Monday, November 26, 2007
OJ Simpson Makes his Endorsement for President
Once you get past the car commercial, you'll see who OJ endorses for President and why.....it should make you think twice, maybe three times about this candidate....
Boston PD to do Warrentless House-to-House Searches to Enforce Gun Prohibition Laws
There is an old English common-law maxim, which is where America got its system of "common law" from, that "a man's home is his castle, that NOT EVEN the KING [of England] and his men may not enter without cause". In America, it has been shortened to "a man's home is his castle" and essentially incorporated into our 4th Amendment. Well that phrase may not be applicable anymore, at least in Boston.
The Boston Police Department has announced that it will do "house-to-house" searches in "high-crime neighborhoods" for firearms in the rooms of "teen-agers". Apparently the Boston PD Brass haven't read either the 2nd Amendment (we all know what that one says) and/or the 4th Amendment, which protects us from unwarranted and unreasonable search and seizure, especially in our "castles", our homes.
They aren't going in unannounced; they are "merely knocking" on everyone's doors and "asking them" for permission to search their homes. If you've ever been pulled over and a cop "asks" you, "MAY I SEARCH YOUR VEHICLE", can you REALLY say "NO, ITS A WASTE OF MINE AND YOUR TIME AND IT VIOLATES THE 4TH AMENDMENT?" No, of course not. What the hell country is this where police and Federal agents in particular can "canvass" neighborhoods (just cause they're poor areas) and "ask" to enter someone's home to look for guns; if you think its hard to tell an officer "no" during a vehicle stop, try saying no to a couple of cops or FBI Agents who are at your door...
For those of you out there on the pro-gun control, yet claim to fight for "civil liberties" side of this issue, we thank you for your support of Democratic Party and the political left, who support gun prohibition laws, because house-to-house searches are the natural extension of these intrusive laws that tell people how they must store, keep, etc. their firearms with in their homes...After all, cops and Federal Agents can't check for a "gun-lock", etc. with in a citizens home without entering it first.
This so-called "modest crime-control law" will "slippery slope" into other areas; perhaps knocks on the doors of the people of Boston (and other cities) "asking" to enter for random drug searches, soon it will go to the parents room where I'm sure a married couple would just love to have cops snooping through they're lingerie drawers, etc. looking for unlocked guns or drugs, etc. Eventually, it will be declared "successful" by the authors of the policy, as bureaucrats always do, and these searches will move to suburban and especially rural homes and most likely to other states and cities.
Since no one is safe from Government when ANY citizen, especially an entire city, isn't safe from Government, it is all of our duties to prevent these laws, protest them, inform others about their existences and get rid of the politicians and bureaucrats that make them. These types of laws that restrict your activities with in your home are what make regular citizens not trust law enforcement and takes us leap years closer to that eventual police state we all thought couldn't happen here.
Beware, "a man's (and woman's) home may not be his/her castle", anymore with programs like these, at least not in Boston.
The Boston Police Department has announced that it will do "house-to-house" searches in "high-crime neighborhoods" for firearms in the rooms of "teen-agers". Apparently the Boston PD Brass haven't read either the 2nd Amendment (we all know what that one says) and/or the 4th Amendment, which protects us from unwarranted and unreasonable search and seizure, especially in our "castles", our homes.
They aren't going in unannounced; they are "merely knocking" on everyone's doors and "asking them" for permission to search their homes. If you've ever been pulled over and a cop "asks" you, "MAY I SEARCH YOUR VEHICLE", can you REALLY say "NO, ITS A WASTE OF MINE AND YOUR TIME AND IT VIOLATES THE 4TH AMENDMENT?" No, of course not. What the hell country is this where police and Federal agents in particular can "canvass" neighborhoods (just cause they're poor areas) and "ask" to enter someone's home to look for guns; if you think its hard to tell an officer "no" during a vehicle stop, try saying no to a couple of cops or FBI Agents who are at your door...
For those of you out there on the pro-gun control, yet claim to fight for "civil liberties" side of this issue, we thank you for your support of Democratic Party and the political left, who support gun prohibition laws, because house-to-house searches are the natural extension of these intrusive laws that tell people how they must store, keep, etc. their firearms with in their homes...After all, cops and Federal Agents can't check for a "gun-lock", etc. with in a citizens home without entering it first.
This so-called "modest crime-control law" will "slippery slope" into other areas; perhaps knocks on the doors of the people of Boston (and other cities) "asking" to enter for random drug searches, soon it will go to the parents room where I'm sure a married couple would just love to have cops snooping through they're lingerie drawers, etc. looking for unlocked guns or drugs, etc. Eventually, it will be declared "successful" by the authors of the policy, as bureaucrats always do, and these searches will move to suburban and especially rural homes and most likely to other states and cities.
Since no one is safe from Government when ANY citizen, especially an entire city, isn't safe from Government, it is all of our duties to prevent these laws, protest them, inform others about their existences and get rid of the politicians and bureaucrats that make them. These types of laws that restrict your activities with in your home are what make regular citizens not trust law enforcement and takes us leap years closer to that eventual police state we all thought couldn't happen here.
Beware, "a man's (and woman's) home may not be his/her castle", anymore with programs like these, at least not in Boston.
California Initiative that will Split States Electoral Votes to Make the Ballot
A Republican-linked group called "California Counts" is going to gather enough petition signatures to place a proposal before California voters to change the way the state awards its electoral votes, which could and probably will ensure a Republican Presidential victory in 2008 if passed.
Donors to California Counts include Rep. Darrell Issa (R- Chula Vista), near San Diego - a very wealthy GOP Congressman, Floyd Kvamme - a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who is a supporter of Rudy Guliani and Jerold Perenchio - the former head of Univision. The spokesman for California Counts is David Gilliard, a political consultant who was intricate in the California Recall Election of 2003 in which Democrat Governor Gray Davis was ousted from power by current Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
David Gilliard predicted the group could submit as many as 700,000 petition signatures to qualify it for the ballot, far above the required 434,000 threshold, which would mean California voters will vote on it during California's June "non-Presidential" Primary.
Republican supporters say the proposal would usher in a new era of fairness in presidential contests because it would award electoral votes based on voting percentages in the states' Congressional Districts rather than the winner take all system (two other states already use this method). But Democrats say it's little more than an attempt to rig the 2008 race in favor of the GOP nominee.
California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections - the largest single prize in the nation. Under the proposal, the statewide winner would receive only two electoral votes, with the rest allocated according to results in each congressional district.
