Month: December 2019

Obamacare individual mandate ruled illegal

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate runs afoul of the Constitution now that it is no longer a tax.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, remanded the case back to the lower court to evaluate whether other parts of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, can still stand.

“There is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power,” wrote Judge Jennifer Elrod, a Bush appointee. . . .

After facing a number of legal battles, the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate in 2012, saying it was a tax under the Constitution’s taxing powers.

But in 2017, as part of the Republican majority’s tax overhaul bill, the penalty for failing to purchase healthcare coverage was changed to zero — leading to the current legal battle over whether the individual mandate can still legally stand as a tax.

Government Funded ‘Gun Violence’ Research Is Really Political Propaganda

On Monday, House and Senate negotiators announced a deal where $25 million in taxpayer funds will be spent on gun violence research, $12.5 million is earmarked exclusively for public health researchers. If history is any guide, but of the rest will also end up going to public health researchers.

Headlines claimed: “Congress reaches deal to fund gun violence research for first time in decades.” The funding described as “a major win for Democrats.” While that may sound like a good idea at first glance, it wouldn’t do anything to reduce gun violence in our country.

It should go without saying that everyone opposes gun violence. But it’s important to take effective measures to deal with this problem and not simply take actions that sound appealing but won’t really save lives.

The idea behind the research funding is to have medical professionals apply tools they developed to study cancer, heart disease and other diseases and use them to study crime, accidental death and suicide. But to state the obvious, gun violence and diseases are two very different things.

The National Rifle Association – regularly demonized in the media and by many Democrats – has been blamed for preventing academics from doing research on firearms. So supporters of the spending to research gun violence as a public health issue say their bill is needed to stop the NRA from blocking vital research that will save lives.

But there’s a big problem with the argument: it’s not true.

Opponents of the Second Amendment who are eager to impose as many restrictions as possible on firearms falsely claim that a measure enacted in 1996 called the Dickey Amendment – named after former Rep. Jay Dickey, (R-AR) – barred research on gun violence to be funded by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But in reality, here is what the reviled Dickey Amendment states: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to “advocate or promote gun control.”

The point of that plain language is to say CDC-funded research is fine. CDC advocacy is not. So despite what gun-control zealots say, objective research based on facts is allowed under the Dickey Amendment.

The amendment came in response to top CDC officials advocating various gun control laws, such as prohibiting people from carrying concealed handguns.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns falsely claimed in a 2013 report that as a result of the Dickey Amendment “academic publishing on firearm violence fell by 60 percent between 1996 and 2010.”

But the mayors’ group measured something different: firearms research in medical journals as a percentage of all medical research.

There was no decrease in either the total number of papers or pages devoted to firearms research. But with whole new fields of medicine being developed, there was an explosion of published medical studies in other areas.

In fact, between 2011 and 2016, firearms research in medical journals has increased more than five-fold and even more since then, as former New York City Mayor and multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg has poured untold tens of millions of dollars into the effort.

SIXTH CIRCUIT HEARS DEBATE OVER LEGALITY OF BUMP STOCKS

CINCINNATI (CN) – A gun rights lobbyist group argued before the Sixth Circuit on Wednesday that rapid-fire gun attachments known as bump stocks should not be included in the government’s definition of machine gun.

Gun Owners of America, called “the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington” by former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, sued Attorney General William Barr last year shortly after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives updated the statutory definition of machine gun to include bump stocks.

The device, which gained notoriety following the 2017 shooting of concertgoers in Las Vegas, replaces the standard stock of a rifle and uses a semiautomatic weapon’s recoil to create a back-and-forth sequence that increases the rate of fire to one similar to a fully automatic weapon.

The ATF’s rule allowed owners of bump stocks to dispose of them by March 26, 2019, after which possession of one would become a felony offense.

U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney denied Gun Owners of America’s motion for a preliminary injunction shortly before the disposal deadline. The George W. Bush appointee found the group was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA.

The statutory definition of machine gun includes the phrase “shoots … automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger,” and the lower court ruling hinged on the word “automatically.”

The ATF’s interpretation of the word “automatically” included the action of a shooter putting forward pressure on a bump stock to increase the rate of fire, and Maloney found this a reasonable and permissible interpretation under the APA.

Gun Owners of America argued the ATF’s rule is arbitrary because rubber bands and belt loops can be used to accomplish the same increase in rate of fire, but Maloney was not convinced.

