The Cool Blue Blog

Outlawing Self defense

Senator Barack Obama's record is clear on the subject of gun control:

• Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
• Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

The problem with these positions is first and foremost that the first and most fundamental right of a citizen is the right of self-defense. This right has been recognized from the time that laws were first codified. And in case after case, armed citizens with permits to carry their weapons concealed have helped protect themselves and society. Recently

In the small town of Winnemucca Nevada a man bent on performing a mass shooting at a bar was stopped by an armed CCW permit holder who happened to be in the right place at the right time. The alleged mass murderer had already killed two victims & had injured two others with gunshot wounds, but while he was reloading he was shot & killed by an armed CCW permit holder who was also at the bar.

The idea that you can disarm the public because they will be protected by law enforcement officials authorized to carry weapons is flawed.

It is flawed mostly because the police do not have an obligation to protect you. In a much cited case, Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981), the court ruled that a

"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

The case involved three rape victims who sued the city for negligence.

Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police
had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The above is not a special case

See, for example, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

In all cases, when sued, courts have found that the police are under no obligation to save you from a crime: Their task is to investigate crimes and arrest perpetrators. Which is fine, but then do not tell me I do not have the right to prevent being a victim of a crime if I so chose.

To defend his position on gun control, Obama points out

"You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed.

But in both the Virginia Tech case as well as the case of the Chicago schools, it was illegal to have a gun. But it didn't stop the people who were intent on doing harm. It was only the law-abiding who were defenseless. In fact, guns are banned in Chicago. This fact did not prevent an uptick in gun violence that occurred in early May.

Violent crime is up 6 percent, according to the report. Homicides have jumped 9 percent with 123 killings.

As of early Sunday, 10 people have been wounded in shootings across the city.

Chicago police officers are now trained to use M4 rifles, which they say are needed to match the firepower of street gangs.

Which is fine, but the police respond only after the shooting starts. And the proven method for decreasing gun violence is to allow citizens to be armed.

In his article "Keep and Bear Arms" Robert G. Heinritz points out

Sociologist Peter Rossi was on record as being in favor of strict national gun control. He and his colleagues, James Wright and Kathleen Daly, at the University of Massachusetts were commissioned by the Carter administration to research the issue to justify stronger gun control. However, they concluded that there is no convincing proof that gun control curbs crime or prevents criminals from acquiring firearms. They found just the reverse to be more likely, that civilian ownership of firearms deter or reduce crime. [Under the gun: weapons, crime, and violence in America By James D. Wright,  Peter Henry Rossi, Kathleen Daly]

Since then, there have been many more independent, unbiased, scientific studies. Almost invariably, they conclude:

• At least three times more crimes are thwarted by armed law-abiding citizens than by the police.
• Firearms are used by civilians to stop or deter crimes far more often than they are misused by criminals to commit crimes.
• In jurisdictions with fewer restrictions on law-abiding citizens, fewer crimes are attempted.
• Jurisdictions that enact stronger gun control laws experience an increase in violent crime.
• States which have enacted concealed carry permit laws have experienced a reduction in violent crimes, with few if any injuries from accidents.
• Where law-abiding citizens are encouraged in responsible gun ownership the result is a safer society with lower medical costs .

And with regards to Concealed Carry laws, the evidence is even clearer.

In Orlando, Fla., for example, the police responded to a rape epidemic by embarking on a highly publicized program to train 2,500 women in firearm use. The next year rape fell by 88% and burglary by 25%. Better still, not one of the 2,500 women actually fired her weapon. The deterrent effect was enough.

The most convincing and conclusive analysis now comes from an economist, John R. Lott, in "More Guns-Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws." The Lott-Mustard study used multiple-regression analysis of F.B.I. crime data from every county in the United States over a period of 16 years (1977 to 1992 inclusive).

Lott's data scientifically confirms that:

(1) States which have adopted self defense laws which permit concealed carry experienced a significant reduction of violent crime, no increase in accidental deaths, and a slight increase in property crime. As Dr. Lott summarized, "Criminals respond to the risk of being shot by substituting less risky crimes."

(2) Concealed carry has the greatest effect on the violent crime rate in larger-populated counties where crime rates are higher. For example, homicide down 8.5% in rural counties; homicide down 13% in urban counties and cities. In addition, the benefits are much greater for women, the elderly, and the disabled, who would otherwise have few alternatives against violent felons.

Concealed carry results in external benefits to society in general. People who do not carry firearms also experience the benefits of lower violent crime. Rarely does more than 1% to 2% of the eligible population carry firearms, yet the crime rate affects the entire society.

The cost of not adopting self defense laws is very high. Dr. Lott's data dramatically confirms if the seven states that did not permit concealed carry had done so, in 1992 alone they would have avoided over 1,500 murders, 4,000 rapes, 11,000 armed robberies, and roughly 60,000 aggravated assaults.

(See also Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America By Prof Gary Kleck, Ph. D.)

On this one issue, there is a clear difference between Obama and Clinton.

He differs with McCain and Clinton about whether people should be allowed to carry concealed guns. Clinton and McCain oppose outlawing it.

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

And he holds this opinion regardless of the fact that study after study proves him wrong.

While Clinton and Obama disagree on Concealed Carry issue, both are do support severely limiting the ability of lawful Americans to own and possess guns, especially handguns

Obama and Clinton agree on most issues, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandom said.

McCain, however, "was good on our issues for a very long time. ... For a brief period of time, from 1999 to 2003-04, he wasn't as good. But since 2004, he has voted with us 100 percent of the time."

