Texas Rainmaker
Massacre at Virginia Tech
April 16th, 2007 12:24 pm

Reports are scattered right now. Here’s the latest from ABCNews:

At least 29 people are dead in what may be the biggest mass killing on a college campus in American history — and the death toll may rise.

Police at Virginia Tech, in Blaksburg, Va., said that the shootings happened at a dormitory and a classroom on opposite sides of the university campus.

Law enforcement sources tell ABC News the shooting may have been set off by an off-campus incident.

Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said that one person was killed in the first shooting, which occurred just after 7 a.m. at West Ambler Johnston Hall, a large dormitory. Flinchum said that at least 20 more people were killed at Norris Hall, an academic building.

So where have we heard news of Virgina Tech and guns before?

January 2006, when Virginia Tech administrators proudly proclaimed how safe their school would be when honest citizens were banned from posessing legally-permitted guns.

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn’t get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill’s defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”

How’s that “safe feeling” working out for you today, Larry?

Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. […] In June, Tech’s governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.

Great. Because we all know criminals will abide by such policies. Meanwhile, someone who could’ve taken the perpetrator out before he ran his score up to 29+ was prevented from doing so because some administrators wanted to give the tuition-paying customer base a false sense of security.

UPDATE:
I changed my headline as, in reflection, it seemed a little inappropriate.

UPDATE 2:
Allah has a good roundup, including an eyewitness account posted on a VT frat listserv.

UPDATE 3:
Cell phone video from the scene:

UPDATE 4:
Some reports from students coming in claim the University didn’t notify anyone of the earlier shooting around 7:00 AM (second round of shootings apparently happened 2 hours later). Looks like many people went to campus completely unaware of what was transpiring. The Universtiy will have some explaining to do on that one.

UPDATE 5:
Here’s an editorial from Virginia Tech spokesman, Larry Hinckler from last Fall, in response to another editorial entitled “Unarmed and vulnerable“:

The writer would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat. Imagine the continual fear of students in that scenario. We’ve seen that fear here, and we don’t want to see it again.

Guns don’t belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same.

The title of Hinckler’s editorial was, “Imagine if students were armed.” Yes… let’s imagine.

UPDATE 6:
And right on cue, here comes the Old Gray Lady to tell us guns are bad. And MSNBC rolls out a “gun control” special… I wonder if those who are giving me heat for my post will show the same outrage for the anti-gun lobby quickly turning on their campaign.

UPDATE 7:
A list of victims.

UPDATE 8:
Someone claims to be the one who sold the guns to the shooter. If this is true, and if it’s true he was here on a student visa, then this would go to show that gun laws don’t prevent or deter criminals from obtaining guns. It only prevents law-abiding citizens from obtaining them… and protecting themselves…

Call BS all you like, but I just spent the last several hours with 3 ATF agents. I saw the shooter’s picture. I know his name and home address. I also know that he used a Glock 19 and a Walther P-22. The serial number was ground off the Glock. Why would he do that and still keep the receipt in his pocket from when he bought the gun?
ATF told me that they are going to keep this low-key and not report this to the tv news. However, they cautioned that it will leak out eventually, and that I should be ready to deal with CNN, FOX, etc.
My 32 camera surveillance system recorded the event 35 days ago. This is a digital system that only keeps the video for 35 days. We got lucky.
By the way, the paperwork for Mr. Cho was perfect, thank God.

UPDATE 9:
Even in the worst of tragedies, we witness the best of humanity:

An Israeli lecturer who died in the massacre at a U.S. university saved the lives of several students by blocking the doorway of his classroom from the approaching gunman before he was fatally shot, his son said Tuesday.

Students of Liviu Librescu, 76, an engineering science and mathematics lecturer in at Virginia Tech for 20 years, sent e-mails to his wife, Marlena, telling of how he blocked the gunman’s way and saved their lives, said the son, Joe.

“My father blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to flee,” Joe Librescu said in a telephone interview from his home outside of Tel Aviv. “Students started opening windows and jumping out.”

