Millennials being duped by ignorance

Millennials being duped by ignorance

If millennials were the key to President Barack Obama’s election in 2008, as USA Today stated recently, and if millennials are now strong supporters of Hillary Clinton or avowed socialist Bernie Sanders, then the rest of us have some serious questions for them.

Since none of them was alive during the past 75 years to experience how the United States grew to become the undisputed richest, most advanced country on the planet, we should ask them how they believe this wealth was produced.

After all, they have only lived through a recent short period where our national debt has more than doubled to $19 trillion.

•         Can they write a paper explaining how free enterprise has worked?
•         Are they aware of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)?
•         Where do they think the law of supply vs. demand came from?
•         Whom do they believe will be responsible for paying our debts?
•         Do they realize that they will be living when Social Security is broke and when 100 percent of our national income must be spent just to pay the interest due on our borrowed money?
•         Can any of these people even write the number one trillion?

·       Have any of them considered that in order to pay down $19 trillion in debt, it would take 600,000 years at $1 per second, or 600 years at $1,000 every second?

Most of us will be in the ground when the financial upheavals occur (we were the ones footing their bills). Will millennials then rejoice because they got free college and free health care?

Will they feel good about themselves because there are no more rich people and everyone is now equal? Do they believe that other countries will come to their rescue, because the U.S. rescued so many poor people over the previous 50 years? Will they feel good that their diverse country no longer dominates the planet? Are they prepared to live off the land? Who will protect them?

American politicians are not stupid. They have learned that they must promise the most government assistance to the most voters in order to get elected and reelected by typical U.S. educated voters who inherited their wealth and cannot stop spending it because it makes them feel good. All any politician needs to do in order to lose their government job is to tell the truth about our predicament and hint at reducing government spending. Do they believe Clinton will do this?

Are millennials buying U.S.-made electronics or clothing and driving cars made 100 percent in this country?

Most U.S. shoppers look for the best value for their money. They are the ones who send jobs out of the country, not the companies that attempt to remain viable suppliers to their customers while meeting their payroll and maintaining their stock’s value so that 401(k)s and investors do not lose their savings.

Have any millennials benefited from using the cheap labor of illegals who are not bound by our minimum wage laws nor by our Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, workman’s compensation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, maternal leave and the other laws with which any U.S. company must comply?

I believe that when millennials finally come to the realization that they have been duped into killing the goose that laid the golden eggs, they will look back and assign blame to their educators who failed to explain basic economics and the natural law of supply vs. demand.

I am just as certain that personal responsibility will not be part of their discussion.

Personal responsibility has been swept under the table since another group said, “If it feels good, do it,” and “Don’t trust anyone over 30.”

HEY, HANDOUTS ARE TOXIC TO ADULTS: Especially young adults

HEY, HANDOUTS ARE TOXIC TO ADULTS: Especially young adults 

This is written not from a place of judgment, but instead to address a problem based on an immense body of work that has brought great clarity to an issue facing the entire nation. The financial support we are offering adults is toxic. We are hurting them, we are hurting ourselves, and until we realize it’s not money that people need long term, everyone involved will feel the pain.

Think back to when you were taught to ride a bicycle without training wheels. Who was more scared? You or your parents?

The idea of letting go of a toddler rocketing across concrete with little protection is terrifying. If we let go, she will fall — she will bleed. If we don’t, she will never learn to ride the most elementary transportation device since feet. Once we let go, and she falls and bleeds, she will quickly learn that balance and control equal the absence of pain.

At that moment, everyone moves on with their life.

Assuming adults can ride their bike without training wheels, what was the primary element in their initial bike-riding achievement? It was others willingness to remove themselves from the situation, with the disturbing knowledge the absence would result in pain.

If we are still supporting adults, the absence of that support will lead to their success — even financial support. We have to remove our self from the situation. Let people learn to be independent; even if they first fail in order to become successful.

As we look at a supported adult’s life, what is missing? They lack skills on budgeting, resourcefulness, independence and, potentially, restraint. To be fair, if their problems stem from needing temporary assistance, then their lack of true financial independence actually makes sense; but, only for the learning period of time, not resulting in dependency.

