A Man May Smile and Smile and Be a Villain

November 23rd, 2014 No Comments

Barack Obama


The only differences between Barack Obama and Richard Nixon are that one is a Democrat and the other was a Republican, one is telegenic and the other was not, one is slick and the other was not, and one combines ignorance of world history with incompetence in his dealings with foreign governments while the other was knowledgeable and had the foresight and diplomatic skills to open up relations with China. Other than those differences, both men share a contemptuous disregard for the constitution, the rule of law, the American public, and any ideologGVoSPoMT7Oiu/Fs9jouGhSGNZbY9nnHy other than their own.

A quick bit of background on the late President Nixon: my mother was a lifelong, dyed-in-the-wool, card-carrying Republican who regarded the Kennedy family with horror and contempt, but she was so appalled by Mr. Nixon’s antics that she and some other elderly, educated, politically and socially connected ladies set about trying to get him impeached. Recently widowed, she had the brains and time and Washington savvy to get things done. She and the other ladies were effective enough that they got noticed and the result was telephoned middle of the night death threats, an event I made use of in American Riff. ( ) Needless to say, events took another turn, and Mr. Nixon stepped down, thereby avoiding both impeachment and possible criminal charges, and my mother was not murdered.

I am not aware of any death threats made by the Obama administration, but reporters are all very aware of the consequences of any negative reporting on the president and his cronies. When Rahm Emanuel was still in the White House, he would frequently personally make angry telephone calls, complete with screaming and obscenities, calls that were designed to both discourage and intimidate. Those calls are still being made, and—to be fair—it is my understanding that such calls have been made by many other administrations as well.

But where Mr. Obama and his cohorts differ is that they have taken—and attempted to take—things much further. James Rosen is a case in point. He was threatened with criminal charges by the Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice, with the Attorney General personally signing the search warrants against Rosen. Think about that for a moment: criminal charges against an established and highly regarded and internationally known reporter for doing his job. Fortunately, virtually every news organization, liberal and conservative, saw the danger in this kind of behavior and they all expressed their outrage, causing the DOJ to back off.

But now take a look at investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson. Ms. Attkisson is the CBS investigative reporter who has been nominated for, and has won, multiple Emmys for her reporting on a variety of topics, including the Department of Justice’s “Fast and Furious” gun-running scandal. It was this last one, coupled with her investigation into the Benghazi disaster, which ultimately led to her resignation from CBS.

Lost in the flurry of stories about Obama’s enacting immigration laws by executive action, and the concern about the grand jury findings in Ferguson, MO, is the recent release of documents that had been personally claimed as protected under executive privilege by Obama himself. The documents are numerous, and have not yet been thoroughly reviewed, but they include emails between White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz and former Department of Justice Spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. The actual emails themselves may be seen on various sites, notably at Judicial Watch, the organization whose lawsuit forced the release of the documents.

The salient exchange between Schmaler and Schultz contains this from Schmaler:

“I’m also calling Sharryl’s [sic] editor and reaching out to [Bob, Face the Nation] Scheiffer. She’s out of control.”

Now I don’t care whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, or liberal or conservative, or how you feel about the second amendment, or what you may think about President Obama and his administration, or even if you believe Machiavelli was the greatest political genius of all time. This exchange should scare the pants off you. The Department of Justice is supposed to be a completely neutral, non-partisan organization responsible for the enforcement of law and the administration of justice for all American citizens. The FBI, DEA, ATF, the US Marshals Service, and many other agencies are all under the aegis of the DOJ. If the DOJ itself, and specifically its Attorney General, Eric Holder, are corrupt enough to attempt to intimidate and discredit a journalist, you—a citizen of the United States—are at risk, because freedom, as we know it in this country, no longer is a reality. These are precisely the kinds of crimes that caused a bunch of elderly, conservative ladies to go after Richard Nixon and that ultimately forced him to resign.

And more: according to Sharyl Attkisson, both her CBS computer and her personal, home computer—an iMac—were hacked into by someone savvy and sophisticated enough to co-opt it and operate it remotely. She hired her own computer expert and found that someone had installed an extra fiber-optics line in her home, without he other things, files she was working on would suddenly get deleted in front of her eyes.

Let’s be very clear: both Sharyl Attkisson’s reporting on the Obama administration and her career were sabotaged as much by CBS—and you have to ask yourself if it was personal ideology on their part or a result of governmental pressuring—as they were by the White House and the DOJ, but the intimidation factor (the DOJ leaning on her bosses at CBS; messing with her computer right in front of her) are the actions of cowardly, amoral, unscrupulous, and power-hungry men. Men who are using your tax dollars to subvert your first amendment rights. Men like Richard Nixon. Men like Eric Holder. Men like Barack Obama.


