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.

No Guns Allowed - What are you thinking ?

I think I woke up on the silly side of stupid and entered the Utopian world of No Guns Allowed.

Have you seen these little signs that have popped up all over? They are quite adorable, if you believe in that sort of nonsense. I guess that I am just a cynic.

Over the course of a day I encountered these little gremlins in a series of different places: a hospital, DMV, the bank, and a pizza shop. You see them popping up at malls, schools, movie theaters, hotels. Heck, even private citizens are putting them up outside their homes. Not the brightest of ideas, but hey, to each his own. I did get a pretty good chuckle out of the fact that the Mall of America in Minnesota has ‘no gun’ signs up.

I wonder, in light of the recent threat to the mall, made by the terrorist group Al Shabaab, if the State Department should notify them that they will have to select a different target? Maybe Jen Psaki can send them a tweet. #PickAnotherMall

In the end, I finally threw my hands up in disgust and made a beeline straight to my sanctuary, far away from the lunacy that seems to grip society today. In fact, the grip seems to be more like a full-on death throttle, threatening to kill off any sort of resistance to their peace, love and harmony position.

It’s kind of ironic, isn’t it? 

Reminds me of those warm and cuddly folks over in the Middle East and their mantra: Convert, or Die.

Now before you start screaming about how you are just trying to protect innocent people, let me stop you. First, if that’s the best you can do, you need to go back to whatever school of higher learning you attended and demand a refund of your parent’s money. That’s just stupid, right out of the gate. Unlike you I have real world experience, earned during a twenty-two year career in law enforcement.

You’re not protecting people; you’re promoting your agenda. Let’s be honest, you don’t like guns, plain and simple. You think they are barbaric instruments that have no place in a civil society. The problem is that you place responsibility on the wrong thing. You believe that the tool is the problem, instead of looking at the person wielding it. You don’t have an answer for that, so you shift the focus away to something you can vilify.

During the course of my career, I encountered a number of people that were truly evil, and many more, who I would describe as ambitiously evil, those who had no qualms about using violence to further their criminal activities. These people were not encumbered by such niceties as obeying the law, respect for individual rights and properties. No, they believed that their particular needs, real or imagined, provided them the right to take from others. They did it with whatever tool was available at the time, whether it was a gun, knife, hammer, or physical force.

This is not a new trend, in fact it dates back to the earliest days of man, when Cain set upon his brother, Abel, and killed him out of jealousy and anger. I don’t recall any firearms being around at that time, and I don’t believe there was a big outcry of ‘No Stones.’

In the end, the actual culprit was not the weapon, but the person wielding it. The same is true today.

However, just like in the biblical days, man doesn’t seem to have an answer for man’s inhumanity to man. Not that we haven’t tried, ad nauseum, in terms of correctional rehabilitation, psychiatric care, and at-risk outreach programs. Yet the fundamental issue is that some people just don’t get along well with others. I’ve seen this many times over, and yet civil society has no answer. We believe that a term of imprisonment is sufficient to ‘correct’ a person’s behavior, but what about the person who likes his behavior and doesn’t want to change? To them, jail or a psychiatric facility is simply an imposed time-out, a place to wait until they can be unleashed on society again.

Do you think these folks worry about your silly little signs?

Do you think someone intent on robbing a bank; is going to simply walk away, his crime spree ground to a halt, because of a ‘no gun’ sign?

Do I need to answer that? Seriously?

The simple fact, based on my real world experience, and not some hippie-happy utopian fairytale is that criminals are not hampered by such niceties as the law. The politicians know this, the courts know this, and, honestly, so do you.

But you are not really interested in that, are you?

No, the truth is that you don’t like guns. You want them banished because they offend your sensibilities. They force you to recognize that there is evil in the world. An evil you pretend does not exist and one that I dealt with on a daily basis for twenty-two years. You believe that, because some professor taught you that guns were bad, grotesque, things that had no place in civil society. The same professors who taught you that prisons are inhumane and that those who are incarcerated are good people who were made into criminals, because of the socio-economic pressures that were imposed on them by a privileged society.

Yes, there are some that become criminals by virtue of necessity, but it has been my experience that those folks rarely use a weapon to further their crime. No mom is pulling out an MP-5 to heist a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread. No, it is the ones who have embraced the violent criminal lifestyle that use a weapon and they are not impeded by laws. If they were, we’d have no crime.

No, the sad truth is that these signs are hung up by idiots, who believe that this small placard will protect them from the wolves of society. That somehow this little plastic shield will keep them from harm. Jeez, why didn’t we think of this hundreds of years ago? Think of all the wars we could have prevented, just by hanging one of these signs at the border crossing. I’m sure Hitler would have turned away at the Polish border if there was a ‘No Invasion’ sign. In fact, why didn’t Wyatt Earp think about that? He could have just hung a sign saying no guns in Tombstone and could have avoided the whole O.K. Corral fiasco…… oh wait, he did. Guns were outlawed in Tombstone in 1878, three years before the gunfight. Yeah, I guess that worked out well.

Here’s the thing, I won’t sacrifice my freedom and safety, because you’re not comfy with my gun. The fact that you will never know that I have one, unless I have to defend myself or you, means nothing. Your signs indicate to me that you do not value me as a customer, just my money. So I will not give you either. I think of it as doing you a favor. The less money you have, the less you have to lose when the armed criminal comes in and rips you off.

I pray that nothing befalls you. Unlike the criminal, I believe in and respect laws. I wish that we lived in a peaceful world where there was no need for guns, the police or laws. I wish we were more civil with one another, but we aren’t.

And therein lies the rub: Society has no answer for the criminal element.

Politicians make more laws, that criminals will not follow, and businesses put up signs, that criminals will not follow.

When the folly of these things becomes known, then the next step is to ban firearms from legal owners.

