A closer look at the 'Common Sense' gun laws

I’m not an asshole, at least I don’t try to be, but sometimes my posts can come off a bit snarky at times. I blame it on the NY’er in me and my sometimes failing attempt at humor, at least that’s what my loving wife calls it.

The reality is that I try to be as open as possible when it comes to other’s positions, but lately it seems as if all that happens in ‘discussions’ is an inevitable breakdown in communication which usually leads to such name calling as: Liberal Lunatic, Teabagger, etc..  Once that occurs, civil discussion goes right out the window.

Now as we get ready to close the book on 2015, and move into the last year of the President's term, It is anticipated that he will make a move to bi-pass Congress and begin enacting some form of gun control through Executive Action, which is a topic for another day.

So I decided that I would try and take a revised look at this whole ‘common sense’ gun law thing and explain the reasons why I believe this is not realistic.

So what exactly are the new ‘common sense’ gun laws that folks on the left are proposing?

1.        Re-authorize the Assault Weapons Ban
2.       Stricter background checks
3.        Close the gun show loophole
4.        Denying guns to folks on the terror ‘no fly’ list.
5.       Ban large capacity magazines
6.       Ban fully automatic weapons

I’m even willing to go out on a limb and throw in the old stand-by:

1. No one is trying to confiscate your guns

For the record, I spent twenty-two years in law enforcement. I tend to be one of the folks that believe in the law and, more importantly, that our laws should be enforced. So you would think that I would be in favor of these ‘common sense’ gun laws, but I’m not and here is the reason why.

The Assault Weapons ban of 1994 restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons except for: a) those already in lawful possession at the time of the law's enactment; b) 660 rifles and shotguns listed by type and name; c) permanently inoperable, manually operated, or antique firearms; rifles unable to accept a detachable magazine of more than five rounds; d) shotguns unable to hold more than five rounds in a fixed or detachable magazine; e) and those made for, transferred to, or owned by the U.S. government or a U.S. law enforcement agency.

The ban had outlined specific cosmetic features that would classify a firearm as an assault weapon. For example, rifles and shot guns could not have folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet mounts (my particular favorite, it was just a small little hunk of metal for crying-out-loud), flash suppressors or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor (why, what was so inherently wrong with trying to cut down on muzzle flash?). The bill also went so far as banning an attachable grenade launcher. (Really? Another obscure little hunk of metal bites the dust).

The problem is that the ban defined the term ‘semi-automatic assault weapon,’ which is commonly shortened to assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms shoot one round with each trigger pull. It was sort of a political shell game, because the term assault weapon was also commonly used to refer to some military weapons. The similar, but more technical accurate assault rifle, referred to military rifles capable of selective fire (Fully automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire). What they didn’t tell you was that these weapons are considered Title II weapons and were already regulated by the National FirearmsAct of 1934 and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Neither the original ban, nor its expiration, changed the legal status of automatic firearms.

The reality is that the Assault Weapons Ban should be referred to as the Spooky Weapons Ban, because it is consistently portrayed in the media that way. Essentially, if it looks evil then it is evil. Unfortunately, it is tantamount to slapping a Lamborghini emblem onto a Prius and claiming it is a sports car.

Now, I can understand this confusion with the public. The fact is that our president doesn’t even understand it. After the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama referred to the weapon used as being fully automatic and he also seems to think that there is no apparent difference between assault weapons and machine guns. Likewise so does Hillary Clinton, who in 2008 called for sensible regulations to “keep machine guns away from folks who shouldn't have them” and has continued to champion for more restrictions. I guess our much vaunted former Secretary of State hasn’t heard of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Interesting enough, after the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Gail Collins, of the New York Times, said that "the San Bernardino murderers were wielding assault rifles, with which they were able to fire an estimated 65-75 bullets in rapid succession." Collins also said that these assault weapons are "the armament of choice for mass shootings." The truth is they aren’t, as you will see in a moment. Collins was factually incorrect on both issues. So if the politicians and the press get it wrong, you can understand why the average citizen is confused.

How exactly did the much touted original ban workout? Well, not so well. Several academic studies, including the NRC, determined that the ban showed no clear impact on gun violence. The fact is that the pre-ban use of these types of weapons was rare to begin with. Their position was that, should the ban be reinstated, that  “its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as ‘assault rifles’ or ‘assault weapons’, are rarely used in gun crimes.” A position which I can personally attest too, based on my career in law enforcement.

So, if a new ban won’t work, perhaps stricter background checks would. Ok, I’m going to take a step out onto the ledge here and say “psst….. I agree”. Okay, get up off the floor, it isn’t that shocking. In fact, I think a lot of folks would say that they feel as if there should be more stringent checks. The problem here is who is going to do it and what will it encompass? Right now, each state has their own criteria. I agree that should be amended, but you have to be intellectually honest and admit that the federal government doesn’t exactly shine here. Consider for just a moment that some of the 9/11 hijackers overstayed their visas. The Boston Marathon bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was known to the FBI and was even being investigated for a triple homicide. One of the San Bernardino shooters, Tashfeen Malik, who came here on a K-1 visa and was fully vetted, but the address she gave in Pakistan was non-existent. Neither her, nor her husband, had any criminal record nor were either of them on any terrorist watch list. Now granted, while these are notorious examples, they still serve as a reminder that simply saying that people are ‘checked’ doesn’t really mean a lot. Let’s not forget that the agency you would think would be able to be the keeper of records, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, doesn’t exactly have a stellar record of being able to track guns used in their own sting operation.

But let’s just say that we somehow came up with an all-powerful, all-knowing, federal agency that could handle it. What should be on it? Or maybe we could come up with a list of those who shouldn’t be on it. Persons arrested for violent felonies? Yeah, that’s a good start, but wait, should it be arrested for or convicted of? What about the man (or woman, in this PC world we live in) who beats up/ threatens their spouse. That’s kinda clear cut, except when the spouse is lying. Believe me, it happens a lot. So should that person lose their firearm? Some on the left believe this doesn’t happen, but it does. Who decides when they get it back? Maybe if they are acquitted, that sounds good. But wait, what happens if the spouse decides to retract her allegation? If she / he says they lied, then the person should get their firearms back, right? What if she / he is lying about lying? This also happens, a LOT.

