Cats, Guns, and National Security: 2011-02-13

The couple left their black Labrador, Pepper, and their Yorkshire terrier, Rambo, in temporary homes they found through a program called Guardian Angels for Soldier's Pet, based in Texas.

Without the program, they probably would not have gotten anyone to take Pepper, a large breed, on such short notice, said Spc. Kristle Aleman, 20.

She and her husband shipped out together on Jan. 6 with the 422nd Expeditionary Signal Battalion, the second-biggest Army National Guard deployment in the state's history.

"We honestly had no other place we could take her," Aleman wrote in an e-mail from a base south of Seattle, where her unit is training before it heads to Afghanistan in March. "We wouldn't know what we'd do if we would have had to take her to a pound or anything where we would never see her again."

Guardian Angels, founded in 2005, is a volunteer pet foster-care program for military personnel who are sent overseas or anyplace where they cannot take their animals.

It was created in response to deployed service members who were forced to give their pets to shelters or other agencies, never knowing whether the animals were adopted or euthanized.

Because it's a volunteer organization, Guardian Angels is understaffed. Nevada's coordinator, Sarah James, handles pet placement in 30 states. She can be reached at md-gasp@hotmail.com.

Just a handful of Southern Nevada residents have signed up to look after pets, mainly because the program isn't well-known, James said.

"It's just getting the word out to soldiers," she said, and to prospective foster parents.

PET FOSTER CAREGIVERS

The couple who took in the Alemans' Labrador are dog lovers who wanted to help local soldiers deployed to war zones.

Kim Conklin, 43, a library supervisor, heard about Guardian Angels on CBS news.

"I thought it was a neat program," she said. "It's one less thing they (soldiers) have to worry about."

Her husband, Karl, 46, is a police driving instructor. He has never worn a military uniform but believes caring for soldiers' animals is a good way to chip in.

"Maybe you could call it a civic duty," he said. "Even if you don't agree with the war, you should support the troops."

Pepper will be a guest in their household until the Alemans finish their yearlong tour of duty. Pepper has adjusted well and gets along with her four foster siblings: two Chihuahuas and two mixed breeds, Kim Conklin said.

"She's like our own dog," she said. "But you have to think in the back of your head that we've got to give her up in a year."

Karl Conklin said it's difficult not to get attached to a dog that is so affectionate. Then, as if on cue, Pepper trotted over and laid her head in his lap.

"They're our fur children," his wife remarked.

"These are the only kids we're ever going to have," he said.

Fostering an animal requires filling out a fairly extensive application.

Most of the questions are standard, such as the type of animal you would care for -- dog, cat, bird, horse -- the number of pets in your household and whether you have children, a fenced backyard and a landlord who allows pets. Applicants also are asked whether they would take a pet with special medical needs or are allergic to furry critters.

"They want to make sure you can take care of them," Kim Conklin said.

After the Conklins were put on the foster parent list, the organization called them in November and said a married couple needed a temporary home for their dogs.

The Alemans were going off to train for six weeks, return briefly and then deploy to Afghanistan. Kristle Aleman's father couldn't take the dogs because he has a big Siberian Husky.

The Conklins accepted Pepper but had to turn away Rambo, the Yorkie, because six dogs in the house would be too many.

A woman in Bakersfield, Calif., agreed to house Rambo.

The timing was good because the Alemans, who had recently married, were traveling to Southern California for a mini-honeymoon.

Still, Kristle Aleman said it would have been more convenient -- and less stressful -- to have placed both dogs in Las Vegas area homes.

"So hopefully more people will hear about the program and take care of more soldiers' pets in the future because that was definitely a time crunch," she said.

GUARDIAN ANGELS

Not all soldiers who need foster care for their pets are sent overseas.

Take Capt. Patrick Arizmendi, 34, who serves in an area National Guard unit. He went to a six-month school in Fort Knox, Ky., to train in armored vehicle maneuvers.

He left his cat, Ethel, with Jessica Walser, an insurance claims manager who heard about the program through her volunteer work with animals.

"It's good to know you have someone to take care of your loved ones -- your pets," he said.

Arizmendi has been deployed twice to Iraq and once to Afghanistan, and during those tours, he found someone willing to care for his cats while he was away.

But if he had known about Guardian Angels, he would have placed his cats with foster parents in that program, he said.

"It would've been easier," he said.

The program doesn't allow foster parents to receive stipends. However, the owners can cover the costs of food and medical care.

Arizmendi said he paid $55 a month for necessities and earmarked $200 for veterinary care.

Walser, 37, said she joined the program to aid soldiers and the animals.

She heard of military personnel taking their pets to the pound or, worse, dumping them because shelters were full.

Some shelters have turned away animals because there was no room with all the pets abandoned during the foreclosure crisis, Walser said.

She said she became attached to Ethel and found it "heartbreaking" to return her to Arizmendi. Still, she plans to foster others, even if there's pain mixed in.

"Whatever I can do," she said.

Contact reporter Scott Wyland at swyland@ reviewjournal.com or 702-455-4519.

Website:
Guardian Angels for Soldiers' Pet

Monday, February 14, 2011

My Rants (Issue 4 -- 14 FEB 2011) -- Question for Ron Paultards

My Rants

Issue 4 -- 14 FEB 2011

This represents a periodic (every so often) statement of my rants, my observations, and my wisdom. The views expressed are mine, and do not represent the views of any organization or association of which I may be a part. For now.

