been that a government agency is likely to come under the influence of administration policies and when you have a president who has admonished those who "cling to their God and guns" and who has repeatedly praised a prohibitionist model for gun control, you set the stage for such a "research" ban.  Findings are always a matter of what the question is and who is asking it.  You can't insist that your research will be fair and impartial (as science should be) and that "No one is coming for your guns" when you express admiration for the Australian model of gun confiscation.

First, we have to be clear that all scientists find that their work is subject to misuse by those who have an agenda, just like putting any two words together is likely to result in seeing a misquotation in print somewhere.  Hence, although one would hope that CDC scientists could focus on the "violence" element of "gun violence" it is just as likely that such research would be used to propose law and policy based on "gun restriction" as the major approach. [Fill in the blank] violence is still violence, firearms are tools, they are means, not causes.

Frankly, as clinical psychologist who works on suicide prevention, I will note that it is important to see the gun, car, drugs or other means as just that - means to do self-violence.  As a gun owner, I think it is equally important to see the gun part of "gun violence" as a means to an act, not as a cause of the act itself.  If CDC is to live up to its name, then violence is the disease to be controlled or prevented.  The problem is, in these times, there are few of us who believe that the agenda would be that straightforward.

The disarming of America is just what ISIS wants.

The disarming of America is just what ISIS wants.

Time and again - and certainly now that Trump has "trumped" everyone - we hear how any anti-Muslim sentiment that results from generalizing radical Islamic terrorism to all Muslims is just another way to support and strengthen ISIS.  I would not dispute that; in fact, as I have noted elsewhere, it is the goal of terrorism to sow the seeds of hatred and paranoia in the target population, to convince them to relinquish their values in a futile search for security.

But I fail to see how people can see this happening in relation to American Muslims and Muslim immigrants, yet cannot see how they are doing this to their own people as well.  It is also playing into to ISIS hands to hate our fellow citizens and to work to disarm them so as to make terrorists' jobs easier.

I have to ask the same questions I always ask:  Do people really think that if we outlaw certain firearms or make them exceedingly difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain that terrorism (and crime) will simply cease?  Do they really think that they can legislate firearms and hate out of existence?

The interesting thing is to see two different groups on two different sides, drawing opposite conclusions from the same data.

Yes, guns are a major tool in violence - it is not gun violence, it is violence using guns.  No one would claim otherwise.  But one group thinks that somehow violence would disappear if only firearms were banned - if they could effectively remove all firearms from the society. They honestly believe that they can do this (the relevance of the drug war and other such crimes is seemingly lost on them).  They seem to think gun owners who have thus far been law-abiding will cue up to turn in those weapons because they or their leaders say so.  These people often seem to relish the idea of the clash that will occur should they convince their government to try to do this.  They say "If we want to do so, how will you, with your "assault rifles" and handguns, stand against the US military?"  Well, lots of insurgents have done so lately.  These people assume that the military will do this, that millions will comply, and in turn they seem anxious to see bloodshed among their fellow Americans.  They seem absolutely bloodthirsty in this regard, willing to see tanks on their streets and military raids on their neighbors' homes in search of firearms. They do not seem to realize or care that it will take guns in order to take guns. So they are not anti-gun, they just want guns on he hands of government.

Face this with open eyes - a clash will occur, because the other side sees the same data and is certain that laws only work to keep lawful people lawful; they have no effect on those who would commit murder, whatever their goals in doing so.  These people believe that the right to defend one's self and family and any others who benefit from the effort is paramount and they know they cannot transfer that responsibility to a government.  They do not intend to be left helpless simply because some engage in fairy tale; they will fight for their right to live on their own terms.  They will not, especially in these times, willingly give up their means to protect themselves. This is where the phrase "From my cold dead hands" comes from and if those who would assault or disarm them choose this course, then they are willing to oblige with resistance.  They simply want to be left alone to exercise the right that the Constitution recognizes as long as they personally have done nothing to forfeit it.  This is not complicated.

Thus it is clear that those who would, in these times, suggest disarming the citizenry are also playing right into ISIS' hands.  ISIS not only wants to sow hate between Muslims and other religions in America and around the world - they want to sow hate between Americans and one can only imagine the smile on their face when they see the President or a candidate for president, denigrate a large percentage of our citizens and express the desire to create scores of defenseless victims.  But these people are not only insisting on creating large numbers of prey who will be incapable of resisting attacks like those in Paris and San Bernardino - they also seem intent on creating a civil war. What more could terrorists ask for than progressives to create easy victims while inciting a shooting war in their own country?

Hard times ahead.