However, we must be willing to acknowledge the amount of debt  some people hold is directly correlated to our willingness and ability to subsidize those expenses, as well as our willingness to encourage adult students  to blindly accumulate hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, with absolutely no plan to pay it off.

There’s a giant chasm that exists between people not being able to fund an affordable lifestyle and enabling/encouraging them to pursue what’s an idealistic and unachievable lifestyle. That gap can be bridged with uncomfortable conversations and restraint. Ignoring the chasm will result in everyone falling in.

In most cases what I’ve seen programs supporting adults, the adult isn’t allowed to fail because the program either doesn’t want their client to experience temporary discomfort or the program doesn’t want to admit that they have failed.

It’s a” lose-lose” situation. We make more people dependent on taxpayer programs as we as taxpayers move toward retirement. That math doesn’t work (I’d be remiss to not acknowledge scenarios in which additional financial support is not only warranted, but necessary. Yet, these situations are the exceptions, not the rule.)

The way out of this conundrum will be messier than anyone wants. Even so, if we can’t articulate to people why long term support is a problem, then that’s where we begin, by better understanding the impact of a government entangled financial relationships.

If we do not solve this problem, we will work deep into our 70s so that these younger adults can avoid learning how money works.

Remember, our support isn’t about the sacrifice of your money. This is about sacrificing your feelings and letting failure be the teacher.

The long term continued support of adults will ruin our financial life, and will ruin theirs, too.

Constitution gives Senate discretion

Constitution gives Senate discretion

There’s an easy way to win a bet about American government. Ask someone what the U.S. Constitution says about how long a Supreme Court justice serves in office. The other person will claim that a justice is appointed for life. You’ll win the bet when you tell your unsuspecting mark to check Article Three, Section One, where the Constitution states that “Judges” of the Supreme Court may serve only “during good behavior.” Judges can be impeached and lose whatever life tenure they imagined they had.

This is just one example of how the text of the Constitution can differ from what most Americans think. There’s another much more practical example and it’s squarely on display in the political skirmish surrounding President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia.

Get ready to lose another bet if you agree with this assertion: The president appoints justices to the Supreme Court.

Again, the Constitution helps disprove this claim. The president’s authority derives from Article Two, Section Two, which states he “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court.”

The first verb – “nominate” – spells out what the president may do. The second – “appoint” – describes what the president and the Senate may do together. These different words instruct our leaders to take different, co-equal roles in this process.

All Americans, born here or naturalized, trace our national lineage to those brave souls who landed on the shores of this continent in search of freedom from religious and government oppression inflicted by the power players of Europe. These pioneers of democracy withstood British rule only long enough to win independence and then find the right men who could build a new nation girded by the consent of the governed.

One of the most vexing issues confronting those men, the framers of our Constitution, was how to ensure that no official could employ government power as a spear against the people for whom it was meant to shield. They knew, as do we, that unchecked leaders can use power for profit, plunder and prejudice.

Their solution was as easy as the timeless childhood frolic of rock, paper, scissors. Everyone who plays this game quickly realizes that none of the symbols is all-powerful on its own. Rock might crush scissors but paper covers rock. The basic principle of why rock, paper, scissors is fun is the underlying reason why American checks and balances are fair. No branch has more power than the other.

Unfortunately, American public opinion on this topic has shifted. Far too many people think, incorrectly, that the president is somehow “in charge of” the country. But American government is an amalgam of federal, state and local officials who serve in three branches at each of those levels: executive, legislative and judicial. Spreading the power reduces the risk of corruption.

So who fills a vacancy on the Supreme Court? If you think it’s the president, you’re right. And if you think it’s the Senate, you’re also right.

In “Federalist 76,” Alexander Hamilton discusses the important difference between nominating and appointing. He even pushes back against those who think the power of selecting a justice should rest solely with the president. He describes the advice and consent clause as a “powerful” and “excellent check” against potential presidential misuse of power. And, in “Federalist 67,” Hamilton reminds us that, under the Constitution, “the ordinary power of appointment is confined to the President and Senate jointly.” Jointly.

