Media gives NEA a pass on school violence

by Dane Hicks – How odd that so much media criticism after the recent Florida school shooting has been focused against the National Rifle Association instead of the National Education Association.

         After all, school shootings involve guns and schools.

         But as instance after instance of school shootings has unfolded across the country over the past two decades and high-profile criticism and media attention constantly focused on the NRA for its support of constitutional gun rights, a review of media reports shows no limelight at all focused on the NEA for failing to make schools safer.

         It’s an irony that apparently escapes many journalists – if an association of 5 million members like the NRA bears responsibility for the violence committed by murderers with guns (none of whom have been NRA members, notably), then shouldn’t an assessment be performed of the NEA, with its 3 million members, and its failure to make school’s safer?

         Interestingly, a review last week of the posted information on the NEA’s website shows no such instruction to staff and administration for ensuring safer schools – no outline for upgraded security measures or instruction to schools on their implementation; no video presentations on “Run, Hide, Fight,”; no insight as to identifying troubled students who might potentially turn violent and how to implement treatment.

         There are no hiring guidelines for school guards or criteria for assessing their ability and willingness to engage a possible school shooter. No suggestion of evaluation for auto-locking doors or magnetic switches which lock down or sound alarms if large metal objects are brought close to them. No treatise on what it is about public schools that goes so terribly wrong for some students, and why those schools are so often the target of the deranged.

         What the NEA’s website does include is plenty of self-serving political aggrandizement. “Tell Betsy Devos It’s Time To Resign” heralds one header on the slideshow of main backgrounds. “What Do Vouchers Have To Do With Protecting Bullied Students?” and “It’s Time To Take Action: Students Lead Protest To Change Gun Laws.”

         It’s worth mentioning, of course, that capitalizing each word in a sentence isn’t proper grammar – but oddly  a style adopted by an association of educators.

         The larger point is that while school shooting news coverage attacks the NRA for pursuing its members’ interests and assigns guilt based on the belief that owning firearms is a constitutional right, there is no similar expectation or attention paid to the organization which collects dues from teachers at each location where a school shooting has taken place.

The NEA, in fact, at least from the content of its website, has offered no proposals for more secure schools whatsoever – yet its mainstay of membership is those very public schools whose safety it ignores.

         While it offers nothing in the way of guidance or instruction for preventing or surviving a school shooting, the NEA has actively explored its own right to free expression and political activism by generously supporting Democratic political candidates. From 1989 through the 2014 election cycle, the NEA spent some $92 million on political donations, 97 percent of which was paid to Democrat candidates.

         But throughout the post-Columbine era – shootings at Red Lake, Minn., the Amish school shooting in Nickel Mines, Penn., the Virginia Tech shooting Newtown, Conn., Umqua Communitiy College – the NEA repeatedly committed none of its budget to develop school training programs for security or tactical survival in a live shooter situation, or devoted resources to studying why students go crazy and attack schools.

         This, of course, is among the questions journalists in the media don’t ask. But it seems sauce for the goose should, by rights, be sauce for the gander.

–Dane Hicks is publisher of The Anderson County Review in Garnett, Kan.

Kansas Republicans, farmers need hemp bill

– Dane Hicks, The Anderson County Review, Garnett, Ks.

         So far, Republicans who run the Kansas Senate haven’t come up with a good explanation as to why they want to keep Kansas farmers from making money with a state industrial hemp crop.

         This legislative session, it’s time to stop dilly-dallying and pass a bill to legally grow and process industrial hemp in Kansas.

         House Bill 2182, from 38^th Dist. Rep. Willie Dove of  Bonner Springs, would have opened up the industry for Kansas farmers last session. It would have opened an industry already embraced by 34 other states whose farmers and small business people are already making money off the crop, plugging those funds back into their economies and creating jobs. The Kansas House passed the bill, but it languished in the Senate Natural Resources committee, where chairman Dan Kerschen, a Republican from Garden Plain, wouldn’t even give it a hearing.

         Now, Kerschen has forwarded his own bill, SB 263, which would ship the potential for hemp off to K-State for “research” before any steps are taken to legalize it – another way to effectively kill the crop for years or maybe decades and keep it from benefiting the state’s farmers now, when they really need it.

         The opposition has been obscure. Industrial hemp isn’t pot – you can smoke a whole bale of it and never get high. It’s a different genetic animal than marijuana, as 34 states have already realized to their own profit. But lobbyists for Kansas law enforcement believe they’ll have too much trouble distinguishing industrial hemp plants from marijuana – even though law officers in 34 other states seem to have no trouble with that.

