Posts for: teaman
Mar 25, 2018 09:49:39 #
(Main)
You are totally stupid and mentally ill.......get some help before you decide to pick up a weapon and attack someone(s)!!!!
Mar 25, 2018 09:45:03 #
(Main)
I don't know how old you are, but did you vote for Slick Willie Clinton or his crooked wife? Did you vote for JFK, another piece of womanizing shit? Nothing has been proven against Trump. How about Obumer the homo...the worst president this country has ever had. Trump, with any problems he may have, is one thousand times better than anything the totally mental ill dummycrats can ever produce!!!
Mar 15, 2018 10:28:43 #
(Main)
I’ve often wondered if liberals’ obsession with “identity” isn’t really a ruse to justify their penchant for pretending to be something other than who they are. In some cases, maybe we should require DNA testing before one claims to be something they aren't!
During the late 1960s, liberals began their never-ending journey of self-empowerment. The world was never the same.
In the mid-1970s, when the Hairy Armpits-n-Braless Women’s Lib Movement was in full swing, a wonderful album was made. It was called “Free to be … You and Me.” On a superficial level, its message was uplifting and positive. Equality — among men and women and people all shapes, sizes and colors! What a concept.
But even as a child, I picked up on the ridiculous propaganda littered throughout the album. There was the story about William wanting a doll and getting teased for it until his grandma bought him one — because William would grow up to be a father one day (how NON-inclusive by today’s politically correct standards!).
Or, the story of Princess Atalanta, who ran as fast as the wind. Her father set up a race for her suitors to run, and whoever won the race was to be her prince. Except, naturally, Atalanta decided to run the race as well.
Spoiler alert: Atalanta won the race, and decided that she wanted to travel the world and choose for herself whom she would marry. (Fun liberal fact: I vividly remember Alan Alda and Marlo Thomas narrating this story. Even as a child, I found them cringe-worthy and annoying.)
Of course, 1960s and 70s feminists and liberals — while certainly radical — are mild compared to today’s lunatics.
It seems to me, instead of “Free to Be … You and Me,” many leftists are bound and determined to be anything other than who God made them to be.
Case in point: the very white and highly strident Oklahoma-born, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Do you think liberals have trouble admitting or accepting who they really are?
Yes No
Pocahontas — as President Trump is wont to call her — has been accused of inventing a Native American backstory in order to capture a plum job teaching at Harvard based on those dubious credentials.
She has sputtered, hemmed and hawed, but has never proven that she’s actually Native American. In fact, a Massachusetts newspaper has offered to buy her a $99 Ancestry DNA kit to prove her heritage. I’ve done it, senator! Just spit in a tube and mail it off! It’s that simple.
Naturally, this good and honorable liberal has so far refused to prove she is a truthful person. Instead, her story goes something like this: Daddy‘s grandparents (or whatever) were Native American and Mama‘s parents didn’t want them to be married because they were white, virulent racists. But they went ahead and got married anyway because #TrueLove.
Now, her constituents may buy this backstory, but most normal people do not.
In essence, the good senator is simply a white woman pretending to be another ethnicity in order to get ahead.
Speaking of trans-racial fruitcakes, remember Rachal Dolezall? Oh, you remember Rachel! She was the blonde white chick who kinked her hair, frizzed it out, and darkened her skin to appear black. In fact, she passed herself off as black for at least a decade.
Her embarrassed family had to out her as — unfortunately — just another white woman. She continues to be a “black activist” to this day and claims that being trans-racial is actually a thing.
On March 13 in Pennsylvania’s District 18 squeaker of a special election, Conor Lamb — the Democrat who has apparently won by 585 votes — was closer to President Donald Trump on many issues than Republican Rick Saccone. In fact, he was like a mini-Trump!
Democrats can brag about the victory, but the only reason Lamb was the nominee is because this was a special election and he did not have to go through a primary process. Essentially, he was hand-picked by local party officials — who made sure to find the closest Trump replica possible without actually looking outside the Democratic Party.
In every race where Democrats can choose DINO (Democrat in Name Only) candidates who are Trump clones, they will have a chance. But when Democrats act like Democrats — or in 99 percent of other races, where George Soros/Bernie Sanders bots are winning primaries — the story will be different. On that note, if Lamb actually does vote like he ran as a candidate, he will be bounced by liberal lunatics in his first primary.
It proves yet again that Trump’s issues win elections.
And we can’t forget about Colin Kaepernick! Mr. Black Power, Mr. Mile High Afro, Mr. Citizen of the Year for GQ Magazine. That whining, spoiled brat who was adopted as an infant out of poverty by two wonderful white parents — who undoubtedly are mortified by what their son has become. And what has he become? A racist, disrespectful, useful idiot for the left. Perhaps we should call Colin “transathletic” since he is merely a radical activist pretending to be a football player.
When you add in the scores of truly confused individuals who think they are different genders and all of the other nonsense leftists shove down our throats, it’s no wonder that “Free to Be … You and Me” sounds almost quaint today.
But you won’t hear yesterday’s feminists stand up and say: “Cut it out, willya? This was never the intent of the original Women’s Movement.”
No — they never will. Because for the left, their goals begin and end with foisting their extremist, radical philosophy onto the rest of us. These people cannot be cajoled — they must be soundly defeated.
Well … soundly defeated after we mercilessly — and justifiably — mock them into submission.
Angela Box is a former teacher, devoted to the Constitution and conservatism and proud to live in Texas. A version of this article originally appeared on her blog, angelassoapbox.com.
https://www.westernjournal.com/angela-box-free-to-be-whatever-gets-me-into-harvard/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=patriottribune&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=libertyalliance
During the late 1960s, liberals began their never-ending journey of self-empowerment. The world was never the same.
In the mid-1970s, when the Hairy Armpits-n-Braless Women’s Lib Movement was in full swing, a wonderful album was made. It was called “Free to be … You and Me.” On a superficial level, its message was uplifting and positive. Equality — among men and women and people all shapes, sizes and colors! What a concept.
But even as a child, I picked up on the ridiculous propaganda littered throughout the album. There was the story about William wanting a doll and getting teased for it until his grandma bought him one — because William would grow up to be a father one day (how NON-inclusive by today’s politically correct standards!).
Or, the story of Princess Atalanta, who ran as fast as the wind. Her father set up a race for her suitors to run, and whoever won the race was to be her prince. Except, naturally, Atalanta decided to run the race as well.
Spoiler alert: Atalanta won the race, and decided that she wanted to travel the world and choose for herself whom she would marry. (Fun liberal fact: I vividly remember Alan Alda and Marlo Thomas narrating this story. Even as a child, I found them cringe-worthy and annoying.)
Of course, 1960s and 70s feminists and liberals — while certainly radical — are mild compared to today’s lunatics.
It seems to me, instead of “Free to Be … You and Me,” many leftists are bound and determined to be anything other than who God made them to be.
Case in point: the very white and highly strident Oklahoma-born, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Do you think liberals have trouble admitting or accepting who they really are?
Yes No
Pocahontas — as President Trump is wont to call her — has been accused of inventing a Native American backstory in order to capture a plum job teaching at Harvard based on those dubious credentials.
She has sputtered, hemmed and hawed, but has never proven that she’s actually Native American. In fact, a Massachusetts newspaper has offered to buy her a $99 Ancestry DNA kit to prove her heritage. I’ve done it, senator! Just spit in a tube and mail it off! It’s that simple.
Naturally, this good and honorable liberal has so far refused to prove she is a truthful person. Instead, her story goes something like this: Daddy‘s grandparents (or whatever) were Native American and Mama‘s parents didn’t want them to be married because they were white, virulent racists. But they went ahead and got married anyway because #TrueLove.
Now, her constituents may buy this backstory, but most normal people do not.
In essence, the good senator is simply a white woman pretending to be another ethnicity in order to get ahead.
Speaking of trans-racial fruitcakes, remember Rachal Dolezall? Oh, you remember Rachel! She was the blonde white chick who kinked her hair, frizzed it out, and darkened her skin to appear black. In fact, she passed herself off as black for at least a decade.
Her embarrassed family had to out her as — unfortunately — just another white woman. She continues to be a “black activist” to this day and claims that being trans-racial is actually a thing.
On March 13 in Pennsylvania’s District 18 squeaker of a special election, Conor Lamb — the Democrat who has apparently won by 585 votes — was closer to President Donald Trump on many issues than Republican Rick Saccone. In fact, he was like a mini-Trump!
Democrats can brag about the victory, but the only reason Lamb was the nominee is because this was a special election and he did not have to go through a primary process. Essentially, he was hand-picked by local party officials — who made sure to find the closest Trump replica possible without actually looking outside the Democratic Party.
In every race where Democrats can choose DINO (Democrat in Name Only) candidates who are Trump clones, they will have a chance. But when Democrats act like Democrats — or in 99 percent of other races, where George Soros/Bernie Sanders bots are winning primaries — the story will be different. On that note, if Lamb actually does vote like he ran as a candidate, he will be bounced by liberal lunatics in his first primary.
It proves yet again that Trump’s issues win elections.
And we can’t forget about Colin Kaepernick! Mr. Black Power, Mr. Mile High Afro, Mr. Citizen of the Year for GQ Magazine. That whining, spoiled brat who was adopted as an infant out of poverty by two wonderful white parents — who undoubtedly are mortified by what their son has become. And what has he become? A racist, disrespectful, useful idiot for the left. Perhaps we should call Colin “transathletic” since he is merely a radical activist pretending to be a football player.
When you add in the scores of truly confused individuals who think they are different genders and all of the other nonsense leftists shove down our throats, it’s no wonder that “Free to Be … You and Me” sounds almost quaint today.
But you won’t hear yesterday’s feminists stand up and say: “Cut it out, willya? This was never the intent of the original Women’s Movement.”
No — they never will. Because for the left, their goals begin and end with foisting their extremist, radical philosophy onto the rest of us. These people cannot be cajoled — they must be soundly defeated.
Well … soundly defeated after we mercilessly — and justifiably — mock them into submission.
Angela Box is a former teacher, devoted to the Constitution and conservatism and proud to live in Texas. A version of this article originally appeared on her blog, angelassoapbox.com.
https://www.westernjournal.com/angela-box-free-to-be-whatever-gets-me-into-harvard/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=patriottribune&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=libertyalliance
Mar 8, 2018 11:09:15 #
(Main)
SOOOOOO MANY PEOPLE THROUGHOUT OUR GOOBERMENT THINK MUELLER AND COMEY ARE SUCH WONDERFUL PEOPLE AND LAWYERS, MAYBE THIS WILL CHANGE SOME MINDS!! Not only do lawyers love to extort money from 'whomever', when connected to our Gooberment, they love to steal!!
There’s a long-running joke about the most terrifying words in the English language: “We’re from the government, and we’re here to help.”
