Time For Action

     Friday, the last of the funerals were held in and around Newtown CT, and for those affected, the holiday season has been ruined, anticipation and joy cruelly being replaced by despair and horror. I suspect the rest of us are relieved to have them done so we can go about our preparations without having to dwell on those events, at least for now. Besides, our children are not going to be in school for the next week and a half, so in our minds, they are safe, for now. What about on January 2nd, when they return to school. Are they going to be any safer then? Without immediate action, the honest answer is no!
     By all accounts Sandy Hook Elementary is not much different than most of our schools. Unlike inner city schools, where violence led decades ago to not only a need for higher security, but an acceptance of it's implementation also, schools like Sandy Hook are perceived as safe. Many of the parents of the students there would probably have been horrified at the idea of having metal detectors and armed police officers on duty in their children's school. It is sort of like the idea there are places where doors do not need to be locked. Those are myths perpetuated by a distant memory of a time long past when communities were much more intertwined and where those who would do harm could not easily hide. Our society is no longer like that. Let's face it, most of us do not even know who our closest neighbors are so finding the rare crazed criminal is almost impossible to do.
     Events at Sandy Hook are sure to lead to a vigorous debate about a whole host of issues. Unfortunately, debates take time and policy implementation even longer. Except for one. Currently, school superintendents across the country are given the authority to allow any employee to carry firearms. Sadly, many operate under the dangerous assumption that by declaring schools "gun free zones" it somehow makes them safer places to be. This is a horrible miscalculation which can be blamed for much of the loss of lives in these situations.
     Some of you may be questioning how it is I can comment like this. Well, let me explain how. Between 2007 and 2010 I received extensive training in active shooter scenarios as a Special State Police Officer working on a local college campus. I was also certified as a patrol rifle instructor for the state of Massachusetts. In addition I received first responder training to critical incidents by Homeland Security. My 20 plus years of law enforcement experience as municipal police officer, private police officer and military police officer lead me to have strong opinions about these issues. In all of the training I received, one theme stood out. The quicker a firearm held by a good guy is brought to bear against a bad guy holding a firearm, the more lives saved. Simple, but true. This is the reason active shooter response training was changed after Columbine. Yet, even with this proper change, there is a problem. Most of the time, the good folks with guns are too far away to help.
     Given this, I would concur with the proposal brought forward by Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. I am not a member but he has a valid point. We should immediately demand there be a resource officer at every school. Our school budgets do have the funds for this. In addition, policies which declare our schools gun free zones should be abolished immediately and any employee duly licensed should be allowed to carry on their person a firearm if they choose. After all, if you believe those employees are not responsible, then why are they working in the schools in the first place?
     I personally spoke about this with a current firearms instructor who works full time as a police officer in a local town. He offered to train any school employee to the same level that he would train any police officer and he agrees they should be allowed to do it. We have armed security for money, politicians, special buildings, vehicles, yet our most cherished, most valued members of our lives, our children, are left at the mercy of these crazed criminals. It is not right and it should be fixed by January 2nd, 2013. Otherwise, our children are at the same risk as they were last Friday. Unless they attend one of those inner city schools.
    