This means that Obama has every right to nominate someone without any legal quarrel or question. And, his equal partner in the appointment – the Senate – has every right to give the advice and consent that they do not think the time is right to confirm someone, also without legal quarrel or question.

We’re all entitled to our own opinion as to what the president or the Senate should do in the face of a high court vacancy. But the words of the Constitution spell out what they are each permitted to do.

And, in an election year like this, the safest bet is that Democrats and Republicans alike will cloak themselves in constitutional rhetoric while advancing a position that will benefit them politically.

MARK R. WEAVER

Mark R. Weaver teaches at Ohio State University College of Law. He previously served as Ohio deputy attorney general and spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice.

TRUMP OR CRUZ-WHO RUNS BETTER AGAINST HILLARY?

TRUMP OR CRUZ-WHO RUNS BETTER AGAINST HILLARY?

Republicans are down to their final choice: Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. And for party loyalists, the decision basically comes down to which one – if either – can defeat presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

There’s a lot of talk about Trump’s potential crossover appeal with what’s left of white, working-class male Democrats. Cruz, for his part, argues that he would mobilize conservatives in a way not seen in a generation and storm the White House.

Fortunately, we have some actual data to test their hypotheses.

In the two latest national polls that measured head-to-head matchups between GOP contenders and Clinton, the harsh judgment of the general electorate toward frontrunner Trump got even harsher.

Surveys from WSJ/NBC News and WaPo/ABC News show Clinton trouncing Trump by 13 points and 9 points respectively. Trump has always fared poorly in head-to-head matchups with Clinton, leading her in only five of 49 national polls conducted since last year.

But things seem to be getting worse – approaching a Dukakis-sized wipeout for the GOP – and it’s not because of anything Clinton is doing. She continues to mostly trail Cruz as well as other nominal candidates.

So what’s the deal?

Trump’s abysmal numbers with women and struggles with better-educated voters are probably the driving forces behind his overall problems with beating Clinton. But he’s also suffering because of the deepening rift in his own party. Trump is trying hard to show some graciousness toward his fellow Republicans, but we can still expect this final pairing between him and Cruz to be an atomic blast of nastiness.

There’s also the barrage of negative advertising with which conservative groups are now pummeling Trump. Though designed to defeat him in the GOP primary, the devastating attacks on Trump’s character and business record will have an effect beyond the GOP electorate. Much like the case with the 2012 Republican nominee, the attacks of the primary season will carry over in the general election. The attacks on Mitt Romney over his business record and taxes started with his primary rivals in January and ended with his eventual November defeat.

Should Trump actually sew up the Republican nomination outright, he would certainly see his numbers improve. There’s always a bit of a dowry for the nominee as intra-party rivals soften their resistance following primary fights. But that effect is likely to be muted this time given the murderous fighting and the depth of the divide between Trump’s populist revolt and the rest of the party.

But there is no evidence that Trump’s Democratic crossover appeal is nearly significant enough to offset his other huge demographic problems.

Of course, neither is there any evidence to suggest that Cruz’s conservative call to arms will change the electorate in a meaningful way. It’s just that Cruz isn’t starting in the deep hole that Trump is to start.

Cruz has not yet been subject to the avalanche of attack ads that would surely greet him in a general election and Trump’s ugly, personal attacks on Cruz will also surely intensify in the near term.

But for now, it’s safe to say that Cruz is a better general election bet than Trump. There’s more variability with Trump – positive and negative – but Cruz can at least promise to essentially keep the GOP coalition intact and at least keep it close with Clinton.

Kasich ahead in Ohio - Fox News: “Ohio Governor John Kasich bests Donald Trump among Buckeye Republicans by a 34 to 29 percent margin. Ted Cruz is third with 19 percent.  Marco Rubio trails with just 7 percent. That’s according to a new Fox News poll of Ohio likely Republican primary voters.  The governor’s edge is within the poll’s margin of sampling error. Kasich is bolstered by positive evaluations of his job performance as governor.  He has a sky high 79 percent approval rating among the Ohio party faithful. Even so, nearly one quarter of Kasich supporters say they could end up voting for another candidate (23 percent).”

