ALIVE East Bay Magazine

Home | Health | Family | Culture | Community

Eric Johnson

ALIVE 2.0: We Are Back!

by 2 Comments

Yes, it’s true—the print edition of ALIVE is finally back. Still, I cannot deny that the past two years were difficult. Indeed, to say they were “difficult” may be a gross understatement, as far too many jobs, businesses, and lives were lost. COVID 19 was a nasty bug that tested all of us in unimaginable ways, so to finally see it evolve into what may well be just a mild cold virus is more than a welcomed change.
Since our last print issue in March 2020, we heard the question, “When will the printed ALIVE be back?” hundreds of times. Our answer changed right along with the virus, from “We don’t know if it will ever return,” or, “We have no idea,” to, “We hope eventually, someday,” to, “Hopefully next year,” to, “Sometime in 2022.”

Sometime in 2022 is now. We survived and are happy to be back.

In some ways, being “out of print” for a while provided an opportunity to reevaluate our operations and make a few changes that we hope you will find positive, if not exciting. Don’t worry though—the values, character, and quality of ALIVE hasn’t changed. At our core, we are still the same ALIVE Magazine, with full-throated opinion pieces and content you won’t find in other local magazines.

What’s new? Our most notable change is that several prominent editorial contributors have joined our ranks. You may recognize a few. We have Chuck Norris (yes, the Chuck Norris) writing about wellness, Lt. Colonel Oliver North and David Goetsch, as well as Dennis Prager, John Stossel, Susan Estrich, and Star Parker, who all write about newsworthy, controversial, and political topics.

Our content will include regular science-related articles by physicist Dr. Brian Miller, and neuroscientist Seth Czerepak, as well as a practical advice column by Mary Hunt, advice for younger readers by Dr. Robert Wallace, and our Passing Lane column now penned by nationally recognized automotive expert, Eric Peters.

What hasn’t changed? Our foundation of terrific writers. You can still count on being entertained by Mike Copeland and you’ll still learn about hidden movie gems from Carolyn Hastings. Your garden will continue to thrive if you follow the sage wisdom of our “Dirt Gardener,” Buzz Bertolero, as will your investment portfolio if you heed the advice of Blackhawk Wealth Management founder, John Gardner. And when you’re ready to relax or entertain, you can still count on Elizabeth Kate’s “Spirited Encounters” column to guide you.

And as before, from time to time, you will still enjoy feature articles by your favorites, like Charles Jarret, George Kapus, Joe Redmond, Anita Venezia, Antonia Venezia, and Shane Wallace.

Another thing that has not changed is our unique design layout, with editorial content pages that do not include advertising. While we want you to look at the ads in ALIVE and support the local businesses and professional practices that make our magazine possible, we also want your experience of reading ALIVE to be the best it can be, so”no clutter” is still our motto.

So, with that I say, “Thank you for being so patient, and thank you for continually asking us when we would ‘be back.’” ALIVE is back because you wanted it to return, and we had no intention of letting you down.

I hope you kept your eye on life’s silver linings these past two years, and that you enjoy this special “2.0” edition of ALIVE Magazine.

Guns in America

by Leave a Comment

In recent weeks, several mass shootings in our country have once again propelled the issue of gun violence into the headlines, forcing Americans to reconsider our nation’s unique, delicate balance between safety and liberty. Advocates for greater controls and limitations on firearms are frustrated, as they cannot understand why so many lawmakers, “fail to act.” At the same time, gun-rights advocates’ distrust of government grows, as they react in ways diametrically opposed to greater restrictions on firearms, buying more guns and ammunition.

If there is an answer to the problem of gun violence in America, what is it? Is it possible to stop gun violence and preserve our constitutional rights?

The answers to these questions largely depend upon what American’s understand about the issue, and what we value most. Aside from the political rhetoric there are facts to consider—facts about what causes violent behavior; statistical facts; facts about the Constitution and our rights; firearm facts; and of course, we also have the record of world history in which various levels of gun control have existed for decades.  

That said, is it reasonable to say that before we can make informed, intelligent decisions, we ought to make sure we understand these facts and their implications with regards to both safety and liberty?

Government Reaction to the Worst Mass Shooting of All   

Shortly after the horrendous 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, much discussion ensued about the root cause of the tragedy. While guns and the availability of high-capacity magazines were included in the banter, so too was the apparent lack of access to appropriate mental health care and the influence of pervasive violence in movies and video games in contributing to such crimes.

As days passed the narrative about Newtown changed, narrowing upon one area alone—guns. The Sandy Hook shooting had once again ignited the debate about violence and guns in America, only this time, the tone and passion of the debate was elevated as never before because twenty of the twenty-seven victims were innocent, young children.

Within hours of the shooting, President Obama pledged to do all he could to prevent such atrocities from ever happening again, acting almost immediately by appointing Vice President Joe Biden to head a “Gun Violence Task Force.” The task force—comprised of cabinet officials and government agency chiefs, including Attorney General Holder, Secretary of Education Duncan, Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano, Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius, city and state officials, as well as representatives from the NRA, sportsmen groups, and the firearms industry—was charged by the President to make specific recommendations on the best ways to prevent gun violence.

One month after the December 14, 2012 tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the task force completed its mission and delivered its recommendations to President Obama. Two days later, on January 16, 2013, determined to solve “our nation’s gun violence problem,” President Obama announced a pro-active campaign against gun violence, signing an Executive Order containing twenty-three specific actions aimed at fulfilling his stated goals. Of the twenty-three actions, four concerned mental health. The remaining nineteen were about adding new or expanding existing gun “control” measures.

“All I know is, more guns isn’t the answer.”

When NRA Executive Vice President, Wayne La Pierre, recommended that retired or active police officers be assigned to guard schools, his words fell upon deaf ears. Members of the media labeled La Pierre a “kook,” saying he was out-of-touch with mainstream America. His ideas were summarily dismissed without serious consideration. Similar ideas were also presented by some members of the Biden task force, but they were also promptly rejected without regard.

Rejecting the notion of protecting children with armed guards, civic leaders like then Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, echoed the mantra: “more guns is not the answer.”

The solution, they said, was tighter gun controls, with bans on “assault weapons,” high-capacity magazines, stringent background checks, and registration for all guns and gun owners. In one speech, then Governor Cuomo stated that, “no one needs ten bullets to kill a deer.” He then implemented an order that gun magazines in New York hold no more than seven rounds.

Then Governor Malloy of Connecticut said that “everybody with a right mind agrees that we don’t need thirty round clips,” and referring to the Sandy Hook tragedy specifically, he said, “This is a wake-up call about who we are and what we are.” He then recommended a ban on assault weapons, saying that “these instruments are for killing.” When asked if armed guards might have helped protect the children at Sandy Hook, he replied, “more guns is not the answer.”

And so it was that after what was supposed to be an open and thorough examination by President Obama’s task force—one that could have sought fact-based solutions based upon logic and geared toward effective ways to protect our children—the President instead chose to take the easier, politically-motivated route, to do what he felt he could best “sell” to the American people. As evidenced by the President’s twenty-three executive actions, he concluded that the root cause of the Sandy Hook shootings, and indeed, all gun-related violence is…guns.

According to the President and others, the only way to prevent the type of terrible crime that occurred in Newtown is to further regulate and restrict law-abiding citizens’ use of guns.

What is the Problem?

I am not a hunter but I have hunted. When I was 14 my brother-in law offered to take me pheasant hunting. Before going I had to take an NRA Hunter’s Safety Course and learn the basics of handling firearms. Sometime later I hunted for the first time and had my first experience of firing a gun. It was a 20-gauge shotgun and I immediately learned that guns are powerful, potentially dangerous things that must be respected. I hunted for pheasant and ducks a few more times and then a friend introduced me to handguns where I learned to shoot with a pair of .22 caliber Colt revolvers (cowboy–style six-shooters).

While I enjoyed the experience of shooting guns, every mentor and teacher impressed upon me that guns were not toys, they were serious tools to be cared for and respected because their misuse could lead to tragedy and careless handling could end life—even one’s own. Owning or using a gun is in many ways like owning or driving a car—both require that the user be responsible, both demand respect, and both can be dangerous if used incorrectly.

Beyond those early years, much of my familiarity with firearms and the need of them came by way of family and friends who worked in law enforcement. My brother-in-law was a police officer and later Sheriff, my younger brother was a Special Agent for the Department of Homeland Security, and another close friend is a retired police officer.

My wife grew up around guns. Her father, Horton, was a competitive marksman who made and shot his own black powder, muzzle-loader rifles. As a young girl, she would accompany her father to the shooting range and to black-powder events. Hort’s muskets are works of art and the framed dual targets that we own, each with five, dead-center bulls-eye shots from 50 yards, bear witness to his exceptional skill.

Today, my son and I enjoy shooting and collecting firearms of all types, be it pistols or rifles, and we are both comfortable around them, as is my wife. And while my wife is not a gun enthusiast, per se, she knows how to shoot and re-load, and at 25 yards can put the lead of a .357 magnum on paper as well as anyone.

My point in telling you about my family’s familiarity with guns is this: It is my observation that people with little or no gun experience tend to fear guns. Because they fear guns, they have no knowledge about firearms and are ignorant when it comes to their use and purpose. Then, as an extension of that fear and ignorance, they are uninformed or misinformed about the laws regarding guns and are especially so when it comes to their understanding of the purpose of the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

This fear and ignorance problem applies both to ordinary citizens and to political leaders, and because of that, average citizens often make assumptions and judgments about important matters concerning guns, based upon erroneous information provided by ignorant and fearful politicians.

The Second Amendment: What it Says & Why it Exists

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Debates about the efficacy or applicability of the Second Amendment arise whenever some madman uses a gun for evil. Some claim that the right to bear arms applies only to members of an organized militia. Some claim that it is an outdated, unnecessary part of the U.S. Constitution that should be repealed. Others explain that the right to bear arms, while guaranteed by the Constitution, is acceptable only so long as it allows individuals the ability to protect themselves (within certain limitations of force), or to hunt wildlife. Even the most recent Supreme Court decisions concerning the right to bear arms reflect the idea that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is for personal protection.

But none of these are accurate. The Second Amendment was included in the Constitution as a logical extension of, and intended as the ultimate guarantor of, everything else contained within the Constitution. The men who crafted our Constitution did so with their recent experience in mind of having cast off, by force of arms, what they considered a tyrannical government.

While the personal protection of each individual is contained within its meaning, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the American people shall always have the means to resist, and yes, even overthrow if necessary, a government that has become oppressive or unjust. In fact, by their own words, the framers thought it not only a right that American citizens bear arms, but a duty:

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. –Thomas Jefferson

The only way that a well-regulated Militia can form is when armed citizens are available to form it. The founding fathers clearly understood that they were not granting us the right to keep and bear arms, they were affirming that as free people, Americans already had that right, and the federal government must recognize and respect it.

CLAIM: “The Founding Fathers only had muskets, not semi-automatic rifles. We don’t need weapons of war on our streets.”

I have heard it said that because the framers only used flintlock or percussion, single shot muskets, that the Second Amendment does not apply to semi-automatic or automatic weapons. But it is precisely because our founding fathers only describe arms in general terms that we know their intention was to forever ensure that Americans would have the right to keep and bear appropriate arms required of the day; arms with adequate and proportional force required to combat any that might be used by an oppressive or tyrannical government. In other words, whatever arms the government has, so too to the people also have the right to keep and bear.

