Arizona Defies CDC, Will Not Require COVID-19 Vaccine for Public School Students

Arizona will not require students to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in order to attend public schools in the state, the legislature announced in a statement.

The state’s Senate Majority Leadership Team, via an email press release, pointed to HB 2086, a now-signed law, that “clearly and explicitly states that COVID-19 vaccinations cannot be a requirement for school attendance in Arizona.”

Last week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted unanimously to add the COVID-19 vaccine to the adult and childhood immunization schedules. The ACIP recommended the receipt of four shots in total, beginning at six-months-old.

Consequently, some states will now legally require that students receive the vaccine in compliance with CDC recommendations, but Arizona will not be among them. A majority of states use the ACIP vaccination schedule as a reference for their own laws. The CDC itself does not determine state policy on public school admissions in relation to vaccination status.

“This is just another example of how out of touch the federal government and its agencies are with everyday families. With Republicans currently in control of our state government, we can promise that we will never subject Arizonans to the requirement of an experimental vaccine that has raised questions over long-term health implications,” Republican Senate President Karen Fann said of the ACIP vote.

Now, we’ve all heard from those people who don’t even want armed, in uniform, police resource officers in schools. These people are pro-criminal.
Of course, even if you do have armed security in a school, they have to have the fortitude to use their arms, not just stand around.

Good Guys with Guns End Monday Morning Attack at St. Louis School

A shooting at Central Visual and Performing Arts High School (CVPA) Monday morning shortly after nine was “quickly stopped” by police inside the school.

Fox2Now points out that “an adult female” and a teenager were killed in the shooting. The shooting suspect is deceased as well.

Police indicate there were seven active officers on the campus and there was “an exchange of gunfire” between the suspect and police. KMOV reports that the shooting suspect had a long gun and was “a man around 20 years old.”

At 9:47 a.m. St. Louis Public Schools tweeted: “Police are on site at Central Visual and Performing Arts this morning following reports of an active shooter and both CVPA and Collegiate are on lockdown. The shooter was quickly stopped by police inside CVPA. We have reports of 2 students injured and on the way to the hospital.”

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch notes,  “David Williams, a math teacher at the school, said the school principal came over the loudspeaker around 9 a.m. and said the code word that indicates a school shooter is in the building.”

Williams said he then heard gunshots outside of his classroom.

The Progressive Socialist War on American Children

The time has come that we — as constitutional conservatives and Republicans — stop playing this absurd adherence to the Marquis of Queensberry’s rules. It is imperative to understand the strategy, goals, plans, and objectives of the radical leftists and Marxists; that is why I have a copy of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” in my home. The leftists in America have no issue with wrongly castigating and demonizing their political opposition in the most despicable and heinous terms. We need not lower ourselves to such a level of depravity, but we must simply tell the truth. As we head into the final stretch of this midterm election cycle it is no longer debatable: the progressive socialists have declared war against American children. After this past week, what else should we deduce?

I am committed to ensuring that the unalienable rights of our children, born and unborn, are not violated. America is looking for courageous adults who will stand upon the ramparts for our children.

This past week we witnessed 15 unelected bureaucrats of the Centers for Disease Control advisory board unanimously voted that the COVID shot be included in child immunization requirements. So, 15 individuals – who, behind the anonymity of their vote — decided that our children, as young as 6 months, must be given a shot to get an education in a public school. You can bet that most Democrat-controlled states will then mandate all children must adhere to the CDC guidance (Never forget that it was Karl Marx who listed state control of education as one of the Marxist planks). This decision was met with unrestricted angst and anger from our youngest daughter who blatantly refuses to have such an injection go into little Jaxton Bernard’s body.

COVID is not a disease–it is a virus; therefore, the so-called mandated “vaccine” is not such. A vaccine eradicates a disease. It has been proven that this COVID shot does not prevent this viral infection. As a matter of fact, in young people, the COVID shot has proven to have adverse effects. Furthermore, COVID was most dangerous for those with specified comorbidities — heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. The demographic that was the least impacted by COVID was the 0-17-year-old group. So, why mandate this ineffective shot, and leverage education, rather indoctrination, on its inoculation?

It kind of reminds me of Joe Biden threatening to cut off school lunch programs for school districts that refused to adopt the LBGTQ+ and gender dysphoria agenda.