“ATF’s interpretations of the statute,” he wrote, “which extend to devices specifically designed and marketed for the purpose of increasing the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon will not pose a danger of prosecution to individuals who own a semiautomatic weapon and also happen to own pants or elastic office supplies.”

Attorney Rob Olson argued on behalf of Gun Owners of America at Wednesday’s hearing, and told the Sixth Circuit panel that bump stocks do not convert a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun.

Olson laid out a hypothetical scenario in which a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump stock and a fully automatic M-16 rifle were strapped to a table and had their triggers zip-tied. He said that while the M-16 would fire continuously, the AR-15 would fire just a single shot.

The attorney said the device creates a “human compression spring” that allows for an increased rate of fire, but that “the bump stock is simply along for the ride.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, an appointee of President Donald Trump, asked Olson if his client is seeking a nationwide injunction to prevent enforcement of the rule.

The attorney answered that he is, and that such relief is allowed under the APA.

Attorney Brad Hinshelwood from the Department of Justice argued on behalf of the government, saying bump stocks fall under the definition of machine gun because the devices “set up a continuous cycle” of fire once the shooter pulls the trigger.

Murphy spoke at length throughout Hinshelwood’s argument and pressed the attorney about the government’s shifting position on the interpretation of the statutory language found in the National Firearms Act.

Murphy accused the ATF of making mistakes in its interpretation of the Act in the past 10 years, and asked why every AR-15 would not be illegal given that they could be modified to act as fully automatic weapons with bump stocks or other devices.

“The bump stock is the machine gun in terms of the statute,” Hinshelwood responded, pointing out that the government has never thought to include all semiautomatic weapons as machine guns just because they could be modified.

In his rebuttal, Olson urged the panel to issue a nationwide injunction, but said he realizes the relief his client wants won’t be the end of the debate.

“This is something that is going to continue to percolate in the American government,” he told the court.

Both attorneys declined to comment after the hearing.

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder, an appointee of George H.W. Bush, and U.S. Circuit Judge Helene White, an appointee of George W. Bush, also sat on the panel.

No timetable has been set for the court’s decision.

 

FedEx Driver Fatally Shoots Suspect During Armed Robbery In Northeast Philadelphia

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — Police say a FedEx driver fatally shot a suspect during an attempted robbery in Northeast Philadelphia Tuesday night. The shooting happened shortly after 7 p.m. on the 600 block of Unruh Avenue in the city’s Lawndale neighborhood.

It should have been a routine delivery with the 32-year-old FedEx driver dropping off a package to a home in the area. But that’s when police say an armed gunman approached and robbed the driver, perhaps not anticipating that the FedEx driver was also armed.

“He was able to tell police that he was making a delivery on the 600 block of Unruh and right when he got done making that delivery he was approached by at least one male and he was robbed at point of gun,” Philadelphia Police Chief Inspector Scott Small said.

Police say the driver was shot once in the abdomen during the robbery. Police say as they were receiving calls about shots fired in the area, the FedEx driver was able to drive himself to a nearby parking lot away from the scene.

He was transported to Einstein Medical Center and is in stable condition.

He told police that after being shot in the stomach, he pulled out his own weapon and returned fire at the suspect.

“Initially, we did not know whether the perpetrator was struck by gunfire,” Small said.

But minutes later, police were called to the 1400 block of Creston Street where they found a 27-year-old man in a driveway suffering from multiple gunshot wounds to chest, back and torso. The suspect died at the hospital.

Also near that scene, investigators located a vehicle where some of the items stolen from the FedEx truck were found inside. Police also say blood and a shell casing was found inside the vehicle.

A second person of interest was also located with the vehicle. Police are looking into whether that person drove the robbery suspect from the shooting scene to where he was found.

Back on Unruh Avenue, at least seven spent shell casings were found near where the package was delivered.

This is now a homicide investigation so police will determine whether the FedEx driver was acting in self-defense.

When asked if drivers are allowed to carry firearms, FedEx told CBS they “are not at liberty to disclose details of our internal policies.”

Everybody’s Polite at the Shooting Range

There’s a lot of talk about how civility has declined in America since Donald Trump took office.

They are right, of course.

I was driving in Los Angeles the other day, and people behaved like animals. The homeless people downtown looked quite sane compared with the lunatics in BMWs piloting their murderous machines like go-carts, driving with their knees while they text with one hand and sipped their frappa-latte with the other.