What about mental health? Oh wait, they are already excluded. Yeah, you say, but that’s not working. Okay, I see your point. Let’s create a database so we can flag them. Hold on, can’t do that, federal privacy laws. Wait, you mean that the same federal government that calls for more in-depth background checks won’t allow mental health to be included? Yep.

Let’s take those wild and wacky Texans for example. You know that radical right state that seems to love everything bigger and better. Over one million folks a year buy a gun in Texas and get the required background check. The checks look at a person’s criminal history, but not always their mental health record. You see, in Texas, court ordered commitments or guardianships must be reported, but, according to both Texas and federal law, information about a person’s emergency mental health detentions / warrants, protective custody orders, or drug / alcohol rehab services cannot be made public for a background check.

Well that sucks.

But realistically, how much impact would that make?

Well, if you were the victims of Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Adam Lanza, Aaron Alexis, Nidal Hassan, Dylann Roof, or Robert Dear, a lot. You see, none of them should have had weapons, which is of little consolation to the 72 dead and 113 injured.  

So what new common sense law would have prevented it? Sadly, none.

You see, medical records are kept private to encourage folks to get help, which is a great idea, except when they don’t. Unfortunately, the mental health community believes that any new laws could do more harm than good and they tend to vociferously object to the inclusion of those records. In a way it makes sense. Most people will suffer from a mental ‘issue’ in their lifetime, whether it is the death of a loved one, marital problems, or financial issues. The majority of people sort it out and move on, a small minority don’t. The mental health community will tell you that we should be very wary of stigmatizing the many, in an attempt to stop the few.

Kind of odd that you always hear the NRA being blasted for saying something similar, yet no one objects when it comes from the mental health community. I guess they have a better lobbing group.

Well, it doesn’t seem that we are any closer to coming up with a better system, so let’s move on to what many believe to be the real problem: The Gun Show Loophole.

I so want to make this a drinking game, but I’m afraid that I’d be too boxed, in too short a period of time, to actually be able to breathe on my own. Here is the truth: there is no gun show loophole. Despite what politicians and the media claim, existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold. Since 1938, persons selling firearms have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. It doesn’t matter whether a dealer sells from a storefront, a room in his house or a table at a gun show, the rules are the same. The dealer must get authorization from the FBI for the sale. The truth is that firearms are the most regulated consumer product in the United States, the only product for which FBI permission is required for every single sale.

So what’s the issue? Well, it stems from private sales. In some states, individuals do not have to run a check. You might think that is odd, but let’s just say my wife falls in love with my old .38 S&W revolver. I am pretty sure of her criminal history, as well as her mental health background, and she has the proper license to possess it, so do I really need to do a background check before I give it to her?  

Now many believe that this loophole is a really big thing and they cite some impressive numbers like “25-50 percent of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers.”

Holy crap, call out the National Guard!!

Whoa, hold on, wait a moment, I’ve been to a lot of gun shows. This is one of those trick questions, or rather a trick statement (pay attention, you’ll see this again).

You see the number might be correct, but it’s the terminology that is the problem. They use the generic term ‘vendor’ to promote their claim. Unfortunately, for those of you, like me, who have gone to gun shows, it is more often than not that you have to wade through table after table of ‘vendors’ selling:  Candles, Cookies, Jerky, Books, Knives, Lights, Coins, Stamps, Surplus Military Gear, and an assortment of other crap that makes you wonder why they just don’t call it a flea market. In fact, an NIJ study once concluded that gun shows were such a ‘minor source of criminal gun acquisition’ that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure.

Damn, this isn’t working out well. Let’s move onto something we can all agree on, denying folks on the terror ‘no fly’ list.

Last night the president asked congress to pass legislation that would strip anyone who was on the terrorism ‘no fly’ list of the ability to purchase a firearm in the United States. Senator Dianne Feinstein has also proposed a bill that would prohibit anyone, whose name appears on the list, from buying a firearm. A lot of folks are claiming that makes sense, after all, no one wants a terrorist to be able to buy a gun.  I mean how controversial could this be? If they have been placed on the ‘no fly’ list, surely they pose a significant threat and should be banned from owning a weapon. Right?  

I see you nodding your head in agreement. You have much to learn my little padawan.

First, we need to establish some basic information about the ‘no fly’ list, which is a component of the FBI’s terror watch list. The list, which came about after the 9/11 attacks, was founded on good intentions, but we know all about the road that is paved with those. The truth is that the ‘no-fly’ list is an unmitigated disaster. While there are many on the list that are connected to terrorism, nearly half of the names belong to people who don’t.

Wait, how is this possible you’re asking?

Well, like I said before, it started out with the best of intentions, but government seems to always find a way to screw things up, even when they aren’t trying. In the case of the ‘no fly’ list, some would believe they are trying.  

Take for example Stephen Hayes, a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Mr. Hayes was added to the list simply because he booked a one-way trip to Istanbul for a cruise, and then returned to the U.S., a few weeks later, via Athens. Hardly grounds for someone to lose their right to own a firearm, but Mr. Hayes is a contributor on Fox so maybe…. No, perish the thought. How about priests, nuns, students and peace activists? Heck, in 2003 the New York Times railed against the Bush administration regarding the list, stating that some had been on the list simply for their liberal views. When President Bush left office the list contained nearly 50,000 names. Under the Obama administration this mangled, bureaucratic mess contains over 700,000. Not hearing much out of the NYT now however.

The truth is that all it takes is for the government to declare it has reasonable suspicion that someone could be a terrorist. In fact, it doesn’t even take the government. An anonymous source can make the claim.

The problem is that the list contains names, not identities, and has led to any number of misidentifications and confusion. As a result, innocent people, with no connection to anything remotely terror related, have found themselves smack dab in the middle of a nightmare. To make matters worse, there is no easy way to have one’s name removed from what amounts to a secret blacklist. I am certain that there are a number of folks who don’t even know they are on the list. Hell, former Senator, Ted Kennedy, and Congressman John Lewis were on the list. I won’t even begin to go into the details of the 18 month old child who was removed from a flight because she was on the list.

Under the Feinstein bill, those on the list would have their 2nd Amendment rights denied. Now there are some that say that our 2^nd Amendment right is not absolute, and they are correct. Under the current law felons, fugitives, drug addicts and domestic abusers are prohibited from purchasing firearms. The sticking point is that those folks listed above are entitled to due process, before that right is taken away, a luxury not afford to those on the ‘no fly’ list. All that would be necessary is to have your name pop up on a list, because someone in the government said, without any probable cause, that it should be there.

