Thursday, February 14, 2013

From the Institution of Higher Entitlements: Pa. grad student sues, says C-plus cost her $1.3M

February 14, 2013


Northampton County judge rules there's enough evidence in suit over student's poor grade to move forward



Lehigh University is asking a judge to dismiss
a lawsuit a student brought over a poor grade.
EASTON, Pa.—Talk about grade inflation. 

Graduate student Megan Thode wasn't happy about the C-plus she received for one class, saying the mediocre grade kept her from getting her desired degree and becoming a licensed therapist—and, as a result, cost her $1.3 million in lost earnings.

Now Thode is suing her professor and Lehigh University in Bethlehem, claiming monetary damages and seeking a grade change.

A judge is hearing testimony in the case this week in Northampton County Court. Lehigh and the professor contend her lawsuit is without merit. Northampton County Judge Emil Giordano declined to dismiss the suit Wednesday, ruling that there was enough evidence for the suit to proceed, according to The (Easton) Express-Times (http://bit.ly/Ye2Aj1).

Thode took the class in the fall of 2009. Her instructor, Amanda Eckhardt, testified this week that she stood by the grade, saying Thode failed to behave professionally and thus earned zero out of 25 points in class participation, bumping her down a full letter grade.

"I ... believed she received the grade she earned," Eckhardt said.

The C-plus prevented Thode, an otherwise A student, from going on to the next class and advancing in her professional therapist studies, the newspaper reported. She wound up getting a master's degree in human development instead.

Her attorney, Richard Orloski, argued that Eckhardt targeted Thode because she is an outspoken advocate for gay marriage.

Eckhardt testified that while she believes marriage is between a man and a woman, she would never allow her personal views to influence her treatment of students. She said Thode had outbursts in class, did not participate appropriately, was emotionally unstable and failed to heed a warning letter.

Stephen Thode, the plaintiff's father and a longtime finance professor at Lehigh, testified on his daughter's behalf and said her participation score was highly irregular.

"I have never heard of a case, not just at Lehigh, where a student achieved a zero in class participation where they attended and participated in every class," he said.

Giordano is presiding over the nonjury trial and is expected to rule on Thode's lawsuit after testimony concludes.

source

hat tip: ydr

Remember Your Oath To Protect The Constitution, Mr. President

February 14, 2013

U.S President Barack Obama (L) takes the oath of office from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (R) as first lady Michelle Obama (2nd L) holds the bible and daughter Malia (C) and Sasha looks on in the Blue Room of the White House January 20, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)
Mr. President, perhaps amidst the merriment surrounding the inaugural festivities you misremembered your oath. Sir, you solemnly swore “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” But these few weeks hence, your State of the Union speech essentially disavowed America’s cherished founding charter. Many left-leaning pundits applaud your “bold” vision to radically redefine America. President Obama, you are understandably emboldened by re-election, but you were not made king. Regardless of whether you agree with constitutional precepts, you’re still legally bound; still compelled by the sacred oath you swore.

Perhaps while lecturing college students on Constitutional Law you read it. What authorization supports the myriad initiatives you presented to Congress? Those few matters you articulated within what was entrusted to the federal executive betrayed a radical departure from the Founder’s vision. Defense at least falls within your legitimate purview, but your desire to push women into combat seem more about repudiating America’s heritage than buttressing her military.

Congress's Policies Steal
Our Freedoms While
Rewarding Irresponsibility
The SOTU address advanced the progressive agenda suggested at your inauguration – which you delivered mere moments after vowing subservience to the very Constitution you have consistently abused in word and deed. A bloated government exceeding its constitutional scope has become increasingly accepted, but Washington drifts rudder-less in fiscal disarray. The economy stagnates, long-term unemployment lingers and regulatory burdens strangle businesses. Please reconsider the proper sphere of federal power. Your government-centric business sector and government-dependent populace sap our national vitality.

Not that presidents plowing past constitutional parameters represents anything novel. Figure politicians have long showered public money on anything they found expedient. But your obsession with parlaying politically correct causes surpasses anything your predecessors conceived. Under pretense of “investments,” you propose funneling taxpayer funds into “sustainable” energy, education geared toward yesteryear’s realities, and then you transparently wish to accelerate entitlements – all while prattling about deficit reduction and lambasting “special interests.”

President Obama, your speech represented a paean to corporatism. Public “investments,” “manufacturing hubs,” and “energy security trusts” all reek of crony capitalism. In a lecture catering to economic concerns, you cast nary even an offhand bone about bolstering the dollar, yet you bemoaned rising energy costs. Restoring sound money would better serve poor families than all your corporatist gimmicks combined. The Constitution tasks government as an impartial referee guarding the “general Welfare.” Washington was not empowered to promote the particular welfare of political favorites.