In 2008, during a campaign event in Lebanon, Virginia, then Sen. Barrack Obama said:  "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away.”

On February 13th, during another infamous late Friday information dump, the ATF revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track. The reason for this, the ATF contends, is that the ammo can be used in semi-automatic handguns and that they pose a threat to police. So the agency now proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt, meaning that they will be banned from production, sale and use. This would then be signed into effect through a presidential executive order. I guess he was right; he doesn't want to take away your rifle, just the ammunition for it.

You would think that I, a veteran member of law enforcement, would be behind such a well-intentioned rule. But I see past the line of drivel they are spewing.  This is simply a ruse. One of those ‘surely you’re not opposed to common sense laws, designed to protect our law enforcement officers, are you?’ charades.

The ATF has not even alleged, much less offered evidence,  that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer, despite the fact that there are millions upon millions of rounds that have been sold and used in the U.S.

So why are they doing this?

It’s like the ‘no gun’ placard. They don’t have an answer for the real problem, so they go off chasing unicorns. It makes them feel better.

This isn’t about doing anyone any good; it is about pursuing their agenda of outlawing firearms. They don’t like them, and if you don’t agree you’re one of those knuckle-dragging, violence mongers who can’t be trusted to know what is best for you. I guess the fact that I served in law enforcement for over two decades means nothing.

Here’s a novel idea, you hold onto your beliefs. If you don’t like me and my guns, I will respect that and not patronize your establishment. At the same time, I demand that you respect my rights, protected under law. If you don’t like guns, I won’t force you to own one, but do not be so misguided to believe that you can tell me that I cannot own one.

Follow me on Twitter - @Andrew_G_Nelson

Bishop's Gate - Now Available

I am pleased to announce that the 3rd installment in the James Maguire series, Bishop's Gate, is now available on the Kindle e-Book platform.

As you read this book I would like to remind you that the draft of this book was written a year ago. So as you consider the timeliness of the topics discussed, remember that many of these subjects had yet to happen.

ISIL, Terrorism, War, Religion and America's Tepid Response

In my book, Queen’s Gambit, one of the central issues is the threat posed to this nation by radical Islam. It is a theme that is carried over in my forthcoming book, Bishop’s Gate.

I wrote the outline for Bishop’s Gate last January. One of the amazing things that I discovered was how, more than a year later, many of the things I had written about would come to fruition and be significant issues that we are dealing with, even now.

Several days ago, U.S. State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, made the following statement:  

“We cannot kill our way out of this war,… We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs.” 

Immediately, there was a backlash that resonated through the political world like a California wildfire in August.

Later she doubled down, saying that her comments might have been too nuanced for some to understand.

I guess I am not as intellectually astute as Ms. Harf.

In her defense, there seems to be a mindset within this current administration that believes it can simply redirect the attention away from the real problem and create a new narrative that they are more familiar with, i.e. if we redistribute wealth and provide those downtrodden would-be jihadists with more financial opportunities, then they won’t take up arms against us.

Really? Maybe your comments weren’t so much nuanced as they were naïve.

Perhaps Ms. Harf can explain to me how she believes that radical Islamic extremists, pursuing their religious ideology, can be converted into peace loving, hedonists, simply by giving them a 9-5 job. What part of radical Islamic extremist are you a little fuzzy on? 

It's about religion, not about the credit limit on your Visa card.

Several weeks ago the President made the following statement at the National Prayer Breakfast:

“Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."

Now, I’m really not sure why he felt that it was an appropriate time to bring that up, but he did raise an interesting point that I think a lot of people missed in the ensuing outrage, including the President.

Man’s pursuit of religious dogma can, and often does, cause him to commit unspeakable acts of barbarism in the name of God.

Many people in this country, and around the world, do not want to believe that the current battle we are fighting is a religious war. They, like Ms. Harf, and probably many others in this administration, want to believe that there is some other root cause. That Jihadi Johnny wasn’t nurtured enough as a child or that Falafel House isn’t hiring. Those are issues they can accept. Those are the neat little socio-economic issues they can champion. It’s sort of like social media diplomacy.

You know: #OccupyAleppo or some other little catchy slogan, in 140 characters or less.

The first problem is: they know it’s a lie. The second problem is: they have no clue how to address it.

It’s time to start being honest. We are at war with radical Islam. Why is that so hard to accept? Notice, I didn’t say we are at war with Islam, just an extremist segment of it.

Does this administration believe that we will offend the Muslim world by saying that? I think they do. Yet, when I saw the response of King Abdullah II of Jordan, to the slaying of his pilot by ISIL, I wonder why this administration can’t admit it. We are at war. Why do I say that? Because, and here is a news flash for those of you who just woke up, they are at war with US!

I’m sorry, but just because you do not want to accept it, doesn’t mean that they don’t believe in what they are saying. In 2014 the Islamic State (otherwise known as ISIS or ISIL) declared a worldwide caliphate. In doing so, they claim religious, political and military authority over all Muslims, worldwide, and that the legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organizations, becomes null and void by the expansion of their authority and the arrival of their troops into those areas. They also said that they would “humiliate U.S. soldiers in Syria” and “raise the flag of Allah over the White House.”

Does any of that seem ambiguous to you? I’m thinking worldwide is a fairly self-explanatory as is flying their flag over the home of the President.

The sad thing is that they are only one of many who believe that they are at war with us. Pick any Middle Eastern terrorist group, look at their fundamental beliefs and you will see a remarkable trend. They all believe that the United States is their enemy, and not just any enemy, but the Great Satan.

Does it sound like they are just longing for a cost of living raise or an extension on unemployment benefits? If these economic issues were correct, then why do we see citizens of western nations going there to fight, instead of coming here for jobs?