Dear Hoplophobes - you are putting all of us in danger!

It may indeed be best for us if we do not allow our nation to succumb to fear in ways that are consistent with the goals of terror.

But it important to realize that ISIS's only goal is that we come to hate large groups of people.  It is also their goal - and one they and Al Qaeda have succeeded at - to turn us - Americans of all stripes - against each other in our fear, to see our fellow citizens as the enemy.  One issue where they have clearly succeeded in this is the gun control issue - it is one place that progressives are running headlong to hand them a great victory.

How else can one interpret the behavior of people who, after a violent rampage, turn immediately to blaming their fellow citizens rather than the perpetrators.  No, it is not that evil people did this thing, it is what they did it with that is important. No, we do not know what to do about the evil people who would harm us, so let's just do what we have always wanted to do anyway.

Some people want an excuse to hate others; the goal of terror is to give them someone to point that hate at.  Terror makes conscious our realization that we are, in the end, finite beings. In that state of vulnerability, we seek enemies, to assert our control over the uncontrollable, to blame someone or something.  So some people may become islamophobes, wanting to lash out to assert control over their destiny by inflicting hate upon others.  Some people turn their hate toward their fellow citizens, adopting the agendas they have long held.

So, yes - potentially - adopting an overly zealous approach toward the Muslim community may lead to increased radicalization in that community.  On the other hand, as the Professor of the United States (still POTUS) noted, it is not unfair to suggest that Muslims also stand against those who would hijack their faith and "If you see something, say something".

It is just as concerning that those who have wanted to disarm their fellows find cause to do so in the violent acts of others, that they allow their hoplophobia to put all of us in danger.

Actually, it is more likely YOU will than I

As usual, the mass shooting and gun control mantras are in full bloom.

1. "Statistically, you'd have to think that you or I is going to die in a mass shooting," Pally told host Alex Miranda. "That's really tough to take."

I suppose I am behind the times, because I do not know who Adam Pally is - or Alex Miranda - or why I should care what either of them think.  Must be my punishment for reading Huffington Post.  But this is such a foolish assertion I can't be bothered to rebut it.  Simply read some statistics instead of using the word "statistically" as if you have.

2. "Definitely we need to look at the Second Amendment and amend it and find a way to put in stronger background checks," Pally said. "I don't know who needs that type of artillery, and I certainly don't think that anyone does."

Who does need to be armed is the person who wants to defend themselves and since Adam Pally clearly does not, then he is right - he is more likely to die in a mass shooting.  I may die that way, too - but I would have a better chance of surviving or at least stopping the killing, because I would be armed and do more to defend myself, to equalize the disparity of force he would experience (having no force at all). Adam would cower, freeze, not being able to imagine this is happening.

Years of prohibition, be it illicit drugs or alcohol have proved fruitless.  France, Mexico and California (all somewhat foreign nations) all have restrictive firearm laws, yet France and California seem to be terrorist/mass shooter's preferable targets (and all gun-free zones).  And Mexico - well we know no one is ever shot there.

You can't keep people from streaming across the border (from Mexico, where no one is ever shot), yet you think you will keep firearms out of criminal and terrorist hands with more law.  Read the definition of criminal, of black market, of illicit.  Then you will see that the impotent hubris of such people is astounding.

3. "Eventually people are just going to say, 'Well, maybe we could stop having victims that we have to think and pray about so much if we looked at how that happened.' ... It feels a little hopeless today, but I feel like there's no reason to give up, and people have to fight for gun control," he said."

Many of us have already said that; been saying it and have decided that there is a better way to achieve that end than disarming law-abiding people so that they can be slaughtered by criminals. I, too, think the candlelight vigils and prayers are foolish when people will not accept responsibility for their own safety, when they think the best way to be safe is close their eyes, cover their eyes, and yell loudly. I have always felt that God, such as he is, expects us to help ourselves. Prayers and candles make us feel better for having allowed ourselves to be helpless, nothing more.  They are "right of bang".  In fact, using such methods to decrease arousal is probably not a good thing - we need to be aroused, we need to use those concerns, we need to learn to reinterpret our fears into the survival-based signals they are.  Turning our safety over to God will not keep us safe.

What we need is better awareness to identify threats and the freedom to carry the tools needed to interdict them. People need to read "Left of Bang" to learn how to begin systematically use behavior profiling to identify anomalies in their environment, as well DeBecker's "Gift of Fear" and realize that if something feels wrong, it likely is - do not ignore it, explain it away, and move on. Assess, avoid, attack.