         What industrial hemp does do is serve a burgeoning market in the U.S. and abroad. Health foods, organic body care, clothing, construction materials, biofuels, plastic composites – the list goes on. Hemp products pulled down a cool $688 million in sales in 2016 – all of which went to producers and processors in places other than Kansas. True – you can buy hemp products in Kansas – and send your dollars out of state – you just can’t grow it here.

         And there’s rarely been a time other than now when Kansas farmers needed more options for another cash crop. Prices for corn, wheat and soybeans lag in a nationwide glut of commodities, with farmers forced to acquire more land and more costs to plant, or pray for better weather to increase yields. There’s no doubt Kansas Farmers need the hemp option.

         And Republicans in the Kansas Legislature need it too. They’re already carrying a damaged brand into the 2018 elections due to school funding mandates from the state supreme court and lagging tax revenues from a Brownback economic plan that went bust. Republicans desperately need an economic win, and legalizing industrial hemp with its immediate economic impact would illustrate that the party is still in touch with its pro-business platform.

         With an improving national economy and the new 2018 federal tax package, investors will be itching to put their money to use in businesses that offer solid returns. Passage of industrial hemp would clear the way for those investors to put their money to work in Kansas-based processing operations as well as family farms. It is an economic wave Kansans, particularly Republican leadership, can’t pass up.

         Get out of the way, Kansas GOP, and let our farmers and businesses make money on industrial hemp.

– Dane Hicks is editor& publisher of The Anderson County Review in Garnett, Ks., and chairman of the Anderson County Republican Central Committee.

        

Call it Kate's Wall

Dane Hicks, Garnett Publishing, Inc. –

As 32 year-old Kate Steinle lay dying in her father's arms on trendy Pier 14 in San Francisco back in 2015, pleading with him to help her, she had no idea the bullet in her heart fired by a five-times deported illegal alien would amount to a reset in U.S. policy toward illegal immigrants.
    With an election coming in 2018 and Garcia Zarate's acquittal of murder and manslaughter charges in her death last week swelling "sanctuary city" policies more into the national spotlight,  the Kate Steinle incident may be the near equivalent to the shot heard round the world.
    While there is no comfort in the verdict for the Steinle family, it is likely that the San Francisco court indeed found the closest version of the truth. The homeless Zarate, confirmed as a convicted felon and five-time deportee to his home Mexico, claimed to have found the weapon in question wrapped in rags under a park bench, and bobbled it when it fired by accident. Forensics showed the slug ricocheted off the concrete pier deck before striking Steinle.
    At issue was whether Zarate fired the weapon purposefully, not whether he had previous felony convictions or was in the country illegally or whether San Francisco's status as a sanctuary city contributed to Steinle's death. The verdict itself was most likely a right one – one that illustrates the strength of the U.S. justice system when it works correctly. Zarate will do time for being a felon in possession of a firearm, then be deported back to Mexico. Again.
    But those other issues will indeed be a focus in the court of public opinion, and it is there that they will find their political weight toward the future of U.S. policy. Already in fact, a bill proposed by Indiana Congressman Todd Rokita would hold local city and county officials of sanctuary jurisdictions responsible for crimes committed by illegal aliens there. It's modeled off several other attempts in different states.
    It is a hard argument to make –  that the policies of sanctuary cities, which refuse to assist federal authorities in their efforts to curtail or detain illegal immigrants, are somehow not culpable in the crimes those illegal immigrants commit. In these days when bartenders can be held liable for the crime of one of their customers driving drunk, it's hard to imagine such a legal challenge to a sanctuary policy failing in court.
    Zarate's acquittal will hyper-fuel the efforts in Washington and in different parts of the country to push for construction of the wall between Mexico and the U.S., a project liberals shout down as preposterous but one that continues to gain popular steam among conservatives. Steinle will become the theme for the effort – watch for social media campaigns that call to name the wall project after her.
    Most notably Zarate's acquittal will be the latest rallying cry for conservative policy to drive the 2018 elections, and those outcomes may have repercussions far away from policies on illegal immigration. Republicans have plenty of ammunition and solid arguments to wage in their efforts to win over uncommitted voters – visions of "Women's Marchers" setting fires in American streets, kneeling NFL football players, millennial meltdowns on inauguration day – now the faces of Kate Steinle and Garcia Zarate held side by side.
    If the realities in this modern fight for the heart and soul of American culture are ponderous, the images are more so. In the tragedy of her death, Kate Steinle's contribution may be monolithic.
– Dane Hicks is president of Garnett Publishing, Inc., and publisher of The Anderson County Review in Garnett, Ks.