Oh, and remember what I said before about the ‘no fly’ list being a component of the FBI’s terror watch list? Well then this should make your head spin. It’s been revealed that, in the course of an Inspector General investigation, the names of seventy plus members of the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Safety Administration, appear on the terror watch list. Do they have actual ties to terror or are they simply there by accident? I don’t know, but apparently neither does the TSA. If you couple this information along with the fact that OIG agents were able to get weapons past screening points in 95% of their exercises and it doesn’t exactly instill confidence in me to fly anytime soon.

I don’t know about you, but I thought this was going to be easier. I think I need a drink.

Let’s move on to banning large capacity magazines. Surely that’s something that shouldn’t be too controversial, right? Obviously, you’ve never loaded a magazine before. This matter sort of falls under the whole ‘spooky’ thing. Think about this for a moment. I am inclined to go on a shooting rampage, but the law says I can’t have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds (7 rounds in New York). Damn, well there goes that rampage, said no one ever. Did you miss the part where I said 'I was inclined to go on a shooting rampage'? Do you really think that if I were limited to a 10 round magazine that I would somehow be less of a threat?

This is kind of a two-fer, and includes banning fully automatic weapons. First let us consider the weapon. The overwhelming majority, and I mean like 99.+% majority, involve semi-automatic weapons, not full auto. Why you ask? Well, because the overwhelming majority of folks that have the money to purchase full auto are really not the type that go out and commit crimes. So, let’s deal with the semi-automatic. It doesn’t matter whether you have ten rounds in the magazine, or thirty, or one hundred, you still have to pull the trigger to fire each round.  I once heard a reporter say that a particular ‘assault weapon’ could fire a staggering 800 rounds per minute. Sounds completely diabolical, where do I get one?

Again, this is the trick statement. While a particular weapon might be able to fire 800 rounds per minute, does the gun we are talking about have this ability? In the case of that reporter, the answer was no, it did not. Well, why not? Because the gun being talked about was the spooky semi-automatic gun. The 800 number is the cyclic rate, which is the technical rate of fire. Under mechanical conditions, at full auto, it can, but in semi-auto it’s not even remotely close. You would have to fire more than 13 rounds per second, without stopping, to achieve this number. I don’t know about you, but I have done more than my fair share of shooting and my trigger finger gets sore long before I ever hit this mythical number, and nowhere near in a one minute interval. You would also need twenty-six, 30 round, magazines to achieve this. Soldiers in Afghanistan don’t even carry that much ammo.

While we are on the topic of full-auto weapons I should let you know that, while they are capable of firing that way, the VAST majority of people who shoot, or have shot them, will tell you that almost no one does. Why? Well, if you are paying for your own ammo, the bill racks up pretty quickly. Add that to the fact that full-auto ain’t worth shit if you are trying to hit an actual target, hence the motto ‘spray and pray’. So realistically, just because it can, doesn’t mean you will. In my experience, the 3 round burst is the better choice.

So why shouldn’t we ban large capacity magazines? I guess the real question is why should we?

To be fair, this is a personal thing. I don’t like to reload; frankly it’s a pain in the ass, or at least a pointer finger. In the grand scheme of things, if I am so inclined to commit a heinous act, it won’t matter to me. I can reload from three 10 round magazines almost as quickly as I can fire from one 30 round. The average shooter will probably be a bit slower, but at that point it’s almost academic.

So where does that leave us? Well, no closer to a resolution, but I at least hope you have seen things in a different light.

Oh wait, I almost forgot my add-on, the old no one is trying to confiscate your guns story.

You know, there was a time when that wasn’t true. In fact it was actually only a couple of days ago. The New York Times said as much in their editorial. They are not the first and they certainly won’t be the last. To be clear, the word is not used, that would be bad optics. Gun confiscations rarely go over well, just ask those who witnessed it in my previous post. So they use passive words like surrendering for the good of all, or they issue notices that your weapons are now illegal and you need to turn them in. It’s the ‘rose by any other name’ syndrome.

But is the idea of gun confiscation really the manifestation of some right-wing nut job seeing government conspiracies behind every corner? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

I am reminded of the old adage: Once is a mistake. Twice is a pattern. Three times is a habit.

In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Confiscation Act, authorizing federal troops to begin confiscating weapons in preparation for military re-conquest of the South.

In 1890, at the height of the American Indian relocation effort, U.S. Troops, confiscated the weapons from the Sioux at Wounded Knee. After they were disarmed, the troops shot and killed nearly 300 of them.

In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt used the attack at Pearl Harbor to justify the mass confiscation of guns, and other property, from people deemed ‘enemy aliens’ all over the United States.  After the confiscation, the disarmed individuals were rounded up and placed in concentration camps.

Most recently, in 2005, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the city of New Orleans launched a wholesale, door-to-door, gun confiscation under the declaration of martial law. Members of the New Orleans Police Department, as well as the National Guard, went door to door securing these weapons. Over 1,000 firearms were seized, and untold numbers of people, houses, and vehicles were aggressively searched in the process.  Residents, who had already suffered the hardships of the hurricane, were left vulnerable and defenseless by the government that had thus far shown they were unable to protect them.

Following the disaster, the government promised that gun confiscation would never happen again.  But the reality is that such guarantees aren’t worth the paper they are printed on during a crisis situation.  As the above shows, the guaranteed rights in the constitution have certainly not been upheld in the past, so why should one more promise prevent future gun confiscation?

Gun confiscation is an ugly term and is proving to be damning to those seeking higher office. Many gun owners are concerned, and rightfully so. There are many who feel strongly about removing firearms and make no bones about it, you only have to turn on the TV and see a whole host of pundits and politicians championing this. But even if they stop talking about confiscation, does that mean the threat is really gone? No.

Here is what I know.

Microstamping legislation was passed in California AB 1471 and signed into law on October 14, 2007. D.C. is the only other place to adopt similar legislation and is set to enforce it next year. Similar legislation is also under consideration in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maryland, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

Microstamping is a ballistics identification technology whereby microscopic markings are engraved onto the tip of the firing pin and onto the breech face of a firearm with a laser. When the gun is fired, these etchings are transferred to the primer by the firing pin and to the cartridge case head by the breech face, using the pressure created when a round is fired. At face value, most people would say that’s a great idea. Sadly, they would also be wrong. There are a number of variables which make this issue problematic from a law enforcement standpoint: a) Discarded brass, such as that from a firing range, could be misused, providing false evidence and increasing the workload for investigators. b) Firing a large number of rounds will eventually wear down the microstamp. c) Microstamping is relatively new, with a single source provider, and has not been subjected to sufficient testing.