Read and embrace.

True story: A fellow I know is looking into getting a concealed-carry permit. So he's preparing to spend at least $80 for the training, around $35 for the permit itself where he is, and $300 at least for the carry weapon. Approximate total: $415. Yet this same fellow complains when he gets approached by the NRA for a $20 donation to help secure the validity of his permit. Another case of selfishness hurting the selfish one.

Ironically, the fellow is now facing a possible legal issue in his background affecting his gun rights. It seems that some relatively recent changes in federal gun laws might, due to an event long ago in his life, prevent him from even possessing a weapon. How ironic.

I hope that, if the fellow comes out of the legal matter with his gun rights, this situation will show him the importance of supporting the gun rights movement. But I have my doubts.

Perhaps gun rights should be limited to members of legitimate gun rights groups--gun shop dealer to customer: "I'll need to see your photo ID and NRA membership card."

FOLLOWUP: I have advised the individual in question to seek legal counsel on the matter, as his past record might impact on any present possession, even a borrowed weapon. However, he won't shell out the money to talk to a lawyer. Again ironic. He will spend $415 to do it, but not $100 to avoid serious legal problems.

Elementary and secondary education students who suffer bullying should be allowed to club their assailants repeatedly with no disciplinary consequences. If the bullies then attempt to fight back, they should be held guilty of assault and thrown into juvie hall when they can experience all sorts of neat and wondrous things.

Our society must end its enforcement of false egalitarianism. Equating the innocent an the guilty is part of the Leftist agenda toward moral equivication and the destruction of natural/traditional distinctions and order. A society is said to be judged in part by how it treats its criminals. If that's the case, then our society is to be judged harshly, as it treats them far too well.

"Ghost Whisperer" is on SyFy. Dayam! Jennifer Love Hewitt's hot. That's all.

Some suggest a "loser pays" approach to law suits--wherein the loser pays everybody's legal fees--as a way of preventing frivilous litigation. This won't work, as no doubt there will be a "pauper" exception for the indigent, and after a few horror stories of oh-so-wronged individuals afraid to sue for fear of losing their legitimate case (and maybe a few miscarriages of justice leading to the bankrupting of innocent people), the whole plan would be scrapped.

On the other hand, imposing corporal punishment on losers--the more one sues/gets sued for and loses, the more lashes--is something which could be imposed on all but the most medically disabled. In that latter case, the penalty would be placed on their nearest healthy kin.

A similar approach could be taken with the attorneys involved. Suddenly, there would be a rush of settling out of court.

A truly fun answer is to go after the judges. The Judiciary represents the most dangerous part of our democratic governance, having all of the incompetence of the American people and little or none of the restraint of the system. Since they act unencumbered by the Constitution, perhaps constitutional protections should not apply to them.

No less a libertarian than Neal Boortz has noted that the Founders erred in not including a provision for a periodic "benevolent dictator" to set things right, then relinquish power. Of course, he fails to explain why, if such a dictatorship is necessary or advisable,

The real answer, of course, is to establish--actually recognize the natural existence of--a higher class of people who are above the law. This class of people could act as needed to impose justice without the encumbrance of due process. To those who object, think of it this way: Even the Republic of the "Star Wars" universe--which is supposedly so much more righteous than the Empire--has the Jedi Order, a recognized class that can apparently operate outside of and above the civil system. Same principle.

And people wonder why I support the Empire. See, "The Case for the Empire ( http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp ).

If my Palin-Bolton ticket doesn't happen, then it's Palpatine-Vader 2012! (Hey, if a Kenyan can be in the White House, why not people from Naboo and Tatooine? And their music is sooo much cooler!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3S3q_5newo&feature=related )

The situation in Egypt should teach so many conservatives in this country some lessons:

1. Don't elect a Muslim as the American pResident.

2. Democracy doesn't work.

3. Maybe think twice before condemning American aid to an imperfect regime--consider the alternative to that regime.

4. "Politics makes strange bedfellows"--simply because a number of ideological movements or their adherents seem to work together in some given situations, does not mean they are basically the same thing or on the same end of the political spectrum (this is directed at the ignorance of the Right-Left distinction common among uneducated elements of grassroots conservatism--in other words, 99 percent of them).

5. Sometimes there is more going on behind the scenes than the typical conservatives knows or could possibly understand--they need to support America "right or wrong," as Commodore Stephen Decatur put it, and thus tell Ron Paul and his co-delusionists to shut up their sedition.

6. Put the above facts and other objective factors ahead of, "WEE-ll, I jes' kinda think..." in deciding what position to hold--in other words, let us educated and experienced on the conservative/Right decide what you should believe. If you don't know what you're talking about, then stop talking about it!

Question for Ron Paultards and similar libertards:

Question: Of all the countries on Earth capable of taking the role, WHICH DO YOU WANT TO DOMINATE THE UNITED STATES?

The Ron Paultard approach to foreign policy GUARANTEES that a new megapower will arise to fill the void left by his "non-interventionism." Thus, they need to say which foreign power his followers would prefer fill that void and hold hegemony over America. Whose military do they want countering our own? Whose money do they want to be economically pressured to accept? Whose culture do they want impressed upon them? Whose language? What do they want as the default, "Press 1" language for customer service while they are told to "Press 2 for English"?

(Shhh. Don't tell the Paultards this, but this is a set-up. Whatever power they answer, they simply show themselves guilty of lack of patriotism.)