CLAIM: Government shall maintain order and determine who shall be free.

I find it troubling, and so should every American, that the same elected representatives who seem ever tempted to ignore that portion of the Second Amendment that states “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” feel justified in levying taxes from those same people, in order to arm “rebels” in other nations. While many in elected office, including some presidents, seem to have reservations about trusting American citizens with semi-automatic weapons, they felt it appropriate that rebel forces in Libya be armed with all manner of fully automatic and other lethal weapons in order to overthrow Gaddafi.

From South America to Afghanistan, our current and past Presidents have, on many occasions, justified funding or directly arming rag-tag bands of “freedom fighters,” in the name of, “protecting America’s interests,” while at the same time distrusting their own citizens with an assumption that they can disregard that portion of the Constitution intended, in part, to moderate the power of the Federal Government.

History is replete with governments having instituted gun control in order to ensure “safety” for their citizens. The Soviet Union, Germany, China, Cambodia, Uganda, Turkey and others have all enacted various gun control measures during periods of the 20th Century. The result? Over 50 million people were exterminated and countless millions more were, or are still, oppressed or enslaved. Tyrants are tyrants and even they know that their greatest opposition comes from an armed citizenry.

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order. – Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942

Our founders warned us about the delicate balance between liberty and security, and about the necessity of maintaining a solid counterbalance to hold in check any power that sought to dominate or rule by force.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. –Benjamin Franklin

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. – James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.—Thomas Jefferson

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. – Richard Henry Lee

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. – George Mason

CLAIM: “You have nothing to fear. We will never confiscate your guns.”

Many Americans believe this—mostly those who do not own guns. In several speeches, President Obama claimed to support the right of individuals to own guns for sport or personal protection (of course you may not protect your family with automatic, high-capacity weapons while his family is surrounded by them). Yet, even before he became President, he espoused his views about limitations (infringement) of the Second Amendment:

As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.–Barack Obama, April 16, 2008, Democratic Primary Debate, Philadelphia

It is important to note the qualification and limitation in his statement. There is never a mention (for fear of suggestion, perhaps?) that citizens be armed in order to be able to form a militia. Obama clearly believed that the government has the power and authority to severely regulate the conditions under which citizens may be armed.

Most Americans believe that government officials would never dare confiscate individual’s firearms, but they would be wrong in that belief. It has already happened in recent times and can easily happen again, given the “severity” of the crisis at hand.

On September 8, 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass issued a city-wide order to local police, National Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. “No one will be able to be armed,” Compass said. “Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.”

Citizens’ firearms were seized without warrant and by force. Homes were raided and in some cases, excessive force was used to take guns, with no compensation offered to the gun’s owners. The rights of New Orleans’ citizens were violated by the government for fifteen days, until September 23, 2005.

Military Style Assault Weapons & Firearm Facts

Numerous politicians, gun-control advocates, and others have called for a renewal of the ban on “Assault Weapons” that was law for ten years; from 1994 until 2004. To support their efforts, the gun-ignorant media is fond of showing images of ominous-looking, black rifles described as “military style assault weapons.”

We are told that the only purpose for these weapons is offensive use—to attack and kill human beings. Really? Our police and military have these types of weapons. It has always been my understanding that the role of our police is to “serve and protect;” and that the role of our men and women in uniform is to “defend” our nation. The same politicians that claim these weapons only to be useful to attack others are guarded by them around the clock. In fact, this clearly shows a direct conflict in viewpoints; gun control advocates and those ignorant about firearms, tend to view them as “offensive instruments,” whereas gun rights advocates view firearms as “defensive tools.”

The fact is, until and unless a weapon is used to assault others, there is no such thing as an “assault weapon” other than by name alone. There is no characteristic of any firearm that makes it more “aggressive” than another; it is the user that determines whether a weapon is to be used for assault or defense. Any gun, knife, baseball bat or automobile—even a book of matches—can become a weapon used to assault other human beings. In 1995 Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people including 19 children using bags of fertilizer. In 2001, 3,000 people died because a handful of fanatics first used box cutters as “assault weapons.”

Fully automatic weapons (machine guns) fire bullets continuously as the trigger is held down. It has been illegal for citizens to own this type of gun since 1934.

Semi-automatic weapons are guns that fire a single bullet each time the trigger is pulled. They automatically eject the empty cartridge shell and chamber (load) another round from the gun’s clip or magazine. The gun can fire one round (bullet) after another with each pull of the trigger, until the magazine is empty. It is legal in the United States for citizens to own most models of semi-automatic pistols and rifles, but some states, like California, impose various restrictions upon them.

Weapons used by members of the armed forces and most police departments include semi-automatic pistols and rifles and fully automatic rifles.

In 1994 when the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was passed, in order to enact some form of gun control, Senator Feinstein and other politicians ‘concerned with our safety,’ had to somehow differentiate “assault rifles” from other rifles. The main difference was that if a semiautomatic rifle had a detachable magazine, it could not also have a pistol grip and telescoping or adjustable stock. The law was later amended to include a ban on specific models of firearms, like AK-47s and AR-15s. Other restrictions involving things like bayonet attachments and grenade launchers was also part of the AWB, but I don’t believe these have ever been points of concern for proponents or opponents of Second Amendment rights.

Today in California, many of the same restrictions on assault weapons are still in place. You can own an AK-47 or AR-15 in California with a rifle stock and a detachable magazine, or one with a pistol grip if equipped with a magazine that requires a special tool in order to be detached (fixed). California gun owners are also currently limited to magazines that hold no more than 10 rounds.

When magazine capacity is limited, again the only individuals harmed are law abiding citizens. You are much less able to defend yourself with a low capacity magazine. It is often difficult to hit a target, even under the most controlled conditions (at the shooting range for example). Imagine having to shoot at a moving target while under attack! This is why 99.99% of police offers no longer carry six shot revolvers, but 10 to 14 round semi-automatic pistols.

The media and many politicians are also fond of making inaccurate statements akin to, “responsible gun owners and sportsmen don’t need these types of ‘high powered’ weapons.”

The fact is, the cartridge size used in an AR-15 is a .223 caliber—one of the lightest of any rifle. The reason shooters like the .223 round is because it is light, and it is accurate at long range for hunting and target shooting. The AK-47 shoots a 7.62 x 39 round which is larger but heavier and less accurate at longer ranges. Basically, a .223 caliber is the bullet size used in a firearm with a barrel bore diameter of .223 inches. A 7.62 x 39 is a bullet that is 7.62 mm in diameter held within a cartridge 39 mm long.

There are many traditional style rifles, not even suggested for control by legislators that are much more powerful than those using .223 or 7.62 x 39 rounds. For example, many rifles commonly fire .30, .303 and .323 caliber bullets. I have fired a lever-action rifle that fires a .45-70 round. It is easily three times the size and weight of the .223 and powerful enough to drop any animal alive on the North American continent with a single shot. To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested “banning” a weapon that fires a .45-70 round.

Amongst handguns, the most common are those that fire either 9 mm, .22 .38, .357, .40, and .45 caliber.

In all the mass shootings that occurred between 1982 and 2012, the killers used a total of 142 firearms. Of that number, 68 were semi-automatic pistols, 20 were revolvers, 19 were shotguns. Only 35 were considered “assault rifles.” There were nearly 8,000 deaths attributed to firearms in 2010, of which only 358 were caused by rifles of any kind, including so-called “assault weapons.”

There is nothing that makes an AR-15 or an AK-47, or any other rifle or pistol for that matter, an “assault weapon,” other than how it is used.

Fantasy and Hypocrisy or Reality and Responsibility

Do we really want our children surrounded by armed guards? Do we want our schools to be like prisons? Isn’t it time to draw the line and ban “military style assault weapons,” if only to save just one life?

All of these questions sound sincere and noble. The problem is, they assume a world not as it is but as we might like it to be. These words are used by people living in a world of fantasy; by those fearful and ignorant about firearms, or by hypocrites who either employ or who are assigned armed security for their protection (politicians, celebrities and the very wealthy), yet who feel somehow justified in denying you the same level of protection.

For example, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is both a hypocrite and ignorant. He is a hypocrite because he enjoys 24-hour security by men carrying not only semi-automatic but high-capacity, fully automatic weapons. And I know he is ignorant about firearms because if he had ever fired a handgun in trying to hit a target at 25 yards, he would know that a seven round magazine is wholly inadequate for personal protection.

It is estimated that there are at least 450 million guns in the possession of private citizens in the United States. Pandora’s Box was opened long ago so it is pointless and irresponsible to talk about “banning” guns. They are here to stay, and unfortunately, there are bad people in the world who would harm you and/or the members of your family, given the opportunity.

Every off duty or retired law enforcement officers I know own and carry, or have close at hand, at least one loaded firearm. Why do you think that is? They well know the reality of our society and assume responsibility for their own safety and that of their family. Most also feel it their duty to protect their neighbors and fellow citizens.

Do I think it appropriate to scare children or make them feel insecure? Not at all. Do I believe bad guys are hiding behind every tree and that we should live in fear? No, I am simply aware that while the odds are against ever needing to use a firearm to protect my family, it is my responsibility to do so if need be.

It is precisely because I refuse to live in fear that I own firearms. It is every parent’s responsibility to do whatever is within their power to protect their children. When a crime occurs in America—be it a home invasion, rape, or a child abduction—in 99% of cases, the police arrive after the crime has occurred. The statement La Pierre made that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” may be an unfortunate reality, but it is the unabashed truth in any case.

With millions guns of all types in existence, any criminal who intends to have one can get one, along with ammunition magazines of any capacity desired, regardless of existing or proposed laws. Whenever a new law is passed intended to restrict or “control” guns, the only people affected are the wrong people—law-abiding citizens who then become more likely to become victims of gun-wielding criminals.

“Imagine a world without guns,” some say. But that is a world that, for the foreseeable future, cannot exist. And while you may choose not to protect your own family from possible danger, it is not your right or the government’s to determine what level of protection I may choose to provide for my family.

CLAIM: “If more guns are the answer, then why aren’t mass murders ever stopped by citizens carrying guns?”

Proponents of more gun control are quick to point out that there have been scores of mass shootings (defined as when four or more people are shot) in America since 1982. “If more guns could prevent these crimes,” they say, “then why weren’t these killers stopped by ordinary citizens carrying guns?”

The answer should be obvious, but again because of the pre-determined assumption that guns are the problem, most fail to comprehend it.

The fact is, armed citizens have stopped thousands of criminals before they could commit crimes in the first place. Murderers were stopped before they could kill four or more people, so we can never know exactly how many mass murders may have been thwarted. Each month, the NRA publishes documented accounts where law-abiding gun owners stopped criminals.

In one study by the Cato Institute, between October 2003 and November 2011, over 5,000 incidents were reported whereby armed citizens stopped criminals. Of that number, 488 involved home burglaries along with another 1,227 incidents where intruders fled when confronted by armed inhabitants. Thirty-four concerned delivery drivers defending themselves, along with 172 animal attacks. In 227 incidents the intended victim disarmed his attacker. Twenty-five rapes were avoided by armed victims Two hundred and one attacks were stopped by armed senior citizens over 65 years of age.

The FBI and DOJ data on incidents where firearms have been used to halt crimes is conveniently un-reported by gun-control advocates.