It is pretty clear that Obama, if elected, would work to outlaw self-defense with a gun, and would force you to rely for protection on a police force that has no legal obligation to defend you; only to see if maybe they can find you or your families killer when you are gone.

And the media will be helping him. We all remember back in 1991 when

It was widely and repeatedly reported by every news organization in the country. In October 1991, a psychopath knew, and took advantage of, the strict gun control laws in Texas. He intentionally crashed his vehicle through the window of the Luby's cafe in which Dr. Gratia, her parents, and many other law-abiding people were having a meal, then slowly and deliberately began shooting everyone there. Dr. Gratia, in compliance with Texas law, had left her firearm locked in her vehicle. She was helpless as her parents and others were needlessly, methodically, brutally murdered. The shooting went on for twenty minutes, despite the fact that a police seminar was in progress nearby. Twenty-three innocent people were murdered that day.

Police officers were inside Luby's within minutes. But before they were able to corner Hennard in the cafeteria's restroom, where he turned his gun fatally on himself, Hennard had killed 15 women and 8 men, wounded 19 and caused at least five more to be injured attempting to flee. 

The Killeen massacre was ready-made excitement for the media: a madman with a gun, lots of gruesome pictures. CBS News devoted an entire "48 Hours" Dan Rather report to it. Sarah Brady of Handgun Control Inc. capitalized on it in a nationally published column to call Congress cowardly for voting down more stringent gun laws the next day.

But just a few months later, a similar incident with a different outcome, garnered little media attention

Late at night on Tuesday, December 17, two men armed with recently-stolen pistols herded 20 customers and employees of a Shoney's restaurant in Anniston, Ala., into the walk-in refrigerator, and locked it. Continuing to hold the manager at gunpoint, the men began robbing the restaurant.

Then one of the robbers found a customer who had hidden under a table and pulled a gun on him. The customer, Thomas Glenn  Terry, legally armed with a .45  semi-automatic pistol, fired five shots into that robber's chest and abdomen, killing him instantly.

The other robber, who was holding the manager at gunpoint, opened fire on  Terry and grazed him.  Terry returned fire, hitting the second robber several times and wounding him critically.

    The robbery attempt was over. The Shoney's customers and employees were freed. No one else was hurt.     Because Terry was armed, and used his gun to stop two armed robbers who had taken a restaurant full of people hostage, there was no drawn-out crisis, no massacre, no victims' families for Dan Rather to interview. Consequently, the story hasn't received much coverage.

The media is already in love with Obama. If he were to become President, their combined forces would be a formidable threat to the Second Amendment. 

Major Sheffield F. Ford III

The 23rd and 24th of June 2006 would be a crucible of leadership and heroism for an already battle-tested and decorated captain in the U.S. Army’s Special Forces. Captain Sheffield F. Ford III was in charge of some 16 Americans and 46 Afghan Army soldiers during "Operation Kaika" in the Panjawi District of Afghanistan’s Kandahar province. In the bleak farmland, criss-crossed by ditches and barren expanses, Ford led his unit to "re-establish order" in the contested region, entering a Spartan Afghan village on the 23rd. The dilapidated buildings and mud huts were hiding a Taliban force of unknown strength with one thought on their minds: killing Americans and the Afghan soldiers working to take back their country. In their hastily prepared patrol base, Ford organized a perimeter as night enveloped the isolated Special Forces team and their Afghan allies.

As darkness fell, "all hell [broke] loose." From three directions, rifle, machine gun, and rocket-propelled grenade fire landed and exploded on their position. One of Ford’s squad mates later said they had "not seen this disciplined execution of infantry tactics" by the Taliban. Ford dug his men in to repel the assault.

Moving from position to position, he alternated between barking orders, firing at the enemy, and rallying the Afghan soldiers with him. As the night crept on, the remaining Taliban fighters withdrew and Ford took stock of the situation.

Early the next day, he ordered some of his Special Forces operators to lead a team of Afghans into the suspected Taliban hideout. As the unit engaged the hostiles, it was divided in two when some 200 Taliban fighters poured out, separating the American attackers and surrounding the make-shift patrol base.

Over the radio, Ford was connected with one of the translators who had been leading the mission on the Taliban position. The translator saw two Americans were fighting despite being severely wounded and feared capture at any minute. Knowing the ramifications of being taken alive by the Taliban, the translator told Ford he would, if ordered, end the suffering of the troops and his own life rather than be captured. Ford responded, "We’ve got people coming." Ford organized and launched an effective rescue to recover the translator and wounded troops, even if they were mortally wounded. He would not allow American or Afghan alike to be taken in any condition by the Taliban.

The adversaries fought so close to one another that the terrorists screamed to the Afghan soldiers that, "we can forgive you; just put your weapons down and walk away. We want the Americans alive." The months of training and the ties formed between the Americans and the Afghans were put to the test. Seeing the example of Ford running to each of the beleaguered fighters in the face of constant fire, and remembering all they had endured alongside their American trainers, the Afghan soldiers responded to the Taliban’s offer with well-aimed shots and an unbreakable defense.