The vast majority of Americans need to turn off the Real Housewives of Wherever, or American Idol, and start to educate themselves. If you have no idea what the difference is between a Shia and Sunni, you are part of the problem. Do you understand the ideology of Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda or Ansar al-Sharia?

If you don’t, then how can you even begin to comment on the current threat we are facing?

The enemy we are facing believes that they are engaged in a holy war against the west, what we call it does not matter to them. All that matters to them is how we fight it. I keep hearing how this nation is war weary, and that might be true. This might not be a fight we want to wage, but that doesn’t mean we won’t have to.

Consider pre-WWII German. The signs were all there: Re-arming of the German military (1935), Annexation of the Rheinland (1936), the Flower Wars: Austria (1938), Sudentenland (Czechoslovakia 1938), Memmeland (Lithuania 1939), and the German-Romanian Economic Treaty (1939).

By the time Germany invaded Poland in 1939, even Helen Keller could have read the tea leaves. The appeasement and admonitions did nothing more than to embolden Hitler, convincing him that Europe had no stomach to fight, and he was right. They only prolonged the inevitable. If we had put a stop to it early on, he would never have been strong enough to inflict the level of damage that he did throughout the whole of Europe.

In fact, unlike our allies, the one thing that we, as America, didn’t have to face at that time was a direct attack on our soil (Before some of you scream, Hawaii didn’t become a state until 1959).

9/11 proved that we don’t live in that world anymore.

Whether we are war weary, whether we don’t have the stomach to fight, means nothing to our enemies. They have the desire. They are not fighting for a single piece of land, or the invasion of another country. No, their goals are much loftier, a worldwide caliphate where you will bow to Allah or die. It really is just that simple.

Whether we choose to fight means nothing to them, they will fight us, and they believe that they have God on their side in this battle. Make no mistake about it, this IS a religious war. It may be, as the President has said, a perversion of Islam, but it exists nonetheless.

More often than not I take exception with the policies and principals of the President, but I do agree, in part, with what he said at the National Prayer Breakfast. Human beings can, and do, perpetuate terrible atrocities in the name of religion. I also believe in the quote, often attributed to Edmund Burke, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

I don’t want to shed the blood of another member of the United States Military, in some God forsaken sandbox around the world, but I do know that we will one day have to re-fight this battle that we irresponsibly walked away from.

Whether we fight it there or here is the only question.

I am not naïve to think this battle will not come, and there is nothing nuanced about the threat we face. I just pray that when the battle does come, that we have leadership that has the resolve to end the threat, once and for all.

Who is James Maguire ?

"Who is James Maguire?"

It is a question that I get asked on a fairly regular basis by readers of my books. Sometimes I answer with a wink and a nod, just to keep some semblance of the mystery alive. The truth is, Maguire is much more complex. He is one of those composite characters, drawn from a  multitude of  different people.

When my wife first challenged me to write the story, creating the character was quite easy. I just had to do some simple descriptive work. When the challenge went from 'short story' to an actual novel, that's when the reality hit and the hard work began.

It was Mark Twain who famously said: "Write what you know."

So I took that advice and first began to craft the character based on what I knew. If you think about it, it makes sense. I like a wide variety of fiction authors, but some are just that, authors. They bring no real world experiences to their books, just what they have been told or researched.

You can kill a great story, just by using the wrong terminology. However, you can create an even better story by immersing your reader inside a world that they will never experience, by having them live it through your eyes. Spending twenty years with the NYPD afforded me the opportunity to share with my readers some of what I lived through.

So I first structured the character based on myself and my career, and, once I had that foundation, then I started to add characteristics of people I knew or had worked with. I'd been very fortunate to have had the pleasure of knowing an extremely eclectic group of people during the course of my law enforcement career, from highly decorated military veterans to tough as nails cops.  I drew on some of their tales to craft certain aspects of the character. Even some of the verbal exchanges between Maguire and some of the secondary characters are based directly on my relationship with others. It's a comedic, sometimes dark, gallows humor, type of conversation that you find between people who have shared similar experiences.

I tried to make James Maguire someone who I felt most readers would be drawn to. He is a combination of hero and every-day man. Someone who has spent time in the valley's of life, as well as the mountain tops.

So who is James Maguire ? He's the kid from rural, upstate New York who wanted to excel in the arts and become a professional photographer. Then, in a cruel twist, his life was irrevocably changed in a moment. A romantic dreamer who saw one life crushed and another began. A young man who ended up at a fork in life's road, and who traded in the love of art for the art of war. A decorated military veteran who transitions from one uniform for another, becoming a member of the NYPD.

Perfect Pawn is a 'phoenix rising from the ashes' story, where love and redemption are found, in one of those curve-ball moments that life seems to throw at us, when we least expect it.

A.E. Albert: A Writer's Blog: Author Interview: Andrew Nelsonby A.E. Albert@ae...

I recently had the pleasure of being interviewed by the amazing A.E. Albert over at her site: A Writer's Blog.



You can check it out here: A.E. Albert: A Writer's Blog: Author Interview: Andrew Nelson
by A.E. Albert
@ae...: Author Interview: Andrew Nelson by A.E. Albert @aealbert23 Title: Perfect Pawn Genre: Mystery/Suspense What inspired you...

Cover Reveal - Bishop's Gate

Here is the cover artwork for the 3rd installment in the James Maguire series: Bishop's Gate

Check out the not-so-subtle clues for a hint at what will be in the next book.

The e-book version should be available on Kindle next week, while the print version should be out by the end of the month.

If you haven't read the first two books: Perfect Pawn & Queen's Gambit, you'd better get caught up before this ride begins.

Thanks again for your interest, and please remember to follow me on Facebook and Twitter for the latest information.