As well, we have a new abhorrent assertion emanating from the progressive socialists. Murdering unborn babies in the womb is now an economic issue. Yes, so says Stacey Abrams, and even Joy Reid of MSNBC. It appears, according to Abrams, that if women dismember their babies in the womb, they lessen their economic concerns. Talk about a creepy take on budget cuts. Now leftists, in the need to make abortion relevant, have reduced unborn babies to a budget line item . . . and they want veto power. Our children are a gift from God, and they are endowed with the very first unalienable right: life.

The leftist position goes beyond anything reasonable or moral and, instead, promotes infanticide. Ralph Northam referred to a born child as “it.” Maryland and California have legislation advancing the idea that a born child can still be left to die. This is a demonic evil.

As well, there is an abominable drive towards child gender modification, mutilation, and surgeries along with life-altering hormonal therapies and puberty blockers. Parental rights, in this instance, are not part of the leftist ideological agenda. After all, leftists believe that our kids are not ours, but the property of the State. A leftist judge here in Dallas County, Texas, has ruled that a mother can, against the dad’s wishes, take her 10-year-old son to California so he can undergo gender modification surgery because she wants him to be a girl.

We have the American Medical Association asking the DOJ to investigate anyone speaking out against child gender modification surgery. Planned Parenthood has now added child gender modification surgery to its business plan. There are medical centers now seeing this as a lucrative, profitable endeavor and are pushing for these procedures, which the American Psychiatric Association designated as child abuse. Yes, we are chemically and physically castrating our kids. In Virginia, a progressive socialist elected official wanted to introduce legislation that parents who did not “affirm” their child’s chosen gender should lose custody. She has since back-peddled, no doubt due to the outcry when the story broke, including members of her political party who shunned her . . . and rightfully so.

Perhaps collusion exists between the medical-industrial complex and the educational-indoctrination complex. The CDC is mandating the COVID shot to attend public school. Some cannot afford private schooling. Children are then forced into public, government indoctrination centers, especially since Randi Weingarten and the leftists despise educational freedom and parental choice in education. The children are therefore indoctrinated, having drag queens paraded before them, while they are told, against parental knowledge, that they can choose their gender . . . and the teachers will enable them to do so.

Never forget, the medical-industrial complex makes the money from this purposeful and intentional grooming.

The progressive socialists do not talk about child sex trafficking. They are redefining pedophilia to be “minor-attracted persons.” They are sexualizing our children. Remember the Netflix series “Cuties?”

There is a progressive socialist war on our children. I am reminded of Jesus, who said:

“It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.” (Luke 17:2)

Metaphorically speaking, there are a lot of progressive socialists who do not realize that they have a millstone tied around their necks.

Steadfast and Loyal.

Our deep dive into the numbers continues to expose the anti-gun crowd’s lack of evidence sufficient to warrant erosion of the 2nd Amendment.

Guess How Many Violent Crimes in the USA Involve a Gun

Harvard health policy expert Dr. David Hemenway routinely uses statistics like “250 people were shot each day in the US” and “Children aged 5–14 … are more than 13x more likely than children in other high-income populous countries to be murdered with a gun” to support a myth.  That myth is that America is one of the most violent nations on the planet because its citizens possess firearms.  Domestically, this myth survives by focusing on U.S. homicide rates where guns are used 74% (FBI 2019) of the time, and it thrives internationally because the U.S. outranks most all other nations for the same reason.  But is the rationale rational?

Domestically speaking, citing firearm homicides to prove that America is a violent nation fails for two primary reasons: 1) homicides are 1% of U.S. violent crime (FBI 2019) invalidating it as a metric for national violence; and 2) 78% (FBI 2019) of total violent crime is committed without a gun.  This bears repeating: nearly 8 in 10 violent crimes in America don’t involve a gun.

Internationally speaking, as one of the few nations that permits citizens to possess firearms, it’s unsurprising the U.S. has more firearm deaths.  After all, who would be surprised to learn that Egypt has the highest international ranking for people falling to their deaths from atop a large pyramid?  (Yes, it does happen.)  However, in this debate, the lethality of the weapon is not at issue, but rather its relation to violence.  Moreover, because proposed solutions to gun violence focus on changes to national public policy, national violence is most relevant.