Exemplifying the U.S. Special Forces motto, De Opresso Liber (to liberate the oppressed), Ford inspired his Afghan troops to stand up to the Taliban fighters and bring them down. He led an evacuation of all the men under his command, wounded included, out of the village under the cover of Apache attack choppers to ensure all would be safe, while sealing the fate of the insurgents. Ford successfully extricated his men, and the unit had more than 120 confirmed kills. Just as the Americans and Afghans had trained together, they sacrificed together; two American and three Afghan soldiers would not leave the battlefield alive. For his accomplishments in the face of such an overpowering force, Ford was awarded the Silver Star, the nation’s third highest military award.

From Investors Business Daily

Operation Kaika began because the Taliban were moving into farming villages. The terrorists gave villagers an ultimatum: Leave or support us. It was the middle of harvest season, and the locals couldn't afford to lose their grape crops.

Coalition troops intended to sweep in and roust the Taliban with a show of superior force. Afghan policemen would later guard against the Taliban's return.

The first part of the plan hit a firewall. The Taliban hit back hard against Ford's men. The terrorists had heavy weapons and sophisticated communications. Ford later learned that a senior Taliban commander was leading the attack.

It was like nothing the 18-year Army veteran had encountered. The Taliban in that region rarely attacked in that way.

The battle over the three days included three firefights totaling 17 hours of hard fighting.

The valor award's narrative reports that during the first fight, Ford led the attack from an exposed vehicle's turret gun: "Under an extraordinary volume of small arms, machine gun and rocket-propelled grenade fire, he remained in the exposed turret, ignoring the strikes of bullets and grenade fragments around him, accurately and calmly firing into the Taliban assault."

He did this while coordinating the rest of the defense and reporting its status to headquarters.

Ford fired from the exposed turret again the second day after the Taliban targeted a follow-up assault.

When the Taliban realized it outnumbered the coalition forces, other jihadists entered the fray. They were convinced they had the Americans cornered. "They were yelling and cursing at us, saying this time they were going to capture us," Ford recalled. "They told the Afghan soldiers to give up and leave."

He could call in air support, but the Taliban pressed in too closely. Ford and his men ran the risk of having themselves bombed.

An immediate risk was the perimeter. At one point only a three-foot-high wall separated some allied forces from the Taliban.

Coalitions troops were so desperate, they called in Afghan police for backup. The terrorists countered by ambushing the cops, who never made it to the coalition's position.

"That was how we knew we were surrounded," Ford said.

Again he maintained calm, coordinating the counterattack and ensuring that the defenders held the perimeter. Instead of hunkering down, they attacked the enemy. That helped them regain the initiative and push the Taliban back.

Through it all, said Ford, he was "most definitely" scared but refused to get rattled. He focused on protecting his men. He mostly succeeded, yet his master sergeant, Thomas Maholic, didn't make it.

"Anybody who would say they don't feel fear or get scared during such a battle, well, I couldn't believe them," Ford said. "With all emotions, it is how you control it and how you focus on what you are going through so you can have a positive outcome."

...The coalition forces totaled 72 men. The Taliban had more than 200. At times Ford's men were surrounded on four sides. At other times the fight was so close, the enemy was yards away. "We were expecting some resistance, but not of that nature," Ford recalled. "They basically laid siege to us."

Despite the danger, chaos, exhaustion and fear, Ford led the coalition forces to a lopsided victory.

The battle claimed the lives of an estimated 125 terrorists and just five coalition soldiers: two Americans and three Afghan interpreters.

It was one of the largest battles in Afghanistan since the U.S. invasion of 2001. Last fall, Ford was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry.

                   

Disintegration

The United Nations is reporting good news in the War on Terrorism:

Global deaths from terrorism have declined significantly in recent months, due in part to dwindling popular support in the Muslim world for Islamist terrorist groups, according to the Human Security Brief 2007, published Wednesday at United Nations headquarters.

The shift is a product of "the Islamists shooting themselves in their feet. They've become their own worst enemy," said Andrew Mack, director of the Human Security Report Project, the research group at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, that produced the study. All over the world there has been "a huge reaction against the indiscriminate violence of (Islamist terrorist) organizations, violence which is mostly perpetrated against fellow Muslims," he said.

It is pretty clear that at least some within al Qaida recognized the problem in advance of the study. Last year Sayyid Imam Al Sharif, the ideological godfather of Al Qaeda, wrote a book rethinking the strategy of Jihad

The incentive for writing the book, he explained, was that "jihad ... was blemished with grave Sharia violations during recent years. ... [N]ow there are those who kill hundreds, including women and children, Muslims and non Muslims in the name of Jihad!" Dr Fadl ruled that Al Qaeda's bombings in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere were illegitimate and that terrorism against civilians in Western countries was wrong. He also took on Al Qaeda's leaders directly in an interview with the Al Hayat newspaper. "Zawahiri and his Emir bin Laden [are] extremely immoral," he said. "I have spoken about this in order to warn the youth against them, youth who are seduced by them, and don't know them."

al Qaida didn't like their spiritual advisor's assessment.

In December, Zawahiri released an audiotape lambasting his former mentor, accusing him of being in league with the "bloodthirsty betrayer" Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak; and, in a 200-page book titled The Exoneration, published in March, he replied at greater length, portraying Dr. Fadl as a prisoner trying to curry favor with Egypt's security services and the author of "a desperate attempt (under American sponsorship) to confront the high tide of the jihadist awakening."

Despite this rationalization

Zawahiri has watched Al Qaeda’s popularity decline in places where it formerly enjoyed great support. In Pakistan, where hundreds have been killed recently by Al Qaeda suicide bombers—including, perhaps, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto—public opinion has turned against bin Laden and his companions.