Had there been one or two individuals in the front row of the theatre in Aurora Colorado with .40 or .45 semi-automatic handguns, it is likely that James Holmes would have been stopped before killing 12 and injuring 58 others. Even though he was wearing body armor, at the very least, the impact would have knocked him down or perhaps even rendered him unconscious.

Statistics support the fact that in areas where concealed carry and open carry of firearms in public is legal, crime rates are lower. The fact is, the best way deter or stop criminals from committing crimes is for more law abiding citizens—particularly women—to be armed.

The real reasons for the Sandy Hook Tragedy and Causes of Gun Violence

Guns are easy scapegoats but they do not come close to the real answer for why Adam Lanza acted as he did. While I have heard some discussion about mental health, I have heard nothing about the effects of homes broken by divorce. I have heard nothing about our young people being raised in a time when society is confused about what values are important; where virtuous character amongst our leaders is rare and where the value of life itself is “debated” and used as a political device. What do our actions teach young people about commitment? About honesty and fidelity? How important is one’s spiritual foundation and belief? Did anyone know or even care what Adam Lanza believed?

We will never know all the answers as to why a young man gave up on life, or why he felt so desperate that he allowed evil to infect his soul so much that he was able to commit such a terrible act. I do know that even if Adam Lanza had some form of mental illness, it also likely that he had no real foundation on which to base his life. He had nothing to hold on to, so he let go of his life that he considered empty, and he took the innocent lives of 27 other with him.

Had it not been with an AR-15, it is likely that he would have used several pistols, or a bomb, or a five gallon can of gasoline. The reason for his violent act was in nothing he possessed or used, it was in what he had become as a person.

The fact is, criminals commit crimes. They could care less whether gun laws exist or not. And in the case of most mass shootings, two issues are in play: one, the shooter also cares nothing about gun laws, and two, the root cause is generally a mental illness problem. This is also true in the case of suicides where guns are used.

In all these cases then, additional restrictions on guns can only harm law-abiding gun owners, making them more vulnerable to criminals.

And with regards to the Second Amendment, further restrictions on Citizens’ ability to be armed likewise makes them vulnerable to some future government oppression–and unless you can tell me who the president will be in 2028 and beyond, don’t tell me, “it will never happen,” because you, nor anyone else, has any clue what America will be like in the years to come.

My Stand

I own firearms for several reasons. The first and least important reason is for sport;  I like target shooting and I enjoy collecting guns. My second reason for owning firearms is that I believe it is my responsibility, as a prepared citizen, to do so. Should the need ever arise, however unlikely, that I would have to defend my liberty or the liberty of my fellow citizens, I have an obligation and duty to do so.

Many years ago, my wife and I were held against our will by a group of bikers. We were out in the country, far away from any possible aid. I was thrown backward into the bed of a pick-up truck by one man who was flanked by several others holding rifles and shotguns. I was told that “you can leave when we tell you you can leave.”

We were forced to wait for over eight hours as they drank and partied. We wanted to try and run, but were warned by one of the group, “I know you’re thinking about taking off, but don’t try it. These guys will come after you and kill you both.” Luckily, they were all eventually so inebriated, we were able to leave, unharmed.

That was over thirty years ago, but I still remember feeling utterly helpless. Everything could have turned out differently of course, as both our lives were at the mercy of a band of drunken, stoned, heavily armed thugs.

The final and most important reason I own firearms is that I vow never to allow my wife or myself to be in that situation, or anything like it, again. I, alone, am ultimately responsible for my safety and the safety of my wife and family.

I own firearms because I love my family and will do whatever is required to keep them safe.

The bulk of this article originally appeared in ALIVE Magazine, February, 2013

Book Publishing A-Z

by Leave a Comment

If you’re reading this, it’s likely you are interested in having a book published or know someone who is—or, you are at least curious about the process. Maybe you’ve done some research on “self” publishing, but it all seems a bit confusing.

Not to worry. By the time you’re finished reading this, you should have a much better understanding as to the process of becoming a published author.  

Indeed, that process is far different today than it was just a few years ago. Many of the changes are largely due to ever-evolving technology, as every step in the “author to reader” experience has changed due to those advancements.

Authors of fiction and non-fiction alike have far greater access to information, as well as tools to help in writing process. Spelling and grammar-check programs are common for example, as is voice-to-type/dictation software, and the steady growth and sophistication of the internet and search algorithms make research easy. Together, these changes help free the author of some of the labor and mundane aspects traditionally involved in the creative process of “writing” a book.

How printed books are manufactured today is far different than it was in years past, as advancements in this aspect of the publishing process continues at an ever-increasing pace. Print-on-demand (POD) technology allows one-off, single-book printing to be accomplished at very-low cost, within minutes of an order. This means authors and publishers no longer need order large quantities of books in order to keep unit costs low.      

Alongside POD, the process in printing bulk-volume orders has also progressed. Our company, ALIVE Book Publishing, recently placed an order for one of our authors for 5,000 copies of his book. Within five days of the order, all 5,000 copies of his book were en route—printed, bound, boxed, and shipped. Just a few years ago, the printing process alone in this case would have required several weeks at least.

The advent of e-books is of course another change. An e-book is simply a device-friendly PDF (Portable Document File) version that one can read on a mobile device or computer. While not appropriate for all books (better than 80% of book-buyers still prefer the tactile experience of printed books), e-books are an attractive alternative for some books, like the “quick read” while you’re at the beach on your vacation.   

Then, there is marketing and distribution. The gorilla in the room here of course, is Amazon. This behemoth is doing its best to dominate the entire book universe. Currently, they list about 33 million books for sale. While responsible for the demise of countless small, independent booksellers—a shame, however you look at it—they are not the “be all end all” in books and publishing for many reasons.

In terms of marketing for example, someone must know about your book before they search for it online. And here, nothing beats good old-fashioned advertising. After all, you came to this article by way of ALIVE’s cover, or the ad on the back cover, am I right? Traditional advertising methods and human-driven public relations are critical elements in the sales process that Amazon does not and cannot provide. At ALIVE Book Publishing, we have re-published several titles for authors who at first tried Amazon’s in-house publishing service. Did you know that most independent, local booksellers won’t list or sell books created through Amazon’s publishing service? Those authors didn’t either.  

The fact is, while Amazon is terrific at warehousing and order fulfillment, when it comes to the more specialized aspects of book publishing, marketing, and sales, their automation-algorithm model is no match for the human touch.            

New vs Old World of Publishing

“I have a manuscript but would NEVER pay to have my book published.” Those were the words of a young author in response to my mentioning to him that in addition to publishing this magazine, ALIVE publishes books too, but in most cases the author pays the front-end cost to have their work published.

While we sometimes hear the sentiment expressed by this young author, it is a throwback from a bygone era when a handful of large publishing houses served as gatekeepers of the industry. Today, largely due to those technological advancements I mentioned before, this is no longer the case, as independent publishing houses like ALIVE now compete, toe to toe, with better-known publishers like Random House.

In fact, had that author chosen to submit his manuscript to us at ALIVE Books, assuming we approved his work, in as little as 60-90 days his book would have been in front of the same book buyers throughout the world as the current best-selling authors’.  

The Three Paths of Book Publishing

There are three ways to have one’s book published: traditional, subsidy, and self-publishing. All have advantages and disadvantages, and the path one takes largely depends upon the reason(s) for wanting to see one’s book in print. Some authors simply want to see their work bound in a book format with the intention of sharing it with family and friends; some have a desire to share their story or communicate an idea, and some have commercial success in mind, even if as only a “side benefit” of reason number two.

Path #1: Traditional Publishing

In the past, the traditional route was considered the only path. This is where an author begins the process by sending query letters—essentially a “sales pitch,” intended to capture the attention of a literary agent or publisher. The query letter includes a description of the work and the intended audience for it, along with some information about the author (a bio). In this case, if the author’s pitch is compelling, they may be afforded an opportunity to have a publisher review the author’s manuscript, and if it is “good enough,” the publishing house may agree to publish the author’s work. If one hopes to have their work considered by publishing houses like Random House or Harper Collins, it is essential that the author be represented by an experienced agent.       

Unfortunately for most, this path is a long, unfulfilling process. Few authors “make the cut,” as most agents and large publishing companies are so inundated with queries that they reject all submissions they are unable to classify with 100% certainty as “marketable.”

The most likely candidates to have their work represented by established agents and considered by “Madison Avenue” publishing houses are celebrities and personalities with well-recognized names (the Clintons, Trumps, Kaepernicks, and Kardashians) or authors who have already demonstrated—through previous subsidy or self-publishing success—that their work sells. Publishing is, first and foremost, a business and the days of “speculating” on unknown authors are long gone. The onlyrelevant question publishers ask about an author’s manuscript is: “How many books will sell upon release?” 

For example, prior to January 2009, ALIVE Magazine’s fitness columnist was Lorrie Sullenberger, the wife of the now famous pilot, Sully. Prior to his successful landing in the Hudson River, had Sully approached the major publishing houses with a query letter about his experiences as an airline pilot, it’s likely he would have received the typical response—a rejection letter.

However, after a flock of geese collided with his plane and his subsequent artful skill in landing that plane, Sully became an instant celebrity—and a marketable commodity. The result? He was offered a two-book deal by a major publishing house, and eventually a motion picture was produced about the “Miracle on the Hudson.”

While traditional publishing provides advantages—namely brand recognition and the ability to have books placed onto the shelves of major book retailers, the profit margin for authors on each book sold can be miniscule. Publishers are betting on mega-sales—preferably millions of books—so they are looking for authors that fall into just a few, select categories. First, they look for “proven” authors; ones who can re-produce work that will be eagerly snatched-up by fans (the Grishams, Kings, Steels, Pattersons and Rowlings). Next, they are happy to publish the works of someone well known and currently popular; actors, sports stars and politicians for example; or anyone making news, like Sully, right after his remarkable landing.

In all these cases, if all goes as hoped, an author might earn thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the publishing houses, of course, enjoy significant returns in all these scenarios too.    

But what if you are chosen by a major publishing house and your book doesn’t sell in the thousands? In that case there are challenges associated with traditional publishing. First off, major publishing houses will remove a book from circulation—designate it as “out of print”—if it fails to sell in significant quantities. Worse still, if a book fails to meet the publisher’s sales expectations, they will often demand that any “advances” paid to an author be returned. Ouch!    

Unless one has already sold thousands of copies of his work, or has the last name Kardashian or Clinton, authors like the young man mentioned previously will likely never see their book published. The only reasonable—and wisest—route open to this young author is self or subsidy publishing.

Path #2: Self Publishing

It is possible to self-publish your book. The main advantage to self-publishing is that you control 100% of the process. The main disadvantage is… you control 100% of the process!

You will earn the highest margin of profit this way, but that is because you will be doing all the work yourself. The steps involved are numerous, and if your plan is to produce a quality product (your book) that sells well and sells enough copies to be commercially successful, you need a very large tool-box of skill sets.  

Self-publishing means that you will not only write your book, you’ll need to edit it, design and create the cover, design and format the interior pages, obtain the necessary ISBN and bar code, file your copyright, and obtain your Library of Congress Control Number. And then you’ll need to know where and how to have your book printed.