UPDATE 10:
Shooter is identified as Cho Hui Seung, a 23 year old student at Va Tech. A native of South Korea, he was a “resident alien” of the U.S.

The face of a monster:

UPDATE 11:
A missed opportunity.

A court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was “mentally ill” and potentially dangerous. Then it let him go.

In December 2005 — more than a year before Monday’s mass shootings — a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho presented “an imminent danger to self or others.” That was the necessary criterion for a detention order, so that Cho, who had been accused of stalking by two female schoolmates, could be evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care.

UPDATE 12:
Warning signs?

In September 2005, Cho was enrolled in [English Professor Nikki] Giovanni’s introduction to creative writing class. From the beginning, he began building a wall between himself and the rest of the class.

He wore sunglasses to class and pulled his maroon knit cap down low over his forehead. When she tried to get him to participate in class discussion, his answer was silence.
[…]
But then female students began complaining about Cho.

About five weeks into the semester, students told Giovanni that Cho was taking photographs of their legs and knees under the desks with his cell phone. She told him to stop, but the damage was already done.
[…]
“There was no writing. I wasn’t teaching him anything, and he didn’t want to learn anything,” she said. “And I finally realized either I was going to lose my class, or Mr. Cho had to leave.”

Giovanni wrote a letter to then-department head Lucinda Roy, who removed Cho.

Roy alerted student affairs, the dean’s office, even the campus police, but each said there was nothing they could do if Cho had made no overt threats against himself or others.
[…]
When she and Giovanni learned of the shootings and heard a description of the gunman, they immediately thought of Cho.

UPDATE 13:
The psycho speaks from the grave.

After killing two people in a Virginia university dormitory — but before he slaughtered 30 more in a classroom building — the gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, mailed NBC News a long, profanity-laced diatribe and dozens of photographs and videos Monday morning, boasting, “When the time came, I did it. I had to.”

So much for the theory that this guy just snapped. This package shows that this was planned. (Combined with the possibility Cho was responsible for the two bomb threats in the weeks leading up to this event further proves this wasn’t just a ‘heat of passion’ kind of rampage.)

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (70) Comments
divider
Homeland Insecurity
July 23rd, 2006 6:39 pm

This doesn’t make me feel comfortable.

There are still 300,000 without power in the St. Louis area after storms rolled through 4 days ago.

And there are still 100,000 without power in New York since a “mysterious power failure” occurred 6 days ago.

Doesn’t bode well for us should our enemies target our power grids.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (3) Comments
divider
Connecting Ignoring the Dots…
July 10th, 2006 11:35 am

Welcome to the September 10, 2001 mentality.

The report states that a man with a Middle Eastern name and a ticket for a Delta Airlines flight to Atlanta shook his head when screeners asked if he had a laptop computer in his baggage, but an X-ray machine operator detected a laptop.

A search of the man’s baggage revealed a clock with a 9-volt battery taped to it and a copy of the Quran, the report said. A screener examined the man’s shoes and determined that the “entire soles of both shoes were gutted out.”

No explosive material was detected, the report states. A police officer was summoned and questioned the man, examined his identification, shoes and the clock, then cleared him for travel, according to the report.

A TSA screener disagreed with the officer, saying “the shoes had been tampered with and there were all the components of (a bomb) except the explosive itself,” the report says.

And the response by our ever-vigilent security personnel:

“It was looked at and deemed a non-event,” Emmett said, declining to give further details.

If only he’d slipped up and had a set of nail clippers on him, he might’ve been subjected to a thorough examination.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
FISA Judges say NSA Program Legal
April 4th, 2006 9:08 am

Don’t expect to hear this story promoted throughout the world of MSM. (hat tip: Ian)

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president’s constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.
“If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now,” said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. “I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute.”

Now imagine if the panel had declared that they thought Bush acted illegally. Do you think MSM would treat the story the same?

Me neither.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (6) Comments
divider

So the UAE company Dubai World Ports has agreed with the port deal deciding, instead, to “transfer port operations to U.S. ‘entity’”.Wanna see Democrats go crazy? What if that “U.S. entity” is them?