And ultimately, Dr Fadl's arguments resonate more strongly.

“It is not permissible for a Muslim to condemn another Muslim,” he writes, although he has been guilty of this on countless occasions. “He should renounce only the sin he commits.”

Fadl acknowledges that “terrorizing the enemy is a legitimate duty”; however, he points out, “legitimate terror” has many constraints. Al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks in America, London, and Madrid were wrong, because they were based on nationality, a form of indiscriminate slaughter forbidden by Islam. In his Al Hayat interview, Fadl labels 9/11 “a catastrophe for Muslims,” because Al Qaeda’s actions “caused the death of tens of thousands of Muslims—Arabs, Afghans, Pakistanis and others.”

...At one point, Fadl observes, “People hate America, and the Islamist movements feel their hatred and their impotence. Ramming America has become the shortest road to fame and leadership among the Arabs and Muslims. But what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy’s buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours? . . . That, in short, is my evaluation of 9/11.”

There is no success like winning. I have pointed out before that one of the things Jihadists believe most strongly is that God is on their side. When defeat after defeat occurs, this underlying motivation begins to dissipate: They must begin to question whether or not their Jihad is indeed sanctioned by the Almighty.

And then someone like Dr Fadl comes along and the Jihadists stand among the ruins of what they have done and look around to see they are hated by the very people they believe they represent.

And worse yet, the Infidels are winning.

Clearly, this is not the time to surrender in Iraq.

Memorial Day

Most people are aware that Memorial Day is a day for remembering the sacrifice of Service Members, even if it is not celebrated that way. And most people probably should take a moment to remember and then have their picnics and bar-b-ques. This is perfectly acceptable in my mind.

The value in Memorial Day is for the people who have personally suffered the loss of a service member; For them to know that there is a day set aside where the country remembers, however briefly, that sacrifices were made for them.

For it is not just the dead who have sacrificed.

It takes special people who are willing to spend long periods away from home, on station, to defend our country. And it takes special families to support them. The families are as deserving of remembrance and honor as are the service members themselves. Because when the notification comes that their loved one was killed in action, it is the family left behind that bears the burden: It is the family that carries on and keeps the flame alive.

It is also good for people to remember that their's is a country for which there are those who are willing to make such a sacrifice. And it is good for people to remember that they are not forced to make such a sacrifice if they are not of a mind to.

For one of the great values of an all volunteer service is that it is a measure of the relative value people place on our way of life. So long as we have a sufficient number of people who are willing to do what it takes to become a member of the armed forces or family member of a service person, we still have a country worth dying for. And when that no longer is the case, we'll know we have taken a seriously wrong turn somewhere.

And it is worth remembering on Memorial Day that there are sufficient numbers of people who, of their own free will, chose to spend some of their Memorial Days away from family and friends, on watch, and for whom Memorial Day will mean something a little different than most of America.

There are people for whom Memorial Day has a deeper meaning.

And it is good for people to remember on Memorial Day that there are people who are willing to do what you are not.

That you enjoy your life and your freedom to choose the service member life or not, because of these people who choose to stand guard for you.

Be they dead or alive, they sacrifice for their families and loved ones;

and you are the beneficiaries.

Just remember that.

Army Pfc. Adam J. Muller

Army Pfc. Adam J. Muller 21, of Underhill, Vt.; assigned to the 1st Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y.; died Nov. 5, in Tal Al-Dahab, Iraq, of wounds sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his Humvee during combat operations. Also killed were Staff Sgt. Carletta S. Davis, Staff Sgt. John D. Linde and Sgt. Derek T. Stenroos.

Vermont GI killed in Iraq

By Wilson Ring
The Associated Press

MONTPELIER, Vt. — A 21-year-old Vermont GI was killed in Iraq when a roadside bomb detonated near his vehicle, his family said Nov. 6.

Army Pvt. Adam Muller, of Richmond, a gunner for the 10th Mountain Division who arrived in Iraq just after Labor Day, was killed Nov. 5, according to Susan Wells, a family friend who spoke for Muller’s mother, Kathy.

“He was loved by everyone,” said Wells, whose son was best friends with Muller. “He was a very sweet young man. We’re all devastated and angry at the same time. I think we’re all angry about this war, that so many young men are dying needlessly.”

When Muller signed up in 2006 — to make money to pay off college loans — he was told he’d be providing security for top officials, but he was told two weeks before he shipped out that he’d be a gunner, Wells said.

“We were all very angry about that. He isn’t anyone who could ever hurt a flea,” Wells said Nov. 6. “To put him behind a gun was the last thing he needed.”

By midday Nov. 6, Muller’s death had not yet been announced by the Department of Defense.

But a portion of the 10th Mountain Division was serving in northern Iraq, near the city of Kirkuk, said Benjamin Abel, a civilian spokesman for the division, based at Fort Drum, N.Y.

The military said four soldiers died Nov. 5 after an explosion near their vehicle in Kirkuk province. Another American serviceman died Nov. 5 in Anbar province.

Abel wouldn’t comment about the concerns of Muller’s family. “It would be inappropriate for anyone here in the States to comment on the judgment of a commander in the field,” said Abel.

In a statement, Gov. Jim Douglas said the thoughts and prayers of all Vermonters were with the Muller family. “Our state has paid a heavy toll in this war and we all pray it will soon end,” Douglas said.

Muller was the 25th service member with Vermont ties to die in Iraq. One Vermonter was killed in Afghanistan; another died in natural causes in Kuwait while waiting to go to Iraq.