As the FBI and two of its former directors — Robert Mueller and James Comey — look increasingly incompetent, that old wisecrack could perhaps be updated for 2018: “We’re from the government, and we’re here to investigate.”
It is now widely known that bureau officials who were directly tied to the “collusion” investigation against Donald Trump and the email security inquiry against Hillary Clinton had strong political bias against the current president.
Increasingly, it looks like that anti-Trump bias is just the tip of the iceberg. Evidence such as the discredited Russian dossier and the bombshell wiretapping memo make it clear that Comey and the entire agency began with an agenda and then worked backwards, doing whatever was necessary to make their preconceived notions seem true.
What if “wild goose chases” aren’t new to James Comey and Robert Mueller, but botching investigations and being swayed by personal views are actually old habits for the not-so-dynamic duo?
That’s the alarming conclusion that journalist Carl M. Cannon came to not long ago. While most of the media was holding up Comey and Mueller as ideal models of integrity, the executive editor of RealClearPolitics remembered very different sides of the former FBI directors.
“(The) most important factor tempering my enthusiasm for the new special prosecutor is that Comey and Mueller badly bungled the biggest case they ever handled,” Cannon explained in the Orange County Register.
He went on to outline an oft-forgotten piece of the Bush era: The anthrax case, which both Mueller and Comey were closely involved in… and quickly bungled.
“They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected 17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington’s mail system, solidified the Bush administration’s antipathy for Iraq, and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political pressure,” Cannon wrote.
Is it time for Mueller and Comey to leave the spotlight? The FBI looking incompetent and politically manipulated? You don’t say!
Early on in the investigation of anthrax-tainted letters that were sent to several government offices, experts believed that a foreign government — most likely Saddam Hussein’s Iraq — may have been behind the attack. That turned out to be a false lead, but the Mueller-led FBI continued to bumble around through a maze of incompetence for most of the investigation.
“The FBI ignored a 2002 tip from a scientific colleague of the actual anthrax killer, who turned out to be a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Edwards Ivins; the reason is that they had quickly obsessed on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill,” explained Cannon.
Just as politics and internal bias were major factors in exonerating Hillary Clinton and launching a witch-hunt against Trump, political pressure led the FBI down the wrong path in the anthrax case, with Mueller and Comey as the leaders of the farce.
“The bureau was bullied into focusing on the government scientist by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and was duped into focusing on Hatfill by two sources — a conspiracy-minded college professor with a political agenda who’d never met Hatfill and by Nicholas Kristof, who put her conspiracy theories in the paper while mocking the FBI for not arresting Hatfill,” Cannon wrote.
In the current scandal, we know that Comey’s FBI ignored evidence that the “Russian dossier” had been invented out of thin air, paid for by the DNC, and used to push wiretaps against American citizens despite being of dubious origin. Similarly, the FBI turned a blind eye to obvious evidence in the early 2000’s anthrax case, and went after an innocent man based essentially on a whim.
“Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium,” explained the Orange County Register piece.
“So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters,” journalist Cannon stated.
That isn’t slang. Actual bloodhounds were brought in to “solve” the crime, based on the vague promises of a dog handler who had already been debunked in several other cases.
“These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them,” explained Cannon. “When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d ‘alerted’ on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.”
It is on this flimsy “evidence” that the FBI essentially destroyed the life of an innocent man.
“In a news conference in August 2002, Dr. Hatfill tearfully denied that he had anything to do with the anthrax letters and said irresponsible news media coverage based on government leaks had destroyed his reputation,” The New York Times reported in 2008.
That ruined life was largely thanks to Comey and Mueller’s arrogance despite almost no evidence. “Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured (Attorney General) Ashcroft … that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man,” summarized Cannon.
“Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell — the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was ‘absolutely certain’ they weren’t making a mistake.”
Comey’s “absolute certainty” was dead wrong. The true criminal — Bruce Ivins — ended up committing suicide before authorities could catch him. It took years and a major lawsuit for the wrongly-accused Steven Hatfill to finally clear his own name.
“The Justice Department announced Friday that it would pay $4.6 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Steven J. Hatfill,” stated the New York Times in 2008, some seven years after the botched investigation began.
“Dr. Hatfill’s lawsuit, filed in 2003, accused FBI agents and Justice Department officials involved in the criminal investigation of the anthrax mailings of leaking information about him to the news media in violation of the Privacy Act,” continued the Times. Sound familiar?
A written statement from Hatfill and his legal team a decade ago could be an eerie warning of Mueller and Comey’s involvement in politically-motivated scandals.
“We can only hope that the individuals and institutions involved are sufficiently chastened by this episode to deter similar destruction of private citizens in the future — and that we will all read anonymously sourced news reports with a great deal more skepticism,” the 2008 statement said.
It seems Robert Mueller and James Comey are still on the same fool’s errands, only they’ve replaced anonymously sourced news reports with poorly written, shady dossiers.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. One piece at a time, an alarming picture of the Obama-era FBI is starting to appear. Comey and Mueller are right in the middle, and they may not be the paragons of virtue or professionalism that we were led to believe.
https://conservativetribune.com/mueller-comey-botched-anthrax/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=patriottribune&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=libertyalliance
There’s a long-running joke about the most terrifying words in the English language: “We’re from the government, and we’re here to help.”
As the FBI and two of its former directors — Robert Mueller and James Comey — look increasingly incompetent, that old wisecrack could perhaps be updated for 2018: “We’re from the government, and we’re here to investigate.”
It is now widely known that bureau officials who were directly tied to the “collusion” investigation against Donald Trump and the email security inquiry against Hillary Clinton had strong political bias against the current president.
Increasingly, it looks like that anti-Trump bias is just the tip of the iceberg. Evidence such as the discredited Russian dossier and the bombshell wiretapping memo make it clear that Comey and the entire agency began with an agenda and then worked backwards, doing whatever was necessary to make their preconceived notions seem true.
What if “wild goose chases” aren’t new to James Comey and Robert Mueller, but botching investigations and being swayed by personal views are actually old habits for the not-so-dynamic duo?
That’s the alarming conclusion that journalist Carl M. Cannon came to not long ago. While most of the media was holding up Comey and Mueller as ideal models of integrity, the executive editor of RealClearPolitics remembered very different sides of the former FBI directors.
“(The) most important factor tempering my enthusiasm for the new special prosecutor is that Comey and Mueller badly bungled the biggest case they ever handled,” Cannon explained in the Orange County Register.
He went on to outline an oft-forgotten piece of the Bush era: The anthrax case, which both Mueller and Comey were closely involved in… and quickly bungled.
“They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected 17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington’s mail system, solidified the Bush administration’s antipathy for Iraq, and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political pressure,” Cannon wrote.
Is it time for Mueller and Comey to leave the spotlight? The FBI looking incompetent and politically manipulated? You don’t say!
Early on in the investigation of anthrax-tainted letters that were sent to several government offices, experts believed that a foreign government — most likely Saddam Hussein’s Iraq — may have been behind the attack. That turned out to be a false lead, but the Mueller-led FBI continued to bumble around through a maze of incompetence for most of the investigation.
“The FBI ignored a 2002 tip from a scientific colleague of the actual anthrax killer, who turned out to be a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Edwards Ivins; the reason is that they had quickly obsessed on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill,” explained Cannon.
Just as politics and internal bias were major factors in exonerating Hillary Clinton and launching a witch-hunt against Trump, political pressure led the FBI down the wrong path in the anthrax case, with Mueller and Comey as the leaders of the farce.
“The bureau was bullied into focusing on the government scientist by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and was duped into focusing on Hatfill by two sources — a conspiracy-minded college professor with a political agenda who’d never met Hatfill and by Nicholas Kristof, who put her conspiracy theories in the paper while mocking the FBI for not arresting Hatfill,” Cannon wrote.
In the current scandal, we know that Comey’s FBI ignored evidence that the “Russian dossier” had been invented out of thin air, paid for by the DNC, and used to push wiretaps against American citizens despite being of dubious origin. Similarly, the FBI turned a blind eye to obvious evidence in the early 2000’s anthrax case, and went after an innocent man based essentially on a whim.
“Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium,” explained the Orange County Register piece.
“So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters,” journalist Cannon stated.
That isn’t slang. Actual bloodhounds were brought in to “solve” the crime, based on the vague promises of a dog handler who had already been debunked in several other cases.
“These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them,” explained Cannon. “When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d ‘alerted’ on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.”
It is on this flimsy “evidence” that the FBI essentially destroyed the life of an innocent man.
“In a news conference in August 2002, Dr. Hatfill tearfully denied that he had anything to do with the anthrax letters and said irresponsible news media coverage based on government leaks had destroyed his reputation,” The New York Times reported in 2008.
That ruined life was largely thanks to Comey and Mueller’s arrogance despite almost no evidence. “Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured (Attorney General) Ashcroft … that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man,” summarized Cannon.
“Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell — the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was ‘absolutely certain’ they weren’t making a mistake.”
Comey’s “absolute certainty” was dead wrong. The true criminal — Bruce Ivins — ended up committing suicide before authorities could catch him. It took years and a major lawsuit for the wrongly-accused Steven Hatfill to finally clear his own name.
“The Justice Department announced Friday that it would pay $4.6 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Steven J. Hatfill,” stated the New York Times in 2008, some seven years after the botched investigation began.
“Dr. Hatfill’s lawsuit, filed in 2003, accused FBI agents and Justice Department officials involved in the criminal investigation of the anthrax mailings of leaking information about him to the news media in violation of the Privacy Act,” continued the Times. Sound familiar?
A written statement from Hatfill and his legal team a decade ago could be an eerie warning of Mueller and Comey’s involvement in politically-motivated scandals.
“We can only hope that the individuals and institutions involved are sufficiently chastened by this episode to deter similar destruction of private citizens in the future — and that we will all read anonymously sourced news reports with a great deal more skepticism,” the 2008 statement said.
It seems Robert Mueller and James Comey are still on the same fool’s errands, only they’ve replaced anonymously sourced news reports with poorly written, shady dossiers.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. One piece at a time, an alarming picture of the Obama-era FBI is starting to appear. Comey and Mueller are right in the middle, and they may not be the paragons of virtue or professionalism that we were led to believe.
https://conservativetribune.com/mueller-comey-botched-anthrax/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=patriottribune&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=libertyalliance
Mar 3, 2018 13:53:12 #
(Main)
What a bunch of BULLSHIT!!
Nickolai wrote:
He filled the swamp but they are mostly all gone now and Jared Kushner and Ivanka will be gone soon too. Hope Hicks will be gone soon and all his confidants will be gone soon and he will himself will be gone soon the whole thing has been a disaster and the whole sad story will be revealed soon
Mar 3, 2018 13:49:11 #
Feb 27, 2018 16:52:41 #
(Main)
JUST MORE PROOF THE PERVERTED LEFT ANTI PUNKS ARE BEING PAID TO BE STUPID.....IT'S NOT GUNS FOLKS, IT'S STUPID PEOPLE!!
