You might be 'dithering' over Afghanistan if the WaPo is more decisive

You might be a redneck if your mama can cuss out a cop without taking the cigarette outa her mouth ... and you might be a President dithering endlessly about whether to send needed troops to fight the war in Aghanistan if even a Washington Post columnist says we need more troops there.

David Ignatius says exactly that following his recent trip to Afghanistan, which I might point out President Obama not only hasn't done lately, much less consult with the general in charge there.

So what should Obama do? I think he should add enough troops to continue the mission he endorsed in March to "reverse the Taliban's gains" and improve security in Afghanistan's population centers. I don't know whether the right number is the roughly 40,000 that Gen. Stanley McChrystal has recommended, but it should be the minimum number necessary. The additional troops will come at a steep political price, at home and abroad.

Sir Charles Krauthammer shares an old Soviet joke to characterize Obama's dithering strategy.

WASHINGTON -- Old Soviet joke:

Moscow, 1953. Stalin calls in Khrushchev.

"Niki, I'm dying. Don't have much to leave you. Just three envelopes. Open them, one at a time, when you get into big trouble."

A few years later, first crisis. Khrushchev opens envelope 1: "Blame everything on me. Uncle Joe."

A few years later, a really big crisis. Opens envelope 2: "Blame everything on me. Again. Good luck, Uncle Joe."

Third crisis. Opens envelope 3: "Prepare three envelopes."

In the Barack Obama version, there are 50 or so such blame-Bush free passes before the gig is up. By my calculation, Obama has already burned through a good 49. Is there anything he hasn't blamed George W. Bush for? The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad -- everything but swine flu.

It's as if Obama's presidency hasn't really started. He's still taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to "long years of drift" in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain away his own, well, yearlong drift on Afghanistan.

Krauthammer also sums up Obama's choices on Afghanistan as being remarkably similar to the right decision that his much-hated predecessor President George W. Bush made on Iraq.

In Iraq, the heavy footprint -- also known as the surge -- dramatically reversed the fortunes of war. In Afghanistan, where it took longer for the Taliban to regroup, the failure of the light footprint did not become evident until more recently when an uneasy stalemate began to deteriorate into steady Taliban advances.

That's where we are now in Afghanistan. The logic of a true counterinsurgency strategy there is that whatever resentment a troop surge might occasion pales in comparison with the continued demoralization of any potential anti-Taliban elements unless they receive serious and immediate protection from U.S.-NATO forces.

In other words, Obama is facing the same decision on Afghanistan that Bush faced in late 2006 in deciding to surge in Iraq.

In both places, the deterioration of the military situation was not the result of "drift," but of considered policies that seemed reasonable, cautious and culturally sensitive at the time, but ultimately turned out to be wrong.

Which is evidently what Obama now thinks of the policy choice he made on March 27.

He is to be commended for reconsidering. But it is time he acted like a president and decided. Afghanistan is his. He's used up his envelopes.

The "heavy footprint vs. light footprint" debate is essentially the Pentagon, the generals in charge of our troops and even Defense Sec. Bill Gates vs. "Generals" John Kerry and Joe Biden.

Rich Lowry at National Review calls it the City Mouse, Country Mouse Strategy.

Reading the tea leaves, it appears that defense, state, and the intelligence community has concluded that the Taliban is dangerous and it can't be fought effectively without something like McChrystal's 40,000 troops. The politicos, though, seem to want to turn the process on its head. The original idea was to come up with the strategy and ends first, then decide on what troop levels are necessary. The political aides seemingly want to come up with the most politically palatable troop number — say splitting the difference at 20,000 — and then ask what strategy can be supported with that number. The White House has given the impression of wanting to rig the process against McChrystal, but of failing as the facts — reflected in the positions of defense, et. al — lean the other way.

God save our nation and especially our troops in harm's way while Obama endlessly dithers.

Obama whiffs hardball, plays basketball and dithers on war

Can Obama play hardball with Iran and Russia? Robert Kagan asks the question in the WaPo this morning and gives us a scorecard on how well our Diplomatic Leader is doing thus far. It don't take a rocket surgeon to know the score on that as Obama is Oh-fer-zip.

Is the Pope Baptist? About as much as our rookie President is ready for the big leagues as our Ditherer-In-Chief makes a photo-op visit to Dover Air Force Base to salute the war dead arriving from Afghanistan.

Meanwhile back at the White House where the "debate" over developing a "new strategy" for the war in Afghanistan drags on amongst the "military experts" on staff, R. Emmett Tyrrel reports a new controversy has arisen.

These are vexed times. The country is at war on two fronts. Rogue states are edging toward acquiring strategic nuclear weaponry. We have been through a very serious recession from which we may not emerge into the bright morn of economic health for years. The dollar is frail. The future of national health care, finance and corporate governance is in doubt. Yet that is not all. Over at The New York Times, an issue that continues to torment the bien-pensants is ... Well, let me quote the first sentence of the front-page tocsin that began the controversy Oct. 25: "Does the White House feel like a frat house?"

The proximate cause for this troubling query was that President Barack Obama had hosted "a high-level basketball game with no female players."

Seriously. And speaking of females, one of my feminine heroes, young Hannah Giles, asks a few vexing questions for the so-called mainstream media, who is still studiously ignoring the ACORN scandal she exposed on camera. Here's just a couple of her "suggestions" to the media.

• Baltimore- Why no mention of the toddlers that were in the room while James and I were being counseled on how to manage our underage prostitution ring?

• San Bernardino- The content of this video was largely ignored except for the part where ACORN worker Tresa Kaelke mentions she shot her husband. What about when she told us not to educate our sex-slaves because they won’t want to work for us? Or when we talked about making money off of clients who would physically abuse the girls? What about the whole transport-the-girls-in-a-school-bus-to-avoid-suspicion discussion?

I'd like to say more, but I gotta go to work. God save our nation and our troops because Obama won't, can't and apparently don't even have a clue how to, even if he wanted to. And he don't.

The passing of a giant in Photojournalism: Angus McDougall

I read with sadness this morning that Angus McDougall has passed away. He was known as Mac to his friends and peers, but all us photojournalism students under his authority at the University of Missouri in Columbia back in the '70s and '80s called him "Sir."