Per the Constitution, the federal apparatus primarily pertains to matters of foreign policy. Government is best when limited and delivered locally. Little Washington does domestically enjoys constitutional approbation. Less still, think the post office, fares well compared to private efforts. In those areas the central government must act, the Framers enumerated very specific powers to what became Washington. But they then erected a barrier – the Bill of Rights – declaring federal authorities could do nothing that went unspecified.

Most domestic duties remain with the sovereign states – or citizens privately. Government ought to only oversee what preserves the inalienable rights resident in our persons and property: fire, police, military and foreign diplomacy, the legal infrastructure and certain other functions difficult for markets to coordinate such as roads. The benefits of freedom far exceed the economic realm, but this prescription for free enterprise spurred the unparalleled prosperity Americans consider their birthright.

Professional politicians only perceive past glory and project it forward. Mr. Obama, you may presume because America has flourished historically that you can raid public coffers for pet causes with impunity. Who cares, you seem to suggest, America remains strong. But America is broke. Well, more accurately, Washington is insolvent and finances are the least of it. Government displays severe deficits in character and restraint. Private markets would thrive anew if government reverted to the constitutional limitations which launched America’s greatness.

Recall George Washington’s eternal warning, government behaves “like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” State power represents little save a monopoly on legalized force. Caesar may only rightfully wield his sword to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The state lacks capacity for compassion, or any of the myriad qualities liberals naively bestow on it. Higher minimum wages will merely spawn higher unemployment. Yet, federal power surges under the false auspice that Washington attends to problems it cannot successfully solve and has little right to pursue.

If men were just or all could defend themselves, laws would be redundant. We can’t, thus government, but our Forefathers feared if loosely defined, federal authority might infringe on freedom. The Framers crafted a republic predicated on natural, unalienable rights. They were mortified that democracy might cede to demagogues’ leeway to diminish liberty. Thomas Jefferson noted, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Majority rule or which party prevails should matter little. Every politician must swear allegiance and submission to the law.

The Constitution rests on checks and balances between branches of government and levels of government. Even should the entire nation unanimously support something contrary to the requirements of liberty, the Constitution restricts government from violating our unalienable rights. Washington should remain shackled by due process, limited by enumerated powers, bound by the Bill of Rights.

Sadly, America has lost her bearings. Federal power no longer conforms to constitutional constraints, except perhaps procedurally. Pandora’s Box rests ajar. Only Hope and maybe Nostalgia remain of limited, constitutional government. Those few spheres still free from political meddling lay exposed. With the box open, those rights we retain are merely vestiges of autonomy which the government has not yet absconded.

Liberty taken for granted quickly becomes liberty lost. When presidents exceed constitutional boundaries government’s monopoly on force embodies an instrument of coercion. Paraphrasing Augustine, “What is a kingdom without justice but a gang of criminals on a vast scale?”

President Obama, your authority derives by the Constitution. Your marching orders remain relegated by that enumerated therein. The law must remain preeminent.


source

Obama Fires 20,000 Marines, But Sends $700 Million to Palestinian Terrorists

February 14, 2013

by Daniel Greenfield

So where in the Middle East was it that all those undisclosed millions in '08 campaign funding came from again?


I recall Obama talking a lot about “Nation-Building at Home” instead of abroad, but like every other word that comes out of his mouth, that was another lie.

While Barack Hussein Obama is firing 20,000 Marines as part of his massive purge of the United States military to “save money”, he’s also fighting to send $700 million to the terrorists of the Palestinian Authority.

On Feb 8th, Obama issued yet another waiver for Palestinian Authority aid, claiming that sending money to the corrupt undemocratic terrorist kleptocracy that refuses to negotiate a peaceful solution was “important to the national security interests of the United States.”

Unlike those 20,000 Marines who aren’t important to the national security of the United States.

And now the big push for terrorist cash in on with John Kerry leading the way, clutched medals in hand.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is fighting to send the Palestinian Authority nearly $700 million in aid, despite major budget cuts and a fierce debate over where existing money should go.

“The Secretary feels extremely strongly that it is time now to get this support to the Palestinian Authority,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

Kerry is working with lawmakers to “get appropriated money released for the Palestinian Authority because we think it’s very, very important that they remain effective in supporting the needs of the Palestinian people,” Nuland said.


What about the needs of the American people? Kerry has already been responsible for heaps of money being dumped on Pakistan and on Egypt. Now he wants even more cash for Islamist terrorists.

