Gunfighter: A Modern Warrior's Life

I'm A Little Busy....

Because, dude, I have  some senior Senate staff members coming to my range to play with guns instead of passing healthcare legislation for a firearms demonstration.  I also have remedial shooters, and have to qualify some freakin' mucketymuck from Headquarters.

I'm going to be too busy to post anything worth talking about, so I will leave you with the following topics for discussion instead:

Morning traffic, heading into Washington, DC from Virginia.

Or!

(Taken at SeaWorld, Orlando before the Killer Whale show)

The total saturation of social media in all aspects of our daily lives. 

Discuss... I'll be back later... probably in a highly agitated state.

The Stuff That I Get In My Email

You may have already seen this.... this is a letter from someone who is a WW2 veteran... a man who (according to the person to whom he dictated the letter) "Doesn't have a political bone in his body."  It sounds rather political to me, and since it cam through my email, I decided to parse the letter to get a better view of what Mr. Estes is all about.

My remarks will be in bold print.

Preface

This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii
for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes
all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body,
he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now.
He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert. (Not really sure about that last point, as you are about to see)

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

(Which means he is about to say stupid things, and that you have to excuse them because he is old)

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

(Supposition unsupported by facts)

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.

(Because I am old and historically ignorant)

You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like: " We're no longer a Christian nation" (we aren't, and we never were) " America is arrogant"  (we can be)- Your wife even announced to the world,"America is mean-spirited. " (if you don't believe that we can be means-spirited, you haven't been watching the Teabaggers at work, have you?) Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.

(23 generations?  Mr. Estes needs to do a better job with his math skills.  In any event, suggesting that our nations wars have been about liberation is so much bullshit.  Which ones, sir?  The War of 1812?, The Spanish American war?, the first world war, or the second?  Were those wars about Liberty?  Liberty for whom?  Maybe he meant the Vietnam war.  Iraq?  That was about Liberty?  Again, I ask... for whom?) 

I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, (why? because they aren't you? or is it because they look different than you?) nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, (exactly how should this gratitude be displayed?) for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House. (Dude, were you senile during the last administration?  Talk about shamelessness)

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

(Totally out of context.  Everything anyone has said since 9/11 can be considered "after 9/11")

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? (farmers and shopkeepers?  Dude, the War of independence was fought mostly by poor irish and scottish immigrants, transported prisoners, free blacks, and slaves that served so that their masters could go on making money without risking their own skins) Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War?(the civil war had nothing to do with the ideals of liberating slaves.  It was all about smashing the traitorous, seditious rebels back into the Union.  That abolition of slavery was just a weapon) I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.  (OK, this part about WW2 was alright until you got to the "because we stand for freedom" part.  WW2 was a war of national survival.  You probably didn't know that, Mr. Estes, but there it is)

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected. (Right, the majority of the electorate, remember that.  It was YOUR generation, Mr. Estes that fought hardest against the ideal of equality.  You enlisted in the Navy in 1934 and the services were segregated throughout most of your 23 years of service.  You lived a large part of your life in a time where your generation resorted to terrorism to ensure that people who served and fought in the same war that you did, didn't have this "Liberty" "Freedom" and "Equality of which you speak")

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.  Shape up and start acting like an American. (meaning acting like an old, damn near dead white man) If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, (doing tough, unpopular things like trying to ensure that everyone, not just the wealthy, employed or or old has decent access to medical care IS leading)  apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.(Did this man notice the deep familial ties of the Bush family to the Saudi Kings?  If I remember correctly, 16 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis)

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. (I suppose Mr. Obama was thinking like a leader, so that mobs wouldn't form and become violent towards Americans who are followers of Islam.  You know those Muslims who seek liberty, equality, and freedom, that you mentioned before.  Oh.  Wait, you don't think Muslims are real Americans, either, do you?)  You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? (but he wasn't jumping to conclusions, the cop in the incident did act stupidly) You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid (I'm a policeman, I know better than President Obama that cops can be stupid.  I see it every day)  but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics (who said anything about fanatics?) by calling them what they are, terrorists.(not all fanatics are terrorists... given the fanatical tone of your letter, one would, using your own logic, have to call YOU a terrorist.)

