Marshall County, Kentucky; January 24......16 children shot by someone outside the school, 2 of them were killed. Here's a letter written by a child who witnesses the shooting and buried a friend, as a result.
Broward County Florida, February 14.....17 children killed by a former student, who had been expelled because he enjoyed taking guns to school.
Marshall County Kansas, Frankfort, March thru May of 2014......an eighteen year old high school senior who was out of jail on bond and on probation for a previous crime took a gun to school with him. While he was expelled, he was allowed back into the building seven weeks later for commencement, in violations of the Gun Free School Zones Act, which mandates that such a student be barred from entering the building for an entire year. Dean Dalinghaus, the principal, has a habit of rudely accusing anyone who does not want guns inside of Frankfort School of wanting the school to be like "an inner city school"! He then proceeds to all of the other parents and children with derisive comments about the parent who wishes to ban guns from the school. As it happens, Dalinghaus neglected to make the proper reports about the incident in 2014 to the FBI, and had not even told the Kansas Department of Education that an arrest had been made at Frankfort High School involving a student and a gun. That's how well some schools enforce the law.
Minnesota certainly has some vile pigs, doesn't it? The one who "detained" Diamond Lavish Reynolds and handcuffed her right after her boyfriend was murdered is Joseph Kauser. The one who murdered Philando Castile is Jeronimo Yanez. Neither of them would allow Castile's mother near her son before he died, or allow her to talk to Reynolds. Both pigs were also very casual about killing an innocent man directly in front Reynolds's four year old daughter.
To Diamond Lavish Reynolds: I wish I could have been there to hug you when you got out of the car. Joseph Kauser was crass and beyond rude to manhandle you and handcuff you, especially after someone you love had been murdered. Thank you for your courage and persistence. Without you, the whole world would not have had an important wake-up call.
Watch this video. It starts in a bit slow, but just watch. At around 1:10, you will see an accident victim step out of a wrecked vehicle, and you will see a police officer approach him, draw his gun, and shoot the accident victim, with no words exchanged between the two.Then, after shooting the victim in the neck, he reported that the victim was "uncooperative" for refusing to get up and move on his own. Then, eleven minutes later, he called for an ambulance. As minutes count in such an injury, the victim will probably be paralyzed for life. Alcohol was involved in the accident, but Patrick Feaster had no way of knowing this at the moment he used an accident victim for target practice. Pray you never have car problems in Paradise, California, because the prosecutor has declined to charge this criminal with any crime, stating that the discharge of the weapon was an "accident".
The name of the prosecutor who thinks it is procedure for a pig to shoot an accident victim and lie about it is Mike Ramsey. Below is his picture, and there is also a petition circulating, to remove this pig from the pigpen, permanently.
"I was right there and he went for the gun. I had no choice," is the lie told by Tim Loehmann after shooting twelve year old Tamir Rice in November, 2014.
Why do police officers in America lie? Since most investigations of police officers are done by individuals and organizations that are pro police and racist, why was Tim Loehmann even motivated to make false statements? For instance, reporting that Rice had the gun in his hands, when the video clearly shows he did not. Also, Loehmann stated that Rice was sitting at the table at the recreation center in a group of people, while the video very clearly shows that Rice was alone. Let us also not forget that Loehmann wrote that he told Rice three times to put his hands in the air, when the video shows that he did not say a word to Rice, but shot him instantly.
This is why policemen are often referred to as pigs. I hope Tamir Rice's community can find a way to get justice.
Mischell Miller, what was your phone call really all about? You have never met me, or to my knowledge, any of my children. You are brand new at your post as superintendent at Vermilion Schools, USD 380, and it is quite clear to me that while you have met your employees, you do not know them very well. I spoke out about an incident that took place on March 3 of this year, in which a gun was taken to school by an eighteen year old senior, named Casey Farrant. Young Mr. Farrant was already on probation for a drunk driving incident that seriously injured four people, including himself. He was also out on bond for another crime. Yet he continued to be embraced by the school administration, no matter how much of a danger he posed to the other children, and to the staff. So why, when he took a weapon into the building, was he not expelled, according to the Gun Free School Zones Act?