Update on the new James Maguire novel: Bishop's Gate

First, I would like to say that this evening I will be doing the cover reveal for the new book, Bishop’s Gate, which is scheduled for release next week. I hope that you will check back and let me know what you think.

If you are a first time visitor here, you can stay connected through this website, or via Facebook and Twitter.  

As I close the book, literally, on the new James Maguire novel, I am left with a feeling of sadness. It is hard to explain, but it’s like being on a wonderful vacation with friends and then having to say good-bye. I know that I will see them again, but that doesn’t do much for the moment.

However, as I did my proof read, I was struck by something that was kind of shocking to me and I wanted to share that with you. As you read this book, I want you to understand that the premise behind the story was drafted last February. That is going to be significant as you read the story. It hit me that I am either extremely prescient or we live in a world that is stuck on stupid, inclined to keep repeating mistakes. Whether it is the threat of global terrorism, political scandal, or race / class warfare, we never seem learn.

It is amazing to me how a story, which I dreamt up in my mind over a year ago, would be so timely. Hopefully, when I sit down to do the draft for the next one, I can again channel that insight.

For now, it is time for me to move on to the next story, which will be a sequel to the Alex Taylor novel, Small Town Secrets. I have the luxury of having most of that one done, and I am hoping for a shorter release time, toward the end of Spring.

Till then, I hope that you continue to enjoy my stories, and I welcome your feedback.

Update (Winter 2015)

Well, I am sure that a great many of you have imagined that I fell off the face of the earth. Actually, that probably would have been a bit more relaxing. Truth is, it has been nothing short of chaotic around here.

What was supposed to be a Fall launch for the next book in the Maguire series unfortunately got pushed off, due to a variety of different factors. First, one of our son's was diagnosed with MS back in September, which kind of put us in a take-spin. It's not the type of news you'd expect, but you just have to learn to deal with it and move along.

Next we undertook a re-publishing effort for our dear friend, Larry Wilson. Larry is a paranormal investigator who is currently writing his third book on the subject. Over the course of the last few months we re-edited and updated his two prior books: Chasing Shadows and Echoes from the Grave. If you are interested in the paranormal or just like to be scared, you'll find both books quite interesting. For his part, Larry has continually asked me to accompany him on one of his investigations, but, as I informed him, "if I can't shoot it, I don't want any part of it."

It's bad enough that he has forever scarred me and ruined any chance of me ever traveling within a hundred miles of Villisca, Iowa or Atchison, Kansas. Heck, I'm considering a full-on embargo of those two states, as should HE !!! Larry will understand !!!

Although, he did mention a haunting at an old Irish pub..................

That being said, I do have some exciting news to share. While our lives have certainly been a bit busy, and I have been a bit re-miss about engaging in my social media responsibilities, that doesn't mean that my writing has taken a break. No, far from it. I am happy to say that the 3rd Maguire book, Bishop's Gate, will most likely be released on Kindle next week and in print by the end of the month. While it has been a long time coming, I believe that you will enjoy the book and see that it has certainly been worth the wait.

In addition, I am nearly done on the 2nd Alex Taylor book. For those of you not familiar with this character, I suggest you run over and check out Small Town Secrets.

Stay tuned, because in just a little while, I will be doing a cover reveal for Bishop's Gate.

Happy Reading, Folks !!

Remember to follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_G_Nelson

The Face of Evil: Taking up the fight against Terrorism

In my book, Queen’s Gambit, one of the central themes is the threat that we face from terrorism. It is a topic that I dealt extensively with during my time with the NYPD. 

Back in the 90’s I was part of a unit that provided dignitary protection and conducted threat assessments, both for individual security as well as commercial and residential sites. It was a difficult task, one that was made ever harder when we encountered resistance from the people we were trying to protect.

A case in point was in 1997, after the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta, Georgia. I was sent to a major sporting venue and asked to evaluate their security and make recommendations. I spent several days going through their facility assessing the risks and taking notes. On the last day, I sat down with the senior members of the organization, and made my recommendations.

I instructed them on tightening perimeter security, establishing designated areas where spectators and packages could be searched, etc. It was nothing that I would consider overly egregious. It took about five minutes before I realized that I was just wasting my breath. I vividly recall one of the execs commentating that they couldn’t search attendees because their event didn’t draw that type of person.

I closed up my folder and wished them luck.

Not long after that, an individual was apprehended inside the venue by officers assigned to the event. This person had a large carving knife in their possession, something which would have been picked up long before the individual had entered the facility. A tragedy was avoided only by sheer luck.

It is the way I feel about the times that we are living.

As we have seen in the recent terror attacks in Paris, France, coupled with those in Ottawa, Canada, and Sydney, Australia, terrorism is alive and well. The real problem is not that terrorism exists, but our unwillingness to properly address it.

To be certain, the outcome in Paris was a failure, not a success. The minute the terrorists began their killing spree inside Charlie Hebdo we lost. In essence, we became reactive to the situation, attempting to put an end to it, when in reality; we should have been proactive and kept it from happening in the first place.

My aim here is not to play Monday morning quarterback, but to instruct.

Think of terrorism as a tool, like a hammer. It is used to bring about a particular response; it is the reason why you hear it referred to by different names: political terrorism, narco-terrorism, biological terrorism, and even eco-terrorism. The real threat however is the person wielding that tool. In order to properly address the threat, you need to know the mindset of the person.

The immediate threat that we face today is one driven by a religious zealotry to the nth degree. That is a statement of fact which simply cannot be ignored. If you want to be politically correct, and bury your head in the sand, then you better pray that you are just as lucky as those sporting executives were and pray that law enforcement, or the intelligence communities, catch them before they do whatever it is they are planning.

Those who subscribe to the religious tenants of radical Islam have no desire to sit down and discuss their animus toward you. They believe in only two things: conversion or death.

