Saturday, December 22, 2012

CT received $668.85M in DHS grants

The gun control advocates are going full bore to eliminate U.S. made rifles that are complimentary to our military models. These civilian rifles use the same type of magazines and the same caliber of ammo, making a readily available supply of spare magazines and ammuntion outside of military stores. Such is necessary to maintaining a strong, indigenous firearms manufacturing base for national defense. The Second Amendment and Alaska Statutes require that we as citizens maintain a firearm for use during a call up of the unorganized militia (AS 26.05.010, AS 26.05.110).

The fact that owning this type of rifle is a good investment and shooting them is just plain fun is an affront to the civility and righteous indignation of the liberal gun control advocate.

The howl for gun control and the banning of "high capacity" magazines are red herrings designed to obscure our politicians’ and state and local leaders’ negligence and outright ignoring of the very real danger to our schools. A danger that was promised by fatwa before and after September 11, 2001. Bin Laden had signed a fatwa in February, 1998 "to kill the Americans, civilian and military" that was inclusive of killing American children.

Another danger had been building since the 80s that was the result of the overuse of anti-depressants on young male children. A result that was unforeseen in the mad rush to ‘calm’ little boys into being quiet and to "behave" without instilling discipline or a sense of right and wrong. A result forced by liberals who believed that little boys should act other than as normal male adolescents. In the liberal view of man, males were too aggressive.

What was a noticeable change between those children who were in school since the early 80s, and those generations before? What could their parents and even schools do that was not legal prior to the 1980s?

The drugging of male children. At times, without the parents’ consent. That is why the shooters in school shootings are all male. Every shooter in the schools who was a student had been on prozac, luvox, ritalin or some other anti-depressant. They had taken themselves off of their prescribed medication and had gone ‘cold turkey’. The result was to create a paranoid, violent, psychotics. There was never any long term clinical study on the use of these drugs on male children, before they began to be prescribed for young children. Yet, these drugs have been used on male children as young as 3 years old. Behavioral modification by drugs, a liberal dream come true. In the 1990s, ritalin presecriptions rose to 2 million and then doubled every two years. (Merrow Report, PBS, 1995).

These dangers coalesced into the threat of armed attacks upon our schools, with the goal of killing children, creating terror, and gaining notoriety for the organization or the attackers themselves. Armed attacks were anticipated and mitigation for such was provided for under the Department of Homeland Security’s homeland security grant program to the States.

Adam Lanza was a terrorist. He did what terrorists do: he killed to create terror, for whatever his reasoning, he assaulted the school--he had to break in, and he attacked staff and students to gain noteriety and to send a message to his dead mother. He killed 27 people. It has been reported, that given his mental issues, he too may have been on anti-depressants.

Studies have been done at the federal level on how to protect our schools from an armed attack. Our military and our civil security know that the threat exists to the schools, but little or nothing has been done to create security protocols and to place armed security at elementary schools that would certainly reduce the potential for carnage, if not outright eliminate the potential for such.

In Israel, school security includes armed guards and armed staff. This model has been effective in preventing armed attacks on Israeli schools by terrorists.

At Sandy Hook Elementary a single point of entry through a locked door with a security camera was in place. That was a good first step. Evidently, the windows were not shatterproof, as that is how Lanza gained entrance after the door would not open. The principal put Lanza’s yelling and shooting on the loudspeaker system to notify the teachers to lock their rooms. The implication is that they lacked a common code word that would have notified staff to immediately go into lockdown. No armed guards or armed staff.

Did CT have the money to mitigate the armed threat that Adam Lanza demonstrated?

The State of Connecticut each year receives homeland security grants:
2011: $23M
2010: $142M
2009: $192M
2008: $37.5M
2007: $98M
2006: $22.6M
2005: $34.2M
2004: $60.6M
2003: $47.15M
2002: 11.85M

Total 2002-2011: $668.85 million in homeland security grants.

The DHS homeland security grant monies are designated by the applicant (State, county, city, school district) for planning, threat evaluation, disaster mitigation, hardening of vulnerable targets--including schools, training for emergency management, first responders, and impacted personnel--school staff for example; equipment for WMD and emergency response, communications, and emergency management.

Why did the state and local police, civil leadership of CT and DHS not act to harden the schools, against an armed threat? In failing to do so, they were negligent in their duties and responsibilities.

Schools have been targets of terror world-wide. On September, 1, 2004, over 1,000 school staff and students were taken prisoner at School 1 in Beslan autonomous republic with disastrous results for the students. 186 children were killed in the ensuing attempt to rescue the children. 334 people total were killed. How could this happen in a country with draconian prohibitions against private gun ownership? Russia has such strong gun laws, that only three groups have weapons: the Russian government agencies, including the military, the Russian mob, and the jihadis.

Was CT's problem simply being too politically correct to accept the idea of armed security and staff in elementary schools, or was it a sitaution of recognizing the threat, but dismissing it, because of the small probability of an armed incursion actually happening?

NEA, liberal administrators and staff do not want armed security in elementary schools. Guns! are bad!

We need to adopt the Israeli policy of an armed guard and at least one trained armed staff member. Teachers should be allowed concealed carry.

Law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry in a school when they come to visit their kids, to pick them up, or to attend functions. This increases the armed security protection significantly at no cost to the school district.

Had there been an armed security guard or had there been armed staff, Adam Lanza's attack would have been truncated very early on, probably at the door.

Instead, we have liberal gun control advocates howling about 'high' capacity magazines and other nonesense that has no bearing on the problem. They express anger and outrage that the NRA would even suggest armed security. Yet, the liberal gun control advocates and politicians want a meaningful dialogue.

Why do banks have armed security? To protect the customers’ valuables. Were the 20 kids killed at Sandy Hook unworthy of the protection afforded . . . money?

The liberal politicians at every level of government, including President Barrack Obama, do not want to owe up to the fact that all they did when the school firearms prohibitions were passed was to put words in a code book. Without the rest of the program--locked doors, training, security protocols, and armed staff and amred security--the words of the law only created safety zones for the Adam Lanza’s.

Who's to blame for our school massacres? Liberal politicians and anti-gun groups.

The only effective remedy to reducing crime has been arming the law abiding citizen. Criminals do not want to encounter, armed citizens. They want unarmed victims. Same for terrorists.

CT had collected over $668,850,000 from the federal DHS homeland security grant program. Why did CT’s leaders not see to it that their schools were hardened against an armed threat? Heads should roll. They ignored the threat. The children and the school staff paid the price.

Now, do we learn from that inexcusable negligence, or do we let the red herring of ineffective gun laws take away our attention from the reality of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre: CT had the money, but did not protect their children!

No comments:

Post a Comment