Could Armed Teachers Prevent the Next School Shooting?

The Sunday morning news shows are ablaze with the debate for arming teachers to prevent the next school shooting!

As a parent and grandmother, I want my children to be effectively defended.  When a parent drop their children off at school, those same parents look forward to seeing their children safe and happy at the end of the day. Our most precious resources, the future leaders of this nation!

Stricter gun laws would not have prevented "monsters" like Adam Lanza, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, and others from committing mass shootings, and I wonder why students, unlike banks, don't have the protection of armed officials.  

Armed police are currently in many schools, but, the police cannot be everywhere to provide protection and to make our children safe.  A shooter could take out a guard or officer with a visible, holstered weapon, but well trained teachers could slow down the mass killings in our schools, because the killer would not know how many teachers are carrying. Criminals are lazy...once they find out that they will encounter an obstacle in carrying out their crime, they will typically seek an easier pry.

Instead of heralding Ms. Victoria Soto, a 27-year-old Sandy Hook elementary teacher as a hero for dying while trying to hide her pupils; an armed Victoria Soto could have been heralded as a hero who was able to send her children to the safety of their homes after that horrific mass murder attempt.  

Connecticut has a ban on assault weapons and those precious children were not protected.

Criminals work outside of the legal system.  Additional gun bans will not stop them from killing. According to National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre,  "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

Eleven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, a growing number of U.S. airline pilots are armed, prepared to use lethal force to protect the cockpit.  More than  10,000 pilots carry government-issued guns on a voluntary basis, or about 10% of the nation's 100,000 pilots.

These pilots, officially known as federal flight deck officers, keep sidearms handy to provide one more layer of security and a last line of defense against hijackers.

To become flight deck officers, pilots undergo six days of intense training at a federal complex in Artesia, N.M., including weapons handling and close-combat techniques.

"We must speak for the safety of our nation's children," said LaPierre. "We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses, even sports stadiums, are all protected by armed security. We care about our president, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress works in offices surrounded by Capitol police officers, yet when it comes to our most beloved innocent and vulnerable members of the American family -- our children -- we as a society leave them every day utterly defenseless. And the monsters and the predators of the world know it and exploit it."

If it is possible to stop the monsters from harming our children, I'd rather try this approach than to do nothing.  Connecticut has a ban on assault weapons.  The ban for assault weapons did not work to protect those 20 innocent children who lost their lives!  It is time out for applying band-aid, political correct solutions to solve problems.

It's time to implement solid solutions. Let's do something that WILL WORK and give our teachers the tools needed to EFFECTIVELY protect our children!  

It's time to armof educators. While this may seem like a bizarre proposition to some, in the tiny Texas town of Harrold, this practice is hardly controversial and it is effective.

~ Brought to you by CharlottePAC.org

.

'Beyond Question' the Economy was Destroyed by Democrat Policies

 

Flip-Flop!

Chris Dodd left the Senate in 2010. c last day in Congress will blissfully be December 31, 2012, but, they are leaving a trail of economic destruction behind them.

A new study from the widely respected National Bureau of Economic Research released this week has confirmed beyond question that the Democrat's  attacks on the housing market (the Community Reinvestment Act-- the United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, whether they could afford the loan or not) is directly responsible for imploding the housing market and destroying the economy.

The study painstakingly sorted through failed home loans that caused the housing market collapse and identified an overwhelming connection between them and CRA mortgages.

Let's take a walk back in history to get to the facts:  Setting the Record Straight. President Bush warned them!

-President Bush went to Congress repeatedly for years warning them that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going to destroy the economy (17 times in 2008 alone). Democrats continuously ignored him, shut down his proposals along party lines and continued raiding the institutions for campaign contributions on their way down.

These are the Democrats who Placed us on the Path to the Fiscal Cliff with the Collapse of the Mortgage Market and with the Dodd/Frank Regulatory Reform Bill.

-John McCain also co-sponsored urgently critical reforms that would have prevented the housing market collapse, but Democrats shut that down as well, along party lines, and even openly ridiculed anyone who suggested reforms were necessary...to protect their taxpayer-funded campaign contributions as the economy raced uncontrollably toward the cliff.