Proud to Be a Little Punk

November 14th, 2014 18 Comments


“Wild Bill” Richardson, former California state senator, once wrote a book entitled, What Makes You Think We Read the Bills, which makes it almost certainly the most honest book ever written by any politician. Most of our elected officials don’t bother to read the bills we pay them to vet and vote on, and part of that is due to the ridiculously excessive length and complexity of many of the laws that get written. The rule of thumb is, the longer and more complex a law is (“sweeping” and “comprehensive” are the code words to watch out for) the less likely it will be read or understood by anyone, including the politicians being paid to pass the damned law, and the less effective it will be in the long run. Obamacare is a good example. Remember Nancy Pelosi’s immortal words? “We have to pass the law so we can find out what’s in it.” (It doesn’t have quite the brilliance or resonance of “…we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth,” but what can you expect from a woman who seems to have such trouble remembering things, including her oath of office.)

Now it appears that Obamacare was more than simply labyrinthian; it was deliberately written to be obscure because the men and women who created the law knew it would never pass if the American voters actually knew what was in it. Witness the four (I have only seen three, but various news outlets allege there are four or possibly more) video recordings of Jonathan Gruber that have surfaced recently.

Who the hell is Jonathan Gruber? Jonathan Gruber is the MIT economist who was so widely touted and lauded (most famously by Nancy Pelosi, though she now claims not to have any idea who he is) as the “architect” of Obamacare. Mr. Gruber has caused quite a stir in the past year or so by giving lectures and sitting on panels around the country, and boasting about the fact that (this is a direct quote): “…this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO [Congressional Budget Office] did not score the [individual] mandate as taxes.  If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies…In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are gonna pay in—you’ve made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.  Okay?  Just like the…people—transparent—lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.  And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever.”

And in another video he refers to the need for, “…the exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter…”

Well. I have no idea whether or not there is criminal activity here, but when I watched the footage of Mr. Gruber chortling over the stupidity of the American voter, I was immediately reminded of two things.

The first is a line from one of Dorothy Sayers’ Lord Peter Wimsey mysteries, written back in the 1920s. I forget which book—or possibly short story—it comes from, but in one adventure, Wimsey twigs to the identity of the villain because of his arrogance, and he states (it’s been many a long year, so I’m paraphrasing here) that, “…the defining characteristic of all criminals is arrogance.”

It certainly is the defining characteristic of Jonathan Gruber and so many other denizens of ivy-covered ivory towers. They, the Jonathan Grubers and Paul Krugmans, the Nancy Pelosis and the Harry Reids and Barack Obamas, are all so much smarter than we stupid American voters that they know better than we what is best for us.

The other thing I was reminded of was a line from Meet John Doe, where Gary Cooper’s character, Long John Willoughby, is giving a speech and says, “I know a lot of you are saying, ‘What can I do? I’m just a little punk. I don’t count.’ Well, you’re dead wrong. The little punks have always counted because in the long run, the character of a country is the sum total of the character of its little punks.”

Perhaps the little punks spoke this past November 4th. Perhaps the little punks will speak again.


Laws for Sale: Prices Slashed!

November 14th, 2014 4 Comments

Michael Bloomberg

I posted a blog about Washington State’s Initiative 594 back on September 3rd, entitled Democracy in Action. In it, I expressed the opinion that, no matter how you might feel about guns, it was an extremely dangerous precedent for a handful of billionaires to essentially buy the laws they want passed, even—in the case of Michael Bloomberg and some others—spending their money to influence voting in states where they don’t even live. If billionaires can use their money to curtail the second amendment, why not use it to curtail the first? Or the fourth? Or hell, what about the twenty-second; then we can keep Obama in office forever.

Well, Initiative 594 passed, even though it was eighteen pages of gobbledygook with terms so poorly defined that even the police are uncertain what it means, and even though the majority of law enforcement agencies in Washington State opposed it as both ineffective and a potentially enormous waste of their limited resources if they attempt to enforce it, and even though the initiative’s anti-gun backers admitted it will have no effect whatsoever on crime.

Now, Dave Workman writes in The Examiner that protestors plan to illustrate the idiocy of one of the law’s provisions. That provision states that if you and I are out duck hunting, or plinking at the local sandpit, and I wish to try your shotgun or your handgun, I must first go through a background check and a waiting period before you can hand the gun to me.

