Education Fundraiser

The Sunset Statement: A Call for Action by: Natalie Clarke King of Prussia, PA– A city of around twenty-five thousand people. Another community was devastated. Two people legally armed to the teeth murdered forty-two men, women, and children and injured another seventy-nine. More children would’ve been killed if not for the brave action of seventeen-year-old Brooke Matthews. She stepped in and saved the lives of those kids. She risked her own life and safety to save the children. It should not have been necessary. Both shooters legally purchased an arsenal including semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines. As one senior federal officer according to CNN, stated “This entire tragedy was preventable. They were able to stockpile enough weapons and to wage a small war, all legally. It's a tragic reflection on our current gun laws.” Why are we allowing citizens to buy weapons that have only one real purpose to unleash terror and death in their wake? As I’m writing this, I am struggling to find the words. I look at my own kids, they are going to start school soon. I cannot believe in this country I am going to have to hope that if something awful happens they have someone brave like Ms. Matthews willing to risk her life to save them. Or am I one day going to get a call that will tell me that my child has been shot in her school or at the mall? Why is being a parent in America like this? Why are these the questions we must ask ourselves as parents and be prepared for? All the lives that have been cut short. All these preventable deaths. Another community stating, “I can’t believe this happened here.” It has become too common too acceptable for them to be a mass shooting in this country. How many more massacres of children is it going to take for us to be allowed to finally have a needed conversation about how lax our gun laws are? We did not have one after Sandy Hook and then we had Las Vegas. We didn’t have the conversation after the Las Vegas shooting, and then we had Parkland. We did not have the conversation after Parkland, and then we had Uvalde. We did not have the conversation after Uvalde and now we are here. Are we seriously going to need more victims to talk about Gun control? How many will be enough? How many more children must die upon the alter of the second amendment? Parents around this country must know. Does their kid have to be next for us to finally wake up and realize that we have a gun problem? I do not know how anyone can look at the details of this tragedy and shrug their shoulders and pretend this is anything but a failure in gun policy. We can look around the world, no other western country has this problem, and in no other western country is it easy to buy a gun. This is a call to action. This is a call for us to look beyond the gun policy that have been called for by Democrats for over a decade. It is time that we go further. We must finally do universal background check and closing the gun show loophole, I am not arguing against that, but neither of those solutions would have prevented this tragedy. It is time to bring back the assault weapons ban. It is time to ban high-capacity magazines. It’s time to get weapons that are not designed primarily for hunting and specific self-defense weapons off the streets. But if our nation is not ready to step up and implement broad measures that will prevent weapons of war from being used on Americans by other Americans than let me suggest an unconventional solution. Why is it easier to own a weapon of war than a car. In many states you cannot drive a car off the lot without having insurance. Let’s put in place a national rule that you cannot bring your gun out of a gun shop without insurance. That you cannot own a gun without insurance. You want to own a gun; you must have insurance, and the gun owner should be held liable if their gun is used to murder or harm an innocent person. This would have limited effects on people who are buying weapons that are designed for hunting, or for self-defense and instead make sure that the weapons of war have extensive insurance coverage, designed to help the families of the victims of tragedies like this. There are people that are going to say that now is not the time to talk about gun control. They are going to tell you that we cannot have this discussion after a tragedy. Then when are we ever going to happen Over six hundred people died in a mass shooting in every year since 2020. Everyday three-hundred and twenty-seven people are killed, and twenty-three minors are killed. Last year there was nearly two mass shootings every day. If we cannot have a discussion on gun control after a tragedy, then we are never going to have the conversation we so desperately need because there is a new tragedy every day. Please reader hug your children and your loved ones. Do it for the people that cannot hug theirs today because two nihilistic people were able to buy a small armory before heading into a mall in small town America and senselessly murder mothers, daughters, sons, fathers, brothers, sisters, and friends. (This article contains a list of every person who lost their life in the shooting)

