School Shooting Prevention: Students for 2nd Amendment rights, Against Gun Control Walkout

School Shooting Prevention:

Students for 2nd Amendment Rights, Against Gun Control Walkout

Students Send Emails opposing March 14 Gun Control Walkout

ByBen Shapiro


Advocates for this new march say that there is an agenda: gun control. But that’s not the real heart of the march. Students feel compelled to walk out by peer pressure, lest they be labeled uncaring about their fellow students. I’ve received dozens of letters from students expressing exactly this concern, and wondering why only one side of the political agenda is being handed credibility by the media.

Here are some of them:

  • From a high school junior today: “honestly it’s like the Women’s March. There is no single consolidated argument, just a loose collection of rants that obscure the main point).”
  • From a 16-year-old high school girl: “I was planning on not participating in the walkout. I do not see the point in leaving class to simply walk outside, stand and talk with peers for 17 minutes, and return to class. The act of walking out of class to ‘protest school violence’ does not seem to have a target audience, even though they may have a news crew, it is doubtful that the students in Florida will see the actions of our school’s walkout as a stand with solidarity. I also support the 2nd Amendment and see this walkout as another opportunity for students and their parents to attack that amendment and my support of gun control…I do see that my refusal to participate may be seen as unsympathetic or cruel. My brother, who is a freshman, is being pressured in class to participate.”
  • From a 17-year-old high school student: “tomorrow my school is having a walkout at 10:00 ‘for the 17 students who were killed in the Parkland, Fl shooting.’ The walkout, however, here at my school, is not really about that. It is being promoted by an anti-gun/leftist political agenda that I just don’t and can’t support, especially using the 17 kids that were MY AGE as a platform. I was wondering what you would say to people who want to call me ‘insensitive’ and ‘a terrible person.’”
  • From another 17-year-old high school student: “The reason I am emailing is because my school is having a walkout on March 14th. They say in an email that this walkout is to advocate for gun reform but they also say that we are walking to honor the victims of the parkland massacre. I am in favor of walking to honor the victims, but not in favor of promoting gun reform. I feel like I have to choose between going against my political values or looking like a bad person. I need help. What do I do?”
  • From another high schooler: “My high school is participating in the walkout on Wednesday, and I am unsure what to do. I am very against gun control and don’t want to protest congress for something they are doing right, if that makes sense. However, I don’t want to be singled out by students as someone who ‘doesn’t care about the students who died.’ Should I participate and conform to avoid humiliation and honor the students or should I remain in class alone? I don’t know if the walkout is more about gun control or honoring the students.”

I’ve received dozens more emails just like this. Students are rightly concerned that they will be ostracized by their peers and humiliated by school administrators for failing to be used as props in a leftist-organized march.

There’s always something troubling about school walkouts as a strategy for change. Our educational system is awful enough without students spending less time in class, encouraged by their teachers, so that the media can use pictures of children standing up for a gun control agenda. And there’s something even more troubling about the eagerness of the Left to use children as its spokespeople, without any hint that the kids in question have studied the issues enough to actually attain any level of expertise.

Then there are students who want to do something to counter the propaganda, and who will be ignored by the media:

  • From a 16-year-old high schooler today: “It is ignoring the fact that most gun violence is against blacks with handguns. Ignoring that fact is by definition racist. A nation-wide walk out for a majority white 1 percent is real white privilege and ignorant of the real problem, most gun violence is against blacks with handguns, not assault weapons, and ignoring that would from its core be racist and ignorant.”
  • From a high school senior: “Please let me start by saying that I respect the Left’s position on the walkout tomorrow, but I do not agree with their solution. I have decided to organize my own walk out to push Right wing beliefs on how to stop school violence…Respect other’s opinions and others will respect yours. ‘Here to save lives. Pro-Second amendment.’”

These students will not be featured by the media. I’ve recommended that they walk out alongside their classmates, but carry signs reading, “Protect My Life — Arm Law-Abiding Citizens!” Presumably, they’d be ignored even if they did. But like the Women’s March, this walkout is a form of social pressure designed for a photo-op. And that’s too bad. If its advocates want gun control, they ought to call it a gun control march. To suggest that anyone who doesn’t support gun control doesn’t support children — even pro-Second Amendment children themselves, who choose not to support the agenda — is vile bullying.