Continue reading “”

Murphy Blocking Cruz School Security Bill Says It All

United States Senate – -( The next time some anti-Second Amendment extremist claims that those of us who object to gun control aren’t trying to prevent school shootings, the objection of Senator Chris Murphy to Ted Cruz’s School Security Enhancement Act should be thrown in their face.

Second Amendment supporters are all too aware of how anti-Second Amendment extremists weaponize mass shootings in general and mass shootings at schools in particular against our rights. Cruz’s legislation would allow current Student Support and Academic Enrichment grant programs to be used to improve the security at schools.

This sort of thing is – or should be – a no-brainer all around. Who doesn’t want safe schools? Chris Murphy, for one, it seems. What could he find so objectionable about Cruz’s legislation, which doesn’t even permit the use of the grants to arm teachers or train them?

We can quibble whether or not Cruz should have allowed the grants to be used to arm teachers. On the one hand, arming teachers does generate controversy (a voluntary program really shouldn’t, but we’re not in an ideal world). On the other hand, if Murphy won’t even support measures to improve school security that don’t involve guns… what do we have to gain by taking armed teachers off the table? That can be discussed later.

The topic for now, must be Murphy’s decision to object to even bringing such a measure up for debate. This is a no-lose proposition for Second Amendment supporters, especially if we make a lot of noise about it now. If we are seen working on efforts to deter, prevent, or mitigate mass shootings – including efforts that don’t involve guns – we have a chance to head off attacks.

As has been discussed on these pages earlier, Murphy has pushed legislation that would prohibit any sort of federal funding for law enforcement in schools. In other words, what he is proposing would actually make repeats of Sandy Hook, Parkland, and Uvalde not only much more likely to happen but also to rack up the kind of body counts that force us into a major action in defense of our rights.

Why would he remove something that could deter or mitigate attacks? That is a question we’d see him asked if the vast majority of media outlets were honest. We don’t have that world today, so much of it could end up needing to be done by Second Amendment supporters at town meetings. Those in Connecticut should press Murphy on this and demand an explanation.

Remember the time it took for cops to arrive at Sandy Hook? It was ten minutes – 600 seconds. The long periods of inaction by law enforcement at Parkland and Uvalde also should be kept in mind. Murphy’s past track record of smearing Second Amendment supporters means he has forfeited any claim to receiving the benefit of the doubt from Second Amendment supporters on this matter as well.

One final thing: Working to prevent school shootings with legislative proposals like what Senator Cruz proposed is not being a “Fudd.” The fact is, we should be trying to head off these shootings – it’s in our interest to do so, just look at the aftermath of Parkland.

Second Amendment supporters have a chance to immunize themselves to some degree from attacks in the wake of the next school shooting. If they can seize this chance, it will help efforts to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local levels via the ballot box.

“I Surprised Myself with My Openness and Enjoyment of the Activity” (Fall 2022 Student Range Visit Reflection #2)

This is the second of several student gun range field trip reflection essays from my fall 2022 Sociology of Guns seminar (see reflection #1). The assignment to which students are responding can be found here. I am grateful to these students for their willingness to have their thoughts shared publicly.

Sociology of Guns student at the range, Fall 2022. Photo by Sandra Stroud Yamane

By Audrey Dorfman

Prior to the field trip to Veterans Range, I would classify my view of guns in the US as predominantly negative. As I had previously never directly interacted with a gun before, I only associated the use of guns with the violence seen in the media in horrific crimes like mass shootings. I did not understand the need or desire to be a gun owner. However, the experience at the range definitely altered my prior understanding of guns in the US as I surprised myself with my openness and enjoyment of the activity.

When I first arrived at the gun range and gathered with the other students in my group to wait outside the fenced area, I was initially startled by the sound of the AR-15 being fired nearby. Hearing just how loud the gun was made me realize the true power of the weapon I was about to be interacting with. While I was a little bit nervous to handle the guns, I felt mostly excited; I seemed to be the most eager in my group to volunteer to shoot first. I wanted to approach the experience with an open mind, and I think this attitude allowed me to relax and appreciate my time at the range much more.