California has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. But the change - if approved by voters - would position a Republican candidate to win almost half of California's electoral votes. Anywhere from 20-25 Congressional Districts in California are safe Republican or Republican leaning, which would make it virtually impossible for a Democrat candidate to win the general election, even if they win Ohio or another swing state.
"It will lose at the ballot box ... it will be a loser for the Republican Party," said consultant Chris Lehane, a leading supporter of Hillary Clinton and long-time Clinton political "hitman" who is organizing opposition to this ballot measure.
If it does qualify, which it will, Democrats likely would have to spend millions of dollars to defeat it, which could drain money from other races. And there are expected to be additional ballot proposals on abortion and other social issues that could drive up California GOP turnout that day, making the passage of such a proposal even more likely.
The state already moved its presidential primary to Feb. 5 in an attempt to increase its clout in national politics. In that primary, Republicans will award delegates only to the top vote-getter in each congressional district. A Democrat can qualify for a delegate by winning at least 15 percent of the vote in a district.
Leading Democrats have united with Hollywood producer Stephen Bing and hedge fund manager Tom Steyer to defeat the proposal. A committee formed to oppose the plan, which has ties to Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, had been running ads depicting the proposal as a power grab.
Republican support is not unanimous - and even Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has questioned the idea.
Regardless, the proposal WILL make the California ballot in June and the GOP has the advantage in such a situation because GOPers traditionally vote in greater percentages than Democrats in such elections. The real questions now are, will it pass, and how many millions of dollars are the Democrats willing to spend to defeat it (at the expense of other races).
Donors to California Counts include Rep. Darrell Issa (R- Chula Vista), near San Diego - a very wealthy GOP Congressman, Floyd Kvamme - a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who is a supporter of Rudy Guliani and Jerold Perenchio - the former head of Univision. The spokesman for California Counts is David Gilliard, a political consultant who was intricate in the California Recall Election of 2003 in which Democrat Governor Gray Davis was ousted from power by current Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
David Gilliard predicted the group could submit as many as 700,000 petition signatures to qualify it for the ballot, far above the required 434,000 threshold, which would mean California voters will vote on it during California's June "non-Presidential" Primary.
Republican supporters say the proposal would usher in a new era of fairness in presidential contests because it would award electoral votes based on voting percentages in the states' Congressional Districts rather than the winner take all system (two other states already use this method). But Democrats say it's little more than an attempt to rig the 2008 race in favor of the GOP nominee.
California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections - the largest single prize in the nation. Under the proposal, the statewide winner would receive only two electoral votes, with the rest allocated according to results in each congressional district.
California has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. But the change - if approved by voters - would position a Republican candidate to win almost half of California's electoral votes. Anywhere from 20-25 Congressional Districts in California are safe Republican or Republican leaning, which would make it virtually impossible for a Democrat candidate to win the general election, even if they win Ohio or another swing state.
"It will lose at the ballot box ... it will be a loser for the Republican Party," said consultant Chris Lehane, a leading supporter of Hillary Clinton and long-time Clinton political "hitman" who is organizing opposition to this ballot measure.
If it does qualify, which it will, Democrats likely would have to spend millions of dollars to defeat it, which could drain money from other races. And there are expected to be additional ballot proposals on abortion and other social issues that could drive up California GOP turnout that day, making the passage of such a proposal even more likely.
The state already moved its presidential primary to Feb. 5 in an attempt to increase its clout in national politics. In that primary, Republicans will award delegates only to the top vote-getter in each congressional district. A Democrat can qualify for a delegate by winning at least 15 percent of the vote in a district.
Leading Democrats have united with Hollywood producer Stephen Bing and hedge fund manager Tom Steyer to defeat the proposal. A committee formed to oppose the plan, which has ties to Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, had been running ads depicting the proposal as a power grab.
Republican support is not unanimous - and even Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has questioned the idea.
Regardless, the proposal WILL make the California ballot in June and the GOP has the advantage in such a situation because GOPers traditionally vote in greater percentages than Democrats in such elections. The real questions now are, will it pass, and how many millions of dollars are the Democrats willing to spend to defeat it (at the expense of other races).
Iowa Citizen Sends Letter to Sen. Harkin Seeking Illegal Status and Benefits
This is not a letter I wrote, but its funny enough to put on a blog:
Becoming Illegal
(Actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his Senator)
The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC, 20510
Dear Senator Harkin,
As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of
Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return
for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as
"in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most
appreciative.
Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald Ruppert
Burlington, IA
Becoming Illegal
(Actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his Senator)
The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC, 20510
Dear Senator Harkin,
As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of
Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return
for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as
"in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most
appreciative.
Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald Ruppert
Burlington, IA
Race War in Los Angeles Erupting Between Illegal Alien Mexicans and Black Residents
What started as a "Gang/Drug War" has turned into a "Race War" in LA between Illegal Mexicans and Black Residents:
Most of you out there (if you listen to the sensationalist, left-wing corporate media) would think that most racial tensions in Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California are "the old black and white" race issues.
Well, not anymore, in fact, despite the Rodney King verdicts, LA Riots and the beating of truck driver Reginald Denny, OJ, etc. race relations between blacks and whites are better than ever.
However, there is a problem with race in LA, and its not what most people would think, its actually between illegal aliens (and legal Mexicans) versus black residents., the tensions are mounting as more and more illegal alien Mexican invaders settle in traditionally black areas of Los Angeles such as Watts, Compton, Inglewood and South Central Los Angeles and over take the black population and then use their numbers to get blacks out of political office, civic leadership, etc.
This story really started around 20-30 years ago as President Bush (41), Clinton (42) and Bush (43) ignored the border knowing that illegal alien Mexicans would hit Los Angeles first (before they would spread to other cities in our nation) and ultimately overtake blacks in numbers and then take away what little political clout they had.
It hit a boiling point around ten years ago when the "East Coast Crips" (a black LA gang) allegedly robbed the "Florencia 13" (a Latino gang made up of illegal aliens and their "anchor-baby" children primarily) of a large quantity of dope. To this day, no one really knows if it happened and the stories about its details change all the time. That being said, it ignited what was at first a "gang war" between black and Mexican gangs over the lucrative drug markets of "Florence-Firestone", a neighborhood (really a "hood") in the north end of Watts.