Teaching Biblical Values to Young Adults—Made Easy! Click Here


READ: Emails From High School Students Who Oppose Today’s Massive Gun Control Walkout

School Shooting Prevention: See Something, Say Something

School Shooting Prevention: See Something, Say Something Stunning list: Cops stop dozens of school attacks before they happen Chelsea Schilling When it comes to horrific school attacks and shootings, “See something, say something, do something” is apparently a policy that really does … Continue reading


School Shootings Prevention: put Police Officer at School because Gun Free Zones Don’t Work

School Shootings Prevention:

Put Police Officer at School  because Gun Free Zones Don’t Work

Rush Limbaugh

Put Police Stations in Schools?

RUSH: So the point is you’ve got armed police in the schools now who are

CALLER: That is correct.

RUSH: — actually on duty and, as such, in their offices, which are at the schools?

CALLER: That is correct.

RUSH: Okay. So how many people have been killed?


RUSH: Really? Zero.

CALLER: It works. We’ve had great success with it.

RUSH: Now, are these —

CALLER: One side note —

RUSH: Are the officers that are in these satellite offices in the schools, they are side-armed? Their weapons are visible?

CALLER: That is correct.

RUSH: Not concealed. And they’re in uniform, so they’re not plainclothes. So they’re plainly visible and it’s obvious that they’re police officers armed? Everybody in the school where those cops are can tell that about them?

CALLER: That is correct. They’re parked out in front in the parking lot.

Now, stop and think of that as an idea. Instead of teachers and security people with concealed carry — which, look, I see the problem with that. There’s no perfect solution here. But I’ll tell you, we know enough now to know that all this rage and anger at the NRA is totally worthless. It’s misdirected. It is a waste of time. The NRA has no culpability in what happened at that high school. It’s stupid and a waste of time to get mad at them! Stupid and a waste of time to get mad at Trump. So when that happens, you can readily identify a political agenda in action and not a serious discussion of solutions.

Imagine establishing a tiny police office in every school. Just like you’ve got the school nurse, you have the school doctor, you have the school STD director, you’ve got the school police. Except that they are actual police from the community, but their desks are in the school and not at the police department. How many of you, where you live…? You know, you go to the mall, and there’s a little kiosk where it’s a satellite police department? This may be actually something to build on. You talk about uniformed police readily identifiable.

They’re carrying their sidearms. Nothing concealed. By definition, they are trained and ready,

Why Gun-Free Zones in Schools?

CALLER:  Rush, everything on this planet that has any value whatsoever — whether it be a Picasso or bar of gold — is guarded with firearms.  I don’t understand why people don’t think that their children are just as valuable as a bar of gold, a dollar bill, or a Picasso.  I’m not talking about the media or the liberal legislators.  I understand what game they’re playing.

I’m talking about people who have children in school who are against arming people to protect their children.  I can’t wrap my head around the mind-set! When they take their children to a museum, there’s an armed guard there, and the children understand that the armed guard is there to protect them.  Why wouldn’t they understand that the armed guard at their school is there to protect them?


A football coach died shielding students.  He took the bullets.  Imagine if he had had access to a weapon to shut it down.  People are starting now to make sense of this, and they’re making comparisons like I did with air marshals.  I made the comparison that we arm every public entity. We have security — armed, professional security — at every public entity including airports, including malls, including stadiums.  Everywhere except in the schools!  Everywhere except the schools.

Father of Murdered Student

Despite all of the school shootings there have been, despite all the mass murder, not one step has been taken to actually stop it.  Not a step has been taken to actually prevent it.  Since Columbine, there hasn’t been anything done to prevent this.  Since Columbine, we’ve had one answer: “Damn that NRA!  Damn politicians that accept money from the NRA.  Damn those guns.”  That’s been it.  That’s the sum total.  Here is the father who was at the White House listening session yesterday afternoon.  His name is Andrew Pollack.  He spoke about his 17-year-old daughter, Meadow, who was killed in the Parkland shooting.

