“5…4…3…2…1…BANG, you’re dead!”

Something about gardening and getting right down there in the dirt with your bare hands makes clear things that might otherwise be convoluted. For example, this happened:

“Five… four… three… two… one… BANG, you’re DEAD!”

toy_gunThat’s what the kid yelled.

And that’s what me and my wife heard last weekend while we were innocently working away out in the garden amongst our tulips and daffodils in our quiet little white picket fence suburban neighborhood. (Our house literally has a white picket fence, so there.)

The pseudo-auspicious warning  –  or play-by play commentary  –  wasn’t directed at us, luckily, and I’m happy to report we’re still alive  –  but rather at a group of other kids and/or adults a couple of doors down.  And it was just a bunch of kids playing on the street, like kids do. Playing “guns.”

I wouldn’t have given it another thought, but I love to jump down liberals’ throats and expose their sundry sophistry and logical fallacies whenever I can.

In the context of today’s bombastic and always idiotic gun control rhetoric coming out of liberal/left America as led by the sophists-in-chief Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, foot-in-mouth numbskull VP Joe Biden, et al, post-Newtown shooting; and out of the even more idiotic (at least on this subject) Smith_and_Wesson_640_hand_gunCanada’s liberal left, my mental meandering has the added value of being at least a little apropos of something, unlike 90% of liberal-leftist blather on any pet subject.

Here’s what stuck: that kid didn’t learn what today’s liberals would deride as horrible, red-neck, right-wing, conservative whackjob-style, pro-gun rhetoric from the NRA, as liberal leftists the continent over would love you to falsely believe. No, rather, he almost certainly learned it from today’s liberals in Hollywood. Yes, liberals from the blathering liberal-left anti-gun, anti-conservative, anti-NRA set in notoriously liberal-left, Obama-supporting Hollywood (or “Hollywood North”  –  Vancouver, or Toronto  –  which is the exact same class of weapon). He got it from a TV show, movie, rap or hip-hop “song”, or video game from liberals in what we all know to be that hypocritical-on-nearly-every-issue, holier-than-thou, liberal Hollywood and their liberal-left media industrial complex.

The NRA doesn’t teach “5… 4… 3… 2… 1… BANG, you’re DEAD!” or anything like that kind of theatrics. They don’t advocate for alarming, penultimate warnings to the end of innocent life at the hand of kids role-playing an awesome man with cool, fearsome weaponry. Hollywood does. Liberals do.

So own it, Hollywood. And moreover liberals. Own what you created. Hey maybe liberals should be registered, or banned, since they cause gun violence! And by the way, actually, I’m kidding. I say that because some liberals are so dumb they may take me seriously and actually volunteer, much as they do with regard to paying higher taxes.

A couple more notes on this subject: It brought back a “discussion” around the Christmas turkey dinner table (I’m itching to claim the turkey was picked-off by a well-placed shotgun blast, but it probably wasn’t) with family (where I’m surrounded by liberals and outright socialists  –  yeah, real fun). An in-law, truly aghast at the audacity of the NRA to defend gun ownership after that Newtown elementary school shooting, said (in that liberal way  –  wherein they speak as though it is assumed everyone in the room agrees with them, which in this case nearly everyone did) that the NRA keeps making these totally “idiotic” claims about guns being a “constitutional right” (said using excessive eye-rolls and air quotes), “and junk like that”  –  or at least words to that dismissive, pejorative effect.

I quietly reminded her that it was, in fact, a constitutional right, in America, for citizens to have guns. “Well they should change their constitution then!” she shot back.

Of course my brain comes fully loaded with a magazine full of real science and information and actual facts and objective truths rather than knee-jerk emotional responses based on sophomoric rhetoric, so I quietly reminded her that they had, in fact, changed their constitution. “It’s called The Second Amendment,” I said. If I’d had a mic I’d have dropped it.

This is where liberals usually take to calling me an idiot, or something I find even funnier (Hitler, a Nazi, racist, homophobe, a swear-word, or whatever), then do an adroit about-face and storm off, but alas, it was at the very start of Christmas dinner and we were too crammed in there for her to get up and storm off. Suffice it to say she won’t be sending me any Christmas cards (or even “festivus” or “happy tree” or “highly regarded seasonal values and greetings!” cards) in the future.

gun-Beretta_92FS_S_maxi250-202x140Another point: It’s actually the right of Canadians, too, to defend themselves, regardless of what liberals tell you to the contrary. I’ve been a member of the NRA for years. (And by the way, I’m not a hunter. Or a “Hitler.”)  This past month or so, I also joined the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, and donated to the National Firearms Association.

I’m loath to remind my readers (oh who am I kidding, I love it) that when I took the Canadian Firearms courses and got my license to acquire and possess guns in Canada (including semi-automatic rifles and handguns), I nearly failed one of the tests when I was told to unload the magazine from the Beretta semi-auto I was being tested on (exactly as pictured, above right), and I accidentally turned the muzzle downward, toward my left toe, instead of keeping it pointed down range. While I got nearly perfect and perfect scores on the written tests and the other practicals, I had to go back and take the handgun practical test over again. My wife passed all the tests with flying colors. Shut up.

So I’m not perfect, but at least I know all about guns, and what, for example, a “military-style” “assault” weapon is, unlike another in-law who blasted off several rounds of liberal-left talking points total BS last Christmas about the supposed need to ban those guns… but don’t get me started again.

Which is why everyone should work in the garden.

Canada’s organic free-for-all

You’re reaching for a bag of apples at the grocery store and you notice a smaller bag at more than double the price labeled “Canada Organic.” Should you pay more for less in the interests of feeding your family purer, more nutritious food?

Try to imagine being the only team at the Olympics that doesn’t have to have its athletes tested for performance-enhancing drugs. Sound absurd? Welcome to the Canadian organic sector.

Canada is the only G20 nation that fails to include testing in its organic regulations. Testing is only mentioned once, in passing, in the preamble, where it is stipulated that Canada’s organic standard “does not purport to address all the safety aspects associated with its use.” This thereby absolves the CFIA of any culpability should someone try to test organic product only to have a test tube blow up in his face.