Media attempts fail to bury wonder of the Trumpconomy

 – by Dane Hicks

You have to dig pretty deep amid the muck of the anti-Trump media reports to find it, but it’s there – the story of just how good the American economy is doing since Trump’s election a year ago.

In fact, liberals in the Trump-hating media corps spread the news as sparingly as they possibly can, rarely allowing the sunshine of the country’s economic picture to shine through onto their latest incanted demonization of the president. You’ll notice the story instead is a looping narrative of factless, sourceless stories on Trump colluding with Russians, the ‘rebuke’ handed the president from some Democrat election wins last week, or Trump and the Japanese Prime Minister dumping their boxes of fish food into a koi pond. Does the mainstream media really have to wonder why we don’t trust them anymore?

The burgeoning economy is rarely discussed, usually only amid daily stock reports on the performance of the markets and in some obscure monthly unemployment report (which many mainstream media outlets have now taken to ignoring altogether).

It’s clear the news about the Trumpconomy isn’t going to be heralded with trumpets at the NBC building in New York. It’s going to sort of slip out between the lines.

First let’s look at jobs. Last week it was announced the U.S. unemployment rate had dropped 7/10 of one percent since January (4.8 percent to 4.1 percent), which translates to 1.1 million Americans back on the employment rolls. If you were among the ranks of the unemployed during the Great Recession, you know the difference in morale, self esteem and lifestyle which finding a job after protracted unemployment can make. Since Trump took office, 1.1 million people and families have experienced that same sense of substance.

The number of people working part time jobs for economic reasons last month (in other words, not because they chose part time work – typically what we would call ‘underemployed’ workers) declined by 369,000 to 4.8 million, and over the past 12 months since President Trump was elected, that number is down 1.1 million as well. Overall, the November report revealed the best U.S. employment picture since 2001 – or as millennials describe it – the prehistoric times before smartphones.

Perhaps buried even deeper in the bowels of those mainstream news copy piles is an explanation of just what those record setting gains in the stock market mean for the majority of Americans.

More than half of Americans – far and above the fabled ‘1 percenters’ – have money invested in market vehicles of some form or another. Anyone with an Individual Retirement Account (IRA), pensions, mutual funds, 401(k) accounts, 529 education accounts or Exchange Traded Funds – even about 20 percent of those earning $30,000 or less – has seen the benefit. For those investors, a stock market that has soared some 25 percent since Trump’s election to a record-setting score card of 23,000 is a new source of confidence and economic stability. That $5.4 trillion in market gains spread out across more than half the population is a fertile and solidifying backdrop for an economy that believes in itself – and that’s one of the most important attributes of an economy, after all.

Despite attempts by the Trump-hating media to discredit the president at every turn, those economic indicators are clear proof that the American business community, which invests and creates jobs when it senses opportunity, is indeed enamored with the prospects the president presents. It’s all a far cry from the nearly 400 point tumble the markets took the day after President Obama’s second election win.

This economic boom is an amazing story of benefit for our country and for the people who live here, but it’s being greatly sacrificed to provide airtime favoring the social and political agenda of a corrupt elite caste which really wishes this good news wasn’t happening.

More than half of Americans know the true story. And their wallets know it too.

Kobach, Trump on right track with RAISE Act

by Dane Hicks

Garnett Publishing, Inc.

         There is of course a huge difference in the public discussion of illegal and legal immigration and the impact of both on our nation, but the public debate confuses the two and confuses what should be the logical objectives of policy dealing with both.

         The point gets lost in the woods. Why do nations have policies dealing with immigration at all? When we step back to answer the question the objective is obvious: Like any other policy our leadership would seek to pursue whether on defense, economics, highway infrastructure, etc., the target should be the benefit of our nation and the people living in it.

         The fact that America is a great opportunity for immigrants is secondary, and should be.

In that vein, it’s clear that the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act now beginning a path through Congress is such a common-sense piece of legislation that it will have absolutely no chance of becoming law whatsoever.

         It is however being embraced by clear thinkers because it attempts to craft the nation’s legal immigration policy into something that’s actually good for our economy, instead of a feel-good, glowing chorus of Kumbaya that makes us all warm and fuzzy about how tolerant, diverse and inclusive we are.