Muller graduated from Mount Mansfield Union High School in 2004. He studied at Vermont Technical College to become a mechanic and dreamed of becoming a police officer.

“He went into the Army to pay off his college loans,” Wells said. “It’s really a crying shame that in the wealthiest country in the world, people have to go into the army to pay for college.”

Muller had been married for almost a year. Until he left for Iraq, he and his wife were living at Fort Drum. Since then, she has been living with her parents in Richmond, Wells said.

Army private killed in Iraq is laid to rest in Richmond

The Associated Press

RICHMOND, Vt. — With poetry, song and personal remembrances, the family and friends of an Army private killed in Iraq paid tribute to him Nov. 15 in the same church where he was married less than a year ago.

More than 300 mourners packed Richmond Congregational Church to say goodbye to Pvt. Adam Muller, 21, a gunner with the 10th Mountain Division who died Nov. 5 when a roadside bomb blew up near the vehicle he was traveling in, near Tal Al-Dahab, Iraq.

Three other members of the Fort Drum, N.Y.,-based unit were also killed.

Muller, the 25th service member with Vermont ties to die in Iraq, was a Mount Mansfield Union High School graduate who studied at Vermont Technical College and aspired to a career in law enforcement.

He was told by the Army two weeks before he shipped out that he’d be a gunner. When he signed up in 2006, he was told he would be providing security for top officials, according to a family friend.

Eight poster boards containing photographs of him — from his childhood through to his Army service — were placed in the front of the church, four on each side of the container holding his ashes. A framed color picture of him sat on the podium.

We honor his service and his life on Memorial Day and always.

No surprise

Apparently unknown to Senator Obama, the United States communicates with Iran through the Swiss, who, for some reason, have the reputation of being neutral country: A disinterested third party. But they are anything but neutral when it comes to money. And Jews.

Recently, Switzerland has struck a deal with Iran that seriously jeopardizes their cover of neutrality.

Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey traveled to Iran in mid-March to sign a deal between the Swiss energy trading company EGL and state-owned National Iranian Gas Export Company that is worth $28 billion to $42 billion.

Photos of the March 17 signing ceremony with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sparked a furor in Switzerland, where the nationalist People's Party has campaigned behind an image of a smiling Calmy-Rey in a white head scarf seated below a picture of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

"It became clear immediately that the visit by the Swiss foreign minister was a propagandistic triumph for the mullahs," WJC President Ronald Lauder, the billionaire cosmetics magnate, wrote in a statement.

Senator Obama, of course, would not have a problem delivering the mullahs a "propagandistic triumph" by being the first US President to make a State Visit since the revolution.

But the present Administration is not so impressed

The U.S. Embassy, in a posting to its Web site, questioned whether neutral Switzerland's position as representative of American interests in Iran and Cuba could be affected...

Washington, which already has objected to the deal as a violation of the spirit of U.N. sanctions against Iran, has made a formal request to see the contract, the U.S. Embassy said.

Spokeswoman Lisbeth Keefe said Washington originally asked to see the contract last year, long before the signing. The Swiss have yet to produce the contract, the embassy said.

The embassy reiterated that the U.S. had told the Swiss "that major new oil and gas deals with Iran send precisely the wrong message" to Tehran when it is defying U.N. Security Council resolutions over its uranium enrichment program.

The Iranian government says it only wants to produce electricity for peaceful uses, rejecting U.S. and Israeli accusations that it wants to develop nuclear weapons.

Other European countries aren't impressed either.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Tuesday she was "skeptical" about countries forming energy and trading ties with Iran which could end up making them count too much on Tehran.

"I am skeptical about too much dependency vis-a-vis Iran," she told journalists after a meeting with Swiss President Pascal Couchepin, though she stressed she was not referring to Switzerland in particular.

Gordon Brown, UK prime minister, said in the US this month that he wanted to broaden sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme "to include investment in liquefied natural gas".

But the fact that Switzerland would be involved with Iran shouldn't come as a surprise to many who know history. And that history is one of anti-antisemitism and greed.

Most recently, Switzerland's largest bank was sued by victims of terror

American victims of bombings and rocket attacks in Israel have sued Switzerland's biggest bank, UBS, for more than $500 million (SFr522 million).

The lawsuit, filed in New York, accuses the bank of helping fund the organisations behind the attacks through dealings with Iran.

It seeks damages for more than 50 United States citizens who were injured in Israel between 1997 and 2006 or for relatives of people killed.

US government reports say Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad groups financed by Iran since 1996 carried out the attacks.

The lawsuit alleges that UBS broke 1996 US laws prohibiting individuals and companies from engaging with state sponsors of terrorism. The legislation was designed to impede Iranian access to foreign capital.

"UBS knew full well that the cash dollars it was providing to a state-sponsor of terrorism such as Iran would be used to cause and facilitate terrorist attacks by Iranian-sponsored terrorist organizations," the lawsuit states.

"These organisations used Iranian money to commit their attacks," said the plaintiffs' lawyer, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, who added that other banks could face legal proceedings if the case against UBS goes ahead.

But is it just a case of greed leading terrorist support? In 1997

Disgust over rising Swiss anti- Semitism has cast a shadow over the much-publicized release of names on dormant bank accounts from the Nazi era.

"Keep your money," Israel Singer, the secretary-general of the World Jewish Congress, told the Swiss in a pique of sarcasm during a news conference Wednesday. "The lists published today are not important if the 18,000-member Jewish minority of this country should suffer from anti-Semitism."

