By Mark Pixler

In the aftermath of the horrible murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School, everyone is demanding action to ensure that nothing like that will ever happen again. At either end of the political spectrum we have calls ranging from "confiscate all guns except for those in the hands of the military and police" to "arm all the teachers like the Israelis do."

Well, the debate can rage on ad nauseum as to where along this continuum we should act, but as the debate rages, budding "Adam Lanza copycats" simmer. People with sick minds feed on each other -- and on the media coverage their actions generate! The longer we wait to act, the more likely they will act. Regardless of how "the debate" turns out, we need a short-term solution to counter the threat. I have a humble suggestion that could immediately be put in place to deter such shootings.

Simply call out "the militia."

In this case, the militia would be composed of members of our military and police forces -- folks who should be acceptable to both ends of the political spectrum -- because pretty much everyone agrees that they, at least, ought to be armed.

My idea is to rotate qualified and heavily vetted volunteers from the ranks of the active-duty military; Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard reserves; Army and Air National Guard; municipal, county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies; and retirees from all of the above to serve part of their time as, let us call them "guardians," at their local schools. To simplify the logistics of the undertaking, I recommend that part of the selection process for such guardians include picking folks who reside in or near a particular school district where they would serve.

Now, the selected guardians would have no "official" capacity at the school other than as a citizen -- who happens to be a trained professional -- to provide an armed presence to respond in the unlikely event of an attack on the school. Yes, we are grimly aware that such attacks happen, but statistically speaking, they are still unlikely, and would be even less likely to happen if said guardians were present.

Read more: 

Views: 1834

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Listen..arm and train a few teachers in each school if you feel the need to over-react to this shooting. There is no need to create a new government agency with armed guards raoming the halls of every school in America. If that is the case then close down the country it's finished .

In my opinion it is fine to have armed security . I just dont want them in military or police uniforms.that really puts that presence in your face and any excuse to go beyond the school building. like your home.Have trained civilians doing a job that appears to be needed. Better to be safe then sorry.and these shootings are not going to be in lower class schools they will be at any given one that some asshole wants to make a name for himself.the press also needs to stop glorifying these last thing,anyone planning or actually performing these attacts should be exicuted.that will slow them down.

Listen to us!!!! It's damned, crying shame we're even having this discusion in the United States! What kind of a self centered hell hole have we turned into? Looney tunes will always find some way to do their evil. Guns are bad but only one of millions of ways to do harm. The problem? How many today even know who their neighbor is, never mind have actually spoken to them? Look at the sidewalks. People walking head down eyes glued to some piece of plastic electronic crap in their hands. Schools? Oh yea, when the media go on and on and on about some horror. They carefully wipe a tear for the "poor victims", but make make celebrities of the killer(s). What we need is more interpersonl communication! Doesn't have to be a sit-down dinner. A smile, eye contact and a pleasant "hello" are a good start. Quit playing your stupid computer, look up and actually talk to people and not text.

@Charles---I know what you mean about it is a damned crying shame we're even having this discussion in the United States, but you have to understand one thing here.  The United States has always had some kind of crisis to tend with, but it has only been since Obama was installed in office that things in America have gotten to high levels of insecurity, i.e. look at U.S./Mexico border deaths, Fast & Furious, Benghazi and the list goes on.

Since 9/11-2001 how many terrorist attempts have been made on the United States under former president George W. Bush?

How many with Obama in last 4 years?

I contest that when Bush was steering the country, I felt a lot safer than I have at any time with Obama.  Bush did not keep a lot of thugs around him like Obama.  Thugs hang with thugs!

Our country is torn.  We know who 50% of the country give their allegiance.  They are about all the free stuff and vote that way and will vote that way in coming elections.

And yes, I don't get out much, but I am one of those people who says hi to my neighbors who actually can't get on to what they are doing fast enough.  I open doors for both ladies and guys when I have the opportunity and take the time to call my friends and even drive hundreds of miles round trip and even stay in their cities for two or three days when they are going through a living crisis.  Yes, I am a dying breed, but I do it for the Lord Jesus Christ and not myself.  My reward will be given to me in heaven one day, stored up now, to be enjoyed later.

As a long time Militia Chaplain, pray daily for all Militias. This Christmas Americans must cross the Delaware!

Thank you Chaplain, thanks for your prayers. God bless you, If I dont see you before see you in Heaven

it is quite evident from research of prior evil activity that visible armed individuals deter these attacks.

the only way to eliminate the wicked act is to eliminate the wicked individual.

this requires the presence of local armed individuals.

That is evident to anyone with access to the numbers and an unencumbered intellect.  It should also be obvious that the frequency and severity of these things increases as we cast off all our inhibitions.  I know young people who despise religion because they say they have individual standards and do not need the standards they would have foisted on them by a religion.  I agree with Jesus, that we should give to government what is governments, and give to God what is God's, but I do not agree with those who say that government should be allowed to dictate where God is not allowed!  

Since our government is predicated on the notion that God gives men rights, atheists must abandon their convictions in order to hold any office which has a pledge to 'uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.'  This is part of the problem: judges, legislators, and executives who believe rights come from human sources, assume that they can be curtailed by humans.

In other words, pray for your government, or your government will prey on you.

speak for yourself only, jerry.


ANYBODY that accepts ALL religions is obviously ignorant and uneducated . Many " religions " are BAD , BAD ,BAD , Many religions are unacceptable under the law of our constitution . Most religions are full of lies and superstition and limit the progress of humanity's knowlege of the truth of the one creator of all living things . Many creeds are bad for humanity . Many creeds ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE . Don't make any WE blanket statements most of us have differing views of many things the only thing we have in common is our respect of the constitution . If there were a true religion one would think that after thousands of years of exposure mankind would have found the truth .

Agreed. This country was founded on Christianity; the persecution that the founding fathers sought to flee from was that of DENOMINATION rule in the UK. NO OTHER RELIGION was even thought of when this country was founded. It would be great and wonderful if we could hold hands and sing the coca cola song and acutally have peace, but that is not the case with many many religions who seek to persecute the relgions (2) that have the God of Abraham as its foundation.




Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.


Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service