POLLACK:  We protect airports.  We protect concerts, stadiums, embassies, the Department of Education that I walked in today that has a security guard in the elevator.  How do you think that makes me feel?  In the elevator, they got a security guard. I’m…  I’m very angry that this happened, ’cause it keeps happening.  9/11 happened once, and they fix everything.  How many schools, how many children have to get shot?  It stops here with this administration and me.  I’m not gonna sleep until it’s fixed — and, Mr. President, we’re gonna fix it.

RUSH: I checked out a little bit more of the White House meeting going on right now, state and local officials about gun safety. I tell you what, Trump is on a roll here on concealed carry. I mean, he sounds like he’s really advocating it now, which I can tell you is causing conniption fits in the newsrooms and studios of Drive-By Media carrying this. Their heads are exploding right now. This is picking up momentum. It’s picking up steam in terms of Trump explaining it to people, how it would work, why it’s a good idea.(paraphrasing) “Can you imagine a teacher that used to be a Marine,” he said, “an expert already in handling firearms. Would you have a problem, would you know that your child is safe if that teacher was able to deal with –” by the way, concealed carry already is in the schools. Are you aware of that? The bad guys. The bad guys show up, you can’t tell they’ve got a gun until they bring it out and start opening fire. Concealed carry, Mr. Toobin, is already there. Concealed carry, Senator Murphy, is already there. The hope is that whoever is carrying never has to use it.

 The idea is deterrence.

If a perp knows that he’s gonna get shot — I have heard the reaction, “They know they’re gonna get shot. It’s suicide by cop in there. These bad guys, they want to die.” Well, this guy Cruz doesn’t want to die. I think it’s an example of the indoctrination that has gone on for decades in relationship to children and guns being a horrible, horrible thing.

“A teacher would have a concealed gun on them,” Trump told more than 40 people in the State Dining Room. “They would go for special training.

“They would be there — and you would no longer have a gun-free zone.

“A gun-free zone to a maniac is, ‘Let’s go in and let’s attack’ — because bullets aren’t coming back at us.”

Trump noted that, on average, a school shooting lasts about 3 minutes, with first responders generally arriving within as long as 8 minutes.

Trump Touts Concealed Carry for Schools, Urges End to ‘Gun-Free’ Zones

“A gun-free zone to a maniac is, ‘Let’s go in and let’s attack’ — because bullets aren’t coming back at us.”

Trump noted that, on average, a school shooting lasts about 3 minutes, with first responders generally arriving within as long as 8 minutes.

CNN Faces Growing Criticism Over Use of ‘Traumatized’ Children to Push Anti-Gun Agenda

John Nolte

The far-left cable channel CNN is facing a growing storm of criticism over its frequent use of minor children (14 to 17) to further its anti-gun agenda.


Criticism Grows Over CNN Use of ‘Traumatized’ Children to Push Gun Control


School Shooting Prevention and How To Protect Our Children—Chuck Norris

This gallery contains 6 photos.

School Shooting Prevention and How To Protect Our Children ALERT: We don’t need to wait for Washington or our state’s capitols to bring about needed change to protect our kids. We even have armed guards now in front of many … Continue reading


National Security: Illegal Immigration Solutions, Israel Border Wall Benefits

National Security:

Illegal Immigration Solutions, Israel Border Wall Benefits

How to Successfully Stop Illegal Immigration: Follow Israel’s Model

Aaron Klein

EILAT, Israel – Israel is regarded as a global leader in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Less well known is that the Jewish state has over the years contended with a major issue of regional migrants entering the country illegally and has successfully halted this infiltration to the point where not a single illegal entered in 2017, according to Israeli government statistics.

“Every country has an obligation to protect its borders,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared last week while announcing new steps to deport illegal migrants currently residing in Israel. “Protecting the borders from illegal infiltration is both the right and the fundamental obligation of a sovereign country.”

Here are Israel’s five primary methods of fighting illegal immigration.

1 – Build a barrier.

