More Jade Helm Woes

My fellow classmate Corvair Keith, posted an article on his blog Don’t Mess With Texas, concerning the shenanigans and conspiracy theory’s that have been associated with the “Jade Helm 15” operation. As a veteran of the U.S. Navy, I feel strongly for any instance attempting to slander our men and women in uniform. I appreciate the light-handed humor tied into his article, with associated key statements from the likes of Chuck Norris. I most certainly agree with his statement, “One thing these conspiracy theorists don’t seem to get is that the U.S. Government is not in the habit of invading states that it already controls.” This is explicitly correct, if the U.S. National government were to declare martial law, it wouldn’t be through a highly schemed, conspiracy-ridden ploy. It seems to be if you can find a hair of possibility in a ludicrous theory, there are people out there who will take it to the next level. 

Hold Your Fire Governor

In a few short months, Texas along with several other western states will be sites of a military exercise called, “Jade Helm 15”. Jade Helm 15 exercise is intended to provide our Special Forces military personnel with training in geographical areas, in which they could encounter overseas. This massive joint-effort field training exercise will enhance the SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) our troops need in many different environments. These exercises will only take place on pre-coordinated public and private lands, with permission from proper authorities and property owners.

Recently, an operations map for the Jade Helm exercise surfaced on the internet, causing an uproar from conspiracy theorist. The map was a detail of the South Western United States, highlighting certain states to be hostile, permissive, leaning towards hostile, or leaning towards friendly. Immediately, there was a backlash from concerned-misinformed citizens, worried that the U.S Government was using this exercise as a ploy to invoke Marshall Law. Those speculations are wild beyond belief. The map is simply an outline of the “role playing” situations that will be conducted in each area. As a former active duty member of the U.S. Navy, I especially find it to be ludicrous. Our men and women of the armed forces need this type of vital training in order to perform their duties and make it back to their families safely and proud.

In late April, Texas’s Governor Greg Abbott, ordered the Texas National Guard to “keep and eye” on the on goings of the exercise. In my opinion, Governor Abbott’s actions give way for the conspiracist to spread their theories, and cause a lack of respect and feelings of ill will towards our military. It seems that Texas Democrat Party Deputy Executive Director, Manny Garzia shares my same sentiments. He released this statement,  “The first thing the governor should have done when he heard about concerns with U.S. military trainings is to support our troops and reassure the public that our U.S. military poses absolutely no threat to Texans. Instead, he gave credence to conspiracy theorists by ordering the Texas State Guard to monitor U.S. military operations.” Furthermore, Governor Abbott’s suspicions are unwarranted; there is absolutely no reason to suspect any foul play from the National Government. If the government of this free nation wanted to take total control of any state, it wouldn’t need to do so under a ploy.

Review for the Former

My fellow classmate Kim Hernandez, posted an article on her blog PoliTexas, concerning a private businesses’ right to ban concealed weapons on their property. In my previous article I also discussed the same topic, however our views appear to be diametrically opposed. I do not think businesses should be able to ban concealed weapon carry. Texans are legally able to conceal carry with the proper permit. It is not the function for individual business to regulate Texas law. I do not believe that citizens who legally carry concealed weapons should be liable for the possibility of their weapon being stolen out of their locked vehicle, just for the gun ban compliance of a business. However, if a business were to hang a ban sign, I think it should only be a suggestion of the company’s preference; as well as the concealed weapon carrier’s decision whether or not he or she feels comfortable leaving their weapon in their vehicle.

Texas, Not the Modern Wild West

Texas is a far cry from its wild west past of gun wielding and cowboy heroism. During this session of the Texas legislation, two bills have been introduced on the topic of gun concealment.  One bill, House Bill 2405, intends to provide business owners on private property the right to ban concealed weapons. The bill would require business owners who want their businesses gun free, to display a paper sign indicating no weapons, in clear view prior to building entrance.

Firstly, a sign is not going to deter a person with ill will from entering a business with a concealed weapon. As stated by State Representative Poncho Nevarez, “… to keep somebody out if they’ve got a gun, you should be able to do it simply.” That is a preposterous assumption. Persons follow rules out of some form of fear. A simple sign is not going to incite the fear to gain compliance. Businesses would have to establish a security checkpoint, specifically geared to search for concealed weapons.

Secondly, in order to legally carry a concealed weapon, a person must take steps in order to obtain a permit. Legal carriers have taken state mandated training, and are given guidelines on proper concealment.

Another related bill, House Bill 937, intends to allow carrying of concealed weapons on college campuses. University of Texas System Chancellor, William McRaven wrote a letter to legislators voicing his perplexity on the implications if the bill were to pass. He stated, “….will lead to an increase in both accidental shootings and self inflicted injuries.” 

I find this statement to be nonsensical. Students and faculty members legally permitted to carry under the possible new law, would be highly unlikely to engage in any activity in campus or elsewhere, that would lead to accidental shootings or self inflicted injuries. It would be a laughable assumption that a student or faculty member would have their weapon out on campus participating in any John Wayne esque gun slinging.

Furthermore, McRaven expressed, “ If you’re in a heated debate with somebody in the middle of a classroom, and you don’t know whether or not that individual is carrying, how does that inhibit the interaction between students and faculty?”

An extravagant statement by McRaven, statistically classroom heated debates do not by any margin end in injury or death. Faculty and students should be more fearful of individuals that do not have permits to conceal weapons and are harboring bad will.

It seems to be that; laws that prevent the concealment of weapons also violate the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Bottom line, guns do not kill people, people kill people.

Terminating the Statues of Limitations on Rape

I think we can all agree that persons convicted of rape, with DNA evidence presented at trial, should receive the full punishment for which they have brought upon themselves.  In a blog entry published by Grits for Breakfast entitled, “Cynicalcampaign ploy removing statute of limitations for rape scaled back in Legeprocess”, discusses the recent bill proposed by State Representative Senfronia Thompson. The proposed bill would terminate the statue of limitations on rape. The author writes, “Imagine being accused of date rape 25 years ago: How could anyone possibly defend oneself if the state can secure a conviction based solely on the alleged victim's uncorroborated testimony?” This assessment is completely spot on. Just think how simple it would be for a person, obviously in an ill state of mind, to use this injustice loophole to ploy against another person at anytime.  The results, if this bill were to be passed, would be exponentially devastating to the American justice system. Furthermore, the author goes on to state, “This would be a recipe for ramping up the number of false rape convictions, which readers will recall is the main category of defendants who populate the state's highest-in-the-country number of DNA exonerees.” In my opinion, that appears to be the most obvious reaction to such a wild notion. Having no statue of limitations on rape cases, and such cases could be tried and convicted without the presence of DNA evidence is a preposterous idea. Where exactly would “the right of a fair trial” lie?