If it often seems that there is no level the Democrat-aligned media won’t stoop to in order to promote its leftist agenda.

Case in point has been the aftermath of the tragic mass shooting at a school in Parkland, Florida during which the media has heaped lavish praise and copious coverage upon advocate-in-training teenagers who demand stricter gun control measures be implemented.

Along those lines, The Washington Free Beacon took note of a recent guest who was invited on MSNBC host Katy Tur’s program, a grown man in Colorado who claimed to have been “almost a school shooter” when he was a high school student in the mid-1990s.

That man is named Aaron Stark, and Tur read on-air excerpts of an open letter he recently published which detailed his struggle with suicidal depression in his teenage years which included a fascination with weapons.

“I was almost a school shooter,” Stark wrote. “I am not a school shooter because I didn’t have access to guns. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But people with guns kill lots of people.”

After Tur read some of his letter and introduced him on the program, she asked for his opinion on what should be done in order to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.

“I think we really need to have a hard look at the effect the guns have,” Stark replied. “Do we really need to have assault weapons? Do we really need to have people go buy an AR-15 when they’re not able to even buy a pistol because they won’t pass the background checks?”

Side note: The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. Furthermore, the Florida shooter passed his background check to purchase a semi-automatic rifle because he had never been arrested, charged with a crime or judged as mentally unfit.

On top of that, there is a minimum age of 21 to purchase handguns, as opposed to a minimum age of 18 for rifles and shotguns, so pretty much that entire statement by Stark is baseless and without merit.

But back to the interview of the would-be school shooter who claimed he ended up not being one because he didn’t have access to “assault weapons” — he did speak about at least one thing which definitely holds merit and should be heeded … a lack of “love” and outreach in our society from friends and family for troubled individuals, which is what he also credits — aside from no firearms access — for preventing him from acting out on his school shooting fantasies.

Townhall noted that prior to that segment on the program, Katy Tur set the false premise for viewers of having to choose which was more valuable to people, children or guns, as if both were mutually exclusive and a gun-owner couldn’t love children or a loving parent couldn’t own guns.

This interview reeked of desperation on the part of MSNBC in its bid to further the gun control narrative, exploiting the history of an obviously troubled young man who considered — but never acted upon — shooting up his school as a depressed and suicidal teenager.

RELATED: Florida Law Could Severely Punish Mayor for Pushing Gun Control

Unfortunately for MSNBC and the rest of the would-be gun grabbers in the liberal media, pro-gun advocates know how this game is played and aren’t willing to give even an inch in response to their emotion-based harangues, as we know that control freaks will simply keep grabbing for more.

Today it is the AR-15-style semi-auto rifle. Tomorrow it will be the so-called “high-capacity” magazines most rifles and handguns come equipped with standard, and then they will move on to large-caliber bolt-action hunting rifles and shotguns, until we have slid to the bottom of this slippery slope and they have, piece by piece, implemented the total control over the population they so desire.

Please share this story on social media so everyone can see how MSNBC just trotted out a self-proclaimed “almost” school shooter.

What did you think of the interview with this would-be school shooter? Scroll down to comment below!

Barack Obama’s legacy was already on thin ice after many of his signature programs were dismantled during President Trump’s first year in office, and concerns over bias emerged within the Department of Justice.

Now, another blow to the 44th president’s White House tenure has come to light. While the bias concerns at the DOJ continue, another scandal regarding impartiality is gaining momentum, but this time it’s within a federal agency called the Chemical Safety Board.

A House investigative subcommittee is directing the EPA to investigate one of the officials Obama appointed while in office, after anti-lobbying laws were allegedly violated and the liberal ally tried to influence decision making in Washington.

“Chemical Safety Board (CSB) member Rick Engler worked with union activists to promote a grassroots campaign to keep the agency from losing its funding,” reported The Daily Caller in May of 2017. “Engler’s emails further raise concerns about the CSB’s impartiality.”

The CSB dates back to the 1990s, and is set up to investigate industrial chemical disasters within the United States. That obscure agency has been on the chopping block since Donald Trump took office, however.