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
The Ports Deal
February 27th, 2006 7:32 am

The more I learn about the port deal, the less concerned I become about this particular deal. I am still somewhat concerned about the ports being handled by foreign companies, but it appears that’s not a new thing. And while I still agree with Hillary that it might be better not to have foreign governments acquiring U.S. ports, I should’ve been on the look out for Hillary’s hypocrisy, which was all but a certainty.

Jim has a good post about it.

And, it was back in 1997, when Hillary was serving as co-president, the Saudi owned shipping company (NSCSA) began service between North America and Italy, Greece and Turkey?This just proves that the Clintons have evolved a long way since 1999 when they claimed that port control was “silly stuff”.

Back in 1999 when a Chinese owned Hutchinson-Whampoa, Ltd. took control of ports at both ends of the Panama Canal the Clinton White House scoffed at the security risks:

Clinton White House spokesman Joe Lockhart dismissed the Insight story about Chinese port control including the Panama Canal and the surrounding controversy as “silly stuff.”Chinese owned Hutchison-Whampoa Ltd. today owns 90% of Panama Ports Company.

So, as usual, it appears her opposition to, and “outrage” of, foreign ownership is nothing more than continued opposition to Republicans, and more specifically George W. Bush.

In fact, the appearance that we were on the same side should’ve clued me in to review my position for possible flaws. I now realize one nuance Hillary slid stealthily in her criticism of the ports deal:

Clinton said critical infrastructure like ports must be operated by the United States, not foreign-owned companies.

Of course she wants “the United States” to own things as opposed to “companies”. That’s what she wanted with healthcare… and pretty much everything else. It’s called Socialism… or worse.

I have to admit, though, it was nice to see Hillary and her Democrat coattails finally warming up to profiling when it comes to national security for a change.

Update: The disinformation campaign.

Update 2: Jamie Alman has a proposed speech drafted for Bush to give.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
I Stand With Hillary on This One
February 17th, 2006 10:04 am

Go ahead and mark this date on your calendar (along with this one) as I agree with Hillary Clinton’s position on this story:

Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York said they would offer a measure to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.

Their action comes in response to the story of a British company that manages major ports in the U.S. (New York and New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami) being acquired by Dubai Ports World, a company that is backed by the United Arab Emirates government.

I think it’s absolutely ridiculous that we would allow (much less even entertain the thought!) an islamic country to take control of half a dozen of our biggest ports. In fact, two of the September 11 hijackers were UAE citizens.

Allowing this to happen makes as much sense as letting al-Qaeda control our airport security.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a U.S. inter-agency panel that reviews security implications of foreign takeovers of strategic assets, has already reviewed the transaction and did not object.

From the CFIUS website:

The United States has traditionally welcomed Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and provided foreign investors fair, equitable and nondiscriminatory treatment with few limited exceptions designed to protect national security. The Exon-Florio provision is implemented within the context of this open investment policy. The intent of Exon-Florio is not to discourage FDI generally, but to provide a mechanism to review and, if the President finds necessary, to restrict FDI that threatens the national security.

I think it’s time the President finds it necessary.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
Jimmy Carter Admits Breaking the Law
February 12th, 2006 5:06 pm
According to Jimmy Carter, President Bush “has broken the law” by authorizing the NSA wiretap program.

Perhaps he’s simply chosen to forget Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey. These were two folks Jimmy Carter saw fit to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance upon. Still think such a program is a “disgraceful and illegal decision,” Jimmy?

The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men’s rights. In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the “inherent authority” to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is “conducted ‘primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons.”

To say nothing of the fact that the courts upheld Jimmy’s warrantless surveillance under the “primary purpose” test. Of course, it’s no surprise we didn’t hear Jimmy boldly proclaiming the illegality of collection 900 FBI files of political opponents by his party’s next administration either. This is all just a game of hypocrisy and win-at-all-costs politics to them. Nothing matters except winning elections. Not national security. Not real civil liberties. Not anything remotely related to that which makes America great.