Not that anyone will ever bother doing so mind you, given that the rest of this regulation relies completely on record-keeping and record-checking. You know, the same system that failed to keep Bernie Madoff in check.

The American standard is clear on organic testing. If pesticide residues are found, the certifying agent “must promptly report such data.” And if levels “are greater than 5 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency’s tolerance for the specific residue detected,” then the product in question is rejected. In other words, American organic food must be at least 95 percent more pure than conventional food.

And still, Canadian officials are managing to sign agreements with American officials to have Canadian organic product accepted into the American market based only on paperwork. Same with Europe.

The most recent of these agreements is with Switzerland. It throws the gates of organic free-trade wide open in spite of the fact that the Swiss require field testing and we don’t. How could the antiseptically efficient Swiss have missed the fact that our authorities rely only on paperwork?

What’s more, the Swiss stipulate that “There should be no detectable residues of [chemically-synthesized crop protection products] on the organic produce,” while the Canadian standard goes out of its way to avoid making any such declaration, averring that “this standard cannot assure that organic products are entirely free of residues of prohibited substances and other contaminants.”

Still wondering if you should by the smaller bag of apples?

Certainly we can accept that organic products can never be “entirely free of residues.” But why doesn’t the CFIA mirror the American standard which guarantees a sizable and quantifiable reduction in prohibited substances of 95 percent or more?

Our trading partners all take steps to prevent fraud in their organic sectors. Canada by contrast invites it. And since we allow any farmer, processor, broker-trader, or certifying agency located anywhere in the world to become certified under our organic standard, we now stand poised to act as the back-door to the world’s most lucrative markets for organic food.

Foreign businesses already provide the lion’s share of the product being certified by the CFIA as “Canada Organic.” With these trade agreements in place, businesses that supply the Swiss, EU and American markets can now become certified under Canada’s standard and thereby avoid being subjected to a test to prove their organic integrity. And for some strange reason no one sees a problem with this.

Surely someone should ask Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz about this. Whatever his response, watch as “organic” businesses the world over win gold by using and abusing Canada’s bureaucratic organic standard.

So please, put down that small bag and buy the regular apples. They’re not only cheaper and every bit as pure and nutritious, but there’s actually a better chance they’re Canadian!

Mischa Popoff is a former organic farmer and Advanced Organic Farm and Process Inspector. He’s a Policy Advisor for The Heartland Institute, a Research Associate for The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, and is the author of “Is it Organic?” which you can preview at www.isitorganic.ca.

When I Want a Progressive’s Opinion on What Guns I “Need” or “Don’t Need”…

My buddy, Green Beret badass Bryan Sikes, shot a massive whitetail buck last week during our South Texas Purple Heart Adventure. He whacked said muy grande with a LaRue Tactical OBR chambered for the glorious .308 Win. round. Oh and BTW, Sikes used a high capacity magazine during this hunt.

For those of you who aren’t hip to the LaRue, it is a weapon that progressive darlings say we should not have because we don’t “need” such a weapon for hunting.

Hunting, according to these wizards of odd, is what they think our founding fathers had in mind when they penned that pesky Second Amendment, and according to these control freaks we don’t need a tactical weapon with a high capacity magazine to hunt with.

First off, dipsticks, the Second Amendment has nada to do with hunting. The founding fathers weren’t worried about their right to put the bam to Bambi (although we should be because progressives hate hunting and would love nothing more than to bring that activity to a grinding halt). If you don’t believe me, just corner one of these little darlings and ask them what they think about hunting.

Secondly, who are they to tell us what we “need” or don’t need when it comes to anything? Typical of the Left, they think they know what’s best for we the people. If you want to talk about “needs,” Ms. Leftist, we don’t need iPhones, Porsches, crazy straws, American Idol, beer, leaf blowers, and I don’t need a gorgeous Italian wife. But that’s America, folks. Stay out of our business.

Regarding the need for high capacity magazines for hunting, please tell the ranchers in the west when they’re doing depredation work on predators and nuisance animals that they don’t need such weapons. You might be surprised.

Now, for the record, I do not have a black weapon. I’m a bolt action, lever action, double rifle, and traditional side-by-side shotgun freak. I like the classic lines of beautiful sporting guns.

However, the more I contemplate our current milieu I’m beginning to think that a semi-auto, like the LaRue Tactical chambered for the .308, has got to be the ultimate gun. Why? Well, it’s quite effective on game up to moose, and it has been proven in battle against tyrants—which is exactly what the Second Amendment is all about, namely, whacking overreaching, freedom-strangling little King George wannabes should they oppress.

 

Kids Write Obama on Abortion; Obama Misplaces Them

I’m getting sick and tired of the Obama administration using children selectively in order to help the president advocate his public policy positions. As I sat and watched his recent press conference, I finally understood his opposition to the Iraq War. It seems he and the late President Hussein are kindred spirits who share more than just a name. They share a sick penchant for using children as human shields in the middle of war. And make no mistake about it; America is currently at war with itself on many different fronts. As I sat and watched Obama surrounded by little human political shields, three things struck me as being especially hypocritical:

1. Just a few years ago, the president would have supported murdering all of those children by dismemberment.

2. The president would have classified their dismemberment as “health care” within a comprehensive reform package necessary to preserve the well-being of children, and finally

3. All the children at the press conference were protected from being murdered at that particular moment by government agents carrying concealed weapons.

But it got worse as the day went on. ABC News and other outlets began circulating letters written to Obama by children wishing to weigh in on current public policy debates. That’s normal, of course. Children always weigh in on public policy debates without being prodded by liberal parents who never left childhood themselves. And everyone knows it makes sense to base public policy decisions on the recommendations of children.

