Making The Case For INCREASED Gun Ownership

There is a city in Cobb County, GA called Kennesaw  – where gun ownership is mandatory. It’s not the “Wild West” like some people predicted when it passed a mandatory gun ownership law. “The city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation’s ‘10 best towns for families.’

In 1982 the city passed the following ordinance [Sec 34-21] which was in response to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

The city's website states that Kennesaw “has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County,” one of the most populous counties in Georgia. In fact, from 1982 through 2009, Kennesaw had been nearly murder free with one murder occurring in 2007.

There were three murders in 2010 committed by the same man in what is described as a “school safety zone,” an area extending 1,000 feet from any school, including adult colleges and technical schools. This means that even though Kennesaw has the most liberal gun laws in the United States, employees at the facility where the murders were committed could not have a gun on the premises.

Statically, it has been shown that - nationwide - as legal gun ownership by law-abiding citizens increases, violent crime decreases.  Yet the left (including the socialist-dominated United Nations) constantly argues for greater restrictions on private firearms ownership.

There is a discomfiting pattern developing in the USA.  One of increased government intervention in, and control of, our Constitutional rights. One of collusion on an International scale, and one which could very easily permit Obama to abrogate his presidential responsibilities in favor of UN demands. The left-wing Obama administration is "chomping at the bit" for an opportunity to sign on to the UN's Arms Trade Treaty. That way - when the international gun grab begins - Obama can maintain a high degree of deniablility from the actions. There is much more to the UN ATT than meets the eye. It is worded in such a fashion that loopholes large enough to drive a military tank through exist... possibly for the purpose of actually driving military tanks through them, and down Mainstreet, USA, as the jackbooted, blue-helmeted UN thugs kick down doors and confiscate whatever they determine to be "illegal firearms". The goal of the "United Nations" is WORLD DOMINATION, and the majority of the 192 country/states that make up the UN are inimical to the USA, our successes, our freedom, and our way of life in general.

Contact your Senators and demand that they OPPOSE the UN's Arms Trade Treaty. It's not good for American citizens, and it's not good for the USA. In WWII, the Japanese decided against a land battle within the USA because - according to Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy - "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." It is our ability, as a nation, to defend our country, our culture, our sovereignty and our Constitution, particularly at the individual level, that keeps us free from land invasions (other than via our southern border, anyway. Mexico has been invading us for decades!).

Deconstructing Our Constitutional Republic

Just so we're all on the same page, and have the same (or, at least a similar) understanding of the term "deconstructing", this is a definition:

Definition of Deconstruct:

de·con·struct (verb \ˌdē-kən-ˈstrəkt\)

transitive verb

1: to examine using the methods of deconstruction

2: to take apart or examine in order to reveal the basis or composition of often with the intention of exposing biases, flaws, or

3: to adapt or separate the elements of for use in an ironic or radically new

4: destroy, demolish deconstructing themselves >

For the purposes of this post, I will be using definitions 2-4 (since def #1 is a rather vague, circular, and DTYS generalization) as I see them applied to the demolition of our once-great country.  The successful deconstruction of a Constitutional Republic, such as ours, must be done in the same manner as one would eat an elephant... one bite at a time.  Our current administration is engaged in deconstruction, following the tenets of the Cloward-Piven "Strategy of Manufactured Crisis".

Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama's connections to his radical mentors -- Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and many others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama's radical connections since the beginning.

Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had 60 years of virtually unbroken power in Congress - with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?

One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unbelievable morons, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.

I believe they fully understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent - the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

The Strategy was created by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.  (e.g., the "Occupy Movement".)

No matter where the strategy is implemented, these are it's hallmark characteristics:

1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can. (e.g., ACORN)
2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits. (e.g. championing illegal immigration)
3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse. (e.g., unrestrained government spending, borrowing, and devaluation of our currency)

Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their "rights." According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, "one person was on the welfare rolls... for every two working in the city's private economy."

The vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO's Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975.  Rudy Giuiliani cited Cloward and Piven by name as being responsible for "an effort at economic sabotage."  He also "credited" Cloward-Piven with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which in-and-of-itself has caused perhaps the greatest damage of all.

