Friday, March 22, 2013

Police in Schools? Republican or Democrat? Big government or ... big government?

I almost missed this one, but I'm glad I didn't.  Did you hear what Mark Meadows, Republican congressman from Western North Carolina, had to say last month?  Read on, but as you do I want you to ask yourself if you can discern any sign, anything at all, that would lead you to believe that Republicans support small government.

From the Asheville Citizen-Times:
"Meadows calls for more police in schools" by Jon Ostendorff

ASHEVILLE — U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows on Friday asked the federal government to divert money to help pay for more police in schools in the wake of the massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
The freshman Republican from Western North Carolina wants to take $30 million annually in unspent money from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and use it to fund the Cops in Schools grant program.
Meadows said the idea came from the district and has support of local law enforcement and some school leaders.
Great, so government officials want MORE money.  What a surprise.  Another tragedy is used to increase the size of government.
The National Rifle Association in December called for placing armed police officers in all schools after a gunman killed 20 first-graders and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
The NRA simple doesn't get it, either.
During the primary race, Meadows told a tea party group he would not accept federal grants. In an interview months later, he said he was not against all grants and would pursue them for law enforcement and first responders.
I'm SHOCKED.  A politician who lied?  Shocked, I say.
On Friday, he said he was for limited government but this bill was more along the lines of setting spending priorities as opposed to increasing the government’s role.
Bullshit.  What a scumbag liar--a politician, in other words.
Chris Cooper, a political scientist at Western Carolina University, said conservatives likely won’t oppose the new grants. They don’t require a tax increase, he noted.
“I think they will love it,” he said.

I had to hold my nose while reading this paragraph.  Shows you what university professors know.  True conservatives will oppose such new grants.  It is those who claim to be conservative, but aren't, who will love these grants.  And all this money comes from taxes.


From BlueRidgeNow.com:
"Meadows: Cops in Schools bill has bipartisan appeal" by Nathaniel Axtell

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats shouldn't oppose U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows' NRA-backed bill to place more cops in schools, the Republican congressman said Tuesday, since they supported it during the Clinton years. 
“Nancy Pelosi's district was the first one to receive money from this program,” Meadows said Tuesday, describing how he sought to give the bill he introduced Feb. 15 bipartisan appeal. “We did that on purpose. She's going to be hard-pressed to oppose it.” 
The Protect America's Schools Act would resurrect the “Cops in Schools” program started by President Bill Clinton in 1998. The program was cut in 2005 after placing more than 6,500 police officers in schools.
I want you to think about those paragraphs for a moment.  THIS is what big government is.  The constant increase in the size of government, because neither side realizes that the other side can simply use the structures of big government to their own ends when in power.  You have to oppose all such spending because sooner or later the other side will be in power, and they WILL use it for purposes other than what you intended.  Just because Republicans and the NRA support this bill shouldn't make it any more acceptable to so-called fiscal conservatives who claim to want smaller government.


And in Meadows' own words, from Politico.com:
"A common-sense approach for protecting our schools" by Rep. Mark Meadows
In the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and many just like it, it is time for Congress to take action. As a legislator, I was elected to make the tough decisions and produce solutions to the problems facing our country.
Blah, blah, blah.  Look at me, the big congressman.  I'm important.
According to a recent Gallup Poll, 53 percent of Americans believe that increasing police presence at schools would be very effective in preventing tragedies. I agree with this stance, which is why I have introduced H.R. 751, the Protect America’s Schools Act.
Well, that just proves that 53 percent of Americans (probably more, actually) are stupid.
This measure would revitalize the Cops in Schools grant program, which has not been funded since fiscal 2005, and fund it at $30 million annually. The CIS program is specifically designed to assist local law enforcement agencies in the hiring of officers with the primary goal of policing and providing education to our schools.
Maybe we should spend even more money, and put police officers in every house.  Wait, no, not every house.  Just those with kids.
While I believe it is absolutely critical to provide funding for this program, Congress cannot ignore our nation’s $16.7 trillion debt. Under the Protect America’s Schools Act, the $30 million to pay for this critical grant program would be offset by taking unspent funds from the operations budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Last year, the House voted to fund NOAA at $4.9 billion, and I believe this agency can spare $30 million to assist in the protection of our nation’s children.
Yeah, they can spare $30 million ... and return it to taxpayers.  Not waste it on another stupid government program.
The Protect America’s Schools Act is a bipartisan, solutions-oriented approach to addressing school shootings that should transcend party lines. More than 14 years ago, President Bill Clinton announced the then $60 million grant program, which was included in the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. After the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, Clinton’s support for the program only grew, as did the support of many Democrat lawmakers.
Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s district was one of the first to receive funding from the program. And in 2004, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) praised the program, saying, “Getting more police officers on school grounds will go a long way toward making sure our kids stay out of harm’s way.” Even anti-gun activist Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) stated in 2007 that it was “probably one of the best programs I have seen in my underserved schools.”
As mentioned above, be careful.  The programs you approve now will only cause government to grow, and be used for things you never imagined in the future.
I encourage lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to endorse this common-sense legislation. The Protect America’s Schools Act is not the only answer, but it is a positive step forward in preventing tragedies. Keeping our children safe is not only an area where both political parties can find common ground, but as lawmakers, it is our moral obligation.
Yeah, of course they'll agree.  Because legislators from both sides of the aisle favor large government.  Excuse me, I think I need to barf.

The right solution is to let teachers carry concealed weapons, if they choose.  Just as a robber fears to enter any house, because he's not sure which house has armed occupants, a criminal intent on harming children wouldn't be sure which school might have armed teachers.  Re-read my blog post, Gun Control, from January 2, 2013, which quoted extensively from this article from Monster Hunter Nation:
"An opinion on gun control" by Larry Correia
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/


Honestly, what the hell is the difference between Democrats and Republicans anymore?  Do they have any principles at all?

Issues like this separate the men from the boys.  These issues demonstrate whether you have firm principles about government or whether you simply want large government--but only for the things that you like.  I have principles.  Republicans, and the NRA, do not.

There is a role for government.  Spending more and installing a police state is NOT it.  Putting police officers in all schools won't solve the problem.  Criminal wackos who want to hurt kids will just attack amusement parks or daycare centers or any other place there are kids.

Let teachers carry guns.  Don't make schools target zones (otherwise erroneously known as gun-free zones).  Don't fall victim to thinking that larger government will solve this, because it won't.  It will slowly erode both our freedom and our strength.

There is no role for the federal government to do this.  If you think this is a good idea, you should really be advocating for a smaller federal government and lower taxes, and pushing for such solutions at the state or local level.