On December 13th, protesters plan to gather in front of the state capitol in Olympia and pass guns back and forth to each other in protest. I encourage everyone who possibly can to go to Olympia on the 13th and participate. If enough people show up and peaceably protest, it will surely be one of the more dramatic forms of civil disobedience witnessed since Mahatma Gandhi brought the British Empire to its knees with passive, non-violent resistance. I applaud the pro-gun-rights protesters; laws should not be bought and sold by billionaires who think they know best what’s right for you.


Terms of Falconry

November 10th, 2014 7 Comments

Bodio's falcon


My PC computer doesn’t like Apple computers, or perhaps Apple computers consider themselves too grand to converse with PCs on a regular basis, but whatever the reason, I couldn’t send an email to someone, so Steve Bodio ( was kind enough to forward my message for me.

While looking for something completely unrelated, I happened to stumble across the following verse. I don’t even know who wrote it, but I post it (and a photograph cheerfully stolen from his website) by way of a thank-you to Steve, who is a serious falconer. And because it is a damn fine little poem.

I shall not bate, for you have trained me well

And I can perch now quiet on your wrist,

Wearing my jesses, swivel, leash and bell.

Hoodshy no longer, I do not resist

That covering, for I am coming to.

Ringing above you, I wait on your word.

I reach my pitch, but I shall swoop for you,

Spread sails, then sink my pounces in the bird

You flush. I do not startle at your voice

Now or your touch, for I am fully weathered.

Haggard, your dark-eyed hawk, I wait your choice

To rest upon your glove or go, untethered.

Mantling at ease, I eschew the sky

Until you lift my hood and tell me, “fly.”


The following explanation came with the poem:


Female hawks are always used in falconry, as they are much stronger and faster than the male birds.

A hawk bates when she flutters off from the fist or perch, whether from wildness, or for exercise, or in the attempt to chase.

A hawk is said to come to when she begins to grow tame.

A hawk is weathered when she is placed unhooded in the open air, under the falconer’s eye, as part of the process of taming.

A haggard is a wild-caught hawk in adult plumage.


When Man Becomes Prey

November 8th, 2014 20 Comments

When Man Becomes Prey


I have never met Cat Urbigkit, but she contributes to a blog I follow (Stephen Bodio’s Querencia) and she and I have communicated by email from time to time over the years. She knew that I had survived a bear attack and asked me to write a blurb for the book cover of When Man Becomes Prey. Normally, this would mean an advance copy would be sent out that I could read, and then write my blurb accordingly. In this case, however, Cat was pressed for time, so she emailed me a copy of the manuscript. I was duly impressed with her writing, as I have always been over the years, and I wrote that in my blurb. What I didn’t realize was how well and beautifully illustrated the final product would be. Those are her photographs in the book, ladies and gentlemen, and hers alone, and that by itself is reason enough to buy the book. It’s an extraordinary achievement.

Beyond that, however, I cannot recommend this book highly enough. As cities and suburbs metastasize over the American landscape, more and more people live, wittingly or unwittingly, in close proximity to wildlife. Most of the time, this is a benign source of pleasure: deer strolling across your lawn and nibbling on your roses; woodchucks and squirrels making free with your vegetable garden; that sort of thing. But where prey animals go, predators will follow, and the inevitable confrontations between man and large carnivore will occur, with equally inevitable and unhappy results.

What Cat does so well in When Man Becomes Prey, is not only to point out the potential dangers, but to give the reader tools to recognize when things are sliding down from chance encounter to something more sinister and potentially deadly. Most of us are smart enough not to walk up to walk up to a grizzly or a mountain lion and offer it our leftover hamburger, but what most people do not understand is the significance of simply seeing a predator. The rule of thumb, as Cat points out, is that if you do see a predator, and that predator does not immediately take off running, you have a problem in the making, because when a predator becomes habituated to humans and their presence, the next step is to regard those humans as dinner. And sadly, too many otherwise reasonably intelligent people think it is cute and exciting to have wildlife around their home, and they do remarkably stupid things–such as putting out food and water–to encourage said wildlife. Apart from the potential danger to humans, the usual result is death for the animal. Yes, I know the Fish and Game experts are always quoted as saying that the predator in question will be relocated, but relocation would really mean creating a dangerous problem for someone else in some other part of the state, and so “relocated” becomes a code word for “destroyed.” It is not usually discussed, because ignorant animal lovers and so-called animal rights advocates get hysterical when they think of anything being killed, but what choice is there? If that coyote didn’t actually kill your child, it will certainly try—and may succeed—with the next child in the area where it is relocated.