How long can a city - or nation - survive under such socioeconomic stresses?  In 2012 several other large U.S. cities have filed, or are on the verge of filing, bankruptcy. Scranton PA (F), Sacramento CA (F), Compton CA(F), San Diego CA (V), NYC NY (V), San Jose CA (V), Cincinnati OH (V), Honolulu HI (V), San Francisco CA (V), Los Angeles CA (V), Washington D.C. (V) and Newark NJ (V), among others.  Last fall, Jefferson County, AL filed the biggest Chapter 9 bankruptcy in American history. There seems to be a pattern emerging there.  The larger the welfare rolls, the fewer productive taxpayers. The fewer productive taxpayers, the greater the possibility a city/count/state/nation will become bankrupt.

Cloward and Piven looked at this strategy as a gold mine of opportunity. Within the newly organized groups, each offensive would find an ample pool of foot soldier recruits willing to advance its radical agenda for little or no pay, and expand its base of reliable voters, legal or otherwise. The radicals' threatening tactics also would accrue an intimidating reputation, providing a wealth of opportunities for extorting monetary and other concessions from the target organizations. In the meantime, successful offensives would create an ever increasing drag on society. As they gleefully observed:

"Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely."

The next time you drive through one of the many blighted neighborhoods in our cities, or read of the astronomical crime, drug addiction, school drop-out rates, and out-of-wedlock birth rates, or consider the failed schools, strapped police and fire resources of every major city, remember Cloward and Piven's thrill that "...the drain on local resources persists indefinitely."

Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan sports beard, judge delays hearing!

Can you believe this?

"The judge in the trial of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan delayed pre-trial motions Friday when he ruled the defendant to be in violation of the Army's grooming standards."        

"Hasan showed up for the half-day administrative hearing sporting a beard, which the military prosecutors said was a violation of Army regulation 670-1 and court-martial rule 804(4)(1). Judge Col. Gregory Gross then went on record saying that Hasan's beard was a disruption to the proceedings.  "It is a disruption. The judge felt it was," Fort Hood media officer Chris Haug told the media. "He's in violation of the Army's dress and grooming standards."

The son-of-a-bitch is on trial for murder! What makes the Army think he'll give a rat's ass about being "in violation of the Army's grooming standards"? He has proven by his actions in November of 2009 that he is not an American soldier, but he is an enemy terrorist. They should have had MP's shave him right there in the courtroom and then proceed with the trial!!  It was nothing but a delaying tactic cloaked in "religious belief. His religion hasn't changed since he murdered 13 people, and he is still a member of the U.S. Army.


And why is he even having a trial? Here's the scenario facing the police when they arrived on the scene:
1. A roomful of dead and wounded service members.
2. One man standing, armed with two guns, who then fired upon the responding police officers, striking one.


There's only two dots to connect there. Many people dead and injured from gunshots + a shooter. If the police had done their job properly, there would be no need for a trial. Hasan would have left that room in a body bag. It doesn't take a Sherlock F. Holmes to figure this one out!


Inasmuch as Hasan did survive, there is a requirement for a trial under the heading of "Due Process". The due process of executing this man is well behind schedule.


I'm Gil, and you're not. This means that one of us is lucky!

Customer Service - The Good, The Bad, and the Nightmares

For my meager band of faithful followers: I have heard some real horror stories about the "customer service" practices of some firearms (and also firearm accessories) manufacturers, and it's true of many manufacturers in all industries.

I just had an amazing interaction with the folks at LaserLyte, that began when my RSL-1 (Rear Sight Laser for Glocks - their first model) decided it was tired of working properly. The RSL became extremely resistant to being turned off, and drained a set of batteries. Installed a new set of batteries, and it took me 20+ complete switch cycles (3 presses per cycle) to turn it off again.

So I emailed LaserLyte on Sunday, explaining the problem to them, and got a reply first thing Monday morning from their Customer Service Representative, Evelyn Slipher. I bought this unit in Oregon in the latter-half of 2010, and with no paperwork available, not even a roughly accurate purchase date, their reply said (in-part): "Thank you so much for getting back to me. I am having a new RTB-GL tested and sent out to you. The RTB-GL is the newest version of the RL-1 laser that you have. You will get the UPS tracking information emailed to you once it is shipped. I’m also including a postage paid envelope for the return of the defective unit. Once received, please place the defective unit into the postage paid envelope and send it back via U.S. Mail. If I may be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me."