Should the American people continue suffering under crippling taxes while their money is being used to fund international terrorism?


source: frontpagemag

Obamanomics: Poor guy uses ILLEGAL GUN to rob poor 11 year old of Obama-issued ACCESS CARD

February 14, 2013

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Harrisburg police said an 11-year-old boy was robbed at gunpoint in Allison Hill.

Police said the boy told them he was walking to a store Friday night when a man armed with a gun tapped him on the shoulder and demanded his money.

The boy did not have any money so he gave the robber an ACCESS card that belonged to a relative. The boy was not hurt.


source

A glimpse into the future of violent crime?

February 14, 2013

Update: 1 man killed, 1 injured in hammer, knife fight


HARRISBURG, Pa. - One man was killed and another seriously injured in a hammer and knife fight in Harrisburg on Wednesday around 11:30 a.m., according to police.

"Patrol officers were dispatched to a home in the 1500 block of Vernon St. on a report that two men were fighting with hammers. The officers were met at the door of the home by a witness who lives in York, PA. Inside, they found a 55 year old black male on the floor with stab wounds to his back. In a second floor bedroom they found Jose Vazquez in bed and seriously injured with significant head trauma. The men were taken to separate area hospitals," a police news release states.

Another witness, Vazquez's brother, was in the home. Police said he told them he came there to see Vazquez when the 55-year-old man tried to stop him, then hit him in the side of the head with a large hammer. After a struggle, police said the 55-year-old male was stabbed as he tried to hit Vazquez's brother again.

Police detained Vazquez's brother and questioned him. He has been released. Police said he suffered "a large contusion to the side of his head and several cuts and abrasions."

"Jose Vazquez died as a result of his injuries. He had suffered massive head trauma.
The black male (55-year-old) is hospitalized and is expected to recover from his wounds. That man had reportedly lived with Jose Vazquez for the past few days," a police news release states.

The killing marks the second homicide of the week in Harrisburg.

The investigation is ongoing. If you have any information that could help police, contact Det. Quinten Kennedy at 717-255-3157 or email qkennedy@cityofhbg.com or Lt. Robert Fegan at 717-255-3114 or email rfegan@cityofhbg.com to reach City detectives.

Anyone may also call the Dauphin County Police dispatch at 717-558-6900 and ask for a city detective.

source

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Chris Stevens Was Not Even Remembered

February 13, 2013

Often times, the killer is someone close to the victim...


(Big Government) - In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama failed to mention the late Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the three other Americans who died on Sep. 11, 2012 in the terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. 

He mentioned the victims of the massacre in Newtown, CT in December, and invited the families of victims of other violent gun crimes to watch from the gallery. But the Benghazi victims' families were not present at all.

Instead of offering even the slightest word of tribute for the fallen, for Chris Stevens's amazing career or for the bravery of the diplomatic and security personnel who fought the enemy alone for several hours, President Obama boasted of his administration's success in the fight against Al Qaeda:

Today, the organization that attacked us on 9/11 is a shadow of its former self. Different al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged – from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa. The threat these groups pose is evolving. But to meet this threat, we don’t need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad, or occupy other nations.

Perhaps we don't need to send "tens of thousands" abroad--though I would argue that Obama's current policy of weakness ("leading from behind") will make it inevitable that Americans will have to cross the oceans again in large numbers to defend our freedom. But Benghazi was about a few courageous Americans, carrying out the nation's mission in a strange and isolated place that the administration was woefully reluctant to defend.

It is appalling to know that American heroes would give all for their country and would simply be ignored, out of apparent political expedience. "What difference does it make?" former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yelled, and it certainly appears to have made little for the President, who did nothing to save the lives of those he sent into danger but seems to feel no remorse as long as the media does not demand answers.

Obama's Democrats shed appropriate tears for the children of Sandy Hook. But where were the tears for "gun violence" abroad as well as at home? for the children left fatherless by a terror attack Obama wanted to hide?

I blame the Republicans, as well. Their Democratic colleagues arrives at the State of the Union address sporting green ribbons to show their solidarity with victims of gun violence. Where were the black ribbons on the chests of those Republican legislators? Where was the solidarity with the fallen in Benghazi? Did they think about the dead when they slapped each other on the back and exchanged grateful handshakes with their rivals?

Who knew Chris Stevens would be forgotten so quickly by the nation he loved and served so dearly?


by Joel B. Pollak

Fact Checking The State of the Union

February 13, 2013

Is Congress really to blame for the looming sequester? Has manufacturing really shot up under President Obama? The Daily Beast sifts through the Internet’s best fact checks to assess the State of the Union claims.

President Barack Obama is applauded as he gives his State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday Feb. 12, 2013. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty)

(Daily Beast) - Tuesday night, President Obama said the state of the union is strong. But how strong were all of his claims? Let’s take a look at what the Internet’s best fact-checkers have to say about the President’s speech.