I live on the opposite side of a mountain from a small community where there are, unfortunately, a lot of remarkably silly people who think it is fine to break the law and put out food and water to attract wildlife. The completely predictable result is dogs killed in their yards, human/predator encounters of varying degrees of potential danger, certain canyons closed off to equestrians for long periods of time due to mountain lion sightings, and—more personally—my friend Dan Bronson (one of the most peaceable and kindly men in the world) doing his jogging with a can of bear spray in his hand. I only wish every single person in that community could be compelled to read When Man Becomes Prey.

Beautifully illustrated, and with well-researched and well-described true-life encounters, this a must-read for anyone who lives anywhere near wildlife.


Nibbled to Death by Ducks

October 25th, 2014 24 Comments

Nevada 2


I assume you’re familiar with the old truism: Just when you begin to think things can’t possibly get worse, they do. It’s is also—especially—applicable to the morons who collectively make up what we laughingly refer to as the United States government. Here is the latest, and were it not for Ron Spomer (, a very knowledgeable and truly gifted outdoor writer and photographer, this would have been buried by the avalanche of ebola and ISIS (International Society of Islamic Swine) and all the other horrors that occur daily throughout the world:

The Forest Service, a division of the Department of Agriculture, is tasked with managing approximately 193-million acres of national forest and national grassland. Just to make sure you understand, this is NOT, I repeat, NOT government land. This is your land. You, and your ancestors before you, have paid the taxes to set this land aside for public use, which means use by you and me, the owners of this land. You, and I, and your neighbors, pay the taxes that pay the costs of preserving our land. You, and I, and your neighbors, pay the taxes that pay the salaries of the bureaucrats who supposedly manage our land. It is yours. It is mine. It is ours. It is most emphatically NOT the government’s.

But now the Forest Service wants you to have to petition them for the right to photograph or film any activities that you might wish to enjoy in your wilderness areas. Want to film your fishing trip? You will have to apply for a special permit. Want to take a photograph of yourself with a deer you took? Apply for a permit. And it’s not as if you must apply for a permit that must be given out. You must apply for the permit, and the Forest Service may—at their discretion—grant it. If you want to photograph a hunt, it almost certainly will not be granted, because the Forest Service has a dubious record of supporting hunting, even though it was hunters who originally fought to have this land preserved.

The basis for this new over-extension and abuse of governmental authority is a law that states that no one is supposed to make money off the use of public lands. The law’s intent was to keep individuals and corporations from destroying our land while making a profit from it, i.e., slapping up a housing development, say. It was not intended to prevent a camper from writing about and photographing his wilderness experience for sale to a magazine so he can earn the money that will be taxed to pay the salaries of the idiots who come up with this crap. On his blog, Ron Spomer cites a news agency that was quoted a $1500 price tag for the permit to film within a wilderness area. I don’t know about you, but that price tag would effectively keep me out.

Apart from the governmental overreach and abuse, treating the tax-paying citizen like a serf, there is another issue here. Your first amendment right to free speech is also at risk here. The moment the government says, “You must petition us to exercise your right to free speech,” it ain’t a right any more. And it won’t stop there; when has the government ever rescinded a law for being a violation of constitutional right, save when forced to by the Supreme Court?

Until December 3rd, 2014 you can make your voice heard by commenting on this site: The comment bar is at the top. Please comment and comment often. Be polite, but let the fools know exactly how you feel about this. Tell your senator and congressman too. Tell the world how our government is nibbling away at our constitutional rights.


Alien Laws

October 23rd, 2014 7 Comments

liberty kissing justice


A new law has been passed and signed here in California. In a distorted example of synchronicity, a very parallel law has been signed into being in Great Britain, and no matter which side of the pond you live on, or which side of the “gun control” debate you take comfort in, you should be very, very afraid.

California’s law allows a mental health professional, or a law enforcement officer, or a family member, or (possibly; there is some ambiguous information out there) even someone sharing a residence with you—a roommate, if you will—to get a “gun violence restraining order” against you. On a single individual’s statement, you will be adjudicated a danger to yourself or others and any firearms you own will be confiscated until you can prove you are fit to own them.

In Great Britain, the new law allows the police to search the home of any gun owner (and in Great Britain all firearms must be registered) at any time, without any prior notification or justification.