Ijits of the highest order were driving on the shoulder and using turn lanes to go to the front, then cut people off at the last second, flipping them the bird as they did so. I thought I was in Mexico City or New Delhi … except for the flipping-off part. It would have been funny, had it not been so dangerous.

It was so bad that–when a fleeing robber crossed into oncoming traffic and nearly hit me head-on bypassing stopped cars at an intersection–I wrote it off as just another LA psychopath trying to save ten seconds. Then five police cars came around the bend after him, and the helicopter with the spotlight.

Americans are wound up and stressed out, sure; but civility was cratering long before Donald Trump took office. Many people took his election as a cue to turn the a**hole up to 11. Our loss of civility is a feature, not a bug.

Speaking of a**holes: the riots after the UK election inspired me to go get some pistol practice this morning in anticipation of our own 2020 extravaganza coming up soon.

I went to the San Diego GlockStore for a spring, then The Gun Range for 30 minutes of practice. In both establishments, I noticed something:

Everybody … was … polite. Everybody. Super polite.

Patrons were courteous and patient with one another in the parking lot. Customers waited their turns and said “please,” “thank you,” and “sir/ma’am.” Nobody yelled at the (armed) employees to hurry up with their order. I felt as though I’d stepped into a time warp.

It’s not like people were walking around in terror of one another, worried about dissing someone and getting capped. On the contrary, everyone seemed relaxed, comfortable, and friendly.

All present seemed to understand one another, to know within those two micro-communities

Around here, Words and Actions have Consequences

Pro-gun message supplants pro-transgender slogan on U. Virginia bridge.

The University of Virginia’s Beta Bridge has played host to student messages for some 50 years. Most recently, the bridge featured the mural “PROTECT BLACK TRANS WOMEN,” but this was painted over during the weekend with a pro-Second Amendment slogan.

According to The Cavalier Daily, the terms “2A” and “GUNS” were painted, while “WOMEN” was crossed out. The original message, put up by the SABLE Society, was repainted, but was again modified with the pro-gun terms.

The report notes the gun message appears to reference various Virginia towns threatening to become Second Amendment “sanctuaries” if the newly Democrat-controlled state legislature follows through with (allegedly) unconstitutional firearm restrictions.

It is not yet known who is responsible for the pro-gun message.

UVA spokesman Brian Coy said that although the bridge “is a long recognized public forum that may on occasion cause controversy or disagreement,” the university acknowledges “that people, particularly black trans women, feel demeaned or threatened by this message and the way it appeared.”

Pete Buttigieg kicks off his Latino outreach campaign with a slogan popularized by communists.

Little wonder where he picked this up:  Pete Buttigieg’s father was a Marxist professor who lauded the Communist Manifesto.

Struggling with low poll numbers among Latino voters, Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s campaign launched a Hispanic outreach effort on Monday that included a series of policy plans, websites, and online videos in English and Spanish.

Buttigieg announced the initiative on his social media accounts by invoking a Spanish-language slogan that is raising eyebrows among Latino leaders. The mayor of South Bend, Indiana, tweeted “El pueblo unido, jamás será vencido” (“the people united, will never be defeated”), a protest chant that is famously associated with Latin-American communist movements. The saying was also featured in several campaign communications, including as a call-to-action on its Latino website.

For decades, Americans have rallied to declare el pueblo unido, jamás será vencido — the people united, will never be defeated. To join us and learn more, text TOGETHER to 25859.

It is unclear which Americans Buttigieg is referring to, but Latin American Marxists have rallied behind the catchphrase for decades.

The FISA Court Wants Answers About the Problems with FBI’s Carter Page Warrants
Judge demands to know what the agency will do prevent future “omissions” in the applications.

Last week, the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Justice found that the FBI omitted relevant information and made a number of mistakes on its warrants submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to wiretap a former aide to Donald Trump. Now the judges of the court are demanding some answers.

In an order filed today and signed by FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, the court lays out a brief explanation about why it’s so bad that the FBI left important details out of its warrant request as it sought a wiretap to get more information about Page’s communications with Russian officials to determine whether Trump’s presidential campaign had been somehow been compromised. In short, there are many rules to get permission to use FISC warrants to secretly snoop on Americans on American soil, and each of the 17 problems Inspector General Michael Horowitz found with the warrants represents a breakdown in the system at several points.

“When it is the FBI that seeks to conduct … surveillance, the Federal officer who makes the application is an FBI agent, who swears to the facts in the application,” the report notes. “The FISC judge makes the required probably cause determination ‘on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant.'”