The part of the field trip that surprised me the most was how much I truly enjoyed it. I walked away feeling a sense of exhilaration and as if I had been relieved of the day’s tension and stress. I immediately contacted my family to tell them how great of a time I had with the different types of guns – however, this unexpected enjoyment also confused me. I was wrestling with the idea of how I could have so much fun with these different guns when they are the same objects I know are used to kill people every single day.

Continue reading “”

If a foreign goobermint forced this kind of education system on us, it would be considered an act of war.

Students cannot pass a basic citizenship exam: A shameful indictment of our education system.

A new semester is upon us, and as a political science professor at Suffolk Community College in New York, it’s important for me to gauge what my students already know about American government and politics.

Early on in my teaching career, I found that students came into college lacking a basic understanding of the founding of our country, the Constitution, the roles and responsibilities of our institutions, and the core American political philosophies, including concepts of liberty and freedom.

I decided the best way to measure my students’ understanding of the American government was to issue two assignments. On the first day of class, I give my students a citizenship exam asking very basic questions about our founding and our system of governance. Some of the questions include:

The overwhelming majority of students fail the exam. After twelve years of administering this exam, only 348 students have passed out of 2,176. A shameful indictment of our K-12 education system.

Even worse, the passing rate has dropped compared to when I first began giving the exam and has been stagnant over the last five years.

Sadly, this semester is no different. The pass rate for the test is 70%. Out of the approximately 175 students, only 11 of them were able to pass the exam.

For the second assignment, I provide them with Chapter 1 of the Russian Constitution, replacing Russian Federation with the United States, and Duma with Congress. It is important to note that the Russian Constitution, crafted in 1993, begins with “We the multinational people…,” and that Chapter 1 consists of 16 Articles.

Students are asked to provide a one-paragraph written response sharing their thoughts on this constitution. Realistically, their response should be one sentence: this is not the United States Constitution.

Instead, many will write how they never actually read the U.S. Constitution, which is horrifying given the number of years they have attended school prior to taking my course. Others will reference Article 7 where it explains “…guaranteed minimum wages and salaries shall be established, state support ensured to the family, maternity, paternity and childhood, to disabled persons and the elderly, the system of social services developed, state pensions, allowances and other social security guarantees shall be established,” and praise the foresight of the founding fathers.

Needless to say, when I reveal the results and my deception, the look on the students’ faces is priceless. The shock, embarrassment, and shame can be seen in their expressions. These exercises, however, have proven to be an invaluable tool to make my classes more successful, and they dramatically improve student engagement.

There are three objectives behind these assignments.

The first is to open students’ eyes to how unfamiliar they are with the country they are living. As I explain to the students, they have opinions about everything, but how can they say what the government should/should not be doing when they do not know why the government exists, the institutions within the government, and the roles and responsibilities of these institutions?

The second objective is to teach students to think critically, ask questions, be suspicious, and speak up. After I tell the students what they read, some students will respond that they found it strange that the founding fathers would be talking about minimum wage, pensions, and other 20th and 21st century issues.

My response is always the same, “Why didn’t you say anything or do a quick internet search?” Interestingly enough, they reply that since I am the professor, they trusted me, and I would know more about the subject matter than they do.

Even though they had questions, they went against their gut instincts and blindly complied with the assignment. I explain to my students the importance of questioning everything and thinking critically, regardless of who is providing them with the information.

My final objective is to get the students eager and more interested in the subject.

After the exercises, I begin to probe the students in an effort to understand how it’s gotten this bad. The overwhelming majority of students state that throughout their K-12 education, they were never required to read the U.S. Constitution. This is extremely frustrating, because by the time these students get to my course, not only should they be able to easily identify the Constitution, but it should also be seared into their minds.

The good news is that as my students progress throughout the semester, they understand the intent of government and how our system works. They gain the ability to formulate their own ideas on the issues and develop stronger arguments supported by solid evidence.

As an educator, it is not my role to indoctrinate them on what they should believe. Instead, it is my responsibility to assure they know how the American government operates, nurture their academic development, spark their intellectual curiosity, and get them to think critically about the issues.

After “The Great Shaming,” they are eager to learn.

While many criticize the younger generations, out of my nearly two-decades of experience, I am always amazed at how my students show a profound respect for one another and are much more open-minded than many would believe—far more open-minded than some of the people doing the teaching. Every semester, my students learn as much from me as I do from them, and I have little doubt the same will happen this semester.