Let’s assume you fear and hate firearms, and that you would like to live in a world where such things did not exist in any hands except those of law enforcement and the military, so let’s assume you would like to see the second amendment eradicated. How do you feel about the fourth amendment? Just to remind you, that’s the one that reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you like that amendment and feel protected by it, too bad Honeychild; you can kiss it goodbye both in Great Britain and in California.

Also, if you should happen to be fond of the American judicial system’s “presumption of innocence,” that too you can kiss goodbye, at least here in merry old California, because under the new law, you now have to prove you are not a danger to yourself or anyone else before your firearms will be returned to you.

And just in case you really are naïve enough to believe that California’s new law will save even a single life, I would point out that even legitimately crazy people can be very cunning and lie about their actions or intentions—the man who shot me did—so it could come down to a he-said-she-said where the only winner will be the best liar. Not exactly the kind of legal system our Founding Fathers had in mind.

For a moment forget about guns and your hatred or fear of them, and think only about laws. Think about the following exchange from A Man For All Seasons, between Sir Thomas More, his wife, and his would-be son-in-law, William Roper, arguing about whether one of More’s most dangerous and subtle enemies should be arrested, something More has the right to do. The man in question leaves, and More’s wife says bitterly: While you talk, he’s gone!

More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law.

Roper: So now you’d give the Devil the benefit of the law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Taking Sir Thomas More’s analogy of laws as protective trees, when laws are passed that undermine or negate fundamental rights, they may be considered as evil and insidious alien species. The two laws that have been passed in these two countries count as invasive alien species, and they will infect and destroy many of our good native laws, and not only those laws pertaining to guns. When that happens, no one, gun owner or rabid anti-gunner, absolutely no one will benefit.


Another Test Post with Adorable Puppies

October 21st, 2014 9 Comments

Playing with my computer, trying to fix posting problems. By way of apology, I will include a photo of ridiculously adorable puppies in a bucket. (The one with the dot on her head is ours.)

Puppies in a bucket (Small)


Wet Dogs Redux

October 19th, 2014 6 Comments

I received some comments and emails from people who tried unsuccessfully to read the “Wet Dogs” post. Let me explain: I have been having technological problems posting to my website, so I enlisted the aid of my resident computer/IT/internet/social media/brave-new-world expert, and the only way I could show him what was going on was to post something. He assured me there was a way to simulate a post without it going out into the ethers. I had my doubts, and it turned out I was sort of partially right. I picked a photograph (of wet dogs) a friend had sent me, wrote a quick post, hit the publish button, and as soon as the expert had witnessed the problem (indescribable and–worse–something he had never even seen before) I tried to delete said experimental post. You all witnessed the result: some of it went out. Never trust the internet.

However, since it is a great photograph, I will now post it here:

Wet dogs

I will now post this, run into the same (expletive deleted) problem, and muddle my way through to a correction, and pray that my expert can figure out a solution.


More Shameless Self-Promotion

October 17th, 2014 12 Comments



One of the more interesting things about this rapidly evolving internet age is the corresponding evolution of the English language. With almost every email I get from my agent, for example, I learn something new. (In the interests of honesty, let me say that in the preceding sentence I am using the word “learn” in its loosest and most casual sense.) Here is what she wrote me yesterday:

Here is the splash page link and the promo code for the Kobo sale that begins tomorrow, but keep in mind the link and code cannot be posted or shared before the sale begins tomorrow morning. Code: SAVE50.

Okay. What the hell is a “splash page?” Then she goes on with the following:

And here is the link right to AMERICAN RIFF if you want to share that with the code on your Facebook, Twitter, etc.: Please do spread the word about the sale on your Facebook, Twitter, etc. after the sale begins tomorrow! Remember friends/fans can buy the book on then download the free Kobo app for their phone, tablet, etc., if they don’t have a Kobo e-reader.

In this sentence, the only word that leaped out at me was “etc.,” as in, “Please do spread the word about the sale on your Facebook, Twitter, etc…” What etc.? What else is there? I do know there is–or at least I think there is– some web site devoted to sharing photographs only, but I don’t know what it’s called, let alone how to use it, and what would I do if I did? Take a photograph of myself (excuse me; I meant to say a “selfie”) with news about the Kobo sale tattooed on my chest?

However, to give myself an attaboy (would that be an attaboy selfie?) I am making progess. I mean to say, I’m on Facebook. That means I’m a hip and happening dude. And now you have the news about the Kobo promo, which is its own new language right there.

Top of Page