In short, the FISC has to trust that the FBI is including all relevant information in its warrant request and is not leaving out any important details that might factor into the decision. That’s because FISC essentially serves as the only form of oversight over the FBI when it comes to secretly snooping on Americans. Its role is to make sure that the targeted Americans’ rights are protected and that wiretaps aren’t based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment (this is partly why the court was made) and to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of targets. The court depends on the “candor” (a term used several times in the order) of FBI officials in deciding whether to permit surveillance of Americans.

In Page’s case, the report says, “The FBI’s handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the OIG report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above.”

The court is therefore ordering the federal government, by January 10, to provide a sworn written submission of what it has done and what it plans to do to make sure FBI warrant applications to FISC “accurately and completely reflects information possessed by the FBI that is material to any issue presented by the application.”

The court is also ordering a declassification review of an order FISC put out on December 5 demanding more information about the FBI attorney who is accused of altering a document to conceal that Page had a previous relationship as a source with another federal agency regarding contacts with Russian officials. This would be very relevant to the court when considering a request to wiretap him over conversations with these very Russians.

Read the orders for yourself here.

Exposing How The Hoax Of Climate Change Drives Delirious Political Policies

Once again, it’s Throwback Tuesday and time to wrap up the series on the hoax of man-made climate change by covering how undermining legitimate science affected government policies based upon fraudulent science.  Despite the scandal of Climategate in 2009 and Climategate 2.0 in 2011, the UN IPCC and associated scientists, whose wealth redistribution scheme was based upon the hoax of climate change, work doubly hard to discredit legitimate scientists, as we have found, through unsavory tactics and issue increasingly worsening fraudulent reports based on a political agenda instead of actual scientific data.  Through this measure, it uses fearmongering tactics to brainwash the people and those in government into buying the snake oil that stifling wealthy nations’ economies to give third world nations other people’s money will end/disrupt/quell/limit/slow climate change through decreasing the non-greenhouse gas of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

Numerous former UN IPCC scientists with impressive credentials and legitimate work, who became disillusioned with the panel and its politically manufactured “scientific” conclusions, are willing to testify to the dishonesty of the process.  But, the UN IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri, in conjunction with Al Gore, calls “climate change” his religion.  Pachauri is no longer with the UN IPCC because of a sexual harassment scandal.  Pachauri’s resignation letter read, “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma”.

Donna Laframboise, a journalist who has written numerous books critical of the UN IPCC, indicates the IPCC reports lack scientific integrity and individuals relying on those reports are basing decisions on information lacking scientific integrity.  According to Laframboise, “the IPCC goes back, after the fact, and changes the original scientific report so that it aligns with the politically negotiated summary”.

She also noted, “After the summaries are haggled over, the IPCC alters what the scientists wrote. That’s the reason the IPCC routinely releases its summaries before it releases the underlying scientific report. In this 2007 news clipping, the IPCC chairman explains: “we have to ensure that the underlying report conforms to the refinements.”

Greenpeace co-founder turned climate skeptic Dr. Patrick Moore commented on Laframboise’s report, noting this is the “perfect reason for the US to abandon the UN Paris climate ‘agreement.’”

Pennsylvania: Attorney General Issues Opinion on Partially-Finished Receivers in Extreme Deviation from Federal Law

Once again, anti-gun officials contort case law and statute to undermine our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Today, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro issued a tortured opinion defining partially-manufactured receivers as firearms.  This opinion flies in stark contrast to the current, and widely held, understanding that receivers that are unfinished and require additional work to operate as a functional frame or receiver are not considered firearms and therefore aren’t regulated as such.

Shapiro relies on two arguments to arrive at this absurd result.  One, that unfinished receivers are “designed” to expel a projectile by action of an explosive. It doesn’t take a law degree to figure out how backward this thinking is.   Partially-manufactured lowers are explicitly designed so that they are unable to expel a projectile by action of an explosive without further work.  In other words, by their very nature, they are not firearms.

Two, Shapiro claims that these receivers “may be readily converted (to expel a projectile)” which he argues is analogous to the “may readily be restored” language of the federal National Firearms Act.

With this make-believe bridge, Shapiro then imports federal case law concerning the “may be readily restored” (to a machine gun) language to draw up extremely broad contours of what would be considered a firearm under state law. He uses extreme case law to lower the threshold for what constitutes a firearm to facilitate his anti-gun position and leanings.