The reality is that this was an end run. Rather than ban guns outright, the state of California created a de facto ban, where they simply eliminated new gun sales.  Gun manufacturers Smith & Wesson and Ruger have already stopped selling to California.

San Bernardino shows that, despite it being a direct terrorist threat, the narrative was immediately turned toward gun control. The fact that California has some of the nations’ most stringent ‘common sense’ gun laws on the books meant nothing to the two criminals who were so inclined to break the law. Gun laws also don’t mean anything to those suffering from mental illness.

For decades we have had what amounts to a revolving door justice system that has taught felons, old and young, that laws will not be enforced. It’s the same reason why a few weeks back, in New York City, Junior Regis, a member of the Brooklyn’s Most Wanted gang, with a lengthy rap sheet including robbery, was nabbed for the 2nd time in just ten days for gun possession. After the 2nd arrest, prosecutors recommended that Regis be held without bail or be given a $500,000.00 bail. Much to their surprise, the judge released Regis on $1,000.00 which he promptly posted.

To many this might be a bit of a shock, but to those of us in law enforcement, who have seen this same scenario play out time and again; it is nothing more than business as usual. Despite the incredible amount of gun laws, already on the books, the criminal justice system seemingly refuses to incarcerate offenders for them. Yet, we, the law abiding gun owners, are constantly being told, by this administration, that what we simply need to fix our gun problem is more gun laws.

In the immortal words of Rahm Emanuel: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases, then please like my Facebook page and feel free to follow me on Twitter.

December 7th, 1941 - Attack on Pearl Harbor

“December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy, the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.”

At 7:55 a.m. Hawaii time, a Japanese dive bomber, bearing the Rising Sun symbol of Japan on its wings, appears out of the clouds above the island of Oahu. 

Some 350+ warplanes soon followed, descending on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in a ferocious assault. While the attack struck a critical blow against the U.S. Pacific fleet, and drew the United States irrevocably into World War II, it did not defeat our resolve.

May we never forget the sacrifices made, nor the resolute bravery displayed, by our military personnel. 

I’ve seen the light !!! Common Sense Gun Control !!!

Guns are pure evil and no civilized person should ever be in the vicinity of them.

Therefore, effective immediately, I will be rescinding my memberships to such organizations as the NRA, ISRA and other like-minded groups.  All the money I have paid in membership dues will now go to the UN, ACLU, and other groups who promote diversity and peace. I will also be turning in my weapons at the next law enforcement sponsored gun surrender program. Don’t ask me to buy them, because I could not bear to have you embrace these disgusting weapons of war.

I have also decided to change party affiliations, since my prior party is nothing but grotesque war mongers. Poverty, inequality, and social justice can only be achieved through the collective good and government is the strongest vehicle to achieve this. Because of this I am now going to sue the City of New York and the NYPD for forcing me to be a part of their brutal regime and crackdown of minor crimes designed to incarcerate the poor and less fortunate.  I will be asking for $25 million dollars for emotional harm and will be using the proceeds to establish ‘safe zones’ where people can go to protect themselves from hurtful words. Any money that remains will be used to buy ‘no gun zone’ placards to be affixed to doors.

Sadly, this whole enlightenment thing has also caused me to rethink my religious beliefs. I have therefore decided to embrace my humanism. For too long I have undervalued myself and my contributions to society.

I have also decided to unleash myself from the destructive gender assignment that was forced upon me, without my consent, by an oppressive, dictatorial society which seeks to buttonhole me into their world view. I am now F_(`296Mx~%, a sentient, asexual being that refuses to conform to so called societal norms. I also am a being of the world, and as such believe that fascist laws, which are forced upon us, have no hold over me. 

Bless Myself,……… this is so liberating that I am teetering on the edge of a narcissistic euphoria!!

For any of you who already feel this way, I have only one thing to say: Get off social media and grow the fuck up.

For those of you who know me better, and are laughing your asses off right now, I salute you.

To be honest with you, I’m tired. I’m tired of the whining, the bullshit, and the sight of allegedly adult human beings demanding a ‘safe zone’ so that their feelings don’t get hurt. What the hell has happened to this country? Everything, and I mean everything, is someone (or something) else’s fault.

• You're 35 and work at Burger King & need a $15 minimum wage - You're 35, got a $15 wage & demand your hours get reduced so you can stay on public assistance.
• Grew up poor, government did not provide enough - Got in trouble with the law, government is too repressive.
• Argue that all guns should be banned because of gun deaths around roughly 10k (+/-) per year – Do not call for ban of all cars that have an annual DUI cause of death of around roughly 10k (+/-) per year
• Lament that you cannot find work after college because of corporate greed – Obtained a degree in Feminist Studies.
• Believe that the police are reprehensible racist murderers  - Call for the murder of all police officers using reprehensible racial slurs.
• Say that all Muslims should not be blamed for the actions of a handful of bad ones – Blame all gun owners for the actions of a handful of bad ones.
• Claim George Bush caused ISIS, when their numbers were less than 1k in 2009 – Don’t blame current admin when the numbers swell to 20-30k by 2015.
• Want Canadian / European style national health care – Ignore the fact that the scandal plagued VA, where veterans routinely die waiting for care, is actually a model for national healthcare.
• Believe all college tuition should be free, paid for by the government  – Ignore the fact that the ‘greedy’ universities actually set tuition rates.
• Engage in hunger strikes to protest alleged ‘privileged’ status of some – Ignore the fact that they come from privileged homes themselves.
• Blame the financial collapse on Bush – Ignore that safeguards in the housing industry were removed by previous administration to allow, otherwise ineligible, people to purchase homes they couldn't afford.
• Blame the GOP majority for obstructing the president’s agenda – Blame the GOP minority for obstructing the president’s agenda.
• Believe the United Nations can solve global problems – Ignore that the United Nations have never solved a global problem.
• Claim that religion is for the weak minded – Deride those who disagree with immigration policies as being un-Christian.
• Complain that union workers don’t make enough money – Ignore the fact that many union heads make more than the Vice President of the United States.
• Claim that we are a racist / misogynistic society – Ignore the racism / misogyny that occur in other countries around the world.
• Decry extremist Christians for talking about their faith – Ignore that extremist Muslims are killing people for not converting to theirs.
• Claim that there is a war on woman who are not paid on par with their male counterparts – Ignore that the women in the White House are not paid on par with their male counterparts.
• Demand more ‘common sense’ gun laws – Ignore that the places with the most restrictive gun laws in the US have the highest (illegal) gun crimes.
• Ignore when terrorist groups lob rockets into Israel – Scream about unnecessary use of force when Israel defends itself

Are you starting to see the rampant hypocrisy here?