The Sunset Statement: The Women Shine While the Men Have a Schoolyard Brawl by: John Baker Los Angeles - That sure was something. Tonight's Democratic Debate hosted by MSNBC, moderated by Rachael Maddow and Chris Haynes between Osiris Storm, Hannah Kahiona, Raphael Coleman, and Mary Calloway-Kincaid got off to a heated start and never really cooled off. The clash between Senators Coleman and Storm put the Ukraine debate in last night's Republican debate to shame. The first question concerned the massacre that happened earlier today in Pennsylvania. Senator Storm started the debate out, giving his prayers for the lives lost in the King of Prussia mall. He pledged to enact Universal background checks, reinstate the assault weapons ban, among other gun control measures. He stated that he would support a mandatory gun buy-back program in a response to a question by Chris Hayes. Senator Calloway-Kincaid was up next and started by expressing her condolences for the families and communities affected by the mass shooting. She made a direct call for action stating "We’ve seen far too many moments of silence, too many vigils. The time for thoughts and prayers alone is over—we need action, and we need it now." She would call for commonsense reforms but would not specify specifical policies in her initial response. Senator Coleman was up next, he skipped over the pleasantries and dived straight into the question calling gun violence a pervasive issue. He stated he supported a few gun control measures but stated he opposed a mandatory buy-back program instead of a voluntary one. Finally for the starting statements Senator Kahiona spoke next, she would start by sending her thoughts and prayers for the victims and their families for the mass shooting. Her statement was the most touching and personal of the set. Talking about her children was a nice touch. She landed in a similar spot to Colemand supporting a lot of the same policies but backing the assault weapons ban. Though she was quiet on a buyback program. She also called for us to do better on gun control. Rachael Maddow would stir the pot explicitly by pointing out the policy disagreement on if the buyback program should be mandatory between Coleman and Storm. The first of many flare ups between the two. Senator Storm called to get guns off the streets whereas Coleman called a Mandatory buyback program divisive. Storm hit back stating that Coleman isn't serious about cleaning up our streets. Coleman got the final response telling Storm to take a seat and watch him before talking up his bipartisan record. I think the line would've been more effective had Senator Coleman appeared more Presidential during the rest of the debate. Getting the last work on the question Senator Calloway-Kincaid provided more details to her plan, stating that she supported traditional democrat gun control positions. The exchange would become a preview of the whole night, Senator Storm and Coleman having direct attacks against each other while the other two sit back and come off looking presidential and even-tempered. Overall Kahiona's answer was the best combining the best received statement on the tragedy and landing at fairly typical democratic policy. The next question was my first question of the night, and it drew the ire of people on Twitter. I appreciate that neither side approved of my questions. It shows that I did a solid job. Either way it was directed at Senator Coleman asking about his immigration policy that is quite similar to the one spouted by President Trump and Senator Koenig. His answer likely didn't make him any friends with the California delegation comparing immigration to bleeding as if it is a negative thing that people want to come here and make a better life for themselves. It also is not clear what non-essential migration is. Are we going to see tourists prevented entry during this shut down. He called every state a border state, so are airports being closed as well? Because the negative economic impacts of those cannot be overstated, thousands if not millions of people would lose their jobs. That's without even addressing the fact that certain industries rely on migrant workers that will do jobs that Americans do not want to do. Senator Kahiona answered next, and her response was on point stating "That sounds like the bureaucratic version of trying to fix a leaky faucet by turning off the water to the whole house," before going on to say that a closure of the border will create another crisis. She also called the plan straight out of the MAGA movement. Osiris Storm spoke next; he focused on comprehensive immigration reform starting with appeals on DACA and DAPA, and a pathway to citizenship before moving to a line about deporting criminals. He would talk about combating drug cartels as well in his answer. Calloway-Kincaid spoke last starting with a spicy statement calling his plan to close the border un-American. She also was the only candidate to state a strong support for the American legacy of being a nation of immigrants. She called for securing the border while remaining a beacon of hope for those seeking a better life. Coleman would respond by trying to defend his plan against attacks calling for reforms to be made while he closes the border. Storm would respond first against Coleman's rebuttal. He would also call the plan un-American, stating it goes against the very ideals that built this country. He concluded his statement by saying that Senator Coleman doesn't offer a true plan to fix the border or immigration just fox news talking points. Senator Kahiona would join in on the attack further stressing that this policy would create a crisis and does not solve the current one. Coleman would jump in with a quick line about not hearing anything but the same platitude before Storm quickly cut in calling the plan a sellout. Kahiona would soon follow suit stating that Coleman's plan would make things 100 times worse. Coleman then flippantly stated that Storm's plan won't pass before Storm said that Coleman's plan is a non-starter for his own party. Calloway-Kincaid would cut in stating that Coleman's plan goes against what this country stands for. In this section, it was one of the few where I would put Storm in the winning column but only by a little bit. The petty fighting was schoolyard in this section. However, Calloway-Kincaid sits in the winner column more clearly. She got very little heat, and her plan was generally well received. However, the best of both worlds was Kahiona. While getting into the fray she stayed away from the schoolyard nature of the fighting and