Teachers unions have to be “nuts” to reject armed guards for schools – unless they’re just playing high risk politics, for “the cause”.

By Doug Lawrence

It’s been long enough after the Sandy Hook shootings for some clarity to begin to prevail, and at least some of the facts are now clear:

Teachers as well as students were victims of the shooter.

No one at the school was prepared or otherwise equipped to defend against such an attack, and the shooter probably knew it.

Based on the shooter’s suicidal response to the eventual arrival of help, even the most rudimentary form of armed, professional security may have served to minimize or totally prevent  the Sandy Hook attack, as well as others. 

In light of this, it’s clear that specially trained armed guards at schools would serve as a substantial deterrent to attackers … armed or otherwise … and given the huge education budget, along with high level of wasteful spending already going on, pleading a lack of funds simply won’t cut it.

So why is the Obama administration, with the full support of the teacher’s unions, rejecting the idea of armed guards in schools, in favor of  just another ineffective form of gun control?

Politics!

The left certainly wants more gun restrictions, and they are using the events at Sandy Hook as leverage in that quest. Once they have achieved as much as possible in that regard, they can always take the next logical step and quickly provide for the armed security that will protect both teachers and students, alike.

So what if a few more teachers and students have to die, in the mean time? Gun control … not school safety … is obviously the real issue … and sacrifices have to be made, for the cause! 

Apt description of the clergy abuse crisis?: Not pedophiles, but swishing homosexuals in a target-rich environment.

But the left’s real target—its one obsession, the Moby Dick to its Ahab—is the Catholic Church. That is why the left so celebrated the shocking revelations about perverts in the collar, whom the media misrepresented as “pedophiles” instead of what they are: swishing homosexuals in a target-rich environment. It is the unspoken reason that Buchanan, who states Church teaching forthrightly and without apology, had to go.

The question, of course, is why the left is so obsessed with discrediting and ultimately destroying the Catholic Church. It isn’t because the hierarchy permitted the growth of a homosexual subculture in the priesthood and chanceries. Consider, for the left, what the Church represents. It is not the ineffable fountain Christendom and European civilization. Rather, it is the sewer pipe of white male oppression.

Europeans proselytized the Faith as missionaries, giving the world its artistic, musical, and literary treasures, not least the Mass. In planting the Church everywhere on the globe, those white missionaries “oppressed” the totem-worshiping “native peoples of color,” who in some cases were cannibals or willing participants in orgies of human sacrifice.

Read more