Then assuming you want to sell your book with a hope of making money, you’ll need to market it. And even though your profit per book can be higher by doing all the work yourself, you still need to sell a lot of books to make very much. To do that, you’ll need to know how to make your book available through large online resellers like Amazon and Barnes and Noble, and to thousands of ancillary online wholesalers and retailers. Will you know how and where to make your book available to independent bookstores and libraries throughout the country and worldwide? Will you know how to re-format your book as an e-book and make it available that way in the marketplace, or if it even makes sense to do that? Will you be able to create your own website, promotional materials, and press releases? In short, do you already have the knowledge, technical and artistic skills, connections and resources to truly “publish” and market your book?    

Self-publishing is an option if you’ve written a book. . . and then again so is building your own car if you want to travel. . . but sometimes just being the driver—or author—is a more logical choice.      

Path #3: Subsidy Publishing

The final path of publishing is subsidy publishing. Years ago this was considered a second rate method, supposedly used only by desperate authors whose work was not “good enough” or had been rejected by traditional publishers. It was implied that authors who chose this route were having their work published merely for the sake of “bragging rights,” as in, “Hello, my name is Joe Smith, and I am an author.”

The fact is, however, many highly successful writers got their start this way, and in light of the realities of traditional and self-publishing, this is the most logical, effective, and affordable way for any author to have their work published.

To be sure, there are a plethora of subsidy publishing companies to be found online, most of which offering a menu of various services designed to get your book published. Most have low cost options to start, but just like in self-publishing, the more they do for you, the more it costs.

One of the major disadvantages of online subsidy publishing companies is their absence of personalized service. Looking at it from their perspective, because they function and compete solely in the very crowded online universe, they have designed their services with that in mind, so they often limit authors to “A, B or C” cover template options for example, or “Gold, Silver and Platinum” packages, each with narrowly defined options. And in most cases, these services are automated, whereby the author’s work is pushed into a pre-existing format—otherwise known as a “cookie cutter process.”

Another important consideration with online subsidy or self-publishing companies is their ability—or, more accurately, lack of—to market and promote an author’s book. While most of these publishers offer a variety of services, they are usually limited to very basic, simple things, like providing the author with a stack of postcards, or to writing up a press release. Some will even claim to include a website, which is often just a page on the web displaying the author’s book, with no functionality included.

The fact is, while web-only, cloud-based publishing services can publish an author’s book, they are limited in what that entails. You won’t be meeting with their art director or designer, for example, to discuss one of the most important marketing elements of any book —the cover; nor will you be able to select a font style from a vast collection of options for the text of your book. And while these online companies claim to offer marketing services, the fact is, they only offer a thin veneer of “marketing-like” resources at best.

Lastly, there is one other type of service to be aware of—authors who have self-published their own book(s) who now advertise themselves as a “publishing company.” While these individuals may have navigated their way through the maze of requirements listed previously so as to get their own book(s) listed on Amazon, this type of service is often akin to someone who wins a case in traffic court marketing themselves as a lawyer. If the first book they published was their own, they may be qualified to guide an author in the self-publishing process, but they are hardly a publishing “company.”        

Are There Any Other Options?

Does all this sound a bit hopeless? Are you beginning to wonder if there are any viable options available to the author who wants to have their book not just published, but effectively and successfully marketed as well?

Yes, Option #4: ALIVE Book Publishing!        

Let’s get something out of the way right now: Regardless of the reason that an author has for wanting to have their book published, the only reason any publisher will agree to publish an author’s work is if they believe it will be a profitable venture; plainly stated, the goal is to make money—period. Large commercial publishers are banking on a proven track record or an author’s celebrity status, while online subsidy publishers offer only a cookie-cutter process and are ill-equipped for little more.  

After thinking about this dilemma, it occurred to us that with our vast experience in magazine publishing, we could create a kind of “hybrid” publishing company that not only publishes an author’s work but does so in ways that meet authors’ unique needs and situations.

Enter, ALIVE Book Publishing, where we provide what no online publishing company can—a one-on-one, face-to-face relationship, every step of the way. We consider every publishing project to be a partnership, so we work with our authors and their projects in a hands-on, individual way.One size does not fit all with ALIVE, so we don’t have set formulas for the projects we accept. We sometimes invest more in a project than the author because our goal is for the author’s book to sell successfully over the long term.   

And, ALIVE is uniquely equipped to market and advertise an author’s book because we are the only publisher with multi-media marketing and advertising tools, and the expertise required to put real power into a local national, and international book launch.

What Can ALIVE Publishing do for the Author?

The typical services we provide for all authors includes personal advice as to the overall concept of the book project; a custom cover design; layout and formatting of the book’s interior pages; the determination of the best price for the book; obtaining the required ISBN and bar code for the book; filing for a Library of Congress Control Number; Copyright filing; and POD (print on demand) set-up of every book.

We then advertise all our authors’ books in the Ingram Book Catalog, reaching every bookstore and library in the country. This is THE catalog book retailer use to choose what books they will sell in their stores. We also list all our authors’ books through major online distribution channels like Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Target.com, and Walmart.com, as well as throughout an established network of booksellers worldwide. ALIVE Books’ direct print book markets include the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Brazil, Spain, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, India, China, Japan, and South Korean. Additionally, ALIVE Books reaches over 100 countries and territories through a vast network of over 40,000 wholesale and retail distribution channels in a relationship with Ingram Books.   

We are also able to provide comprehensive editing and formatting in all e-book formats, and we offer a wide variety of marketing and advertising options. We create and run display ads in ALIVE Magazine; create professional, fully-functional order-fulfillment-capable websites, and can produce professional videos for online and TV, and can conduct local or national public relations campaigns.     

Putting it All Together: What Does it All Mean?

While advances in technology have radically changed the publishing landscape to the point where anyone with a computer and a credit card can become a published author, as I noted earlier, this is not going to be enough if an author wants to successfully break into the book market.   

If everyone on the planet already knows who you are, you might consider having your book published via the traditional path. If you have all the skills and resources to go it alone, self-publishing may work, and if you’re only interested in a short-lived yet expensive ego boost, go ahead and send your manuscript into “the cloud,” and hope for the best.

But if your goal is to be serious about your book project and its chances for success, I suggest you elicit the aid of and partnership with a local publishing company that will be as serious and careful about your project as you are—ALIVE Book Publishing.

Email or call me today at 925-837-7303 for a free, confidential, one-on-one appointment, and tomorrow you may be well on your way toward having your book published!

Successful Authors

by Leave a Comment

When I meet with authors who are considering working with us to have their book published, I am sometimes asked, “What is your most successful book?” Generally, what they really want to know is, have we –ALIVE Book Publishing—published any books that have become commercially successful? Are there some “best sellers” amongst the many titles ALIVE Books has released over the years?

While I suppose it’s a fair question, this exchange is always a bit awkward because I know my answer is likely to be, for lack of a better word, unfulfilling.

“It depends,” is what I tell them, “upon what you mean by ‘successful.’”

The awkwardness comes precisely at that moment when the author rightfully realizes that the potential for commercial success (or failure) for his or her book has absolutely zero relation to that of other books we have published.

The question is asked innocently enough—the author wants to know if we “know what we’re doing.” Is ALIVE a reputable publishing company? Does ALIVE have the marketing and distribution capabilities to get their book into the market? But that’s not all. They also want to know if we can “make” their book become a bestseller. Do we have the “secret sauce” that will put them on the New York Times list?

We’ve had authors break down and cry when we handed them the first published copy of their book—the fulfillment of a lifelong goal, realized. That was “success.” I have heard countless accounts of how lives have been touched and even healed, not by anything we did, but by the heartfelt labor of one author’s investment in a 25+ year project, now realized in a four-volume history of the Vietnam War. This is “success.”

Secret sauce? No such thing exists—a fact that applies to everyone in every area of life. If no one has ever told you, I am telling you now: Success can mean many different things. Don’t ever judge yourself or your potential, based upon what others have done.

To my knowledge, every book we have ever published has been a smashing success, albeit none having yet been noticed by anyone at the New York Times.

Freedom of Speech?

by Leave a Comment

In mid-October 2020, the New York Post, one of the longest-running, largest circulation newspapers in the country, published a story about our new president’s son, Hunter Biden. The story contained information that had been obtained from a laptop that once belonged to Hunter. The information included volumes of documents, emails, and saved copies of text messages regarding Hunter’s business dealings in a number of foreign countries, as well as less-than-flattering personal images and videos.

The story was largely ignored or dismissed by every other news outlet in the country, except Fox News. It was censored entirely by Twitter and severely restricted by Facebook—essentially hidden from the American public. Why?

If anyone bothered to inquire, the reasons given seemed to change by the minute. “The story is false,” became, “The material was ‘hacked’,” became “This matter has already been covered, and Hunter didn’t do anything illegal.” Whatever the reason, it didn’t seem to matter to anyone.

The important thing was, by being ignored or hidden by the media, the message being communicated to the public—that is, the voting citizens of America—was that this story was of no value or importance, deserving no scrutiny whatsoever.

But was that true? What if this story was important? What if it was so important, it might even have the power to sway the opinions of the American people enough to change the outcome of an election?

Heart of the Story

Contrary to past statements by Joe Biden regarding Hunter’s foreign business dealings, some of the emails and text messages on the laptop suggested that not only did Joe have knowledge of Hunter’s activity, but he was directly involved to some degree. If this was true it meant the Democrat candidate for president had been and was continuing to lie about the matter.

Direct involvement by Joe Biden could create the potential for foreign influence or coercion by foreign actors, should Biden win the presidency in the 2020 election. And it would have been illegal if he was, in fact, actively involved while serving as Vice President in the Obama Administration.          

When a slim number of legitimate journalists did muster the courage to poke their noses out from behind their “Covid and truth-filtering masks” to ask then-candidate Joe Biden about the story, he bristled and scolded them for asking, parroting the narratives being sold to Americans by the mainstream media. The question that had been and was again being asked of Joe Biden was, “Did you know of, and if so, what did you know, about your son’s business dealings in Ukraine and elsewhere?”  Repeatedly, Joseph Biden’s answer was that he was not involved in, and was unaware of, the details of Hunter’s business activity.     

Upon publication of the Post article, the few questions that reporters did ask Biden or his handlers were all met with flat-out denials, coupled with the narrative that the story was fake—a “hit piece” or conspiracy theory—likely concocted by Trump with help from Vladimir Putin.

Then, an inconvenient truth emerged that changed the dynamics of the story in an important way. Many of the emails and texts on the laptop included conversations Hunter Biden had with one of his business partners, Tony Bobulinski.

Upon learning of Joe Biden’s flippant characterizations of the story and hearing him repeatedly deny knowledge of or involvement in Hunter’s business affairs, Bobulinski, was incensed.

In a very public way, Joe Biden was not only calling Tony Bobulinski a liar, he stayed silent when California Congressman Adam Schiff said the story was just Kremlin-created disinformation. Then, by choosing to ignore, bury, or censor the story, a corrupt media happily advanced that narrative—that Bobulinski was merely part of a Russian “disinformation campaign.” Even so-called “intelligence experts” weighed in on this, adding to the Kremlin connection lie.   

Up until the time it became apparent that Joe Biden was willing to lie about the matter and by so doing, disparage Bobulinski’s reputation and honor, Bobulinski had no desire to expose what he knew about the “Biden Backroom Business Cabal.” But he had no choice. He had to set the record straight, clear his family name, and, feeling a patriotic duty, Bobulinski announced that he would hold a news conference. He assumed the media would want to hear his first-hand account about the Biden family’s business dealings in Ukraine, China, and elsewhere.