The tall, skinny bald-headed guy at right was Mac and the gentleman at left was Cliff Edom, the founding father of the Mizzou School of Photojournalism. Cliff actually penned the very word photojournalism during his newspaper career, which simply means a photographer who can write, vs. a writer who can take photos.

There is a difference. The well-trained photojournalist knows how to take the photos that speak a thousand words, as the saying goes, but also knows how to write the story that fleshes out the photos to give the reader the entire "picture" so to speak.

On the other hand, there is the writer who can take a photo or two to illustrate his story. The actual quality of those photos may or may not be up to photojournalism standards. The editor who has the latter rather than the former is always grateful if the latter's photos are simply good enough to print, never mind the excellence.

I know a bit about that as I worked as a writer, photographer, editor and photojournalist for 30-some years at a various weekly and daily newspapers here in North Carolina. And what skills I had to hone as a photojournalist during those years I learned at the feet of Angus McDougall.

Angus and his wife Betty both passed away earlier this year, but they are leaving a lasting legacy as they funded with an estate gift the Angus and Betty McDougall Center for Photojournalism Studies at the Photojournalism Department of the Missouri School of Journalism.

And I have often reflected over the years since I graduated in 1975 a pearl of wisdom imparted to me one day by Mac as he looked over one of my photo essays and stories in my senior year.

"You know, John, you're a better writer than you are a photographer." That's faint praise when it's coming from your photojournalism instructor because a good photojournalist is supposed to be equally balanced between the two disciplines, writing and photography, as well as conversant in all the other skills of presenting the complete package, layout and design, headline writing, photo processing, editing, et c.

But Mac was right. I thought when I first heard about Cliff Edom and the Missouri School of Photojournalism that I would be going there to become a professional photographer. It was not until I got immersed in the program that I discovered I had writing skill also. And in that two years at Mizzou under Mac's tutelage, I became a writer as well as a photographer, a true photojournalist. As Mac so wisely observed, I have done far more writing than photography in my career, but the joy of doing both and presenting the complete story for the reader is what photojournalism is all about.

I hope to see Mac on the street of gold one day and sit down to talk about what I have done with the skills he taught me those many years ago. God speed Mac. Until we meet again.

You might be 'dithering' if the Europeans show more guts

Like Jeff Foxworthy's signs that you might be a redneck, you might be "dithering" while Afghanistan burns if even the Europeans are more committed to that war than Obama is. Jamie Fly at The Weekly Standard blog points out this absurdity in NATO Defense Ministers and UN Official Back McChrystal Before Obama

Now, just as the president is publicly agonizing over what the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan should be, some European leaders seem willing to consider making increased commitments to Afghanistan. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government is considering increasing the size of the German contingent in the country when the deployment’s mandate is renewed later this year, something that is nothing short of amazing given how publicly unpopular the German presence in Afghanistan is. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced last week that he was sending an additional 500 troops to the country.

These increased commitments appear to be based on a recognition that a properly resourced counterinsurgency effort is the only way to achieve success in Afghanistan. The New York Times reported yesterday that “NATO defense ministers gave their broad endorsement Friday to the counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan laid out by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.” Kai Eide, the UN special representative for Afghanistan attended the meeting and said “additional troops are required,” also telling the defense ministers that “this cannot be a U.S.-only enterprise.”

...The White House took offense at Vice President Cheney’s statement this week that the president was “dithering” on Afghanistan. Friday’s NATO defense ministerial should put this issue to rest -- even the Europeans have acted with more fortitude than our president.

Thank God for Dick Cheney and Fox News. They keep pointing out the obvious truths about our "dithering" President. Sooner or later, the voters will realize the emperor has no clothes. I'm just praying a miracle will happen and Obama will finally do the right thing and not leave our troops in Afghanistan twisting slowly in the winds of defeat.

The glories of French military arms: 1873 11mm revolver

Spent three days down down at the coast with the men's group from my church (sinners go to the beach, Christians go to the coast) and one of my gun-nut buddies wanted to go gun shopping.

I'm always up for that so we drove around trying to find a gun shop. We were down on the N.C. coast in the Caswell Beach area on Oak Island and found gun shops to be a bit thin on the ground.

We finally found a pawn shop in Shalotte that had a few guns, mostly junkers, but there were a few items of interest among them. The only pistol that slightly tempted me was a well-used Sig P239 9mm that was priced way too high.

But my gun-nut buddy spotted the ancient warrior shown here, which with a bit of research at the local library we determined to be a Chamelot Delvigne French 1873 11mm double-action revolver.

An estimated 337,000 were manufactured from 1873 to 1887, so it's not particularly rare. But what I found to be rather astonishing was how long this pitifully low-powered revolver remained in service with both the French military and police, serving with some units up until 1960!

The 11mm cartridge is about .456 or so, but despite its size the cartridge was so low-powered as to make it quite ineffective. But when did ineffective firearms ever bother the French? They don't use them anyway, so anything will do for show.

You may have heard of the famous classified ad that ran in a Paris newspaper right after the close of World War II. "Used French military rifle for sale. Never fired. Dropped once."

Oh for the good 'ol days of LBJ and the Vietnam War

Never thought I'd look back fondly at the Presidential administration of Lyndon B. Johnson. The much-maligned LBJ was a crook who started stealing elections when he ran for class president of his junior college back in Texas and refined his technique over the years but never changed.

But at least he was a President who backed the troops while they were at war. LBJ did micro-manage the military to the point of actually picking out the bombing targets and setting ridiculous rules of engagement that virtually guaranteed we would lose that war. But at least he did provide the troops with the funding to fight, despite the ever-dropping polls back home on that unpopular war.

Now we have another war on which polls are being charted daily, as if popularity has something to do with whether our troops should be fighting terrorists who want to destroy our nation. And now we have a President in office who sniffs the wind on every issue to decide which way to go.

And President Obama also has a lapdog media with the sole exception of Fox News, which is solemnly reporting daily polls about the popularity/unpopularity of the war on terror. I almost choked when I read the lead of The Washington Post story this morning on that farce.