The media loves to report on crimes committed with guns – but seldom when they’re used in self defense.
Even when the media does report on self-defensive gun usage, they create an absurd standard to make self-defense cases appear minuscule. In the New York Times, columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote, “It is true that guns are occasionally used to stop violence. But contrary to what the National Rifle Association suggests, this is rare. One study by the Violence Policy Center found that in 2012 there were 259 justifiable homicides by a private citizen using a firearm.”
He does realize that you can use a gun in self-defense without killing a person, correct? There are roughly 10,000 firearm homicides per year, but over 100,000 people shot every year, so one death per ten people actually shot. And, in most cases, brandishing a firearm alone is enough to do the trick. According to one study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in 1995, only 8% of people who use a gun for defense “report wounding an adversary.”
The purpose of owning a firearm isn’t to kill criminals – it’s to deter them. And how much of a deterrent are they? Here’s a sampling of the studies available, and what they’ve found:
The aforementioned 1995 paper was based on a survey of 4,977 households, and found that at least 0.5% of households over the previous five years had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” Applied to the U.S. population using standard scientific methods, this amounts to at least 162,000 saved lives per year, excluding all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.” This is obviously an absurdly high figure, but even if ten percent of those who were “certain they would’ve been killed” are correct, the number of lives saved by guns outnumbers the number of homicides committed with them.
A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
In 2013, President Obama ordered the Department of Health and Human Services and CDC to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.” The study was devastating for the gun control cause, and found that:
“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed….”
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million….”
[S]ome scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey,” but this “estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”
If Obama’s CDC couldn’t find evidence that gun control works, who else can?
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/gun-self-defense/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=criticalimpact&utm_campaign=TPI_Afternoon_Newsletter_2_27_2018&utm_content=1618d0568d4f0b4aa6473c7b9fa19141&source=CI
The media loves to report on crimes committed with guns – but seldom when they’re used in self defense.
Even when the media does report on self-defensive gun usage, they create an absurd standard to make self-defense cases appear minuscule. In the New York Times, columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote, “It is true that guns are occasionally used to stop violence. But contrary to what the National Rifle Association suggests, this is rare. One study by the Violence Policy Center found that in 2012 there were 259 justifiable homicides by a private citizen using a firearm.”
He does realize that you can use a gun in self-defense without killing a person, correct? There are roughly 10,000 firearm homicides per year, but over 100,000 people shot every year, so one death per ten people actually shot. And, in most cases, brandishing a firearm alone is enough to do the trick. According to one study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in 1995, only 8% of people who use a gun for defense “report wounding an adversary.”
The purpose of owning a firearm isn’t to kill criminals – it’s to deter them. And how much of a deterrent are they? Here’s a sampling of the studies available, and what they’ve found:
The aforementioned 1995 paper was based on a survey of 4,977 households, and found that at least 0.5% of households over the previous five years had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” Applied to the U.S. population using standard scientific methods, this amounts to at least 162,000 saved lives per year, excluding all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.” This is obviously an absurdly high figure, but even if ten percent of those who were “certain they would’ve been killed” are correct, the number of lives saved by guns outnumbers the number of homicides committed with them.
A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
In 2013, President Obama ordered the Department of Health and Human Services and CDC to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.” The study was devastating for the gun control cause, and found that:
“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed….”
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million….”
[S]ome scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey,” but this “estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”
If Obama’s CDC couldn’t find evidence that gun control works, who else can?
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/gun-self-defense/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=criticalimpact&utm_campaign=TPI_Afternoon_Newsletter_2_27_2018&utm_content=1618d0568d4f0b4aa6473c7b9fa19141&source=CI
Check out topic: SRM or Cloud Manipulation will destroy 30% of the population.
Feb 27, 2018 16:29:02 #
(Main)
SO TRUMP WOULD NOT ENTER A SCHOOL SHOOTING AND CONFRONT THE SHOOTER......NOW, I BELIEVE OBUMER WOULD HAVE SHIT IN IS PANTS!!
A story from the early ’90s has resurfaced, involving Donald Trump stopping an active and violent mugging on the side of a New York City street, just hours after liberals mocked him for suggesting he would have run into the Florida high school where 17 people were killed.
The President earlier this week was responding to reports that Broward County deputies and a school resource officer remained outside the Parkland school, hiding behind vehicles while the onslaught took place at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High.
“You don’t know until you test it, but I think, I really believe I’d run in there, even if I didn’t have a weapon,” Trump stated. “And I think most of the people in this room would have done that too.”
Naturally, liberals didn’t think the President could have ever engaged in such a heroic act and the mockery ensued.
Tonight at 11/10c, Trevor imagines the totally likely scenario of Donald Trump running into a school shooting unarmed. pic.twitter.com/nCCsvfNVJy
— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) February 27, 2018
Seth MacFarlane showed a clip of Trump shying away from an ornery eagle as proof that he’d never run into the building … or something.
Trump: “I really believe I’d run in there even if I didn’t have a weapon.” pic.twitter.com/sJshZ4rN94
— Seth MacFarlane (@SethMacFarlane) February 26, 2018
But a story from 1991 resurfaced in the wake of the liberal jokes, and it involves Donald Trump witnessing a violent crime and running toward it, even though he didn’t have a weapon – exactly as he had claimed he would do today.
In the article printed by the New York Daily News, somebody in the former real estate mogul’s limo noticed the mugging, to which Trump told his driver “stop the car because it was brutal-looking.”
The assailant had a baseball bat. Trump had, well … Trump.
People are mocking Trump for saying he’d run into the school to stop the shooter today… BUT in 1991, he had his driver pull over his car to run out of it to stop a mugging.
From the New York Daily News: pic.twitter.com/zJO3ZTpqqo
— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) February 27, 2018
“The guy with the bat looked at me, and I said, ‘Look, you’ve gotta stop this. Put down the bat,'” Trump told the reporter, who found out about the story through his own research. “I guess he recognized me because he said, ‘Mr. Trump, I didn’t do anything wrong.’ I said, ‘How could you not do anything wrong when you’re whacking a guy with a bat?’ Then he ran away.”
The future president had no way of knowing whether the man he was confronting had a weapon other than the bat. He had no way of knowing he wouldn’t use the bat on him.
He just ran after him, ‘even though he didn’t have a weapon.’
And just like that, those liberal jokes and another narrative went down the drain.
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/trump-mugging/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=criticalimpact&utm_campaign=TPI_Afternoon_Newsletter_2_27_2018&utm_content=1618d0568d4f0b4aa6473c7b9fa19141&source=CI
A story from the early ’90s has resurfaced, involving Donald Trump stopping an active and violent mugging on the side of a New York City street, just hours after liberals mocked him for suggesting he would have run into the Florida high school where 17 people were killed.
The President earlier this week was responding to reports that Broward County deputies and a school resource officer remained outside the Parkland school, hiding behind vehicles while the onslaught took place at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High.
“You don’t know until you test it, but I think, I really believe I’d run in there, even if I didn’t have a weapon,” Trump stated. “And I think most of the people in this room would have done that too.”
Naturally, liberals didn’t think the President could have ever engaged in such a heroic act and the mockery ensued.
Tonight at 11/10c, Trevor imagines the totally likely scenario of Donald Trump running into a school shooting unarmed. pic.twitter.com/nCCsvfNVJy
— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) February 27, 2018
Seth MacFarlane showed a clip of Trump shying away from an ornery eagle as proof that he’d never run into the building … or something.
Trump: “I really believe I’d run in there even if I didn’t have a weapon.” pic.twitter.com/sJshZ4rN94
— Seth MacFarlane (@SethMacFarlane) February 26, 2018
But a story from 1991 resurfaced in the wake of the liberal jokes, and it involves Donald Trump witnessing a violent crime and running toward it, even though he didn’t have a weapon – exactly as he had claimed he would do today.
In the article printed by the New York Daily News, somebody in the former real estate mogul’s limo noticed the mugging, to which Trump told his driver “stop the car because it was brutal-looking.”
The assailant had a baseball bat. Trump had, well … Trump.
People are mocking Trump for saying he’d run into the school to stop the shooter today… BUT in 1991, he had his driver pull over his car to run out of it to stop a mugging.
From the New York Daily News: pic.twitter.com/zJO3ZTpqqo
— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) February 27, 2018
“The guy with the bat looked at me, and I said, ‘Look, you’ve gotta stop this. Put down the bat,'” Trump told the reporter, who found out about the story through his own research. “I guess he recognized me because he said, ‘Mr. Trump, I didn’t do anything wrong.’ I said, ‘How could you not do anything wrong when you’re whacking a guy with a bat?’ Then he ran away.”
The future president had no way of knowing whether the man he was confronting had a weapon other than the bat. He had no way of knowing he wouldn’t use the bat on him.
He just ran after him, ‘even though he didn’t have a weapon.’
And just like that, those liberal jokes and another narrative went down the drain.
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/trump-mugging/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=criticalimpact&utm_campaign=TPI_Afternoon_Newsletter_2_27_2018&utm_content=1618d0568d4f0b4aa6473c7b9fa19141&source=CI
Feb 25, 2018 23:22:27 #
(Main)
Don’t let the media sell you some sob story about how we need more gun control in this country. This is all about corrupt politicians and money.
HERE IS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SHOOTING IN FLORIDA AND IT'S NOT ABOUT GUNS. PLEASE PASS THIS ON!!
YOU MUST GO TO THE PROVIDED LINK FOR ALL THE PROOF!!!!
For the last week or so, the entire nation has been talking about gun control — or at least the media has been talking about it.
The sudden tsunami of gun control stories, articles, op-eds, and segments is the result of the terrible mass shooting that took place at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in beautiful Parkland, Florida.
Sadly, the focus on gun control has caused the media (and the people who get their news from the media) to miss the far-larger scandal revolving around Douglas High School.
First, let me be clear; I’m not talking about the scandal of four police officers being on scene when the shooting begins, but who chose to do NOTHING while waiting outside for backup. This is a scandal in and of itself, no doubt, and it should be investigated. The police force that allowed this to happen should be shamed for it. The shooting could, and should, have been far less bloody if only these officers had done what their community expects of them.
Secondly, this isn’t about the scandal unfolding at the FBI, who knew of Nikolas Cruz and his grotesque desires for mayhem and violence. This isn’t even (entirely) about the failure of policing that took place in the months and years before the shooting – a time period that saw local police visit Nikolas Cruz 39 different times for various episodes of violence and criminality.
And finally, it isn’t about how a troubled young man, so clearly mentally and emotionally distressed, ran afoul of the law so often, but was still somehow able to pass a background check to purchase his firearm.