[GOP delegate count: Trump 458; Cruz 359; Rubio 151; Kasich 54 (1,237 needed to win)]

Limbaugh: Ted Cruz Is ‘Your Guy — Closest to Reagan'

Limbaugh: Ted Cruz Is ‘Your Guy — Closest to Reagan'

With conservatives across the country facing a critical decision whether to back Donald Trump, top radio talker Rush Limbaugh said on his show that true conservatives have no choice but to vote for Ted Cruz.

Limbaugh told his radio audience, "If conservatism is your bag, if conservatism is the dominating factor in how you vote, there is no other choice for you in this campaign than Ted Cruz…."
Limbaugh gave his powerful imprimatur to Cruz by adding, "This [Ted Cruz] is the closest in our lifetimes we have ever been to Ronald Reagan."

The Cruz campaign believes that his strong conservative and evangelical backing will put him ahead of GOP front-runner Donald Trump in Nevada and Super Tuesday states.

Limbaugh described Trump as “not a Republican.”

"He's running as a Republican, but he's way beyond any of this. … Donald Trump is not an ideological candidate. He doesn't look, for example, at Chuck Schumer and see a screaming liberal.”
Limbaugh praised Trump for creating a broad, new coalition of voters and turning the political system upside down, but offered little doubt about his own political leanings.


"This is not a criticism of Trump. But for those of you that conservatism's the answer and conservatism is the way, you have no choice here. Ted Cruz has got to be your guy. There's nobody even close. Nobody."

Anger, Confusion and Division in 2016

Anger, Confusion and Division in 2016

Rancorous political contests are nothing new. George Washington was elected without opposition in 1789 and 1793. But in the first contested presidential campaign in 1796, when Washington's VP John Adams faced Thomas Jefferson, there was vitriolic debate and acrimony between the candidates.

So it has been for most of the last 220 years in presidential politics. Notably, one of those elections, that of our 16th president Abraham Lincoln, was so contentious it literally divided the nation in 1860 and led to the bloody War Between the States.

But the current GOP primary season is a case study in how anger and despair lead to confusion and delusion, which has resulted in enormous division within a political party, before getting to the general election; with “Establishment” politician taking center stage.

For the record, Clinton clearly fits the "establishment" definition for her party, but on the GOP side, there is a lot of division that begins with the fundamental adulteration of the definition of "establishment" as it pertains to Republicans.

Two weeks ago, Donald Trump told a group of his supporters: "Seven months ago before I decided to run, I was part of the establishment. But now I'm not part of the establishment." Just like seven months ago he was a Democrat but now he's not a Democrat.

So just what does this word "establishment" mean in the Republican political context?

Until six months ago, "establishment Republican" was synonymous with "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only), but those descriptive labels have lost virtually all meaning in the fog of this primary.

In general terms, establishment Republicans were big-government politicos who appeased their base with the pretense of fiscal conservatism, but were moderate or even liberal in regard to the size and role of government. A few "old guard" names that come to mind are George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, John Boehner, Arlen Specter, Jon Huntsman, Charlie Crist, Lisa Murkowski, Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Since the end of the Reagan era, these politicians and their ilk have formed a "permanent political class" that has largely controlled the Republican Party.

For the most part, these Republicans have been indistinguishable from Democrats in their inattention to — if not their outright violation of — their oaths "to Support and Defend" our Constitution. Instead, their allegiance has been to special interest groups sucking up redistributed tax dollars and ballooning our national debt.

Conversely, "conservative Republicans" are grassroots folks who honor their oaths — advocates first and foremost for Liberty, who can articulate first principles. They are the many fresh faces on Capitol Hill including Iowa's Joni Ernst, Nebraska's Ben Sasse and Arkansas' Tom Cotton.

Notably, when asked recently, Trump was unable to define "conservatism," but when Sen. Ben Sasse was asked the same question, he offered a 90-second response that clearly distinguishes between "conservative" and "establishment."

Occasionally there are groundswells of grassroots conservatives who are inspired either by a national leader with an impeccable conservative pedigree — Ronald Reagan — or in reaction to the threat to Liberty posed by an ideological Socialist like Obama.

It was Obama's election in 2008 that gave rise to the Tea Party Movement in 2010.