“I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.”

President Obama isn’t exactly innocent in allowing the cap-and-trade legislation backed bh McCain and Lieberman to die out, Politico clarifies. He did help shepherd a climate bill through the House of Representatives in 2009, but he also drained much of the energy that the Senate could have spent on climate change legislation by generating support for other priority policies, like Wall Street regulations and health care reform. What’s more, the senators proposing similar bills now are liberal Democrats, which suggests a bipartisan solution may be a stretch.

“After shedding jobs for more than 10 years, our manufacturers have added about 500,000 jobs over the past three.”

These numbers are accurate, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data—--though Politifact does make sure to point out that those jobs are a fraction of the number that were lost in the preceding decade, which includes Obama’s first year in office. The New York Times goes a bit further, noting that not only are there nearly 3 million fewer manufacturing jobs in the U.S. than there were ten years ago, but that economists don’t foresee a revival of the American manufacturing industry any time soon.

“Let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour...Working folks shouldn’t have to wait year after year for the minimum wage to go up while CEO pay has never been higher.”

It isn’t really a question whether President Obama’s pledge to raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour is true, so much as whether it is as bold as it sounds, or likely to actually happen. Politico says it’s not, since four years ago, one of Obama’s campaign pledges was to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011 and he pretty much gave up on that pledge once the economy began to seriously plunge. It’s also difficult to see how such legislation would make its way through the Republican-controlled House.

“Earlier today, I signed a new executive order that will strengthen our cyber defenses by increasing information sharing, and developing standards to protect our national security, our jobs, and our privacy. Now, Congress must act as well, by passing legislation to give our government a greater capacity to secure our networks and deter attacks.”

It is true that President Obama did, in fact, sign such an executive order, but The New York Times clarifies that it “is not very powerful and was certainly not the administration’s first choice.” As evidenced by the President’s call on Congress to act, he is hopeful that they will pass major cybersecurity legislation, like the one that Senate Republicans--lead by John McCain--killed last year.

“Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my Administration has already made--putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history, and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”

This is not the first time Obama has claimed to have brought down illegal immigration from Mexico to its lowest point in 40 years, and Politifact has already rated the claim “half true.” Yes, there are more Border Patrol agents on the ground now than ever before and the flow of immigrants from Mexico into the U.S. has reached an all-time low--but President Obama alone cannot take credit. Politifact argues that the expansion of Border Patrol that has cracked down on illegal crossings began under the Bush administration. It’s also noteworthy that the slowdown in illegal immigration coincides with a drop to zero net immigration from Mexico, according to Pew, which attributes the plunge to a variety of factors, including the “weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets.”

“Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, and economists have already said that these [budget] cuts, known here as ‘the sequester,’ are a really bad idea.”

Obama explicitly blamed Congress for the sequester, which would trigger severe automatic spending cuts, during his final debate with Mitt Romney, but Politifact has deemed that claim “mostly false.” During the summer of 2011, as Obama negotiated with House Speaker John Boehner over a “grand bargain,” they agreed to empower a “super-committee” of lawmakers to find 1.2 trillion in spending cuts. To make sure that happened, they agreed to an unusual provision, the sequester, in which across-the-board cuts, including to the defense budget, that neither party wanted would kick in automatically if the committee failed to agree on cuts—which is what happened. Politifact notes that Obama’s negotiating team came up with the idea to cut the defense budget in the first place.

“Over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion--mostly through spending cuts, but also by raising tax rates on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.”

This is true. Think Progress points out that “nearly three-quarters of that deficit reduction is in the form of spending cuts, while the remaining one-quarter comes from revenue increases.”

Former Obama Adviser/Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Named MSNBC Contributor


February 13, 2013

(NewsBusters) - Moments before Tuesday's State of the Union address, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow made a huge announcement.

 As she introduced former Barack Obama senior campaign adviser/press secretary Robert Gibbs, she said, "I am for the first time tonight able to introduce you as an MSNBC contributor. Congratulations on that"




Gibbs responded, "Thank you, I'm happy to be here."

How fitting that someone so high up in the Obama administration would end up on the so-called news network that cheers for and defends the current White House resident more than any other.



*****Update: Politico is reporting Gibbs will also be an NBC News contributor.


Author: Noel Sheppard


Investigators attempting to identify human remains found in search for fugitive ex-cop

February 13, 2013





(Fox News) - Human remains have been found in the burned-out cabin where a fugitive ex-cop was believed to be hiding and investigators will attempt to identify them through forensic tests, a sheriff's spokeswoman said in a statement to Fox News.