No, this piece is about how, at every level, the government failed us by not enforcing our laws or even abiding by simple, logical standards of behavior.
Before I launch into this, let me give credit to the folks at The Last Refuge who write at the Conservative Treehouse and did much of the legwork on this story long before the shooting at Douglas High School. In fact, the Last Refuge was investigating this story years ago, in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting. I was able to independently confirm much of what the Last Refuge reported (see his Twitter thread on this story here) when I spoke, on condition of anonymity, with several sources, one of whom works in the central office of the Broward School District.
The scandal that the media is ignoring, but is probably the most important part of this story, involves the Broward County School District and local police agencies colluding to lay the foundation of the Douglas High School tragedy.
What do I mean?
The story all began about 6 years ago in Miami-Dade County (the county just South of Broward), where the school district was struggling to succeed. All of the data painted a picture of a failing school district. The district noticed that large portions of their school populations were being arrested at a higher proportion than the rest of their community, and they realized that if they could cut down on the criminality of their students, they could quickly improve the data coming out of their schools
With this in mind, the district entered into a relationship with their local police force and concluded a deal that would ensure the police would stop arresting so many of their students.
Within a year or two, surrounding communities began to notice the change in Miami-Dade’s fortunes (which included a new influx of money), and Broward County decided that it was time they entered into a similar deal with their local police force.
The Broward County School Board and District Superintendent entered into a political agreement with Broward County Law enforcement officials to stop arresting students for crimes.
The motive was simple. The school system administrators wanted to “improve their statistics” and gain state and federal grant money for improvements therein.
It’s important to remember that this was not an arbitrary change; this was a well-planned fundamental shift in the entire dynamic of how teenagers would be treated when they engaged in criminal conduct.
Broward Co Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline - MOU by The Conservative Treehouse on Scribd
I’m sure that you probably already see the problem with the police in South Florida entering into these deals with their local school districts.
In a very real way, the new policies made public school students above the law. These policies conflicted with laws that police officers had been long-trained to follow, but now it allowed students to act as they wished, without fear of the consequences.
At first, the police were only “excusing” misdemeanors, but soon they were also “excusing” felonies, including violent crimes like assault, armed robberies, and worse.
You can obviously see how this would cause problems, but it’s worse than you think. Once the system seemed to be “working,” the district needed the police to continue lowering arrests year-over-year, which meant that the police were being forced to excuse ever more severe criminal acts.
From the TheLastRefuge:
“Over time, even the most severe of unlawful conduct was being filtered by responding police.
We found out about it when six cops blew the whistle on severe criminal conduct they were being instructed to hide. The sheriff and police Chiefs were telling street cops and school cops to ignore ever-worsening criminal conduct.
The police were in a bind. They were encountering evidence of criminal conduct, and yet they had to hide the conduct. There were examples of burglary and robbery where the police had to hide the recovered evidence in order to let the kids get away without reports.
The police would take the stolen merchandise and intentionally falsify police records to record stolen merchandise *as if* they just found it on the side of the road.
They put drugs and stolen merchandise in bags, and sent it to storage rooms in the police department. Never assigning the recovery to criminal conduct. Stolen merchandise was just sitting in storage rooms gathering dust.
They couldn’t get the stuff back to the victim because that would mean the police would have to explain how they took custody of it. So they just hid it. To prove this was happening one of the officers told me where to look, and who the victim was…”
According to TheLastRefuge, an internal investigation was carried out, but the results were buried, because what it found was not politically or economically expedient for the county.
Broward County Sheriff’s Office Did Not “Miss Warning Signs” or Make “Mistakes”…
— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) February 23, 2018
In the years following, youth crime in Miami-Dade and Broward steadily grew worse. An odd quota system developed, and once a certain number of High School students had been arrested in the county, leadership would make sure that other crimes committed would be excused.
To make matters worse (as if this wasn’t bad enough), South Florida’s gangs quickly caught on to the scheme and began using high school students to commit more of their crimes. They also began planning their biggest, most important activities later in the month, later in the quarter, and at times when schools were collecting their data for reporting. In this way, the gangs could take advantage of committing their crimes at the time when the police would be most likely to give their high school aged members a pass.
Now we’re getting closer to how all of this led to the Douglas High School shooting.
With the intricate nature of the relationship between the police and the schools, it became vital that the School Resource Officers (SROs) placed at the schools understood how the symbiotic relationship between the district and the police was supposed to work. They needed SROs who were adept at ensuring the criminal activities of their students would not be reported as crimes and endanger the district’s political and financial fortunes.
This is likely why the much-demonized SRO Scot Petersen (who infamously stood outside of the school while the massacre was in progress), likely refused to share information on the shooter with social services back in 2016.
The sheriff’s deputy who did “nothing” while Nikolas Cruz killed seventeen people also refused to share information on Cruz with state social services during a 2016 investigation into his home life.
— Scott Bixby (@scottbix) February 23, 2018
These problems with the SROs in South Florida are not something new. There have been other investigations that uncovered their questionable behavior, but again it wasn’t convenient to end the practice.
In the wake of the Douglas High School shooting, these problems should be too big to hide.
Sadly, instead of covering the ongoing corruption of the law that has been happening in Miami-Dade and Broward counties since 2012, the media has chosen to focus their fire on gun control.
Instead of worrying about guns, the media should be asking how could local police pay 39 different visits (Broward Police claim it was “only” 23 visits) to one student without that student ever spending significant time in prison or a psychiatric ward. They should be asking why the local police wouldn’t share information about this high school kid with social services or other law enforcement agencies.
The truth is that our laws and law enforcement procedures were enough to stop the Douglas High School shooting before it ever happened, but because of the corruption sowed by the Broward County School District and local police leaders, those laws and procedures were ignored.
If the procedures (and laws) had been followed, Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a gun. He would have likely already been incarcerated, and he never would have had the opportunity to kill 17 people.
This case isn’t about guns. And the answer isn’t more gun control.
This case is about school districts lying to their families in an effort to get more money and more political influence. It’s about local police forces being willing to ignore crime and refusing to abide by the laws that they promised they would uphold. It’s about government failures at every level and how that corruption and failure led to the death of 17 innocent people.
Don’t let the media sell you some sob story about how we need more gun control in this country. This is all about corrupt politicians and money.
Article posted with permission from Constitution.com
https://freedomoutpost.com/school-shooting-plot-exposed-wont-believe-set/
HERE IS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SHOOTING IN FLORIDA AND IT'S NOT ABOUT GUNS. PLEASE PASS THIS ON!!
YOU MUST GO TO THE PROVIDED LINK FOR ALL THE PROOF!!!!
For the last week or so, the entire nation has been talking about gun control — or at least the media has been talking about it.
The sudden tsunami of gun control stories, articles, op-eds, and segments is the result of the terrible mass shooting that took place at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in beautiful Parkland, Florida.
Sadly, the focus on gun control has caused the media (and the people who get their news from the media) to miss the far-larger scandal revolving around Douglas High School.
First, let me be clear; I’m not talking about the scandal of four police officers being on scene when the shooting begins, but who chose to do NOTHING while waiting outside for backup. This is a scandal in and of itself, no doubt, and it should be investigated. The police force that allowed this to happen should be shamed for it. The shooting could, and should, have been far less bloody if only these officers had done what their community expects of them.
Secondly, this isn’t about the scandal unfolding at the FBI, who knew of Nikolas Cruz and his grotesque desires for mayhem and violence. This isn’t even (entirely) about the failure of policing that took place in the months and years before the shooting – a time period that saw local police visit Nikolas Cruz 39 different times for various episodes of violence and criminality.
And finally, it isn’t about how a troubled young man, so clearly mentally and emotionally distressed, ran afoul of the law so often, but was still somehow able to pass a background check to purchase his firearm.
No, this piece is about how, at every level, the government failed us by not enforcing our laws or even abiding by simple, logical standards of behavior.
Before I launch into this, let me give credit to the folks at The Last Refuge who write at the Conservative Treehouse and did much of the legwork on this story long before the shooting at Douglas High School. In fact, the Last Refuge was investigating this story years ago, in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting. I was able to independently confirm much of what the Last Refuge reported (see his Twitter thread on this story here) when I spoke, on condition of anonymity, with several sources, one of whom works in the central office of the Broward School District.
The scandal that the media is ignoring, but is probably the most important part of this story, involves the Broward County School District and local police agencies colluding to lay the foundation of the Douglas High School tragedy.
What do I mean?
The story all began about 6 years ago in Miami-Dade County (the county just South of Broward), where the school district was struggling to succeed. All of the data painted a picture of a failing school district. The district noticed that large portions of their school populations were being arrested at a higher proportion than the rest of their community, and they realized that if they could cut down on the criminality of their students, they could quickly improve the data coming out of their schools
With this in mind, the district entered into a relationship with their local police force and concluded a deal that would ensure the police would stop arresting so many of their students.
Within a year or two, surrounding communities began to notice the change in Miami-Dade’s fortunes (which included a new influx of money), and Broward County decided that it was time they entered into a similar deal with their local police force.
The Broward County School Board and District Superintendent entered into a political agreement with Broward County Law enforcement officials to stop arresting students for crimes.
The motive was simple. The school system administrators wanted to “improve their statistics” and gain state and federal grant money for improvements therein.
It’s important to remember that this was not an arbitrary change; this was a well-planned fundamental shift in the entire dynamic of how teenagers would be treated when they engaged in criminal conduct.
Broward Co Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline - MOU by The Conservative Treehouse on Scribd
I’m sure that you probably already see the problem with the police in South Florida entering into these deals with their local school districts.
In a very real way, the new policies made public school students above the law. These policies conflicted with laws that police officers had been long-trained to follow, but now it allowed students to act as they wished, without fear of the consequences.
At first, the police were only “excusing” misdemeanors, but soon they were also “excusing” felonies, including violent crimes like assault, armed robberies, and worse.
You can obviously see how this would cause problems, but it’s worse than you think. Once the system seemed to be “working,” the district needed the police to continue lowering arrests year-over-year, which meant that the police were being forced to excuse ever more severe criminal acts.
From the TheLastRefuge:
“Over time, even the most severe of unlawful conduct was being filtered by responding police.
We found out about it when six cops blew the whistle on severe criminal conduct they were being instructed to hide. The sheriff and police Chiefs were telling street cops and school cops to ignore ever-worsening criminal conduct.
The police were in a bind. They were encountering evidence of criminal conduct, and yet they had to hide the conduct. There were examples of burglary and robbery where the police had to hide the recovered evidence in order to let the kids get away without reports.
The police would take the stolen merchandise and intentionally falsify police records to record stolen merchandise *as if* they just found it on the side of the road.