That resurgence of a new generation of American Patriots led to historic victories in the House and Senate in the midterm elections of 2010 and 2014, seating more genuine conservatives than at any other time in the last century. Moreover, there were conservative victories wide and deep in statehouses and local governments across the nation.

The contrast between "conservative" and "establishment" has rarely been more evident than in the 2010 and 2014 elections.

So what happened this year?

Donald Trump. His political fortunes have been propelled by three primary factors: "The Obama Effect," "The Fratricidal Field of Contenders" and " Media Propulsion." To his campaign's credit, he has masterfully capitalized on each of those factors.

Days after Trump's insistence that he is now "not part of the establishment," the most quintessential of establishment Republicans, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, endorsed him.

Recall that prior to his endorsement of Trump, Christie warned: "Always beware of the candidate for public office who has the quick and easy answer to a complicated problem. ... I just don't think that [Trump] is suited to be president of the United States. ... We do not need reality TV in the Oval Office right now. [The presidency] is not a place for an entertainer. ... Showtime is over. We are not electing an entertainer-in-chief. ... [If you vote for Trump] we could wind up turning over the White House to Hillary Clinton for four more years."

Now he insists, "The best person to beat Hillary Clinton in November ... is undoubtedly Donald Trump."

"Undoubtedly"? All of the current reputable polling consistently indicates that Trump loses to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in head-to-head matchups, but, more importantly, he would be resoundingly defeated by Clinton. Recall that Trump previously endorsed Hillary Clinton, saying she'd be a "great president or vice president." When asked who was the best president of the last two decades, Trump responded, "Bill Clinton."

That notwithstanding, Trump's primary supporters, about 30% of GOP voters, generally insist he is the "conservative candidate" and the rest of the field, and anyone critical of Trump, is now "establishment."

The most anti-establishment conservatives across the nation, and their Tea Party counterparts, have uniformly condemned Trump as a farce, a phony and a fraud.

In testament to that condemnation, last week Trump canceled his speech before the largest gathering of conservative activists in the nation — the Conservative Political Action Conference. Apparently Trump didn't want the rejection of his candidacy by genuine grassroots conservatives to dominate headlines and airwaves nationwide ahead of Super Saturday.

Notably, his cancellation came after one of the most "anti-establishment" leaders nationwide — Tea Party Patriots founder Jenny Beth Martin — urged her fellow conservatives to reject Trump's "seductive pitch." Martin declared, "I know you're angry and I know you're upset too and I know that Donald Trump's tapping into that anger. It's a smart campaign strategy because he makes it seem like he shares our frustration and it's like he's fighting on our behalf."

Except that he isn't?

"Donald Trump loves himself first, last and everywhere in between," Martin warned. "He loves himself more than our country; he loves himself more than the Constitution."

So do Trump supporters now consider the Tea Party movement "establishment"?

At the end of the CPAC confab, when the results of the annual straw poll attendees had been tabulated, 40% voted for Ted Cruz, 30% for Marco Rubio and 15% for Trump. Does that mean 85% of CPAC activists are "establishment Republicans"?

Ironically, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Nation and other left-of-center publications are also using "establishment Republican" to define anyone who doesn't support Trump.

Having written more than 30 responses over the last two months about thinking and not being emotional and thinking for oneself about the candidtaes, I have yet to received a single reply. But the fact is, I have lost some readers, almost all of whom indicate they agree with my position on just about everything but Trump...

In his first inaugural address (1801), Thomas Jefferson wrote of those who opposed him, "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle."

My perspective on Trump's appeal coincides with this observation from National Review's Mark Wright: "I have no animus for the vast bulk of Trump's voters — I disagree with their choice for president; I think it to be an unwise choice that will harm the country, the conservative movement, and the Republican party — but I believe almost all of them are voting for Trump because they love America, are tired of seeing their country run by weak and feckless leaders, and are rightly distraught at the state of our union."

In his 1988 address to the Republican National Convention, Ronald Reagan said, "You don't become president of the United States. You are given temporary custody of an institution called the presidency, which belongs to our people."

In your own considered opinion, in the bright light of Liberty, you must decide if Donald Trump is a threat to the constitutional standing of that institution.