San Bernardino County sheriff's spokeswoman Jodi Miller says the remains were found late Tuesday after a shootout. Authorities believe Christopher Dorner barricaded himself inside the cabin and a fire later ensued.

Investigators will attempt to determine if the remains are Dorner's through forensic tests.

Dorner, who vowed not to be taken alive, had been surrounded inside the cabin since early Tuesday afternoon. It was not clear who set the fire in the Big Bear community where Dorner apparently has been hiding since sometime last week.

The saga has gripped the country, and has the nation's third-largest police department on tenterhooks for a week. Dorner, a former Navy man and highly trained marksman, had vowed revenge on the department he believed had wronged him - designating specific targets for death. As flames devoured the cabin, police stood by, confident that there was no escape for Dorner, and no way he could survive the blaze - assuming he had not already taken his own life. One law enforcement source told The Associated Press a single shot was heard inside the cabin before the fire broke out.

San Bernardino Sheriff Spokesperson Cindy Bachman told reporters that they will not enter the structure until it is safe to do so.

Law enforcement sources said sometime within the last few days, Dorner broke into an cabin off Route 38, on the mountain resort area where days ago his truck was found burning. Two women were held there until Tuesday morning, when Dorner left in a white pickup believed to belong to one of the women, who he left bound inside. One managed to escape and call authorities around 12:50 p.m. local time.

Sometime later, fish and wildlife officers spotted the stolen pickup, which they were looking for, and tried to stop it near Big Bear Lake, authorities said. The driver, believed to have been Dorner, fled on foot, exchanging gunfire, sources told Fox News. Hours later, police had Dorner cornered in another cabin, exchanging gunfire with the suspect. It was there that his rampage would end.

As the forces surrounding the cabin mounted, the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department shut down Highway 38 to create a choke point, sources told Fox News. Four area schools were on lockdown.

The police also asked the media to stop tweeting events in real time and showing live aerial shots of the cabin, theorizing Dorner could be monitoring events on television. A CBS correspondent briefly found himself in the crossfire as he broadcasted from the event, before police ordered him out of the danger zone.

The shootout came after a day of searching and speculation, with authorities continuing their door-to-door search in the rural Southern California community, even as sources guessed Dorner, 33, may have made it over the border and into Mexico.

The hulking suspect, who claimed in a rambling manifesto posted online that he was booted from his job unfairly after official determined he falsely accused his partner of assaulting a suspect, vowed to being "asymmetrical warfare" to the department, using his police and military training, and named 40 "targets." Police have guarded the homes of the targets even as they conducted what may be the biggest manhunt in state history.

Dorner was suspected of gunning down Monica Quan, 28, and her fiancé Keith Lawrence, 27, on Feb.3 in a parking garage in Irvine, Calif. Quan’s father, Randall Quan, represented Dorner at the hearing in which he lost his job in 2009. On Monday, a day after Quan and Lawrence were found dead, some of Dorner's belongings were discovered in a trash bin near San Diego. Dorner’s bizarre manifesto surfaced on Facebook, implicating him in the murders and announcing his twisted plan for revenge against his former employer. Police hunted Dorner in San Diego, where last Wednesday night a man matching his description tried unsuccessfully to steal a boat from a marina there.

In the wee hours on Thursday, some 100 miles north in Riverside County, two LAPD officers assigned to protect a person named in Dorner’s manifesto chased a vehicle they believed was Dorner's. During an ensuing shootout, one officer was grazed in the forehead. Moments later, a gunman believed to be Dorner ambushed two Riverside cops at a traffic light, killing 11-year veteran Police Officer Michael Crain and critically injuring the other.

Dorner’s burning truck turned up 50 miles west of Riverside later that morning. Although statewide alerts were issued in California and Nevada, and authorities were watching the border, the most intense phase of the search has not left Big Bear since the truck was found on a local forest road.

In recent days, hundreds of police officers scoured the mountain, searching cabins door-to-door. While the search on Big Bear was scaled back on Monday, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department continued the hunt, likely within a stone's throw of their violent quarry.

Meanwhile, an associate of Dorner was being tracked by investigators, according to court records that suggest Dorner may have received help as he eluded a massive law enforcement dragnet. A criminal complaint filed in federal court raises the possibility that Dorner may have been assisted by an associate identified as "J.Y."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Why The Centers For Disease Control Should Not Receive Gun Research Funding

February 13, 2013

US President Barack Obama (C) signs executive
orders with Vice President Joe Biden (L) and
invited guests during an event unveiling a package
of proposals to reduce gun violence at the White
House in Washington, DC, January 16, 2013. Obama
signed 23 executive orders to curb gun violence
and demanded Congress pass as assault weapons
ban, in a sweeping set of measures in response to the
Newtown massacre.
(Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)
Among President Obama’s 23 new executive orders purportedly aimed at reducing gun violence, it is one which may appear relatively innocuous that perhaps poses the greatest danger as an assault upon our Second Amendment protections. Referring to this issue as a “public health crisis”, the president is determined to resurrect a previously failed Clinton tactic to build public support for stringent gun control gun regulations premised upon trumped-up “guns as a public disease” rationale based upon federally-funded medical pseudo-research.