Let Them Grieve First

     It has been four days since the shootings in Newtown CT and most of the victims are still not laid to rest. Families are devastated, a town is now ripped to shreds and our nation is joining in the mourning of those lost innocent souls. Yet, what are we hearing from our news sources? Stories about the community coming together? Some. Stories about the victims and their families? Some of those too. Stories about the human debris responsible? Lots of those. All of those combined do not add up to the stories about the gun control issue though. Not even close. So many so called objective reporters are using this tragedy to promote their own political views on this issue, they are actually starting to come out in the open with their opinions.
     I watched today as Andrea Mitchell gleefully predicted a whole new set of gun laws sure to come while she was interviewing Nancy Pelosi. It was Congresswoman Pelosi, arguably the most Liberal pol in Washington, who had to talk Mitchell down from the Liberal high she was experiencing. It was Nancy Pelosi, of all people, who had to say, while she hoped some new laws would be enacted, there was no guarantee it would happen. First off, shame on me for watching Andrea Mitchell, but I am always fascinated by Nancy Pelosi and her ability to ignore reality as she presents her views on issues. I was shocked to hear her sound so reasonable, but I guess even she could see how wrong Andrea Mitchell was in her reaction to the shooting. It was, in my opinion, as if Mitchell was rejoicing in the age of the victims as a way to get her desired policies enacted and maybe Pelosi felt sensed that too and instinctively backed off from it. Still, there was a glint in her eyes too and I don't think it was just from the studio lights.
     I read a pundit today who are said the tragedy only happened because there are not enough gun control laws yet in the US. I guess in his mind the 22,000 plus laws already on the books are not enough. No mention of the shooter or his responsibility though. No mention of the shooter's caretakers, if he was mentally ill, who allowed for him to have access to the weapons used either. As a matter of fact, there was not one mention of any of the recent shooters and all of their collective mental illness. Violent video games? Violence on TV or in the movies? No mention of those things. No mention of the dozens of laws broken by the shooter either. I mean, I'm pretty sure it is illegal to have a weapon on your person if you are not licensed, it is illegal to discharge a weapon in or near any building, especially a school. It is illegal to kill or hurt people. Well, you get the point. None of those things were mentioned. None at all. Just a simple statement that the shooting was directly as a result of a lack of more gun laws. These are just a couple of examples of the hundreds of commentaries on the incident.
     I believe this type of behavior by all media types, at this time, is wrong. Still, I must admit, I have myself written reactions to some of the comments made. I will refrain from doing so further for now. Most of the victims are not even laid to rest yet and a whole town has had its heart ripped out. I feel this is not the time to politicize this event. While I do believe an honest discussion should be had by people from all sides of the issues, I don't think it should be now. Knee jerk reactions will only lead to more resistance for real change and a kicking of the can down the road to the next horrible event.
     Unfortunately, I think this is just too great an opportunity for many in the media to pass up, even if it would be the right thing to do. Maybe their lack of empathy is simply a reflection of what is wrong with our society in general. Whatever the case, I believe it is wrong and would wish they would hold off on the political debates about the incident at least until after all of the funerals.

Back to the Future

     Between April 25th and November 6th of this year I did something most of us only dream about doing, when no one is looking, and only to ourselves. I ran for office. Yes, that's right. I publicly admitted what many of you suspected already. I am certifiably nuts! Ok, so maybe not, but hopefully you get the point. Although the result was very disappointing, the experience of running was well worth it. I will never forget the close knit team put together on such short notice or the gallant effort put forth. I stated many times the reasons I ran. They were all valid but none more so than the simple desire to serve and try something new instead of the same old tired approaches to the issues facing all of us. Unfortunately most of my fellow citizens disagreed and they went with the status quo. Too bad. Still, a large enough number of folks did vote for me which lends some hope for the future of our views, even here in moonbat heaven. So to all of you who worked on or otherwise supported the campaign, THANK YOU!
     Now that the election is behind us, it is time to turn a page which for me means blogging again. Sorry Libs, I am not going away. As a matter of fact, you may be hearing even more from me in the near future, stay tuned.
     In case you did not notice, I have changed the name of this blog to "The LeBeau Post" in the hopes that someday it will be as big as Drudge or Huffington. Hey, don't laugh. They started out the same way! Truth is, I'll be happy with however many of you read my blog and I encourage you all to participate. Yes, even you libs out there, who for some strange reason want this place to be like so many others in the world, while those living in those same places strive to come to this place. Confused? Me too as to why you are Liberal and why you insist on voting Democrat when it is they who are stealing your freedom and destroying your way of life. Sorry, a little rant got through there. Well, in any case, I am glad to be back to writing and look forward to the many battles ahead.
     Thank you for reading. :)

How Dare They?!