San Diego teacher defines ‘fascist’ to class as ‘whites,’ ‘heterosexuals,’ and ‘Christians.’

EXCLUSIVE — A teacher from Madison High School in San Diego claimed fascists are synonymous with the “modern-day Republican Party” and “white, Christian, heterosexuals,” according to a student at the school. Speaking on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation, the high school student detailed the teacher’s unhinged definition of a “fascist.”

The school began the 2022-23 year on Aug. 29. The alleged incident occurred at the high school last Thursday.

“Immediately, I walk in and notice on the board, it says, ‘The Republican Party is the fascist party, and it does not fit the mold of a Democratic Party,'” the student told me. “It’s the first thing I saw when I came in.”

The student took a picture of this and shared it with me. It read, “As it is currently constituted, the Republican Party is now a fascist organization that no longer fits the category of a conventional Democratic Party.”

School board at San Diego high school
Dry-erase board in San Diego high school where a teacher categorized today’s Republican Party as a fascist organization
Taken by an anonymous student

But the teacher didn’t stop there. He continued with his radical left-wing indoctrination by listing whites, Christians, and heterosexuals as groups that are “fascist.” The student took a picture during the class that shows how the teacher defined “fascist.” On the classroom’s white dry-erase board, the teacher wrote the word “fascist,” underlined it, and listed the words: Trump, heterosexual, white, Christian, and hatred of foreigners, immigrants, and minorities, among others.

“Then, he goes to this board and writes ‘fascist’ on it, and this really struck me. He immediately made the comparison of the Republican Party to the Nazi Party. And that was really offensive to me,” the student said. “He listed the Republican Party and the Nazi Party as similar. And that’s just ridiculous, and I took offense to that. So I took a picture of it.”

Then, the teacher continued to insult and denigrate different groups of people, according to the student.


“He goes on to insult white people and Christian people, automatically putting them under … that they’re automatically fascist,” the student said.

When I asked the student if the teacher said anything specifically about insulting whites and Christians, the student expanded on what the teacher said.

School board at San Diego high school
Picture of how a teacher defined “fascist” on a dry-erase board at a San Diego high school
Picture taken by an anonymous student

“He just kind of put up that they’re fascists, and they support a fascist government,” the student said. “Immediately — he didn’t even ask the class about it. He just made the assumption right away that whites and Christians automatically support a fascist government.”

This happened in an English class at the high school. I asked the student to elaborate on what learning about fascism has to do with the class’s syllabus.

“We were supposed to be learning how to make an argument for an argumentative essay,” the student said. “And the first thing he turns to is that. Then, he just got to the definition of fascism and what he thinks. He put down the Nazi Party and the modern-day Republican Party, which is just ridiculous.”

This is the dangerous kind of indoctrination that occurs in schools today. Parents who lack alternatives to public schools must be vigilant. What happened in this classroom wasn’t education. It wasn’t teaching about the sins of our country’s past — a justification left-wingers often use to brainwash students subtly to parrot their own political beliefs. No, this was overt indoctrination through bullying high school students at a public school in California. Taxpayer money was used to teach students that fascists are akin to whites, Christians, heterosexuals, or Trump supporters.

“This completely caught me off guard,” the student said. “This is an English class. This isn’t a political class or anything. I signed up for the class to learn how to write papers and stuff,” the student said. “I didn’t sign up for the class for a teacher to be trying to shove his ideology down my throat.”

Unfortunately, this is what many teachers do today. Their priority is spreading such radical, left-wing political ideologies. They want to indoctrinate, not educate. And they feel so comfortable about it that they do it openly.

Texas private school to allow staff to go about day armed

Armed staff may well be the best way to protect students in our schools. Yes, it’s a shame that we should even need to have this discussion–our schools should be safe from such monsters–and in a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to. Yet we don’t live in a perfect world, though. We live in this one.

As a result, bad things happen in schools, as we’ve seen all too recently. What’s more, armed staff actually can protect our kids.

For one private school in Texas, that fact stands and they’re not going to pretend it doesn’t.

Faith Academy is planning on implementing a program that will allow teachers and staff to carry weapons at school.

The private Victoria Christian school is joining several area school districts in taking advantage of a Texas law that gives school officials the authority to let private individuals have guns on school premises, which is otherwise illegal.