One of the things which makes me laugh the hardest is when the left points to the ‘war on drugs’ and the fact that it did very little to curb drug crimes. Oh, okay, and I guess you have solved that little problem and believe that the ‘war on guns’ will do better?

Anytime someone is killed it is a tragedy, but to claim that removing all guns will cure the problem is pure and simple Utopian bullshit. I’m not saying there are not issues in this country, but the sad fact is that they are generational in their origination.

When I grew up, we were taught to respect the police and teachers. In fact, being disrespectful carried an exacting punishment, where you had your ass whooped by them and again when you got home. Now, society blames the police for every encounter; ignoring the fact that the alleged ‘victim’ was engaged in criminal behavior. We've taught our children to have contempt and disrespect for everyone in authority. 

Here is a newsflash: If you assault, and attempt to disarm, a police officer you are NOT a victim of anything. You are a criminal. Likewise, if you commit a crime with a gun, YOU, not the gun, are the criminal.

Recently I had a discussion with a gentleman that cited Japan as the model for what a ‘no gun society’ can look like. Because of their restrictive laws, they have almost no gun murders. Now you would think that there would be zero, but the truth is that you can never get rid of all the guns.

What this individual failed to realize is that, unlike the United States, Japan has a very different societal make-up. If it were simply a matter of comparing the low gun crime rate in Japan to the high gun crime rate in the US, one would be led to believe that guns were the problem. However, if you compare non-gun related crime, you come up with a similar story. So, if it is not the tool that is the issue, what is it?

Japan has a much different society then we do and there is a much closer relationship with law enforcement authorities. While the clearance rate for homicide is generally in the same ballpark (90% + for Japan and 70%+ for the US), the real difference is seen in the clearance rate for robbery. Japan clears around 80%+ of their robberies, while the US only clears around 20%. So why are those numbers so stark?

Again we go back to the culture. The conformist society of Japan does a lot to keep people out of crime in the first place. Family honor, and respect toward authority, are attributes that are instilled at a very early age.

Another factor is the criminal justice system in Japan.

Unlike the United States, which does a lot to protect individual rights, Japan has no such encumbrances. Japanese policeman can, and do, stop ‘suspicious’ people and make them show what they are carrying. In effect, the police can search basically anyone, at any time, and rarely will any evidence discovered be deemed inadmissible.

The Japanese criminal justice system puts more emphasis on the suspect than almost any other industrial / democratic country. While the United States enjoys Miranda warnings, Japan has no such barrier. Bail is routinely denied if it will interfere with interrogations and suspects can be held for 3 days, and 10 day extensions added if needed, for the purpose of obtaining a confession. In reality, a suspect can be held almost indefinitely until they confess and most defense attorneys are reluctant to protest for fear of offending the prosecutor. This results in a 90%+ confession rate. After the confession is obtained it gets even better. For those who go to trial, there is no jury and the conviction / incarceration rate for violent crime is nearly 100%.

Contrast this with the United States, where for decades we have seen an almost revolving door justice system. I can personal attest to numerous times where defendants were released on their own recognizance and I still had not finished the paperwork process. For decades you slapped the wrist's of offenders and now you are shocked when they, and now their children, have no respect for the law.

I wonder how many of the ‘enlightened’ folks walking around the halls of academia would be willing to give up their civil rights in order to obtain the low gun homicide rates of Japan? Judging from the ‘social’ protests I see on TV, not many. 

Another case of selective cherry-picking.

One other fact which the left chooses to ignore is that Japan still engages in blatant racism toward non-Japanese, something that would make their collective heads explode here.

Another problem for the gun grabbing crowd is that pesky little country called Switzerland.

Switzerland has an estimated population of about 8 million people and an estimated 2-4 million guns. Now, if guns were truly the issue, you would think that the Swiss would have a problem. Yet they have less than half of 1% (per 100k) of gun homicides. Like Japan, the Swiss have a societal structure of personal responsibility and respect, something greatly lacking in today's urban American environment.

The fact is that the first prohibitive gun laws were designed not to protect, but to disarm. Native Americans, free blacks and Chinese were all victims of this.

Consider for a moment that this month marks the 125th Anniversary of the Wounded Knee Massacre. On December 29th, agents of the government, along with the U.S. 7th Calvary, were sent to Wounded Knee, in South Dakota, to disarm the Sioux Indian’s for their own protection. It was the first federally backed gun confiscation program in U.S. History. After the majority of the Sioux were disarmed, the Calvary began shooting and managed to wipe out the entire camp. Of the 297 victims, 200 were women and children. 

We must wake up and accept the fact that evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Immediately after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, which left 14 dead and 21 wounded, the president, rather than condemn the terrorists, used the incident as a springboard to call for increased gun control. Maybe someone can correct me, but it really doesn't seem as if he has a grasp on this whole ISIS / Radical Islamic Terror thing. In this most recent attack, it's obvious that someone must have forgotten to tell him that all the gun control measures that he is calling for were already in place in California and had no impact on the attack. For whatever reason he, and those calling for stricter gun laws, cannot comprehend the fact that those intent on committing acts of terror, or criminal acts period, are not inclined to obey the law.

We cannot overlook the fact that throughout world history evil people have committed evil acts. Time and again we are shown examples of governments removing weapons from their citizens, for their own good, only to find that it was actually the government that was the real danger to them. You see, the truth is, that tyrannical governments are not anti-gun; in fact they enjoy them very much, as long as they are the only ones who have them.

