Snuffy Pfleger suspended again? I'll believe it when I see it--again.

So the good monsignor Michael "Snuffy" Pfleger has apparently been suspended by Cardinal George . . . again. Second City Cop dared to go there with a post entitled "You're Pfired!" That kind of punning takes . . . . well, it certainly takes something.

Personally, I find that I haven't really changed my outlook since the last time Cardinal George suspended Snuffy; back in 2008 I wondered, "Seriously, Cardinal George, what does it take?"

The list hasn't changed much, because Pfleger hasn't changed much:

"Theoretically, is there an act Pfleger could commit that would shame the Catholic church and the archdiocese of Chicago enough that they'd decide to cut him loose?

• We know injecting the church into elections, thus at least theoretically jeopardizing their tax-exempt status in any just world, isn't enough.
• We know that praising bigots like Louis Farrakhan from the pulpit isn't enough.
• We know that publicly lying repeatedly in his official capacity as a priest isn't enough.
• We know that threatening to "snuff out" John Riggio wasn't enough.

So, just for my own idle curiosity, what would it take? Does he actually have to start assaulting people physicall--or would that be tolerated, too?"

It remains to be seen whether mentioning that you won't take a job in a high school is on that list, too. We'll see whether this suspension is any more "permanent" than the last one.

Firsthand Account of Snuffy Pfleger's Lobbying Day

INDENTTonight the irrepressible and inimitable Tom Shafer regaled the monthly meeting of the Sangamon County Rifle Association with tales of his up close and uncomfortably personal encounter with Father Michael "Snuffy" Pfleger:

Pro Tip: Lobbying Days Require Grassroots, Not Astroturf

INDENTYou may remember that Illinois gun owners had our Lobbying Day at the state capitol in Springfield on March 11. One week later, Snuffy Pfleger had his own Lobbying Day on March 18. He brought several buses down from Chicago to lobby for passage of HB0048, the bill that would have made it illegal to transfer a gun in Illinois without first giving it over to a federally-licensed gun dealer--even if you were loaning or giving the gun. This bill was the absolute top priority for the gun banners in Illinois, so Snuffy organized a bus trip for three groups of people: members of his St. Sabina's Catholic Church, students from the Simeon Career Academy in Chicago, and students from Howard University in Washington, D.C. The Simeon kids were here in memory of a classmate who was killed at a basketball game, while the Howard University kids were on an "Alternative Spring Break" on which they were supposed to be "addressing gun violence."

INDENTThe interesting part is that Tom lucked into the chance to attend the event when he was visiting the capitol on other business that same day and happened to hear Rep. Edward "Don't You Know Who I Am?" Acevedo say something about going out to "the gun rally." He followed the group outside, where Pfleger's folks were disembarking from their buses, and joined the demonstration.

INDENTTom estimated that the crowd at its largest was between 80 and 100 people. I found that very interesting, since I've had a chance to crunch some numbers. Remember the kids from Simeon Career Academy and Howard University? Well, here are the numbers for those:

• 54 students from Howard University in Washington, D.C.
• 14 students from Princeton University in Princeton, N.J.
• "over 50" students from Simeon Career Academy in Chicago
  

INDENTMy arithmetic makes that 54+14=68 college students bused in from 900 miles away, in addition to ~50 students bused down on school buses on a school day to be used as political props (nothing new for Chicago Public Schools.) That's 118 blades of astroturf. If we're extra generous, assume Tom was wrong, and they must have gotten 150 or so, that still means that roughly 80% of their "grassroots citizen lobbyists" were school kids taking the day off or college kids from four states away. Compare that to the numbers IGOLD generated--with everyone paying his own way--and you can see why legislators were not jumping on the Pfleger bandwagon.

"I Love You, I Hate You, I Just Don't Know Anymore"

INDENT"Ma'am, I'm from Springfield. Can I get some of your materials, please?" Tom asked the big, happy lady at the door of the bus.
INDENT"Well, of course!" she said. "You're doing the right thing. I just love you!"
INDENT"I do appreciate that, ma'am, but I'm from the pro-gun side of things . . . ."
INDENT"Well, then, I guess I just hate you!"
INDENT"Well, ma'am, I still love you."

Good Touches and Bad Touches: The Hand of Pfleger

INDENTAt one point, after Pfleger was done haranguing the crowd and embarassing Dan Kotowski, Tom walked up to him and asked him whether he regretted calling for John Riggio and state legislators to be "snuffed out." That's when things got weird. According to Tom, Pfleger reacted by grabbing his shirt with one hand, which caused both police and Chicago school students to close in a bit and look edgy, then began "stroking (me) with his other hand. I wasn't sure what was going on, so I just told him to keep it above the waist, buddy," Tom told the group. As he "stroked" Tom, he explained that his comments had been taken out of context and that he'd never actually said he wanted anyone to hurt John Riggio. The video is at the top of this post; I'll let you decide for yourself whether Pfleger was unfairly taken out of context. Also whether he's a howling maniac.