Labeling his not-so-concealed gun control weapon as science, Obama took aim at the NRA and their inconvenient gun-totin’ ilk, declaring: “While year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it.”

Perhaps the president has forgotten that the CDC has previously been funded, then later defunded, regarding medical research for gun violence. His directive, if funded again by Congress, would end a virtual 17 year ban which stipulates, quite appropriately, that none of CDC’s federal financing can be used to advocate or promote gun control…exactly what CDC was originally doing.

In 1996, the Congress axed $2.6 million allocated for gun research from the CDC out of its $2.2 billion budget, charging that its studies were being driven by anti-gun prejudice. While that funding was later reinstated, it was re-designated for medical research on traumatic brain injuries.

There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban. Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control. This should have come as no surprise, given that ever since 1979, the official goal of the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, had been “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.”

Ten senators who strongly supported the CDC gun research funding ban put their reasons in writing: “This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America…Funding redundant research initiatives, particularly those which are driven by a social-policy agenda, simply does not make sense.”

Sociologist David Bordura and epidemiologist David Cowan characterized the public health literature on guns at that time as “advocacy based upon political beliefs rather than scientific fact”. Noting that The New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association were the main outlets for CDC-funded studies of firearms, they observed that “reports” with findings not advocating strict gun control were rarely cited. Bordura and Cowan found that “little is cited from the criminological or sociological field”, and also that the articles that are cited “are almost always by medical or public health researchers.”

All too often, they witnessed that “assumptions are presented as fact:”… that there is a causal association between gun ownership and risk of violence, that this association is consistent across all demographic categories, and that additional legislation will reduce the prevalence of firearms and consequently reduce the incidence of violence.” They concluded that “…incestuous and selective literature citations may be acceptable for political tracts, but they introduce a bias into scientific publications…Stating as fact associations which may be demonstrably false is not just unscientific, it is unprincipled.”

A major danger of treating gun violence as a public health issue is that invites a false, politically-driven association of guns with disease, rather than the addressing much more fundamental mental health and social causes underlying violent behavior in general. This mischaracterization is made clear in 1994 American Medical News interview with Dr. Katherine Christoffel, head of the “Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan”, a CDC-funded organization who said: “guns are a virus that must be eradicated… They are causing an epidemic of death by gunshot, which should be treated like any epidemic…you get rid of the virus…get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of deaths.”

In the same article, Mark Rosenberg, who then headed CDC, agreed: “Kathy Christoffel is saying about firearms injuries what has been said for years about AIDS: that we can no longer be silent. That silence equals death and she’s not willing to be silent anymore. She’s asking for help.”

That same year, Rosenberg told the Washington Post: “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly and banned.” And in the previous year, he had subtitled his part of an article on the public health approach to violence published in Atlanta Medicine: “The Bullet as Pathogen.”

This conflation of gun and disease research even drew criticism within other CDC divisions. As C.J. Peters, head of its Special Pathogens Branch told the Pittsburgh Post- Gazette in 1996, “The CDC has got to be careful that we don’t get into social issues. If we’re going to do that, we ought to start a center for social change. We should stay with medical issues.”

In fact, the CDC conducted a major two-year independent study of various regulatory laws in 2003. The investigation considered bans on specified firearms or ammunition; gun registration; concealed-weapon carry; and zero-tolerance for firearms in schools. The study concluded there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

As Don Kates and Henry Schaffer point out in a 1997 Reason article, the main function of treating gun violence as a public health issue with a disease metaphor is to: “…lend a patina of scientific credibility to the belief that guns cause violence…a belief that is hard to justify on empirical grounds.” Kates, a civil liberties lawyer, and Schaffer, a professor of genetics and biomathematics, cite several examples where CDC has sponsored flawed research to advance that belief.

A key go-to guy for many of the CDC’s studies was their favorite gun researcher, Arthur Kellermann, the director of Emory University’s Center for Injury Control. In a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine article, Kellermann and his coauthors cited a book written by James Wright and Peter Rossi titled “Under the Gun” to support their contention that “restricting access to handguns could substantially reduce our annual rate of homicide.” Yet the book actually says the opposite. With reference to that particular notion, it actually said: “There is no persuasive evidence that supports that view.”