• In 1911 Turkey disarmed its citizens. Between 1915 – 1917 they murdered over one million Armenians.
• In 1929 Russia disarmed its citizens. Between 1929 – 1953 they murdered approximately 20 million anti-communists.
• In 1935 China disarmed its citizens. Between 1948 – 1952 they murdered approximately 20  million anti-communists / reformers.
• In 1938 Germany disarmed its citizens. Between 1939 – 1945 they murdered approximately 16 million Jews, Gypsies and anti-Nazis.
• In 1956 Cambodia disarmed its citizens. Between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million ‘educated’ people.
• In 1964 Guatemala disarmed its citizens. Between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
• In 1970 Uganda disarmed its citizens. Between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians / political rivals.

In the infinite wisdom of the founding fathers, the 2nd Amendment was put in place to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. The right to own guns, to protect your personal freedom, was never written to protect the right to go deer or bear hunting, nor was it designed to protect weapons used for this purpose, but the very weapons that are now being vilified.

Take a look at the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Many people argue that since we have a military (militia) that we no longer need the 2^nd Amendment. However, the exact opposite is true about the reason for the 2nd Amendment. Understanding that a state needs a military, and understanding that the military of the state (England) was used against colonials, the founding fathers created the amendment to protect the individual rights of the citizenry to maintain their weapons, thereby ensuring that the government would never be able to do to them what the King of England had done.

Don’t believe me? Read their own quotes:

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” – Patrick Henry

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” Noah Webster

“Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.” John Adams

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Thomas Jefferson

Not once did I read anything about hunting or target shooting.

As much as we believe that we can legislate morality, we simply cannot. We also cannot rid the world of evil through the use of safe zones. Good people will tend to abide by the law while the criminal element will always find a way around it.

In the Bible, one of the first stories is that of Cain, who killed his brother Abel over jealousy. Evil does not exist within any tool, but rather resides in the heart of the wielder. 

If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases, then please like my Facebook page and feel free to follow me on Twitter.

The end of Political Party Dominance in America

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty." — George Washington, September 19, 1796

I wrote the below article on our political parties two years. In fact it was my second attempt to shine the spotlight on the system that has seemingly devolved us from informed voter to mindless party hacks.

It was my attempt to educate people that we have, in fact, been lied to, by both political parties, for much too long. Now, as the ‘anti-establishment’ candidates, for the 2016 presidential race, seem to be taking hold, I thought I would once again dust it off and see if I could get people to take their party blinders off. This country is in dire straits and it is time that we take a long hard look at the world that we have created, in our blind obedience to the party masters, and begin to take control of this runaway train.

  

No More Political Parties – Change we CAN believe in! (June 12^th, 2013)

I piss people off.

My 17, going on 70, year old daughter will attest to that little fact.

I don’t try to, but there comes a point when you need to speak up and state, unequivocally, where you stand on issues.

I think Washington, D.C. needs a dose of this.

The other day I got pulled into a sports conversation and I admitted that I have adopted the George Carlin position on sports:

“I decided it's not necessary to suffer and feel crappy just because my teams suck. What I do now is cut 'em loose for a while. I simply let them go about losing, as I go about living my life. Then, when they've improved, and are doing well once again, I get back on board and enjoy their success. Yeah, I know, I can hear it. Diehard, asshole loyal sports fans screaming, "Front-runner!" Goddamn right! Don't be fuckin' juvenile. Teams are supposed to provide pleasure and entertainment, not depression and disappointment.

…. Why on earth would you place your happiness and peace of mind in the hands of several dozen strangers? Listen, folks, if they win, fine; if they lose, fuck 'em! Let 'em practice more.”

Does that sound harsh?

I hope so, because it is the truth.  I've talked about it before. Political Parties Explained.

Every day I turn on the TV and I become depressed. Why you ask? Because politicians have turned into Athletes.

Rather than practice more, they have adopted the status quo and now just point fingers at the other guy.

Remember when EVERYONE hated the Yankees?

Why?

Because they fielded the best team possible. Period. End of story.

Well, we, as Americans, have been duped into rooting for two opposing teams, but the fact that they both suck doesn’t seem to mean much to them. They just point their finger at the other team and expect you to believe them.

But they are lying to your face and worse, YOU actually believe them.

I’m not going to get into who lies more, Republican or Democrat. I’m just going to give you one sample because I think it fits into the discussion we are having in America right now over the whole NSA issue.

In May 2006, then Senator Joseph Biden said

"I don't have to listen to your phone calls to know what you're doing. If I know every single phone call that you've made, I'm able to determine every single person you talk to; I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive. The real question here is what do they do with this information they collect that does not have anything to do with Al-Qaida? We're going to trust the president and vice president of the United States that we're doing the right thing? Don't count me in on that."

So, how exactly is that working out for you? Bet you'd love to have those words back, huh, Joe?

You see, my point is this, both sides lie to you. Without remorse or fear because they know you will continue to vote by party lines. But what would happen if we did away with the parties? What would D.C. look like if we removed the political party finger pointing?

Wouldn’t it be a novel idea if we forced people to run a campaign based, not on which party band wagon they have hoped on, but the issues.

Honestly, how many of you ever bothered to find out where the ‘other guy’ stood on issues, before going into the polling booth? Most likely you voted the following:

PARTY LINE.

I’m not condemning you. We have been ingrained to think this way.

But have you ever wondered if that’s exactly why we are in the position we are today?

It cannot be right when one party does it and then wrong when the other party does it.

That’s disingenuous and if the people in ‘your’ party are telling you, “well it’s complicated,” they are lying to you.

The complicated issue is that you got caught doing the same thing you railed against.

In other words, “the other team really didn't ‘stack the deck’, we just suck right now.”

I don’t know about you, but I am not going to vote by party any longer, I am going to vote by person.

Here is a campaign slogan I can get behind: PERSON, NOT PARTY.

Prescient Author vs. Lying / Incompetent Politicians

So, I'm sitting here and I get a breaking news alert: US was running guns through Benghazi to Syria.

Wow, didn't see that one coming....... Oh wait, I did.

Then, I got another article that stated: Defense Intelligence Agency warned of rise of ISIS seventeen months before President Obama dismissed them as "JV Team."

You mean the President was wrong?

That's funny, because when I wrote the plot outline for my book, Bishop's Gate, back in January 2014, I had no idea that some of the key fictional elements would come to fruition.

Things like urban racial tensions, gun running to Syria and the rise of the threat of ISIS.