“President Donald Trump’s 2018 budget proposal eliminated the CSB. Congress ended up funding the CSB, but Trump’s 2019 budget plan again calls for eliminating the CSB,” explained the Caller in an updated report.

Since the story first broke last year, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has dug deeper into the claims of illegal lobbying by the Obama appointee, and that inquiry just took a very serious turn.

“If substantiated, these actions appear to implicate federal provisions restricting lobbying activities by federal officials,” Congressman Blake Farenthold wrote in a letter sent earlier this week.

“In light of this possible breach of federal anti-lobbying provisions, I request that your office investigate this matter and advise the committee as to whether these actions by a CSB board member violated any federal law or practice,” the Government Reform Committee member declared to the inspector general of the EPA.

The Anti-Lobbying Act “prohibits substantial ‘grass roots’ lobbying campaigns … designed to encourage members of the public to pressure members of Congress to support Administration or Department legislative or appropriations proposals,” in the words of the Department of Justice.

In simple terms, this means that government officials are limited in the kinds of campaigning or lobbying they can do, in order to stay reasonably unbiased as public servants.

However, it isn’t clear if Rick Engler would be actually charged with breaking anti-lobbying laws even if the inquiry finds wrongdoing.

“The situation certainly is a violation of the spirit of the Anti-Lobbying Act but probably does not rise to the level to meet DOJ standards as an actual violation of the Act,” legal expert Craig Holman explained to The Daily Caller.

RELATED: Watch: NY Liberals Can’t Tell the Difference Between Democrats and Communists

Once again, the American people are seeing just how biased and politically motivated officials within Washington truly are. People like Engler are appointed and paid with taxpayer money to do specific jobs, not to lobby for their own political gain.

This may not be the most groundbreaking scandal in the country, but it’s yet another example of why the phrase “drain the swamp” resonated with so many people. Bureaucrats need to be held accountable… even if it takes years to do it.

Press “Share on Facebook” if you’re fed up with politicians abusing their positions!

What is your reaction to this claim of bias? Scroll down to comment below!

Reducing the overall number of illegal and legal immigrants flooding into the United States every year is the second biggest priority for Republican voters.

A new poll by Harvard-Harris shows widespread support for President Trump’s “America First” immigration agenda, which strives to reduce legal and illegal immigration to raise the wages and quality of life for America’s working and middle class, who have suffered under decades of poor job growth, stagnant wages, and increased public costs to offset the importation of millions of low-skilled foreign nationals.

According to the Harvard-Harris poll, 16 percent of Republican voters said reducing overall immigration levels to the U.S. should be a top priority for Trump and Congress.

This makes reducing immigration a bigger priority for Republican voters than repealing and replacing Obamacare, destroying ISIS, and passing an infrastructure bill.

The only issue that outpaces reducing immigration levels as the biggest priority for Republican voters is stimulating American jobs, which can be directly tied to immigration.

Likewise, 18 percent of Trump voters said reducing overall immigration levels to the U.S. should be a top priority for Trump and Congress. For Trump voters, reducing immigration to the country is more important than repealing and replacing Obamacare, passing tax reform, and even building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border to help stem illegal immigration.

The Harvard-Harris poll is in step with last month’s immigration polling data from the firm, which found overwhelming support for Trump’s reduce-immigration-to-aid-Americans agenda.

For example, last month’s poll found that more Americans support zero immigration to the U.S. than they support current legal immigration levels, whereby between one to 1.5 million mostly low-skilled legal immigrants are admitted to the country every year.

The poll found that about 12 percent wanted legal immigration levels increased beyond the current rate of immigration to the country, while the majority of Americans, about 81 percent, said they wanted legal immigration levels reduced to between zero and less than one million legal immigrants a year.

Likewise, nearly 80 percent of Americans said they supported Trump’s plan to change the country’s immigration system to one based on merit, skills, and English proficiency, rather than the current system where foreign nationals with family members living in the U.S. are given priority.

The poll also revealed that black Americans are the most supportive demographic group of drastically reducing legal immigration levels, as Trump and his allies like Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) have proposed.