instead focused on the policy debate. Finally, Coleman lost while his policy might be pragmatic for a general election audience. His flippant responses to criticisms are going to hurt his polling on strong leader and it's hard to undersell how unpopular his plan is likely to be with Democrats. A Pew Research Study found that 64% of Democrats want to make it easier for asylum seekers. But that is just an example. Democrats are much more likely to be pro-immigration. The next topic started with a question by Vox, who asked about the Trump tariffs. Calloway-Kincaid started us off with opposing the Trump Tariffs. She highlighted that they have driven up costs for consumers and manufacturers. They also have severely hurt farmers. In a follow-up she clarified that she would repeal the tariffs but expressed a commitment to renegotiate trade agreements to support American manufacturers. Senator Kahiona went next and started her response off with an attack to the framing of the question. A fair one, the Tax foundation favors Libertarian policy positions. Afterwards she moved on to answering the question in favor of repealing the tariffs before moving on to providing details on her plan to fight inflation. Including a higher minimum wage, a wealth tax and closing corporate welfare tax loopholes. Then she laid out a few of her policies to help working Americans including affordable childcare, healthcare, education, and housing. She also attacked the Trump tax cuts as tickle down economics. While moving off from talking about tariffs, the answer is a great answer for a debate, it hits what the people at home are looking for. People watching want lower prices. Coleman was the one to answer, he promised a review of the tariffs and to negotiate fair trade deals. Overall, an answer is designed not to win votes but to avoid losing any. Following this up Senator Storm spoke next, and it was much of the same as his opponents, hitting the points that the tariffs are bad but that we need fair trade. After the initial responses in one of the only shows of unity of the night, each of them agreed that they support the other candidates economic plan and that the Republicans have no plan. This was a minor missed opportunity; we really could've seen on of the candidates show a bit of aggression against the other party because Senator Koenig backed across the board tariffs on everything. Which would make inflation much worse not better. This would've really helped contrast with a Republican and showed that someone is ready for the general election. However, on the topic I don't think that anyone really lost, it was all decent answers. Maybe will cause a bit of blowback in sections of the rust belt but also fair trade really works there so it is a real missed bag. However, Kahiona's movement to an economic issue, that the whole country cares about, is likely the best answer of the four. We then moved onto my second question of the night, which was about healthcare and was directed at Senator Calloway-Kincaid. In her answer she backed expanding Medicare and a public option. Two proposals that were not in her platform. But she did make an appeal to achieving universal coverage. Osiris Storm introduced a Catastrophic coverage card system that I noticed didn't seem to get a reaction. It is likely that's because people are unsure exactly what he's talking about. He certainly already has an uphill battle on just getting people to understand what his plan actually is. Coleman responded afterwards backing a public option through Medicare and sticking with the union health plan line. To his credit Coleman's answer was much more measured in his disagreements with his colleagues than his other answers. From the point that everyone answered two battles started to take place between Senator Storm and Coleman, no surprise there, but also between Calloway-Kincaid and Kahiona. For the latter the batter was over the existence of private insurance companies operating as middlemen who are driving costs up vs Calloway-Kincaid's trying to see a wholesale fix. I found this exchange a bit odd from Calloway-Kincaid because she seemed to go on offense against a public option despite supporting a public option and attacking a supporter of Medicare-for-all. For the other healthcare exchange between Storm and Coleman, who were this time trying to be more respectful, until the final jab from Senator Storm. Both basically tried to attack the other for not having plans grounded. Though the final jab from Storm about offering cynicism brought back the nasty fighting. The healthcare debate is probably the biggest example of speaking to your base. Calloway-Kincaid and Coleman fighting for the general reform option, Kahiona sweeping up the progressives, and Storm left on an island proposal a policy that doesn't resonate with anyone. Then we moved onto Gaza, Senator Coleman would start. His statement was designed to invoke the ideas of supporting Palestine but carefully worded that he didn't immediately seem anti-Israel. Storm followed up immediately going on offense against Coleman, surprising no one, but he attacked Senator Coleman's lack of foreign policy in his platform and insinuated that Coleman is unprepared for that part of the job. While he made a strong support of Israel he called for a humanitarian ceasefire and that he'd pursue a two-state solution. Kahiona spoke next immediately making an appeal to two of the more important senate endorsements in Sarah Avraham and Truman Sizemore by referencing October 7th, she did the strongest immediate defense of Israel of all the candidates while also covering her tracks with support of innocent Palestinian civilians that have been caught in the crossfire. Calloway-Kincaid was the last to speak and overlapped considerably with Senator Storm on diplomatic push for a two-state solution and aid. Though like Senator Coleman made references