What people do not realize is that the practice of children voluntarily writing the White House is so common that the Obama Administration is having difficulty keeping the content of some of these letters from the press. Fortunately, I have a mole in the White House who has sent me some of these previously hidden letters – all of which were mailed by school children to Obama. In fairness, we are forbidden to assume that any of the following letters were written under duress from right wing parents or school teachers:

Grant writes “Mr. Obama, there should be some changes in the law with abortions. It’s a free country, but I recommend there needs be [sic] a limit with killing babies. Please don’t let people own abortion clinics or give money to powerful lobbies like Planned Parenthood. I think there should be a good reason to get an abortion. There should be a limit about [sic] how many abortions a person can have.”

Julia writes “Even though I am not scared for my own safety, I am scared for others who are not yet born. My opinion is it should be very hard for people to be aborted in the womb. I beg you to work very hard to make killing children not allowed, not just for me, but for the whole United States.”

Taejah writes “I am very sad about the children who lost their lives since 1973. So I thought I would write to you to STOP feminist violence. Thank you, Mr. President.”

Right now, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the New York Times should be up in arms about the fact that these letters are just now hitting the press. They should also be outraged that it took a leak for them to get there. Clearly, the press has a right to know what all children – liberal or conservative – are thinking about important matters of public policy. With the help of the media, we could have curtailed the right to abortions – despite the fact that they are clearly written into the language of the constitution (right next to the right to homosexual sodomy and free birth control). After all, the president himself said “if there’s even one step that we can take to save another child then surely we have an obligation to try.”

If only the president valued the political opinions of all children equally. Then he might realize that every child has an equal right to life. And so many children could be saved.

 

Stand For Life

A former student recently emailed that she was disappointed that I had gotten so heavily involved with the student pro-life movement in recent years. She said she could remember a time when I had a love for defending free speech rights. Her email was somewhat unfair as I am still defending First Amendment rights (did she read my last column?). Also, I have been involved in pro-life advocacy since I became a columnist in 2002. In fact, my very first published column was on the topic of abortion.

In the event my former student is reading this expression of anti-abortion advocacy, I would like to enumerate the reasons why she – a pro-lifer herself – should have been involved in the student pro-life movement when she was in college. The following are also reasons why all pro-life students should be actively pro-life:

1. The Societal Diminution of all Human Life. The pro-abortion choice movement has produced a general devaluing of human life that can only be corrected by a strong pro-life movement among students. How many of you were shocked by the acquittal of Casey Anthony? I was certainly angry but I was not shocked. She wanted to party and to date without being weighed down by the responsibility of motherhood. I believe she killed her little girl in order to live a life of convenience. The evidence clearly points toward her unmitigated guilt. But tens of millions of women have done the same thing since Roe v. Wade. No wonder the Anthony jury seemed bored throughout most of the proceedings. No wonder she walked despite the evidence. Her kind of guilt is commonplace.

2. The proximity of the threat. The culture war is raging in America. There are battlefields everywhere but none as large or contentious as the university campus. This is where the immensely profitable non-profits make a lot of their money off abortion. They are marketing their services to your fellow students. Therefore, simply by virtue of where you are, you can make a greater difference if you are willing to cut against the current.

3. Momentum. A May 2009 Gallup Poll found 51% of Americans calling themselves pro-life. Gallup began asking that question in 1995 and this was the first time a majority of Americans identified themselves as pro-life. Pew Research Center did a survey around the same time showing that only 46% believed abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That was down from 54% the previous year. Therefore, I would urge pro-lifers to become activists because they would be joining a winning team. In so doing, they could help accelerate these positive trends.

4. State and Individual Neutrality. The state cannot be neutral on abortion. It either a) recognizes that the unborn are human and have a right to life or b) permits killing them. Since our government has taken the public policy position that the unborn are not afforded the same rights as toddlers – including the right to be free from dismemberment – you need to take a public policy position, too. That means becoming an activist, not being a pacifist in the midst of a war on the unborn.

5. Propaganda and Passivity. Pro-choice arguments are so bad that they cannot survive scrutiny. They must be confined to soliloquy, rather than subjected to debate. For example, the “back alley abortion” argument suggests that we must make killing children safe or else adults might be killed in the process. Abortion choice advocates warn that “thousands” would be killed in back alleys if abortion were once again illegal. This is the way they justify legalizing the murder of millions. The logic is twisted and the facts are wrong. The Centers for Disease Control reported that only 39 women died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade. Put simply, propaganda is activism. And it is only effective when repeated endlessly in the presence of the passive. So we must all be active in combatting this deadly information.

6. Men’s Liberation. Men tend to be more supportive of abortion than women. That is why it is more accurate to call the so-called abortion rights movement a men’s liberation movement – as opposed to a woman’s liberation movement. Abortion liberates men by allowing them to sleep around without fear of consequences. It frees men from fatherhood and allows them to exploit women. So we need more male activists. Next time someone says “men have never had abortions, so they should not be commenting on it” say this: “women have never played in the NFL, so they should not be sportscasters.”

7. Underlining Causes. People will tell you that you should never become an activist seeking to make abortion unacceptable or, heaven forbid, illegal. Instead, they say you should focus on underlying causes. Rape has underlying causes. Should we make it legal and instead try to treat its underlying causes? Come to think of it, spousal abuse has underlying causes, too. We would never elect a politician who ran on a platform of making it legal for a man to beat his spouse. But we routinely elect politicians who run on a platform of saying it should remain legal for a woman to kill her baby. As you young people would say, “that’s messed up.” Indeed, it is. That’s why we need activists.

Reading this column, you may have noticed that all of my observations to this point have been brilliant. I’ll have more brilliant observations in my next book, “Up from Humility.” But the brilliant observations in this column have not been mine. In fact, each and every one of them was stolen from a new book called Stand for Life: Answering the Call, Making the Case, Saving Lives by John Ensor and Scott Klusendorf.

I highly recommend John and Scott’s new book. You can pick it up on Amazon for less than the price of two tall skinny lattes or a single ticket to the late show. By the time you are finished reading, you’ll be ready to take your first steps as an activist fighting for the right of the unborn to take their first steps.

Stand for Life is more than just aptly titled. It’s a real life saver (and I mean that literally). Of course, that’s just my humble opinion.