As President Obama and his war cabinet deliberate a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, Americans are evenly and deeply divided over whether he should send 40,000 more troops there, and public approval of the president's handling of the situation has tumbled, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Obama's "war cabinet"? What a crock. You have a grand total of one cabinet member, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has the stones to stand up for our military and urge the President to support the war in Afghanistan and give the general Obama handpicked and put in charge, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the surge in troops he has asked for. The rest of the cabinet is lined up solidly behind White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advising Obama to leave the troops slowly twisting in the wind while he abandons the war on terror as politically inexpedient.

Somewhere in between LBJ's micro-managing a war and Obama abandoning one under way while he endlessly dithers to "deliberate a new strategy" there's gotta be a happy medium. We need a President who will give the troops what they need to fight and let the generals in charge develop and implement strategy. Oh wait, we had a President like that. George W. Bush.

Singin' the Single-Action, Double-Action Boogie Woogie

What's better than a great single-action trigger? Only a great double-action trigger, and I have found both and experienced both in a single day.

After my concealed-carry class yesterday, I got my first chance to take my two newest-to-me handguns for a test run and both passed with flying colors. As if they wouldn't. But you never really know how sweet a handgun really is until you shoot it. At left is my new-to-me Smith & Wesson 65-3, a stainless-steel double-action .357 Magnum with 3" barrel, and at right is my new-to-me Para Ordnance 12-45, a 3.5" barrel 1911 .45 ACP semi-auto with a single-action trigger to die for.

The gentleman who sold us the used Para Ord has sent it off to Cylinder & Slide for a trigger job and who knows what else. It has ambi safeties for one, which I'm pretty sure a stock Para 12-45 doesn't have, but the P 12-45 is discontinued, so I can't look it up on the Para Ord website.

It certainly passed the live fire test with the toughest drill I could conjure up. I loaded one of it's 12-rd. mags with a mixture of four different JHPs, two different Winchester 230-grain loads, a Federal 180-grain HydraShok load and some Remington Golden Saber 230-grainers.

The Para Ord munched through that mixed bag like it was its regular diet without a single hiccup. And the single-action trigger can't be more than 3 lbs. or so, but my Lyman Digital Trigger Gauge went tango-uniform some time ago, so I just have to guess about the weight.

And the great double-action trigger? I would have said before I first held the S&W 65-3 there is no way I would ever pull a DA trigger better than the S&W 14-3 K-38 Target Masterpiece .38 Special I purchased from the shop a while back. And then I pulled the 65-3 trigger.

The guy who sold it to us said he sent it to the S&W Performance Center for a trigger job and I believe it. This trigger is so smooth you fall off your chair when you pull it. Add to that a set of finger-groove combat grips that fit my hand like a glove and it was love at first trigger pull.

For you non-Smith lovers, the 65-3 is a stainless version of the S&W Model 13, a blue-steel beefed-up Model 10 K-Frame. Any Smith revolver starting with a 6 is stainless steel. The 65-3 with it's heavy barrel is the 357 Magnum version of the Model 10 .38 Special, the original Military & Police revolver carried by lawmen for nigh unto seven or eight decades.

And this particular Smith 65-3 with 3" barrel is the first such barrel length I've ever shot and I gotta say, three inches is just right for balance and point shooting. The fixed sights are dead on with a Duke's mixture of .357 Magnums and .38 Special +P loads I tried in it, four total.

I'm in love again and this time it's with a great single-action trigger and a great double-action one. For a gun nut like me, it just hardly don't get no better than this.

How to rob the military and appease dictators: 3 easy lessons

If I didn't already believe 2010 would be a good time to throw the bums out in Congress, a news item on how Senators have robbed our wartime guns and ammo budget for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan would really tick me off. I was already ticked and now I've moved up to pissed off.

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance "a disgrace."

"The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines," he said in a statement.

It's only $2.6 billion, which is chump change for Senators, but it's the principle of the thing that really pisses me off, $20 million to honor the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, who never saw a war he liked and never saw a war protester he didn't like? What the hell has that got do with defense?

I'm mad as hell and I'm going to tell everybody I know it's time to clean out the D.C. pig sty.

And speaking of Teddy Kennedy and the peaceniks, Wesley Pruden reports today on the recent adventures of Peacenik No. 1 and Peacenik No. 2 now in power, Obama and Hillary, and how their adventures with the big, bad Russians are working out. Suffice it so say, not too well.

The Russians succeeded in putting Mr. Obama and the Americans in their place. Nikolai Patrushev, the chief of the Presidential Security Council, manufactured an occasion while Mrs. Clinton was in Moscow to warn that Moscow reserves the right to make "a pre-emptive nuclear strike" against both small and large enemies.

In an interview with Izvestia, the important Moscow daily, he said Russian officials are examining "a variety of possibilities for using nuclear force, depending on the situation and the intentions of the possible opponent." In situations critical to national security, he said, "options including a preventative nuclear strike on the aggressor are not excluded." Even regional or "local" wars will be included in the new strategy, expected to be official policy in December.

A willingness to use any or all weapons, if the time and place is right, is nothing new, of course. If the stakes are high enough everybody will use everything, and only fools object. The significance of these remarks, which were certainly calculated for effect while Mrs. Clinton was in town, is what they tell about how the Russians regard the toughness of Barack Obama, the noble peacenik with a prize to prove it, and whether there is any "there" there.

Mrs. Clinton and her acolytes at the State Department, ever eager to seek the softest way to say nothing, tried to put a nice face on her visit to Moscow. The United States, Russia and China are "closer than before" on their policies regarding Iran's nuclear-weapons program, Mrs. Clinton told a radio interviewer. She seemed to be taking care not to say that actual positions are closer, just that everyone understands those positions: Russians tough, Americans soft.

And to make a long post even longer, I can't leave this topic without quoting Sir Charles Krauthammer, who sums up the Obama-Clinton Doctrine of International Appeasement.

Well, at nine months, let's review.

What's come from Obama holding his tongue while Iranian demonstrators were being shot and from his recognizing the legitimacy of a thug regime illegitimately returned to power in a fraudulent election? Iran cracks down even more mercilessly on the opposition and races ahead with its nuclear program.

