I Support President Obama’s Plan for Making Schools Safer
President Obama claims he cares about making our children safe while in school. We should take him at his word. But the problem is when words conflict with actions. As it’s said, actions speak louder than words.
President Obama sends his daughters to Sidwell Friends School, whose student roster reads like a list of Who’s Who’s Children. It even includes the children of NBC’s David Gregory, who berated NRA’s Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre over the idea of armed school security.
The Sidwell faculty directory includes eleven staff in their Security Department. Seven of these staff are specifically called “Special Police Officer.” Special Police Officers, or SPOs, are licensed to carry guns on duty.
Sidwell ran a job advertisement last November via JobHustler.com. Candidates are expected to act like police officers in many ways, including the ability to be armed on the job:
“The ideal candidate will have the ability to write clear concise reports, prepare preliminary investigative reports, as well as interview witnesses, suspects & victims.”
“Mail, fax, or email resume, information for three references and a copy of your current driver’s & Special Police Officer licenses to: HR@sidwell.eduHuman Resources Sidwell Friends School 3825 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20016 Fax: (202) 537-2418.”
What Obama really believes is what he does. Contact your school board today. Tell them we need to follow the president’s lead. Our schools need appropriately armed and trained individuals on campus to protect our children against insane people looking for a moment of notoriety.
Here in Florida, we are doing as the Prez does, ignoring what he says.
In Hillsborough county (Tampa is tha largest city), the sheriff’s department is going to have an armed deputy at every elementary school during morning drop off and afternoon pick up. We already have the euphemistically named Resource Officers, really just another name for uniformed police, at all middle and high schools.
The policy is going to be in place to the end of the school year, and is going to cost the county $2 million. The press was overwhelmingly glowing about the new policy of having elementary school children protected by armed county sheriffs.
Training some existing school staff to carry would save a whole lot of money, but, baby steps, baby steps.
Just a few short weeks ago, Barry flippantly said [...to Miss BaBa WaWa] one reason he got elected was so ‘men with guns’ could protect HIS Spawn.
But your spawn, my spawn and 99+% of America’s Spawn mean less and ‘deserve’ less, and that my friends and compadre’s is not a joke, is not misconstrued and reveals waayyy too much about Barry H D S Obama Jr.
When will be ‘the time’ to just ignore this pinheaded ninny and get on with what we know is right,true and proper?
Is To-Morrow too f–cking late…???
Oh, howard …
Here’s what obama has actually said:
“I am not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me. I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem,” he said”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/30/us-usa-guns-obama-idUSBRE8BT05020121230
Notice that he said “only answer”. Notice that he said “skeptical” that it would “solve our problem”. Notice particularly that he said he didn’t want to pre-judge recommendations. So … how do those words conflict with his actions?
And folks here seem to like to be naive about the guards at the pres’ kids’ school. The concern there isn’t so much that an armed loon will go on a yippy shoot. The concern is that a foreign government or terrorist group will go after those kids. Of COURSE the first family is going to have armed guards around them. They don’t really have a choice – an attack on them could precipitate a national political crisis. The US could have no domestic small-arms in private hands at all, but those kids would still need an armed guard, just as the president does.
That’s not at all inconsistent with wanting to see more rational firearm regulations.