So how is it exactly that a retired NYPD sergeant was able to piece together a fictional story line that everyone in the real world was saying wasn't happening?

Am I that prescient? Perhaps.

More likely it is because I tend to be a news and intelligence junkie. I follow these things like a lot of folks follow sports. Call it an occupational hazard of having lived it. I dealt with the race hustlers up close and personal, read the global intel briefings, which shed light on just how truly screwed up this world actually is, etc.

So when I see these reports it makes me wonder: Am I all that, or are we only getting part of the story?

I'd love it if you read my books, so I will say a bit of both.

For being the most powerful man in the world, doesn't it appear a bit odd to you that he seems to find out the news the same way most of us do? Don't believe it for a moment. The President has at his disposal the most powerful intelligence apparatus in the world. If he doesn't know about an issue it is because they are intentionally creating what they call 'plausible deniability'. Simply put, POTUS doesn't want to get caught in a lie. So, someone close to him is told and then they mention it in passing, but he is never 'officially' told.

You think POTUS really believed that ISIS was the JV? If I knew what was brewing in Syria, you can bet that they sure as hell knew. He made that little story up because it didn't fit the narrative he was trying to sell.

Remember, he was a community organizer. They sell stories, not facts.

Facts are annoying. It reminds me of the 'activists' who want you to believe there is an epidemic of cops killing innocent black men, even though no actual facts back this up. In fact, the real epidemic is the that the odds are much greater that you will be killed by another black then by the police.  Unfortunately for black America, those facts are ignored. There is no money to be made marching for victims of black on black crime.

The problem is, we don't have real leadership anymore.

We are not governed by principals, but by political talking points. What is trending? How can we hashtag this? Who can we  blame?

POTUS tells us that the threat of terrorism is on the decline, because it fits the narrative he is pitching during the election. It's not true. He knew it, and you should have known as well. It was a tale that was propped up by the media and now we know it was lie. Just a bit too late.

POTUS, the Secretary of State and the Ambassador to the UN, tell the world the attack in Benghazi was about a video tape mocking Islam. It wasn't and they knew it. In fact, the warnings were there before the attack. No one in the media will ask the tough questions, and even when those in Congress do, they are mocked.

Four dead Americans is nothing to be mocked.

Foggy memories, 'I don't know answers,' conveniently deleted emails.

At the end of the day, it's all still a lie, just wrapped up in a neat little package, because they know the average American just doesn't care.

Like I have said: Fiction is the lie through which we tell the truth.

Check out Bishop's Gate and ask yourself what else are you being lied to about.

If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases, then please like my Facebook page and feel free to follow me on Twitter.

Bishop's Gate Available in Print

For those of you who like the feel of an actual book in your hands, the weight is over. Bishop's Gate is now available in print.

The price is $16.99, which is slightly higher than the previous book, but remember, there is almost 100 pages more.

You can get it direct through Createspace (which is an Amazon Company) via the following link: Createspace: Bishop's Gate

Or you may purchase it direct through Amazon at the following link: Amazon: Bishop's Gate

Once again, I thank you for your continued support.

So you think you understand the Middle East?

Good for you, because I can tell you that many people don’t. What is funny to me is that a lot of people, who don’t understand the dynamics that are involved, are very happy to tell you what is going on.

Most of the time I just shake my head and walk away, there’s simply no point in arguing with folks who get there news delivered in talking point format. If you think that the current state of affairs in the Middle East can be summed up in 140 characters or less, you need to spend more time in a book!

One of the central themes of my last two books, Queen’s Gambit and Bishop’s Gate, is the very real threat of terrorism that we face. If you watch the news, you might not truly understand the complexities of what is going on. So I thought a bit of a refresher course would be in order. Please, understand that this is an introductory look at the subject and is in no means meant to be construed as comprehensive.

The Middle East, like Ireland, is complex and should be studied at length.

For the purposes of this we are going to look at things beginning in the early 1900’s. At the time, the Ottoman Empire controlled the Middle East, this would soon come to an end thanks to WW I. By 1917, the British Empire had made three different agreements with three different groups promising three different political futures for the Arab world. The Arabs insisted they still get their Arab kingdom that was promised to them through Sharif Hussein (McMahon-Hussein Correspondence). The French and British expected to divide up that same land among themselves (Sykes-Picot Agreement). And the Zionists expected to be given Palestine as promised by the Foreign Secretary for Britain (Balfour Declaration). 

As you can see, things were not off to a good start from the beginning.

After the war, the League of Nations (the forerunner to the United Nations) was created and one of its roles was to divide up the conquered Ottoman land. It was the League who ‘created’ the Arab world we know today. The borders were drawn arbitrarily, without any regard for the people living there. No consideration was given to ethnic, geographic, or religious issues. These lands were supposed to be ruled by the British or French until such time as they were able to stand alone. The differences between Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians, etc. were entirely created, as a method of dividing the Arabs against each other. 

The situation in Palestine was even worse. The British government created the British Mandate of Palestine and allowed the Zionists to settle there. However, they set limitations on the number, because they did not want to anger the Arabs already living there. This condition continued to fester until 1947 when the United Nations dissolved the British Mandate of Palestine and created a partition plan for Palestine. Under this resolution it required the withdrawal of the British Empire and created independent Arab and Jewish States. It also established the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.

Of course the plan was accepted by the Jewish people and rejected by the Arabs. Immediately after the resolution passed, civil war broke out.

Recently I heard a college educated woman say that the Jews came in and stole the land from the Palestinians. Here is a news flash; the Jewish people have lived in this area since 2500 BC. The ‘nation’ of Palestine is a modern creation.

While the U.N. resolution passed, it was not without issues. Every Arab nation voted against it. Here are some examples of the sentiment that existed:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Said, said: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in". He also called for ‘severe measures’ to be taken against all Jews in Arab countries.

General Secretary of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, said: “Personally I hope the Jews do not force us into this war because it will be a war of elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre which history will record similarly to the Mongol massacre or the wars of the Crusades."

Egyptian King Farouk said that in the long run the Arabs would soundly defeat the Jews and “drive them out of Palestine.”

So, despite the creation of five Arab states (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Jordan), the Arab world still demand the creation of an Arab Palestine state. Clearly, they had drawn the famous ‘line in the sand.’