Once a primarily black community of 60,000, it is now a predominantly illegal alien community of Mexican nationals and their anchor-baby offspring. It didn't take long for this "gang war" to erupt into an all out "race war" where blacks and Mexicans started targeting anyone not of their race (whites and Asians we're exempted from this "unwritten rule").
Even in the schools, on Cinco De Mayo (which shouldn't be an American holiday anyways), black students tear down and even burn Mexican flags, pictures of Che Guevara, etc. and during "black history month", Mexican students tear down pictures of Martin Luther King, etc.
According to Chris Le Grande, a black pastor of "Great Hope Fellowship in Faith" (one of the largest black churches in the community), the violence is getting so bad that:
"Its now to the point where its deliberate, I'm deliberately shooting you because of your color".
In fact, the US Attorney's Office in LA announced sweeping indictments against more than 60 members of "Florencia 13", accusing the illegal alien Mexican gang of waging a violent campaign to drive black rivals and black people in general out of the community.
One of the reasons the authorities gave for the surge in violence was the demographic shift happening there (illegal demographic shift I might add), which has included language and cultural shifts, along with the desire of blacks to defend what little they have.
It is too bad that American cultural centers and cities are being destroyed one at a time by illegal aliens and the American left-wing collaborators who support them.
I will give the black community of LA credit though on this one, they aren't taking it laying down. They're fighting back everyday against this onslaught while whites and other ethnic groups are complacent as the United States is being taken over by Mexican illegals.
News Footage of this problem:
Blacks vs Mexicans in Compton, CA
Blacks vs Mexicans in Pasadena, CA
Most of you out there (if you listen to the sensationalist, left-wing corporate media) would think that most racial tensions in Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California are "the old black and white" race issues.
Well, not anymore, in fact, despite the Rodney King verdicts, LA Riots and the beating of truck driver Reginald Denny, OJ, etc. race relations between blacks and whites are better than ever.
However, there is a problem with race in LA, and its not what most people would think, its actually between illegal aliens (and legal Mexicans) versus black residents., the tensions are mounting as more and more illegal alien Mexican invaders settle in traditionally black areas of Los Angeles such as Watts, Compton, Inglewood and South Central Los Angeles and over take the black population and then use their numbers to get blacks out of political office, civic leadership, etc.
This story really started around 20-30 years ago as President Bush (41), Clinton (42) and Bush (43) ignored the border knowing that illegal alien Mexicans would hit Los Angeles first (before they would spread to other cities in our nation) and ultimately overtake blacks in numbers and then take away what little political clout they had.
It hit a boiling point around ten years ago when the "East Coast Crips" (a black LA gang) allegedly robbed the "Florencia 13" (a Latino gang made up of illegal aliens and their "anchor-baby" children primarily) of a large quantity of dope. To this day, no one really knows if it happened and the stories about its details change all the time. That being said, it ignited what was at first a "gang war" between black and Mexican gangs over the lucrative drug markets of "Florence-Firestone", a neighborhood (really a "hood") in the north end of Watts.
Once a primarily black community of 60,000, it is now a predominantly illegal alien community of Mexican nationals and their anchor-baby offspring. It didn't take long for this "gang war" to erupt into an all out "race war" where blacks and Mexicans started targeting anyone not of their race (whites and Asians we're exempted from this "unwritten rule").
Even in the schools, on Cinco De Mayo (which shouldn't be an American holiday anyways), black students tear down and even burn Mexican flags, pictures of Che Guevara, etc. and during "black history month", Mexican students tear down pictures of Martin Luther King, etc.
According to Chris Le Grande, a black pastor of "Great Hope Fellowship in Faith" (one of the largest black churches in the community), the violence is getting so bad that:
"Its now to the point where its deliberate, I'm deliberately shooting you because of your color".
In fact, the US Attorney's Office in LA announced sweeping indictments against more than 60 members of "Florencia 13", accusing the illegal alien Mexican gang of waging a violent campaign to drive black rivals and black people in general out of the community.
One of the reasons the authorities gave for the surge in violence was the demographic shift happening there (illegal demographic shift I might add), which has included language and cultural shifts, along with the desire of blacks to defend what little they have.
It is too bad that American cultural centers and cities are being destroyed one at a time by illegal aliens and the American left-wing collaborators who support them.
I will give the black community of LA credit though on this one, they aren't taking it laying down. They're fighting back everyday against this onslaught while whites and other ethnic groups are complacent as the United States is being taken over by Mexican illegals.
News Footage of this problem:
Blacks vs Mexicans in Compton, CA
Blacks vs Mexicans in Pasadena, CA
Interviews with Two Miltary Men from Different Eras
This is an Old School GOP exclusive interview with two soldiers. One who is currently in the military and one who served in it in the past. The purpose is to tell their stories and opinions based on their individualized experiences in combat and in the military in general.
They were asked the same 10 questions with a few variations to make them compatible with time period changes, etc. Regardless of your opinion of the war (or America's past wars), the fighters themselves must be respected and this is their opportunity to tell their stories.
The first interview is with with SSGT Derek "AFLACK" Gray, who is currently in the Texas National Guard.
1.What branch are you in? When did you first enlist (month and year if possible) and how long have you been in it?
USAF, I first enlisted in October 2000 in the Texas Air National Guard, after 9/11 I have served on Active Duty Ever since.
2.Describe your unit, etc. Main duties and places of domestic station and foreign operation?
I am a member of the 147th Fighter Wing in Houston TX, a General Purpose F-16 unit. My Main duties is a 2w1 weapons mechanic. Provide Air Support on various domestic operations mostly training with Army Units. I am not at liberty to disclose areas of Foreign Operation but I will say we have served in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
3.Briefly describe your duties and your progression from where you started to where you are now (rank, etc.)
I am responsible for the Loading and Unloading of munitions both Air to Air and Air To Ground and maintenance of the weapons systems of the F-16, Launchers, Bomb Racks, M61A1 Gun. I enlisted as an A1C 1 level "technical skill of helper very low technical knowledge" and have progressed to a 7 level SSGT "Technical Skill of Craftsman I can do all the work unsupervised and can train lower skilled airmen".
4.Describe any "exciting" or interesting things that happened while you have been in your branch.
Working Close Air Support Alert over seas! We would launch F-16s on a moments notice to provide Close Air Support to "troops in contact". We would Scramble Jets with little to No Notice! One of these missions is the one that killed Abu Musab Zarqawi, and if I would have been in Iraq two weeks longer in 2006, I could of launched that Mission! Must to my dismay, I was already home and missed that opportunity!