When asked, “In your opinion, about how many legal immigrants should be admitted to the U.S. each year,” 48 percent of black Americans said they would like to see between one and 250,000 legal immigrants brought to the U.S. a year.

Under Trump’s efforts to ramp up interior immigration enforcement — where in Fiscal Year 2017 deportations of illegal aliens living throughout the U.S. increased by nearly 40 percent, have been beneficial to America’s working and middle class.

For example, the strict immigration enforcement thus far has led to historic wage increases for American workers in the construction industry, the garment industry, for workers employed at small businesses, and black Americans.

A reduction in immigration would potentially mean even higher wages for American workers who would see less competition with cheaper, foreign workers and a less saturated labor market where there are more workers than there are U.S. jobs.

Opponents of reducing immigration levels include the establishment media, the billionaire GOP mega-donors the Koch brothers, the Democratic Party, the Republican establishment, the Bush dynasty, corporate interests, and the open borders lobby.

Every year, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 foreign nationals, with the vast majority deriving from family-based immigration known as “chain migration.” In 2016, the legal and illegal immigrant population reached a record high 44 million. By 2023, the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the legal and illegal immigrant population of the U.S. will make up nearly 15 percent of the entire U.S. population.

During the meeting with Parkland students at the White House on Wednesday President Trump said arming teachers is a step that can be taken to make schools less-attractive targets for attackers.

He said that as things stand, attackers have nothing to lose because no one can shoot back.

CNN quoted Trump saying, “Gun-free zone to a maniac—because they’re all cowards—a gun-free zone is ‘let’s go in and let’s attack because bullets aren’t coming back at us.’” He said adopting a policy where “20 percent” of teachers were armed would reduce or eliminate the perception of weakness, making schools a riskier target to strike.

Trump said, “If you had a teacher who was adept with the firearm, they could end the attack very quickly.”

Newsweek reports that Trump also emphasized mental health and raising “the minimum age for purchasing a firearm,” but the push for arming teachers took center stage.

Students showed considerable support for the idea of arming teachers. Hunter Pollack, who lost his sister Meadow in the attack, said, “I’m not here to debate, but I lost my sister. And like Mr. President said, if you could find 20% of maybe retired law enforcement officers, or a teacher who could go through discreet training to carry a firearm around his waist, it could’ve been a very different situation.”

President Trump campaigned on allowing teachers to be armed for self-defense. He said gun-free zones provide “target practice for sickos” and, on October 8, 2016, the Washington Post quoted him saying, “I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Wednesday at a White House listening session on school shootings, Andrew Pollack, who lost his daughter, Meadow at the Parkland, FL school shooting last week, called for cooperation to fix the schools.

Pollack said, “I’m here because my daughter has no voice. She was murdered last week and she was taken from us. Shot nine times on the third floor. We as a country failed our children. This shouldn’t happen. We go to the airport, I can’t get on a plane with a bottle of water, but we leave some animal to walk into a school and shoot our children. It is just not right.”

He continued, “We need to come together as a country, not different parties, and figure out how we protect the schools. It’s simple. It’s not difficult. We protect airports, we protect concerts, stadiums, embassies, the Department of Education that I walked in today that has a security guard in the elevator. How do you think that makes me feel?”

He added, “It should’ve been one school shooting, and we should’ve fixed it! And I’m pissed because my daughter I’m not going to see again. She is not here. She is not here. She’s at King David Cemetery, that’s where I go to see my kid now. It stops. And if we all work together and come up with the right idea, school safety. It is not about gun laws. That is another fight, another battle. Let’s fix the schools, and then you guys can battle it out whatever you want, but we need our children safe. Monday, tomorrow, whatever day it is, your kids go to school. Do you think everyone’s kids are safe? I didn’t think it was going to happen to me. If I knew that, I would have been at the school every day if I knew it was that dangerous. That is enough. Let’s get together, work with the president, and fix the schools. That’s it. No other discussions.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

National pro-life leaders are praising Christian evangelist Rev. Billy Graham as an example of “dignity, integrity and tireless courage” whose leadership was “essential for the survival of faith” itself.

