EXPERT: Safety Still A Concern For New School Year

by Spencer Coursen, Coursen Security Group

As I watched the news covering the most recent school shooting in Georgia, I could not help but notice the preventative measures which, had they been properly employed, could have very likely prevented such an outcome.

The two areas of growing concern with regard to student safety and school security are ineffective access control policies, and the absence of a threat assessment and management program.

Every school I’ve ever visited has had an access control policy, and yet every control measure in these schools is too-easily bypassed. In Georgia for example, “the gunman simply walked in behind someone else.”

Policy only works if you follow it every time. Most access control policies at schools require the visitor to be “confirmed and verified by the visitor’s sponsor” BEFORE being “buzzed in.” This rarely, if ever happens. Access control is rarely ever someone’s priority tasking. More likely, whomever is responsible for granting access is inundated with the tasking of their “real job” and can’t be bothered with the “additional duties” of veryifying that it’s fine for Parent X to bring in Student Y’s forgotten lunch box. 99.999% of the time no ill effect result from their complacency…so why should this time be any different. And so, like many times before, the conditioned response looms it’s lazy head…the buzzer sounds…the access button is pushed, and the unverified visitor enters. No scene camera to verify who’s at the door, no double-checking to ensure the voice is who they say they are, just another Pavlovian response in an otherwise routine day…only this time in Georgia, it is with life-risking result.

If schools want to preach the “shelter in place” methodology, then they have to first make sure their shelter stays safe. A diver in a shark cage doesn’t stay in the cage once the shark bites the door off its hinges…he swims away. And a building fire is just as dangerous and as unpredictable as an active shooter, yet we wouldn’t hide from a fire in hope it won’t find us…we would run!

Complimenting access control is a schools ability to assess and manage inappropriate actions and communications to determine the likelihood of a threat evolving into a violent act. This is best accomplished through the employment of a threat assessment and management program.

Why do schools need such a program? Because the violence inherent to today’s society make it mandatory. A school today without a threat assessment program is as negligent as an auto factory manufacturing cars without seat belts. Neither are required for their master to function, but both are designed to enhance safety along the way.

In nearly all violent encounters taking place at schools, pre-incident indicators or “leakage” have presented themselves many times prior to the violent act being initiated. The student may make a knife out of wood in shop class, or write about a violent act in a writing assignment. They may even overtly brag to their friends about what they’re planning to do. Individually, these may be overlooked as isolated incidents, but if teachers and administrators know the criteria to report to an identified assessor, little pieces of seemingly unrelated bits of information will begin to form a picture of the hazard on the horizon. Once identified, that hazard can then be managed away from violent outcome…BEFORE its too late.

Thankfully, no lives were lost in Georgia. Although this seems to stem mostly from the inaccurate shooting of both the suspect and the police – both of whom exchanged gun fire.

This phenomenon will not always be the case, and should serve as a wake-up call to do away with antiquated practices and accept that safety, unlike geometry, is an organic and ever-evolving practice.

Congress’ response to the Sandy Hook tragedy was to pursue legislation to ban certain types of firearms and ammunition magazines. But these bills were off the mark – even their authors admit they would not have prevented the shooting in Newtown. Instead of getting bogged down in ugly, partisan fights, there are noncontroversial actions that can be taken immediately that would actually make a make schools safer than they are today.

The power of the people is far greater than that of the people in power, and if the leaders of today’s schools are too invested and comfortable in their own antiquated practices to make the effective changes required of today’s concerns, than perhaps the burden falls to the parents and their affiliated organizations to rise up and fundraise for the resources required to keep their children safe.

At the end of the day, safety is about preparation and prevention. The most preferred outcome will always be to stop an attack from happening in the first place. It is a preventative mindset, not a reactionary one, which will save future lives.

Front page photo courtesy of the AP

The themes of healing and redemption appear throughout the Bible.

Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. — 1 Corinthians 15:43
It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. — Mark 2:17.

So, for many Christians, it's no surprise to hear that people of faith live longer lives.

Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved, for you are my praise. — Jeremiah 17:14.

But it is certainly lovely to hear, and a recent study by a doctoral student at Ohio State University is just one more example of empirical evidence confirming the healing benefits of faith and religious belief.

RELATED: MEDIA BIGOTRY: The New Yorker hates on Chick-fil-A over 'pervasive Christian traditionalism'

Moreover, the study finds that religious belief can lengthen a person's life.

A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. — Proverbs 17:22
Lord, your discipline is good, for it leads to life and health. You restore my health and allow me to live! — Isaiah 38:16

The study analyzed over 1,000 obituaries nationwide and found that people of faith lived longer than people who were not religious. Laura Wallace, lead author of the study, noted that "religious affiliation had nearly as strong an effect on longevity as gender does, which is a matter of years of life."

The study notes that, "people whose obits mentioned a religious affiliation lived an average of 5.64 years longer than those whose obits did not, which shrunk to 3.82 years after gender and marital status were considered."

And He called to Him His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. — Matthew 10:1

"The researchers found that part of the reason for the boost in longevity came from the fact that many religiously affiliated people also volunteered and belonged to social organizations, which previous research has linked to living longer. The study provides persuasive evidence that there is a relationship between religious participation and how long a person lives," said Baldwin Way, co-author of the study and associate professor of psychology at Ohio State.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

In addition, the study showed how the effects of religion on longevity might depend in part on the personality and average religiosity of the cities where people live, Way said.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

And the power of the Lord was with him to heal. — Luke 5:17
Heal the sick in it and say to them, The kingdom of God has come near to you. — Luke 10:9

In early June, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual report on the fiscal health of these programs, and the situation looks dire. Medicare is scheduled to run out of money in 2026 (three years sooner than anticipated), while Social Security is expected to run out in 2034. The rising national debt is only one of the well-known financial struggles the millennial generation faces. The burdens of student loan debt, high housing prices (thanks to zoning restrictions), stagnant wage growth, the rising cost of healthcare and lingering aftershocks of the Great Recession are among the biggest sources of economic anxiety millennials feel.