Adam - and Alex - seem invested in imagining a time and place where peaceful capitulation and singing Kumbaya will deter criminals and terrorists who want to butcher you will support survival, where unilateral disarmament will solve violence (that is what laws banning firearms would be - unilateral disarmament). I know that such butchers are cowards, that they seek victims like Adam who are not prepared to defend themselves, that they hunt for those victims in areas where even those with the courage to do so may be disarmed (the cherished gun-free zones). Terror - to strike fear - who better to do that with but those who are meek and helpless - by their own decision.  I know that these animals will not stand in the face of resistance.  I know that, as has been shown before, while they may not surrender and if well-prepared may be hard to out down, when challenged they will self-terminate in some way that can stop the killing and dying.  Better yet, with awareness, preparedness and will, we can prevent such tragedy - but not Adam.

Adam is not prepared for the world he lives in, the world as it has become.  He knows nothing but silly fantasies - he likely will die from some form of violence that he refuses to acknowledge, unless someone braver, smarter and more aware and prepared happens to save him. His belief will be his undoing, just as he predicts.

So many errors it is frightening

Having decided to torture myself by looking at some "progressive" news sources this morning, I found this article on Think Progress - people do love to preach to the choir..

The illogic and ignorance of it is somewhat remarkable if totally fathomable given the source.  A smattering of the folly:

1.  "In a time where it is virtually impossible to keep track of all of the gun deaths, story after story about these incidents notes that nothing is likely to change and that action on gun violence is almost impossible."

The problem is that everything that is regularly discussed by "progressive" media or the president is not really intended to address "gun violence" but gun ownership, gun possession. Their intention is that such restrictions should be codified in law. Yet, violence is not lawful, yet occurs.

There are guns and there is violence.  At times they intersect, but more often than not guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will never be fired in anger or even self-defense, will never be used as tools of violence.  I know this is sacrilege to progressives, who believe that all gun owners are evil and potential murderers, but it is nonetheless true.  If efforts to address violence were evident in these "actions" - efforts that were not intended to restrict law-abiding legal access to firearms - perhaps something could be done.  But as long as guns and violence are purposely conflated and violence is used as a means to a long-time progressive agenda, then one can only hope such progressive totalitarian changes will forever be resisted.

2.  "The same is not true for firearm ownership. Over the same period, Gallup polling shows American gun ownership rates have remained largely unchanged and even a modest gun bill in 2013 fell well short of passage. The threat posed by unfettered access to firearms has never been clearer, so why has the gun lobby and industry in America flourished as the tobacco industry became a pariah?"

"Unfettered"?  News flash - Over 180,000 NICS checks were done on Black Friday.  This shows that not only are more and more law-abiding people interested in legally obtaining firearms they have a right to own (most likely motivated by progressive attempts to "fetter" their access), but also that one does not legally obtain access to a firearm "unfettered".  To call that "unfettered" access is to suggest that acts, like access to prescription medication via legal channels, is "unfettered".  Do these "fetters" mean that people do not use these drugs illegally and come to have them via non-legal means?  No. Unfettered access to both scheduled drugs and firearms is illegal already.

As an aside:  The process of buying a firearms is no more "unfettered" than is access of migrants to the US - according to progressive media reports on vetting of migrants.  If such checks are good enough to allow migrants into the US, then they should be good enough to allow legal purchase of firearms.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH - more whining - cut to the chase:

The author's point, much like one Hilary Clinton has made, is that firearms makers should be held liable for the consequences of their product just as cigarette makes have. Again, this kind of logic can only make sense to a person who wants to ban firearms.

Cigarettes are dangerous, potentially lethal in the long-term, no matter how one uses them (unless they never smoke them). There is no safe way to use them.  Research on their health risks that was detrimental to their sales was covered up. Now, if one is a staunch and uninformed proponent of gun confiscation, then they will will believe this about firearms as well. They will believe that every gun owner is evil and there is no way a gun can be used safely even thought he sheer numbers of owners puts the lie to the notion.  And there is no cover-up - everyone knows that a firearm is potentially lethal - anyone who has watched a western, a war movie, or seen media reports knows this.  The difference is how the user uses it.

Guns are not cigarettes.  They can be and are used safely by the vast majority of users - especially those users who have been vetted repeatedly as part of their "fettered" access.  they can be put to many uses that are not lethal. the right to their possession is enshrined in the Constitution.  The problem with their use is criminal use, is criminal violence in which criminals use them as tools. No one has ever denied that they can be lethal, can be misused. So can knives, cars, fertilizer, boards, fists, and so on.  If we do not hold manufacturers of those products liable for the violence that some choose to commit using those tools - tools that can also be used safely - then the author's logic falls apart.