-No one was making bad loans to unqualified people until Democrats came along and threatened to drag banks into court and have them fined and branded as racists if they didn't go along with the left's Affirmative Action lending policies...all while federally insuring their losses. Even the New York Times warned in the late1990s that Democrats continuing to force banks into lowering their standards would lead to this exact catastrophe.

-Obama himself is even on the record personally helping sue one lender (Citibank) into lowering its lending standards to include people from extremely poor and unstable areas, which even one of the left's favorite blatantly partisan "fact-checkers," Snopes, admits (while pretending to 'set the record straight').

-Even The New York Times admitted that there is "little evidence" of any connection between the "Republican" deregulation measures Obama blames, like the Gramm-Bleach-Liley Act (signed into law by a Democrat), and the collapse of the housing market.

But the mainstream media (MSM), which are  those media outlets disseminated via the largest distribution channels, which therefore represent what the majority of media consumers are likely to encounter, have spent years deliberately and relentlessly inoculating people against the facts, training them to mindlessly blame Bush for being in charge when Democrat policies destroyed the economy. 

While Democratic and Republican leaders trade blame as they leave for the Christmas holiday amid fading hope of an agreement to avert a year-end fiscal crisis that could lead to stiff tax hikes and drastic budget cuts, Barney Franks and Chris Dodd can sit back and enjoy the carnage they left behind and threat to future American dreams.

~Brought to you by CharlottePAC.org

Why Did This Administration Recently Purchase 1.6 Billion Rounds of Ammunition and Sniper Rounds?

Get Rid of the Second Amendment

In the aftermath of the recent Sandy Hook shooting, Progressives are screaming about how guns kill.  They all despise guns and ammo. They are saying that guns are the problem in America, today.

A strong strategy is being implemented to have an excuse to confiscate the guns. Assault Weapons are the culprit.  Actually, the ban on assault weapons is only a red herring. We've are being told from every corner of the media that the only solution is restoring confidence after the Sandy Hook shooting is to place more control on your guns.  Ultimately, allowing for the nullification of the 2nd Amendment is the true strategy. There strategy will succeed unless you recognize it, understand it, and take action now to stop it.  The key to their success lies in keeping gun owners like you in the dark.

But not exactly. There's one organization in America that's loading up on masses of assault rifles and enough ammunition to run a 7-year shooting war. That;s right.  The organization is the U.S. federal government and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which has purchased a total of 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition to be used inside the United States.   That’s over five bullets for every American man, woman and child. It also includes long-range sniper rounds.

The United States of America was founded on the idea that an armed citizenry is the only thing that can be trusted to keep government honest, but that idea has now been turned upside down. The new message today is that an armed government is the only thing that can be trusted, and that individual citizens are all potential terrorists and mass murderers.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms,” said Thomas Jefferson, “…is to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” The only way America has a chance to defend the Constitution and restore the Republic is to stay armed and stay vigilant.

There strategy will succeed unless you recognize it, understand it, and take action now to stop it.  The key to their success lies in keeping gun owners like you in the dark.


Here is the  original federal purchase document requesting all this ammunition at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/files/DHS_ammo_buy.pdf

~Brought to you by CharlottePAC

Our Heros: GOP Governors Rejects State Run Exchanges

NEWS YOU WILL NOT GET FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Let’s dispense with the obvious: President Obama’s second term will be foremost about higher taxes and greater spending, i.e., the fiscal cliff followed by lifting the debt ceiling. 

Due to political gridlock, this administration’s real efforts will be devoted to fine-tuning regulations designed to go around Congress. 

Most voters understand that a second Obama term means the continuation of Obamacare tax and the Dodd-Frank financial regulations.  HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will attempt to use Obamacare tax as a slush fund to continue spending.

One of the ways Obamacare tax can be implemented is by getting the states to implement the exchanges.  If the states refuse to implement the healthcare exchange, the federal government must do it.  At this time, the federal government has not budgeted for implementing the exchanges.  They need the states to do it. They will have to go back to Congress to request more money.  If our Republican House holds firm and not approve the debt limit and additional spending  the governors will be a stopgap for the successful implementation of Obamacare.  

Our Republican Governors are protecting the sovereignty of the states. 