This provision is often called the “guardian plan” or “guardian program,” though that name is not official.

Unlike most of the public school districts that have implemented such a plan, Faith’s teachers and staff will have the guns on their person during the school day, according to Principal Larry Long.

These staff members will be trained and certified, but I’m mostly shocked at the idea that some of the armed staff in the public schools don’t carry the firearm on their persons.

What are they supposed to do, ask the mass shooter for a time-out so they could get their guns? “Excuse me, Mr. Killer? Can we press pause for a moment so I can get my gun, then we can do this all fair-and-square?”

Yeah, let me know how that goes.

Victoria Academy is clearly thinking straight on this. If the teachers have their guns on their person, they can respond in an instant, as opposed to potentially having to run to wherever they’re stored and gaining access under stress.

Look, schools are a favorite target of mass shooters. Part of the reason for that is because they know they’re unlikely to face much in the way of armed resistance. The idea that the supposedly armed staff don’t actually have ready access to their weapons isn’t likely to be much of a deterrent.

Yet this case? Yeah, I can see things going very differently if someone were to pick this school.

However, I also think that it isn’t going to happen. For one thing, mass shootings at a school are very rare, but also because now people know the teachers at Victoria Academy are armed and will have their weapons on them.

The two things combined provide a blanket of protection over this school like few others.

Anti-gun voices can scream about armed staff at schools if they want, but we’ve seen too many instances where a good guy with a gun made the difference. The last thing I want to ever write about again is innocent kids being killed in their classrooms.

Teachers and staff with guns can make sure I never do.

DeSantis removes Broward County school board members after grand jury report

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis removed and replaced four members of the Broward County school board on Friday after a grand jury that was convened to examine the failures that led up to the 2018 shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida recommended the action. DeSantis said in a statement that it’s his “duty to suspend people from office when there is clear evidence of incompetence, neglect of duty, misfeasance or malfeasance”; pointing to evidence laid out in the grand jury report released last week that found the ousted board members had displayed all of those disqualifications when it came to a program called SMART.

In the 122-page report released Friday, the panel recommended that DeSantis suspend board members Patricia Good, Donna Korn, Ann Murray and Laurie Rich Levinson. A former member, Rosalind Osgood, also was targeted, but she has since been elected to the Florida Senate and taken office.

Levinson, the board’s chairwoman, angrily slammed the report as a “political hatchet job” orchestrated by the governor.

“It is nasty partisan politics. He should be ashamed of himself,” she said.

… Former Broward Superintendent Robert Runcie resigned last year after he was indicted for allegedly lying to the grand jury. He has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial. The district is the nation’s sixth-largest, with more than 270,000 students at 333 campuses, and an annual budget of $4 billion.

The school board has nine members, including two, Debra Hixon and Lori Alhadeff, who were elected after Hixon’s husband Chris and Alhadeff’s daughter Alyssa died in the Stoneman Douglas shooting. They ran on platforms promoting better campus security. Alhadeff, in particular, has frequently been at odds with the targeted members, particularly over Runcie’s performance before his resignation.

Stand with Parkland, the group that represents most of the victims’ families, issued a statement that applauded the report, saying it “proves what we already suspected – acts of incompetence, negligence and coverup and a School Board (that) is unwilling to face the facts.” President Tony Montalto, whose 14-year-old daughter Gina died in the attack, called on DeSantis to remove the four members from the board.

The grand jury said that Runcie’s and the accused board members’ “uninformed or even misinformed decisions, incompetent management and lack of meaningful oversight” has led to massive cost overruns and delays in a school safety and education program approved by county voters in 2014. The report says the $1 billion program that was supposed to be completed in 2021 is now projected to cost $1.5 billion when it is finished in 2025 — estimates the jury called “wishcasting.”

“This doubling of time and almost 50 percent increase in cost did not happen overnight,” the grand jury wrote. “It was a slow-boiling frog that resulted from years of mismanagement from multiple (district) officials whose mistakes were compounded by the Board, which has….refused to hold (district) leadership to account.”

I suspect this will be a broadly popular move around the state, though perhaps less so in Broward County itself. As for the new school board members, two of them have previous experience serving on school boards, and all four appear to have solid credentials in the community. And with the governor merely following the recommendations of the duly empaneled grand jury, the complaints from ousted school board members like Levinson that this is nothing more than “nasty partisan politics” isn’t likely to resonate with most voters.