5.What is your general opinion of the Iraq War, have you served and describe it?
My general opinion of the Iraq war is that it is an ESSENTIAL battlefield in the War on Terror! It is one THAT MUST BE WON! I have served in Iraq on three occasions and would do it again in a heartbeat! My role was as a weapons Mechanic and we provided close air support, strike and recon of suspected terrorist cells.
6.Describe any mistakes you think have been made in Iraq, if any?
I believe that most of the mistakes have been made are because of political correctness. The Media has under minded our mission from day one and because of the constant media attention, alot of the commanders have second guessed themselves because of the "hostile media"!
Now I believe we are on the right track and the results of the surge are breaking the back of the terrorist movement; and the Iraqi people believe in what we are doing and no longer worry about us abandoning them before the mission is complete!
7.Describe any positive things you think about the war effort?
I have seen it first hand on base in the hospital. Many innocent Iraqis were wounded by terrorists and the resolve of both the Iraqi's I have spoken too and wounded American soldiers is the same. WE MUST WIN AND ACHIEVE PEACE THROUGH VICTORY in a nutshell.
8.What do you think of the general "culture" of the your branch of service and describe it if you can?
Generally we all work together to accomplish the mission. We have high morale both at home and overseas. We are professional on the job but at the same time the NCO's (Non-Commission Officers) allow us to decompress and have a little fun without letting it get out of hand! I love the military and the experiences, even the bad ones have served to make me a better person!
9.If you could write military strategy for the United States, what would the general use and role of the military be?
I would rebuild the military to the "Reagan" military. One of high morale and high influence around the world. I believe we must contain our enemies and when we engage them, we should do it without any handcuffs to get the mission accomplished; in accordance with LOAC and Geneva Conventions. I would proudly fight in any war in which the final goal is peace and freedom for the captive nations.
10. Anything you else you would like to add, any good war stories showing valor, etc.
My experiences working in the hospital when off duty has been an inspiration! 90-95% of the wounded soldiers I have come into contact with just want to be "patched up and sent back to their men". Uncommon valor is a common virtue as much today as it was back in WWII.
SSGT "Aflack" is a host of THE WAR ZONE: Politics and current events from a soldiers perspective. www.blogtalkradio.com/warzone
Tune in M-F 8PM Central Standard Time
The second interview is with PFC Orville Hunter (Army-Ret.).
1.What branch are were you in? When did you first enlist (month and year if possible) and how long have you been in it?
I enlisted in the spring of 1941, during peace time, although we knew war was probably inevitable. I served until the end of 1946 in the 8th US Army/Air Corp
2.Describe your unit, etc. Main duties and places of domestic station and foreign operation?
I was a Private First Class (PFC) in the 8th Army and Air Corp [back then the Air Force wasn't a separate branch but part of the Army]. I signed up for service during the Spring of 1941 when I was 21 years old, I was stationed in San Diego when Pearl Harbor hit. I then was transferred to Iceland, where we had bases for our convoy supply and troop deployment routes to England. I then went onto England and from there I fought in Italy, France and Germany of course. We were air support for the Western Allies, did bombing raids over France, Germany, etc. and fought on the ground also.
3.Briefly describe your duties and your progression from where you started to where you are now (rank, etc.)
I had lots of duties during the war including assisting in combat and with supplies, reinforcing other US Army Units and more. I started of as a Private First Class and ended that way, I refused to accept any promotions because I didn't want to be a "decision-maker" who makes the decision that gets my men killed. I didn't want to have that guilt on my hands should it happen.
4.Describe any "exciting" or interesting things that happened while you were in your branch.
Around 2 weeks after D-Day, Hitler sent in his best General, Gen. Irwin Rommel to try to push us back off our positions on France's coast. During the German counterattack, a couple of Luftwaffe aircraft [German Air Force] were firing towards some brush that myself and others were hiding in and we shot down two of the planes coming straight at us, with bolt-action rifles.
Our unit also assisted during the last days of the "Battle of the Bulge". We also bombed German military targets in order to give some relief to the Soviet Union, the "Red Army" as they were called. We had many times where air craft would come back with holes in them, damaged, etc. but they'd make it, every time an air crew made it home it was an exciting time, we lived one-day at a time knowing any of us could die in the war.
5.What is your general opinion of the Iraq War?
I believe that is necessary to win, I don't want to see another generation of brave young Americans like Vietnam coming home knowing they fought in a war that was "lost". I am concerned that Iraq could turn into our version of the "Soviet-Afghan War" [1979-91] where we have a constant flow of suicidal enemies coming in to replace suicidal enemies who have died.
Only time will tell how it turns out, but I think it must be won, if for no other reason, so we can say those that didn't make it home along with those that did can rest in the comfort of knowing their generation fought and won the war of their day.
6.Describe any mistakes you think have been made in Iraq, if any?
I believe that it was improper to allow the "lawlessness" in the aftermath of the capture of Baghdad, the looting, etc. because it "set a tone" of lawlessness that has only escalated. I also believe that the President has allowed too much leeway for Iraqi politicians in the "sensitivity" area; its obvious that certain targets who have American blood on their hands like [Shite-Militant Leader] Al-Sadr are not being taken out due to political considerations. The US Army of my era wouldn't of allowed any of this.
Also I believe the President should not have publicly "shifted reasons" as to why we went in there, it takes away from our moral high-ground. I think the war has also been politically correct in some ways.
For instance, in the aftermath of WWII, some fanatical Germans would take shots at our soldiers, bombs would "mysteriously" explode, etc. and when we caught these illegal combatants, we put them in front of a military commission and with in hours they were in front of a firing squad. It squelched even the hardest of Nazi fanatics to calm down. These tactics are being denied our troops today because of political correctness, not because of any illegality of doing them.
I'm also concerned about the old "Yankee go home syndrome", we endured that in WWII, even in countries we liberated and protected. It shocked us when citizens we just saved from Nazi's would say negative things to us. It is pervasive today, even in our media and in the country of Iraq to some extent, and the longer the war goes with out clear victory, the more likely it is that mentality will become pervasive thought, and we'll be forced out. I also don't think the President managed the public relations, aka propaganda of the war very well, from the beginning. All wars must be sold to the public, or they won't last.
7.Describe any positive things you think about the Iraq war effort?