What's come from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton taking human rights off the table on a visit to China and from Obama's shameful refusal to see the Dalai Lama (a postponement, we are told). China hasn't moved an inch on North Korea, Iran or human rights. Indeed it's pushing with Russia to dethrone the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

What's come from the new-respect-for-Muslims Cairo speech and the unprecedented pressure on Israel for a total settlement freeze? "The settlement push backfired," reports The Washington Post, and Arab-Israeli peace prospects have "arguably regressed."

And what's come from Obama's single most dramatic foreign policy stroke -- the sudden abrogation of missile defense arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic that Russia had virulently opposed? For the East Europeans it was a crushing blow, a gratuitous restoration of Russian influence over a region that thought it had regained independence under American protection.

But maybe not gratuitous. Surely we got something in return for selling out our friends. Some brilliant secret trade-off to get strong Russian support for stopping Iran from going nuclear before it's too late? Just wait and see, said administration officials, who then gleefully played up an oblique statement by President Dmitry Medvedev a week later as vindication of the missile defense betrayal.

The Russian statement was so equivocal that such a claim seemed a ridiculous stretch at the time. Well, Clinton went to Moscow this week to nail down the deal. What did she get?

"Russia Not Budging On Iran Sanctions: Clinton Unable to Sway Counterpart." Such was The Washington Post headline's succinct summary of the debacle.

Note how thoroughly Clinton was rebuffed. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared that "threats, sanctions and threats of pressure" are "counterproductive." Note: It's not just sanctions that are worse than useless, but even the threat of mere pressure.

It gets worse. Having failed to get any movement from the Russians, Clinton herself moved -- to accommodate the Russian position! Sanctions? What sanctions? "We are not at that point yet," she averred. "That is not a conclusion we have reached ... it is our preference that Iran work with the international community."

But wait a minute. Didn't Obama say in July that Iran had to show compliance by the G-20 summit in late September? And when that deadline passed, did he not then warn Iran that it would face "sanctions that have bite" and that it would have to take "a new course or face consequences"?

Gone with the wind. It's the U.S. that's now retreating from its already flimsy position of just three weeks ago. We're not doing sanctions now, you see. We're back to engagement. Just as the Russians suggest.

Maybe in 2010 and 2012, we the voters can put some adults back in charge of our nation. But God help us until then because the children in charge now are giving away our future daily.

Gold-engraved Colt .45 commisioned by Saudi King in 1980

You are not gonna believe this one. I can hardly believe if myself and I shot the photos of this one-of-a-kind gold-engraved Colt Government Model 1911-A1.

I know I've never seen anything like this before and I seriously doubt I ever will again.

Here's the description I posted on gunbroker for this Colt Custom Shop engraved beauty, which can be yours for a mere $20,000.

You can come visit it at Village Pawn & Gun Shop, where I work. Looking costs nothing.

Like New In Presentation Box-Unfired: Colt Custom Shop Gold-Engraved 1980 Government Model 1911-A1 .45 ACP Single-Action Semi-Auto Pistol, Colt Signature Series 1980 Blue Government Model.

Ordered from the Colt Custom Shop by King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz, King of Saudi Arabia, in 1980 as a personal gift to now-retired U.S. serviceman Athony Potter, who sold it to us, unfired in the Colt Custom Shop wooden presentation box.

The blue-steel Colt Government Model 1911-A1 is completely engraved with scrollwork and gold engraving, featuring the Royal Saudi Arabian Crest on top of the slide and gold Arabic Script on the left slide which translates "In the Name of God, The Beneficient, The Merciful."

The right slide features a gold-engraved eagle and dove. Both sides of the slide feature a gold-engraved Lilly.

This custom-engraved Colt also has hand-carved ivory grips in a floral design and (1) engraved blue-steel Colt magazine.

Ships in Colt Custom Shop wooden presentation box with blue velvet lining. Serial number is FG21893.

According to BlueBook, only 250 blue gold auroplated Colt Government Models were manufactured in the 1980-81 Signature Series and this is a one-of-a-kind custom engraved Colt from that 250.

BlueBook on COLT'S MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. : COMMEMORATIVES, SPECIAL EDITIONS, & LIMITED MFG.
1980-81 .45 ACP GOVT. SIGNATURE SERIES
- .45 ACP cal., blue finished Govt. with gold auroplated or nickel finish. 250 mfg. in both finishes, ser. no. range N/A.

As Eric Clapton said when he first met Muddy Waters, I'm gobsmacked.

Ignoble Obama, Chuck's God & Guns, and Hannah the Hooker

Welcome to Tuesday, another wonderful day in Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood as I head off to work at the local hangout for Gun Nutz 'R' Us, also known as the gun shop. Don't you just hate cheerful people in the morning?

Let me start your day off with some words of wisdom from Wesley Pruden, editor emeritus at The Washington Times, the only real newspaper left standing in our nation's capital. Wesley takes at look at President Obama's 'Ignoble Prize.'

Pity Barack Obama. The last thing he needs is another comparison to Jimmy Carter. He could survive the endorsements of his Nobel Prize by Fidel Castro ("a positive measure"), from Dmitry Medvedev, the president of Russia ("evidence of a realistic vision"), or even from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, aspiring Jew-killer and president of Iran ("bringing justice to the world order").

He's got enough with Jimmy Carter already. Mr. Jimmy called the president's prize "a positive development." But celebrating weakness in the face of a challenge and bowing to bullies in an abject hope that the bully will go easy will always turn a real man's stomach. It's the celebration of weakness that's so infuriating. The anger is not about Mr. Obama. Not yet. He hasn't done anything...

The Nobel panel's great expectations are not unrealistic, and the panelists, who made their selection shortly after Mr. Obama was inaugurated president of the United States (not president of the world, as the Europeans suppose), have no reason to be disappointed. His apology tour to the Middle East, his bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, his dithering with Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his blowing off Poland and the Czech Republic over missile bases to appease the Russians have already redeemed the bet the Norwegians put down on the American president.