In 1998

Anti-Semitism has spread in Switzerland in a reaction to the recent scrutiny of the country's wartime actions, a Government commission said today.

A yearlong study found that inhibitions against the open expression of racist views had been swept away during the debate over Switzerland's responsibility to compensate Holocaust victims for assets lost during World War II. The controversy broadened into an examination of Switzerland's wartime role.

In 2000

A survey in Switzerland suggests that anti-semitism remains deeply rooted in the country.

It indicates that 16% of Swiss people are fundamentally anti-semitic, while 60% have anti-semitic sympathies.

With this kind of history, how can the US possibly know that its messages are being accurately portrayed in Tehran? How do we know that Switzerland has not been intentionally working with Iran in achieving its nuclear and antisemitic goals?

I'm just sayin'

Anticlimactic

Two strongholds remain. One Sunni, one Shi'a. One al Qaida, one Iranian. Two "cities": Mosul and Sadr City.

In both cases the final push was more anticlimactic than apocalyptic.

In Sadr City

Iraqi troops pushed deep into Sadr City on Tuesday as the Iraqi government sought to establish control over the district, a densely populated Shiite enclave in the Iraqi capital.

The long-awaited military operation, which took place without the involvement of American ground forces, was the first determined effort by the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to assert control over the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood, which has been a bastion of support for Moktada al-Sadr, the rebel cleric.

The operation comes in the wake of the government’s offensive in Basra, in southern Iraq, which for the time being seems to have pacified that city and restored government control.

The Iraqi forces met no significant resistance. By midday, they had driven to a key thoroughfare that bisects Sadr City and taken up positions near hospitals and police stations, institutions that the Iraqi government is seeking to put under its control.

By early afternoon, Iraqi troops were stationed in large numbers in many parts of the district. Numerous Iraqi tanks and armored personnel carriers were parked on street corners, with relaxed-looking soldiers sleeping in their vehicles or looking out to the street through steel hatches. Other soldiers manned checkpoints, some of them chatting with children.

In Mosul

On any given day just a few months ago, the northern city of Mosul was a noisy place. Sunni insurgents who'd settled in Mosul were keeping up almost daily attacks against Iraqi and U.S. forces in the area. Car bombs and mortars shook the air most afternoons. And at night gunfire often crackled as American and Iraqi troops conducted raids on suspected insurgent hideouts in the dark.

But Mosul, the capital of Nineveh Province, has been unusually quiet in recent days as Iraqi security forces undertake fresh sweeps of the city in a new offensive dubbed "Lion's Roar" and commanded personally by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "We have come to Nineveh to restore security," Maliki said to reporters shortly after arriving Wednesday. "Today, law and order is our message. We want to end the suffering in this province."

Perhaps some Iraqi and American commanders hoped for an Alamo scene in Mosul, the guerrilla movement's last urban stronghold in Iraq. But it appears the insurgents have decided to melt away rather than take part in the "decisive battle" Maliki vowed to unleash months ago when Mosul reemerged as an insurgent haven.

Perhaps they planned to melt away but

...U.S-Iraqi forces increased a parallel operation in regions between Mosul and the Syrian border aimed at intercepting fleeing al-Qaida figures, an official in the Iraqi security forces' Ninevah command center said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the press.

Big and small fish alike were taken

Iraqi officials said police on Monday arrested a man suspected of being a top al-Qaida in Iraq figure in the northern city of Mosul, where security forces have been carrying out an intensified crackdown to root out the terror network...

Maj. Gen. Ahmed Taha, of the Iraqi Interior Ministry, identified the detainee as al-Qaida in Iraq's "wali" — or "governor" — in Mosul, which would make him the terror network's top figure in the city and surrounding region.

But a security official involved in the detention said officials were still interrogating the detainee, Abdul-Khaliq al-Sabawi, to confirm whether he is the Mosul wali. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the arrest.

Al-Sabawi was captured in a morning raid in Salahuddin province, which neighbors Mosul's Ninevah province to the south, said Taha, director of the ministry's internal affairs office. He did not elaborate...

So far, more than 1,300 people have been arrested in and around Mosul in the operation, though 240 were cleared of suspicion and released, said Maj. Gen. Hussein Ali Kamal, the deputy interior minister for intelligence and security affairs.

In the words of Ralph Peters

Want a real "inconvenient truth?" Progress in Iraq is powerful and accelerating.

Who knew?

Rivals in evil

Back in the Summer of 2006, the world was stunned when they learned just how sophisticated a fighting force Hezbollah really was. True their rockets were crude and inaccurate, but it was learned that not only did they possess sophisticated anti-ship missiles, but that their infantry operations were at such a level they were able to fight an unprepared Israeli Army to a stalemate. At the time I wrote about this in July of 2006, I quoted Bill Roggio.

The Hezbollah fighters are well trained, and according to an anonymous senior military source, using ammunition and equipment such as armor piercing rounds, body armor, night vision gear and laser sights. Hezbollah also possesses mortars, RPGs, anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, anti-tank missiles and possibly surface to air missiles to accompany their arsenal of short and medium range missiles capable of striking into the heart of Israeli territory. Hezbollah is using infantry tactics and fighting at the squad and platoon level.

This isn't a garden variety militia, but a well trained fighting force, the Iranian version of the Foreign Legion....