So, on October 22, 2020, Bobulinski appeared before a small gathering of reporters—none from any of the major networks, however—to tell what he knew about Joe Biden’s involvement with Hunter’s businesses. He had direct, first-hand knowledge about everything claimed in the Post story and said it was all true, and in an hour-long interview with Tucker Carlson of Fox News conducted a week later, he said Joe Biden was lying about the matter.

Some of what Bobulinski revealed in the interview were saved conversations that included an exchange between Tony Bobulinski and Hunter, where Tony was instructed to never refer to Hunter’s father by name. Subsequently, Joe Biden was referred to in numerous texts and emails as “the Big Guy,” and specifically by Hunter Biden as “My Chairman.” Part of Hunter’s conversations regarding one particular deal with a company operated by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) specifically mentions that “Ten percent be put aside for the ‘Big Guy’.”    

But the unequivocal “bombshell” revealed in the Carlson interview was that Bobulinski had personally met with Joe Biden for no other reason than to establish Biden’s direct involvement in the business partnership. Hunter wanted to reassure Bobulinski that their business ventures would be successful, precisely because of the credibility and clout of the Biden name, since the ex-vice president was Hunter’s “Chairman,” serving as the figurehead of the enterprise.  

So, on May 2, 2017, Hunter Biden introduced Tony Bobulinski to the ex-vice president and his brother, Jim Biden, at the Beverly Hills Hilton Hotel, where Joe Biden was attending the Milken Conference. They had a cordial meeting, where it was clearly established and understood that a new corporate entity would be established—whose partners would include Hunter Biden, Jim Biden (Joe’s brother and advisor), James Gilliar, Rob Walker, Tony Bobulinski (as CEO), and Joe Biden as a kind of “silent partner”—that would operate as part of the Biden family business.

Soon after this meeting, Bobulinski had a private meeting with Joe Biden’s brother and personal advisor, Jim Biden. Realizing that this proposed business arrangement with the man who might well become the next president of the United States could lead not only to considerable scrutiny but also great legal risk, Bobulinski asked Jim Biden a pointed question: “How are you guys getting away with this? Aren’t you concerned?”

Jim Biden’s answer was, “Plausible deniability.”          

All of Bobulinski’s claims, and more, were later verified as being legitimate in an investigation conducted in the United States Senate.

So, What Does All This Mean?

Why does any of this matter? Americans have become weary of “October Surprises”—the scandals and character assassinations that always pop up just before a major election. Is this in anyway different? Why should anyone care?

Soon after all this broke, I released a podcast about it, pleading that people pay attention and that everyone should be “scared to death” about the danger in all of this. I spoke with friends and relatives about it, most of them completely unaware of the story—a fact that makes my point to anyone thinking clearly.

And for some, after I made them aware of the story, they essentially replied making the point, “So what; all politicians lie and use their power to enrich themselves.” Sadly, I fear these well-meaning friends and relatives either miss the larger point, or have given up on the importance of truth, fairness, and free and fair elections.   

Yet, as bad as the facts are in this case, there looms a greater issue here that threatens our liberty and the very survival of our Republic—an issue that vast numbers of Americans are either unaware of, or don’t care about.   

The Greatest Threat to Our Freedom Is Upon Us  

If I ask you, “Is censorship a good or bad thing,” what would be your answer? I imagine you would say, “bad.” Then I would ask, “Why is it bad?” Do you know?

Right now, many Americans seem unclear or confused about this. Some Americans apparently believe certain words or expressions are so “wrong,” that if they are not already “illegal,” perhaps they should be. “After all,” they say, “even the word ‘fire’ is wrong, if you yell it out in a crowded theater.”

In fact, using that particular word, in that manner, under those circumstances, is a crime; one worthy of possible imprisonment. But it’s not the word itself that is wrong, it is how it is used—in what context and under what circumstances—that determines whether a crime has been committed.

The same thing applies to speech that incites violence. In both cases, the point is, in America, where the right to speak, write, and otherwise express ourselves freely—a sacred right guaranteed by the First Amendment—circumstances determine when and why words might be “regulated,” and those circumstances are defined within the guidelines of existing law. So even so-called “hate speech” isn’t illegal, nor is using the dreaded “N” word, depending upon the circumstances in which it is used.

Adding to Americans’ confusion about freedom of speech is the fact that outside the realm of criminal law, our freedom of expression is impacted by civil law, politics, and the now-blurred intersections of traditional media, social media and “big tech,” journalism, entertainment, and big business.

For example, take politically motivated speech by entertainers. When Madonna said to a crowd, “Yes, I have thought, an awful lot, about blowing up the White House,” she wasn’t charged with inciteful speech. Neither was Johnny Depp accused of possibly threatening the President when he asked “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?  I want to clarify. I’m not an actor. I lie for a living. However, it’s been a while, and maybe it’s time.”

In both these cases, the actors probably didn’t realize how close they came to having an FBI agent knock on their door. Yet, as I recall, here was no media frenzy over these remarks, which would seem to indicate that “hate speech” is in the ear of the beholder. Because Donald Trump wasn’t popular to many powerful and influential people in the media, entertainment, and big-tech industries—those who essentially control the flow of information—this was no big deal, so it was ignored.

On the other side of the “Trump Spectrum” however, the simple words used in a single sentence, in a friendly, private conversation with the President of Ukraine, nearly caused a duly elected president to be removed from office. “I’d like you to do us a favor though…” was the phrase that a “whistleblower” found so troubling, he filed a report that led to the impeachment of President Trump, largely because the story was repeated and amplified by that same powerful and influential group that chose to ignore Madonna and Depp.

Enter Censorship

The concepts and notions of “hate speech,” “potentially dangerous speech,” “hurtful speech,” and the like, now define and determine what and how Americans think about communication. While we once talked peripherally about being too “PC” (politically correct), in a purely academic way, people now have a legitimate fear that saying the “wrong thing” might cost them dearly. And their fear isn’t without good reason, as people are being punished for saying words or promoting ideas, simply because others don’t agree with those words or ideas.

I realize this is a long article and the point I am trying to make may be unclear, so I will get to the point: America is in grave danger because too many citizens don’t seem to be aware of or aren’t speaking out against censorship and media bias. And some people have either forgotten how or have never learned to think rationally and critically.

The reason I explained the Tony Bobulinski story in such detail is that you may not have even been aware of it. So what was the overall impact of the media blackout of this story?  Polls conducted after the election indicated that 45% of democrats were completely unaware of the story, and 9.5% of democrats who voted for Biden said they would not have done so, had they known the about it.

By virtue of this issue alone then, independent of or excluding any claims of voter irregularities, potential fraud, or vote-flipping software, we can accurately state that the 2020 presidential election was not a “free and fair,” expression of democracy. And while you may be happy with the end result this time, by allowing this, we are ceding our judgment to others, giving license to a tyranny of the worst sort.

Permitting unelected, biased individuals to regulate what we can and cannot know must be stopped. What we are seeing come to power in America today is the ideology of oppression that we see in full bloom in Communist China and North Korea, and we must put a stop to it without delay before it is too late.

Sidebar

As of this writing, just one day after the inauguration of Joe Biden, a massive purge is underway. Many tech and media giants are censoring speech and companies are punishing people and groups throughout the United States. Whether you agree with people or not isn’t the point. You are safe now, only so long as you agree with or submit to the point of view of those in power. That’s a frightening place.   

For example, consider the past president of the United States. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, Twitter, which as everyone knew, was the president’s most reliable communication tool, first blocked then permanently banned him—while he was still the commander in chief. In so many words, they claimed they had a “duty to prevent further inciteful speech,” so they censored him completely, effectively denying him use of his favored means of communicating with Americans.    

Why is it that communication companies like Twitter and Facebook, which are currently protected from lawsuits under Section 230 of the Communications Decency act, which states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Translated, that means they CANNOT be sued for the content people post on their platforms. So why are they monitoring content and making judgements about what can or cannot be shared? Could it be they are more concerned about shaping thinking and policy than they are about liability?  

On the flip side, the New York Post, being a publisher, does not enjoy the same Section 230 protection, so they can be sued for liable. They had every reason to make sure the Bobulinski story was factual and 100% accurate.

Can you grasp the irony here? Twitter and Facebook, who had zero risk in sharing the Bonulinski story, blocked it. Then 95% of traditional media also chose to hide it, even after knowing that it was likely true, since The New York Post had already published it!  

Notable censoring and PC corporate and political punishment currently underway includes:

  • Donald Trump banned from Twitter
  • Donald Trump blocked on Facebook
  • Parler site de-platformed by Google
  • Parler site dropped by Apple
  • Parler site hosting cancelled by Amazon
  • Youtube is removing any content claiming “election fraud”
  • Youtube may cancel accounts held by any with “election fraud” content
  • Facebook is removing accounts of “Walkaway Movement” members
  • Twitter banned Lt. General Michael Flynn
  • Twitter banned Trump’s attorneys Sydney Powell and Lin Wood
  • Some Senators suggest removing Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz from the Senate
  • Simon & Schuster cancelled a previously agreed-upon publishing deal to publish “Tyranny of Big Tech” by Senator Josh Hawley (How ironic!)
  • The popular “My Pillow” product line is dropped by several major retailers
  • Payment processors Stripe, GoFundMe and others drop Trump-related commerce
  • Many major corporations drop donations to Republicans who objected to Biden’s electoral certification

This list is growing, day by day. You could be added to it at any time, should your words or ideas place you on the “wrong side” in the future.  

America and Americans must always lean toward, and be on the side of, freedom and liberty, and away from control and tyranny.  

Which side are you on?

Sign of The Times

by Leave a Comment

We are living in an interesting time, to put it mildly. We are not merely at a crossroads, we are at a strange, almost frightening intersection—a convoluted one—of threats and opportunities, influences and ideologies. Daily, we are challenged to decide, is this fact or fiction? Can I trust what I am hearing, or what I see with my own eyes?  Who can I believe when even the “experts” disagree? They change their stories so often, much of the time I just tune it all out go with my gut.

Some people have thrown out a kind of anchor to the world, as if to tell us all that, by gosh, they know where they stand on things. You’ve seen them—the little signs in front yards with multiple cute slogan lines that begin, “In This House, We Believe…”

If you have one of these signs in your front yard, please don’t take what I am about write, wrong. But as someone who has worked in media for a few years, I have discovered that we sometimes forget that communication between individuals is a two-way street. We get so caught-up in formulating the “transmit” side of the equation, we forget the “reception and interpretation” side.

What do I mean? Well, for instance, it took me more than an hour to compose the previous three paragraphs you just read in a few seconds. Seriously, it took that long.

The reason I don’t have a sign in my yard is that I know how my mind works, and when I read the words on signs like those my head is instantly flooded with thoughts and questions. And I assume that’s true for other people, so I would want my message to be crystal clear.