Amazingly, there is a certain segment of society which believes that ‘we cannot be like them’. As if by simply doing nothing, we will somehow convince them to lay down their swords to join us in some utopian global citizen fairytale.

It sounds quite naïve to decry the use of non-lethal interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation, when your enemy is only interested in killing you. If you don’t understand this fundamental difference, you are part of the problem.

For starters, when it comes to the basics of Islam, most are woefully uneducated. The majority of folks couldn’t tell you what the difference was between Sunni or Shia, or the many other denominations of Islam. Not that I can blame them, as many struggle with defining their own religious beliefs let alone a complex religion like Islam. The issue I have is that, if you are uneducated, you shouldn’t be interjecting yourself into the conversation.

George Bush, and enhanced interrogation techniques, did not create the problem of Jihad, it has been around for over a thousand years. We are not in a traditional war, but a religious one. Our enemy cannot be appeased with money or land; they seek only to spread their brand of religion, opposition to which means death.

The French are going to have to come to terms with a monster that they helped create. In an attempt to be politically correct, they allowed their core principles to be modified. The first time they surrendered, they set in motion a practice that has brought them to the brink.

There are now an estimated 750 Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or No-Go Zones, across the nation of France. These are areas where the government has simply raised the white flag, allowing the local community to take over. As a result, these areas are not governed by the laws of France, but by Islamic Sharia law. In many instances the police or other public safety, such as fire and ambulance services, will not even go in to these areas.

This is not isolated to France; this is also seen in growing areas of the United Kingdom and Sweden. Even in the United States, there are burgeoning Muslim communities in places like Dearborn, Michigan, where locals are calling for the equivalent of No-Go Zones and the institution of Sharia courts.

What the French failed to realize is that terrorism is not a criminal problem. Islamic terrorists, like the Kouachi brothers and Amedy Coulibaly, are at war. Treating them as if they are a common criminal, who can be rehabilitate and returned back to society, is ludicrous. In fact, lax prison rules have allowed them to become a prime recruiting location.

Amedy Coulibaly converted to radical Islam while in prison in 2005. It was during that prison stint when he met Cherif Kouachi.  The two men became devoted followers of Djamel Beghal, a French-Algerian man with ties to al-Qaeda, who was convicted of plotting in 2001 to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Paris. Coulibaly tried to break another militant Islamist, Smain Ait Ali Belkacem, out of prison in 2013. Although he was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison, he served only several months before he was released early.

This is the mindset that believes that a terrorist is a criminal and a prison sentence administers the proper amount of justice. It is a mindset that we are seeing here in the United States as well. Western civilization seems loath to accept the fact that this is a war we are fighting; choosing to believe it is a criminal justice issue.

Imprisoning people like this serves only to keep them isolated for a finite amount of time until they are once again released to the battlefield, a fact we have seen replayed when Gitmo prisoners have been released. In their minds, they are prisoners of war and their duty does not end till they die or the war is won.

Whether you like it or not, this is the reality we now face.

Yesterday, over forty world leaders participated in a march in Paris denouncing terrorism. It was the largest assemblage since the Americans liberated that city during WWII. Unfortunately, absent from the scene were representatives of this administration. Yes, the American Ambassador was there, somewhere, but when you have the representative heads of France, Israel, England, Germany, and so many other nations, the least the administration could have done was send the vice-president.

However, this administration does not want to address the real threat posed by radical Islam. It wants to paint a narrative that terrorism is on the decline, not the upswing that we are witnessing with our own eyes.  They want to view it as a simple criminal justice problem and mete out sentences in civilian court. What could go wrong with that?

After all, we saw how well it worked out for France.

The photo at the top of this article is the enemy that we now face. It speaks to the contempt with which they view us. The glint of orange fabric at the bottom was just the latest victim, but, to be sure, they envision each and every one of us in that position. 

It's our choice to decide whether we try to reason with the devil or fight back.

Terror Attack at Charlie Hebdo: the lie of Je Suis Charlie

Newspaper headlines across the world repeat the motto: Je Suis Charlie, or I am Charlie, in an apparent show of solidarity with those lost during the terror attack at the publication, Charlie Hebdo. 

But is this really true?

I vaguely knew of the paper, because they were the subject of a bomb attack back in 2011. I tend to stay on top of terror related activities, an old occupational hazard that I haven't been able to shake. 

I have to admit that Charlie Hebdo is not my cup of tea, so I can't really offer much in terms of in-depth commentary on their content. From what I have heard / read it was pretty much a left-leaning and anti-religious satirical publication, which seemed to enjoy poking fun at just about everyone, from pope to prophet. 

I don't enjoy this type of boorish behavior. I've seen it too often in the form of pseudo-intellectuals who like to attack others simply because they choose to have a belief system. I tend to look at it this way: if they are right, and there is nothing after we die, then I don't lose anything. However, if I'm right,..... Well, that's not a very pleasant thought.

Don't get me wrong, as an American; I am a firm believer in the 1st Amendment. I don't have to like what you are saying, but I respect and will protect that right. It's why I wore a uniform for over two decades and allowed folks, who probably liked the type of satire found in Charlie Hebdo, to call me vile and disgusting names. I just wish those same folks would realize that it is a two-way street and accord me the same respect.

The bottom line is that I am not one of those people who get their kicks from picking on others, hiding behind the guise of satirical humor. It's not hard to tell what you are going to get from a paper whose official slogan was that they were 'dumb and nasty'. 

Some like that, which is why I guess Charlie Hebdo, had a modest circulation. I will say that the paper did one thing that the majority will not, and that was that they chose to mock everyone. The mistake they made, which cost several of them their lives, was that they didn't realize the principal of Newton's third law which states: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 

I don't say this trivially, but as a matter of fact. The left seems to believe that the war on terror is a joke. That somehow the real issue at the core of the unrest in the Middle East is about oil or 'nation building'. They have no clue as to the underlying politics or religious issues, and that is extremely dangerous. Unfortunately, for them, the folks at Charlie Hebdo found that out. 