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life (no American has fought to protect this country since 1945.  ALL of our combat deaths since then have been about American "interests".  Those two things are not the same.) , but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. (son? really?) Do your job. (he is) When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. (he is giving him 35,000... if that isn't enough, than McChrystal should be fired for incompetence)  But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. (define win) The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of. (all wars are about politics... you would think that you would have learned that in all of your years)

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president. (True, but the challenges that you fail to refer to may not be the ones that really are the greatest)

You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. (really?  what exactly will restore our greatness?  Personally, I believe that this is a great nation, despite our woes... I guess you don't) That's not our greatest threat. (well muslim terrorists sure as hell aren't) Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now. (exactly how would you describe the American heart and soul?)

And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

(the enemy?  final battle?  WTF are you talking about, old dude?)

Sincerely,

Harold B. Estes

Mr. Estes, bless your heart... you have proved several points with your letter:  Being old, fighting in a war, and having a lifetime of service, doesn't make a man any smarter than the next ignorant dope.

 

Tasers & The Use of Force

If you have never been to my blog before, welcome!

Let me give you a little relevant background information about myself: I am a Trainer for a law enforcement agency, and have been doing this for thirteen years. My primary focus is combat firearms and the Use of Force.

I live and work in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC.

In the past several months, the use of TASER weapons by law enforcement officers nation-wide, has come under the microscope of many Americans.  The proliferation of websites (none of which I will grace with additional exposure) that spend their time ranting against cops is just one such societal indicator of the concern that is felt by so many citizens.

Today, I am taking part in a day of action... or a blog blast on the issue of TASER use in America.  This say is sponsored by my friend Wayne, from The Electronic Village.

Considering what I do for a living, It probably won't surprise any of you that I fully support the use of TASERs as an effective tool in law enforcement.  A TASER, properly employed, tends to result in less harm to a non-compliant suspect, and in increased protection for law enforcement personnel as well as the general public... but more about that later.

When discussing the use of these weapons, we use the term TASER which has become common even thought the term TASER is an acronym for Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle (Tom Swift being a fictional hero of the inventor of the device).  Later, the name TASER became the brand name for the manufacturer of the most commonly used version of this class of weapons.   Where I work, the term we use for this sort of product is a bit more usage-specific.  We call them "Electronic Defense Modules".  Well, no matter what you call them, the effect is the same, which brings us to our discussion of where TASERs fall in the so-called force continuum, and it's application.

Before we even get to the heart of all of this, we need to have at least some grounding in when, why, and how police officers are supposed to use force while on duty, and there is no other way to get at that than to have a discussion on the law. 

The law. 

Let me state, right from the beginning.  I am not a lawyer.  I don't claim to be an expert on the subject of the law.  What I am doing here, is giving you an overview of some legal aspects of the use of force by police officers.  Nothing that I say here should be construed as some sort of legal consultation.  Nor am I acting in my official capacity as a lawman... I am merely having a discussion with some friends on a subject that I know something about.

How's that for a disclaimer?

Oh.  Wait, there's more:  Nothing included in this post should suggest that I am speaking on behalf of any U.S. governmental agency or organization, or that my opinions reflect those of any agency, organization, or official.

Are we clear? Ok, let's get down.

It breaks down like this: The use of force by police officers in the U.S. is governed by two particular Supreme Court cases. Those cases are Graham v. Connor (use of force in general), and Tennessee v. Garner (the use of deadly force by police). These decisions are at the heart of all discussions on whether or not a particular instance of the use of force was lawful. Please note that lawful doesn't necessarily coincide with "authorized".

In the case of Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the use of force by an officer, upon a "seized, free citizen" will be based on the standard of "objective reasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The court stated that "based on a totality of circumstances the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene, rather than the 20/20 vision of hindsight and the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowances for the facts that police officers are often forced to make split second decisions in circumstances which are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving."