I’ll use one popular yard sign I’ve seen in my neighborhood as an example, and share some of my thoughts about each line on it. The sign begins with that proclamation, “In This House We Believe:”

Line 1: Black Lives Matter

My first thought is the politically incorrect one—”of course they do, as do all lives!” That includes those not yet recognized for their unique DNA—unborn children of every race.  It also includes the lives of mostly young black males who die in gang violence every day, who are rarely considered worthy of media attention. So far this year, as of September 13, 2020, there have been 538 homicides in the city of Chicago alone. Not all of these were young black males of course, but most were. This is primarily black-on-black crime, clipping along at a rate of just over 63 killed per month, or 2.1 dead per day.

With this in my mind, I then ask myself, “Was this what my neighbors were thinking when they bought and planted that sign? These types of numbers have been sort of commonplace for a long time, not just in Chicago, but in many big cities throughout our country. Why did the sign just go up a couple of months ago?”

Then I remember and say to myself, “Oh yeah—George Floyd.  He was killed and the African American community, in toto, said, ‘That’s it; we’ve had enough killing of blacks by police. White people in this country must realize—they must admit—that the police are murderers. And if those white people don’t repeat this mantra that we (the Spokespeople for All African Americans) coined a couple of years ago in Baltimore—that “Black Lives Matter”—they are then, by default, racists.”   

But then I think, “Well, wait a minute. What about those hundreds of black people who died last year in Chicago, and those who died in Detroit in 2018, and the ones the year before that, and for all the years before that, too? Didn’t you (the Spokespeople for All African Americans) know about all those killings? Maybe because most of the black people who were murdered were killed by other blacks, so does that mean their lost lives are less valuable?” Personally, I don’t think that, but maybe my neighbor with the sign does.

After my mental gyrations over line number one on the sign, I just do what I suggested above—I go with my gut (which, by the way, isn’t a “thin air” thing; it’s about a few years of experiencing life).

I figure that BLM has something else in mind aside from their clever, emotionally charged, white-guilt-inspiring slogan. Looking at it logically, the Spokespeople knew the numbers, but chose a particular incident at a particular time to press forward with their “movement”—one that has very specific political, economic, and social objectives that are quite far removed from any notion of preserving lives—of any race.

My gut also tells me that my neighbors’ sign-posting motivations are a weird mix of psychological reflexes that are a blend of BLM-inspired white guilt, and BLM-inspired fear. It may be their way of saying to other white people in the neighborhood, “See, I am a good person. I am not a racist (but you might be if you don’t have a sign), and that makes me, at least a ‘little better’ than you.”

It simultaneously says to blacks (and the “edgy” activist whites) who might drive by, “See, I am good person because I am repeating ‘the mantra’ that proves it. I am not a racist (but my neighbors who don’t have signs might be), and by the way, if you decide to start breaking stuff, setting fires, or chanting and yelling in the middle of the night, you can pass this house because ‘we are on YOUR side.’”

Line 2: Women’s Rights Are Human Rights

I’m a little unsure about what this one is all about. Is the poster saying some people think women aren’t human? Do they think the laws are unjust—that women don’t currently have the same rights as men in America? Or are they saying that women don’t have the same “opportunities” as men? We’ve all heard the claim that, on average, women earn only 57-70% of what men earn doing the same job.   

Okay, maybe I am a blind idiot, but in my 65 plus years of living in this country, I have never seen, known of, or heard about a single case where a woman was not afforded the same rights as men. Now if we are talking about something like the military draft, I don’t really know—do women have the “right” to be drafted into the service, should selective service again be activated? Do they want to be drafted if war breaks out with North Korea?

In the October 2018 issue of ALIVE I wrote about a film entitled, The Red Pill: A Feminist’s Journey into the Men’s Rights Movement, by film producer, Cassie Jaye. (https://aliveeastbay.com/?s=jaye). Cassie was, at the time, an avid feminist who embarked on a mission to expose American “patriarchy,” and set things aright in terms of women’s rights, equality in the workplace, etc. By the time she was finished, she no longer considered herself a “feminist.” What Cassie discovered was that most laws and benefits in America favor women over men, as do health programs.

The statistical data generally shows that men, by and large, do the “dirty work,” that most women simply don’t want to do. Don’t believe me? While women have the right to work as firefighters, how many are working right now in California, on the front lines of all the wildfires we’re having? As of 2018, nationwide, only 4% of firefighters were women. Now maybe it is because the departments just won’t hire them—that’s wrong—but I think the real reason is, there just aren’t droves of women applying to fight fires in the first place.

Have you ever seen a roofing crew in the summer pouring hot tar on a roof? Have you seen your neighbor up on a ladder cleaning out his rain gutters? Is he married? Ever seen his wife up there? You get the idea. While women can do anything they want, by and large, they’re not clamoring for the ditch-digging, roof-taring, rodent-exterminating, sewer-routing, window-washing, wheel-changing, enemy-killing jobs.   

Men have higher rates of homelessness, drug and other addictions, incarceration, unemployment, and failure in school than women. Little notice, if any, is paid to the fatality rates of men vs women, whereas 75% of suicides are men, 76% of all homicide victims are men, 94% of work-related deaths are men, and of course, 99.9% of combat deaths are men. And men receive 63% more prison time for committing the same offense as women.

My gut (and life) tells me that while women have all the rights that men have, they are (again, I know this is not politically correct) not men. We are quite different in many ways. Take the “me too” movement for example. I get confused by this. I understand that women, men—everyone—deserves respect, but who, exactly, are these women appealing to here?    

Back to the “Red Pill” for a moment. Consider the term “domestic violence.” It is generally conflated with violence against women. However, data from a 2014 CDC report showed that while 4,774,000 women were victims of intimate partner violence during the previous 12-month period, 5,452,000 men were victims over that same period—nearly a million more men than women. And while on average, 43% of domestic violence victims are men, government funding supports over 2,000 battered women shelters nationally—shelters that do not accept men—but only one shelter in the entire country serves the needs of men.

As for my neighbor’s sign, now that I think about it, I probably did see his wife up on their roof cleaning out the gutter. Good for him for recognizing her “rights!”

Line 3: No Human is Illegal

Okay, I will admit, maybe the term is a bit imprecise and it’s possible that the sign-planter and sign-designer don’t really know what the term means. I assume, of course, they are both referring to the term “Illegal Alien.” I will try to translate this in what might be more accurate terms that both parties can understand.

The “Alien” part of the phrase means we are talking about people who are not American citizens. People who are citizens of other countries are routinely called “Aliens.” It is not a pejorative. It just means, “They are not Americans; they are from someplace else.”

Now, as far as the “Illegal” part. The Constitution of the United States is the over-arching “law” that specifies certain rights and obligations for “citizens,” not “people from anywhere.” The “Illegal” part of the phrase refers to “criminality,” as in “people who have violated or broken a U.S. law, or several laws.”

So, a better way to describe these people might be: “Criminals who came into our country from another country, without our government’s permission.” How do we know they are criminals? Because the very act of coming into our country—crossing our sovereign national border—without permission, is, by definition, a crime, It is clearly a violation of our laws, so also by definition, the person is a criminal.

So, yes, they are people, but what they did makes them criminals. So, instead of rattling off that long, cumbersome sentence that accurately describes their status, we say, voila, they are… “Illegal Aliens!”

Line 4: Science is Real

Oh man, where do I begin? Again, the sign-posters seem to be implying that there are a bunch of people out there who don’t think science is real, or who don’t “believe in” science. These “science is real” or “I believe in science” phrases are akin to the “facts are facts,” or “facts don’t lie” mantras.

The first question that comes to my mind here is, “What science is my neighbor using to suggest this idea? What is his ‘data?’”

We are hearing and seeing this a lot lately, used mainly as a political communication device—a weapon, really—primarily involving medical and environmental issues. Treatments for Covid-19 and climate change (aka, global warming), are the two hyper-active subjects, followed remotely by economic theory.

This whole issue is bothersome. In fact, I find it extremely disturbing because it seems to arise whenever someone questions something? Have you noticed that? I have always believed in the wisdom of the notion or policy that says, “There are no bad or wrong questions?” What ever happened to that?

In fact, to say, “I believe in science,” doesn’t really frame what’s important. Understanding how science works, is, to my way of thinking, more important. 

Take climate change as an example. Yes, it’s true that a “majority” of scientists contend that mankind’s carbon emissions are contributing to an increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature. But many of the scientists who are a part of that majority are not climatologists or atmospheric physicists, they specialize in other sciences with only marginal knowledge about the climate. That aside, even is we concede that a majority of climate experts feel certain that humans’ carbon emissions are to blame, one of things about understanding how science works is that the statistical components, that is, how “many” people “believe” one theory or model over another, isn’t really a factor in whether something is a “fact” or not. What do I mean?

I mean, just because a majority of people, or even scientists, believe something, doesn’t make it so. In my limited understanding of science and how its processes function, the voices of minority points of view regarding what is to be taken as “fact” are of critical importance. But many people today seem even angry with others, or they mock them, if they disagree or ask questions They smugly say, or put up a sign that says, “Science is Real.”

As a matter of fact, many, if not most, of scientific progress through the ages has been, not because of the status quo of thought, it has been due to outliers—the rebels who differed from conventional ideas.

Being “angry” that someone might not agree with “consensus” conclusions is the reason Galileo was imprisoned because at that time, 97% of the most respected scientific community “knew” his ideas were wrong. In fact, they were “dangerous!” Again, my understanding is that it is by way of challenging largely accepted ideas that true scientific progress is made. As far as I know, scientific principles care not about statistics.

So if 97% of scientists are long-convinced that the universe exists in a “steady state,” then along comes some single maverick with a “radical” notion of a “big bang,” do we stay with the steady state model because the majority says so? Copernicus, Pasteur, Lister, Einstein, Hawkins… none were part of the “97%” in their time.

Lastly, I would argue that when people become “angry” towards others for questioning so-called “settled” science, they have departed from the realm of rational, healthy scientific debate, into the area of emotional insecurity, dogmatic thinking, or political manipulation and power, which I would argue, is what a lot of what this is really all about.

Our governor here in California, Gavin Newsom, recently spoke about climate change in relation to our recent and current wildfires. I could be mistaken, but I think he placed most of, if not all of the blame for these wildfires on “climate change.” But I have a real problem with the governor’s statement. Why? Because he said what he said for political reasons, not practical ones. The fires in California have a lot more to do with forest management, water use policies and management, state government environmental and building regulations, public utilities, and infrastructure, than they do with climate change. Even Newsom stated the other day something to the effect of, “We’ve known this was coming for decades.” So why didn’t he do things to prepare or prevent these fires? Even if we all had solar panels and Teslas, we’d still be burning here in California because of the things I just listed.

So the sign in the neighbor’s yard does nothing and means nothing, other than being a feeble, not-so-subtle way to try and belittle his own neighbors, all while demonstrating either a misunderstanding, or outright ignorance, about science.

Line 5: Love is Love

This one seems out of place. All by itself, I’d think it’s great, but since the previous four make my brain hurt, I am suspicious that this neighbor is hiding something from everyone. Is this one of those houses on a neighborhood “you know what” watch list? I won’t go there.

I’ll just assume the sign makers were at a loss and needed something that sounded okay in position number five.

Line 6: Kindness is Everything

Okay, this one takes the cake. Kindness? Really? Since sign-list items one, two, three, and four are obviously meant to be a kind of “in-your-face-like” challenge or something, I doubt kindness was in their minds when they ordered the sign.

I think it was more like, “We’ll show you, you racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, science-deniers! WE are one of the good and noble people in this neighborhood, but the rest of you are… you are… you are… ah… ah… ah… well, you’re just not!”