Hezbollah also has built an extensive underground networks, including "fortified underground bunkers some 40 meters (roughly 120 feet) underground, along with mass weapons caches" and communications systems. All of this was built under the nose of the Israeli military and intelligence services, as well as the peacekeeping forces of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

Today, Hezbollah is fighting the much less capable Lebanese Army and beating them.

...[Walid] Jumblatt, a top American ally, is under virtual house arrest. After the lightning speed with which opposition Hizballah fighters defeated government supporters in a six-hour battle on Thursday — only to vanish a few hours later — it became clear that it is pointless to resist the Iranian and Syrian-backed militia, which could return at any time. "I am a hostage now in my home in Beirut," he said over the telephone to his rival Nabih Berri, the speaker of parliament and a top opposition leader, while TIME waited nearby for an interview. "Tell [Hizballah leader] Sayeed Hassan Nasrallah I lost the battle and he wins. So let's sit and talk to reach a compromise. All that I ask is your protection."

And it is now clear that Hezbollah is now the dominant force in Lebanon.

Hezbollah today stands unquestioned as the single most powerful force in Lebanon. By routing government-allied militiamen in hours last week, as the army stood by, it proved it can occupy Beirut at will. Its show of strength forced the government into a humiliating retreat from decisions that targeted the group. And the group itself has ensured that the independence of its sprawling military, political and social infrastructure -- deemed a state within a state by its opponents -- will remain untouched for the foreseeable future.

By doing so, Hezbollah, once a shadowy, Iranian-inspired band born in the civil war, has decided a question that has divided Lebanon since Hariri's death: whether it would embrace a culture of accommodation with Israel, as a mercantile Mediterranean entrepot, or one of confrontation that Hezbollah and its Iranian patrons exalt.

"In this war, over a span of a few days, Hezbollah was able to translate a minor military victory into a major political achievement. It has succeeded in breaking the deadlock and achieving the aims the opposition has been calling for for two years," said Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, an analyst at the Beirut Center for Research and Information.

Hezbollah has built a sophisticated communication system within Lebanon for their own exclusive use.

But this show of force inspired a reaction among the Sunni groups in Lebanon

Hezbollah’s brief takeover of Beirut led to brutal counterattacks in northern Lebanon, where Sunni Muslims deeply resented the Shiite militant group’s display of power. The violence energized radical Sunni factions, including some affiliated with Al Qaeda, and extremist Sunni Web sites across the Arab world have been buzzing with calls for a jihad to avenge the wounded pride of Lebanese Sunnis.

Yes, not only has the world taken notice of the power of Hezbollah, but so has al Qaeda. al Qaeda now realizes that Hezbollah is a powerful rival, not ally, in Jihad.

Bin Laden singled out by name Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, whose 2006 war against Israel boosted the group's popularity among Shiites and Sunnis.

Bin Laden said Nasrallah claimed he had enough resources, such as money and combatants, to fight Israel.

"But the truth is the opposite," he said. "If he was honest and has enough (resources), why then he did not support the fight to liberate Palestine."

He also attacked Nasrallah for allowing the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers in southern Lebanon "to protect the Jews."

Sunni al-Qaida has also stepped up its criticism of Shiite Iran, the main backer of Hezbollah, accusing it of trying to dominate the Middle East.

So al Qaeda is not worried that Hezbollah has lost its way with regards to Israel, they are worried that they, and not al Qaeda, will come to dominate the Middle East.

But Hezbollah is not an entity unto itself: It is expeditionary force belonging to Iran and supported by Syria.

Along with Hamas, it is an arm of Iranian Foreign Policy.

Back in 2005, former enemy of the US, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, was inspired by what had transpired in Iraq

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

But he underestimated the forces arrayed against him. No matter who wins the rivalry between Iran and al Qaeda, the result will be enslavement.

Their only hope is to help the US succeed in Iraq. Bush addressed the World Economic Forum at the Sharm el Sheikh International Congress Center in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt. He said

The truth is that freedom is a universal right -- the Almighty's gift to every man, woman, and child on the face of Earth.  And as we've seen time and time again, when people are allowed to make a choice between freedom and the alternative, they choose freedom...

I know these are trying times, but the future is in your hands -- and freedom and peace are within your grasp.  Just imagine what this region could look like in 60 years.  The Palestinian people will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserve -- a democratic state that is governed by law, respects human rights, and rejects terror. Israel will be celebrating its 120 anniversary as one of the world's great democracies -- a secure and flourishing homeland for the Jewish people.

From Cairo, Riyadh, Baghdad to Beirut, people will live in free and independent societies, where a desire for peace is reinforced by ties of diplomacy and tourism and trade.  Iran and Syria will be peaceful nations, where today's oppression is a distant memory and people are free to speak their minds and develop their talents.  Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas will be defeated, as Muslims across the region recognize the emptiness of the terrorists' vision and the injustice of their cause.

This vision is the same one I outlined in my address to the Israeli Knesset.  Yet it's not a Jewish vision or a Muslim vision, not an American vision or an Arab vision.  It is a universal vision, based on the timeless principles of dignity and tolerance and justice -- and it unites all who yearn for freedom and peace in this ancient land.

Realizing this vision will not be easy.  It will take time, and sacrifice, and resolve.  Yet there is no doubt in my mind that you are up to the challenge -- and with your ingenuity and your enterprise and your courage, this historic vision for the Middle East will be realized. May God be with you on the journey, and the United States of America always will be at your side.

But the road to Freedom requires the defeat of Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda because they are Feedom's rival.