I've heard that the US Military is building schools, hospitals, gas stations, etc., I'm not a big fan of turning the military into a construction crew, but these positive things must be recognized. I also believe that the "surge" and especially the successful division of Sunni militants from Sunni Al-Qaeda members is working. Its the old divide and conquer strategy, its a tried and true method for these types of "non-front line" wars.
8.What do you think of the general "culture" of the your branch of service and describe it if you can (at that time)?
We all were initially worried about battle with Nazi Forces in Italy and France and elsewhere because they had a reputation for winning at that time and for brutality, we all worked as a team but most of us thought to ourselves that our main purpose was to get out of there alive, but as we saw we could defeat them, our confidence increased. We were like family in the 8th Army/Air Corp, and would do anything for each other, including and especially putting ourselves at risk in order to save others. I love all my brothers in arms to this day.
9.If you could write military strategy for the United States, what would the general use and role of the military be?
I would remove unnecessary bases overseas, especially the ones created after we won WWII and ultimately the cold war. Most of us who invaded Germany never imagined we would still have bases in Europe over 60 years later. It creates the "subsidization" of their defense, because they cut their forces, which take tax dollars, knowing the US is there to take care of their business. I wouldn't close bases in the United States, in fact I would increase them and expand the use of the military to border protection (which is allowed under the law, and clearly the Border Patrol is overwhelmed), we seem to care more about other countries borders than our own. I would limit the use of the military to essential foreign operations, those truly representing threats to our national security, including defending our chaotic borders.
I would also try to keep the war on terrorism abroad as a covert, undercover war using Special Forces, CIA and other military units so that we "blend in" with the population and can be more effective in rooting out terrorist cells.
10.Anything you else you would like to add, any good war stories showing valor, etc.
I'd like to express some regrets. I believe that FDR should have been more forceful with the Soviets rather than just letting them enslave Eastern Europe. I also feel some remorse for the civilians killed by our bombing raids at Dresden Germany. After the war we learned that it wasn't the "military target" Stalin said it was, he may well have tricked us and the British into doing his "dirty work" for him of liquidating that city (which was destined to be in Communist East Germany) of mostly civilians and potential opposition to a Communist Police State.
I feel we should of also bombed the Nazi death camps because our intelligence air craft picked up "strange pictures of railroad tracks" heading into what appeared to be prisons. By early 1942, we knew exactly what they were, and if we would have bombed the death camps, we could have slowed the Nazi death machine and instead of 6 million dead Jews, there may have been 2 million, or who knows, but I feel we should have tried to hit them being that the people there were condemned to death anyways.
Overall, we served proudly and honorably as do the young folks of today who serve.
They were asked the same 10 questions with a few variations to make them compatible with time period changes, etc. Regardless of your opinion of the war (or America's past wars), the fighters themselves must be respected and this is their opportunity to tell their stories.
The first interview is with with SSGT Derek "AFLACK" Gray, who is currently in the Texas National Guard.
1.What branch are you in? When did you first enlist (month and year if possible) and how long have you been in it?
USAF, I first enlisted in October 2000 in the Texas Air National Guard, after 9/11 I have served on Active Duty Ever since.
2.Describe your unit, etc. Main duties and places of domestic station and foreign operation?
I am a member of the 147th Fighter Wing in Houston TX, a General Purpose F-16 unit. My Main duties is a 2w1 weapons mechanic. Provide Air Support on various domestic operations mostly training with Army Units. I am not at liberty to disclose areas of Foreign Operation but I will say we have served in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
3.Briefly describe your duties and your progression from where you started to where you are now (rank, etc.)
I am responsible for the Loading and Unloading of munitions both Air to Air and Air To Ground and maintenance of the weapons systems of the F-16, Launchers, Bomb Racks, M61A1 Gun. I enlisted as an A1C 1 level "technical skill of helper very low technical knowledge" and have progressed to a 7 level SSGT "Technical Skill of Craftsman I can do all the work unsupervised and can train lower skilled airmen".
4.Describe any "exciting" or interesting things that happened while you have been in your branch.
Working Close Air Support Alert over seas! We would launch F-16s on a moments notice to provide Close Air Support to "troops in contact". We would Scramble Jets with little to No Notice! One of these missions is the one that killed Abu Musab Zarqawi, and if I would have been in Iraq two weeks longer in 2006, I could of launched that Mission! Must to my dismay, I was already home and missed that opportunity!
5.What is your general opinion of the Iraq War, have you served and describe it?
My general opinion of the Iraq war is that it is an ESSENTIAL battlefield in the War on Terror! It is one THAT MUST BE WON! I have served in Iraq on three occasions and would do it again in a heartbeat! My role was as a weapons Mechanic and we provided close air support, strike and recon of suspected terrorist cells.
6.Describe any mistakes you think have been made in Iraq, if any?
I believe that most of the mistakes have been made are because of political correctness. The Media has under minded our mission from day one and because of the constant media attention, alot of the commanders have second guessed themselves because of the "hostile media"!
Now I believe we are on the right track and the results of the surge are breaking the back of the terrorist movement; and the Iraqi people believe in what we are doing and no longer worry about us abandoning them before the mission is complete!
7.Describe any positive things you think about the war effort?
I have seen it first hand on base in the hospital. Many innocent Iraqis were wounded by terrorists and the resolve of both the Iraqi's I have spoken too and wounded American soldiers is the same. WE MUST WIN AND ACHIEVE PEACE THROUGH VICTORY in a nutshell.
8.What do you think of the general "culture" of the your branch of service and describe it if you can?
Generally we all work together to accomplish the mission. We have high morale both at home and overseas. We are professional on the job but at the same time the NCO's (Non-Commission Officers) allow us to decompress and have a little fun without letting it get out of hand! I love the military and the experiences, even the bad ones have served to make me a better person!
9.If you could write military strategy for the United States, what would the general use and role of the military be?
I would rebuild the military to the "Reagan" military. One of high morale and high influence around the world. I believe we must contain our enemies and when we engage them, we should do it without any handcuffs to get the mission accomplished; in accordance with LOAC and Geneva Conventions. I would proudly fight in any war in which the final goal is peace and freedom for the captive nations.
10. Anything you else you would like to add, any good war stories showing valor, etc.
My experiences working in the hospital when off duty has been an inspiration! 90-95% of the wounded soldiers I have come into contact with just want to be "patched up and sent back to their men". Uncommon valor is a common virtue as much today as it was back in WWII.