While most people are familiar with Israel’s West Bank security barrier, constructed to thwart terrorist infiltration, less well known is that Israel in 2013 completed a barrier that runs the length of the vast Israel-Egypt border to stem the flow of illegal African migrants entering the country. Upon completion of the barrier, the numbers of illegals crossing into the Jewish state slowed to a trickle and entirely stopped this past year.

2 – Forcibly deport illegal immigrants.

The infiltration of illegal aliens brought with it rises in crime rates and impacted the security of Israeli cities, especially south Tel Aviv, where many residents complain of no longer feeling safe. According to UN statistics from 2013, some 77% of the Africans that infiltrated Israel are males between the ages of 18 and 35.  Very few of the infiltrators are refugees fleeing persecution. Most are economic migrants looking for work. The illegal migrants were also opposed by Palestinians since they provided cheap labor and competed with Palestinians for some jobs.

3 – Provide incentives for illegals to leave on their own.

Israel has given notice to all illegals that they have 90 days to vacate. If the illegal migrants go willingly during that time period, they will be provided $3,500 and can depart to their home countries or to third countries. After the 90 day grace period, Israel has warned that illegals will be imprisoned or deported.

4 – Cut off all government funds.

Israel’s Knesset last month also advanced a bill to close the country’s Holot detention facility, where the Israeli government currently pays for food and housing for illegal infiltrators.

5 – Crack down on employers who hire illegals.

Besides current law violations, the Knesset has also advanced legislation to further sanction employers who hire illegal migrants.

How to Successfully Stop Illegal Immigration: Follow Israel’s Model


Culture Wars: Liberal Hypocrisy on Chain Migration, DACA

Culture Wars:

Liberal Hypocrisy on Chain Migration, DACA

These revolutionists are using a technique that is as old as the human racea fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them. ~David O. McKay

Trump Blasts Bipartisan DACA Proposal as ‘Big Step Backwards’

PRESIDENT TRUMP: The so-called bipartisan DACA deal presented yesterday to myself and a group of Republican Senators and Congressmen was a big step backwards. Wall was not properly funded, Chain & Lottery were made worse and USA would be forced to take large numbers of people from high crime….countries which are doing badly. I want a merit based system of immigration and people who will help take our country to the next level. I want safety and security for our people. I want to stop the massive inflow of drugs. I want to fund our military, not do a Dem defund….

.Because of the Democrats not being interested in life and safety, DACA has now taken a big step backwards. The Dems will threaten “shutdown,” but what they are really doing is shutting down our military, at a time we need it most. Get smart, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Liberal Hypocrisy: Phony “Compassion”

DURBIN: When it came to the issue of, quote, “chain migration,” I said to the president, “Do you realize how painful that term is to so many people? African-Americans believe that they migrated to America in chains and when you speak about ‘chain migration,’ it hurts them personally?” He [Trump] said, “Oh, that’s a good line.”

Chain Migration Definition

Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: Chain migration is a specific term that specifically and correctly identifies how one illegal immigrant arriving can create a chain of migration for four or five or more others. It is an official term. It has never been associated with Africans arriving as slaves.

And it’s key to  understand what he [Trump] meant by that question. Why do you people want to continue to import people that are going to end up placing a burden on our population? Why? If we’re going to have an immigration policy, why don’t we seek the best?

Why do you people purposely want to go out and bring people in who are gonna end up being a burden? Now, you can define that as not learning English, not being able to have a job, being on the social safety welfare net, however you want to define it.

But that’s what he means, because that’s precisely what the Democrats want to do. That’s exactly what they want to do, because they’re not humanitarian. This is not about compassion. This is not about love and a soft spot for people from these horrible places and wanting to give them a better life. This is about registering a bunch of future Democrat voters that are never gonna be able to fend or provide for themselves. This is about flooding this country with people who are going to be forever dependent on a government-run by Democrats.

That’s all it is to them.

That’s why this phony sanctimony over being offended by the use of a word that they disagree with and say is unpresidential… It wasn’t unpresidential what Bill Clinton was doing the Oval Office. No, no, no. They all tried to cover that up, and they all tried to say that was nobody’s business. And of course, when Barack Obama is lying through his teeth to the American people about their health care plans and systems and when he’s lying to the American people about not wanting to make sure the Iranians get nuclear weapons?