The reasonableness of the officer's decision will be based on the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time force was used. What was determined or discovered after force was used cannot be used to justify or condemn the use of force.

Please understand something, right from the start, no law in this country requires that a cop has to be right when he or she uses force on whatever level. That's right, we don't have to be right. We only need to be "Reasonable". That's the law, friends. Was a particular use of force reasonable for the officer given the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the incident?  That's it.

Let's talk for a little while about some of the things that will drive an officer's decisions on the use of force. These things include, but are not limited to the severity of the crime; was the suspect an immediate threat; was the suspect actively resisting arrest, or evading arrest by flight? Those are some of the things that might drive the decision of whether or not to use force.

Some factors that may drive an officer's decision on how much force to use are listed here:

Use of alcohol or drugs

Mental or Psychiatric History

Size, weight, age, condition of the officer and/or suspect

Availability to weapons

Officer to suspect ratio

History of violence

Previous use of force resulting in injury

Duration of the action

Presence of bystanders

These things (and more) are what an officer has to make decisions about when deciding what level of force/she may have to apply.  I could talk about each one of these things individually, but that would take more time than I have to type them.  Having said that, if you should need further explanation on any of those factors, please ask me either by comment or email, and I will explain more fully.

OK, now would be a good time to talk about the early application of force.  There are times when an an officer may, and indeed should, use force early on in a confrontation.  The early application of force generally results in less force used by officers, fewer injuries to the officer AND suspect.  The early application of force should happen when a suspect becomes non-compliant, or gives any pre-assault indicators, such as assuming a fighting stance.

Remember... "force" can mean different things, so let's pause for a moment to talk about them.  Where I work, there are five separate levels of force, and the are:

Officer Presence - The ability to effect or change behavior based on presence/appearance alone.

Verbal Commands - Firm, clear, concise directions

Soft Techniques - Minimal chance of injury eg; "come along" holds, Pressure points, electronic defense modules, chemical agents.

Hard Techniques -Greater chance of injury, eg; Strikes, kicks, blows, throws, take-downs, & impact weapons

Deadly Force - Any force which is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.

As you can see, electronic defense modules, or TASERs, for our purposes, fall under soft techniques, because when properly used, they generally result in minimal (if any) injury.

Now, having discussed the levels of force, let's talk about what so many people refer to as the "Force Continuum".  That term usually refers to some sort of matrix that shows what an officer's reaction should be to certain behaviors by a suspect.  There are many variations of the continuum and I have added an illustration here to give you an example of what they look like:

The diagram that you see above, used to be in common use in federal law enforcement, but is now a relic.  It is a relic because it gave students that notion that each step in the "pyramid" had to be exhausted before an officer could move to the next level of force.  That notion couldn't be further from the truth. 

Now, this is where the discussion frequently gets ugly, and strays from the factual into the realm of perspective and strong opinion.  There are people who believe TASERs to be weapons of torture, used by police officers as punishment... as a "torture" device, based on the fact that it's use causes extreme pain.  I disagree vehemently with this assertion. 

When using TASERs (a soft technique), cops are no more using them as a torture devices than they would use an expandable steel baton (a hard technique) to strike someone.  It's that simple.  Yes, simple.

Let's move a little further and talk a little more about deadly force, since the number of TASER-related deaths are at the heart of the wider discussion on TASERs and their use.  Many of the folks involved in this discussion want TASERs banned.  Many want TASERs to re-classified as "near deadly force" weapons.  I say that these things are unnecessary because TASERs rarely kill.  Yes, I know, any unintended death is a bad thing, but generally speaking, TASERs rarely result in the death of a suspect.

Let's talk a little more about what deadly force is... and ins't

Deadly Force

• The use of any force that is likely to cause death or

serious physical injury.