This morning I happened to be reading the Worcester Telegram when a bold headline on the local page caught my eye. For those who have not seen it, the headline of the article, which was written by Shaun Sutner, declared "ROTC flags raises issues" then asked directly underneath, "Was political event proper?" Well, after reading Shaun's article, I find myself once again dismayed by the glaring partisanship this paper continues to engage in. As it turns out, Shaun never once asked that question in the article. Nor does he ever explain how ROTC flags raised any issues. Instead, we learn a school committee member, Tracey O'Connell Novick and other critics of the event are the ones who raised any issues. I tried but I could not find any quotes from any flags. Novick is apparently very upset the North High Junior ROTC participated in what she believes was a political event held by a conservative group. (The reader is left to infer that by the article in which Shaun refers to critics who say it was a political event just before quoting Novick.) Her indignation is clearly focused on the participation by the JROTC at the event as an honor guard. Wait, didn't the headline read just ROTC? A seemingly small point but the Junior ROTC and the ROTC, which is generally made up of college students, are two separate entities. As far as I can tell, the ROTC was not at the event. It is not until the reader gets to the back page of the article that the proper JROTC title is used. Novick goes on to say in the article there should be rules against this practice if there are none already. Really MS Novick? Do you really want us to believe any students, including JROTC members, do not benefit from meeting a sitting US Senator? I cannot help but think if the Senator who attended was named Kerry we would not have heard from you at all. To Shaun Sutner's credit, he clearly stays neutral and allows Chris Pinto to give a separate point of view. Too bad the headline writer doesn't have the same principles. Maybe it's just me but I can almost hear Novick and others saying things like "How dare they have a get involved event!" They of course meaning Republicans and like minded people. Well MS Novick, here's something to think about. The silent majority is not staying silent anymore. I for one am thrilled you chose to overreact to this in this way because your true colors bleed all over the article! Thank you for that.

Bill's Monday Rant

On April 4th there was a fundraiser held at the Cherry Valley American Legion Post for the Leicester Library which is undergoing an extensive renovation and expansion. As a resident of Leicester, I received a flyer in the mail which notified me of the time of the event and a short list of people attending which included one of our selectman, Doug Belanger, State Rep. John Binienda, and our State Senator, Michael Moore. When I first saw the flyer a couple things immediately came to mind. First, while the library project is a noteworthy thing, it would seem to me replacing our out dated main fire station or the rehiring of the town's laid off police officers would be more of a priority for our elected officials. Maybe that is asking too much of the likes of Belanger who eagerly went along with a money laundering scheme set up by then Congressman Richard Neal involving funds from the Obama stimulus of 2009. That scheme resulted in Becker College receiving around $425,000 dollars of Federal Stimulus funds in the same month those officers were laid off in 2009. Secondly, I thought it strange the event was being held at the same time as a campaign kickoff for a local resident, Scott Francis, who is seeking a spot on the school committee. Scott also happens to be an active member of the Leicester Republican Town Committee and the local Tea Party. That event was held at Ellers restaurant, which is located almost directly across the street from the aforementioned Legion Post. I guess I should have thought of a third thing to be upset about. Apparently the library fund was just a pretense for a campaign event for the sitting politicians who were in attendance.
Last week I read an article about the event and some sort of dust up between one of Mike Moores people and Steve Simonian, an Auburn selectman who is challenging Moore for his seat. See the article here:


http://www.thedailyleicester.com/news/simonian-and-moore-dispute-fundraiser-incident


Whatever went down with the incident, it is not as problematic for me than the less than honest way the event was advertised. If it was in fact a campaign event, that should have been made clear on the flyer. I am also curious whether the politicians sponsored the event out of pocket or if they used campaign funds. If they did use campaign funds that should have been disclosed as well.

When will enough be enough?

