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.
Friday, May 15, 2015
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
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.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
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.
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
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.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)