Shapiro’s “theory” of treating non-functioning blocks of polymer, steel, or aluminum as “firearms” is the equivalent of calling a pile of aluminum tubes a bicycle or even considering a hickory or ash tree a baseball bat.

Make No Mistake — This opinion applies to much more than unfinished receiver kits!

Using the extremely vague description provided by AG Shapiro, almost any chunk of material (metal, polymer, etc.) could be considered a firearm and he and his anti-gun cronies can use this precedent to destroy our freedoms one step at a time.

Judicial Watch: ‘The FBI Needs to be Shut Down,’ Transferred to U.S. Marshals Service.

From 2018?  Kinda ‘prophetical’ wasn’t it?

Noting some of the major blunders of the FBI, such as failing to follow protocols with the Florida school shooter and failing to follow leads on the Boston Marathon bombers, Judicial Watch’s Director of Investigations Chris Farrell said FBI Director Christopher Wray should be replaced and that the entire FBI should be restructured as a “new investigative arm of the U.S. Marshals Service.”

“People do need to go,” said Farrell on the Feb. 16 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight.  “You can start with Director [Christopher] Wray.”

“Frankly, I would go back 200 years to the U.S. Marshals Service,” said Farrell, a former Military Intelligence officer and counterintelligence expert.  “I would create a new division for investigations, and in about six to eight months I would shut the FBI down. Agents would be allowed to apply for, or laterally transfer to a new investigative arm of the U.S. Marshals Service and the FBI would cease to exist. That’s my idea.”

When guest host Trish Regan expressed reservations about completely revamping the FBI, Farrell said, “There’s a systemic, institutional problem. We can walk it back to the Tsarnaev brothers [Boston Marathon bombing] where they missed the leads, multiple leads on them. You can go back to Whitey Bulger for that matter. You can go back to existing corruption in El Paso, Texas. There’s all sorts of problems.”

“At this point, you’ve got a 200-and-some-odd record of the U.S. Marshals Service performing honorable work,” he said.  “So let’s create an investigative branch or division within the U.S. Marshals Service. Let the very fine agents, at the rank and file level who are trying to do their jobs, let them apply for, be screened, and then be admitted to this new investigative division. Then let’s take what’s left over of an obvious, deeply flawed organization, certainly at the headquarters, and shake it out.”

Farrell continued, “Let’s start over. We don’t want to lose good people and we don’t have to. We can simply put them in a new investigative arm of the U.S. Marshals Service, an organization that has served honorably for more than 200 years.”

Trish Regan then started to talk about holding certain FBI officials accountable and Farrell said, “Here’s the problem: If nothing changes, nothing changes. There has to be a radical, penetrating, severe examination. You have to turn over the furniture here.”

“We have to reset the thinking,” said Farrell. “It’s an institutional, cultural question. The entity itself has become poisoned.”

As for the FBI’s undeniable failure in the Florida school shooting case, Reuters reported, “A person described as someone close to accused gunman Nikolas Cruz, 19, called an FBI tip line on Jan. 5, weeks before the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, to report concerns about him, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement.

“’The caller provided information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting,’” it said.

“That information should have been forwarded to the FBI’s Miami field office for further investigation, but ‘we have determined that these protocols were not followed,’ the agency said.”

Florida Governor Rick Scott, a Republican, has called on FBI Director Christopher Wray to resign.

Virginia’s Second Amendment Sanctuaries: An Update

Last week I wrote about the spread of Virginia’s “Second Amendment sanctuaries” — counties, towns, and cities that vow not to enforce state gun laws they deem unconstitutional, in the wake of the Democrats’ taking control of the state government. There are a few new developments worth noting.

For starters, the sanctuaries have spread dramatically. They’re up to 93 jurisdictions — covering roughly 40 percent of the population, by my quick spreadsheet tally. That’s huge, though the biggest victory, in Prince William County, is likely to be overturned when the county board flips to the Democrats, and some of these places have passed vague resolutions in support of the Constitution rather than the more aggressive language proposed by the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

As I noted in my previous piece, these resolutions have limited legal effect; local governments are basically subordinate to state governments. But defiance like this can put political pressure on moderate Democrats — and, failing that, can force the state government to either (A) take drastic action to stamp out resistance or (B) give up and let these places refuse to enforce new gun laws, possibly ramping up state-police activity there as a replacement.