On Wednesday yet another government board populated by political hacks will meet to discuss how to best put the taxpayers on the hook for their mismanagement, bad decions and subsequent shortfalls. Once again the MBTA, whose Board of Directors is tasked with balancing its own budget, is over budget. Since January, when the projected fiscal 2013 budget shortfall was 185+ million, the board has found a way to get it down to around 84 million. In this latest episode of doomsday politics the board and the Patrick administration are begging the state legislature to kick in 51 million dollars to try and avoid fare hikes of 23% to 45% and drastic service cuts, as if that money is theirs to spend indiscriminatley. Tim Murray, our beloved NASCAR Race car driver wanna be, goes as far as to tell us he thinks the MBTA is under funded by over 1 Billion dollars. If true, shouldn't that be enough incentive for our pols to discuss better ways of dealing with the long term problems in this agency? It seems to me the taxpayers would be much better off without such a money wasting enterprise as the MBTA, especially if the solutions proposed so far are truly the only ones available. Of course they are not.
Here are a couple of alternative ones I thought of in the few minutes it has taken to write this blog. First off, what about selling the whole thing to the highest bidder and privatizing it? If not that, Heaven forbid, then how about a freeze on all salary increases until the budget is balanced? What about ripping up the 29 union contracts and cutting the bloated salaries they create down to size. I mean do we really need to be paying bus drivers $70,000+ per year with all of the out of touch bennies to boot? Would it be too hard for the Transportation Secretary to take the $100,000+ dollars a year spent on individual parking attendants at Logan Airport and put that money towards the MBTA budget. Or how about making the same corrupt people who approved the out of touch outrageous union contracts get on the phone to the Obama Administration and secure a couple billion dollars from the stimulus package of 2009. After all a large portion of those funds have still not been spent.
Instead, predictably, we will hear the all too familiar Bacon Hill vitriol about riders needing to pay more due to increased fuel costs and the need for more revenue generating projects (Democrat double speak for higher taxes on everyone, whether they use the T or not.) They will publicly lament the "fixed" cost of the union contracts and insist there is nothing to be done about them. They will be lying of course but no one will question their arguments. What we won't hear are any discussions about cutting the budget in the drastic way it needs. Oh no, not that. After all lifestyles need to be maintained and besides, where would all the displaced politically connected workers go?

It all comes down to a simple question...

     On the way home from PA today I listened to CSPAN's coverage of the Supreme Court in which the merits of Obamacare were argued. Afterwards I was struck by the simplicity of the question involved and what it means for all of us going forward. No matter how many hours of coverage are spent on this, no matter how many pundits chime in with their opinions, no matter how many articles are written for or against the law, it all boils down to this. Does the Federal Government of the United States have the right to make its citizens buy individual health insurance.
     In my opinion the Constitution strictly forbids our Federal Government from this type of heavy handedness. My opinion seems to have been bolstered by Justices on both sides of the aisle. Justice Kennedy opined for instance that the government was asking the court to fundamentally change the relationship with its citizens from what exists now. Justice Ginsburg was equally convincing when she attempted on several occasions to fit other types of mandates into this question. On all accounts she failed. For those who did not hear the arguments, one of her points was that the government regulates cars and makes us buy cars that are safe according to Federal standards. I thought the lawyers for the states were clear and succinct in their response to those examples. No one has to buy a car in the first place and that is the central point of the argument. This was the response given on all examples provided by her in one way or another. In asking those questions the justices showed a clear path of how the government would turn a favorable decision into a much broader power grab. It did not take much imagination to see how we could all be forced to eat certain foods, engage in certain behaviors or to have to buy other products all in the name of being healthier. On one point, all of the lawyers and Justices seemed to agree, most Americans will eventually need health care.
     I was struck by the simple truth in that statement. "Most" is not all and our constitution was uniquely created to protect the individual from the will of the masses when it comes to personal liberty. It is the fundamental difference between a true democracy and a republic, which is what the United States really is. For instance there was no mention of the millions of people who can pay their own way or of the millions of people here illegally who will not be mandated to pay yet still be eligible for care at the emergency room. I was surprised that point was not made during the arguments but I suspect it will surface soon.
     While it may seem reasonable to expect people to pay for their own care in one way or another, I think this law is an over reach of Federal Power and I believe the mandate will be struck down. Time will tell if I am right but God help us all if I'm not.....