They put drugs and stolen merchandise in bags, and sent it to storage rooms in the police department. Never assigning the recovery to criminal conduct. Stolen merchandise was just sitting in storage rooms gathering dust.
They couldn’t get the stuff back to the victim because that would mean the police would have to explain how they took custody of it. So they just hid it. To prove this was happening one of the officers told me where to look, and who the victim was…”
According to TheLastRefuge, an internal investigation was carried out, but the results were buried, because what it found was not politically or economically expedient for the county.
Broward County Sheriff’s Office Did Not “Miss Warning Signs” or Make “Mistakes”…
— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) February 23, 2018
In the years following, youth crime in Miami-Dade and Broward steadily grew worse. An odd quota system developed, and once a certain number of High School students had been arrested in the county, leadership would make sure that other crimes committed would be excused.
To make matters worse (as if this wasn’t bad enough), South Florida’s gangs quickly caught on to the scheme and began using high school students to commit more of their crimes. They also began planning their biggest, most important activities later in the month, later in the quarter, and at times when schools were collecting their data for reporting. In this way, the gangs could take advantage of committing their crimes at the time when the police would be most likely to give their high school aged members a pass.
Now we’re getting closer to how all of this led to the Douglas High School shooting.
With the intricate nature of the relationship between the police and the schools, it became vital that the School Resource Officers (SROs) placed at the schools understood how the symbiotic relationship between the district and the police was supposed to work. They needed SROs who were adept at ensuring the criminal activities of their students would not be reported as crimes and endanger the district’s political and financial fortunes.
This is likely why the much-demonized SRO Scot Petersen (who infamously stood outside of the school while the massacre was in progress), likely refused to share information on the shooter with social services back in 2016.
The sheriff’s deputy who did “nothing” while Nikolas Cruz killed seventeen people also refused to share information on Cruz with state social services during a 2016 investigation into his home life.
— Scott Bixby (@scottbix) February 23, 2018
These problems with the SROs in South Florida are not something new. There have been other investigations that uncovered their questionable behavior, but again it wasn’t convenient to end the practice.
In the wake of the Douglas High School shooting, these problems should be too big to hide.
Sadly, instead of covering the ongoing corruption of the law that has been happening in Miami-Dade and Broward counties since 2012, the media has chosen to focus their fire on gun control.
Instead of worrying about guns, the media should be asking how could local police pay 39 different visits (Broward Police claim it was “only” 23 visits) to one student without that student ever spending significant time in prison or a psychiatric ward. They should be asking why the local police wouldn’t share information about this high school kid with social services or other law enforcement agencies.
The truth is that our laws and law enforcement procedures were enough to stop the Douglas High School shooting before it ever happened, but because of the corruption sowed by the Broward County School District and local police leaders, those laws and procedures were ignored.
If the procedures (and laws) had been followed, Cruz would have never been allowed to purchase a gun. He would have likely already been incarcerated, and he never would have had the opportunity to kill 17 people.
This case isn’t about guns. And the answer isn’t more gun control.
This case is about school districts lying to their families in an effort to get more money and more political influence. It’s about local police forces being willing to ignore crime and refusing to abide by the laws that they promised they would uphold. It’s about government failures at every level and how that corruption and failure led to the death of 17 innocent people.
Don’t let the media sell you some sob story about how we need more gun control in this country. This is all about corrupt politicians and money.
Article posted with permission from Constitution.com
https://freedomoutpost.com/school-shooting-plot-exposed-wont-believe-set/
Feb 19, 2018 10:27:56 #
(Main)
Forgive my forwardness, but I know what could radically reduce gun violence on U.S. school campuses without adding more gun regulations, placing more restrictions on the mentally ill, outlawing guns or even involving Washington, D.C. And I bet it could be enacted sooner than any other proposed remedy.
Before I share that rather simple but sincere remedy and strategy â one that is so obvious that it eludes even the most astute politician steeped in partisan politics right now â my heart is aching to convey our condolences from the Norris ranch.
My wife, Gena, and I join the rest of the nation in sending our most heartfelt and deepest sympathy to the Florida victims of this weekâs school shooting. The mere mention of the names and ages of those who have fallen brings tears to our eyes even now:
Alyssa Alhadeff, 14
Scott Beigel, 35
Martin Duque, 14
Nicholas Dworet, 17
Aaron Feis, 37
Jaime Guttenberg, 14
Chris Hixon, 49
Luke Hoyer, 15
Cara Loughran, 14
Gina Montalto, 14
Joaquin Oliver, 17
Alaina Petty, 14
Meadow Pollack, 18
Helena Ramsey, 17
Alex Schachter, 14
Carmen Schentrup, 16
Peter Wang, 15
We pray for everyone who was and is affected by this horrific, barbaric criminal act, particularly the families and friends of the slain. Words canât express the grief, horror and outrage we also feel and are now going to harness for good in this column and in fighting for a better future. The fallen will not have fallen in vain!
What will stop this string of heinous mass murders on our school campuses? At this point, we shouldnât fear looking at anything and everything that can protect and save our children, including our greatest biases on the issue.
Letâs start by taking the most obvious step as our first step. Itâs one everyone (Republican, Democrat, independent, old and young) should be able to support.
What would you do if someone kept breaking into your house? What would you do if someone kept threatening â even worse, killing â your loved ones inside when they werenât expecting it? What would you do? You would do whatever is necessary to save them, right? At very least, you would likely start by bolstering and further safeguarding your entrances, right?
We as a country need to do what Israel did: The Holy Land mandated armed guards at the entrances to all schools in 1995, and those guards are backed by local law enforcement and special police forces. While these school defenses are primarily intended to thwart terrorists, they also deter any would-be criminals who would cause harm to children.
Chuck Norris provides real solutions to our countyâs problems and a way to reawaken the American dream in his best-seller, âBlack Belt Patriotism.â
Israeli schools have only suffered from two shootings in the past 40 years: one in 1974 (22 children and three adults) and another in 2008 (eight youth).
True, Israel has fewer guns per capita than the U.S., but itâs also a tiny country with virtually no opportunity for hunting or other recreational use of firearms. Anti-gun advocates love to point out that there are only about 500,000 weapons that are privately owned in Israel, but thatâs in a country (area) that is only about one-fifteenth the size of California or one-twenty-fifth the size of Texas. (To read more about Israelâs exemplary model, please read my column âIsrael: Americaâs model for reducing violent crime.â)
Twenty-eight years ago, in 1990, then-Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., introduced the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 into the Senate, and it prohibited âany unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a loaded or unsecured firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.â It was passed by Congress and signed by President George H.W. Bush.
Ninety-eight percent of U.S. public mass shootings occur in gun-free zones â the Florida school being one of them, according to the Crime Prevention Resource Center.
If I were the president or a member of Congress, I would work immediately to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act, to free local communities to better protect their children. But, in almost half the states of our union, we donât need to wait for Washington or our stateâs capitols to bring about needed change to protect our kids.
As even NBC News had to report: âThe Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 prohibits anyone from having a firearm in a school zone. But that law includes the same exception recognized [in 17 U.S. states]: It doesnât apply if the weapons are âapproved by a school in the school zone.'â
Iâm sure many would be surprised right now to learn that 17 states allow adults or teachers to carry a loaded gun on school grounds, generally provided that they have written permission from a principal or the school board.
Those 17 states include:
Alabama (which bans possessing a weapon on school grounds only if the carrier has âintent to do bodily harmâ)
Connecticut (with approval of âschool officialsâ)
Hawaii (no specific law)
Idaho (with school trusteesâ approval)
Iowa (with âauthorizationâ)
Kentucky (with school board approval)
Massachusetts (with approval of the school board or principal)
Mississippi (with school board approval)
Montana (with school trusteesâ permission)
New Hampshire (ban applies only to pupils, not adults)
New Jersey (with approval from the schoolâs âgoverning officerâ)
New York (with the schoolâs approval)
Oregon (with school board approval)
Rhode Island (with a state concealed weapons permit)
Texas (with the schoolâs permission)
Utah (with approval of the âresponsible school administratorâ)
Wyoming (as long as itâs not concealed)
California was included on the above list until Jan. 1, 2018, when liberal Gov. Jerry Brown enacted AB424, which removed the superintendentsâ rights to approve someone carrying a concealed gun on campus. So what this means is, California schools have just made it easier for gun-wielding sociopaths to commit mass murder at schools. Unbelievable!
Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, Florida is also not on the list. But imagine if the Sunshine State were. Imagine if one of the coaches, who also served as security personnel at the school, could have shielded and defended the students with bullets rather than their bodies. Imagine how many murdered kids might still be alive. Imagine how the coachesâ own lives could have gone on and continued to encourage young people.
Iâm not advocating here that every teacher or coach carry or obtain a concealed permit, though 81 percent of U.S. law enforcement officials think teachers and principals should be. Iâm simply advocating here that we start the journey out of this national black hole of campus bullets by immediately working in every community and state to post active guards at the front of every school every weekday.
Sponsored
Hillary's Entire "Hit List" Just Went Public. You'll Never Guess Who's #1
Can any teacher, principal or parent give me good reason why they wouldnât work to secure armed entrance security at their local schools as soon as possible, especially in light of at least five school shootings that have occurred across America since the turn of the year (not 18 as falsely reported this week by mainstream media)?
Who among our fine law enforcement or military personnel (in any branch) wouldnât consider it their greatest duty and honor to take a paid or volunteer shift as a guard in front of our schools protecting those precious souls?
I find it absolute lunacy and abhorring that we protect with a gun every important institution and person of notoriety across the country, but we leave U.S. children â our national treasures â to be prey of the predators of gun-free zones where children all gather in mass for nearly eight hours a day.
Consider this photo post a friend sent me the other day comparing the places and people we post guards:
gun-free
We even have armed guards now in front of many grocery stores and restaurants, but we canât or wonât post them at our schools?!
Can any rational, law-abiding American give me a single good reason why we wouldnât have armed security at the primary entrances of every school across our union? Does anyone really not believe an armed guard would help deter criminals or crazies from entering? Even if they tried to scale in another way, they would know armed security is a new normal for school safety and that guards are present on campus.
You want to know another absolutely insane byproduct of so many mass school shootings?
Larry Hatfield, president of Eagle Investigation and Protection Services as well as a veteran board member for Crime Stoppers of Houston, shared with me that he was watching a television segment about âhow to survive an active shooter.â
Larry explained it this way: âMy head began spinning when they actually had people on the show displaying and marketing body armor for kindergarten and elementary school children. A company has actually designed armor plating to go into childrenâs backpacks!â
Larry went on to say with disbelief: âI donât know if your mind and heart reacts the same as mine to that. But Iâve got to say itâs outrageous to think this is how we address crime in the 21st century. Our strategy seems to be to offer more understanding and leniency with the criminals, while asking law-abiding citizens to do more and more to protect themselves and alter (sacrifice) their own lifestyles.â
How many school massacres will it take before we protect our children at the places in which they assemble and live nearly eight hours a day, every weekday?