 Our Republican Governors are attempting to protect the sovereignty of the states. One of the strategies governors across the nation have used to oppose the Affordable Care Act is to force the federal government to run the exchanges. 

When the Obamacare tax  is implemented, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will own the states, businesses, and all of us by implementing the egregious regulations and fees of the jobs killing, Obamacare tax .  We will become her Subjects.

Read the original 2,700 pages and the additional regulations being written to implement the bill.  

Facts you should know according to Cato’s Michael Cannon: 

1. A state-created exchange is not a state-controlled exchange. All exchanges will be controlled by Washington.
2. Congress has authorized no funds for federal “fallback” exchanges. So Washington may not be able to impose Exchanges on states at all.
3. The Obama administration has yet to provide crucial information that states need before they can make an informed decision. 
4. Creating an exchange sets state officials up to take the blame when Obamacare increases insurance premiums and denies care to the sick. State officials won’t want their names on this disastrous mess.

All Republican governors are fighting for us while John Boehner is appearing to capitulate.  I pray that I’m wrong about Boehner.

~Brought to you by:  CharlottePAC.org

Let's Go Over the Fiscal Cliff While Contemplating Gay Marriage

AP: Supreme Court will hear marriage cases

By Mark Sherman December 8, 2012 6:40 am

          

Text Size: A A A

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme By Mark Sherman December 8, 2012 6:40 am

The Supreme Court plunged into the contentious issue of gay marriage Friday when it agreed to take up California's ban on same-sex unions and a separate dispute about federal benefits for legally married gay couples.

The court's action gives the justices the chance to say by late June whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals. Several narrower paths also are open to the justices as they consider both California's voter-approved Proposition 8 and the provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denies to legally married gay Americans the favorable federal tax treatment and a range of federal health and pension benefits given to heterosexual couples.

The court is embarked on what could be its most significant term involving civil rights in decades. In the area of racial discrimination, the justices already have agreed to decide cases on affirmative action in admission to college and a key part of the Voting Rights Act. The gay marriage cases probably will be argued in March and decisions in all the court's cases are likely by the end of June.

The order from the court extends a dizzying pace of change regarding gay marriage that includes rapid shifts in public opinion, President Barack Obama's endorsement in May and votes in Maine, Maryland and Washington in November to allow gay couples to marry. Same-sex couples in Washington began picking up marriage licenses on Thursday.

Yet even as gay marriage is legal, or soon will be, in nine states - Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont are the others - and the District of Columbia, it is banned by the state constitutions of 31 others. Federal courts in California have struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but that ruling and thus gay unions remain on hold while the issue is being appealed.

The high court's decision to hear the federal benefit question was a virtual certainty because several lower courts struck down the provision of the 1996 law and the justices almost always step in when lower courts invalidate a federal law.

There is nothing that compelled a similar response from the court in the case over California's Proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on gay marriage that voters adopted in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay Californians could marry. Indeed, the gay marriage supporters who prevailed in the lower courts urged the Supreme Court to stay out of the case and allow same-sex unions to resume in the nation's largest state.

Even some gay rights activists worried that it was too soon in the evolution of views toward same-sex marriage to ask the justices to intervene and declare that same-sex couples have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. But Theodore Olson, the Washington lawyer who represents Californians who sued over Proposition 8, said he will argue that there is a "fundamental constitutional right to marry for all citizens."

Opponents of gay marriage said Friday they are heartened by the Supreme Court's action.

"We believe that it is significant that the Supreme Court has taken the Prop 8 case. We believe it is a strong signal that the court will reverse the lower courts and uphold Proposition 8. That is the right outcome based on the law and based on the principle that voters hold the ultimate power over basic policy judgments and their decisions are entitled to respect," said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage and a law professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif.

On the other side of the issue, advocates for same-sex unions said the court could easily decide in favor of gay marriage in California without issuing a sweeping national ruling to overturn every state prohibition on marriage.

In striking down Proposition 8, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals crafted a narrow ruling that said because gay Californians already had been given the right to marry, the state could not later take it away. The ruling studiously avoided overarching pronouncements.