SSGT "Aflack" is a host of THE WAR ZONE: Politics and current events from a soldiers perspective. www.blogtalkradio.com/warzone
Tune in M-F 8PM Central Standard Time
The second interview is with PFC Orville Hunter (Army-Ret.).
1.What branch are were you in? When did you first enlist (month and year if possible) and how long have you been in it?
I enlisted in the spring of 1941, during peace time, although we knew war was probably inevitable. I served until the end of 1946 in the 8th US Army/Air Corp
2.Describe your unit, etc. Main duties and places of domestic station and foreign operation?
I was a Private First Class (PFC) in the 8th Army and Air Corp [back then the Air Force wasn't a separate branch but part of the Army]. I signed up for service during the Spring of 1941 when I was 21 years old, I was stationed in San Diego when Pearl Harbor hit. I then was transferred to Iceland, where we had bases for our convoy supply and troop deployment routes to England. I then went onto England and from there I fought in Italy, France and Germany of course. We were air support for the Western Allies, did bombing raids over France, Germany, etc. and fought on the ground also.
3.Briefly describe your duties and your progression from where you started to where you are now (rank, etc.)
I had lots of duties during the war including assisting in combat and with supplies, reinforcing other US Army Units and more. I started of as a Private First Class and ended that way, I refused to accept any promotions because I didn't want to be a "decision-maker" who makes the decision that gets my men killed. I didn't want to have that guilt on my hands should it happen.
4.Describe any "exciting" or interesting things that happened while you were in your branch.
Around 2 weeks after D-Day, Hitler sent in his best General, Gen. Irwin Rommel to try to push us back off our positions on France's coast. During the German counterattack, a couple of Luftwaffe aircraft [German Air Force] were firing towards some brush that myself and others were hiding in and we shot down two of the planes coming straight at us, with bolt-action rifles.
Our unit also assisted during the last days of the "Battle of the Bulge". We also bombed German military targets in order to give some relief to the Soviet Union, the "Red Army" as they were called. We had many times where air craft would come back with holes in them, damaged, etc. but they'd make it, every time an air crew made it home it was an exciting time, we lived one-day at a time knowing any of us could die in the war.
5.What is your general opinion of the Iraq War?
I believe that is necessary to win, I don't want to see another generation of brave young Americans like Vietnam coming home knowing they fought in a war that was "lost". I am concerned that Iraq could turn into our version of the "Soviet-Afghan War" [1979-91] where we have a constant flow of suicidal enemies coming in to replace suicidal enemies who have died.
Only time will tell how it turns out, but I think it must be won, if for no other reason, so we can say those that didn't make it home along with those that did can rest in the comfort of knowing their generation fought and won the war of their day.
6.Describe any mistakes you think have been made in Iraq, if any?
I believe that it was improper to allow the "lawlessness" in the aftermath of the capture of Baghdad, the looting, etc. because it "set a tone" of lawlessness that has only escalated. I also believe that the President has allowed too much leeway for Iraqi politicians in the "sensitivity" area; its obvious that certain targets who have American blood on their hands like [Shite-Militant Leader] Al-Sadr are not being taken out due to political considerations. The US Army of my era wouldn't of allowed any of this.
Also I believe the President should not have publicly "shifted reasons" as to why we went in there, it takes away from our moral high-ground. I think the war has also been politically correct in some ways.
For instance, in the aftermath of WWII, some fanatical Germans would take shots at our soldiers, bombs would "mysteriously" explode, etc. and when we caught these illegal combatants, we put them in front of a military commission and with in hours they were in front of a firing squad. It squelched even the hardest of Nazi fanatics to calm down. These tactics are being denied our troops today because of political correctness, not because of any illegality of doing them.
I'm also concerned about the old "Yankee go home syndrome", we endured that in WWII, even in countries we liberated and protected. It shocked us when citizens we just saved from Nazi's would say negative things to us. It is pervasive today, even in our media and in the country of Iraq to some extent, and the longer the war goes with out clear victory, the more likely it is that mentality will become pervasive thought, and we'll be forced out. I also don't think the President managed the public relations, aka propaganda of the war very well, from the beginning. All wars must be sold to the public, or they won't last.
7.Describe any positive things you think about the Iraq war effort?
I've heard that the US Military is building schools, hospitals, gas stations, etc., I'm not a big fan of turning the military into a construction crew, but these positive things must be recognized. I also believe that the "surge" and especially the successful division of Sunni militants from Sunni Al-Qaeda members is working. Its the old divide and conquer strategy, its a tried and true method for these types of "non-front line" wars.
8.What do you think of the general "culture" of the your branch of service and describe it if you can (at that time)?
We all were initially worried about battle with Nazi Forces in Italy and France and elsewhere because they had a reputation for winning at that time and for brutality, we all worked as a team but most of us thought to ourselves that our main purpose was to get out of there alive, but as we saw we could defeat them, our confidence increased. We were like family in the 8th Army/Air Corp, and would do anything for each other, including and especially putting ourselves at risk in order to save others. I love all my brothers in arms to this day.
9.If you could write military strategy for the United States, what would the general use and role of the military be?
I would remove unnecessary bases overseas, especially the ones created after we won WWII and ultimately the cold war. Most of us who invaded Germany never imagined we would still have bases in Europe over 60 years later. It creates the "subsidization" of their defense, because they cut their forces, which take tax dollars, knowing the US is there to take care of their business. I wouldn't close bases in the United States, in fact I would increase them and expand the use of the military to border protection (which is allowed under the law, and clearly the Border Patrol is overwhelmed), we seem to care more about other countries borders than our own. I would limit the use of the military to essential foreign operations, those truly representing threats to our national security, including defending our chaotic borders.
I would also try to keep the war on terrorism abroad as a covert, undercover war using Special Forces, CIA and other military units so that we "blend in" with the population and can be more effective in rooting out terrorist cells.
10.Anything you else you would like to add, any good war stories showing valor, etc.
I'd like to express some regrets. I believe that FDR should have been more forceful with the Soviets rather than just letting them enslave Eastern Europe. I also feel some remorse for the civilians killed by our bombing raids at Dresden Germany. After the war we learned that it wasn't the "military target" Stalin said it was, he may well have tricked us and the British into doing his "dirty work" for him of liquidating that city (which was destined to be in Communist East Germany) of mostly civilians and potential opposition to a Communist Police State.