On the politics, it’s worth noting that the state Democrats have already caved on confiscating “assault weapons,” modifying a bill so that it would still ban sales going forward but would require current owners to register their guns rather than turning them in.

It’s also worth comparing this map of sanctuaries:

. . . with this one of Virginia senate districts. (Click here to see the interactive version via the Virginia Public Access Project; I chose the senate because it’s much closer politically than the house.)

If an area is blue in both maps, it’s both a sanctuary and represented by a Democrat, suggesting a senator who might experience this movement as pressure from home. Such places do exist, though often the sanctuary jurisdictions make up only a minority of the Democratic district’s population. (See, e.g., districts 18, 21, and 25.) However, the senate is split 21–19, so it doesn’t take a lot of side-switching to stop a bill.

Finally, on how the Democrats will respond in the event they pass new gun laws and many local law-enforcement agencies refuse to enforce them, the governor has threatened “consequences,” and other Virginia Democrats have floated everything from prosecutions of local authorities, to cutting off state funds, to National Guard deployment.

Fun times.

Congress to fund CDC gun violence research for first time in decades

The CDC could always research ‘gun violence’. The Dickey amendment just kept them from promoting a political gun control agenda.

Congress is poised to approve $25 million in gun violence research as part of its year-end spending deal due Friday.

The sum is half what Democratic leaders requested, but it would be the first time in two decades that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would receive direct funding to look into the issue. The funding is part of the deal Congress must pass by Friday to avoid a government shutdown, with half of the money going to the CDC and the rest going to the National Institutes of Health, which provide grants to scientists.

Democrat Rosa DeLauro, who is chairwoman of the House appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, said the funding would allow the CDC to help Congress better understand the correlation between domestic violence and gun violence, how people can store their guns more safely, and how to prevent suicides, which account for two-thirds of gun deaths.

Despite the funding victory, Democrats were unable to convince the Senate to take up a bill that would require universal background checks, which was passed by the House but is opposed by President Trump.

The push for gun violence research is part of the reaction to the mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, seven years ago. Cries for change grew louder following mass shootings at an Orlando nightclub, a country music concert in Las Vegas, and a high school in Parkland, Florida.

Last year, Congress passed a change to the Dickey Amendment, which was enacted in 1996 and prohibits federal agencies from advocating or promoting gun control, to “clarify” that agencies could research gun violence. Opponents have pushed to have the prohibition repealed, saying it had a chilling effect on gun violence research. Even with the change in language, research languished because Congress hadn’t appropriated funding.

Livingston Parish sheriff’s deputy shot off-duty at home, kills attacker

WATSON, La. (KLFY) – One man is dead after an off-duty deputy-involved shooting in Livingston Parish.

Shortly before 1 a.m. today (Dec. 16), the Livingston Parish sheriff’s deputy was at his home when he was reportedly confronted by an armed individual. A physical altercation occurred, in which both the deputy and his attacker discharged their guns. Both were struck by gunfire.

The attacker was pronounced dead at the scene, while the deputy was transported to a local hospital for treatment. Neither person’s identity has been released.

The Louisiana State Police Bureau of Investigation was contacted to investigate and gather all facts surrounding the incident. Louisiana State Police Troop A is assisting in the investigation.

 

Voters Favor Jail, Firing for Rogue Officials Who Targeted Trump

Rasmussen polls

Monday, December 16, 2019

Voters are ready to jail or fire senior law enforcement officials who illegally targeted President Trump, but most think they are unlikely to be punished.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone and online survey finds that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters consider it likely that senior federal law enforcement officials broke the law in an effort to prevent Trump from winning the presidency. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say that’s unlikely. This includes 36% who say it’s Very Likely they broke the law to get Trump and 24% who say it’s Not At All Likely. These findings are virtually unchanged in surveying since February of last year. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

A plurality (43%) thinks these officials should be jailed if they are found guilty of breaking the law to prevent a Trump presidency, up dramatically from 25% early this year, while another 22% say they should just be fired. Fifteen percent (15%) favor a formal reprimand. Just 11% say no disciplinary action should be taken.

But only 34% of voters believe the officials in question are likely to face criminal charges for their anti-Trump activity, with just 16% who say it’s Very Likely. Fifty-five percent (55%) see criminal prosecution of these rogue officials as unlikely, including 24% who feel it’s Not At All Likely. These attitudes are essentially unchanged from two months ago despite the recent release of a Justice Department inspector general’s report detailing wrongdoing by senior law enforcement officials.