If you believe creating (volunteer or paid) teams of active and retired law enforcement and military personnel, veterans, etc., as posted guards at schools would be the first of first steps for every community and school across the nation, please share this column on your social media and with local officials â school, police, veterans, etc. Then volunteer to help recruit them. Quit waiting for Washington politicians to make a move, and get âer done!
Four years ago, I wrote a four-part series on reducing violent crime in America, especially in schools. Everything I wrote still stands. To educate yourself more about this issue, please check out my series below. Most of all, keep fighting for Americaâs kids! They are our future!
Part 1: âIsrael: Americaâs model for reducing violent crimeâ
Part 2: âDo gun bans actually curb violent crime?â
Part 3: âReducing violent crime in the U.S. from the inside outâ
http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/a-guaranteed-remedy-to-reduce-gun-violence-at-schools/
Before I share that rather simple but sincere remedy and strategy â one that is so obvious that it eludes even the most astute politician steeped in partisan politics right now â my heart is aching to convey our condolences from the Norris ranch.
My wife, Gena, and I join the rest of the nation in sending our most heartfelt and deepest sympathy to the Florida victims of this weekâs school shooting. The mere mention of the names and ages of those who have fallen brings tears to our eyes even now:
Alyssa Alhadeff, 14
Scott Beigel, 35
Martin Duque, 14
Nicholas Dworet, 17
Aaron Feis, 37
Jaime Guttenberg, 14
Chris Hixon, 49
Luke Hoyer, 15
Cara Loughran, 14
Gina Montalto, 14
Joaquin Oliver, 17
Alaina Petty, 14
Meadow Pollack, 18
Helena Ramsey, 17
Alex Schachter, 14
Carmen Schentrup, 16
Peter Wang, 15
We pray for everyone who was and is affected by this horrific, barbaric criminal act, particularly the families and friends of the slain. Words canât express the grief, horror and outrage we also feel and are now going to harness for good in this column and in fighting for a better future. The fallen will not have fallen in vain!
What will stop this string of heinous mass murders on our school campuses? At this point, we shouldnât fear looking at anything and everything that can protect and save our children, including our greatest biases on the issue.
Letâs start by taking the most obvious step as our first step. Itâs one everyone (Republican, Democrat, independent, old and young) should be able to support.
What would you do if someone kept breaking into your house? What would you do if someone kept threatening â even worse, killing â your loved ones inside when they werenât expecting it? What would you do? You would do whatever is necessary to save them, right? At very least, you would likely start by bolstering and further safeguarding your entrances, right?
We as a country need to do what Israel did: The Holy Land mandated armed guards at the entrances to all schools in 1995, and those guards are backed by local law enforcement and special police forces. While these school defenses are primarily intended to thwart terrorists, they also deter any would-be criminals who would cause harm to children.
Chuck Norris provides real solutions to our countyâs problems and a way to reawaken the American dream in his best-seller, âBlack Belt Patriotism.â
Israeli schools have only suffered from two shootings in the past 40 years: one in 1974 (22 children and three adults) and another in 2008 (eight youth).
True, Israel has fewer guns per capita than the U.S., but itâs also a tiny country with virtually no opportunity for hunting or other recreational use of firearms. Anti-gun advocates love to point out that there are only about 500,000 weapons that are privately owned in Israel, but thatâs in a country (area) that is only about one-fifteenth the size of California or one-twenty-fifth the size of Texas. (To read more about Israelâs exemplary model, please read my column âIsrael: Americaâs model for reducing violent crime.â)
Twenty-eight years ago, in 1990, then-Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., introduced the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 into the Senate, and it prohibited âany unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a loaded or unsecured firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.â It was passed by Congress and signed by President George H.W. Bush.
Ninety-eight percent of U.S. public mass shootings occur in gun-free zones â the Florida school being one of them, according to the Crime Prevention Resource Center.
If I were the president or a member of Congress, I would work immediately to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act, to free local communities to better protect their children. But, in almost half the states of our union, we donât need to wait for Washington or our stateâs capitols to bring about needed change to protect our kids.
As even NBC News had to report: âThe Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 prohibits anyone from having a firearm in a school zone. But that law includes the same exception recognized [in 17 U.S. states]: It doesnât apply if the weapons are âapproved by a school in the school zone.'â
Iâm sure many would be surprised right now to learn that 17 states allow adults or teachers to carry a loaded gun on school grounds, generally provided that they have written permission from a principal or the school board.
Those 17 states include:
Alabama (which bans possessing a weapon on school grounds only if the carrier has âintent to do bodily harmâ)
Connecticut (with approval of âschool officialsâ)
Hawaii (no specific law)
Idaho (with school trusteesâ approval)
Iowa (with âauthorizationâ)
Kentucky (with school board approval)
Massachusetts (with approval of the school board or principal)
Mississippi (with school board approval)
Montana (with school trusteesâ permission)
New Hampshire (ban applies only to pupils, not adults)
New Jersey (with approval from the schoolâs âgoverning officerâ)
New York (with the schoolâs approval)
Oregon (with school board approval)
Rhode Island (with a state concealed weapons permit)
Texas (with the schoolâs permission)
Utah (with approval of the âresponsible school administratorâ)
Wyoming (as long as itâs not concealed)
California was included on the above list until Jan. 1, 2018, when liberal Gov. Jerry Brown enacted AB424, which removed the superintendentsâ rights to approve someone carrying a concealed gun on campus. So what this means is, California schools have just made it easier for gun-wielding sociopaths to commit mass murder at schools. Unbelievable!
Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, Florida is also not on the list. But imagine if the Sunshine State were. Imagine if one of the coaches, who also served as security personnel at the school, could have shielded and defended the students with bullets rather than their bodies. Imagine how many murdered kids might still be alive. Imagine how the coachesâ own lives could have gone on and continued to encourage young people.
Iâm not advocating here that every teacher or coach carry or obtain a concealed permit, though 81 percent of U.S. law enforcement officials think teachers and principals should be. Iâm simply advocating here that we start the journey out of this national black hole of campus bullets by immediately working in every community and state to post active guards at the front of every school every weekday.
Sponsored
Hillary's Entire "Hit List" Just Went Public. You'll Never Guess Who's #1
Can any teacher, principal or parent give me good reason why they wouldnât work to secure armed entrance security at their local schools as soon as possible, especially in light of at least five school shootings that have occurred across America since the turn of the year (not 18 as falsely reported this week by mainstream media)?
Who among our fine law enforcement or military personnel (in any branch) wouldnât consider it their greatest duty and honor to take a paid or volunteer shift as a guard in front of our schools protecting those precious souls?
I find it absolute lunacy and abhorring that we protect with a gun every important institution and person of notoriety across the country, but we leave U.S. children â our national treasures â to be prey of the predators of gun-free zones where children all gather in mass for nearly eight hours a day.
Consider this photo post a friend sent me the other day comparing the places and people we post guards:
gun-free
We even have armed guards now in front of many grocery stores and restaurants, but we canât or wonât post them at our schools?!
Can any rational, law-abiding American give me a single good reason why we wouldnât have armed security at the primary entrances of every school across our union? Does anyone really not believe an armed guard would help deter criminals or crazies from entering? Even if they tried to scale in another way, they would know armed security is a new normal for school safety and that guards are present on campus.
You want to know another absolutely insane byproduct of so many mass school shootings?
Larry Hatfield, president of Eagle Investigation and Protection Services as well as a veteran board member for Crime Stoppers of Houston, shared with me that he was watching a television segment about âhow to survive an active shooter.â
Larry explained it this way: âMy head began spinning when they actually had people on the show displaying and marketing body armor for kindergarten and elementary school children. A company has actually designed armor plating to go into childrenâs backpacks!â
Larry went on to say with disbelief: âI donât know if your mind and heart reacts the same as mine to that. But Iâve got to say itâs outrageous to think this is how we address crime in the 21st century. Our strategy seems to be to offer more understanding and leniency with the criminals, while asking law-abiding citizens to do more and more to protect themselves and alter (sacrifice) their own lifestyles.â
How many school massacres will it take before we protect our children at the places in which they assemble and live nearly eight hours a day, every weekday?
If you believe creating (volunteer or paid) teams of active and retired law enforcement and military personnel, veterans, etc., as posted guards at schools would be the first of first steps for every community and school across the nation, please share this column on your social media and with local officials â school, police, veterans, etc. Then volunteer to help recruit them. Quit waiting for Washington politicians to make a move, and get âer done!
Four years ago, I wrote a four-part series on reducing violent crime in America, especially in schools. Everything I wrote still stands. To educate yourself more about this issue, please check out my series below. Most of all, keep fighting for Americaâs kids! They are our future!
Part 1: âIsrael: Americaâs model for reducing violent crimeâ
Part 2: âDo gun bans actually curb violent crime?â
Part 3: âReducing violent crime in the U.S. from the inside outâ
http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/a-guaranteed-remedy-to-reduce-gun-violence-at-schools/
Oct 19, 2017 22:05:38 #
(Main)
Perfect example of socialism run amuck......if communist driven socialistic idiots in the U.S. get their way, this will happen here, and you can bet on it. How about those that drink and do drugs.....or homosexuals who spread HIV and many other diseases. I could easily increase this list.......
Socialized medicine is a wonderful, compassionate system that brings important care to everyone… at least, that’s what leftists in the United States and Europe keep insisting.
As the United Kingdom is finding out, however, everyone is not actually equal under health care socialism. As soon as the system starts running out of other people’s money, people are quickly pushed out… and you’d better hope that you’re not one of the unlucky ones who gets thrown aside!
That’s exactly what happened this week in Britain, as the socialized National Health System announced that patients are being banned from important surgeries if they happen to be a bit overweight or smoke tobacco.
https://conservativetribune.com/socialism-healthcare-bans-surgery/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=braveralastresistance&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2017-10-19
Socialized medicine is a wonderful, compassionate system that brings important care to everyone… at least, that’s what leftists in the United States and Europe keep insisting.
As the United Kingdom is finding out, however, everyone is not actually equal under health care socialism. As soon as the system starts running out of other people’s money, people are quickly pushed out… and you’d better hope that you’re not one of the unlucky ones who gets thrown aside!
That’s exactly what happened this week in Britain, as the socialized National Health System announced that patients are being banned from important surgeries if they happen to be a bit overweight or smoke tobacco.
https://conservativetribune.com/socialism-healthcare-bans-surgery/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=braveralastresistance&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2017-10-19
Oct 18, 2017 10:04:11 #
(Main)
(CNSNews.com) -- Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.
Dr. McHugh, the author of six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles, made his remarks in a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal, where he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.