WOW! There really are still some companies that apparently believe that customer satisfaction is the key to their continued success. It was a pleasure doing business with them, and LaserLyte will be my first choice if/when I decide to put a laser on my G23. Thinking about "lighting up" your pistol? I wholeheartedly recommend LaserLyte without any reservations. Any other customer service stories out there - good, bad or indifferent? I think it's good if we know which companies treat customers right, and which companies don't. Two of the things I really like about the LaserLyte sight is that it replaces the Glock's plastic rear sight with a steel one - which incorporates their laser - and does not require the user to go hunting for a special holster.

I'm Gil, and my firearms and accessories recommendations are based upon more than 60 years of shooting experience, and over a half-century of owning and maintaining my own firearms. Those of you who know me personally know that I would never recommend anything that I didn't consider to be a top quality product. LaserLyte and Glock were made for each other - both are absolutely top quality. LaserLyte Home

Public Law 112-95 - The FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011

This bill should really be called "The Bleed The Taxpayer Dry Act of 2011", inasmuch as it has authorized funding for the FAA of approximately $3.35B per year for the period 2011-2014. The costs for this one government project are $100.69 per person (and increases their $49,752.84 share of the national debt to $49,853.53 [source: Congressional Budget Office] ). Just what we don't need - another $13B+ of debt.

 

According to WashingtonWatch.com, this "law" - as is true with most legislation - was basically sold to the highest bidder! In the House, whichever side provided the greatest monetary incentive - Yea or Nay - got the nod (with a handful of exceptions who apparently voted for the people). All of Utah's representatives voted for H.R. 658 - now PL 112-95 - and in the Senate, Orrin Hatch chose not to vote at all.

 

Have our lawmakers not heard that we are not only BROKE, as a nation, we are in debt (primarily to China) to the tune of $15.6 TRILLION DOLLARS! Since September 27th, 2007, our national debt has increased at the rate of $4.02B per day! And there is no end in sight!! Has everybody in Washington D.C. gone totally INSANE? How will we ever pay off such indebtedness? Increase taxes levied upon the citizens, of course. Perhaps not directly as "taxes" per se, but by insinuating "fees" and "charges" into everyday activities. An example is the 1% transaction "fee" on each and every banking transaction, as proposed by the Obama administration. Make a deposit - personally or by Direct Deposit - of $1,000 and your account is debited $10 for the privilege of making that deposit. Write a check for $500 and your account will reflect a $5 "fee" for that transaction... a business transaction in which the government itself has no investment of time, labor or money! What is the difference between this activity and "protection money" paid by small business owners to street thugs? Such a governmental action is nothing more than legalized (by imperial fiat) extortion of the taxpayers!

 

Can we stop this financial bloodletting by our elected representatives? Maybe... but ONLY if we let them know that we are onto them, and that we will do everything we can to insure they are not re-elected if they continue along this path.

 

As I said in my opening paragraph, this is only ONE of the hundreds of pieces of cost-ignorant legislation passed by Congress each year. If we allow it to continue, perhaps we are as stupid and indifferent as they seem to think we are. If so, we deserve whatever they choose do to us!

BLOWING SMOKE...

If you don't read news reports carefully, they can easily be deceiving... as they are generally intended to be. The mission sttement of the media in general is no longer to report the news, but to spin the news in support of whatever political position the publisher or station owner happens to have adopted. Here's a prime example of the "smoke and mirrors" used by the liberal media:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans claiming new jobless benefits fell back to a four-year low last week and manufacturing in the Northeast held up in March, providing more signs the economy was firmly on a self-sustaining growth path.
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 14,000 to a seasonally adjusted 351,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday. That took claims back to a four-year low reached in February.
Separately, the New York Federal Reserve said its Empire State general business conditions index rose to 20.21 - highest level since June 2010 - from 19.53 in February.
"This suggests that the recovery is firmly on track," said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James in St. Petersburg, Florida."