Gun Free Schools: Magnets for Murder

Gun Free Schools: Magnets for Murder

You can call it a God-given right or a natural right, but each individual has an inherent right to life and to sustain that life. This innate instinct for self-preservation is built into our DNA. When confronted with a threat, our pupils dilate, our heart rate increases, blood is diverted from the digestive system to the muscular system. It is the fight or flight reaction. Do we have a right of self-defense? As John Locke said, “In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; . . . And in the case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature.” -Two Treatises of Government, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

Yet, throughout this country, the government has infringed on this right by setting aside areas where the criminals' ability to inflict harm is greater than our ability to defend. These are called “gun free zones.”

Journalist Trevor Hughes in a USA Today opinion column made the case for carrying a concealed weapon. “Time and time again, mass murderers have targeted groups that were unprepared to fight back; Soft targets. What a terrible phrase. For me, like for many people I’ve talked to, San Bernardino was the tipping point. As someone who goes to lots of community meetings and rallies, I’m all too aware of how vulnerable we are.  A holiday party?  Your co-workers? (For me, it started with movie theaters.) I’m not a fan of waiting for the next attack from a religious terrorist.” “But if me carrying a concealed weapon — just like millions of my responsible neighbors in this country — deters someone from attacking my friends and neighbors, maybe that’s worth it. You don’t see terror attacks in this country on areas where there’s lots of armed men and women. Instead, it’s those soft targets that get hit. Maybe it’s time we made sure our enemies, both foreign and domestic, understand that we shoot back.”

The Crime Control Act of 1990 was the latest federal legislation that prohibited firearms in school zones, which extend 1,000 feet around school property. In 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled the Act was unconstitutional in the United States vs. Lopez case. Following that decision, U. S. Attorney General Janet Reno proposed a change in the United States Code that was adopted in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, which took effect in September 30, 1996 that reinstated the school gun free zones. It was one sentence in a 750 page bill that stated, "(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection.’’

It is a given that throughout the nation that virtually all public schools are gun free zones. School children are more likely to die by a lightning strike than by getting shot at school, yet parents are more fearful of an armed intruder (Source: CDC WISQARS database for 1999-2013). Why do school districts advertise in their school policy that they are soft targets? Why not at least make it ambiguous? In Missouri, every school district has the ability to change their policy. Chapter 571, Section 107 of the Missouri Revised Statutes delineates where you cannot carry a firearm, even with a concealed carry permit. Subsection (10) states in part, “Any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of the governing body of the higher education institution or a school official or the district school board.” Any school district Board of Education could give its consent by changing the school policy.

In 2014, the Missouri legislature passed SB656, which allowed administrators and teachers to become School Protection Officers. To become a School Protection Officer, an individual is required to undergo POST training which includes successful completion of a 112 hour School Protection Officer Training Program and passing a firearms practical exam. This training program is a subset of the training program required to become a police officer.

Change is slowly occurring. There are a handful of schools across the country that has an administrator or a teacher in the school with access to a firearm. In 2013, seven states enacted laws that allow teachers and other staff to be armed. The states include: Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas. As noted above, Missouri changed its laws in 2014. A few school districts in Texas have changed their policy and now have armed administrators or teachers in school buildings.

There are numerous policies to incorporate firearms in schools. One possible proposal could include:

-Every school building that houses students will have from one to six personal gun safes securely attached to a wall or a large piece of furniture. The location of each gun safe should be hidden from students and school visitors.
-In each building, from zero to six certified teachers and/or administrative staff (authorized staff) will have access to at least one of the personal gun safes. A firearm and ammunition will be secured in each gun safe for the authorized staff that has access to that particular gun safe(s).
-The authorized staff must be a certified School Protection Officer as defined by the Missouri Department of Public Safety and maintain the certification.
-The Superintendent will have access to all of the gun safes and will be the only district employee with a list of all authorized staff who has access to gun safes.
-The personal gun safes will have both key and electronic locks. Electronic locks so the user does not have to search for a key in an emergency and a key lock so the safe can be accessed by the Superintendent.