 

Serious Physical Injury

• A substantial risk of death

• Extreme/protracted physical pain 

Protracted and obvious disfigurement

• Protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily

member, organ, or mental faculty

You see, when force is used and it unexpectedly results in death, the force level hasn't necessarily changed.  For instance, if I were to get in a fistfight with a subject, and a punch in to his face caused a sudden stroke which killed him, I haven't used deadly force... I have used a hard technique that resulted in unexpected death.  An unexpected death isn't deadly force just because someone died.

The point that I am trying to make with all of this is that all sorts of weapons can kill.  All sorts of empty hand techniques can kill, weapons designated as "less lethal" (not NON-lethal) can kill... but it is important to remember what deadly force is:  Force which is LIKELY to cause death or serious physical injury.  TASERs don't fit that description.

TASERs aren't the devil.  Cops that use them aren't the devil, either.  If fewer people entered into public disturbances or violent confrontations, TASERs wouldn't be used as much, subsequently reducing the number of TASER-related deaths, nation-wide.  

TASERs save lives.  Sometimes they take lives, too.  It's sad, but there it is.

I regularly give our officers and agents a presentation on the Use of Force... it is an annual requirement where I work.  The presentation is about ninety minutes... I hope that the shortened version tat you see here helps in some small way.  If you have questions, contact me via comments or email.

 

Dear President Obama (2)

Dear President Obama,

I hardly know where to begin this letter... so I thought I would tell you that I am not writing to you as a committed Democrat.  Nor am I writing to you as an outraged citizen.  I am writing to you as a very troubled veteran of eight years enlisted service in our armed forces.

The young Marine that I once was, is now trapped inside of a man in early middle age, but still thrills to the sound of the trumpet.  By that, sir, I mean that I still want our armed forces to do what they are designed to do:  Go forward into battle and crush our enemies, and drive them before us.  The middle aged man that I have lived long enough to become still wants that, but I want to do it wisely.  I don't think that your proposed new strategy is wise.

As I understand your speech, the idea is to send these thirty thousand Marines and soldiers to Afghanistan in order to stabilize the country and give the Afghan government the time and space it needs to get it's act together and take care of it's own security, right?

In other words, it's the George Bush "surge".  OK, I know you don't want to hear that, but that is what it is:  A surge.  A ramping up of forces to quell violence so we can declare "VICTORY"... and then leave a vacuum for the Taliban to fill from their havens in Pakistan.

I know that you are a smart man, sir.  I know that you have to be aware that a reconstituted Taliban can be the only result, right?  I mean, you can't actually believe that in the face of an additional 30,000 troops, and an as yet undetermined number of allied soldiers that the Taliban will waste time and lives in pitched battles that they can only lose.  Right?  You do know that they will cross the Pakistan border and wait us out, right?  I know that you know this, because I refuse to believe that you think that the Pakistani army is going  to crush them... despite all of the military aid that we give them.

This is my quandary, Mr. President.  We are going to pacify the trouble spots in Afghanistan, temporarily, to allow us to declare honorable victory, and then let that country descend back into chaos.  While I understand it, and while I am ok with departing and leaving the Afghan government to handle their own security, I am terribly concerned about the number of American and allied lives that will be spent in order for us to feel alright about the terrible cost of this war, that in the end will gain us little, if anything in terms of national security.

As I said in an earlier open letter to you, I can't support this.  I can't support it because it ignores the strategic facts.  I can't support it because it flies in the face of military reality.  I can't support it because of the cost (in blood and treasure).  I can't support it because of the lack of honesty.

We need to withdraw from Afghanistan now... not two years from now.

Very Respectfully Yours,

Gunfighter

Presidential Haiku

POTUS says we surge

We ignore long histories

GF calls "BULLSHIT"

A Question About Afghanistan

I was going to try to be eloquent about this, but I don't have it in me... I really don't, so I will simply ask this question, and I would like someone to answer cogently.

Is there a good reason to send more American soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan?

 

Can anyone give me a reason that isn't rhetorical?

(I reserve the right to call bullshit on you if you give me reasons that don't stand up to logic or facts.  It's my blog, dude.)

Dana Perino Says What?