I feel we should of also bombed the Nazi death camps because our intelligence air craft picked up "strange pictures of railroad tracks" heading into what appeared to be prisons. By early 1942, we knew exactly what they were, and if we would have bombed the death camps, we could have slowed the Nazi death machine and instead of 6 million dead Jews, there may have been 2 million, or who knows, but I feel we should have tried to hit them being that the people there were condemned to death anyways.
Overall, we served proudly and honorably as do the young folks of today who serve.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Fearing a Massacre: Oregon Teacher Fights for Second Amendment Rights to Bring Firearm to Work
Oregon Teacher Fights for Second Amendment Rights to Bring Firearm to School
By Old School GOP
NOTE: IN LIGHT OF the October 10, 2007 SCHOOL SHOOTING ATTACK in Cleveland AND the October 11, 2007 UNCOVERED PLOT TO KILL AT A PENNSYLVANIA HS, WE CAN NO LONGER DO THE OLD LIBERAL LEFT WING "DUCK AND COVER" none sense when it comes to SCHOOL DEFENSE.
IT IS TIME TO ARM CERTAIN TEACHERS ON CAMPUS....PLAIN AND SIMPLE.....We can train able-bodied teachers at the local police academy, certify them through back ground checks (just so you know, as a former teacher, I had to go through FBI, US-DOJ, CA State and Local law enforcement background checks just to enter the classroom), train them to act through rehearsals of such events and ultimately take back control the classrooms and hallways of America's schools.
THE DISCUSSION SHOULD BE OVER!!! But the LEFT won't budge and continues to AID under-age KILLERS on our campuses by keeping staff from carrying firearms....
What you about to read is the story of an Oregon teacher who has filed a court case seeking to declare her Second Amendment Rights as valid in her state, regardless of where she works.
Commentary: As a former teacher, I agree with the attempt by Oregon High School Teacher Shirley Katz's desire to bring a firearm to campus for self protection. In her case, she claims her ex-husband is a threat to her along with her fear of a "Columbine-style" High School attack happening at her school.
When I taught (at a High School in California), I discovered that is takes "SWAT" an average of 30 minutes or more to fully respond to a school shooting. This is scary considering how quickly kids with semi-automatic weapons can kill in large numbers. However most states leave teachers and staff defenseless by declaring our schools "gun-free zones". In most states, violating gun-free zone laws can cost you ten years or more of your life in prison, a catch-22 for staff, either violate the law and potentially live through an attack, or don't violate the law and end up in the grave yard.
This lady has passed the requirements of her state to own a weapon and obtain a concealed permit, and thus should be allowed to carry her gun onto campus, who knows maybe her doing so will save lives in the future. Imagine if even one or two of the people in the classrooms at Virginia Tech had firearms (one man killed during that incident had a permit but wouldn't carry his gun on campus because he wasn't interested in VA State Prison, perhaps in retrospect, a prison cell would be much nicer than a grave-marker), perhaps the death toll would have been cut in half, or a fourth.
The fact is, "gun-free" zones do nothing more than make the madman "a King" because he will never abide by such laws, whereas the common folk will listen to the law and thus be subject to potential death. Aside from the madman, those that support gun-control laws are also partially responsible for the deaths we've experienced because they create the conditions that allow these people to commit their attacks with no infringement from an disarmed public.
Article about this:
English teacher Shirley Katz insists she needs to take her pistol with her to school because she fears her ex-husband could show up and try to harm her. She's also worried about a Columbine-style attack.
But Katz's district has barred teachers from bringing guns to school, so she is challenging the ban as unlawful, since Oregon is among states that allow people with a permit to carry concealed weapons into public buildings.
"This is primarily about my Second Amendment right and Oregon law and the simple fact that I know it is my right to carry that gun," said Katz, 44, sitting at the kitchen table of her home outside this city of 74,000.
"I have that (concealed weapons) permit. I refuse to let my ex-husband bully me. And I am not going to let the school board bully me, either."
In Oregon, a sheriff can grant a concealed-weapons permit to anyone whose criminal record is clean and who completes a gun-safety course.
Thirty-eight states, along with the District of Columbia, prohibit people from taking guns to school, according to the National Council of State Legislatures. But it's unclear if special weapons permits offer an exemption, since the council does not track such exceptions.
School Superintendent Phil Long insists employees and students are safer without guns on campus. The district plans to make that argument when the case comes before a judge on Thursday.
Katz's request appears to be rare. School security consultant Ken Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services in Cleveland, said he has never heard of a similar case while working in 45 states.
Katz won't say whether she has ever taken her gun to school, but she practices with it regularly and has thought about what she would do if she had to confront a gunman. She would be sure students were locked in nearby offices out of the line of fire, and she would be ready with her pistol.
"Our safety plan at our school now is that if somebody threatening comes in, you try to avoid eye contact, and do whatever they say, and that is not acceptable anymore," she said. Shootings at Virginia Tech University and the one-room Amish school in Pennsylvania, "reinforced my belief we have to take action, we can't just acquiesce as we have been taught to do."
Katz never owned a gun until she and her then-husband, commercial photographer Gerry Katz, moved to Oregon from Atlanta eight years ago and bought 20 acres on a gravel road in the foothills of the Cascade Range.
"Being out in the country, we just felt we needed to have a gun here for personal safety," she said.
In 2004, Gerry Katz, who had a concealed weapons permit, was arrested for pulling a .38-caliber revolver after a confrontation that began in a parking lot with two men whose car almost hit his.
According to the police report, he did not point the weapon at anyone. The police seized it, and the charges were later dismissed. Gerry Katz said he never went back for his gun.
Shirley Katz said she bought her own gun in 2004 after Gerry Katz grabbed her by the throat and threatened to kill her — an allegation he denies.
He argues that her desire to take her gun to school is about reopening their divorce to get exclusive custody of their 6-year-old daughter.
"She's just scamming everybody," he said. "As soon as this thing started ... I called the principal at her high school and told her ... I am not coming to your school. I am not a threat to her. I have no desire to hurt her."
Oregon had a school shooting in 1998, when student Kip Kinkel killed his parents at home, then drove to school and opened fire in the cafeteria of Thurston High School in Springfield, killing two and wounding 25 others.
Since then, the Legislature has considered barring people with concealed weapons permits from carrying guns in schools, but the bills have failed, said Dori Brattain, general counsel to the Oregon School Boards Association.
Some South Medford students say they are uncomfortable with the idea of a teacher carrying a gun, especially since they cannot bring even scissors to school.
"I totally understand she wants to protect herself," said Lauren Forderer, 16, a junior. "But I don't agree she should bring her problems around 2,000 other people."