He also reported on a new study showing that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people. Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”
While the Obama administration, Hollywood, and major media such as Time magazine promote transgenderism as normal, said Dr. McHugh, these “policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.”
Time magazine, June 9, 2014, cover story, The Transgender Tipping Point: America's Next Civil Rights Frontier." (Photo: AP)
“This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”
The transgendered person’s disorder, said Dr. McHugh, is in the person’s “assumption” that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. It is a disorder similar to a “dangerously thin” person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are “overweight,” said McHugh.
This assumption, that one’s gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective “personal truth,” said Dr. McHugh. As a result, some states – California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – have passed laws barring psychiatrists, “even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor,” he said.
The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings “spontaneously lose those feelings” over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”
Pro-transgender activists. The Obama administration announced in May that Medicare will now cover transgender surgical procedures. (AP)
“And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,” said Dr. McHugh.
The former Johns Hopkins chief of psychiatry also warned against enabling or encouraging certain subgroups of the transgendered, such as young people “susceptible to suggestion from ‘everything is normal’ sex education,” and the schools’ “diversity counselors” who, like “cult leaders,” may “encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery.”
Dr. McHugh also reported that there are “misguided doctors” who, working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex, will administer “puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous – even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility.”
Such action comes “close to child abuse,” said Dr. McHugh, given that close to 80% of those kids will “abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated ….”
“’Sex change’ is biologically impossible,” said McHugh. “People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”
Dr. McHugh, the author of six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles, made his remarks in a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal, where he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.
He also reported on a new study showing that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people. Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”
While the Obama administration, Hollywood, and major media such as Time magazine promote transgenderism as normal, said Dr. McHugh, these “policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.”
Time magazine, June 9, 2014, cover story, The Transgender Tipping Point: America's Next Civil Rights Frontier." (Photo: AP)
“This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”
The transgendered person’s disorder, said Dr. McHugh, is in the person’s “assumption” that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. It is a disorder similar to a “dangerously thin” person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are “overweight,” said McHugh.
This assumption, that one’s gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective “personal truth,” said Dr. McHugh. As a result, some states – California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – have passed laws barring psychiatrists, “even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor,” he said.
The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings “spontaneously lose those feelings” over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”
Pro-transgender activists. The Obama administration announced in May that Medicare will now cover transgender surgical procedures. (AP)
“And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,” said Dr. McHugh.
The former Johns Hopkins chief of psychiatry also warned against enabling or encouraging certain subgroups of the transgendered, such as young people “susceptible to suggestion from ‘everything is normal’ sex education,” and the schools’ “diversity counselors” who, like “cult leaders,” may “encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery.”
Dr. McHugh also reported that there are “misguided doctors” who, working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex, will administer “puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous – even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility.”
Such action comes “close to child abuse,” said Dr. McHugh, given that close to 80% of those kids will “abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated ….”
“’Sex change’ is biologically impossible,” said McHugh. “People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”
Oct 18, 2017 10:02:19 #
(Main)
Pediatrician Michelle Cretella probably isn’t going to be invited to any liberal cocktail parties after her recent appearance on a Heritage Foundation panel. That’s OK by her, though — because she thinks part of the transgender agenda is a form of “institutionalized child abuse.”
Dr. Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, went viral when she ranted against so-called “puberty blockers” and other methods used to “transition” young children suffering from gender dysphoria.
“Chemical castration, which is what you’re doing when you put any biologically normal child on puberty blockers. It’s treating puberty like a disease, arresting a normal process which is critical to normal development and bad for kids,” Cretella said.
“Sterilization: Not good for kids. Prepping them for what will likely result in a case in girls a double mastectomy at 16 — not how you treat depression or anxiety and I have plenty of experience treating teenagers with depression, anxiety, even suicidal depression,” she continued. “Indoctrinating pre-school kids with the lie that you can be trapped in the wrong body, again, that’s disrupting their normal reality testing and cognitive development. Those things are abusive.”
Watch this pediatrician shut down leftists on giving puberty blockers to children with gender dysphoria. http://pic.twitter.com/xHmGMx9d8N
— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) October 13, 2017
“As to the studies, there are two that I am aware of that claim affirming your child’s gender confusion is good for them,” Cretella continued.
“Number one, it assumes that coaching a child into a fixed-false belief is mentally healthy. Science doesn’t allow you to assume your conclusion. Number two, those studies are extremely small. Number three, those studies are very short term. And number four, the control group of ‘mentally healthy children’ are the siblings, most of them are siblings of the trans-identifying child. Oh, and there’s a number five, the parents were the ones evaluating the mental health of the children.
“This is not science,” Cretella concluded. “I don’t think you need to have an M.D. or a Ph.D to know that’s not science — that’s ideology masquerading as science.”
That’s the problem with the transgender agenda — so much of it is based on political correctness. As for the evidence, there’s a paucity of it. But point that out, and liberals start screaming bloody murder.
In a July editorial for The Daily Signal, Cretella cited plenty of evidence to the contrary — including that “(c)ross-sex hormones are associated with dangerous health risks … (n)euroscience shows that adolescents lack the adult capacity needed for risk assessment (and) (t)here is no proof that affirmation prevents suicide in children.”
“These harms constitute nothing less than institutionalized child abuse. Sound ethics demand an immediate end to the use of pubertal suppression, cross-sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgeries in children and adolescents, as well as an end to promoting gender ideology via school curricula and legislative policies,” Cretella wrote.
“It is time for our nation’s leaders and the silent majority of health professionals to learn exactly what is happening to our children, and unite to take action.”
https://conservativetribune.com/transgenderism-child-abuse/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=romulusconstitution&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2017-10-18
Dr. Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, went viral when she ranted against so-called “puberty blockers” and other methods used to “transition” young children suffering from gender dysphoria.
“Chemical castration, which is what you’re doing when you put any biologically normal child on puberty blockers. It’s treating puberty like a disease, arresting a normal process which is critical to normal development and bad for kids,” Cretella said.
“Sterilization: Not good for kids. Prepping them for what will likely result in a case in girls a double mastectomy at 16 — not how you treat depression or anxiety and I have plenty of experience treating teenagers with depression, anxiety, even suicidal depression,” she continued. “Indoctrinating pre-school kids with the lie that you can be trapped in the wrong body, again, that’s disrupting their normal reality testing and cognitive development. Those things are abusive.”
Watch this pediatrician shut down leftists on giving puberty blockers to children with gender dysphoria. http://pic.twitter.com/xHmGMx9d8N
— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) October 13, 2017
“As to the studies, there are two that I am aware of that claim affirming your child’s gender confusion is good for them,” Cretella continued.
“Number one, it assumes that coaching a child into a fixed-false belief is mentally healthy. Science doesn’t allow you to assume your conclusion. Number two, those studies are extremely small. Number three, those studies are very short term. And number four, the control group of ‘mentally healthy children’ are the siblings, most of them are siblings of the trans-identifying child. Oh, and there’s a number five, the parents were the ones evaluating the mental health of the children.
“This is not science,” Cretella concluded. “I don’t think you need to have an M.D. or a Ph.D to know that’s not science — that’s ideology masquerading as science.”
That’s the problem with the transgender agenda — so much of it is based on political correctness. As for the evidence, there’s a paucity of it. But point that out, and liberals start screaming bloody murder.
In a July editorial for The Daily Signal, Cretella cited plenty of evidence to the contrary — including that “(c)ross-sex hormones are associated with dangerous health risks … (n)euroscience shows that adolescents lack the adult capacity needed for risk assessment (and) (t)here is no proof that affirmation prevents suicide in children.”
“These harms constitute nothing less than institutionalized child abuse. Sound ethics demand an immediate end to the use of pubertal suppression, cross-sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgeries in children and adolescents, as well as an end to promoting gender ideology via school curricula and legislative policies,” Cretella wrote.
“It is time for our nation’s leaders and the silent majority of health professionals to learn exactly what is happening to our children, and unite to take action.”
https://conservativetribune.com/transgenderism-child-abuse/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=romulusconstitution&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2017-10-18
Oct 15, 2017 10:04:41 #
(Main)
Exclusive: Craige McMillan notes God first 'cracked' D.C. nut, now Hollywood -- who's next?
Harvey Weinstein used to deliver movies for Hillary to the Clinton home. I wonder if he delivered anything for Bill?
There are lots of “he said, she saids” in the relations between men and women. But when it’s written into the boss’ employment contract that his checkbook fixes the problem, well … everyone involved knew there was a problem.
Makes you wonder why NBC News covered the story up for so long after Ronan Farrow (Mia’s son) begged them to run it. He had audio and video to support the story.
Cover-ups are nothing new to the media elitists, though, are they? Think Sen. Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne. Ted escaped the Oldsmobile submarine in its Chappaquiddick dive but left his date to die. That’s why he was re-elected forever, right?
Generally speaking, men have more power in the world than women. Universally speaking, adults have more power than children. The younger the child, the greater the power the adult holds, until we reach infant status, when the adult’s power is absolute. Before birth, the mother’s power over her child’s life and death is often both secret and absolute, thanks to Planned Parenthood, school rules and parents kept in the dark.
Maybe absolute power over another is what appealed to the city council president arrested for child porn. Did the elites cover for Weinstein because he knew their little secrets? Maybe the flicks Harvey was so kind to deliver for Hillary when he was around were just a cover for the ones he delivered for Bill. How many trips did Bill make on the Lolita Express in Epstein’s jet? 26 trips?
The sexual revolution robbed women of the once-absolute power they held over men: Creation of the next generation. In return women got hookups, recycled STDs, lame excuses and single parenthood. The state stepped in to help them raise their kids in poverty. I guess for feminists, that’s progress.
It’s easy to see why Weinstein so often got what he wanted, and so rarely wrote a check for it. The same is true for the Democratic Party. More single mothers dependent upon the state for their well-being and raising their kids meant a continuing stream of new Democratic voters. More money for public schools, which were forced to deal with broken families. More union dues into the Dems’ coffers at election time. The taxpayers? Well, bleep them!
But still it wasn’t enough. Democrats wanted the illegal vote. They wanted the dead vote. Colleges and universities signed onto the bandwagon under the promise of more and easier student loans for all comers. In return higher education generated intellectual idiots, whose grasp of the thought process is so weak they demand protection from challenges to their indoctrinated worldview. Why do these colleges and universities still have accreditation? Do the degrees they award have any meaning to anyone beyond their own accountants, who tally up the student loan income?
Do you think it’s over? God simply started with the toughest nut to crack, which was Washington, D.C. It was run by a corrupt and incompetent fraud who used the nation’s own intelligence services to spy on the rival political party and to thwart any advances toward the White House. The fraud’s goal was to hand the keys over to an even bigger corrupt and incompetent successor, Hillary Clinton, whom he knew would be good at only one thing: covering his tracks.