Jimmy also proudly proclaimed:

“If my voice is important to point of the intent of the law that was passed when I was president, I know all about that because it was one of the most important decisions I had to make.”

Who are you kidding, Jimmy… your voice wasn’t even important when you were President.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
The NSA Program: A Must-Read
February 9th, 2006 5:50 am

Professor Joseph Knippenberg has a good analysis of the Senatorial silliness during Attorney General Gonzales’ interrogation and why the NSA program is not only legal, but why not having it might be a dereliction of duty. Here’s a portion:

You may be familiar with the Administration’s legal and Constitutional defense of its limited - I repeat, limited - warrantless surveillance program, but in case you’re not, let me summarize it briefly. In undertaking the surveillance of communications between suspected al-Qaeda operatives outside the U.S. and persons within our borders, the President relies upon the following authorities: his inherent executive power, which is extensive, albeit not unlimited, when it comes to protecting national security from credible threats; and the Authorization to Use Military Force, passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. If the President is authorized to shoot at the bad guys, he’s also authorized, by reasonable implication, to discover who and where they are.

Properly understood, the two purported restrictions on his authority - the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures - do not actually do so. As the Attorney General contends in his opening statement, FISA prohibits persons from intentionally “engag[ing] in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.” The AUMF is such a statute, permitting, if need be, warrantless surveillance. Furthermore, a limited program of warrantless surveillance may be an effective - indeed, the only effective - means of identifying those properly called evildoers (or perhaps potential evildoers, if they belong to a sleeper cell). As such, the program amounts to a reasonable, as opposed to unreasonable, method of search and seizure; it passes the Fourth Amendment test.

Read the whole thing.
Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
The ACLU’s Terror-Friendly Lawsuit
January 20th, 2006 12:17 pm
First, take a look at who some of the plaintiffs are. They include Noel Saleh, a man who has proudly admitted funding Hezbollah, Mohammed Abdrabboh, a Palestinian attorney who admits in this very lawsuit that he represents terrorism suspects (despite having sworn prior to the contrary), Nabih Ayad, whose friends “openly donated millions to HAMAS and privately raised money for Iraqi insurgents at a Los Angeles area fundraiser,” and Nazih Hassan, a member of a group founded with HAMAS money.

It’s no wonder they claim to be targets of the NSA program… THEY SHOULD BE!!! In fact, it gives me comfort knowing that our intelligence community is keeping tabs on these “neighbors” of ours.

Debbie Schlussel has taken it upon herself to take a stand against this bogus lawsuit aimed at reducing our ability to monitor the terrorists and terrorist-sympathizers that live among us.

Since the lawsuit was filed in U.S. Federal Court in the Eastern District of Michigan, where I practice, I’ve already been contacted by concerned U.S. citizens who wish to intervene in the case as interested parties (whose interests and welfare are affected by this case) in support of the government’s activities. And we may do so. You may feel free to contact me regarding this if you are interested in adding your name.

Of course, Jay over at StopTheACLU is all over this one as well. Another damn fine American.

Others are taking up donations to cover filing fees and related expenses. Why should I be any different? Click the “Make a donation” button to the right to donate to the cause. Let’s see if we can raise as much for this case as HAMAS and Hezbollah have.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (2) Comments
divider
Tourisme Dentaire Dental TourismTourisme DentaireProthese dentaireClinique dentaireFacette dentairesTourisme DentaireVoyage DentaireTourisme DentaireEscort BayanEscortTourisme DentaireTourisme DentaireTourisme DentaireTourisme DentaireDental TourismTourisme DentaireDental TourismMedical Tourism Tourisme DentaireTourisme DentaireAntalya Web Tasarim

Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes

Copyright © 2003-2006

Users Online


    •  

      sidediv




    • HuckPac.com



    • sidediv


    • sidediv



  • CATEGORIES

    Fatal error: Call to undefined function wswwpx_fold_category_list() in /home/texasrai/public_html/wp-content/themes/rainmaker/sidebar.php on line 62