 

Is America an Idiocracy?

In 1951, Ray Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a futuristic novel in which books are burned, and the citizenry occupies itself by watching hours of TV on wall-to-wall sets. Contrary to popular belief, Bradbury says Fahrenheit 451 wasn’t about censorship or McCarthyism. It was about how TV undermines interest in reading and learning.

In 2006, Mike Judge released the film Idiocracy, in which the main character, Joe Bauers, undergoes a suspended-animation experiment and wakes up in the year 2505. He’s unable to communicate, because “the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valley girl, inner-city slang and various grunts.” The degenerate morons who occupy this brave new world amuse themselves with vapid, vulgar reality shows like “Ow, My Balls!” (Which, by the way, is exactly what it sounds like.)

Are you laughing? You probably shouldn’t. Fahrenheit 451 and Idiocracy aren’t dystopian fantasies—we’re already there.

In case you’re not convinced, Oxygen just announced* a new reality show featuring rapper “Shawty Lo,” his eleven children, and his ten “baby mamas.” According to ABC News, he “refer[s] to his children’s mothers with nicknames like Jealous Baby Mama, Baby Mama from Hell, and Shady Baby Mama. The show also introduces viewers to Lo’s 19-year-old girlfriend.”

Thankfully, some groups on the left and right protested, with the Parents Television Council deeming it “grotesquely irresponsible and exploitative.” Still, the fact that Oxygen believed there was an audience for a show with such a tawdry premise (and a star who calls himself “Shawty Lo”) is depressing enough.

The main consumers of this garbage? My generation, the 18-to-29 set. We have more opportunities for cultural and intellectual enrichment than any previous generation, but we don’t take them. As Mark Bauerlein revealed in his aptly named book The Dumbest Generation, less than 10 percent of young people attend plays, ballets, or musical performances, only 23 percent visited a museum in the last year, and a record low number of us read for fun.

So where are America’s teens and twenty-somethings? Parked in front of the TV, watching Jersey Shore.

You know, the reality show that added “smushing” and “gorillas” to our vocabulary. (Shockingly, the latter is not a reference to the cast members’ IQs.) In the 90s, the casts on early reality shows like The Real World had candid, intelligent discussions about everything from racism to gay rights to AIDS. They look like Rhodes scholars compared to the cast of Jersey Shore, who talk about…well, I’m not sure what, because the only episode I watched was a series of bleeps. The show doesn’t address any current events or any ideas—it’s a steady stream of drinking, fighting, and cussing.

And if you wonder where the increase in girl-on-girl aggression is coming from, tune into any of the Real Housewives series. The entire show revolves around materialistic, shallow women with bad plastic surgery cat-fighting and back-stabbing. As Ann Coulter put it, “Real Housewives is white trash pretending to be jetsetters.” And yet millions of viewers still tune in every week, admiring them, emulating them, and imagining this is how the wealthy and fashionable really live.

In August, more people tuned into TLC’s abomination Here Comes Honey Boo Boo than the Republican National Convention. In case you’ve somehow missed it, the show follows the adventures of “redneck” mom June and her four daughters (allegedly sired by four different men). This show is especially exploitative. In a recent episode, June’s teen daughter gave birth to a baby with six fingers. Instead of feeling sympathy for this poor child, the audience was supposed to snicker—all that was missing was the laugh track in the background. Laughing and leering at other people’s pain and misfortune is par for the course in this genre.

Therefore, it’s no surprise that researchers at the University of Michigan found today’s college students shockingly lacking in empathy, especially compared to their 1970s counterparts. They partially blamed the rise of reality TV for this trend.

“These shows may be profitable, but the primary basis for many of them seems to be to put people in painful, embarrassing or humiliating situations for the rest of us to watch — and, presumably, be entertained,” James Key wrote in USA Today. “This assault on our intelligence is not healthy for the soul.”

Not to mention it’s taking the place of activities that engage the mind, rather than rotting it.

If you don’t want America to become the country we saw in Idiocracy, turn it off.

 

* Editor’s note: On January 15, 2013, as a result of public pressure, Oxygen Network decided not to broadcast “All My Babies’ Mamas.” Read about it here.

 

Police politicization: Law breakers ignored while law-abiding protesters treated like criminals

Within the propaganda and tawdry political theatre that is the Idle No More movement and the Chief Spence diet program, something rather magnificent occurred last week. A Canadian judge had the courage and consistency to question the police, and perhaps make himself politically unpopular with the liberal bloc that is the senior Canadian judiciary.

Superior Court Judge David Brown, a man of singular wisdom and integrity, was chosen to hear an injunction request by CN Rail to stop the Native blockade of a railway line in Sarnia. Their action was dangerous, irresponsible and — most pertinent of all — plainly illegal. Brown granted the injunction.

But, as we’re so often told in seemingly interminable episodes of Law and Order on television, there are several branches to the law. Now came the turn of the police to implement the law without fear or prejudice.

Problem is, the Sarnia cops demonstrated both in enormous lumps.

Not only did they refuse to comply with the injunction, they refused to even try to do so, and there is evidence that one officer, a staff-sergeant, actually joined the protesters. Orders from the most senior kind instructed officers not to intervene, and at every level of the Sarnia police word had gone out to in effect ignore the law.

In the end, this small protest was ended quite easily when the hands of the police were forced, and with no violence or even particular problems. But it took far too long. The disregard, even contempt, evinced for the law from high-ranking police officers and police lawyers is staggering, and reminiscent of some foreign state we would previously have mocked.

Thank goodness for Judge Brown, but those of us who have covered demonstrations and reported on the police in Canada have seen this politicization for some time now.

In the past year alone, for example, I have seen the police intimidate and harass, even physically remove and threaten to arrest, pro-Israel demonstrators, yet ignore their anti-Zionist counterparts across the street.

I have seen peaceful Christians physically attacked at a gay pride parade and cops ignore their attackers and instead caution the victims and promise to arrest them if they did not leave the scene.