Even if she wins, Katz said, she may not bring the gun to school.
"The whole point of carrying concealed is no one should know you're carrying," she said. "So I feel like my carrying concealed on campus now sets me up as a target."
By Old School GOP
NOTE: IN LIGHT OF the October 10, 2007 SCHOOL SHOOTING ATTACK in Cleveland AND the October 11, 2007 UNCOVERED PLOT TO KILL AT A PENNSYLVANIA HS, WE CAN NO LONGER DO THE OLD LIBERAL LEFT WING "DUCK AND COVER" none sense when it comes to SCHOOL DEFENSE.
IT IS TIME TO ARM CERTAIN TEACHERS ON CAMPUS....PLAIN AND SIMPLE.....We can train able-bodied teachers at the local police academy, certify them through back ground checks (just so you know, as a former teacher, I had to go through FBI, US-DOJ, CA State and Local law enforcement background checks just to enter the classroom), train them to act through rehearsals of such events and ultimately take back control the classrooms and hallways of America's schools.
THE DISCUSSION SHOULD BE OVER!!! But the LEFT won't budge and continues to AID under-age KILLERS on our campuses by keeping staff from carrying firearms....
What you about to read is the story of an Oregon teacher who has filed a court case seeking to declare her Second Amendment Rights as valid in her state, regardless of where she works.
Commentary: As a former teacher, I agree with the attempt by Oregon High School Teacher Shirley Katz's desire to bring a firearm to campus for self protection. In her case, she claims her ex-husband is a threat to her along with her fear of a "Columbine-style" High School attack happening at her school.
When I taught (at a High School in California), I discovered that is takes "SWAT" an average of 30 minutes or more to fully respond to a school shooting. This is scary considering how quickly kids with semi-automatic weapons can kill in large numbers. However most states leave teachers and staff defenseless by declaring our schools "gun-free zones". In most states, violating gun-free zone laws can cost you ten years or more of your life in prison, a catch-22 for staff, either violate the law and potentially live through an attack, or don't violate the law and end up in the grave yard.
This lady has passed the requirements of her state to own a weapon and obtain a concealed permit, and thus should be allowed to carry her gun onto campus, who knows maybe her doing so will save lives in the future. Imagine if even one or two of the people in the classrooms at Virginia Tech had firearms (one man killed during that incident had a permit but wouldn't carry his gun on campus because he wasn't interested in VA State Prison, perhaps in retrospect, a prison cell would be much nicer than a grave-marker), perhaps the death toll would have been cut in half, or a fourth.
The fact is, "gun-free" zones do nothing more than make the madman "a King" because he will never abide by such laws, whereas the common folk will listen to the law and thus be subject to potential death. Aside from the madman, those that support gun-control laws are also partially responsible for the deaths we've experienced because they create the conditions that allow these people to commit their attacks with no infringement from an disarmed public.
Article about this:
English teacher Shirley Katz insists she needs to take her pistol with her to school because she fears her ex-husband could show up and try to harm her. She's also worried about a Columbine-style attack.
But Katz's district has barred teachers from bringing guns to school, so she is challenging the ban as unlawful, since Oregon is among states that allow people with a permit to carry concealed weapons into public buildings.
"This is primarily about my Second Amendment right and Oregon law and the simple fact that I know it is my right to carry that gun," said Katz, 44, sitting at the kitchen table of her home outside this city of 74,000.
"I have that (concealed weapons) permit. I refuse to let my ex-husband bully me. And I am not going to let the school board bully me, either."
In Oregon, a sheriff can grant a concealed-weapons permit to anyone whose criminal record is clean and who completes a gun-safety course.
Thirty-eight states, along with the District of Columbia, prohibit people from taking guns to school, according to the National Council of State Legislatures. But it's unclear if special weapons permits offer an exemption, since the council does not track such exceptions.
School Superintendent Phil Long insists employees and students are safer without guns on campus. The district plans to make that argument when the case comes before a judge on Thursday.
Katz's request appears to be rare. School security consultant Ken Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services in Cleveland, said he has never heard of a similar case while working in 45 states.
Katz won't say whether she has ever taken her gun to school, but she practices with it regularly and has thought about what she would do if she had to confront a gunman. She would be sure students were locked in nearby offices out of the line of fire, and she would be ready with her pistol.
"Our safety plan at our school now is that if somebody threatening comes in, you try to avoid eye contact, and do whatever they say, and that is not acceptable anymore," she said. Shootings at Virginia Tech University and the one-room Amish school in Pennsylvania, "reinforced my belief we have to take action, we can't just acquiesce as we have been taught to do."
Katz never owned a gun until she and her then-husband, commercial photographer Gerry Katz, moved to Oregon from Atlanta eight years ago and bought 20 acres on a gravel road in the foothills of the Cascade Range.
"Being out in the country, we just felt we needed to have a gun here for personal safety," she said.
In 2004, Gerry Katz, who had a concealed weapons permit, was arrested for pulling a .38-caliber revolver after a confrontation that began in a parking lot with two men whose car almost hit his.
According to the police report, he did not point the weapon at anyone. The police seized it, and the charges were later dismissed. Gerry Katz said he never went back for his gun.
Shirley Katz said she bought her own gun in 2004 after Gerry Katz grabbed her by the throat and threatened to kill her — an allegation he denies.
He argues that her desire to take her gun to school is about reopening their divorce to get exclusive custody of their 6-year-old daughter.
"She's just scamming everybody," he said. "As soon as this thing started ... I called the principal at her high school and told her ... I am not coming to your school. I am not a threat to her. I have no desire to hurt her."
Oregon had a school shooting in 1998, when student Kip Kinkel killed his parents at home, then drove to school and opened fire in the cafeteria of Thurston High School in Springfield, killing two and wounding 25 others.
Since then, the Legislature has considered barring people with concealed weapons permits from carrying guns in schools, but the bills have failed, said Dori Brattain, general counsel to the Oregon School Boards Association.
Some South Medford students say they are uncomfortable with the idea of a teacher carrying a gun, especially since they cannot bring even scissors to school.
"I totally understand she wants to protect herself," said Lauren Forderer, 16, a junior. "But I don't agree she should bring her problems around 2,000 other people."
Even if she wins, Katz said, she may not bring the gun to school.
"The whole point of carrying concealed is no one should know you're carrying," she said. "So I feel like my carrying concealed on campus now sets me up as a target."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)