Safety over Liberty?

     Recently it was disclosed that the New York City Police department has been electronically monitoring groups of Muslims residing in places like Newark, New Jersey and Yale University for over ten years. According to numerous reports, if the investigation uncovered suspicious activity, undercover officers were dispatched to conduct surveillance operations on those persons involved. All of this was done without any  warrants, probable cause of criminal activity and apparently without regard for the constitutional rights of the American Citizens who were the targets of these probes. When confronted with the public scrutiny these activities deserve, NYC Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly literally laughed off the questions and brazenly admitted his department's involvement. He rationalized the activities by stating the safety of New York City was paramount to any constitutional rights that may have been violated. Mayor Bloomberg then publicly praised Commissioner Kelly and vowed to continue the activities. Unbelievably, the source of the funding for these operations may have come from the Homeland Security Department and the White House. On his morning radio show on WABC in New York, Geraldo Rivera fielded several calls from listeners who voiced their opinions on the matter. Although it is not a scientific poll, anecdotal evidence suggests New Yorkers were very much in support of these actions by their police department.
     Frustrated with these views, I called in and pointed out the NYC Police do not have jurisdiction outside of the city and was laughed at. I then asked how New Yorkers would feel if the Mayor of Boston sent police officers to spy on Irish American neighborhoods in NYC. Geraldo's answer? "Well, how do you know he isn't already?" When I mentioned none of the current spying operations by the NYPD would have prevented 9-11 from happening, I was met with dubious skeptisism.
     So what about the surveillance operations? Well, like it or not, the NYC does not have a right to spy on fellow American Citizens without probable cause that a crime is involved, no matter what their intentions are. As reported by Fox News   http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/02/can-police-spy-on-us/ no police agency has the authority to do what the NYPD is doing. How this ends up is anybodys guess but I hope everyone who has been a victim of these operations takes legal action against the agencies involved. At the very least there should be a rigorous debate about the perception of safety versus the constitutional rights we all enjoy. Is there a point when civil rights violations in the pursuit of safety are unacceptable? If so have we reached that point yet with the ever intrusive TSA searches and now police covert spying operations all in the name of preventing another 9-11? I hope so because any further escalation of this philosophy will only lead to a complete destruction of our free society as we know it now. Think I'm being too dramatic? Think it can't happen here? If you do, I suggest you read up on some of your world history because there are plenty of examples of free societies who destroyed themselves from within with these same views and actions.

Honor Should Be Reserved for Real Heroes

     Last week New Jersey Governor Chris Cristie announced his state would honor the recently deceased Whitney Houston by lowering all the American Flags in that state to half mast. With all due respect to Gov. Cristie, I think that decision was a mistake. Although I thoroughly enjoyed Houston's music, I do not believe she did anything in her life which could warrant such a gesture. Traditionally the lowering of the US flag to half staff is done to honor fallen service men and women, police officers and firefighters who die in the line of duty. It is also done to honor a deceased President or Governor and on Memorial day to honor all those who have died in battle.
     Ms. Houston was born with a God given talent which she shared with the rest of us through her songs and for which she was handsomely compensated. She also struggled with drug and alcohol abuse and some people, including me, believe she wasted her talent by engaging in the activities associated with those  issues. How does her life compare to that of police officer, soldier or firefighter who makes the ultimate sacrifice while performing his or her duty? In my opinion it doesn't. In too many instances our society worships celebrity instead of service and real sacrifice and I think this decision is an example of that.
     Governor Cristie explained he wanted to recognize Ms. Houston's status as a cultural figure from New Jersey and her accomplishments as a musician. He also said he hoped his gesture would lead to an awareness of the substance abuse problems this country is facing. Those reasons are not good enough to honor anyone by lowering the US flag to half mast, a gesture which should only be used for real fallen heroes.