"I think the court can easily affirm the 9th Circuit's decision and leave for a later day whether broader bans on marriage are unconstitutional as well," said James Esseks of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The other issue the high court will take on involves a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, known by its acronym DOMA, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.

Four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision. Last year, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law, but continues to enforce it. House Republicans are now defending DOMA in the courts.

The justices chose for their review the case of 83-year-old Edith Windsor, who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her partner of 44 years died in 2009.

Windsor, who goes by Edie, married Thea Spyer in 2007 after doctors told them that Spyer would not live much longer. She suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years. Spyer left everything she had to Windsor.

There is no dispute that if Windsor had been married to a man, her estate tax bill would have been zero.

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a district judge that the provision of DOMA deprived Windsor of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.

In both cases, the justices have given themselves a technical way out, involving the legal issue of whether the parties have the required legal standing to bring their challenges, which would allow them to duck all the significant issues raised by opponents and supporters of gay marriage.

The cases are Hollingsworth v. Perry, 12-144, and U.S. v. Windsor, 12-307.

---

Associated Press writer David Crary in New York contributed to this report.

) - 

Tax Increases Won't Avert Fiscal Cliff - Jobs Growth Will!

Americans could wake up to find a lump of coal in their stockings if the fiscal cliff isn't addressed before the holidays. According to a new report from the White House, taxes on middle class families will increase by $2,200 per year, resulting in a loss of $200 billion in consumer spending, if the fiscal cliff is not addressed. Similarly, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development stated that, if not avoided, the fiscal cliff could lead to a global recession.

This very serious situation can and should be avoided.  The President is demanding tax increases to solve our debt crisis, but Americans know that Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, spending on mandatory programs is the problem.  Any potential deal reached must begin with real spending cuts and meaningful reforms to mandatory programs. 

According to the Heritage Foundation, 62% of total government spending goes toward mandatory programs.

It is the responsibility of members of Congress to ensure that hardworking, middle-class families do not see their taxes increased in the New Year when about 40% of their total income already goes toward taxes. Additionally, the table must be set for economic growth, especially in the energy sector,  and to help ensure that small businesses have the confidence to hire.

It would be irresponsible for Congress to further burden taxpayers if the government’s spending addiction can’t be curbed. For example, President Obama’s budget projects that, even if we were to raise taxes on individuals making over $200,000, we would still add $6.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

House Majority Leader, John Boehner spokesman, Brendan Buck fired off a statement, “If the President  rejects the middle ground offer, it is now his obligation to present a plan that can pass both chambers of Congress.”


The ball is in the President's hands.  Will he fight for America?  Stay tuned!
Brought to you by CharlottePAC.org

What Fiscal Cliff? For Job Seekers in the Energy Sector, It's Going to Be Like Fishing in a Barrel - Booming!

Does the U.S. economy need to drive off the fiscal cliff?

Not if the President keeps his word!  The President has the power to see the United States file for bankruptcy or to become a leading competitor to Saudi Arabia and other major energy producing companies.  He can do this by approving additional drilling permits in the U.S. as he promised on the campaign trail.  This will allow the U.S. to become energy self sufficient, changing the balance of power around the world.  It is estimated that there are  millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas.  Billions of dollars could go to the federal government, replenishing the treasury, and employment would increase exponentially all across our nation.

There is an oil boom in North Dakota...and that boom may be coming to a city near you!

It's not the first oil boom to hit North Dakota, but it's undoubtedly the biggest. North Dakota has quickly become one of the largest oil-producing states in the country. The Bakken has brought thousands of people to North Dakota and billions of dollars in state revenue.
 
Since 2010, North Dakota's population has increased by more than 36,000 people. While most of that growth is in oil country. The average salary nationwide is approximately $40,000.  In North Dakota the average salary is $90,000.

It's a busy time to be a builder in the Bismarck-Mandan area. More people are moving into the area and there simply aren't enough homes on the market for them all.  The top two cities benefiting from drilling only be described as an oil “gold rush,” and several cities on our list are in Oklahoma and Texas, traditional center of the nation’s energy economy.

All that is needed for the nation to enjoy the benefits of this boom is for the President to keep his word.  The question is, will he?

~Brought to you by CharlottePAC.org