that could be read as Israel breaking international law. Senator Storm made references that him and Calloway-Kincaid and Kahiona agreed with him a lot. Though immediately afterwards the Coleman entered with one of his strongest attacks on Storm of the night and did make an appeal that certainly is going to make the Palestinian crowd happier than the Israeli crowd. Senator Storm then expanded on his comments about support, taking another shot at Coleman by stating the other two candidates had a plan. Clearly implying that Coleman did not. From there the two candidates devolved into a squabble. Storm insisted that Coleman wait his turn, while Coleman stated that Storm was blowing a lot of hard hair. Calloway-Kincaid then cut in to insist that her and Kahiona be giving some time. Kahiona then spoke next, with her strongest attack line of the night pointing out that she was the only candidate to speak at the Stand with Israel Rally at the University of Pennsylvania, and stated "[M]ost of the candidates on this stage up until this point have been silent on the Israel-Palestine conflict because they’re afraid of offending one side or the other. But leadership isn’t about playing it safe. It's about having the courage to stand up for what's right, even when it’s complicated. The Next President of the United States cannot be silent on these issues like they all have been. " A very good line targeting the other candidates' decision to stay on the sidelines. In fact, Kahiona was the only candidate, republican or democrat to attend the rally. We finished up with both Storm and Calloway-Kincaid reiterating their positions. On Gaza I think Kahiona stood out because she had credentials that stood out and already is associated with the Israel side of the issue, it also helped that while Senator Storm's answers were good his fight with Coleman undercut both of their positions. Calloway-Kincaid did well and seemed well measured. Then we moved onto another question from Vox, about legalization of marijuana certainly a policy that polls well. Kahiona started her answer first agreeing to legalization and calling the war on drugs a failure. She took the time to stress that she would crackdown on hard drugs like fentanyl and the drug traffickers that are bringing them here. Calloway-Kincaid quickly answered next, committing to ending the war on drugs, and pointing out how it has disproportionally affected Hispanic and African American communities. She also committed to declassifying marijuana. Storm followed suit and took a similar vein to Kahiona in agreeing to ending the war on drugs and legalization but took the opportunity to state he would work hard to crackdown on the fentanyl trade. He also pledged SBA support to weed dispensaries. Finally, Senator Coleman agreed with the above. Making it the least divisive topic of the night. Though I did notice he excluded Senator Storm in praising policy positions, I'm sure this was just a mistake. I do not think there was really a winner for this section. With my final question, I pushed us to the minimum wage. Pointing out that Senator Storm's fifteen-dollar minimum wage proposal is lower when adjusted for inflation than Hillary Clinton's in 2016. He avoided answering the questions but instead chose to endorse the fifteen-dollar minimum wage and then pivot towards inflation and making things more affordable. I think the pivot is a little weaker when discussing the minimum wage because it is an issue that at least democratic voters care strongly about. Calloway-Kincaid followed it up and endorsed a divided minimum wage with a different rate for large businesses at twelve dollars, and nine dollars for small businesses. A choice that is going to need more details on how you prevent large corporations from exploiting. Kahiona immediately followed by supporting the seventeen dollar minimum wage. She took a chance to call the current minimum wage a poverty wage and talked about the economic positives of a higher minimum wage. Coleman spoke next and directly took the chance to attack Calloway-Kincaid's position calling for us to do better, and to be fair to him. The Senate is debating a thirteen dollar minimum wage currently. Coleman also called for aiming higher for fifteen, a much more measured attack on Senator Storm. Kahiona and Storm each took their chances to attack Calloway-Kincaid's position. While her defense would've been okay, she undercut her position considerably given a Republican proposed the thirteen dollar minimum wage amendment, and bills don't need two-thirds of the Senate to support it to pass. A little head scratching and a point that will pass around Democratic circles for a bit. In this section, Calloway-Kincaid is the loser due to being attacked by all the other candidates and undercutting her own defense. Overall, the debate was one with two stories. The constant clashes between Senator Storm and Senator Coleman and the dignified, even Presidential performances of Calloway-Kincaid and Kahiona. There was some space between the women and the men. Kahiona won the debate with Calloway-Kincaid a close second. In the clash between Senator Storm and Senator Coleman I think that Senator Coleman does come out slightly ahead, while especially early on his clashes with Storm have him coming off very flippant and dismissive, and he lost the immigration section, his performance improved in the second half where generally Storm was the more flippant of the two. Storm's also lack a base of support on the healthcare issue also backfires on him a bit. Also factoring in the Gaza answer where Storm is competing with the other two candidate for the Israel crowd, whereas Coleman basically swept up ones more inclined to support Palestine. As we look forward to the convention how will the candidates adjust their campaigns based on their debate performances?

Song Quality: 44 Starting Song Buzz: 69.5