         Kris Kobach, Republican candidate for Kansas governor who conferred with the Trump Administration and with Congress on the legislation, sees the value in prefacing our policy on points that admit (italic) better (end italic) immigrants who can make our country (italic) better (end italic). That’s a feather both in Kobach’s cap and that of Trump and his legislative supporters. RAISE awards preference points for prospective immigrants based on their level of education and technical skills, earning ability, their youth and their accomplishment as English speakers, among other factors.

The idea is that we want to be more exclusive in who we allow into the country – we want people who will succeed here and help make our nation successful and be beneficial to our economy. That’s important, because 51 percent of all present immigrant households (either legal or illegal) are beneficiaries of at least one federal government welfare program – compared to 30 percent of native born households – and that doesn’t include state assistance programs.

         The RAISE Act would also reduce the number of legal work visas or “green cards” issued  per year from a million to an estimated 500,000. It would eliminate “Diversity Lottery Visas,” a program that grants 50,000 visas per year for the purpose of “diversity” to countries that generally send few immigrants here. It would eliminate the ability for immigrants to sponsor visas for extended family members and adult children. It would also adapt a work visa system to one similar to those in Australia and Canada that establish a point system to give priority to younger applicants with established English skills, high-paying job offers and other high levels of achievement that can benefit our nation.

         The Act will of course be opposed by Democrats and by the mainstream media with charges of classism and elitism, first of all since it is offered by Republicans and supported by Trump, and second because Kobach contributed to it. Big Government-types need those poor immigrants, just like they need the remainder of poor and dispossessed America, to carry the banner for the Welfare State and to vote to maintain it.

         For Kobach, RAISE illustrates a clear philosophy that government should steer a path toward practicality, accomplishment and achievement that benefits the American people first and foremost. It’s an objective that many other nations already pursue, and it’s a laudable point in Kobach’s favor as he seeks the Kansas governorship.

        

The importance of being skanky

Garnett Publishing, Inc.
by Dane Hicks

One of the bitter ironies of feminist culture involves its love/hate relationship with being skanky. And our daughters, even in small towns in Kansas, are paying the price.

On one hand the message to teen girls and young women is “be skanky, be empowered,” and on the other is “don’t allow men to objectify you.” It’s a bipolar theme at best, and regardless, comes at a cost to be borne by those who choose to be loose.

         That’s not to say that there aren’t consequences for boys and young men who play their role in skank culture – think Anthony Weiner – and those consequences are completely justified. It’s a 50/50 deal, certainly – but there are unique impacts on women in the eyes of culture and society that make their repercussions different. That may not be fair, but it is the way it is.

         You can blame it on a host of factors – the third generation of the sexual revolution; the Internet and Social Media; a liquid-brained popular culture whose celebrities compete with their every Tweet for king and queen of skankdom in some effort to sell us something; and of course… the Russians.

         The elephant in the room is one you’re already wondering why I haven’t mentioned – parents. I was saving that one. I’ll go it even one better… I’ll lay so much more of the blame at the feet of dads.

         After all, who believes the dad who finds out his teenage daughter has been sending naked pictures of her body parts to boys is really shocked about it? Are you telling me there were no signs in advance? Really? Not since the Titanic hit the iceberg has a guy been more asleep at the wheel.

         C’mon, Dad. Maybe you’re trying to prove you’re a ‘hip’ dad or maybe you’re just not paying attention, or maybe you are paying attention but you just don’t have the belly for the fight sure to ensue with your daughter over skanky friends, skanky fashion, makeup, tattoos and behavior. If you’re a parent of a tween or teen and don’t occasionally commandeer your kid’s phone for an inspection, you’re an idiot. For dads, particularly dads of daughters, you are occasionally justified to be suspicious – even to be outraged – and to make it known.

         I hope I’m wrong, but I have a dismal feeling that skanky is an epidemic. If your kid is between the ages of 12 and 17, he or she knows someone – and probably more than one – who has sent or received intimate photos to or from the opposite sex. It’s undignified and stupid for boys, but it is maniacally lame-brained for girls.

         That’s because girls in particular will continue to pay the social consequences of that poor judgment, even without the Internet. These are the modern-day notches in the virtual bedposts – these photo collections held by some boys on their phones of all the girls they’ve been able to convince to send slutty selfies. And once it’s in bits and bytes, particularly once it’s on the Internet, it never goes away. So girls (and boys) live with that fact long after the crush has ended or the bet has been won. And you never know when or where it might pop up in the future.