America First: President Trump’s National Security Strategy—At last, a Declaration of Profound Patriotism and Love of America

This gallery contains 1 photo.

America First: President Trump’s National Security Strategy— At last, a Declaration of Profound Patriotism and Love of America A nation that is not proud of its history cannot be confident in its future. And a nation that is not certain … Continue reading


History Facts: Judeo-Christian Culture Pushing Back against Globalization in European Union

This gallery contains 6 photos.

History Facts: Judeo-Christian Culture Pushing Back against Globalization in European Union “I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken. Our values will prevail. Our people will thrive. And our civilization will triumph. … Continue reading


Moral Support: Supreme Court Victory for Freedom of Speech; Coal Industry revival an Economic Boon

Moral Support

Science Facts

Coal Industry revival an Economic Boon

Salena Zito Reports from Coal Country

Jun 19, 2017

RUSH Limbaugh:

Coal country.

Well, it was announced last week that Trump had opened up essentially a new coal mine, for all intents and purposes. It was a new kind of coal mine. It was in coal country. It was gonna create new jobs that would pay 50 to a hundred thousand dollars a year.

It was ripped to shreds by the media and the climate change crowd. “This is living in the past. Coal is filthy, it’s dirty.” And it turns out that this coal plant is not even gonna be used for energy. This coal is gonna be used in the manufacture of steel, and you’d be amazed at the number of things in your daily life that have steel in them that you can’t do without. But it’s not the kind of coal that’s gonna be used for energy.

And she found that these people think that what’s been reported about their industry and this particular mine that’s going to be opened up, they’re misinformed, they’re missing the boat on this. And they think they are just as legitimately a part of America as journalists are or anybody else is. They resent being laughed at and made fun of. They resent their industry being portrayed as something archaic and dangerous and polluting and an instrument of climate change and global warming.

She goes out and finds these people. And some of the things about this plant that she uncovered are fascinating. The coal from this mine is not going to be used for energy, as I say. Instead, it’s gonna be used for the production of steel for the next 15 years. I don’t know if you knew this or not. Coal is used to make 70% of the steel in the world today. Here’s a list of places it’s found.

It’s found in cars, bicycles. Oh, my, the health crowd loves bicycles. Bicycles are saving the planet. Bicycles are reducing our carbon footprint. Bicycles are part of the quest for good health. Steel is used to make them, meaning coal is necessary. Steel is used in many different areas of public transportation, which the climate change crowd, they also love public transportation. It’s so cool, it’s so chic. It’s like Europe, trains and buses, and it’s really neato. It’s so cool. And of course it gets you out of your filthy, ugly car, and it eliminates planet destruction, and it also puts everybody together and makes them all behave accordingly. Leftists love that.

Wind turbines. The wind turbines that are part of the wind industry, they’re all made with steel. You couldn’t make them without coal.

You think the climate change crowd knows this? Do you think they know that without coal, we wouldn’t have bicycles like we do? We wouldn’t have wind turbines. Medical devices are made with steel. Roads, bridges, appliances, even iPhones and computers all contain steel. This coal plant actually represents modernization. Not a wasteful step back into time.

Supreme Court  Victory for Freedom of Speech

Jun 19, 2017

Rockwell Freedom of Speech

RUSH: In a win for Asian-American rock band The Slants — and this has got possible ramifications, good ones, for the Washington Redskins. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot refuse to register trademarks that are considered offensive. The government cannot do that.


Betsy DeVos just gave the fight for campus free speech a powerful new ally

The Department of Education administers programs that broaden access to higher education, strengthens the capacity of colleges and universities, and coordinates a number of higher education-related activities with states, according to the department’s website.


Adam Kissel, DeVos’ pick, is a 5-year veteran of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an organization that focuses on free speech and due process on college campuses.



Heritage Foundation Report: Exit from Paris Climate Agreement good for America

Heritage Foundation Report:

Exit from Paris Climate Agreement good for America

4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement

Nicolas Loris, Katie Tubb

President Donald Trump has fulfilled a key campaign pledge, announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

The Paris Agreement, which committed the U.S. to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, was a truly bad deal—bad for American taxpayers, American energy companies, and every single American who depends on affordable, reliable energy.