Playing In Traffic

INDENTDuring IGOLD, several thousand gun owners marched across 2nd Street in Springfield and gathered in front of the Lincoln statue on the capitol lawn. We had to get them all across the street safely and then keep everyone out of the street, because 2nd Street is a city bus route and we couldn't block it (it can be done, with the right permit, but there's so much extra work fitting yourself to the bus schedule that it isn't worth it.) Pfleger's group didn't have a permit to block any streets, much less a main artery like 2nd, but according to Tom, they decided that was the best way to get some attention. There were scattered shouts to the effect that they would jump into 2nd Street and stop traffic. I'm not sure what the purpose of that was supposed to be; maybe just pure mischief. In any case, the kindly police officers escorting the group quashed that particular brainstorm so early that no one was hit by a bus, which I suppose is for the best.
INDENTFinally, Snuffy, sensing that no one was going to cover this circus and knowing that the planned vote/spectacle on HB0048 was not going to happen because the votes weren't there, decided to try one last attention-getting tantrum: he and his merry band announced their intention to "storm the Governor's Office and occupy it." Contrast that with IGOLD, when Governor Quinn refused to meet with us, but Thirdpower and I chatted amiably with his secretary and the Ladies of IGOLD presented an assistant with Quinn's plaque.
In any case, it was not to be. The Secretary of State's Police officers suggested, as Tom put it, that "that would be a very bad idea." Disappointed, and with opportunities for mischievous street theater exhausted, Pfleger loaded his merry band on the buses and went home.

"Snuffy" Pfleger's Letter to Legislators

The Rev. Michael "Snuffy" Pfleger has written a letter to his legislators, which is to say, my legislators. He's outraged that House Bill 48 was defeated in the Illinois House of Representatives this week. I can understand his frustration, but it seems to me that he makes the error most common to the passionate advocate for any cause: he assumes that those who opposed him must actually share his worldview. Since they must agree with him (how could anyone possibly think differently than he does?) they must be corrupt, dishonest, afraid . . . . anything except voting in opposition to him because they think his way of doing things is wrong:

To: Illinois House Representatives

From: Rev. Michael L. Pfleger, Saint Sabina Church

Re: HB48

Date: March 26, 2009

To all the legislators who voted no to HB48, I ask the question, why? I watched and listened to your hollow arguments and your statements wondering whether HB48 would make things any better or not, or whether there was a better bill that could do more, but I could not help but think maybe, yes, maybe there is better legislation to be written. Maybe this won't do enough, but why weren't you willing to try to see, to give it a chance? If you do nothing, nothing will change. If you do something, you are putting yourself in position to make a difference. Especially since you have offered no other legislation. Are your hearts that insensitive or your allegiance to the National Rifle Association that strong that you could not say well we'll give it a try? Anything to help save one life - anything to try and stop one more gun from getting into the wrong hands.

Yes, I watched and listened to your arguments loud and clear, but I also hear the blood of my foster son who was killed by gun violence and the countless other sons and daughters killed by gun violence crying out from the grave. Perhaps, like Cain, in the book of Genesis, you ask, "Am I my brother's keeper?" The answer then and the answer now is, yes!

I wonder when another life is gunned down, if you will feel anything. I continue to pray for you and for the safety for your children and all our children.

You asked, Father Pfleger, so I'll answer. I didn't have a vote on the House floor, of course, but I can tell you why I lobbied against your bill, and I imagine some of the reasons are the same. Others are so obvious I don't think it takes a lot of insight to see them--IF you are capable of imagining that other people have experiences and think thoughts that have nothing to do with your own.

• HB48 would be unconstitutional. Especially in a post-Heller world, this is an issue whether you would like to face it or not. I realize that there are a lot of unconstitutional laws on the books already, at the municipal, county, state and federal level, but that doesn't make it right, nor does it excuse adding another one.
• HB48 would be an undue burden on gun owners. I know you believe that there is no undue burden on gun owners, because you believe that those burdens prevent murders, and you consider this a debate of convenience vs. life. Given that choice, most people would choose life . . . . but the choice is a false one. The idea that I should have to go to a retail store to loan someone a firearm, when I can sell him gasoline, matches, a car, rope, duct tape or a million other deadly implements and substances with no questions asked, is foolish.
  
• HB48 would not reduce violence in Chicago. Generally I don't approve of utilitarian arguments used to defend principles, but I know you think in terms of utilitarian outcomes and I want to help. The fact is that an extra layer of background checks on people who follow gun laws will have no effect on people who don't--and the people shooting people in Chicago don't follow gun laws. If they did, they'd apply for FOID cards and be background-checked at that point. Anyone who can get a FOID card today would pass your proposed background check, and anyone who lives outside the law and buys or sells guns without a FOID card would never submit to your proposed background check, either. The madness of proposing a second background check as a way of catching people who don't submit to the first background check should speak for itself.
• Finally, let me indulge in a bit of hypocrisy and speak to you as if you share my worldview for a moment. You see, your letter reinforces a widely held belief among pro-gun advocates that activists like yourself don't expect your latest law to have a real impact any more than we do; you intend, instead, for the law to pass and get you one incremental step closer to your real goal, either eliminating private gun ownership or restricting it as strictly as you can manage. Admitting that your bill isn't going to accomplish anything only makes this explanation seem more accurate.