Point of distinction

Over the past few days, Senator Obama has chosen to take offense that President Bush believes that direct Presidential talks with countries like Iran, without preconditions, amounts to appeasement.

...George W.Bush's controversial speech to the Israeli parliament, in which he said people advocating negotiations with "terrorists and radicals" were deluded and were promoting "the false comfort of appeasement"....

Obama accused Bush of an "appalling attack" that alienated the US from the world and divided the country at home, but his main interest was roping in McCain, which he did by referring to Iraq and issuing a challenge to both men.

"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate I am happy to have anytime, any place," Obama said.

There is little doubt that this will occur, sooner or later, because this is one of a list of points of distinction between these two candidates for President.

Senator Obama knows full well that there are diplomatic lines of communication between the US and state sponsors of terrorism like Iran and Syria. And clearly this would continue in an Obama Administration.

But Obama is looking to go beyond this; a Presidential meeting of heads of State for the purpose of "talking" to our enemies. In the CNN/You Tube Democratic Debate in July of 2007,

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

What he is proposing is something that none of our European allies have either proposed or attempted.

Not Britain.

Not Germany.

Not France.

All of these countries have forsworn such a  move unless and until Iran has ceased development of nuclear weapons and Obama, if he were to do such a thing, would be breaking with out European allies.

Acting like a cowboy.

Unilaterally.

What Democrats might call "A third Bush Administration".

But it is clear that this is not just Obama; what seems to be the whole Democratic Party is behind such a Foreign Policy

Suggesting that U.S. presidents have a long history of cutting deals with tyrants in other nations, several Democratic backers said Sunday that Barack Obama’s approach to talking directly with America’s enemies will enable the U.S. to regain the upper hand in foreign policy negotiations.

Blaming President Bush for enabling Iran to be stronger today than eight years ago, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd said that dropping preconditions for direct talks between the U.S. president and enemy nations will allow breakthroughs that would not otherwise be achievable.

But who would Obama talk to and what would he say that hasn't already been said by France, Germany, England and the US?

Dodd could not speak directly to those issues, but said the United States has a good opportunity now with Iran, in part because the population there really dislikes the Islamic regime that has been in power since 1979.

The Iran that claims that Israel should be smoking pit in the ground? That Iran?

We recall that when talking to NY Times' David Brooks, Obama said

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”

But the only "claim" of Hamas and Hezbollah is the complete and utter destruction of Israel.

Which is similar to what Iran wants.

Which is what Reverend Wright and his friend Louis Farrakhan want too.

Hmmmmm. Maybe they do have something to talk about.....

But there is nothing "legitimate" about it.

But Iran, Syria, and the War against Radical Islam is just one of the clear points of distinction between Senators Obama and McCain.

Which way we go will be up to the voters in Novemeber.

Anti-tax Pro-gun Democrat wins

Pundits and Democratic leaders are looking forward to a Tsunami in the Fall; they are starting to feel that they will sweep control of the Congress away from Republics and put it more firmly in the hands of Congress. Possibly, they are thinking, they will get a super majority in one or both houses, creating a veto-proof block.

The most recent indication of this is the congressional special election held on Tuesday where a congressional district that is more Republican than the nation as a whole, elected a Democrat to a seat previously held by a Republican.

Democrats won with 54% of the vote in a district that a Republican won with 66% in 2006 and that President Bush carried in 2004 by 25 points. It was the GOP's third special election loss this year, and it has Democrats predicting that November will be another rout of 2006 proportions.

Democrat Travis Childers defeated Republican Greg Davis in the race for Republican Roger Wicker's seat.

But he did it by being more Conservative than the Republican.

...the Democratic victor in Mississippi’s 1st District, Travis Childers, successfully used a conservative Republican anti-tax, pro-gun, pro-life message.

The Democrats began back in 2006 finding candidates that can win races, rather than candidates that have taken a loyalty oath to the Left. And they have had success. The message of the Left doesn't work in most places, but the message of the Right does.

Not only did Childers win with his anti-tax and pro-gun positions, he did it by distancing himself from Democratic front-runner Barack Obama

Travis Childers, a candidate for Mississippi's first congressional district, told reporters yesterday that Barack Obama hasn't endorsed his campaign, despite an ad by his opponent linking the two and Rev. Wright. Said Childers: "I've not been in contact with his campaign, nor has he been in contact with mine."

Despite his positions, the Left Wing of the Democratic Party supports him

[House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi, in fact, called him personally to draw him into the Mississippi contest. The Democrat in the race, Travis Childers, had defeated two African-American candidates in preliminary rounds, and it was feared that black enthusiasm in the contest had cooled.

Clearly the Democrats are after as large a majority as possible of people who have a D in the affiliation, but what does it mean if the Party goes hard right to do it? It has already been notable that "Blue Dog" Democrats have thwarted attempts by the Left Wing leadership to end the war in Iraq. And the Blue Dogs are not big on taxing and spending

The Blue Dog Co-Chairs applauded Chairman Spratt for including key Blue Dog-advocated priorities in the Democratic Budget Resolution including: an adherence to pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget discipline; a commitment to the extension of statutory PAYGO requirements; a commitment to provide adequate funding for our national defense; holding the line on mandatory spending levels to put our country back on the path to fiscal responsibility; and putting an end to irresponsible deficit spending in order to reach balance by 2012.

If Republicans don't get a message like that, they are going to lose in Novemeber in a big way.

But then again, so will the Leftists.

Which includes Obama