>Eighty percent (80%) of voters who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing think it’s Very Likely that senior federal law enforcement officials attempted illegally to deny him the presidency. Among voters who Strongly Disapprove of the president’s job performance, only nine percent (9%) agree.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted December 12 and 15, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

The U.S. Justice Department’s inspector general has concluded that James Comey improperly leaked information to the news media while he was serving as head of the FBI, and voters by a 47% to 35% margin think he should be criminally prosecuted.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) say they have been closely following news reports about the inspector general’s investigation of the FBI, with 41% who have been following Very Closely. Among those following the news Very Closely, 55% think it’s Very Likely that senior law enforcement officials broke the law in an effort to get Trump.

The older the voter, the closer they have been following the news about the Justice Department IG report.

Republicans (71%) are a lot more likely than Democrats (39%) and unaffiliated voters (46%) to suspect federal law enforcement officials of trying to prevent the Trump presidency. GOP voters are also the most likely to think they’ll be criminally charged.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of Republicans think convicted offenders should be jailed, a view shared by 35% of Democrats and 38% of unaffiliateds. Fifteen percent (15%) of Democrats say there should be no disciplinary action, compared to five percent (5%) of Republicans and 13% of unaffiliated voters.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of all voters said in April that it is likely President Obama or his top aides were aware that U.S. intelligence agencies were spying on the Trump campaign and the Trump transition team.

Law enforcement officials were investigating alleged contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but earlier this year Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation concluded that no such collusion took place. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Democrats don’t agree with Mueller’s conclusions, but 76% of Republicans and 50% of unaffiliated voters do.

Climate Zealots, Firing Squads, And A Load Of Manure

The United Nations’ 25th Conference Of The Parties climate summit ended Sunday with participants unable to agree on what are the media are calling “key” emissions targets. Some participants are blaming America’s absence for the failure. The more sober-minded, though, are grateful President Donald Trump has no time for the global warming nonsense.

Even with the canonized Greta Thunberg threatening to put the world’s national leaders “against the wall” if they don’t “do their job and to protect our futures,” the principals could work out nothing more than, according to the all-in-on-the-global-warming-hysterics Guardian, “a partial agreement to ask countries to come up with more ambitious targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions in order to meet the terms of the 2015 Paris accord.”

(For the record, the Swedish teen scold apologized for her comment. Maybe someone told her that her rant sounded as if she wanted to round up those who have failed her, and line them up for a firing squad, revealing a little too much of the fantasies many of the hate-filled alarmists play out in their heads.)

The response from activists was predictable. They made a “really futile and stupid gesture” by dumping horse manure outside the meeting and staging a mock hanging in which one of the “condemned” held a baby while she had a rope around her neck. Reuters said these woke folk were “frustrated” by the talks. Frustrated, we’d say, in the same way a child becomes upset and throws a tantrum because he couldn’t get his way.

The U.S. had no official representatives at the summit, though a delegation of congressional Democrats did travel to Madrid, where Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi assured the delegates, feckless poseurs whose greatest achievement has been to convince the world that they’re important people doing important work, that “we are still in.”

“Our delegation is here to send a message that Congress’ commitment to take action on the climate crisis is iron clad,” she said.

As a member of the legislative branch, she has no authority to conduct foreign affairs, a duty left exclusively to the executive branch. So like the rest of summit, the Democrats’ appearance was all for show.

Outside the madness demonstrated by a few true believers, efforts to “fight global warming,” particularly at official levels, are a cover for other objectives. The climate alarmists hope to:

  • Show their moral superiority by claiming to be on the right side of the argument (which is why empty-headed celebrities are always so eager to demonstrate their support for the climate crusade).
  • Punish success, whether it’s national (produced by free-market economic systems), corporate (produced by hard work and savvy business decisions), or individual (produced by perseverance and character), and vilify and manage Western consumption habits.
  • Save the reputations of researchers who have staked their academic lives on the man-made global warming narrative.
  • Control the behavior of others.
  • Feed their oversized egos by making sure they’re seen associating with the “right” people.

Trump has promised to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, which has attracted the wrath of the domestic and international left, but is a sensible policy decision. No nation should handicap its economy and burden its citizens based on the sketchy conjecture that man is overheating his planet. Americans should be thankful they have a president who isn’t concerned about his reputation among elitists who haven’t changed their behavior since high school, yet are running, and ruining, our halls of government, foundational institutions, and once-respected academies.