According to the grand jury’s 122-page report, district officials and the ousted board members displayed “an almost fanatical desire to control data and use it to manipulate public perception,” and were seemingly more interested in the building the district’s “brand” while treating students more like statistics. If the voters of Broward County disagree with that conclusion I suppose they can always re-elect the now-former board members at the next opportunity, but for now there’s a new board, and one that’s hopefully more accountable to parents, students, and staff… not mention one that a grand jury doesn’t accuse of being more interested in student safety than public relations.

Biden’s Student Loan ‘Cancelation’ Plan Could Cost Taxpayers Up to $60,000,000,000 Over Next 10 Years

On Wednesday, the White House released the details of its so-called student debt “cancelation” plan. President Joe Biden also gave remarks about the announcement later that day. While the president and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre failed to give a satisfactory answer about the cost, the Committee for a Responsible Budget (CRFB) has estimated that it will cost between $440 billion and $600 billion over the next 10 years.

Wednesday’s release from CRFB, a non-partisan group, noted that it has come to a rough estimate of $500 billion.

The release also spells trouble for any perceived benefits from the “Inflation Reduction Act,” which the organization had positive things to say about. The CRFB’s reference to a law it had praised makes its concerns even more potent.

From this release, with added emphasis:

The changes announced today will likely cost more than double the amount saved through the recently passed Inflation Reduction Actcompletely eliminating any disinflationary benefit from the bill. We will be releasing an inflation estimate of these student debt changes in a subsequent analysis, but the package is likely to increase inflation by more than a year-long extension of the pause, which we previously estimated would add up to 20 basis points to the Personal Consumption Expenditure inflation rate. The proposed loan changes also do nothing to reduce the amount of borrowing moving forward, setting up a future administration to be called on to cancel debt again.

It is extremely troubling to see the Administration reverse the legislative progress made on deficit reduction. It is long past time that student debt repayments resume, and now it is even more important for policymakers to enact changes that reduce deficits through spending reductions and revenue increases in order to put the national debt on a downward sustainable path.

The organization also released a statement from its president, Maya MacGuineas, which emphasized her disappointment with the move. Her statement began:

This announcement is gallingly reckless – with the national debt approaching record levels and inflation surging, it will make both worse. Policymakers have already spent $300 billion on student debt relief—none of it paid for, and this would add another $400 to $600 billion, again, none of it paid for. This action by the White House is completely at odds with their talk of deficit reduction. It could add twice as much to the deficit as was just saved from the Inflation Reduction Act, completely eliminating any deficit reduction and then some. With the stroke of a pen, the President undid a year’s worth of work on the fiscal front.

Many progressive politicians and organization have referenced student loan debt in the context of how it affects lower-income families as well as minorities. The president in his Wednesday remarks made mention of how “the burden is especially heavy on Black and Hispanic borrowers, who on average have less family wealth to pay for it.”

Thursday post by CRFB also addressed previous student debt proposals, which actually turn out to benefit upper-class families. “The student debt cancellation proposals that have previously been analyzed are regressive because they provide a disproportionate benefit to higher income and wealthier households. The main reason for this is that people who go to college and beyond are much more likely to earn high incomes and have high lifetime wealth compared to people who don’t go to college,” the post read.

Brookings report is also mentioned, which found that “the top 20 percent of white non-Hispanic households by lifetime wealth hold 25 percent of all student debt and hold more student debt than all Black/African American households combined. This shows that debt cancellation disproportionately benefits white, wealthier households because those are the people most likely to owe and be paying down their debt.”

The post did acknowledge that Biden’s recently announced proposal could be “less regressive” though and that “it’s not clear at this time how the announced Biden cancellation policy affects the racial wealth gaps.”

Iowa Firearms Coalition applauds the Spirit Lake School Board for plans to arm staff

SPIRIT LAKE, I.A. (Dakota News Now) – The Iowa Firearms Coalition has been working to change security policies in public buildings, claiming the current system has left them vulnerable to attacks. As a result, the Spirit Lake School Board decided to allow members of their on-campus staff to carry guns.