To be sure, what happened in Paris was a tragedy, but one that was preventable. Even in the old world, the Court Jester sometimes paid with his life, for satire that failed to amuse the king.

Now, as I watch the aftermath, it appears to be Avant Garde to hold up a sign that reads Je Suis Charlie, as if the world is really one with them. 

That's naive. 

If you really wanted to be like Charlie Hebdo, then you would hold up signs mocking Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. That would show real solidarity, not some kitschy phrase that someone is probably looking to trademark and profit off of, even as I type this. 

That won't happen though. People like solidarity, when they can do it from relative safety. It reminds me of the recent police protests across the US. They act like fools, espousing criminals and calling for the retaliatory deaths of cops, because they know that they are relatively safe from harm. Yet, I never see them marching in places like Brownsville or Englewood because they know they'd get beaten or worse. It is something they do to make themselves feel good, but at the end of the day it is a contrived response. 

As for me, I'd rather show my solidarity with the men and women of the French Police Nationale who lost three of their brothers and sisters, allowing those at Charlie Hebdo to engage in their sophomoric behavior. 

Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_G_Nelson

3rd Police Officer Killed in Paris, France

A female police officer was shot and killed, following the execution of two other officers yesterday during the terror attack at the Charlie Hebdo newspaper.

The officer, and a city employee who attempted to intervene, were shot just south of Paris by two men who fled from a motor vehicle accident involving a car that match the description of the one used by the terrorists.

Once again, we are reminded of just how  dangerous law enforcement can be.

Our hearts and prayers go out to the Police Nationale who must continue the hunt for the terrorists, while mourning the loss of their brothers and sisters.

Terrorist attack in Paris kills 2 police officers

My heart goes out to the Police Nationale in Paris who mourn the loss of two of their officers, executed during the terror attack that targeted the satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, where several members of the staff were also killed.

The brave men and women of Paris' police force cannot even stop to mourn their lost colleagues as the manhunt for the killers is on-going. 

An amateur video shows the moment when the terrorists execute one of the officers, as he is lying on the ground wounded, his hands up in the air. It is an act of utter ruthless brutality which shows the dangers that the men and women of law enforcement are exposed to each and every day.

In light of the recent killings of police officers here in the United States, it stands as a stark reminder that the thin blue line that protects the innocent, extends, not just nationally, but around the world. 

May God bless the men and women who risk their lives to protect ours.

NYPD activity slowdown praised by the left

I recently read an article by the Free Thought Project where the headline proclaimed: “The New York Police might have just solved the national community-policing controversy.”

 

The article surmised that “many people are now looking at the ‘work stoppage’ itself—which reportedly resulted in drastic reductions in arrests, citations, and even parking tickets, as rather positive evidence that a city with less arrests may be something to celebrate, not criticize.”

New York based journalist and radio host Allison Kilkenny took to Twitter and commented that “Arrests plummeted 66% but I just looked outside and nothing is on fire and the sun is still out and everything. Weird.”

I don’t mean to sound dismissive of the article or Ms. Kilkenny, but it is hard to wrap myself around their logic.

Now the FTP is admittedly anti-police, so I don’t expect too much, in the way of fair reporting, from them, but I am not well versed in Ms. Kilkenny, or her positions, so I opted to take a closer look.

She was born in 1983, just two years before I became an NYPD police officer, and describes herself as a social critic and blogger who covers “budget wars, activism, uprising, dissent and general rabble-rousing.”

That’s Awesome!

Right off the bat that tells me a little bit about her.

It says that she most likely doesn’t recall the 161,489 violent crimes that were committed in New York State, the year she was born, driven largely in part by the crime in NYC. She probably also doesn’t remember when it spiked to 203,311 by the time she was 9 years old. The truth is, for the formative years of Ms. Kilkenny’s young life the New York State continually ranked either 1^st or 2^nd in the nation in violent crimes.

In her defense, I probably wouldn’t have remembered, or even cared to remember, such dark and brutal times. Unfortunately, while she was wondering what new Barbie that Santa was going to bring her for Christmas, I was actually working the mean streets of NYC, and it did affect me.

I recall the years where the annual murder count was in the 2k range. When robberies topped 100k and burglaries topped 200k. You see, soaring crime rates where part of my youth as well as my career, so I understand the significance of them. By the time she hit her teen years, crime in NYC was dropping rapidly, even as the population level was increasing.  All thanks to those much maligned, quality of life measures, instituted under then Mayor Rudoph Giuliani and continued under Michael Bloomberg.

I’m not saying this to trash Ms. Kilkenny, but to bring light to the misguided notion that the slow down by NYPD’s Finest is somehow going to show just how really ‘serene’ the city actually is.

No, Ms. Kilkenny, it’s not.

I, and the other members of the NYPD, fought long and hard to make NYC the place it is today. We literally poured our blood, sweat and tears on the street corners of this city, to bring order out of chaos. To make it safer for children in minority neighborhoods to play in the streets, instead of being huddled inside their apartments, for fear of getting caught up in a drug deal gone bad. That is a position based on real world experience and not some rainbows and unicorn utopian fairy tale.

I don’t think that the 66% reduction in non-violent quality of life crimes is anything Earth shattering, nor does it prove that the city is a truly peaceful place. Excuse me if I’m not ready to believe that a two week ‘snippet’ is going to disprove thirty years of actual hard work and supporting data.

You see, the way I look at it, addressing quality of life violations is akin to keeping the street lights burning. As long as the cops are out there enforcing those laws, the lights keep the bad guys away. Stop doing it, and it’s like the lights burn out. Once the light is gone, the criminal element will reappear, emboldened by the fact that they cannot be seen. Crime will increase which will only serve to embolden their activities again.