During a FOX new interview, Tuesday night, former Bush administration spokes model person Dana Perino said something that I find hard to credit... even from one of the idiots in that administration so fully lodaed with idiots. 

While being interviewed by the not particularly bright Sean Hannity, the subject of the recent murders at Fort Hood, Texas was being discussed, and Perino said: "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term,"

Yes, you read that correctly.

For the sake of not insulting the intelligence of my readers, I will not point the dates of the 9/11 attacks.

As stupid as Ms. Perino would have to be to utter such nonsense is only outshone by the bush-league journalism of Mr. Hannity, who didn't correct her glaring error (or outright lie).  Of course, you can't really be shocked that Hannity didn't make any correction because A) He probably can't read a calender, and B) They were too busy trying to paint the Fort Hood murders as a terrorist attack that was somehow President Obama's fault.

These people and their FOX news water carriers are pathetic.

The Va. Governor's Race: I Knew We Would Lose.

Much is being said in the press over the clean sweep made by GOP candidates for Virginia's top three elective offices.  Talking heads from many sides of the political spectrum are making noises about the portentous nature of this election, as if it were some weather gague for the 2010 mid-term congressional election.

I have to say that although I was unsurprised about the outcome of the races in Virginia, I don't think that the GOP sweep here means as much to the Democratic Party on a national basis as much is it should spell disaster for the party here in the Commonwealth.  Sure, Bob McDonnell is something of a tool, but compared to a dope like Creigh Deeds, he seems downright rational and acceptable.  Never mind McDonnell's theories on working women... Creigh Deeds lost the election.  He lost it fair and square.  He lost it because the Democratic Party in Virginia can't see past the end of it's nose.

Creigh Deeds shouldn't have been our nominee.  No way.  No how.  He was the wrong man for the job.  Worse yet, he tried to win without convincing the folks in Prince William, Arlington, Fairfax, & Loudon counties, and the Cities of Fairfax, and Alexandria that we should have voted for him.

It's bad enough that Deeds was the nominee, its worse that Brian Moran the man who SHOULD have been our nominee was neutralized by Terry McAuliffe, the Clintonite carpetbagger, who thought that he could waltz in and win because Virginia had gone "blue" in the last Presidential race.  This is the same Terry McAuliffe who, with Clinton complicity, torpedoed the Presidential campaign of Howard Dean, who SHOULD have been the Democratic nominee for President in 2004... leaving us with that sad sack, John Kerry.

Despite all of this, I still wanted Deeds to win, and I voted for the entire Democratic ticket... which did have one bright spot on it, Luke Torian, who is the pastor of a local Baptist church, won the 52nd District seat in the Virginia house of Delegates. 

Deeds could have won if he had run a better campaign here in northern Virginia.  Deeds could have one if he had stuck to at least one theme.  Deeds could have one if he could present one simple idea of what he wanted to do.  Deeds could have won if any of his positions were more coherent.

Deeds was unprepared, and was totally fighting out of his weight.

Damn.

NOTE TO THE VIRGINA DEMOCRATIC PARTY:  Pull your heads out of your asses and do better next time.

Dear President Obama

Dear President Obama,

 

This isn’t the first time I have written to a sitting President via my blog, and I suspect that it won’t be the last, but since it is my first time writing to you, I think that I should tell you a few things.

 

First, I would like to tell you that not quite a year into your tenure, I think that you are doing a good job leading the country at a very precarious time, considering the financial crisis, which seems to be in the early stages of recovery.  I also think that you deserve the Nobel Peace Prize that you have been awarded if for no other reason than the fact that you have toned down the bellicose rhetoric that has come from the White House since you became President.  Frankly, I think that the world can’t afford a rogue elephant in the White House, and your elevation to the Presidency has certainly eliminated a rogue from the world stage.

 

The main reason that I am writing to you today, Mr. President is to urge you to not send an additional 40,000 American soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan.  My reasoning is as follows:  Islamic radicals in Pakistan are the author of our troubles in Afghanistan.  The Pakistani government is either unable or unwilling to control them, despite the billions of dollars that we annually spend to assist them militarily.  The sad truth is that the Pakistani police, armed forces, and intelligence services are rife with fundamentalist radicals, or their sympathizers.  This situation makes any efforts in Afghanistan, beyond humanitarian help, a complete waste of resources.