Then in 1992, writing in another New England Journal of Medicine piece, Kellermann cited an American Journal of Psychiatry study to back up a claim that “limiting access to firearms could prevent many suicides.” Instead, that study really concluded that suicidal people who don’t have guns find other ways to kill themselves.

CDC funded Kellermann and his colleagues to study whether guns in homes are a benefit or liability for protection from criminal intrusions. According to their examination of 198 incidents in which burglars entered occupied homes in Atlanta, they found that “only three individuals (1.5%) employed a firearm in self –defense”, therefore concluding that guns are rarely used. Closer examination of their data, however, tells a somewhat different story.

In 42% of those incidents, there was no confrontation between the victim and offender because, as they admitted, “the offender(s) either left silently or fled when detected.” When the burglar left silently, the intended victim wasn’t aware of the crime, and therefore had no opportunity to use a gun in self-defense, or alternatively, to call the police. The incidents where would-be intruders “fled when detected”, may actually indicate that that defensive gun ownership can be a crime deterrent, encouraging burglars to flee.

Dropping the 83 no-confrontation incidents from Kellermann’s 198- burglary list leaves 115 which should have been counted. Then, of those remaining, assuming that only about half of U.S. homes had guns at that time… and also that 70% of those that do store them unloaded where their use for self-defense wasn’t feasible… his 1.5% figure rises to 17%.

Even more problematic for his conclusion, Kellermann’s study only covered burglaries reported to police…and since police only catch about 10% of home burglars, the only good reason to report them is for insurance purposes. So if no property was lost because a burglar fled when a household member brandished a gun, many or most of those incidents may not have been recorded.

Kellermann and University of Washington pathologist Donald Reay examined gunshot deaths in King County, Washington from 1978 to 1983, concluding that of 398 people killed in a home where a gun was kept, only two were shot when trying to get in. They also claimed that there were “43 suicides, criminal homicides, or accidental gunshot deaths involving a gun kept in a home for every case of homicide for self-protection.”

Yet research by well-known criminalist Gary Kleck indicates that only a tiny percentage of defensive gun uses result in the deaths of offenders. In fact, even Kellermann and Reay conceded that: “Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified.”

Kates and Schaffer observe in their Reason article that “by leaving out such cases, Kellermann and Reay excluded almost all the lives saved, injuries avoided, and property protected by keeping a gun in the home.” Yet they note that gun control advocates continue to use that study as a basis for claims such as, “A gun in the home is 43 times as likely to kill a family member as to be used in self-defense.”

While CDC financing for research on gun violence hasn’t actually stopped completely, it is currently limited to research where firearms are treated only as a component of a broader problem. The CDC asks researchers it funds to give it a heads-up whenever they publish studies related to firearms, and as a courtesy, typically relays this information to the NRA.

As a result of CDC’s sensitivity to controversy, the circle of academics who study gun-related issues has fallen off dramatically, a circumstance that this research community is clearly unhappy about. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis who had his CDC funding cut in 1996, knew who to blame: “The National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress have largely succeeded in choking off the development of evidence upon which that [government gun] policy could be based.”

Yup…you betcha! That “policy” was settled by our by our Constitutional forefathers long ago, and was recently affirmed by our Supreme Court. Those who care about our Second Amendment rights should be grateful that those judgments weren’t rendered on the basis of CDC advice.


source: Forbes

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

If You Took Every American On Food Stamps And Gave Them Their Own Nation They Would Be The 27th Largest Country…

February 12, 2013


The 47.7 million on food stamps would be larger than both Spain and Columbia.


I think we need to come up with a name for this country. Welfaristan?



Source: Weasel Zippers

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

February 12, 2013

Obama's national security policy has continued some of the most controversial moves of the Bush administration. Silence from much of the left.

Democrats were overjoyed when George W. Bush left office in January of 2009.


Via: amfussybroad



Obama had promised to end Bush's hawkish foreign policy and the "war on terror's" detention and interrogation regime.





But in the beginning of his fifth year as president, Obama's record has been surprisingly similar to his predecessor's in those areas.




1. Democrats fought George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq in 2006.



Obama copied it in Afghanistan in 2009.




You would think Democrats would react the same way they did to Bush's surge policy:



But they were really more like:

2. American deaths in Afghanistan have skyrocketed since Obama took office.



Actually, the death tolls in Afghanistan under each administration look like this:




So you would think Democrats would react like this:



But they are much more like this.



3. President Obama's drones and special operators are working down "kill lists" of suspected terrorists.



Obama even put Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen — on such a list.



Al-Awlaki was killed under secret authorization from the justice department in 2011.


If Bush did this, the Democrats would be all like:



But now they are more like:



4. Drone attacks have risen sharply under Obama.



Last year, a teenage American citizen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was taken out in a drone strike without a trial.