The purpose of the proposal is ambiguity. There will be gun safes in every building that houses students. This circumvents the problem of having a firearm on the teacher that could be discoverable by students. The number and identity of the authorized staff, if any, who have access to a firearm in each building, will be known only to the Superintendent. Any potential intruder does not know if they will face armed resistance, which by itself is a significant deterrent.

One impediment to this entire process is school district insurance policies that prohibit firearms in schools. If the district insurance carrier will not comply with state law, the school district should renegotiate the policy or find another insurance carrier.

Shouldn’t children be as safe at school as they are at home? Would you post a “Gun Free Zone” sign outside your home?

Death by Democrats has destroyed so many American cities.

Death by Democrats has destroyed so many American cities.

THE MOST SHAMEFUL INJUSTICE

This tidy little library was by all accounts the community anchor of a safe, friendly, booming little corner of muscular, dynamic, Motor City USA: Detroit, the crown jewel in the Arsenal of Democracy where cars and trucks, and later tanks and planes, rolled off assembly lines manned by workers who lived across the street or down the road from libraries like this one.

For decades, the librarians and the public complained about the deterioration of the library, and for decades the Detroit municipal government allocated funds for its repair, and for decades those funds somehow never arrived at the Mark Twain library… but mold did, and trespassers, and looters, and just before they tore it down just about everything of any value had been stolen: furniture, light fixtures, the copper wire from the walls.

They only thing they didn’t steal were the books.

Author John Perazzo has compiled a remarkable booklet called “The New Shame of the Cities,” which contains an exhaustive, amazing and depressing army of statistics that outline The Detroit Pattern that has killed those American cities ruled by unbroken lines of Democrats and Democratic Party policies. So if we want to understand the Detroit Pattern, we can understand the Urban decay of Democrat led cities. Maybe we should start in Detroit.

Through the 1940’s, 50’s and into the 60’s, Detroit was not the blasted ruin you see today, but the thriving, pulsating center of American business enterprise. By 1960, Detroit… yeah, Detroit..! had the highest per capita income of any city in the United States. Factories were humming, Motown records was spinning out blues and soul and Detroit’s school system – called by New Republic “One of the finest in the world” was turning out world-class students of every race. Up until 1960, Detroit could boast a large and prosperous black middle class, black congressmen, and wages for unskilled were higher than the national average. That was the last year Detroit had a Republican mayor.

So, what happened?

The first of the Democratic Dynasty, white liberal Jerome Cavanagh, greatly expanded the role of the city government in the city’s business, and, to his credit, made a serious effort to appoint Blacks to prominent positions in his administration.

This was preamble. The wave that eventually destroyed Detroit and so many other American cities came from Washington DC, and Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and War on Poverty programs.

$490 million in Federal money – an enormous sum in the mid sixties – poured in through the Model City program. It went to housing projects and social programs, dispersed by City Hall, and not to help small business and entrepreneurs keep the city economically viable. By 1990, Detroit’s Model City area had lost 63% of its population, 45% of its housing units, and were unimaginably violent and dangerous.

34% of Detroit’s citizens were on the welfare rolls by 1987 – four times what it was twenty years earlier.

Sociologist Walter E. Williams looked out over the financial ruin of Detroit and said, “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do. And that is to destroy the black family.”

In 1976 the Democratic mayor cut the police force by 20%; by 1987 the homicide rate was three times higher than it had been twenty years earlier. When locals complained about the skyrocketing crime, the mayor openly stated that calls for law and order were simply code words for white racism.

So where did all the money for law enforcement go? It went into the same pockets that the money for education went. Today, the Detroit Public School system spends $15,500 PER STUDENT per year; that’s half again more than the national average. It’s not that there wasn’t enough money. It’s where the money went.

In 2009 forensic accountants discovered 257 “ghost” employees on the payroll. Another 500 people were illegally drawing millions of dollars in benefits from the public school fund, and after a few months of this seven additional public officials were charged with felony embezzlement, having pulled tens of thousands of dollars from the school system. In 2009, Detroit’s children had math scores lower than any ever recorded in the history of the city and they now read at a level 73% below the national average. One in five fourth graders can write with fourth grade proficiency.