Graham, who died Wednesday at the age of 99, appeared on Gallup’s “Most Admired” List 61 times, the polling company states:

The Rev. Billy Graham, the renowned Christian evangelist who died at age 99 on Wednesday, holds the remarkable distinction of having appeared on Gallup’s Top 10 “Most Admired Man” list 61 times, more than any other man since the annual listing began in 1948 — and more than any woman [who] has appeared on the companion Top 10 “Most Admired Woman” list.

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, said in a press statement that Graham “stands as an example of humble leadership, noteworthy for not only his scandal-free life, but for his consistency in calling for a life of faith and service.”

“He is an example for us all of dignity, integrity and tireless courage in communicating timeless truths with love and respect,” she added.

Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life and president of the National Pro-Life Religious Council, said Graham “has touched more hearts and converted more souls than can ever be known. His accomplishments are too numerous to count but they all stem from his belief that people need to hear the Gospel.”

Pavone added that Graham’s ministry “not only enriched the Church,” but also “enriched America as a nation.”

“When we lose sight of the Creator, we lose sight of his creation, and forget fundamental truths like the sanctity of life, marriage, family and freedom,” he continued. “But when we see God clearly in Jesus Christ, we rediscover those truths.

Pavone said the work of evangelists like Graham “is not only essential for the survival of faith; it is essential for our survival itself.”

Dr. Alveda King, director of Civil Rights for the Unborn at Priests for Life, said Graham “has departed earth to receive A Warrior’s Reward.”

“Many will note the many contributions of the life and legacy of Dr. Billy Graham today in honor and recognition of this great Christian warrior who has reached millions of lives for Christ during his 99 years on earth,” she added.

The horrific February 14 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, has triggered the usual progressive drivel among Democrat politicians arguing for gun control.  It did not take Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy long to reach the Senate floor.

But we must face it: Banning any particular category of firearms would not have done a thing to stop a determined, mentally-unstable school shooter like Nikolas Cruz.  He was so determined, in fact, that he stated his intention to be a “professional school shooter” on YouTube.

And while we would hope that agents at the FBI would have the intellectual rigor to put two and two together, or at least respond to a tip dropped squarely in their laps, there will always be the possibility they will fail.  And while we would also hope that after responding to twenty calls involving the perpetrator over multiple years, local law enforcement would be able to do something, that is not always guaranteed either.  Relying on government agencies to stop a shooter in advance is a dangerous approach.  We should encourage law enforcement to try and prevent these incidents from occurring, but we would be foolish to think that that approach will always succeed.

When the government fails, as it so often does, the last line of defense is regular people with courage.  At that point, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

There was one person who displayed extraordinary courage at the Florida high school.  Football coach Aaron Feis gave his life trying to shield students from the barrage of bullets.  But imagine how much more effective coach Feis could have been in protecting the lives of students if he had been armed.

The time has come for schools to allow willing teachers, coaches, and staff to be armed, provided they obtain a concealed carry permit and take appropriate training.

The school resource officers who are present at some schools are not enough.  The critical question in every scenario is, how long will it take for an armed defender to arrive at the scene?  The answer to this question is a matter of life and death.  If there are multiple armed teachers and staff in a school, then the response time can be reduced to seconds, rather than minutes.

This is not a new idea.  Indeed, laws in 18 states already permit teachers and/or staff to be armed in some circumstances, usually on terms that require the approval of the school board or superintendent.  They are Alabama, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.

The other 32 States should amend their laws to allow willing teachers and staff to be armed.  And those States that already permit teachers to carry need to revisit their laws to ensure that it is not too difficult for teachers who want approval to receive it.  That’s what Alabama is doing.  It should also be noted that in none of these states have there been any accidents or other negative consequences resulting from the policy of allowing teachers and staff to be armed.

The Florida Legislature is now considering a bill to join this list of States.  If only Florida had taken this step earlier.

Coach Feis demonstrated heroically that there are school personnel who are willing to take action to protect themselves and others.  It is time to let them do so with firearms.

Kris W. Kobach is the elected secretary of state of Kansas and a guest columnist for “Down Range with AWR Hawkins.”