A newer version of that law, first enacted in 1990, gives a state school board, which we don't really have here in Kansas, (unified school districts make that impossible) the authority to override the severity and not expel a student. But was Casey Farrant the student who would deserve such mercy and favor? Not only was he an adult at the time; he had a criminal record, to boot! Drugs were also found in his car. Was this the time for Principal Dean Dalinghaus to establish that guns are okay in Frankfort High School, and that there are no actual consequences when a student who isn't supposed to possess a gun in the first place decides to bring one to school and make threats? Keep in mind, Dean Dalingahus once tried to expel a disabled student because he was a VICTIM of several Frankfort bullies. Go ahead, Mischell, read it. You can shake it up and sprinkle it out any way you please; your principal will still be wrong. Very wrong. And don't even start with pretending you know how he would react, and that his actions must certainly have been correct, because he is a building administrator: I already spoke with witnesses and with the victim, as did my daughter. We know what happened, and we informed Deanie-Boy of the law. Why did we have to? Why didn't he obey the law in the first place and discipline the students who were actually in the wrong? Only Jesus knows! But feel free to call me. I can give you more information about the incident, and let you know what the victim's healthcare provider and what his ad litem had to say about it. That's the day I truly started to hate Dean Dalinghaus and his trashy little school. No kidding.
I mentioned the practice of speaking with witnesses and victims. Yes, that is helpful, when "conducting an investigation" (did you really do that, about the Casey Farrant thing?) or just finding out what happened in a school where all the employees prevaricate and sweep unlawful behaviors under the rug. You mentioned to me that you "investigated" the problems encountered by Frankfort High School, prior to taking your new position as superintendent. Then you expressed surprise that three students were arrested there during the school year of 2014-2015, not just one. I agree, in a school that only has about one hundred and fifty students from kindergarten to twelfth grade, Deanie-boy really should have been in better control of all of them. But then, the student with the loaded gun was actually in charge, wasn't he? If that isn't disturbing enough, you should be unhappily surprised about not having been told the whole story by those you supervise. I am not surprised at all, but as I stated earlier, you apparently don't know them very well. I do have a question for you at this juncture, though; how does one conduct an "investigation", especially a thorough one, without talking to any of the witnesses? The answer is simple: you don't. You didn't really investigate anything. And that should bother you a lot more than it bothers me. After all, you are the one in daily contact with people who allow guns taken into their places of employment by people who have been convicted of crimes and are out on bond, awaiting trial for even more crime. The fact that the guns are most likely obtained from parents who also do not care about the safety of anyone for whom you are responsible should bother you, too.
My guess, after your call, was that your contact was somehow all about damage control. I do not believe you have any concerns about my preferences, my past experience with life, or my children. I am not altogether sure that you care about federal law, either. I also don't think you have the guts to stand up to the adult bullies in this berg and let them know you make your own decisions about what you do with your time, and with whom you spend it. I do not see that you are individuated that much, as a person. In my experience, those who are usually listen, rather than defend what they do not understand. And you are defending a tragedy waiting to happen. Isn't it ironic that a tragedy involving a shooting happened at a school in Roseburg, Oregon the very day after you called? "Oh....that won't happen here," you might say. Well guess what; Casey Farrant actually did take the gun to school here in Frankfort! Rather than allowing Dean Dalinghaus and Company to put the safety of all of our children and our Second Amendment rights at risk, why not simply insist upon compliance with federal law about all things that go on in both of your schools?
Rodger Bluml, the adoptive male parent of this post, died yesterday after succumbing to injuries sustained in the violent encounter he had on November 15 with one of the boys he adopted, Anthony Bluml. Anthony and his mother, Kisha Schaberg, along with two other accomplices, remain jailed in Kansas while they await trial. The prosecuting attorney intends to amend the charges against both of them to include two charges of premeditated murder, rather then one. Rodger Bluml's wife, Melissa Bluml, died of a gunshot wound on November 15. In charging Kisha Schaberg with the same crime as Anthony Bluml, who allegedly pulled the trigger, and setting her bond at twice the amount as Anthony's, Kansas stubbornly refuses to see the devastating results, for everyone involved, of disrupting families. Kansas also sends a very arrogant message to all biological mothers whose children have been adopted by others. Did those who grab children from vulnerable parents and auction them off to the highest bidders ever take the time to warn Rodger and Melissa Bluml of the bond and love that usually exists between natural parents and their children? The Blumls did not have natural children, so there was no way they could have known or understood. Were the Blumls warned that even though Kisha was not as financially secure or as privileged as they were in life, they could expect the children and their mother to remember each other for the rest of their lives? The expectation that a state can step in and decide that children and their parents are no longer allowed to love one another is very dangerous. Could the rage projected at the Blumls have been predicted, and possibly prevented? While this violent crime is very sad, it may be a sign of things to come more often in places where children are treated as commodities by courts and government agencies.