After the resolution passed, the surrounding Arab states, Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria invaded what had just ceased to be Mandatory Palestine. They immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements. During the civil war, the Jewish and Arab communities of Palestine clashed (the latter supported by the Arab Liberation Army) while the British, who had the obligation to maintain order, organized their withdrawal and intervened only on an occasional basis. The conflict then turned into what is known as the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

The one year conflict triggered significant demographic changes throughout the Middle East. Around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel and they became Palestinian refugees. In the three years following the war, about 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel with one third of them having fled, or having been expelled, from their previous countries of residence in the Middle East.

Despite what many believed would be a one-sided battle, the Jewish people did not get the memo. They fought as if their very lives depended on it, and it did. In the end, not only had the Jewish people retained the area that the UN General Assembly Resolution (#181) had recommended for the proposed Jewish state, but they also took control of almost 60% of the area allocated for the proposed Arab state.

So there you have the ‘basic’ primer for the problems between the Arabs and the nation of Israel.

Now, you would think that would be enough, but you would be wrong. You see, when they turn their attention away from Israel, they seem to be inclined to have issues with one another as well.

Iran – The current make-up of Iran is much different than it was. Following WWII the country was led by the Shah of Iran. However, the oil crisis of the 70’s created an economic recession which led to the Islamic revolution in 1979. The new regime proceeded to storm and occupy the US Embassy in Tehran in what is known as the Iran Hostage Crisis from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981. The current regime is a theocracy, under the rule of the country’s supreme religious leader, the Ayatollah. Iran is a predominantly Shia Islam country. This toppling of the Shah led to concerns in Iraq, that its new Shia neighbor might be a problem.

Iraq – This country has known nothing but turmoil since it was a British mandate. From WWI to the 60’s, the country was in a constant state of flux, with one coup d’état after another. Then, in 1979, Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, ascended to the top slot. Hussein initially welcomed the overthrow of the Shah in Iran and sought to establish good relations with the Ayatollah Khomeini's new government. Khomeini had other ideas. He openly called for the spread of the Islamic Revolution to Iraq and took to arming Shiite and Kurdish rebels against Saddam's regime and sponsoring assassination attempts on senior Iraqi officials. This led to a series of military conflicts between the two countries, including the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, throughout the 80’s.

When Saddam Hussein was ousted from power Iran began to make its in-roads. They actively engaged against US military forces, providing some of the most lethal IED’s encountered.  The current Iraqi Prime Minister, Haider Al-Abadi, is a Shia Muslim, and is enjoying a new relationship with Iran, including military assistance in fighting ISIS.

Lebanon – Has also experienced upheaval since its inception. When they went to war against Israel, 100,000 Palestinian refugees fled to the country because of the war. Israel did not permit their return after the cease-fire. With the defeat of the PLO in Jordan, many Palestinian militants relocated to Lebanon, increasing their armed campaign against Israel. The relocation of Palestinian bases also led to increasing sectarian tensions between Palestinians and the Christian Maronite’s as well as other Lebanese factions. In 1975, following increasing sectarian violence, civil war broke out in Lebanon. It pitted a coalition of Christian groups against the joint forces of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), left-wing Druze and Muslim militias. In June 1976 Syria sent in its own troops, ostensibly to restore peace.

In 1982, the continued PLO attacks from Lebanon on Israel led to an Israeli invasion. A multinational peacekeeping force of American, French and Italian military units, joined in 1983 by a British contingent, were deployed in Beirut, after the Israeli siege of the city, to supervise the evacuation of the PLO. In 1983, following the Beirut bombing, the peacekeeping forces withdrew. Lebanon continues to be used a launching spot for rocket attacks by Hezbollah on Israel. Hezbollah is a Lebanon based terrorist organization that has become a major political payer in Lebanon. It was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran. Its leaders were followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of 1,500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards that arrived from Iran with permission from the Syrian government.

Syria – Is another country that has known nothing but upheaval since it was a French mandate. From WWI to the 60’s, the country was in a constant state of political turmoil. After the Suez Canal Crisis, Syria signed a pact with the Soviet Union. This gave the Soviets a foothold for Communist influence within the government, in exchange for military equipment. This caused considerable unease in their neighbor to the north, Turkey. While the current president, Bashar al-Assad, is an Alawite Muslim, he has close ties to the Iranian regime. Iran sees the survival of the Syrian government as being crucial to its regional interests. Syria provides a crucial thoroughfare to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran see’s al-Assad's Alawite minority led government being a crucial buffer against the influence of Saudi Arabia and the United States. In the on-going conflict in Syria, Iran has provided enormous military resources, including strategic assistance, from its vaunted Qods force in the fight against the rebels, of whom ISIS is a large part. ISIS (or ISIL, or IS) is a Salafi Islamic group fighting to impose a global Islamic caliphate. Many believe that the group’s roots are founded in the Muslim Brotherhood. It adheres to global jihadist principles and follows the hardline ideology of al-Qaeda, whom they separated from in 2014. 

Have you noticed the one compelling and underlying issue among all of this? Yes, Religion.

The other issue is Iran. Since 1979 they have been at the forefront of sowing the seeds of discontent. They have been slow and methodical, playing a game of chess and moving their pieces with a keen tactical mind. The threat posed by a potential nuclear Iran is almost unimaginable. I don’t get the warm and fuzzies thinking about a nuclear powered Iran and I am sure that Israel feels the same way. Iran has been adamant that they want Israel gone. This is not an ‘old’ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threat. The new Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, said in an interview that: "Israel is a wound on the body of the world of Islam that must be destroyed."

Also, if I hear one more person say that Iran needs it for ‘energy’, I think I’ll scream. Iran holds the world's fourth-largest crude oil reserves and the world's second-largest natural gas reserves. Instead of pursuing nuclear energy, made they should abandon that route and have the sanctions lifted, which would allow them to better pursue these energy ventures.

Like I said, this is only a basic primer, to show you that the issues are much more complex than some will say. Religion drives the majority of conflicts, whether it is directed at Israel or whether it is direct at internal sectarian issues. The folks in D.C. may be loathed to say it, but it is a religious war we are dealing with. It always has been and we won’t do ourselves any favors by pretending it isn’t. The conflict between Arab and Jew dates back four thousand years. 

So the next time you’re watching the news, and you hear some talking head say that in order to fix the problems we must look at the socio-economic issues, turn it off and go pick up a book.