Think that it won’t happen? Then tell me why? Show me the empirical data to support your belief, or explain to me why, based on your extensive experience, that you believe that allowing minor crimes to take place won’t create an environment for more crime to thrive. That’s like going a doctor saying “oh, you have an infection, but there is no need to treat it. It won’t spread.”

Think you’d go get a 2^nd opinion on that?

Once again the left wants you to believe that it is really all the cops fault. That somehow these evil civil servants are somehow responsible for all that ails the city. Why shouldn’t they? The mayor said as much when he was campaigning. If the police would just stop harassing the poor, economically depressed criminals, we would have a veritable paradise in NYC.

Good luck with that.

Somewhere in the deep recesses of my mind I secretly wish that the NYPD would keep this going. That they would throw in the proverbial towel and say ‘okay, you win’. I wonder just how long it would take for the numbers to begin creeping up. Would it take thirty years for the city to get back to the levels of the 70’s and 80’s?

Probably not. Crime is like losing weight, it takes a helluva lot longer to take it off then it does to put it on.

The city is a lot better off than it was in the 70’s and 80’s. One only has to look at the Times Square area to see just how big an improvement the city has witnessed. There are a lot more potential victims, ripe for the pickings, then there were back then. I’d venture to say that you could realistically see a 50% increase in crime if de Blasio were to get re-elected. This isn’t based on fiction, but a career spent in law enforcement.

Either way, it doesn’t matter to me. They say people get the government they deserve and, right now, it seems as if the folks back in NYC certainly have. They got too comfortable, taking the security that they enjoy, by way of the hard work of the NYPD, as some sort of sign that the police really aren’t needed.

I think they should embrace that concept. Let the ‘street lights’ go out. If folks like Ms. Kilkenny are correct then nothing will burn down and the sun will still be out shinning.

But, if she is wrong, then the men and women of the NYPD should not be asked to put their lives on the line for a society that doesn’t deserve it. We’ve already shed too much blood in this fight already.

They won’t do that though, because they understand that they are the last line of defense, between the wolves that wait at the door and the sheep who despise them.

Good luck NYC, you’re going to need it. 

The NYPD turns their back on NYC Mayor (Round III)

The NYPD turns their back on NYC Bill de Blasio for the third time.

That will be the headline, or at least a variation, which will replay on television and newspapers around the country. Most will vilify the men and women of law enforcement as performing some disgraceful display at the funeral of Police Officer Wenjian Liu.

Sadly, the issue will fade from the headlines in a few days, which brings us back to the original problem. The public display is only a response to the forgotten actions of the mayor. The mayor turned his back on the cops long ago, but the media seems to have forgotten that.

They provide the mayor a pulpit to speak from, whenever he chooses, a luxury that they do not afford to the members of the NYPD. Whether you agree or not, the officers of the NYPD are utilizing the only opportunity they have, a finite moment before the lights turn off and the cameras get packed away. I guess if they chose to engage in some form of civil unrest the media would cover that, but that is not who they are. They are the forgotten protectors, bound by an oath that often calls for them to lay down their lives.  

The fact is, Mayor Bill de Blasio is not a fan of the NYPD, or law enforcement in general, no matter what he says before the cameras.

He ran on a campaign that derided the police. He claimed that the relationship between the minority community and the police was ‘bitter’. De Blasio also accused the police of engaging in an ‘abusive practice’ of stop and frisk, which allegedly targeted minority communities, and vowed to put an end to it. It was a campaign that counted on voter ignorance and was fueled by racial overtones.

What you didn’t hear reported was that Stop and Frisk is a procedure, not a policy. One that has been in place since 1968 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case: Terry v.Ohio. It simply allows the police a brief opportunity to detain a person based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is about to be, committed. The way Mayor de Blasio spun it; you would think that the police were arbitrarily throwing people up against the wall for the fun of it.

He compounded the problem by stating that he and his wife had cautioned their bi-racial son on interactions with the police. He rebuked the grand jury decision on the Eric Garner case and said that the police needed to be retrained to deal with the minority community better. I find that a bit odd, considering that over 50% of the NYPD’s patrol officers, which includes the two officers who were assassinated, are actually minority.

Then, when protest erupted throughout the city, he made remarks about ‘alleged’ assaults on police officers by protesters. If that wasn’t bad enough, he brought anti-police rabble rouser, Al Sharpton, into the fold.

If the mayor truly was trying to repair his relationship with the police, I would have to say that he was the unluckiest man in the world.

He has continually surrounded himself with people who hold the same opinion as he does, which is fine when you are an individual. But when you are the mayor, of the nation’s largest and most diverse city, you need to be a mayor of everyone, not just the click that got you elected. By turning his back on his police force, he is now reaping what he has sown.

What the mayor does not talk about is that prior to his election, the NYPD enjoyed a 75% approval rating, including a 63% approval rating in minority communities. Hardly a number that one would say reflected a bitter relationship. But perhaps the seeds of discontent, which he cast during the campaign, have taken hold. That approval number has plummeted to below 50% since he came into office, a number that eerily matches hizzoner’s own numbers.

The landslide victory, that Mayor de Blasio’s supporters like to point to, was not. It is difficult to find the sweeping victory when the turnout amounted to only 25% of cities registered voters. The election was more about voter apathy and disconnect then it was about change.

He should learn a lesson from that.

If de Blasio intends on being re-elected mayor, he might want to consider the other 75% of the electorate that didn’t vote this time around. Otherwise, come Election Day 2017, it might not only be the police who are turning their backs on him.

Happy New Year 2015 !!!

Ok, so I am technically a day late, but you get the idea.