I have a suggestion. If you really want to help make things better, think about both sides of the communication. Sure, you can put up signs and paint slogans in giant letters in your driveway, but be certain you understand your goal—what you are trying to accomplish—and be prepared to explain your point and why you’re making it.

In our case we don’t have any signs on our front fence, just a couple of simple, “symbolic items,” that we hope clearly expresses some of our beliefs. The first is a “Blue Line Flag,” and the other is “Old Glory.” 

If you need me to interpret these for you, I’ll assume you’re one of the “good and noble” neighbors with a sign in your yard.

For some science stuff about climate science, this is pretty informative: https://www.prageru.com/video/climate-change-what-do-scientists-say/

Seeds of World Domination

by Leave a Comment

My wife is an avid gardener in every sense of the word. She simply loves planting, pruning, tending, trimming, watering, and digging in the dirt. Mind you, I’m not talking “mini-yard gardening,” I’m talking “nearly half-acre of fruit trees and multiple flower-beds yard gardening.” Our running joke is that for our 35th wedding anniversary, I gave her what she really wanted—a gas-powered wood-chipper!

So, it is not at all unusual that she orders seeds from time to time from local growers, and if she can’t find what she wants locally, she orders them through Amazon. She never had a problem with this until recently.

About four months ago, during the early stages of the pandemic, she placed an Amazon order for Zinnia seeds. They were supposed to arrive within about a week, but when they didn’t arrive, we checked and found they were “delayed” by an additional four weeks. This was for all of something like a one-dollar order, so we just canceled the order and thought nothing of it. Peggy would have to find her zinnia seeds elsewhere.

Then, a strange thing happened. Two days after canceling the order, what arrives in our mailbox other than a small package of seeds from China?  What made it all the stranger was the stuck-on label said “jewelry.”

By now you may have heard the stories in the media about unsolicited orders of seeds arriving in mailboxes across the country. We simply assumed that our zinnia seed order cancellation was either too late or ignored and that these were, in fact, the seeds we had ordered. But then we saw a Facebook post from a friend about the “Mystery China Seeds” and realized that these were some of them.

The Actual “Mystery China Seeds” we received in the mail marked as “jewelry.”

As of this writing, the U.S.D.A. and the Department of Homeland Security are investigating these Mystery Seeds. What they are and why they were sent isn’t clear, but the public is being advised not to plant them. One theory is that this is what is called a “brushing scam,” whereby unsolicited products are sent in order to then post fake positive ratings in your name, to boost a vendor’s overall rating.

Frankly, I don’t really understand how a brushing scam works, and I don’t buy it. The fact that this is happening on a wide-scale, pretty-much simultaneously across the entire nation and throughout much or Europe, leads me to believe this is more nefarious.    

Just consider the source for a moment. China is not at all like the United States. Nothing happens in China without first being sanctioned, if not completely operated by, the China Communist Party (CCP). There are no “Silicon-Valley-like” tech companies that operate within a capitalist framework, developing products or services with the motive of profit earned by serving consumers. While that type of commerce is tolerated on the small, local scale, anything with national or international impact is strictly monitored and controlled. There is no free press, so control, government oppression, and outright abuse of the people in every sector of the social fabric persists unchecked and largely unnoticed by the rest of the world. What Western societies consider criminal behavior is status quo in China.

 The CCP is happy to do business with America, so long as the transactions enhance their global power and prestige in one way or another. They are secretive and selfish, and dishonesty and criminal behavior are standard when dealing with other countries.    

To suspect that there is some grand, evil scheme going on here would be no exaggeration in light of their dreadful record. First off, one only need look at how they treat their own people. The CCP and its government openly engages in overt acts of wholesale oppression of the Chinese people. They suppress any expression of liberty, allowing no free press. This totalitarian regime thinks nothing of subjecting its people to forced labor, and they brutally manage their population with draconian measures, like forced abortions and infanticide. The Chinese regime is legendary in its penchant for counterfeiting and pirating everything from technology to music to medicines.

In terms of international relations and the military, they are not content being in second position, behind the United States, and are aggressively working to become the world’s dominant power. Currently, they are testing the United States and the rest of the world with threatening and provocative actions that border on violating the Hong Kong separation treaty with Great Britain.

And then, finally there is the Covid 19 situation, or as President Trump rightly calls it, the “China Virus.” It is “officially” unclear whether the Chinese government mismanaged the outbreak, or did they, perhaps, intentionally allow it to “escape” their control in a scheme to weaken the world economy, and more specifically, America’s? The term “plausible deniability” comes to mind. Whatever the genesis of the pandemic, the outcome has been tremendously damaging to every other country outside China.

My point is simple: the CCP is not our friend. In fact they are friends to no one and they see other nations only in relation to their insatiable appetite for eventual world domination. Other countries are not only competitors, they are adversaries.

Just this morning (August 10, 2020) there was a news story where reporters were taken on a “tour” of the infamous Wuhan Institute of Virology, just last Friday, August 7, 2020. Here is the lead-in to what NBC “journalists” reported:  

WUHAN, China — Cloistered off a major thoroughfare, the Wuhan Institute of Virology could pass for a college campus, its red brick buildings distinguishable from their busy surroundings only by a long, imposing driveway lined with cameras, with a security guard standing sentry.

On the neatly manicured grounds beside a small man-made lake is a newer structure with silver sidings and few windows. This, the institute’s BSL-4 lab — the first in China to receive the highest level of biosafety clearance — stands at the center of an international firestorm of recrimination over China’s role in the coronavirus pandemic.

On Friday, NBC News became the first foreign news organization to be granted access to the institute since the outbreak began, meeting with senior scientists working to pinpoint the origins of the virus. The Wuhan institute and its scientists have become the focus of intense speculation and conspiracy theories — some emanating from the White House — about China’s alleged efforts to downplay the outbreak’s severity and whether the virus leaked from the facility.

During the roughly five-hour visit, which included a tour of the BSL-4 lab, where technicians clad in bubblelike protective suits handled small vials and other equipment while sealed inside a thick-walled glass enclosure, Wang Yanyi, director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, said she and others felt unfairly targeted. She urged that politics not cloud investigations into how the coronavirus spilled over into humans.

The article continues like a perfect script written entirely by the CCP. It quotes the World Health Organization (WHO) in essentially praising the Chinese as “heroes” in their efforts to fight the virus, and as “victims” of Donald Trump’s “racist conspiracy theories.”

What can we glean from this news story? First off, we know that the reporters and news producers involved in this recent report are either willing supporters of communist totalitarianism and their evil deeds, or they are simply dimwits who know nothing about the CCP.

When I watched the televised version of the report, the reporters explained how they (NBC News) had “been requesting access to the lab for months,” and how “permission was finally granted.” Duh! Why might this be? That’s like saying they were finally granted access to the back room at the butcher shop after months of asking Tony Soprano about a missing mafia mob boss. And, because they are so thorough, they must add to their “factual report,” how clean the butcher block and meat cleaver were for their cameras, despite the conspiracy theory promoted by Trump that disparages Mr. Soprano and all Italians.

I know the mainstream press HATES President Trump, but anyone with a light on ought to ask themselves, “Why is the press so eager to believe the official statements and ‘facts’ disseminated by a repressive, corrupt authority that regularly seeks to take advantage of or harm America—one that allows NO free press in their own country—over the information gathered by our own leaders who are pledged to defend us?”  

Back to the China Seed Mystery. I believe, as some have suggested, that this is just one more open attack—so bold in that it was done “out in the open”—that is being used to test us. If small packages of seeds—biological content, mind you—can be sent to thousands of addresses throughout our land by a hostile foreign power with impunity, how difficult would it be to introduce extremely harmful agents into our nation? What if these packages had contained something like Anthrax or some radioactive material?

The United States must take the lead at pushing back against China—specifically the CCP—now, while we still have the military and technological advantage. Americans—especially journalists—should never assume they are “just like us,” because they certainly are not.

A thorough investigation must be undertaken, not only into this latest “seed attack,” but into the Covid-19, Wuhan Virus. The fate of the free world may depend upon it.    

The Uncivil War on Statues & Monuments

by Leave a Comment

My Personal Experience with The Confederates

In 2011 our family gathered in New Orleans for my niece’s graduation from Tulane University Medical School. The ceremony was extraordinary; Pulitzer prize-winning author and columnist Thomas Friedman gave the keynote address, and singer-composer Stevie Wonder provided the entertainment. It was quite an evening.

Never having been to New Orleans before, we spent the next several days touring the city and surrounding areas. We did some of the obligatory touristy things like strolling down Bourbon Street and taking an airboat ride to see gators in the wild. We ate, drank, and danced to Zydeco, celebrating with family and strangers who felt like family.

I loved New Orleans—the food, the people, the architecture, the music, and most of all, the city’s laid-back, friendly, “non-PC” vibe. After all, I had never been to a city where you might encounter someone enjoying a mint julep while walking down the sidewalk at four o’clock in the afternoon. And when I say, “not PC,” I mean cigar smoking was still allowed in public places.

This was “The South”—a world apart from California and the San Francisco Bay Area’s hustle and bustle to which I was accustomed. When we were there, as far as I could tell, the heart of the city did not include an Apple store, as the charm and style of New Orleans harkened back to another time. And that was what I found most appealing and interesting. It was the city’s history, and by extension, its effect upon the history of our great country, that captured my attention most.

Despite all the fascinating attractions of New Orleans, there were three things that drew my attention and curiosity like a magnet to iron.   

The first was a Slavery Museum in the French Quarter. Inside were items in display cases bringing the abject cruelty of human bondage into undeniable, absolute focus, There were things like wrist and ankle shackles that had once chaffed the skin of some long-forgotten human being—a person—likely “used” as a beast of burden. And there were paper receipts indicating the sex, approximate age, work-capability (as in, “a strong young male suited for heavy labor”), and the price asked and/or paid for said “property.” I had never seen anything like this in my life, and had no idea that a museum like this even existed.

Next was another museum—The Confederate Memorial Hall Civil War Museum. As stated on their website, the museum “opened its doors in New Orleans on January 8, 1891, and has been commemorating southern heritage and history for over 120 years. The museum is the oldest in Louisiana and houses one of the largest collections of Confederate memorabilia in the United States.”

The collection of rare, fragile material of historical importance was impressive. There were uniforms, flags, pistols and rifles, documents, and photographs. A dress uniform worn by General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson’s was on display, complete with dress saber and scabbard, as well as the riding saddle of Confederate President Jefferson Davis. In my mind, Stonewall Jackson must have been a physically imposing figure, but seeing his uniform said otherwise. While he was six feet tall, the narrow shoulders and slenderness of his uniform told me he was very slight of build. In fact, while I don’t intend to be sexist, I would describe his jacket size as being a “woman’s petite.” 

One piece on display that will forever be seared in my memory was of what I would estimate to be a six or seven-foot section of a tree trunk, coated in some type of varnish to preserve it. It was just standing in the corner of one of the rooms in the museum. Embedded in the tree were several balls of “grape shot,” each about three inches or so in diameter. Seeing those lead balls securely embedded in the tree due to the force of cannon fire said everything one needs to understand about the carnage suffered by soldiers serving on both sides during the Civil War.