On the face of it we tend to think, "WOW, that's great! Joblessness is at a four year low! The economy is on it's way back up!" But if you remove the 'rose colored glasses' that Reuters has surreptitiously slipped you with this article, and ignore the dying embers of hopefulness in your heart, here's what the article really says:
The number of Americans claiming new jobless benefits fell back to a four-year low last week and manufacturing in the Northeast held up in March, providing more signs the economy was firmly on a self-sustaining growth path. (There are fewer newly unemployed Americans applying for unemployment compensation than there have been during the past four years. This does not take into consideration those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and are still unemployed, since unemployment statistics only include those people who are drawing unemployment compensation. Manufacturing "held up" in the Northeast? What does "held up" mean in real words, and what about the status of manufacturing in the other 80% of the country?)
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 14,000 to a seasonally adjusted 351,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday. That took claims back to a four-year low reached in February. (SMOKE ALARM! Okay, so 14,000 fewer new claims were made - BFD! The real statistic is that there are still 351,000 people who lost their jobs in February!! Where is the progress in that??
Separately, the New York Federal Reserve said its Empire State general business conditions index rose to 20.21 - highest level since June 2010 - from 19.53 in February. (How nice for New York State... and the 49 other states reported what?)
"This suggests that the recovery is firmly on track," said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James in St. Petersburg, Florida." (I'm willing to bet that Scott Brown (WHO?) is a registered Democrat, liberal left-wing, "Hope and Change" weenie. And, exactly when did St. Petersburg, Florida become the economic forecasting capital of America? Did Greece use Raymond James of St. Petersburg for their economic guidance?)

The whole story is spun in an attempt by the liberal media to lull us into a sense of false security, and bolster the failing "Hope and Change" fairytale the current administration sold to America almost 3½ years  ago. This is "business as usual" for the vast majority of the mainstream media. There is a need for hope and change, but the hope is for a change... a change of "leadership" - once again - to get America back to its roots. Our survival as a Republic depends on that hope becoming reality!

American Soldier Kills 16 Afghan Civilians - Who's To Blame?

There has been much ado made in the media about an American soldier killing 16 Afghan civilians during a one man night assault on two Afghan villages. The Afghan people are rightfully outraged by this unwarranted and (apparently) unsanctioned attack. Unsurprisingly, there have been calls from al Quaida for all kinds of reprisals against the U.S. and allied military forces - specifically beheadings. My question is: "Whose head should roll?"

The soldier - on his fourth tour in the giant litter box of the middle-east - reportedly had "suffered traumatic head injuries" during a previous tour. I suggest that he is as much a "victim" of this ridiculously prolonged conflict as were the Afghanis he killed. Four tours in a combat zone is at least two too many, and most likely three too many. If a soldier survives one combat tour, he is both lucky and thankful. A second tour surely makes him/her a bit uncomfortable. Surviving a third tour is "pushing his/her luck", and returning alive from more than three tours borders upon the miraculous.

Would this middle-eastern conflict have been so protracted if members of Congress, or their well-protected children, had to serve with our combat units? Would it have been so lengthy if those 535 of our nation's elected "leadership" could find a single pair of cojones between them, and permitted our military leaders to fight this as a real "war"? If you answered "No" and "No" to those questions, you're absolutely right. (You may have noticed that within my masthead I cite Shakespeare's Antony's [of the play "Julius Caesar"] "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war". This does not mean that I am a "warmonger" [although I have participated in one, I cannot, in good conscience, recommend war as a suitable replacement for other human social interactions].) What I do recommend though, is that when armed confrontation is required of us - by whatever series of events - we respond with all the force that is available to us in order to shorten the conflict and minimize our own casualties. However, our politicians do not share that point of view (which may or may not be a "good thing"). I am enough of a realist to accept the fact that wars have been around since the beginning of time, and they will continue for so long as there are two people left on Earth - one of whom wants something the other has, but the other is not willing to surrender that commodity without what is percevied as unduly high compensation. How is it resolved? Physical (perhaps armed) confrontation - a "last man standing" scenario.