The second update is that seventeen year old Clair Davis, of Colorado, has died. On December 14 she was shot by another student, Karl Pierson, at Arapahoe High School, in a fit of rage that reportedly lasted for about eighty seconds. Pierson followed this up by shooting himself. He apparently had a problem with the librarian at his school, and there was no known connection between him and his victim. There has been a certain amount of debate lately concerning guns and public schools, and a few states have even legalized the carrying of firearms in schools by adult employees of the schools. It would appear that an unaddressed issue in this unintelligently written law change is the loophole created by adult students.....those whose eighteenth birthdays happen to fall before high school graduation and who are, as a result, able to purchase shotguns while they are still in high school. Since teaching and law enforcement are two very different career choices, and since many teachers are not trained soldiers or perfect marksmen, it really seems that schools are better off investing in metal detectors, rather than allowing guns on their premises. While there are expenses involved with the installation of metal detectors, the cost invested would be considerably smaller than a lawsuit, or multiple lawsuits, and the resulting inflation of a school's liability insurance. Most of Kansas public schools were unable to get insurance before school started this year because teachers are allowed to carry guns to school. A teacher with a gun would probably not have been able to save Clair Davis from Karl Pierson's eighty second temper tantrum, but had there been a metal detector in place at Arapahoe High, she might not have been shot.
On Thursday, March 28, someone decided to shoot at the home of a Florida author of childrens books because of her Pagan religion. Kyrja Withers has been noticing harassment, such as people stopping their vehicles outside her house, and screaming obscenities intermittently with the word "witch", for some time now, but this is the first time someone has shot at her. Witchcraft and different persuasions of Paganism are, indeed, religions that are recognized as such by the United States Constitution, and shooting at someone, or committing any other type of assault or harassment for reasons of religion qualifies these actions as hate crimes. That makes matters much more serious.
Yes, you read that correctly. Shirley Phelps, of Westboro Baptist Church, says she's taking the good Kansas Christians in her church on a field trip to New England, specifically, Connecticut, to picket Sandy Hook Elementary, where the school shooting took place yesterday. Okay, apparently, initiation into certain Christian circles in Kansas requires the expression of lots of ungodly hatred for others. We have all seen that. (disclaimer: Traditional Christians who do not disrespect others or carry signs are not described here; only bigots) But children? Children between the ages of five and ten years old? What could they have possibly done?
Shirley Phelps, if you really want to be a dingaling, we all know by now that there's no stopping you. You have told almost all of us who are not part of the Phelps gene pool that "God" hates us, and we are going to "Hell". (Hell is actually a Goddess of the underworld, Shirley, you should stop taking her name in vain!) We already know your position on this matter, and you know what? We really don't care. My Ancestors do not hate me, and there are no Gods, at this moment, who appear to have anything against me either. I am quite sure that I speak, also, for the people in Connecticut who directly or indirectly experienced yesterday's violence at Sandy Hook. So if you do proceed with your silly-assed plans and visit New England during the winter, I suggest that you plan on helping, instead. Why not donate some toys or gift cards to shelters and churches who try to give needy families gifts on Christmas? Churches in that area will be overwhelmed after yesterday's shooting. Why not ease the burden, instead? Don't you think Jesus might have handled it that way?
And to the people in Connecticut, I suggest this: leave the crime scene tape up as long as you can. Do not leave the crime scene unguarded, either. Tell Shirley Phelps that while she can picket a funeral, she cannot contaminate a crime scene. Stop publicizing the names of the victims until after the funerals are over. If the Phelps's of Westboro Baptist Church do not know the identities of the deceased, they will have a harder time finding and picketing their funerals. After the families have had the funerals, you can let the media publish their names. The rest of us are very sad about this, and we will not forget any of them.