The Alfred E. Neuman ("What? Me Worry?") strategy for dealing with despots, which is always the default strategy of the Europeans, inevitably leads to rape, regrets and ruin. The Nobel jury wouldn't have to look far for a caution. Norway tried to appease the Nazis, twice declaring itself neutral shortly before the outbreak of World War II. The Nazis invaded anyway, sending the royal family fleeing to London. Many Norwegians fought bravely in the resistance, but the most memorable Norwegian figure of the war was the infamous Vidkun Quisling, the head of a puppet government whose name became a synonym for traitor.

Nevertheless, appeasement is admired by the Nobel juries. FDR never got a Nobel Peace Prize. Neither did Harry Truman or Winston Churchill. Ditto Ronald Reagan. But Yasser Arafat won in 1994. And of course Mr. Jimmy in 2002. Few Americans, beyond those hopelessly in thrall of the politically correct, are any longer surprised by the silliness of the Nobel Peace Prize juries.

Now let's move on to a genuine American hero, one of those who really deserve a Nobel prize but will never get one, Chuck Norris, who writes about two of my favorite topics, God and guns.

Chuck's Code (Freedom):

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Lynyrd Skynyrd, a legendary Southern rock band, put it well in the title track of their new album, "God and Guns":

"God and guns

Keep us strong.

That's what this country

Was founded on.

Well, we might as well give up and run

If we let them take our God and guns."

And let's close with two more of my favorite people, actually three. Mike Adams writes about a visit with his friend Doug Giles and recalls that first meeting with Doug's daughter, Hannah. You may have heard her name before. She's the famous "hooker" who fried ACORN's taxpayer scam.

Hannah, while she was jogging, decided it would be interesting to dress as a hooker and go into an ACORN office seeking help in furthering a prostitution ring. She got her friend James O’Keefe to play the role of a pimp and go in with her. In the end, they went into several ACORN offices to see whether ACORN would give them money, which comes from taxpayers, to further a criminal enterprise.

The sting worked like a charm. The pair caught ACORN – on film, mind you – giving advice on how to set up a prostitution ring and funnel money into a congressional campaign fund. ACORN workers were even willing to help with the money laundering scheme after they heard of their plan to bring under-aged sex slaves into the illegal enterprise.

Hannah and James went public with the tapes. They have been on national television shows and have almost completely destroyed ACORN’s credibility. ACORN is no longer working on the U.S. Census. And they are on the verge of losing all government support in the form of taxpayer funding.

But, just like a wild hog after it has been shot, the pigs that run ACORN are fighting to the death. And, for a time, they will be more dangerous than ever before. They’ve sued Hannah Giles arguing that their rights to privacy have been violated. Their position is simple:

“We at ACORN are the real victims. We have a right to unlimited taxpayer support. Our former lawyer, Barack Obama, is the President of the United States. We have a right to spend public money without fear of public exposure. We’ll even conspire to allow your taxpayer dollars to fund child prostitution. And you will say nothing about it. Or else we will sue.”

In other words, ACORN is trying to turn America into a third world nation. But you can stop them by helping to defend Hannah Giles. Contribute to her cause www.DefendHannah.com and, together, we can destroy ACORN permanently. And we can toss the carcasses of these swine upon the ash heap of history. And we can forever stop them from feeding at the government trough.

As Hannibal Smith used to say, don't you love it when a plan comes together? Let's help Hannah fry ACORN's taxpayer scam permanently.

Pigs fly! Leftwingnut California Senator supports troops in Afghanistan!

Holy smoke! Did you see that flying pig? In other news, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Leftwingnut-California, has joined Republicans in urging President Obama to actually support the troops in Afghanistan instead of just talking about it.

Top Republican senators escalated their call Sunday for President Obama to grant Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for more troops in Afghanistan, and one prominent Democrat warned that a failure to do so could jeopardize U.S. forces...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also said the counterinsurgency strategy pursued by McChrystal is "really critical." She said the American people don't have the stomach to stay in Afghanistan for another 10 years, but that the mission there is in "serious jeopardy" and Obama has an obligation to follow his commander's advice.

"I don't know how you put somebody in who was as crackerjack as General McChrystal, who gives the president very solid recommendations, and not take those recommendations if you're not going to pull out," Feinstein said on ABC's "This Week."

"If you don't want to take the recommendations, then you put your people in such jeopardy."

Has sanity broken out on the Left Coast? Or does serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee actually require a senator have some basic intelligence? More likely, Feinstein has heard the straight skinny from intelligence briefings that we're in danger of losing the war in Afghanistan if our troops don't get the help requested by Gen. Stanly McChrystal to properly fight the war.

Or maybe Feinstein has read some of the dispatches from Michael Yon, who has been writing about the dire straits of our troops in Afghanistan for more than a year? Nah, that pig don't fly.

But if you haven't been reading Michael Yon's dispatches from Afghanistan, his Oct. 1 report is a good starting place. He gives an overview and a timetable. Without significant changes, Yon predicts that by 2011, the Taliban will have won and Osama Bin Laden will again have a safe haven for his murderous thugs to launch worldwide Jihad against western civilization.

The Greatest Afghanistan War has deteriorated so noticeably that one can now feel the enemy's growing pulse. Each month it beats steadier, stronger, and in 2010 it will finally be born.

We're at a tipping point in Afghanistan, just as we were in Iraq. President Bush bucked all the nay-sayers and backed Gen. Petreaus when he asked for a surge. Now victory is at hand there.

The same tipping point is now in Afghanistan, but I fear Obama is going to "Cut and walk."

Pray for our nation and in particular, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and wherever they are in harm's way. They are all that stands between us the Osama Bin Laden's murderous plans.

A conversation in the kitchen about America the Beautiful

Just can't say what I'm thinking about our nation any better than Chris Muir in today's Day By Day.

New, improved, resdesigned site for my gun shop is 'live'!

The new, improved, redesigned website for the gun shop where I work is live, finally, after dorking around with Network Solutions (a pox on their house) for five business days.

In my so-called spare time, I am also a web designer and it was truly a labor of love to redesign and relaunch the rather atrocious company website that we formerly had for the gun shop. Good riddance.