Robert E. Lee Statue in “Lee’s Circle, New Orleans, LA, 2011

The final item of interest was a large statue of General Robert E. Lee that stood atop a sixty-foot column in the center of “Lee’s Circle.” The statue was erected and dedicated in 1884, only to be removed in 2017 after previous Confederate statue-related violence had erupted in Charlottesville, Virginia, earlier that year.

Times Change, Ideas Change, People Change

So what is my point in telling you all of this? My point is that by visiting these museums and monuments—be seeing them with my own eyes, and by touching and experiencing them—I was inspired to learn more about one of the most important periods in our nation’s history. Were Southerners just some kind of anomaly, a perverse, corrupt, evil strain of humankind, as many today seem to believe? Or were the romanticized images of “noble and chivalrous” Southerners anchored in reality? I wanted to know. Who were the Confederates? What did they believe? What was their “cause”—one they thought worth dying for?

At the time, while I already had a fair knowledge—or so I thought—about the Civil War, I became committed to learning as much as I could in trying to answer these questions. I read everything I could get my hands on, amassing a substantial library in the process.

Had those monuments and statues not existed, I would have remained in a state or relative ignorance about one of the most important periods of American history–warts and all.

But I did see them, and the result was, I learned a lot. First off, the world was a very different place then, as were the beliefs and values of everyone. In fact, the one thing that has not changed is that the entire story of America, and indeed of all civilizations, is that ideas and values do change over time. What most 21st Century Americans view as repugnant today was widely accepted as standard behavior prior to the Civil War.

For example, Abraham Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist, and he didn’t believe blacks should have the same rights as whites. In one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, Lincoln said, “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races…” And, the Emancipation Proclamation was primarily devised as a military strategy to help win the war, as it originally only applied to slaves in most of the Confederacy. The proclamation did not apply to border slave states that had remained part of the Union, like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. Lincoln’s views on racial equality did evolve over time, but certainly not to the level where Americans and most of the world are today.

Does this mean Lincoln was just another evil racist white man? Taken out of the context of history, I have no doubt some with ill-intended political objectives would answer, “yes.” But that is not only wrong, it is unjust on its face.

For example, if someone made the argument in 1940 that “a woman’s place is in the home,” I’d bet that not only 100% of men but also 95% of women would have agreed. And in 1955, if you asked one hundred tenured professors in psychology or psychiatry to explain homosexuality, about that same percentage would say that “it’s a form of mental illness.”

Today we might say those ways of thinking were bad or evil or flawed, but that would be projecting our values and understandings into another time, and that is an exercise in futility with no relevance or meaning for our lives today or into the future. To my way of thinking, judging our ancestors in this way only serves to satisfy a perverse need some have to do the very thing they rail against—to classify others as being somehow “inferior” to them.

As distasteful as it is today, in early America, and long before, throughout much of the world, black people were believed to be inferior beings. Even in the African continent, some tribes believed other tribe members to be inferior. This was the way the world was, going back thousands of years.

Are there still pockets of this kind of backward thinking? Certainly, there are. But as time has progressed, this way of thinking and believing has become rarer and rarer, particularly here in America. While there may be anecdotal examples of racial bias from one person to another, gone are the days of widespread racial injustice in America, and I would challenge anyone to prove otherwise. 

Why Were Confederate Statues Allowed After the Civil War?

Throughout history, during protracted periods of war, it is not uncommon for warriors of the opposing sides to develop respect for one another. In fact, during the Civil War, there are numerous stories of times when truces were enacted on certain common holidays, when soldiers not only ceased their fighting, but came together in celebration, only to return to battle hours later, oftentimes fighting to the death.

And when wars were won, what did Americans do to their vanquished enemies? Americans have always sought, and seek still, to help heal their enemies’ wounds and move forward into a hopeful future, not only in peace, but in cooperation. We build. We reconstruct. We do all we can to help past enemies make the often-painful transition from being a beaten, vanquished foe, into a respected member of a new society.   

The process of healing the enormous wounds inflicted by the Civil War began logically by according a measure of respect to the humiliated Confederates. They were soundly beaten militarily and subsequently surrendered, so the best way to engender a lasting peace and harmonious future together was to permit them a sense of honor and grant them a modicum of respect due a worthy opponent.

Confederate Soldier Monument with Flag in Frederick Maryland Cemetery

Confederate veterans were recognized as legitimate soldiers and allowed to retire in peace, rather than as traitors deserving to be hanged. Organizations like the Confederate Veterans, the United Daughters of the Confederacy, and Sons of Confederate Veterans were formed, and Confederate graves were and are honored still, in places like Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. Monuments and statues were erected throughout the South, recognizing Confederate leaders like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.

All of this was allowed in the spirit of healing and reconciliation.  

The Transition to “Southern Pride”

In time, the reputation and status of Confederate soldiers and Southern culture grew and was embellished. The South was romanticized, becoming a kind of caricature of a culture; a blend of fact and fiction that scarcely acknowledged the foundation of the divide that was the issue of slavery.

The Confederate Battle Flag became a symbol, not of oppression, but of the independent spirit—of the rebellious quality of character that refuses to be controlled by others. This is the underlying sentiment of those who today speak of “Southern Pride.” This is also why they cling to their memorialized heroes. Allowing that Southern Pride to exist was never intended to be hurtful to the African American descendants of slaves, it was allowed in the effort to heal the entire nation—black and white.

Confederate soldiers and their leaders were historically viewed in terms of their courage and military acumen, and how they treated those who served under their command. General Lee, in these regards, was, and is still, considered one of the finest military generals in “American” history.

In terms of Lee’s character, it is significant to note that Lee rejected Lincoln’s offer to lead the entire Union Armies, because he could not bear to take up arms against his home state. He chose instead to remain loyal to his neighbors, family, and friends—to his homeland, the state of Virginia. The issue of slavery, or whether blacks should be considered equal to whites, had no bearing upon his difficult decision regarding loyalty and service. Here, in a letter to his sister, are his own words telling why and how he came his decision to join the Confederacy:   

My Dear Sister,

I am grieved at my inability to see you… I have been waiting for a “more convenient season,” which has brought before many before me deep and lasting regret. Now we are in a state of war which will yield to nothing. The whole South is in a state of revolution, into which Virginia, after a long struggle, has been drawn; and though I recognize no necessity for this state of things, and would have foreborne and pleaded to the end for redress of grievances, real or supposed, yet in my own person, I had to meet the question whether I should take part against my native state.

With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the army, and save in the defense of my native state, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword.

I know you will blame me; but you must think as kindly of me as you can and believe that I have endeavored to do what I thought right. To show you the feeling and struggle it has cost me, I send you a copy of the letter of resignation. I have not time for more.

May God guard and protect you and yours and shower upon you everlasting blessings, is the prayer of your devoted brother.

Robert E. Lee to Anne R. Marshall [sister], April 20, 1861, Arlington, Virginia

It is clear that Lee had no intention of fighting against the Union, but as a man of his word, he became duty-bound to serve the Confederacy, nonetheless. When Union forces took to invading his homeland, he did what he had hoped not to do—he drew his sword to defend it.

The Foolishness of Destroying Monuments & Statues      

Today, we see statues being torn down and vandalized, along with Confederate flags and other historical artifacts. In fact, anything even remotely associated with the Confederacy, the Civil War, the antebellum South, or America’s slave-related history, is being branded as something that must be destroyed. Some people claim they find these historical items offensive or disturbing because they see them as  “symbols of oppression,” or as evidence of “systemic racism,”  and there is a movement afoot demanding that these reminders of the past be erased.

Everything must go! Statues or monuments honoring Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, along with another ten U.S. presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant, who led the fight of the Union forces that defeated the Confederates, must now be cast into the fire. Monticello, the Washington Monument, and now even Mount Rushmore, are all at risk of this zealous cleansing movement.

This entire movement, currently spearheaded by Black Lives Matter, is made up of people who choose to view our nation’s—and the world’s—history, solely through a myopic lens that recognizes only the failures in judgment and character flaws in our collective past. Never once do they stop and consider their own character flaws and failures in judgment. And the irony here is, these are the only things that truly impact their “today and tomorrows.”

On President Lincoln’s second day in office, he spoke to a delegation from Pennsylvania, saying that he wanted to spread the idea “that we may not, like the Pharisees, set ourselves up to be better than other people.” Apparently, this wise advice has yet to make its way into the thick skulls of our modern-day warriors of “social justice.”         

The tragedy in all of this is in what it reveals about some Americans today. Their ignorance of history and, more importantly, of human nature, is astounding. It speaks of incredible immaturity and a colossal failure on the part of parents, teachers, and societal leaders. These are not adults with a measure of wisdom and life experience to know that human beings, past or present, were and are not one-dimensional creatures. No one, past or present, is either “purely good and virtuous,” or “purely evil and bad.”

How to Move Foward

When our country began to convulse after the tragic death of George Floyd, one of my best friends, an African American woman in her 30s who lives in Los Angeles, said to me, “What’s wrong with these people? This isn’t 1960 anymore; it’s 2020. Blacks can do anything they want today.” That was a true statement made by a wise, adult woman.

We all have ancestors and our particular family history. Some of it is good, and some is bad. Our job in the present is to accept it for what it was. We must acknowledge that our ancestors were not perfect, just as we are not prefect. Then, we are to do our best to learn from the mistakes of the past and move forward together. 

As for the actual statues and monuments themselves, under no condition should they be destroyed or defaced in any way. Rational discussions about their appropriate placement is fine, but the adults in our society must stand up and make sure this is the course taken. And the children who believe they are “in charge,” or that their tantrums will force their way—they are in dire need of a firm hand by those adults. I plead to our wiser elders: please, don’t fail these children in their time of greatest need.

A Word About Slavery

Gauging by the actions and reactions of many today, one would think slavery was invented by white southerners. The only thing more striking about this than the ignorance of it, is the hypocrisy. Insofar as ignorance is concerned, anyone with even so much as a cursory interest in world history can tell you that the institution of slavery is about as old as civilization itself, and at one time or another it has infected every race, culture, society, and continent on planet Earth.

As for hypocrisy, people seem to think it only some a relic of a tarnished history, but it is alive and well still. In fact, as I write this, a prominent socialite named Ghislaine Maxwell sits in a jail cell awaiting charges for abuse of minors and sex trafficking, aka slavery, and there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of human lives ended and discarded because they were deemed “less than human” under the banner of “freedom of choice.”

“Ah, but the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade that abortion is ‘legal’,” you argue. Okay, by that logic, where does the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dred Scott case lead us? The foundations for both cases are rooted in devaluing certain “classes” of people. In one case, race was the determining factor justifying blatant discrimination, in the other, it is a person’s “stage of development.”

Even aside from the abortion issue, men, women, and children are “trafficked” and exploited all over the world, every day.

One suggestion for those so outraged by the deeds of others long dead and incapable of defending themselves: How about focusing on the problems of slavery throughout the world, today?   

And finally, what about trying to see America’s slavery-tarnished past in another light, in a way that helps build a positive future as opposed to just cursing the past? Maybe if more people could adopt African American writer Zora Neale Hurston’s attitude, we’d be further along. She said, “Slavery is the price I paid for civilization, and that is worth all I have paid through my ancestors for it.”          

Subscribe to ALIVE's Newsletter
Get the latest content first, along with exclusive "ALIVE Insider" stuff!
We respect your privacy.