I have seen teenage pro-lifers handcuffed and arrested, merely for holding signs, and an opponent of abortion have his camera confiscated, the photos inside destroyed. He was then told the destruction was accidental — the photos proved police brutality — and it took three separate actions to “accidentally” erase them.

Right to protest

In all of these cases, it should be not the beliefs of the protesters, but the right to peacefully protest that shapes the police response. Yet Natives breaking the law are ignored or encouraged, while law-abiding supporters of Israel, the family or the unborn are treated like criminals.

They are far from isolated cases.

Any private conversation with rank-and-file cops will reveal how depressed they are about the situation, but a new generation of recruits, drowned in politically correct training classes, has often lost sight of what policing is.

When an enormously respected judge tells the police they are not doing the job, surely even Canadians have to demand action.

Let’s see, let’s just see.

Massacre Solution: The Brady Bunch Bill to Prohibit the Procreation of Irresponsible People

As most of you know, Vice President Joe Biden has been appointed by Obama to make certain that another Sandy Hook never goes down on American soil. Being an American who digs freedom, I’m not getting the warm and fuzzies about this legislative venture. A myopic cyclops staring into the sun can see where this duo is heading.

And as most of you can guess, Biden and Obama are talking about levying an executive order on our populace that would ban certain semi-automatic rifles and high capacity pistol and rifle magazines. It’s a similar policy to the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban that did nada to stem school and workplace violence from 1994 to 2004. Matter of fact, school shootings spiked during that epoch. What is it they say about the definition of insanity?

Anyway, as the Left gears up to bear down on law-abiding people because some demoniac’s murder spree has left us all reeling, I would like to put forth a proposal that doesn’t mitigate our constitutional right to keep and bear arms but rather makes it more difficult for people to hook up and breed. It’s an expanded version of what Dennis Miller alluded to back in the mid ‘90s—namely the Brady Bunch Bill: a waiting period before people get married and start a family.

Yes, I’m more worried about high capacity idiots than I am about high capacity magazines. Look, you and I can ban such tools all day long, but demented tools will still find a way to get at them or switch deadly devices. For some reason evil people won’t obey our laws. Indeed, the crazy will search for other ways to McVeigh us into McSmithereens. BTW, all Timothy needed was fertilizer and a Ryder truck; an extended magazine didn’t come close to accomplishing what that satanic soul had in mind. Should we ban ammonium nitrate, nitromethane, racing fuel and rental trucks?

No, I think we should point our policy and derision not upon firearms but rather upon crappy parents who don’t raise their kids right or who don’t rein them in when they’re going off the rails on a crazy train. Pardon me for sounding simplistic, but until people who wish to bump uglies and have kids prove to us that they’re going to superintend their brood into becoming an amicable part of the American collective, I say we prohibit their reproductive rights.

Check it out. Here’s what I propose: Those desirous to mate or adopt would have to pass a thorough psychological and criminal background check and a five-year (at least) proving period where they would have to affirm the following:

1). Will you stay married and work your crap out so that it doesn’t decimate your children to the degree that they one day take their rage out on kindergarteners?

2). Will you raise your kids to obey the Golden Rule? No? Well then, forced sterilization for you.

3). Will you love and nurture your offspring versus pawning their upbringing off on satanic pop culture, violent videos, paranormal peers and Hollywood death flicks? Huh, D-bag?

4). Will you refuse to allow your kid to have a petty entitlement mentality and a woe-is-me vengeful spirit of hatred?

5). Will you quit going about business as usual if your kid starts worshipping Satan and giggles when he hears or sees people murdered or raped?

6). Will you turn your kid in if he begins talking to imaginary people while stockpiling a weapons cache that rivals a small nation’s battery?

7). Will you, in the event that the aforementioned has not helped to move your kid away from the morose, refuse to teach your child how to shoot and either get rid of your weapons or lock them in a vault that he cannot crack nor move with a Hyster 36-48T forklift?

8). And finally, will you take full responsibility (to the point of prosecution and imprisonment) if your teen or twentysomething kid kills anyone because you have fundamentally failed doing your duties as a parent?

If a couple cannot answer in the affirmative and do not show responsible and respectful behavior during the preliminary five-year waiting period then we disallow said couple to breed. How’s that?

Look, folks, we can ban all manner of weapons until the cows come home, but until parents start raising their kids right and steer them clear of this rancid culture this junk is going to plague us ‘til the end of time.

Finally, my advice to the policy wonks is this: Until the Brady Bunch Bill is put into effect, stay the hell away from our guns because we’re going to need the wherewithal to put down your bad seed should he attempt to kill our innocent sons and daughters.

 

Girls With Guns

In my last column, “Good Guys With Guns,” I wrote about the Mayan 14 incident, in which a shooter was halted by an off-duty cop. I referred to the cop as a “good guy,” and my readers were quick to issue a correction: the good guy was actually a girl. Lisa Castellano shot the wannabe James Holmes after he ran into the Mayan 14 theater and began firing—and managed to snatch away his gun.

I don’t know about you, but Lisa Castellano is my new hero.

I’ve written about women and guns before, when I was the lone conservative columnist on the staunchly liberal Ohio University campus. As you can probably guess, readers sneered at the notion that guns serve a legitimate self-defense purpose. A self-described feminist activist claimed that women should be more afraid of “facing charges” for shooting an attacker than being raped or murdered. A male reader condescendingly suggested women should “carry mace.” I want better than that.

So did 18-year-old mom Sarah McKinley. On New Year’s Eve 2011, she was at home alone with her infant son, having lost her husband to lung cancer just a week earlier. When she heard two men trying to break in, she called 911—and grabbed her guns.

“My husband just passed away. I’m here by myself with my infant baby. Can I please get a dispatch out here immediately?” McKinley pleaded.

Twenty minutes went by with no police response. McKinley fired, killing one of the two men, both of whom were armed with 12-inch knives.

“It was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn’t going to be my son,” McKinley told reporters. “There’s nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child.”

As the mother of a 15-month old daughter, I second that.