Economically, 55 years of Democratic corruption in Detroit means the city now has the highest property tax rates in America, and yet, in 2012 city revenues were 40% LOWER – in constant dollars – than they were in 1962. In terms of economic freedom – the ability to start new businesses without acres of government red tape, Detroit ranks 345^th out of 384 regions measured. When facing this ocean of fees and regulations, most people trying to start new businesses simply give up. Their dreams simply die.

What never dies, of course, is the City’s vast bureaucracy with forty-some individual labor unions, each with high salaries and lavish retirement benefits. Their schools are the worst in the country, and their Murder rate is either first or second, but Detroit can proudly state that fully one-third of all the money it spends every year is paid to some 21,000 public-sector retirees and their families.

This is what 55 years of Death by Democrats has done to Detroit: 911 police calls average 58 minutes response time – the national average is eleven minutes. There are 12,000 fires every year in Detroit – Fire Department money goes the way of the Twain Library repairs. Half of the city parks have closed due to lack of funds since 2008. About 100,000 housing units – nearly thirty percent of the city – are vacant. And 40% of the population hopes to escape the Detroit Pattern of Democratic Destruction within 5 years.

And it is precisely the same pattern for other major cities like Baltimore, where the city government awarded the family of a deceased drug dealer named Freddie Grey 6 million dollars and indicted six police officers on trumped up charges for having the temerity to arrest him. As in Detroit, millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer funds are regularly funneled not into law enforcement or education, but rather into contracts for friends and political supporters.

By the end of the 1990’s the murder rate in Baltimore six times higher than New York’s. In Baltimore, Maryland, some 54,000 open arrest warrants, including 250 for murder or attempted murder, are being worked by four police officers. Four.

In 2010 Democratic Mayor Sheila Dixon was convicted of embezzlement and perjury; 14% of the city’s fourth graders can read proficiently. The Baltimore Teachers Union successfully opposed a desperate plea from city residents for a voucher program to allow them to find schools that would, you know, actually educate their children; the $15,483 per student, per year is paid to abysmal union teachers then paid, via Union dues, directly to the Democratic party to run candidates that keep the heist in motion. .

That’s how it’s done. That’s how it’s done in Washington DC, where by 1992, 52,000 people – one in twelve! – were on the city payroll. Los Angeles is five times the size of DC but has 14,000 fewer taxpayer-funded workers. Washington DC has an unbroken succession of Democratic mayors and city councils for the last 43 years.

Like Detroit, and Baltimore, Washington DC constantly vies for the title of the nation’s murder capital; when Democrat Marion Barry, videotaped by the FBI and shown smoking crack on national television, was tried for 14 counts of cocaine possession, he called the prosecution “a political lynching;” NAACP executive director Benjamin Hooks said that “overzealous, hostile—if not openly racist—district and U.S. attorneys will bring a black official to trial on the flimsiest of evidence.” Ten blacks and two whites found him guilty of 1 count of possession. A few years later he ran again as Mayor and was handily elected.

Eighty-three percent of DC eighth graders cannot read proficiently, but in 2011 – with a deficit of $400 million dollars – DC taxpayers were making lease payments on two luxury automobiles – around two grand per month per car – for council chairman Kwame Brown. Why two cars? Well, Brown had asked for a fully loaded, extended wheelbase Lincoln Navigator with a black interior; when the car came with a grey interior, he ordered the second vehicle at city expense and had DC schoolchildren pay the additional $1,500 for expedited shipping.

Here’s a list of ten failed cities, and beside them, the number of years of uninterrupted Democratic control.

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn’t elected
a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)… since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)… since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)…. since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

Milwaukee, WI (8th)… since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)… since 1952;

Newark, NJ (10th)… since 1907.

And while civil servants pay the expedited shipping on their second Lincoln Navigators, the overwhelmingly black kids keep failing in school and killing each other by the thousands, and their overwhelmingly black mothers and fathers keep electing the overwhelmingly black Democrat liars, thieves and con artists who fail to protect them, and who pocket the money for the jobs and schools that would set them free.

And by continuing to elect these heartless, greedy, Democratic swindlers, the prisoners of these cities are inflicting upon themselves the most shameful injustice to befall Black America since slavery.