 

We cannot democratize Afghanistan, sir.  We cannot even assist in the democratization of  ANY nation without a thriving, educated, middle class or one with such societal divisions as Afghanistan has.  Since we cannot democratize Afghanistan, the best we can hope to do is to pacify that nation… pacification is the BEST we can hope for, and frankly, sir, pacification is something that A) won’t happen even with an addition 40,000 troops, and B) won’t happen without conducting a war in Pakistan, which I am certain that we won’t/shouldn’t do.

 

Where does this leave us?  Well, from where I sit (currently about 10 miles from the White House), it leaves us in an exceptionally bad place on nearly every level.

 

 Militarily, we will continue to waste the lives of our Soldiers and Marines.  Further, continued combat usage of our equipment will have far reaching consequences, considering that nearly every rifle, machine gun, tank, helicopter, and truck that we use in that country (as well as Iraq) will have to either be completely replaced or have depot-level maintenance to remain in service.  

 

Economically, we can’t keep this up forever.  Wars must be paid for sir… you don’t need ME to tell you that.  Additionally, the current strains on our Veterans care apparatus are staggering, and have generational ramifications. 

 

Lastly, Mr. President, there are other, more important threats that the threats posed by the Taliban/Al Qaeda.  Damage that can be done to our nation by terrorists is minimal as long as we are vigilant, but trying to use conventional military force to fight small terror cells is like trying to swat a butterfly with an ax… we’ll cause lot’s of damage, and at the end of the day, the butterfly will continue on it’s way.

 

I know that you were handed a mess when you came into power Mr. President, but it’s your show, now.  You have to be the adult and say when enough is enough, just like I do with my children.  Fortunately, I can sit here and advise you without the myriad other things that you have going on, hanging over my head, and I am sure that there are a great many things going on that demand your time and attention, but I have confidence in you, Mr. President… you are a good man, and I am counting on you to do what’s right.  We need to make an exit from Afghanistan.  We need to do it right now.

 

Respectfully,

 

Gunfighter

Change Is Here... Keep Your Panties On!

There seems to be some sort of feeling abroad in the land, mostly stirred up by dippy, weakling journalists, and especially amongst the more namby pamby members of the Democratic party, that President Obama is in trouble over this health care issue.  There are those who, as Democrats are wont to do, running around screaming like chickens with their heads cut off about the mid-term elections, there are those who have sagely been saying "See?!, we told you that he wasn't up to it!"

 

I have a little message for those folk:  "Pull your heads out of your collective a$$e$"

 

President Obama is doing a fine job. 

 

The people asked for change... they have been getting it.  The President has earnestly attempted to work with the party opposite to manage the government's response to the recession; the GOP refused to cooperate.  The President is attempting to make certain that meaning health-care reform is passed; the GOP is refusing to cooperate. The President is trying to be inclusive; the GOP (and many Democrats) aren't interested in inclusivity. 

 

In making the attempt... just the genuine attempt at being bi-partisan, inclusive, and non-rancorous, President Obama has already proven himself a game-changer.

 

Where does all of this lead us?  To the present moment, where the President, while he has (some) control over the Congress, is going to get his Health Care Reform bill passed, with or without the Republicans, and certainly with or without most of the recalcitrant Democrats, who aren't much better than Republicans anyway.

 

Stand fast, Mr. President... most of America... the sane elements, anyway, are with you.

 

The arguments against the HRC bill are weak.  It's the emotion that runs high.  Remain above it, continue to champion the cause.  If you get this bill passed, it is almost certain that you will win handy re-election against anyone that the Republicans try to put up against you.

 

To those who supported the President, and are now fearfully cowering in a corner, or running about flapping your flightless wings about change not happening fast enough... calm down, take a breath, and start being part of the change you want to make, instead of being spectators.