Figures Don’t Lie, But…
…you know the rest.

There’s an article about the upcoming “Student Debt Tsunami” that will destroy the American economy in the near future.

Of course, the numbers are used to argue the case for “Free” College for All. I don’t need to point out to readers of this blog the stupidity of that idea.

One ‘heart-rending’ factoid used in the article is that Black students will be ‘unfairly’ the biggest recipients of the crash. The figures are below.

Student Loan Default Rates Are Highest For African Americans
The default rate among African American graduates is more than five times the rate of white graduates.
BACHELOR’S DEGREE GRADUATES
TOTAL AMOUNT BORROWED
DEFAULT RATE
Black $55,667 20.6%
Hispanic or Latino $28,599 8.6%
White $26,005 4%
Asian $30,612 1.4%
Notes
Debt and default among bachelor’s degree graduates 12 years after college entry, 2004 entry cohort.
Source: Judith Scott-Clayton, Brookings Institution

Several considerations come to mind:
Black students are borrowing more than twice as much as White students, which might lead one to ask:
Are Black students majoring in subjects that pay off at higher levels than White students?
The short and dirty answer – No. A study of college majors, and the proportions of students by ethnicity and sex, is here. Very scholarly, very much supportive of the idea that minorities do not major in fields that will pay adequately with just a bachelor’s degree.

That’s a hard thing to get minorities/women to understand. A college degree is not just a college degree – major field of study counts.

I once had a discussion with an English teacher, who was indignant that her brother, with ‘only’ a bachelor’s degree, made considerably more than she, with a Master’s in English from a prestigious university.

I asked what her brother had majored in.

Electrical Engineering, I was told.

I diplomatically suggested that the field of engineering was short of people to fill those jobs, and might, therefore, pay more.

After being lectured about how pay should have NO relation to the number of applicants, but should be the same for the same ‘level’ of education required, I shrugged, and left.

She wasn’t unique. MANY women, and minorities, have those egalitarian principles. Of course, that does inhibit upward mobility for individuals, but, hey – they keep their ‘pure’ ideals.

So, how should the student debt crisis be handled?

Put a ceiling on the amount that can be borrowed. Limit that amount to a MAX equal to the amount that the average person in that field earns after 5 years. No loan guarantees after that amount.

Also, put a maximum on the amount that can be borrowed each year equal to a year’s tuition, minus other financial aid. If a college really wants a kid to attend, let them pony up a GRANT for room and board.

What does this mean? Fewer kids going to ‘away’ colleges, more attending local ones, including community/tech colleges.

NO money for coursework that is below college level. Let them take those classes at a junior college, before attending a four-year one. Admittance to four-year colleges for the low SAT/ill-prepared dependent on successful completion of an associate’s degree.

Yes, I realize that this will likely KILL Big 10 football/basketball, but some sacrifices have to be made.

WE NOW KNOW

When the Soviet Union collapsed and its archives were opened, certain Cold War controversies became susceptible of definitive resolution. Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis titled his 1997 book on the subject We Now Know. By the same token, publication of the Department of Justice Inspector General report on FISA abuse and related issues should similarly bring closure to the Russia hoax touted by the Democrats and their media adjunct over the past three years. As to the status of the Steele Dossier and the invalidity of the FISA warrants taken out on Carter Page to spy on the Trump campaign, we now know.

Having joined up with the intelligence and law enforcement authorities who perpetrated the unbelievable abuses involved here, the luminaries of the mainstream media are not inclined to apologize or engage in introspection of any kind. On the contrary, they have chosen sides and carry on the battle without looking back.

If there is to be a reckoning with the deceit and dishonesty that have pervaded our public discourse on matters related to the hoax, we are on our own. That is what I mean to do in this series. What we have here is by far the biggest scandal in American political history and the bigwigs of the mainstream media served as accomplices of the perpetrators.

Following up on “After Horowitz,” I want to highlight the overview provided by Senator Josh Hawley at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Horowitz this past Wednesday (video below).

Quotable quote: “The DNC pays for the Steele dossier, solicits the Steele dossier, and then gets the Federal Bureau of Investigation to go get FISA warrants, surveil an American citizen, surveil a presidential campaign, all on the basis of this manufactured garbage that they paid for. I mean that’s extraordinary. That has got to be a first time in history. In fact, let me just ask you, Mr. Horowitz, are you aware ever of another presidential campaign being targeted by the FBI during the campaign like the Trump campaign was?” (Answer: No.)