It was also bad for the countries that remain in the agreement. Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw.

1. The Paris Agreement was costly and ineffective.

The Paris Agreement is highly costly and would do close to nil to address climate change.

If carried out, the energy regulations agreed to in Paris by the Obama administration would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035.

In withdrawing from the agreement, Trump removed a massive barrier to achieving the 3 percent economic growth rates America is accustomed to.

Simply rolling back the Paris regulations isn’t enough. The Paris Agreement would have extended long beyond the Trump administration, so remaining in the agreement would have kept the U.S. subject to its terms.

Those terms require countries to update their commitments every five years to make them more ambitious, starting in 2020. Staying in the agreement would have prevented the U.S. from backsliding or even maintaining the Obama administration’s initial commitment of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent.

The Obama administration made clear in its commitment that these cuts were only incremental, leading up to an eventual 80 percent cut in the future.

In terms of climate benefits produced by Paris, there are practically none.

Even if every country met its commitments—a big “if” considering China has already underreported its carbon dioxide emissions, and there are no repercussions for failing to meet the pledges—the changes in the earth’s temperature would be almost undetectable.

2. The agreement wasted taxpayer money.

In climate negotiations leading up to the Paris conference, participants called for a Green Climate Fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020.

The goal of this fund would be to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in poorer nations—and to get buy-in (literally) from those poorer nations for the final Paris Agreement.

The Obama administration ended up shipping $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to this fund without authorization from Congress.

Some of the top recipients of these government-funded climate programs have in the past been some of the most corrupt, which means corrupt governments collect the funds, not those who actually need it.

No amount of transparency negotiated in the Paris Agreement is going to change this.

Free enterprise, the rule of law, and private property are the key ingredients for prosperity. These are the principles that actually will help people in developing countries prepare for and cope with a changing climate and natural disasters, whether or not they are caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Withdrawal is a demonstration of leadership.

The media is making a big to-do about the fact that the only countries not participating in the Paris Agreement are Syria and Nicaragua.

But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a bad deal. Misery loves company, including North Korea and Iran, who are signatories of the deal.

Some have argued that it is an embarrassment for the U.S. to cede leadership on global warming to countries like China. But to draw a moral equivalency between the U.S. and China on this issue is absurd.

China has serious air quality issues (not from carbon dioxide), and Beijing has repeatedly falsified its coal consumption and air monitoring data, even as it participated in the Paris Agreement. There is no environmental comparison between the U.S. and China.

Other countries have a multitude of security, economic, and diplomatic reasons to work with America to address issues of mutual concern. Withdrawal from the agreement will not change that.

Certainly, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will be met with consternation from foreign leaders, as was the case when the U.S. withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.

However, it could very well help future negotiations if other governments know that the U.S. is willing and able to resist diplomatic pressure in order to protect American interests.

4. Withdrawal is good for American energy competitiveness.

Some proponents of the Paris Agreement are saying that withdrawing presents a missed opportunity for energy companies. Others are saying that it doesn’t matter what Trump does because the momentum of green energy is too strong.

Neither argument is a compelling case for remaining in the agreement.

Whether it is conventional fuel companies or renewable ones, the best way for American energy companies to be competitive is to be innovative and competitive in the marketplace, not build their business models around international agreements.

There is nothing about leaving the agreement that prevents Americans from continuing to invest in new energy technologies.

The market for energy is $6 trillion and projected to grow by a third by 2040. Roughly 1.3 billion people do not yet have access to electricity, let alone reliable, affordable energy.

That’s a big market incentive for the private sector to pursue the next energy technology without the aid of taxpayer money.

The U.S. federal government and the international community should stop using other peoples’ money to subsidize energy technologies while regulating affordable, reliable energy sources out of existence.

The Paris Agreement was an open door for future U.S. administrations to regulate and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on international climate programs, just as the Obama administration did without any input from Congress.

Now, that door has thankfully been shut.