How can we expect our soldiers - who by law must follow both a "Code of Conduct" and "Rules of Engagement" - to act in a perfectly rational way, when the enemy wears no identifying uniform, hides among the civilian population, and has neither a Code or Rules required of them? The only rule for them is "KILL THE INFIDELS!" We must expect, and accept, that there will be "collateral damage" in such a situation. Taking the moral "high road" is extremely costly in terms of American lives. Our troops should take two flags into battle with them - the "Stars and Stripes" and the modified "Culpeper (Don't Tread on Me) Flag"...

Allowing politicians to determine military strategy and rules of engagement, rather than those who are recruited and trained specifically for that purpose, is utter foolishness and an unwarranted waste of American lives.

Who, if anybody, should be tried for "war crimes" regarding this mass shooting of civilians in Afghanistan? I submit that it should not be the soldier who actually did the shooting, but those people - who with full knowledge of his pre-existing head trauma - so foolishly chose to return him to combat duty! But, that's just the way I see things...

Judge Issues Delay In Nidal Hasan Trial - AGAIN!

The murder trial for the Army psychiatrist charged in the Fort Hood shooting rampage has been postponed by Presiding Military Judge Gregory Gross until June 12.

The decision came Thursday at a hearing in which Maj. Nidal Hasan and his attorneys requested a delay in the trial. The defense argued their expert hasn’t completed the investigation of Hasan's background. (The defense expert hasn't completed the investigation?? After 2½ YEARS? Sounds like he has his career picked out - milking this case until he reaches retirement age.)

They also argued they need more time to review documents involved in the case, a totaled of 320,000 pages as of December. (320,000 pages? This "expert" better have a staff of about 500 to read, summarize, analyze and report if the government wishes to go forward before the military judge retires or Hasan - now 41 - dies of old age!)

He is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder and faces the death penalty or life without parole if convicted in the November 2009 shootings. (Life without parole should not be an option. He personally ended 13 lives that day, and should forfeit his own right to live to see another sunrise! There should be no need for a trial, either. Hasan was caught at the scene with the weapons. He is GUILTY beyond a shadow of a doubt! It's just a shame that the police officers responding weren't better shots.)

Rioting over SHOES???

Nike released its retro version of a popular Air Jordan basketball shoe, Thursday at midnight. Police were called in late Thursday to break up a crowd that had gathered at the Florida Mall near Orlando in anticipation of the release of a new limited edition, glow-in-the-dark Nike shoe. There were also unruly Nike shoe mobs in Washington, D.C. and Seattle.

What kind of mentality do these weak-minded morons have, that drives them to indulge in antisocial behaviors in hopes of Nike allowing them an opportunity to spend $200-$300 on a stupid pair of shoes? Have outrageously overpriced shoes suddenly become the most important commodities in the world?

Imagine what these people rioting over shoes will do if there is a disruption of food or fuel... it's time for everyone to wake up and make preparations! The stupidity demonstrated by some people is almost unbelievable...

JOSH POWELL - A TERRIBLY EVIL AND TRAGIC ACT!

First, understand that I was not witness to any of the following acts, and that these are my personal thoughts about the chain of events which led up to the loss of two innocent young lives... at the hands of their FATHER! (And, keep in mind that "Monday morning quarterbacks" can always call the correct plays that would have won the game for their team.) I have no special knowledge - my evaluation of this process is based soley upon information reported in the media.

I believe there were errors made from the initial missing person report of Susan Powell's "disappearance" from her home in West Valley, Utah, through the horrific ending in Washington. Most of the errors were systemic, as opposed to individual oversights/mistakes. I believed from the outset that Josh Powell had, at the very least, knowledge of what had happened to his wife. He either covered up her murder, murdered her himself, or did so in concert with his father - a voyeur, collector of 'kiddie porn', and suspected child molester. In my heart of hearts I believed that Josh Powell had personally murdered her and disposed of her body.

The first red flag was his explanation of his whereabouts the night of Susan Powell's disappearance. His story was so lame, it would have had greater credibility had he claimed she was "beamed up" by aliens! He claimed he had elected to take their sons, ages 2 and 4 at the time, camping... at midnight... in the dead of a Utah winter... during a heavy snowstorm, in sub-freezing temperatures. Would that story have had the slightest ring of truthfulness to anybody with a functioning adult mind? Of course not! But, the police must have solid evidence before they can act to arrest anyone, whereas I already had Josh Powell tried, convicted and executed (in the 'court' of my mind) from day one.