Progressive politicians have been very successful at courting the youth vote, partly because they actually promote policy ideas that address many of these concerns. As unrealistic or counterproductive as Senator Bernie Sanders' proposals for single-payer health care or a $15 an hour minimum wage might be, they feel in theory like they would provide the economic stability and prosperity millennials want.

RELATED: Time to reverse course: America is being corrupted by its own power

Republicans, on the other hand, have struggled to craft a message to address these concerns. Fiscal conservatives recognize, correctly, that the burden of the $20 trillion national debt and over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities will fall on millennials. Some conservatives have even written books about that fact. But the need to reform entitlements hasn't exactly caught millennials' attention. Pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, in her book The Selfie Vote, notes that millennials generally view protecting the safety net as more important than reducing the deficit.

Clearly, Republicans have a problem. They need to craft solutions that address the millennial generation's struggles, but they can't seem to sell entitlement reform, their biggest policy preference that addresses those problems. The Republican approach to wooing millennials on policy is failing because talking about stopping the debt from reaching an unsustainable level is long-term and abstract, and offers few immediate tangible benefits. A new approach to both pave the way for entitlement reform and give millennials an immediate financial boost is to first reform not entitlement spending, but the payroll tax: specifically, by partially (or wholly) replacing it with a value-added tax.

Under the current Social Security model, workers pay for the benefits of current retirees through the payroll tax. This system creates the illusion of a pension program, in which what you put in is what you get out, but in reality Social Security is a universal safety net program for the elderly paid for by taxes. The payroll tax falls on workers and is a tax on labor, while the value-added tax (VAT) is a tax on consumption imposed at every part of the production process. Assuming that this policy change is revenue-neutral, switching to a VAT will shift the responsibility for funding Social Security and Medicare away from workers, disproportionately poorer and younger, and onto everyone participating in the economy as a whole. Furthermore, uncoupling Social Security funding from payroll taxes would pave the way for fiscal reforms to transform the program from a universal benefit program to one geared specifically to eliminating old-age poverty, such as means-testing benefits for high-income beneficiaries, indexing benefits to prices rather than wages or changing the retirement age.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the change would actually make the tax system more progressive. The current payroll tax is regressive, meaning that people with lower incomes tend to pay a higher effective tax rate than people with higher incomes. On the other hand, the value-added tax is much closer to proportional than the payroll tax, meaning that each income group pays closer to the same effective tax rate.

For Republicans, such a change would fit conservative economic ideas about the long-run causes of economic growth. A value-added tax has a much broader base than the payroll tax, and therefore would allow for much lower marginal tax rates, and lower marginal tax rates mean smaller disincentives to economic activity. According to the Tax Foundation's analysis of a value-added tax, the VAT would be a more economically efficient revenue source than most other taxes currently in the tax code.

Not only would replacing part or all of the payroll tax provide an immediate benefit to millennial taxpayers, it would also open the door for the much-needed entitlement reforms that have been so politically elusive. Furthermore, it would make the tax code both more pro-growth and less regressive. In order to even begin to address the entitlement crisis, win millennial support and stimulate the economy in a fiscally responsible manner, Republicans must propose moving from the payroll tax to the VAT.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate. His writing has appeared in Townhall and The Federalist. He is a federal policy intern at the Tax Foundation. Opinions expressed here are his only and not the views of the Tax Foundation. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Glenn was joined by Alanna Sarabia from "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios on Thursday for an exclusive look at Mercury Museum's new "Rights & Responsibilities" exhibit. Open through Father's Day, the temporary museum features artifacts from pop culture, America's founding, World Ward II and more, focusing on the rights and responsibilities America's citizens.

Get tickets and more information here.

Watch as Glenn gives a sneak peek at some of the unique artifacts on display below.

History at the Mercury Museum

Alanna Sarabia interviews Glenn Beck for "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios.

Several months ago, at the Miss Universe competition, two women took a selfie, then posted it on Instagram. The caption read, "Peace and love." As a result of that selfie, both women faced death threats, and one of the women, along with her entire family, had to flee her home country. The occasion was the 2017 Miss Universe competition, and the women were Miss Iraq and Miss Israel. Miss Iraq is no longer welcome in her own country. The government threatened to strip her of her crown. Of course, she was also badgered for wearing a bikini during the competition.

RELATED: Media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam bias sweeps THIS fact under the rug

In an interview, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, said:

When I posted the picture I didn't think for a second there would be blowback. I woke up to calls from my family and the Miss Iraq Organization going insane. The death threats I got online were so scary. The director of the Miss Iraq Organization called me and said they're getting heat from the ministry. He said I have to take the picture down or they will strip me of my title.

Yesterday, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, posted another selfie with Miss Israel, during a visit to Jerusalem.

In an interview, she said that:

I don't think Iraq and Israel are enemies; I think maybe the governments are enemies with each other. There's a lot of Iraqi people that don't have a problem with Israelis.

This is, of course, quite an understatement: Iraq, home to roughly 15,000 Palestinians, refuses to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate country, as it is technically at war with Israel. The adages says that a picture is worth a thousand words. What are we to do when many of those words are hateful or deadly? And how can we find the goodness in such bad situations?