If Bush did this, Democrats would literally hyperventilate.



But with Obama they are more like:




5. In Pakistan alone, the administration has launched more than 300 drone strikes.



Pakistani civilian casualties due to these strikes are as high as 800 according to international estimates.



So the Democrats should be like:



But they are a lot more like:



6. Obama promised to end the Bush-era torture interrogation practices.


But last year the U.N. released three damning reports detailing torture in Afghan facilities under Obama's security watch.


When Bush did this, Democrats were like:


Now:


7. Obama was unable to deliver on his pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which Bush had also said he would close.


When Bush did this, Democrats were all like:


And...


8. And...


But now they are much more like:


"We may not be so different, you and I."


source: Buzzfeed

Obama Approves Direct Funding For Hamas

February 12, 2013

Hat tip has to go to Spellchek for this little tidbit of information. In all of his infinite wisdom and glory, President Barack Obama has waived restrictions placed on the direct funding of the Palestinian Authority. If you remember, this is the group that is run by Hamas. Going further back in your memory, you will recall Hamas is the terrorist organization that has refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. In fact, their charter calls for the destruction of Israel.

(White House) MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

SUBJECT: Waiver of Restriction on Providing Funds to the Palestinian Authority

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7040(b) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Division I, Public Law 112-74) (the “Act”) as carried forward by the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 112-175) (the “CR”), I hereby certify that it is important to the national security interests of the United States to waive the provisions of section 7040(a) of the Act as carried forward by the CR, in order to provide funds appropriated to carry out chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, to the Palestinian Authority.

You are directed to transmit this determination to the Congress, with a report pursuant to section 7040(d) of the Act as carried forward by the CR, and to publish this determination in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA


If you will look at the date of the press release on the White House website, you will find it was Friday. The Obama administration is so open and transparent that they make sure these things are released at the end of the week and the news cycle.

The previous occupant of the White House didn’t like the idea of funding Hamas. So much so that he declared it would not happen until Hamas met certain requirements. Here is what President George W. Bush had to say about it in 2006.

United States said it would not provide aid to an authority governed by Hamas until the group renounces violence, recognizes Israel and agrees to abide by existing agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

President Obama evidently does not hold the same fears about what our money will be used for, after it is funneled to the terrorists as foreign aid. I can not help but ask for a clarification of what he means when he says “it is important to the national security interests of the United States” to waive the restrictions. Exactly whose national interests is he trying to protect? Since it can’t be ours and it’s no secret he is no big fan of Israel, it must be Hamas he is trying to help.

If you had doubts where Obama places his priorities, this should put them to rest. I’m sure Hamas will welcome these funds with great joy and gratitude and put them to good use. Rockets are expensive.

LD Jackson

Grenade attack at U.S. Consulate in Mexico

February 12, 2013


On Thursday, the Dallas News reported:

Three grenades exploded Thursday evening in Nuevo Laredo, just feet from the U.S. Consulate office, sources in the Mexican border city said.

No injuries were reported, but the explosions rattled the neighborhood, as locals scurried for cover amid a firefight between what’s believed to be members of the Zetas criminal group and their former allies, the Gulf cartel, which is making a push to reclaim the territory.

The two groups appear to be battling, leaving a trail of killings and burned houses. In recent days, sources said, seven people have been killed — three of them Americans — and five homes torched.

The U.S. Consulate issued an alert, and Mexican soldiers were deployed to guard the building.


This is the second time in three years, an explosion has rocked the U.S. facility.

In April 2010, someone tossed an explosive device onto the grounds of the U.S. consulate in Nuevo Laredo. The bomb broke windows and caused some minor damage, but no injuries were reported.

Nuevo Laredo is just across the river from Laredo, TX.

In March 2010, U.S. consulate employees in Juarez were murdered in targeted attacks, after leaving a child’s birthday party.

In two separate attacks, cartel gunmen murdered two Americans attached to the consulate. Authorities believe that members of the Mexican drug gang known as the Aztecas actually carried out the attacks.

Lesley Enriquez Redelfs, a consulate employee, along with her husband, Arthur Redelfs, a detention officer with the El Paso County Sheriff's Department were gunned down as they were leaving a child's birthday party. The couple was murdered after being chased-down by the hit men. Their baby daughter who was in the backseat survived the assault.

Also shot to death in the coordinated attacks was the husband of consulate worker, Jorge Salcido Ceniceros, after gunmen boxed-in his car. His wife, Hilda Antillon, was traveling in the car behind him and was uninjured, though the couple's two children were wounded in the attack.

The hit squads used AK-47s as well as 9mm handguns.

source