         And girls, here’s some truth: No matter how much he pleads, it isn’t “love.” Think about it – he’s asking for a picture of your nether regions? Excuse me? Ask yourself this… why do you think there are so many unmarried baby mommas out there, trying to raise a kid on their own and usually still living with and leaning on mom and dad for the help they provide, while Prince Charming is still single and out there living the good life?

    Wise up, for Pete’s sake.

         It is a hard world for kids in this age of want and ego and deceit and digital treachery. Girls, don’t build a land mine out of false affection and then jump on it.

– Dane Hicks is publisher of The Anderson County Review in Garnett, Ks.

U.S. Military must save manliness

By Dane Hicks 
The Anderson County (Kan.) Review

The more I read, see and experience first-hand the more I fear for the American Man. The younger ones are endangering our legacy, and I think the only solution for them may be the U.S. Military.

Yep, the non-so-silent assault of feminization directed at us by popular culture (I'm pretty sure the Russians are behind it) has found its mark in the 18-30 year-old Millenial age group primarily on or near college campuses. Treatment starts with immediate exposure to a drill instructor.

I know… the thought of a mean ‘ole staff sergeant ordering your baby boy around for a few months of basic training and then a minimum enlistment period of, let’s say, 3 years – it’s probably enough to force you helicopter mom’s & dads of the 1990s to seek your own solace in chai tea and valium. But trust me, I have the best interests of both your boys and America in mind.

You see, as they are right now, a lot of your boys aren’t going to make it. Though liberal, feminist culture works hard to convince us all otherwise, the Laws of Nature which still apply to the real world simply won’t condone the survival of many of your young men with as few Real Man traits as many of them now exhibit. Women, with whom your sons will eventually need to copulate in order to ensure the continuance of the species, are concerned as well.

 “There's just no masculinity anymore,” laments a 28 year-old woman replying in an article on a national women’s magazine website.  “Between wanting to talk about their feelings, drinking girlie drinks, and dressing like an Abercrombie and Fitch model, there just aren’t many men out there who act like men.”

Depending on where she’s looking, I have to concur. It’s less true in rural areas, where most young men to a large degree still have to have a job – as Dave Ramsey says, to “go out and kill something and drag it back to the cave.” Masculinity is sustaining itself in rural areas, but we all know rural populations are shrinking as suburbia and cities grow.

And college campus towns are the worst. Armies of them, laying off a semester in pursuit of yet another major and maybe delivering pizza or working in a call center part time. They still tap mom and dad for cash regularly. They whine a lot about themselves and voice an opinion on everything whether or not they know the topic. They’re pale and pudgy with soft, moist hands – physiques honed by sitting inside apartments away from sunlight watching Netflix, playing Warcraft and eating Ben & Jerry’s Half Baked Ice Cream. What young gal wouldn’t swoon for a dude like that?

Call it coincidence, but they are the first generation whose fathers (us) did not face a military draft. My generation hasn’t been able to pass along any semblance of military bearing or heritage or values to our sons, because most of us never served after America’s military went "all volunteer.”

My father-in-law served in WWII, my dad was drafted Korean War -era, my older cousins were drafted for Vietnam – but the phenomena of having masses of men called by their country ended in the mid-1970s. Our own fathers taught us what they learned and what became ingrained in their character from their military experience, but our own sons – now in their 20s and early 30s – suffer with generational problems in choosing a direction, exhibiting gumption and getting off their rear-ends to get anything done.

Their fathers (us) never learned the valuable lessons of soldiering to pass along to them. We didn’t have to learn to absorb new information and learn quickly under compressed training and education timeframes; we didn’t have to learn to work as a team and be accountable for not letting that team down; we didn’t have to get used to functioning under stress; we didn’t have to learn that our attention to detail and our basic punctuality might be the difference between life and death – for ourselves or for someone else. These were the lessons taught so well by the military that men of my era were never forced to learn, so we couldn’t pass them along to our sons.

Instead we imagined they needed Ritalin for fidgeting in school, told them not to climb on the shed roof because they might die and assured them the reason they didn’t make the baseball team was because the coach just didn’t like them.

So we got what we got – sons who don’t know a drive belt from a Phillips screwdriver, who whine and moan too much and are more likely to idolize Ben Stiller than John Wayne.

If you’re one of the lucky ones with a son that bucks the trend, God bless you. For the rest, the cure starts by putting their feet on the yellow footprints.


–Dane Hicks is president of Garnett Publishing, Inc., and publisher of The Anderson County Review in Garnett, Ks.