At least I got the date correct. Now if I could only manage to keep that in mind as I actually write it out !!

I wish everyone a safe, healthy and prosperous New Year. In light of what we had to contend with in 2014, it seems like we have set the bar fairly low.

The NY Times takes on the NYPD

Well, the spiraling decline of the 'Old Gray Lady' continues.

I have long held the belief that the NY Times had lost all of its credibility and journalistic integrity as it spun a narrative rather than report the facts. The latest piece by the paper’s editorial board, an attack on the Nation's Finest police department, shows once and for all their true colors.

It might sound cool, to their dwindling readership, to blast the police with their harsh advice: "1. Don't violate the Constitution. 2. Don't kill unarmed people. 3. Do your jobs.", but it only serves to highlight their ignorance of the issues at hand. They are like the provocative allegations of a court room attorney who, lacking a credible case, opts to malign his opponent to the jury through name calling and innuendo. I'm curious as to what violations of the Constitution the NYT is referring to? Not killing unarmed people? Not enforcing the law?

This salacious accusation highlights the disconnect between the media and the real world. Police officers do not begin their day salivating at the opportunity to go out and kill someone. Perhaps it is the weight of the responsibility which they carry with them, but the choice of using deadly physical force is one that no police officer takes lightly. The fact is many cops have paid the ultimate price because they were hesitant to pull the trigger.

Law enforcement is a serious business and one that often has deadly consequences, both for criminals as well as the police. A fact, that we were brutally reminded of when, on December 20^th, a madman executed two of NY’s Finest.

Theoretically, in a perfect world all criminals, major and petty, would immediately submit to detainment and arrest when caught by the police. Unfortunately, it has been my experience, borne out of twenty-two years in law enforcement that, realistically, this ‘perfect world,’ does not exist.

Dr. Charles H. Webb said it best: "There is no nice way to arrest a potentially dangerous, combative suspect. The police are our bodyguards; our hired fists, batons and guns. We pay them to do the dirty work of protecting us. The work we're too afraid, too unskilled, or too civilized to do ourselves. We expect them to keep the bad guys out of our businesses, out of our cars, out of our houses, and out of our faces. We just don't want to see how it's done." 

The NYT would have you believe that, based on their superior understanding of all things police, that this is not the case. That unarmed people pose no threat. It’s very easy to write that from the comfort of your office cubicle. It’s an entirely different proposition when you are staring the threat in the face.

So here is my challenge to the media world. Obviously, by virtue of this article and the many others I have written, as well as three books, I feel that I can do YOUR job quite well. Since you seem to be adamant that you know so much of the job I performed for over two decades, I challenge you to do a week of 4x12’s in Brooklyn North. Take your pick. Any precinct that begins with a 7 and ends in an odd number. Heck, I know some of you might live in upstate New York so why don’t we expand it a bit. Perhaps you would like the Bronx, so check out the 41 or the 47.

Hell, I doubt you’d be able to survive a day in a ‘C’ house let alone an ‘A’ house.

I remember someone once telling me: “Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.” I guess the same holds true for reporters.

Then again, maybe I am being too harsh. Perhaps they were just referring to the recent drop in enforcement activity for traffic and minor offenses. You know, the quality of life issues such as public drinking, urination and parking violations. The Times reported that they have all dropped by more than 90% in the wake of the police shooting. What I got a chuckle out of was the fact that they did not mention the minor offense of sale of untaxed cigarettes, loosies to be exact, the very same criminal activity that that Eric Garner was engaged in prior to his death.  

I think it speaks volumes as to the hypocrisy of the left when they make a demand of ‘Do Your Jobs’ and then, a moment later, amend that to ‘but only the ones we WANT you to do……’

After the Garner death the left came unglued that the police were enforcing what they considered bad laws. At that time they claimed that certain misdemeanors or violations should be overlooked. You know, the ones that they don’t believe in. I guess what the Times believes is that the city needs to have two sets of laws. Then when the police arrive, those more intellectually astute folks, like the NYT Editorial Board, can tell them whether to enforce it or not.

Just like the millions of folks on FB, who, despite never having set foot into a police academy, seem to know exactly how to do it better than the police, the Times would have you believe that it is all the cops fault.

Maybe the city can take some advice from them and add a new course covering clairvoyance to the academy curriculum. It could be overseen by the NYT editorial board and the teaching staff could be comprised of folks from the Psychic Medium Network. This way, the next time the police respond to a call they can know whether something bad will happen.

Hey, here is an idea. Maybe we should train the dispatchers in this ability. This way, when the call comes in, they can make the determination as to whether the complainant really needs help.

On second thought, how about we lay the blame squarely at the feet of those responsible: The Criminals.

Every day the police make tens of thousands of arrests, taking people into custody without incident. Where are the politicians and pundits applauding the hard work of the nation’s law enforcement? Yet, when a criminal resists arrest and dies from their own actions, the police somehow become the embodiment of pure evil?

Recently, I’ve heard of a number of journalist folks engaging in highly questionable practices. From writing patently false stories, failing to fully investigate and vet other stories, or being coerced by their bosses into not reporting others because they do fit the outlets core principals or readership. I guess, going by the NYT belief, they should all be publicly admonished.

Instead of vilifying the protectors of the city, the NYT should turn their attention toward their declining readership numbers. Once the flagship of the newspaper industry, the Times’ decline illustrates a problem that seems rather obvious to everyone, other than the editorial board. Rather than being neutral reporters of facts, they have chosen lines and selectively use snippets to support their opinions. At one time the papers motto: "All the news that's fit to print" meant something. Now it would best be served to read: "All the news we see fit to print".

Theoretically, the Times should consider getting back to a non-biased agenda and reporting on the facts, not contrived or misleading opinion pieces. Realistically, they won’t.