In October 2012, 12-year-old Kendra St. Clair was also at home alone when a home invader kicked in her back door. Her mother advised her over the phone to hide in the bathroom. Luckily, the preteen grabbed her parents’ handgun first—and shot the intruder in the shoulder.

“When I had the gun, I didn’t think I was actually going to have to shoot somebody,” she told ABC News. “I think it’s going to change me a whole lot, knowing that I can hold my head up high and nothing can hurt me anymore.”

Now that’s girl power.

Two weeks ago, Abilene resident Lawanda Taylor was awakened at 2 am by a break-in. The intruder turned out to be her violent ex-boyfriend, who began assaulting her. Taylor managed to grab her gun and shoot her attacker in the side—likely saving her own life and the lives of her two children.

Last Friday, a Georgia mother spotted a strange man breaking into her home with a crowbar. She hid her 9-year-old twins in a crawlspace and called 911. When the intruder discovered the family, she shot him five times with her revolver.

Guns can’t and shouldn’t be used for self-defense? Tell that to these women and countless others who never make the news. Every two minutes, a woman in this country is sexually assaulted. Three are murdered every day—a third of them by boyfriends, husbands, or exes. Millions become victims of crimes like robbery.

“My wife is a hero. She protected her kids,” Donnie Herman, the Georgia woman’s husband, told reporters last week. “Her life is saved, and her kids’ life is saved… She did what she was supposed to do as responsible, prepared gun owner.”

I couldn’t agree more. America might be a dangerous place for women, but it’s less dangerous when they can defend themselves with a gun.

Good Guys With Guns

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

That statement, from NRA president Wayne LaPierre, was immediately turned into a laugh line by the press, deemed everything from “deadly spin” to “delusional” to “paranoid.” The New York Daily News proclaimed that anti-gun cranks—oops, I mean “mental health experts”—who had never met LaPierre had diagnosed him as crazy.

As someone who went to journalism school and has worked in media for years, I’m used to this. Left-leaning editors and reporters declare what “everyone” knows and “everyone” thinks, while pretending to be objective. Their preferred method of slanting the news is covering stories that bolster their worldview while completely ignoring others. Because whether the “good guy” is a police officer or a private citizen, LaPierre’s statement is absolutely true—and several incidents ignored by the media prove it.

Two days after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a San Antonio man burst into the Mayan 14 movie theater and began shooting, “sending panicked moviegoers rushing to exits and ducking for cover,” according to MySanAntonio.com. But instead of becoming the next James Holmes, the suspect was shot by an off-duty cop. Unlike the Aurora theater shooting, the incident ended with only two wounded—thanks to a good guy with a gun.

How many of you have heard the name “Mayan 14” before today? Is it any surprise that a network like CNN, which employs Piers Morgan, let this story slip under the radar?

When most Americans hear “school shooting,” they think Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook. They’re all incidents where the gunmen took a dozen lives or more. We rarely think of Edinboro, Pennsylvania; Pearl, Mississippi; or the Appalachian School of Law. Why? School shootings there were all halted by good guys with guns. They also had dramatically lower death tolls—one, two, and three, respectively.

At the Appalachian School of Law, the gunman was tackled by three men, two of whom had rushed to their cars to retrieve their guns. The media covered the story—but selectively edited the details.

“What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories in the week after the event, just four stories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns,” wrote economist John Lott in his book More Guns, Less Crime. “In the other public school shootings where citizens with guns have stopped attacks, rarely do more than one percent of the news stories mention that citizens with guns stopped the attacks.”

The media deemed LaPierre’s “good guys with guns” line as a delusion of wannabe cowboys everywhere, who fantasize about Wild West-style shootouts with cartoon villains. Maybe they should go back and read one of my favorite Townhall columns of all time: Chicks Carrying Guns and Kicking Tail by Mary Katharine Ham.

Ham’s examples aren’t fantasies or hypotheticals. They’re true stories of women who chased away thugs, rapists and thieves with guns. The potential victims included elderly women and a pregnant mother of two, who shot an armed gunman who kicked in her door. A woman named Charmaine Dunbar was accosted by a rifle-toting gunman and shot him twice with her handgun. It turned out he was a suspect in six sexual assaults in her area.

As Ham put it, “This is the kind of women’s empowerment that gets me going.”

The mainstream media might have a bigger audience and more influence, but the conservative media should refuse to ignore these stories and countless others. Instead of letting the anti-gun camp control the debate, let’s turn “Mayan 14” into a household name.

 

Ideological narcissism: Chief’s hunger strike tough to swallow

While I have some sympathy for Irish republicanism, I loathe the IRA and their cult of violence. But it has to be said that IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands was a man willing to give his all for the cause. Never a heavy-set figure, he refused food of any kind for 66 days and died.

This was after the “dirty protest” when he and other Republican prisoners smeared their cell walls with their own excrement.

Chief Theresa Spence is a very different case. She is, with all due respect, a fleshy lady, and we’re told by several sources that far from being on a genuine hunger strike, she’s merely eating little other than broth.

Forgive me, but that’s a detox regime rather than a serious political protest.

She also being visited by pretty much every ambitious leftist politician, special interest group leader and banal Canadian writer who can find the time. She seems to have become one of the country’s major tourist attractions, a sort of CN Tower but with more public funding.

The latter point is about as central as it gets, because while many natives live in poverty and degradation, the same cannot be said for their myriad leaders.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are pumped into the native community through their leaders; that this fortune so often fails to find its intended target is a condemnation of chiefs rather than government ministers. It’s a multi-faceted, complex, historical problem, and emotionalism and hysteria only make it worse.

Most of us can trace ethnic or religious backgrounds where we’ve been persecuted, disenfranchised, massacred. Some are worse than others — natives owned black slaves in America, for example, but no black people owned natives.

This government has in many ways been more empathetic and pro-active regarding First Nations than most others, but the extremists now exploiting this latest protest are far more concerned with attacking Conservatives than dealing authentically with native grievances.

Let’s be clear here. Hunger strikes in a democratic society are immoral and irresponsible. In dictatorships, extremes of political opposition are understandable, but not where the electorate can reject a government and end a prime minister’s career.