Village Pawn & Gun Shop of Wadesboro, NC, is a small family business but a pretty big player among gun shops here in North Carolina, with more than 1,800 guns in inventory at present.

The first photo is the cluster of handgun counters at one end of our store with long guns on the wall behind. That's Jonathan and Wes at the counters.

Second photo is the shop crew, from left, Wes, Dorothy, William, Jennifer, Jonathan and moi, John.

We attend every gun show of almost any substance here in NC and almost always have a bigger presence there than any other gun shop attending. So far, yours truly has managed to evade duty at the gun shows as I not only savor my weekends at home and church, I am of sufficient advanced age as to plead senior citizen status. Well, the two senior members of the family that owns the shop, William and Dorothy, are my age and they both go to all the guns shows. But as the country song goes, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. I'm too old for guns shows.
But my hat is off to the gun show crew which labors long and hard on Saturdays and Sundays and not only sells sometimes hundreds of guns, but brings home some real beauties which end up in our baby doll counters and even occasionally going home with me when I can afford one.

I don't think I've written about our baby doll counters here before. That's where we keep the like-new and near-perfect condition Smiths, Colts, Brownings, Rugers and other rare handguns.

The next three photos are the baby dolls, first the classic Colts, the second is classic Smiths, Rugers and others, and the third is reserved for all the boxed-presentation handguns.

Almost all of these baby dolls are priced way out of my reach, but they are nice to look at and handle lovingly and I get the pleasure of keeping these counters arranged as newcomers arrive and current occupants are sold and shipped out to new homes.

In fact, stocking and restocking the baby doll counters is perhaps the best part of my job. But of course, what's not to love about the job? Talking guns, selling guns, teaching guns, even shooting guns, and doing it all for a living. Getting paid doing what you love is the best of all worlds.

Now for the news from an Alternate Universe of World Peace

When I turned on the news this morning to digest with my eggs and sausage, it's a good thing I didn't have a mouthful of coffee when I heard that President Barack Hussein Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. WTF? He had been in office a grand total of two weeks when the nominees list for this year's peace prize was drawn up by the Nobel committee. And what had he accomplished toward world peace in those first two weeks? About exactly what he has accomplished since on any goal. Nada. Nuthin'. Zip. So far, Obama's legacy is a big fat zero.

Of course, the Nobel Peace Prize has become a total joke in recent years. Obama joins such former luminaries of world peace in or near the White House as...

Former President Jimmy Carter won the award in 2002, while former Vice President Al Gore shared the 2007 prize with the U.N. panel on climate change.

Just what did Jimmy Carter do for world peace? Well he got Palestinian terrorist Yasser Arafat to sit down for "peace talks" with Israeli leaders Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, for which that odd trio won the 1994 Nobel peace prize. And of course, those historic talks hosted by President Jimmy Carter resulted in peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis, didn't they? Well let's not quibble over details like actual peace breaking out.

And of course, Al Gore has brought world peace with his Chicken Little crusade on global warming, which the leftwingnuts are still blathering about despite the recent trend toward global cooling. But again, let's not quibble over details like actual science vs. junk science.

So in the spirit of Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Yasser Arafat, the Nobel committee has picked yet another luminary of world peace, Barack Hussein Obama, who has accomplished ... nothing.

Meredith Jessup at Townhall.com comments:

Not only is this award INCREDIBLY premature since Obama has only been in office just over nine months, but also pretty inappropriate. Teddy Roosevelt ended the Russo-Japanese War and received the prize, and Obama... what? Gave a speech in Cairo?

Wesley Pruden, who penned this morning's column in advance of the Obama Nobel prize announcement, is yet quite accurate in describing the "peace accomplishments" on the world scene thus far by our rookie president, whose trademark "dithering" continues on a host of pressing world peace matters, such as Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and Eastern Europe.

The cruel world is closing in on Barack Obama. Springfield was never like this. The president can only look back with yearning for the days when he was the star of the state legislature, where a legislator's only concern is who's going to pick up the tab for drinks and supper.

His dithering time in the big new world is limited by events, which occur to a timetable that mere man, even a minor-league messiah, cannot control.

The White House insists that the president is hard at work on what to do about Afghanistan, and whether to send more troops to fuel a "surge" like the surge that prevented a collapse of the West's attempt to rescue Iraq from barbarism and restore a fragile semblance of civilization. The brave young Americans put in harm's way in that godforsaken corner of the world often feel abandoned in a hopeless cause, so the president should feel the pressure to act, and quickly.

But the problem is "multilayered," his spokesman says. Translated into real English, that means "he hasn't yet figured out which layer of public opinion to appease, and which layer to disappoint." He'll do something as soon as he figures out which disappointed layer would squeak loudest and scream longest.

The Pakistanis occupy still another layer. The president is looking for a way to motivate an ally that doesn't want to be motivated. Money is usually the great motivator, and the administration proposes to send the generals who run Pakistan $7.5 billion in aid over the next five years, to, er, ah, ummmm, uh, well, it's not clear what, exactly. They'll think of something. The generals want to make sure the money arrives in Pakistan with no strings attached. It's not as if we're talking about real money.

Still another layer is the arsenal of nuclear weapons the Paks already have, and a layer beyond that is the nuclear weapon Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in neighboring Iran is about to have, unless the president gets out of the way and lets the Israelis resolve the dilemma. This would free him to figure out a way to abandon Israel to the terrorists without making noise that would drown out the speech he would make as a consolation prize for the Jews and their Christian allies. He has a useful precedent, having recently thrown the Poles and Czechs under his famous bus (joining his grandmother), to appease the Russians angered by the prospect of a NATO missile base in Poland and the Czech Republic.

On another front, the dollar is shrinking so fast - more than 11 percent over the past few months - that it might disappear before the rest of the world abandons it as the reserve currency. But the most dangerous layer of presidential concerns, if you believe certain European descendants of Chicken Little, is what to do about global warming.

So there you have it in Pruden's insightful analysis, the accomplishments on the world scene of our Dither-In-Chief during his term in office thus far.

Meanwhile, back on the dithering front, the White House has decided the President is just too busy right now for General McChrystal, our top commander in Afghanistan, to come to Washington to brief his staff and Congress. So they put McChrystal on hold for a while. Again.