Several months ago, I wrote a letter to the superintendent of my childrens' school concerning the presence of adults, unaccounted for, in the building. Since then, I have been given the cold shoulder, and my children have been encouraged by the school to treat my husband and myself with scorn and disrespect for such things as insisting that they be home by a certain time every evening, that they never consume alcohol, and that we know where they are at all times. After the incident that occured yesterday, in Connectucut, at Sandy Hook Elementary, I decided to repost this letter, because of the relevance.
Here's a letter I wrote to the
superintendent of schools in the school district that includes my childrens'
school. I have substituted the letter X for proper nouns, as identities of
individuals and places are not necessary to the point of my letter.
Dear Mr. XXXX,
I was in the office at XXXX
School yesterday, returning two of my children to school after an appointment at
the eye doctor. One of the first people I noticed, because he was out of place,
was a Mr. HXXXX, (I have forgotton his first name) who lives in town, but no
longer has any children who attend this school. Not only did his name NOT appear
on the sign-in sheet that you told me would remain in the office for any adult
who visits the building but is not on the payroll; I am curious about the need
for his volunteer services and his qualifications. My children cannot
participate in certain sports, because you have spurned my offers to volunteer
based on my popularity scores here in XXXX that have little to do with my
character or other qualifications, which probably, by far, exceed the
qualifications of other parents who volunteer at your school. Have you checked
the criminal record of Mr. HXXXX? His two sons, who are both young adults, still
live in his house, and I have personally heard them both discuss the use of
illegal drugs. Mr. HXXXX was physically present when his sons were speaking.
Apparently, Mr.HXXXX does not take prohibition laws seriously. After hearing
those comments, I do not allow my daughter to even visit that home to buy Avon
from his wife. I don't want my children in that type of environment. Also, I
have seen him allow minors, his sons, when they were still in high school, to
drink beer in his home. This is not the person I find appropriate to volunteer
in the school, and share his "influence" with my children, thankyou very much.
Also, since this is such a small town, and since at least one of Mr. HXXXX's
children has experienced "run-ins" with the law in the past, in connection to
violations of prohibition laws and alcohol, I will contend that your principal,
Mr. DXXXX, was aware of this, yet welcomed him into the building anyway.
Since the rules apply
stringently to yours truly, to the extent of her own children not being able to
participate in sports because the adult/child ratio is unsafe in your school
during these activities, and that does not bother you; I am curious to know why
Mr. HXXXX, who violates the law in connection to children and alcohol in ways I
would never even consider, is welcomed with open arms into your building. Would
you please explain the bias to me? Also, why is he not required to sign in, as I
do, whenever I enter your building? Why does his wife use your school as a venue
for her Avon business? I sold Avon on the East Coast, and would never have
considered a school building an appropriate place to dispense product and
collect revenue for same. This takes the attention of teachers and other staff
away from children and creates an atmosphere of business other than education.
It is not safe for the students. Please make it stop.
I have one more question
for you. Is this IP number, XXXX, in
any way associated with computers in your school buildings? If so, you have at
least one teacher who harrasses others for political reasons. My children and I
should NOT KNOW where anyone on your staff stands on issues such as abortion,
yet we do, and we should certainly not know for whom any of your teachers
intends to vote! Please ask them to all be less obvious about their political
stances.
Sincerely,
XXXX
............In all fairness, I should
convey that the superintendent did respond to my letter, the same day he got it.
He told me that the sign-in sheet in the office would be in use from now on,
whether the local Kansas folk wished for that or not. He also told me that the
Avon Lady would no longer be making stops at the school, as this is against
policy for several reasons. I should add that the Avon Lady also never bothers
to sign in at my childrens' school, and moves freely through the building as if
she worked there or had children there. Neither apply to her.
The
superintendent was not able to explain the inherent nastiness and unjust
prejudism expressed by these people toward myself and other members of my
family. He was not able to explain the constant pressure to vote for a
presidential candidate who is not of my choosing. He was also not able to tell
me why my children and I even know for whom most of these teachers intend to
vote. He and I both agreed that if a child ever disappears from this particular
school or is otherwise harmed there, the FBI will be VERY interested in the
number of unofficially present adults in the school from day to day, and in
their identities, activities, and criminal records. That said, it seems to me
that persons who have unlawful recreational drugs in their homes from time to
time, and persons who allow minors to drink alcoholic beverages in their homes,
should take heed.