Media elitists had grown accustomed to covering for, instead of covering, Democrats. Like Harvey Weinstein, it was one big, open secret. You stayed in the good graces of the rich and powerful by complimenting them on their clothing as the parade went by. In the end they came to believe that riding naked among the crowds on the left’s donkey made them one of America’s messiahs.
Hollywood was the next toughest nut. God broke it wide open with Harvey. There’s a lot more nuts left in the Hollywood Bowl, however. They look good on the outside, but are rotting and stinking on the inside. Who’s next in the Hollywood Nutcracker performance?
Any guesses on which area of American elitist “culture” comes after this one? Look for idols of mass worship. Wall Street? Big tech? Military superiority? Public education? Sports? Roughly half the NFL players have criminal records, so why are we surprised they despise the national anthem?
http://www.wnd.com/2017/10/think-its-over-its-barely-begun/
Harvey Weinstein used to deliver movies for Hillary to the Clinton home. I wonder if he delivered anything for Bill?
There are lots of “he said, she saids” in the relations between men and women. But when it’s written into the boss’ employment contract that his checkbook fixes the problem, well … everyone involved knew there was a problem.
Makes you wonder why NBC News covered the story up for so long after Ronan Farrow (Mia’s son) begged them to run it. He had audio and video to support the story.
Cover-ups are nothing new to the media elitists, though, are they? Think Sen. Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne. Ted escaped the Oldsmobile submarine in its Chappaquiddick dive but left his date to die. That’s why he was re-elected forever, right?
Generally speaking, men have more power in the world than women. Universally speaking, adults have more power than children. The younger the child, the greater the power the adult holds, until we reach infant status, when the adult’s power is absolute. Before birth, the mother’s power over her child’s life and death is often both secret and absolute, thanks to Planned Parenthood, school rules and parents kept in the dark.
Maybe absolute power over another is what appealed to the city council president arrested for child porn. Did the elites cover for Weinstein because he knew their little secrets? Maybe the flicks Harvey was so kind to deliver for Hillary when he was around were just a cover for the ones he delivered for Bill. How many trips did Bill make on the Lolita Express in Epstein’s jet? 26 trips?
The sexual revolution robbed women of the once-absolute power they held over men: Creation of the next generation. In return women got hookups, recycled STDs, lame excuses and single parenthood. The state stepped in to help them raise their kids in poverty. I guess for feminists, that’s progress.
It’s easy to see why Weinstein so often got what he wanted, and so rarely wrote a check for it. The same is true for the Democratic Party. More single mothers dependent upon the state for their well-being and raising their kids meant a continuing stream of new Democratic voters. More money for public schools, which were forced to deal with broken families. More union dues into the Dems’ coffers at election time. The taxpayers? Well, bleep them!
But still it wasn’t enough. Democrats wanted the illegal vote. They wanted the dead vote. Colleges and universities signed onto the bandwagon under the promise of more and easier student loans for all comers. In return higher education generated intellectual idiots, whose grasp of the thought process is so weak they demand protection from challenges to their indoctrinated worldview. Why do these colleges and universities still have accreditation? Do the degrees they award have any meaning to anyone beyond their own accountants, who tally up the student loan income?
Do you think it’s over? God simply started with the toughest nut to crack, which was Washington, D.C. It was run by a corrupt and incompetent fraud who used the nation’s own intelligence services to spy on the rival political party and to thwart any advances toward the White House. The fraud’s goal was to hand the keys over to an even bigger corrupt and incompetent successor, Hillary Clinton, whom he knew would be good at only one thing: covering his tracks.
Media elitists had grown accustomed to covering for, instead of covering, Democrats. Like Harvey Weinstein, it was one big, open secret. You stayed in the good graces of the rich and powerful by complimenting them on their clothing as the parade went by. In the end they came to believe that riding naked among the crowds on the left’s donkey made them one of America’s messiahs.
Hollywood was the next toughest nut. God broke it wide open with Harvey. There’s a lot more nuts left in the Hollywood Bowl, however. They look good on the outside, but are rotting and stinking on the inside. Who’s next in the Hollywood Nutcracker performance?
Any guesses on which area of American elitist “culture” comes after this one? Look for idols of mass worship. Wall Street? Big tech? Military superiority? Public education? Sports? Roughly half the NFL players have criminal records, so why are we surprised they despise the national anthem?
http://www.wnd.com/2017/10/think-its-over-its-barely-begun/
Oct 15, 2017 09:56:47 #
(Main)
Commentary By
Portrait of Mary Clare Amselem
Mary Clare Amselem
@MCAmselem
Mary Clare Amselem is a policy analyst in education policy at The Heritage Foundation.
Proponents of “free college” would have you believe that getting rid of tuition fees is all it takes to create a high-quality, equitable, and accessible higher education system.
But a recent study indicates that in England, removing tuition fees from students achieved the exact opposite result. “Free” college in fact created a system where the wealthy benefited, and the poor were left behind.
Starting in the 1960s, England removed tuition fees for its citizens who were full-time students. As one might expect, this caused a massive uptick in the number of students going into higher education.
After years of concerns about financial sustainability, England started to slowly introduce tuition fees in the late 1990s.
Authors Richard Murphy, Judith Scott-Clayton, and Gillen Wyness studied the impact that charging tuition had on student enrollment, equity in college attainment among different income levels, and education quality.
The authors found that after tuition fees were introduced, the number of low-income students enrolling in higher education actually doubled between 1997 and 2015. This seems counterintuitive, considering that low-income families would seem to struggle the most under the new tuition-based system.
As with most government-run programs, the old tuition-free system in England ended up hurting exactly the people it set out to help. With the massive influx of students under the free system, the quality of the system declined and struggled financially to keep up with demand.
In response, in 1994, the government capped the number of students that could enroll in each university under state funding.
The result? The wealthiest students ended up receiving more of the free college tuition subsidies, since they were typically the most qualified and therefore most likely to succeed when competing for limited seats.
Just as we have seen with experiments with universal health care, government control and financing leads to rationing. As England’s experience demonstrates, removing market competition from higher education did not help low-income students—instead, it restricted their access even further.
The authors also found that the amount of funding an institution could devote to each student increased once England introduced tuition fees, as did student enrollment numbers.
The story of England’s experiment with “free college” should be a cautionary tale for Americans. The concept has certainly gained some traction in the United States already.
Politicians such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., propose offering four years of “free” college tuition to all students at public universities, and New York recently became the first state to offer a two- or four-year degree to residents making $125,000 per year or less.
High student loan debt is a problem for many Americans. But the solution is not to follow failed policies that transfer costs to other taxpayers (most of whom do not hold bachelor’s degrees themselves) and to disadvantage low-income students.
A better approach is to pursue policies that cut off the drivers of tuition inflation.
Economic evidence suggests that unrestricted access to federal student loans has led to an unprecedented rise in college tuition. Heavy-handed government intervention in higher education does more harm than good.
England has demonstrated that when competition and market forces enter the mix, more students gain access to a high-quality education.
American policymakers should take note of this policy shift across the pond, and avoid the temptation of making the same mistakes inherent in “free” college.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/05/happened-england-offered-free-college/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Top5&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTlRFek56Z3pPREUyWWprNCIsInQiOiI1MVFYYmRHakM5cklzZ1kzRnA5R0M4a1FTWlJOUkRuOFBcLzZCbDdqM0RRdXpqbTBad0YzbHBmYWRnUkQwWWp1SVBqdjZvdWhBYktJRStURklLd2xta0tvRkZcL2g2dzViaVk3VGZSZldxUFN6VFYzUlRBYVdoTnBkajd6Q1VQZjBNIn0%3D
Portrait of Mary Clare Amselem
Mary Clare Amselem
@MCAmselem
Mary Clare Amselem is a policy analyst in education policy at The Heritage Foundation.
Proponents of “free college” would have you believe that getting rid of tuition fees is all it takes to create a high-quality, equitable, and accessible higher education system.
But a recent study indicates that in England, removing tuition fees from students achieved the exact opposite result. “Free” college in fact created a system where the wealthy benefited, and the poor were left behind.
Starting in the 1960s, England removed tuition fees for its citizens who were full-time students. As one might expect, this caused a massive uptick in the number of students going into higher education.
After years of concerns about financial sustainability, England started to slowly introduce tuition fees in the late 1990s.
Authors Richard Murphy, Judith Scott-Clayton, and Gillen Wyness studied the impact that charging tuition had on student enrollment, equity in college attainment among different income levels, and education quality.
The authors found that after tuition fees were introduced, the number of low-income students enrolling in higher education actually doubled between 1997 and 2015. This seems counterintuitive, considering that low-income families would seem to struggle the most under the new tuition-based system.
As with most government-run programs, the old tuition-free system in England ended up hurting exactly the people it set out to help. With the massive influx of students under the free system, the quality of the system declined and struggled financially to keep up with demand.
In response, in 1994, the government capped the number of students that could enroll in each university under state funding.
The result? The wealthiest students ended up receiving more of the free college tuition subsidies, since they were typically the most qualified and therefore most likely to succeed when competing for limited seats.
Just as we have seen with experiments with universal health care, government control and financing leads to rationing. As England’s experience demonstrates, removing market competition from higher education did not help low-income students—instead, it restricted their access even further.
The authors also found that the amount of funding an institution could devote to each student increased once England introduced tuition fees, as did student enrollment numbers.
The story of England’s experiment with “free college” should be a cautionary tale for Americans. The concept has certainly gained some traction in the United States already.
Politicians such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., propose offering four years of “free” college tuition to all students at public universities, and New York recently became the first state to offer a two- or four-year degree to residents making $125,000 per year or less.
High student loan debt is a problem for many Americans. But the solution is not to follow failed policies that transfer costs to other taxpayers (most of whom do not hold bachelor’s degrees themselves) and to disadvantage low-income students.
A better approach is to pursue policies that cut off the drivers of tuition inflation.
Economic evidence suggests that unrestricted access to federal student loans has led to an unprecedented rise in college tuition. Heavy-handed government intervention in higher education does more harm than good.
England has demonstrated that when competition and market forces enter the mix, more students gain access to a high-quality education.
American policymakers should take note of this policy shift across the pond, and avoid the temptation of making the same mistakes inherent in “free” college.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/05/happened-england-offered-free-college/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Top5&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTlRFek56Z3pPREUyWWprNCIsInQiOiI1MVFYYmRHakM5cklzZ1kzRnA5R0M4a1FTWlJOUkRuOFBcLzZCbDdqM0RRdXpqbTBad0YzbHBmYWRnUkQwWWp1SVBqdjZvdWhBYktJRStURklLd2xta0tvRkZcL2g2dzViaVk3VGZSZldxUFN6VFYzUlRBYVdoTnBkajd6Q1VQZjBNIn0%3D