The White House has told the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan to delay a planned trip here Friday to brief President Obama and his senior advisers on his recommendation for a major troop increase.

Officials had hoped to have Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and what national security adviser James L. Jones called "all the key players" speak to Obama in person by the end of this week, leading to final deliberations over a forward strategy.

But "we're not finished," Jones said Thursday, and meetings may extend beyond next week. When the White House is ready, he said, McChrystal -- along with the U.S. ambassadors to Afghanistan and Pakistan -- will fly to Washington so that the three "can meet with the president before a decision is made."

Well that's magnanimous of Obama, to allow McChrystal to come to Washington and meet with him "before a decision is made." Thus far, our busy President has has exactly one 25-minute conversation face-to-face with the top commander in Afghanistan while he has been busily crafting a "new strategy" for the war in Afghanistan. And when he's finished crafting that new strategy, he will allow McChrystal another brief photo-op in the White House before announcing his new strategy, which has been realistically described as the "cut and walk" plan for the war, which is somewhere halfway between "cut and run" and sending troops to actually win the war.

Meanwhile, back in the real world vs. the alternate universe of Nobel peace prize "reality" a hopeful sign is reported today for actually winning the war in Afghanistan. Key Democrats in Congress are speaking out to urge Obama to give McChrystal the troops he has requested.

The Democratic chairmen of several key committees overseeing war policy, including the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees, say they back the military's request for a troop buildup in Afghanistan - despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's stance that Congress will not support deploying more U.S. forces.

At a White House meeting this week, participants said about half of the chairmen from the dozen House and Senate panels involved in military issues told President Obama that they supported ordering more troops to Afghanistan.

"A number of us commented that we don't believe you can prevail with a counterterrorism plan alone. You have to have a more comprehensive strategy," said Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Texas Democrat and chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, who attended the meeting.

Perhaps there is some sanity in the real world after all, vs. the insanity of Nobel Peace Prize alternate universe logic. I for one pray for our troops and for victory in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a famous general said, in war there is no substitute for victory.

Oops. I wasn't supposed to quote General MacArthur. He's the leftwingnuts' current example of a bad general as they compare McChrystal to President Harry Truman's firing of MacArthur.

After all, what did MacArthur accomplish, besides leading our troops to victory in the Pacific Theater of World War II and then returning to do it again on the battlefields of Korea?

Obama's 'Cut and walk' military strategy for Afghanistan war

The first presidential administration in the history of our republic with neither standard bearer having served a day in military service is living up to its billing. Military "expert" VP Joe Biden offers a "new strategy" for the war in Aghanistan as the Obama administration turns on its nasty political attack machine Chicago-style politics to slime General McChrystal.

Michael Goodwin at The New York Post (the only real paper left standing in Noo Yawk) writes White House declares war on this honest hero.

ANOTHER day, another double standard from the Obama White House. This one involves the nasty ef fort to discredit and muz zle Gen. Stanley McChrystal, whose sin was to present his commander in chief with an inconvenient answer about Afghanistan.

The president appointed McChrystal and ordered him to assess the war and develop a plan to rescue the mission. The result -- a call for an increase of 40,000 troops or face defeat -- apparently was not what Obama wanted to hear.

Bingo. In a flash, McChrystal found himself on the business end of a political attack machine. The president's liberal allies struck first, and then White House officials, hiding behind anonymous quotes, heaped scorn on the commander's judgment in The Washington Post.

The heavy hitters followed with their whacks at the piñata, with National Security Adviser Jim Jones and Defense Secretary Robert Gates both telling McChrystal to button his lip. They gave this advice on television, even as they demanded that he give his advice in private.

Tony Blankley at The Washington Times (the only real paper left standing in D.C.) outlines the options the Obama administration is facing on the war in Afghanistan and sums up thusly:

The president has three choices: (1) Cut and run, (2) cut and walk or (3) stay and fight with enough troops. Either Option No. 1 or No. 3 may be justifiable based on hard-headed thinking. No. 2 is an evasion of reality and would sinfully sacrifice American troops for no good purpose.

Since Obama has already publicly ruled out cut and run, saying he will not abandon the fight, it's down to "cut and walk" or "stay and fight." I hate to say it, but option two will soon be chosen. Our rookie president has already shown he ain't got enough guts to string a fiddle when it comes to doing anything that will alienate the lunatic leftwingnuts, which is his one solid constituency.

So that rules out "stay and fight," meaning he'll do some halfway measure that will start the decline into a slow defeat as our troops in Afghanistan are left slowly twisting in the wind.

In the meantime, Obama's adoring masses (AKA the mainstream media and other assorted leftwingnuts) carry on with the character assassination of General McChrystal, comparing him to McArthur in Korea. Townhall.com columnist Douglas MacKinnon gives us the dirty lowdown.

Simply because he spoke out in the best interests of his troops and our nation, the liberal intelligentsia, certain White House aides and some Democrat Members of Congress are trying to discredit and disparage General Stan McChrystal as fast as yellow journalism will allow.

What sin did this highly decorated patriot commit? As commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, he dared to publicly speak his mind in the age of Obama. For that, those who worship at the feet of the Oracle of the Oval Office have told the General to “shut up,” have referred to him as “General MacArthur,” and have called for him to be drummed out of the military.

Meanwhile, over in the sandbox, our troops soldier on and the countdown continues since General McChrystal made his request for more boots on the ground, Meredith Jessup notes.

Today marks 39 days since U.S. and NATO General Stanley McChrystal delivered his request for more troops to President Obama. In his report, McChrystal warns the president of "mission failure" if current troop levels in Afghanistan remain unchanged.

While the slime attack on McChrystal carries on, President Obama is voting "present" on the war in Afghanistan. I guess I should be thankful he hasn't yet announced his "cut and walk" plan. God save our nation and protect our troops in harm's way. How many days to 2012?

ACLU vs. American Legion, VFW and millions of veterans

I've been praying that God will take action against the Anti-Christian Lawyers Union ever since that ridiculous case in Florida where the ACLU got two school administrators charged with a criminal offense for the heinous act of saying grace over a meal at a school boosters club meeting.