The IFC applauds the decision that was made unanimously by the school board during their Monday meeting. According to a press release from the IFC, 10 staff members who agree to carry and undergo training will be allowed to take part in the program.

“The Spirit Lake School Board clearly loves their children enough to ensure, should tragedy strike, a threat can be addressed,” said IFC President Dave Funk. “We strongly encourage all other Iowa school districts to follow in the footsteps of Spirit Lake. Our children are worth protecting.”

Iowa Code 724.4B, which allows school districts to regulate armed personnel on school grounds, paved the way for Spirit Lake’s decision.

“Having this policy in place serves as a deterrent for anyone who might consider entering our schools with the intent to do harm,” said Spirit Lake Schools Superintendent David Smith in a statement to Explore Okoboji.

Audio of the Spirit Lake School Boarding meeting can be found here:

The Iowa Firearms Coalition, an affiliate of the NRA and NSSF, is a 501(c4) nonprofit and is Iowa’s only effective pro-Second Amendment rights organization.

Gun control not a “resource” to stop mass shootings

If the idea of being involved in a mass shooting, even if that involvement is just knowing one of the victims, is a personal nightmare of yours, you’re probably right to be concerned. They’re awful and the pain of having someone taken from your life like that hurts beyond words.

Believe me, I know.

In North Carolina, a sheriff decided to stop playing around and decided school resource officers will have AR-15s to use to protect students and staff. To say some don’t like that is an understatement.

In the Charlotte Observer, one columnist put his opposition into words.

Madison County, one county over from where I live in Asheville, garnered national headlines recently with an announcement that every school in the N.C. county will be outfitted with AR-15s this school year.

This initiative embodies how many on the right today bend over backward to suggest anything but gun control as the salve for gun violence.

Madison County Sheriff Buddy Harwood wrote on Facebook, “to exhaust every resource we’ve got to ensure that our kids are safe, that when they go to school, they can learn…and they can go the playground and play, and not worry about some thug who’s going to come out onto the playground and open up on them with some type of AR-15, shotgun, pistol, whatever.”

Only Harwood didn’t exhaust every resource. If he’d done that, he would’ve been advocating for meaningful gun control — a shooter can’t open fire with an AR-15 if they can’t purchase one.

Well, that last paragraph is possibly one of the dumbest ever written in the English language.

First, understand that there are an estimated 20 million or more AR-15s currently in circulation. Does the author think that a new law will magically make them unobtainable for the average citizen? I’m sorry, that ship has long since set sail.

Further, it’s not like the AR-15 is the only weapon used to commit a mass shooting. In fact, handguns are far more commonly used for such horrific acts.

Yet an AR-15 would allow deputies to engage handgun-armed would-be mass shooters at greater range, meaning they could save lives that much sooner without having to close to handgun range. Or, if such a killer has a rifle of some type, he can at least meet them on equal ground.

Moving on…

Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban in 1994, outlawing AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles. As reported by NPR, mass shootings were down in the decade that followed, compared to the decade before (1984-1994) and the one after (2004-2014). Assault weapon bans work.

Except the study referenced used an odd definition of “mass shooting;” one that also happened to reduce tilt the findings more in the favor of the desired outcome. That NPR didn’t critically look at that study isn’t overly surprising.

But the author is starting to approach his point:

Harwood represents a bigger problem: the refusal of law enforcement in North Carolina to lead the gun control conversation.

There we go.

The problem is that Harwood and other North Carolina law enforcement officials aren’t pushing his preferred politics. Yet there are valid reasons for this.

For one, Harwood is an elected official, which means his politics are more likely to reflect the beliefs of his constituents. He’s not going to push a “gun control conversation” in a pro-gun county unless he’s looking to retire without having to announce it.

Second, it wasn’t that long ago when people like the author were screaming about defunding the police, and now they’re upset that the cops don’t seem to be on their side?

The truth of the matter is that a lot of law enforcement see what happens when good people are disarmed. They can’t stop criminals from getting guns, regardless of the laws on the books. They’ve seen how those laws completely fail every time they arrest a known felon and find a firearm on them. So, they often come to recognize that gun control isn’t going to do the trick.

They fail to push the author’s agenda simply because they know it to be a complete failure of an idea.

Putting AR-15 in the hands of school resource officers isn’t just a good idea, it’s the only sane one.