It’s ideological narcissism: I matter more than you and my cause is more important and unless you meet with me I shall not eat.

Imagine a pro-lifer on hunger strike, or a Caledonia resident who was tired on native thuggery. B-list celebrities and politicians would not bend the knee, liberal media would not abandon any sense of balance and bow and scrape. Nor should they.

Blackmail is never acceptable, especially when it’s downright contemptuous of the democratic process.

It’s really a very Canadian protest. Not really starvation, not really about what is claimed, very safe, and all wrapped in blankets of cozy white guilt and an obsessive fear of being labelled as politically incorrect.

This won’t be the last word or action in the native debate, just as Bobby Sands’ death had little to do with the eventual peace in Northern Ireland.

That came about when both sides were simply exhausted. Have a Big Mac, Chief Spence, and close down the circus.

 

Fashion over debate: Sonny days ahead if Justin Trudeau gets Liberal leadership nod

The world didn’t end recently, and it’s unlikely to come to a conclusion in 2013 either.

Rumours of its demise tend to be greatly exaggerated, either from Christian fundamentalists, Latin American tribes, or assorted conspiracy theorists. Odd how all of these types claim supernatural wisdom but do so badly in their own lives!

What we will see in Canada is the triumph of the mediocre and the mob.

Justin Trudeau. Of course he will become Liberal leader, and in spite of the complacent boasts of his critics he may well become prime minister. And if he does, it will be a disaster not only for Canada but for democracy.

You see, Trudeau is extraordinarily unqualified and vacuous.

He’s not evil, not even malicious, perhaps even good and well-meaning in a suburban, banal, CBC type of way.

He has no ideology other than a vapid trendiness — he has never said anything fresh or even left-wing about economics, foreign policy or governance, but knows we have to marry gay people and abort babies. As I say, childish fashion over serious debate.

But if he wins, he will be a mere face for a more substantial and altogether more sinister body.

First are the old Liberal hacks who were brought to political maturity by his father, and who want to rule again vicariously through the meagre son. They are moderate pragmatists, but are also unscrupulous, cynical and care nothing for democratic opinion.

Next are altogether more worrying individuals; not careerists but driven partisans. They were the people determined that Trudeau should speak to a conference of Islamic radicals. Sources claim that while the old advisers were urging their boy to listen to moderate Muslims, Jewish groups and gay organizations, the young Turks — or would Iranian be a better word? — were obsessed with a “new alliance” of voters.

Any Trudeau victory will be little more than a preamble to the battle within for who controls the Liberal party and its new leader.

Trudeau has very few formed opinions, simply doesn’t understand world politics and chants “middle class, middle class” to any substantive question about the future of one of the greatest nations on earth.

One conservative Canadian television commentator has described him pejoratively as “our Obama.”

No!

Conservatives may dislike Obama’s policies, and he is certainly not the intellectual his supporters claim, but the man does have experience beyond the drama class, and has studied and read hard.

Trudeau is in fact “our Trudeau,” the modern version of Pierre. Of course the father was bright and well-travelled, but his ideas were nothing more than an extension of his own hobbies and fetishes. Daddy controlled, Sonny is controlled. Daddy wanted change for change’s sake, Sonny wants change because his brother and some of his handlers want change.

Successive governments, Liberal as well as Tory, have worked to restore financial and political stability to Trudeau’s Canada, but his son as prime minister would govern in a far more fragile and dangerous age.

Vote even NDP rather than Liberal, and hope a coalition of silly girls, political fanatics and old men longing for former glories do not win the day.

 

Fellowship in the Woodlands

Most of America’s problems are cultural. Even our economic problems stem from the cultural rejection of personal responsibility and the acceptance of collective responsibility. And none of our problems would be as bad if the church was still shaping the culture instead of merely responding to it. I was reminded of this during my annual holiday trip home to The Woodlands, Texas.

I’ve attended Christmas Eve services four out of the last six years at the Woodlands Church (formerly Fellowship of the Woodlands), which is a Southern Baptist mega church that keeps its Baptist affiliation well hidden from the general public. That is symptomatic of what ails the church in 21st Century America. Production and marketing take center stage. Core beliefs are lost somewhere in the process.

Make no mistake about it; the production is good at The Woodlands Church. The set is grand and the music is wonderful. Pastor Kerry Shook and his wife Chris are largely responsible for that. Their son, a musician living in Nashville, comes home to perform in the Christmas services every year. I’ve seldom heard a more talented young singer and guitarist.

Couched in the musical productions of these mega churches, one sees an overwhelming desire to deliver a product that demonstrates the cultural relevance of the church. This is especially true on holidays when the church has more visitors than usual. This Christmas Eve, one of the singers was dressed like Michael Jackson and was moon walking around the stage as others sang. I didn’t see a likeness of baby Jesus in a manger. But I saw a likeness of Michael Jackson in a sequin outfit.

Many people dispute whether Jackson was a pedophile. No one disputes that he is still culturally relevant. Nonetheless, it was strange seeing Michael Jackson’s likeness on stage just minutes after the church staff assured parents that the church nursery provided a safe environment for their young children. Mega churches are seldom short on cash or irony.

After the music, an enormous train engine (actually, it was a life size model) appeared in the middle of the stage. It was slowly moved in on a set of make shift tracks in the midst of smoke and accompanied by the sound of a real train whistle. The pastor boasted that the whistle could be heard all the way over on highway 242. I agreed that the set was impressive. It probably took the church staff as much time to build it as would have been required to build a medium sized home for an impoverished Houston family.

The crowd at Woodlands Church also got to see a YouTube video of a man watching an old train pull into a station. I still don’t understand the point of showing the video, which featured a man so excited to see an old train that he took the Lord’s name in vain three times. Let that sink in for a minute: The Woodlands Church played (in church, mind you) a video in which a man was taking the Lord’s name in vain three times. And they did it as part of a Christmas Eve service celebrating the birth of our Lord.