The administrators had those charges dismissed when the case got to court, but that really ticked me off and I've been praying for the Lord to take action against the ACLU since. Now it seems that another ridiculous ACLU fracas might just be their comeuppance, a solitary cross on top of a hill in the middle of the Mojave Desert. The ACLU sued, forcing veterans to cover the cross with a plywood box while the case drags on in the courts. And now the Supreme Court has agreed to consider the case. Townhall columnists Joseph Infranco and Rees Lloyd explain the significance of the case.

The object at the center of the case is a small, unadorned cross sitting in a remote part of the Mojave Desert Preserve in Southeast California. A veterans' group erected this memorial cross on private land in 1934 to honor the dead of all wars.

Driving by this secluded location today, however, you'll see a curious-looking plywood box hiding the memorial, the way someone might cover a condemned building. That box is there because one person filed suit, with the help of ACLU attorneys, claiming he was "offended" by the memorial cross. One offended man has somehow trumped the wishes of millions of veterans.

If a federal appeals court has its way, the box and the memorial soon will be gone forever. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court will review the ruling at the request of the Department of Justice, and in this case, millions of veterans, speaking through The American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, have added their voices in support. In fact, the American Legion Department of California and the Alliance Defense Fund have joined forces and filed a brief in support of the Department of Justice, asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the lawsuit.

So why such a fuss over a cross in the middle of the desert?

However, as bad as this case is, veterans know much more is at stake in this case than one memorial in the California desert.

Military memorials commonly use the cross as part of a display to honor those who paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend our nation. While the cross is a religious symbol, the military has also used it as a symbol of courage, sacrifice, and honor. For example, the nation's second highest military award is the Distinguished Service Cross. Visitors to the hallowed grounds of Arlington National Cemetery can see several commemorative crosses, like the Canadian Cross of Sacrifice, a gift from former Canadian Prime Minister MacKenzie King that was dedicated at Arlington in 1927.

If the Supreme Court does not overturn the appeals court, religious symbols that have graced monuments for many decades may become a thing of the past. Memorials to military veterans, police officers, firefighters, and other heroes will be whitewashed, covered up, or torn out to appease the politically correct agenda of intolerant extremists.

Veterans are being asked to surrender to the thin-skinned sensitivity of an individual who has managed to be offended by a small memorial, literally in the middle of a desert. Is this truly an offense worthy of a lawsuit? Apparently, the fanatical agenda of the ACLU to expunge religious symbols has really come this far, and now the Supreme Court has the opportunity to weigh in.

One person's offense should not diminish the sacrifice made by America's heroes and their families. Why would we not wish to allow the men and women who have served and defended this nation to choose how they wish to honor their dead?

Why indeed. The heart of the matter is the ACLU wants to outlaw all forms of Christianity, even a simple cross to honor our war dead. Of course, their pious response is they support our troops they just don't support the wars they are fighting. That's like saying you support the baker and enjoy eating his bread, but you don't support his "mission" because bread is really bad for you.

The ACLU would no doubt call themselves patriots, but I beg to differ. In other words, hogwash!

Redesign of my gun shop's website: First draft is live

I voluntarily passed up my usual Saturday trip to the range to do a labor of love for the gun shop where I work. We currently have a cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all business website done by some clueless outfit somewhere.

I'm a web designer by trade and even I couldn't make their so-called control panel work to update the site beyond a simple text change and even that took two or three tries to get completed.

So I decided to volunteer my so-called free time and redesign the site. The first draft is up and live here. The current and soon-to-be-defunct site is here.

I'd appreciate my handful of readers taking a gander at my redesign work and telling me whether it sucketh as bigtime as the current site. One note, the family who owns the shop really likes their yellow business card and insists that it's their "logo" so I had to use it on the redesigned site.

Fell in love with two new sweethearts at the gun shop

I've done fell in love again with not just one but two new "sweethearts" among the used guns either traded or sold to the gun shop where I work. First along came a Smith & Wesson 65-3 Stainless .357 Magnum revolver with a trigger job from the S&W Performance Center, 3" barrel and a set of black wood fingergroove combat grips that fit my hand just perfectly. That trigger is so smooth I fell in love instantly with the first pull. Right into the layaway safe it went until I can get it paid off.

Believe it or else, I haven't owned a .357 Magnum or .38 Special revolver since I sold my S&W 19 some three years ago. No self-respecting gun nut can possibly live without at least one .357 Magnum or .38 Special revolver. That's wrote on the wall somewhere.

Then yesterday, a gent sold us a whole passel of high-dollar guns, including a Para 12-45 with a trigger job from Cylinder & Slide. One test of that trigger and it was love at first pull again. Now I gotta sell something to raise the cash for the Para 12. My EAA .38 Super/.45 ACP is going on gunbroker as soon as I can find the time to take photos and list it. That's it in the photo with the .38 Super slide in Wonder finish on it.

I've decided to call that adventure a failure. I acquired it in a trade as an EAA Witness P-Compact .45 ACP. I didn't care for the snappy way it shot with .45 ACP, that polymer frame just can't handle the recoil very well. So I bought a .38 Super slide assembly and three 12-rd. mags, upgraded the trigger from milled-face to smooth-face and added ambi safeties.

But which would I rather have, an EAA in a weird caliber that's hard to find ammo for and won't shoot .45 ACP well plus only 8 rds. in a mag, or a Para 12-45 with a great trigger job? Mama didn't raise no fools and that decision is foolproof. I like .38 Super, but I love .45 ACP and I don't have a carry pistol in that caliber. I've got a full-size double-stack Llama IX-C that shoots great and holds 15 rounds of .45 ACP, plus a newly acquired Sig P220 .22LR that will get an upgrade with a .45 ACP slide assembly when I get the cash. But neither of those is a carry .45 pistol.

But a compact 12-rd. Para Ordnance .45 ACP has been on my gotta-have list for quite some time before this perfect condition used one showed up. The Witness .38 Super/.45 ACP is outta here.

In the meantime, I'll add that Para 12-45 to the layaway safe until I can raise the cash.