The next red flag was when it was suggested that perhaps his wife ran away... leaving her purse, cellphone and other personal effects behind. What woman would do that? (Unless... she was intentionally trying to implicate somebody in her disappearance.) But again, the police must have acceptable evidence that a crime had been committed before they can arrest anyone.
There was at least one report that the carpet in the Powell home was "still damp" at some point during the investigation. However, I heard no reports on if samples had been taken from the carpet and processed. (I have to believe that - if that report was accurate - officials [u]did[/u] take samples as evidence, and that the results were "inconclusive" at best.)
First error (in my opinion): Josh Powell was a "person of interest" in the disappearance of his wife, Susan. The question in my mind is why his status in the investigation was never upgraded from that of "person of interest" to "suspect", and why, even as a "person of interest", he was permitted to leave Utah and take up residence over 1,000 miles away?

Now to the most recent event - his murder of his two sons, and the ensuing conflagration of the home in which he was living...
Second error: The children were delivered to him at his domicile for a "supervised visit". Why was he not required to perform this "supervised visit" at the local DSHS office, under the supervision of a Child Protective Service officer? Or, at the very least, in a public place with the same supervisor? They knew they were dealing with an individual who had no real alibi for his involvement in a missing person case, and who may have been involved in that "disappearance". There was a cloak of suspicion of evil surrounding Powell - trusting him was a big mistake.

There are those who believe the social worker had some responsibility for the fate of the children. I am not one of those people. She did her job. Her only "mistake" (if one can call it that) was in allowing the children to approach and enter the house ahead of her, which gave Powell the opportunity to exclude her from entering. Do I believe the outcome would have been any diffferent had she been allowed to enter the house? Of course not! Powell had murdered before, and planned to murder his own young sons! Why would he not take the life of someone for whom he had no feelings at all? The only change in outcome would have been in the body count - +1.

According to media reports, Powell opened the door, grabbed the boys, pulled them into the house, and then closed and locked the door. The social worker than called her supervisor asking for guidance, because she had no prior experience of that kind. Personally, I believe she should have called the police first because Powell had violated the court-permitted "supervised visit". But, once again, I don't believe the outcome would have been any different had she taken a police officer with her on the visit. How much time would it take him to close and lock a door, then strike his children with an axe, and light a match? Less than a minute, I'm sure. How much time does it take for that action to fully register with the people on the other side of the door? 5-15 seconds? Then there is the procedural time wasted notifying headquarters of the act (unless the officer considered it an "exigent circumstance"). That's at least another 10-15 seconds. Then there is the banging on the door, establishing the authority and issuing commands - "This is the police! You are in violation of a court order - OPEN THIS DOOR!" More time wasted. By now the children have both been struck several times with an axe, and are probably lying on the floor unconscious, as their father lights the match that causes causes the house first to explode, and then immediately become an inferno. The lives of two innocent children were taken that day. Children whose only mistake was to (according to reports) "adore" their father... a man who was the embodiment of evil! According to reports, approximately 10 minutes elapsed between the time the children were taken by Powell, and the explosion. Apparently he felt that he had time to execute his plan - and his children - before anything could be done to stop him.

There are other suggested (ex post facto) alternate scenarios for the visit. The DSHS offices or a public place? Powell acquires a gun, takes it with him, and kills the boys and himself. Deny him visitation rights? Powell finds the boys, kidnaps them, and kills them. There was no possible "happy ending" for this story based upon what information we have at this time. The police were apparently unable to find sufficient evidence - required by the state prosecutor's office - to support the issuance of an arrest warrant. Was any evidence overlooked, or classified as irrelevant or insignificant? We don't know. What we do know is that the laws and the judicial system failed to properly protect Charles and Braden Powell, whose short lives were ended on February 5, 2012, in a final act of selfishness by their father. His final claim was that he "couldn't live without my boys", totally ignoring the fact that they could have lived without him.

My hope is that there is a special chamber in hell for Josh Powell, and those like him, where he will suffer for all time and eternity. God bless the little children, and care for their precious souls.