It reminded me of the time I took the Lord’s name in vain in a lecture at Summit Ministries in 2010. I didn’t mean to do it. But it didn’t matter. The kids at the ministry let me have it – and rightfully so. I was absolutely in the wrong.

My question for the mega church is simple: how did the commandment-violating video get past the entire staff at the Woodlands Church without someone catching it and correcting it? It’s pretty easy to do an overdub on “oh my God” to turn it into “oh my.” But the entire staff missed it. Or perhaps they didn’t care.

Unlike my teenaged Summit students, senior pastor Kerry Shook couldn’t see anything wrong with playing that video in church on Christmas Eve – even though its narrator took the Lord’s name in vain three times. He just laughed at it. And that was all that mattered. The service wasn’t meant to honor God. It was meant to entertain.

Kerry and Chris delivered a joint sermon, which had a broad general theme connected to the giant locomotive that stood behind them. The thesis was that we need to relinquish our need to control people and circumstances and instead let God direct our lives. But during the short sermon, Kerry’s wife said something rather unusual. It had to do with holy moments in our lives. It was as morally confused a statement as I have ever heard inside a place calling itself a church.

Without batting an eye, Chris Shook stated that all of the moments in our lives are equally holy no matter what we are doing because they were all created by God. So she insisted that we must learn to live in the moment, rather than seek a holy moment – because, once again, all moments are holy, and equally so.

To illustrate the error of Chris Shook’s statement, consider these “equally holy” moments, which were “all created by God”:
-A man sees a woman being raped and intervenes to stop the attack.

-A man sees a woman being raped and decides to join in.

-A man gives his wife a dozen roses.

-A man gives his wife herpes.

-A man tells his grandmother she is a saint.

-A man tells his grandmother she is a whore.

Obviously, not every moment in our lives is equally holy or God honoring “no matter what we are doing.” It matters very much what we are doing. Everyone knows that, including Chris’ husband Kerry who contradicted his wife about five minutes later. Near the end of their joint sermon, Kerry thanked people for coming to The Woodlands Church on “Christmas Eve, one of the holiest nights of the year.”

Put simply, there can be no holier or holiest night if every moment in our lives is equally holy. Either Kerry was right or his wife Chris was right. A cannot be not-A. The law of non-contradiction matters.

Every right thinking person knows that Kerry was right. His wife needed to sit down and let her husband the senior pastor deliver the correct message unencumbered by contradictions steeped in moral relativism. The culture teaches moral relativism. The church needs to correct it.

Of course, having Chris up there was the most important thing because it shows that The Woodlands Church really isn’t a Baptist Church after all. They let women preach and that shows they are culturally relevant. A little bad theology never hurt anyone.

In our holiest moments, we recognize that sound theology must defer to the secular doctrine of feminism. Some doctrines are holier than others. And relativism is culturally relevant even when it isn’t logically consistent.

 

Insulting fanatics: They’re the people who make up the legalization campaign

Last week on my television show, we interviewed Jodie Emery, a woman known only because her husband Marc is in prison in the United States and enjoys the sobriquet Prince of Pot.

She’s been on the show twice before, is a little lightweight and, typical of many single-issue extremists, indulges in the odd conspiracy theory.

This time I challenged her a little on drug legalization, and her answers were thin and predictable.

Not that I am especially opposed to looser drug laws and I really couldn’t care less about personal cannabis one way or the other.

It’s the plight of the privileged, a bourgeois conceit, a perfect example of western narcissism and self-obsession.

But here is where it got interesting. Even before the interview aired, after Emery tweeted about her rather gentle experience, I began to receive tweets and e-mails.

More than 500 of them in the end. I was called “Jew slime,” “a fag,” told that I “should get cancer,” called every abusive name you can imagine, often with appallingly bad spelling!

Yes, we have the proof.

I care even less about this than about cannabis use, but it does say an enormous amount about the dysfunction and fanaticism of the legalization campaign.

Frankly, I can understand anger from Muslims, Palestinians or gay people when I criticize Islam, defend Israel or oppose same-sex marriage. These are vital issues and emotions run high.

But smoking a joint? And it’s not even about that, in fact.

Nobody is going to be arrested for using cannabis at home, those dreadfully dull mass smoke-ins that seem to occur all the time prove you can be a bore publicly as well. I know cops who use the stuff, but I don’t know cops who arrest people for personal use.

The propaganda campaign that a plethora of charges are successfully filed because of ordinary people having tiny amounts of cannabis on them is mere fantasy.

This is not an ideology or a cause but a habit and an addiction. Like people campaigning for the right to masturbate. We don’t care guys, we just don’t care. Hunger matters, injustice matters, war matters, but this and you don’t. Yet we have the scenario of inverse significance. Activists for African poverty relief, for example — who have every right to be mad — tend to be balanced and polite. Yet activists for irresponsible drug-use — who have no right to be mad at all — are insulting fanatics.

Emery’s husband Marc, of course, in 2005 called former Liberal justice minister, Irwin Cotler, “a Nazi Jew or Jewish Nazi,” so I suppose he was either shaped by or shaping his people. Now this white, wealthy, self-promoter thinks he’s a martyr. Sorry guy, but there are thousands of poor people in American prisons who genuinely deserve help.

Imploding libertarian theories of wanting to legalize drugs so users have to buy them from the state and not the free market; students who have never contributed a cent to society screaming that they demand the right to hallucinate in the street; lies about the potential dangers of long-term cannabis use; utter myopia about the realities of criminal behaviour and so on and so on.

Grow up or shut up.

 

Canadians prefer to call it Christmas. Not “holidays.”

I don’t just like their poll results, I like that a large media outlet is bothering to poll on it, and then report the findings. In this case, Sun News in Canada.

 

Call_it_Christmas-cropped-capture_20121214_083956

 

Merry_Christmas-cropped-capture_20121214_083915

Some right-thinking Canadians will remember that I’ve been on this Christmas case for many years. I’m grateful that others are now taking it up.

Merry Christmas.

Call_it_Christmas-cropped-capture_20121214_084141

Christmas_is_king-cropped-capture_20121214_084015