Liberty Roundtable

You are here: Home / Archives for 1News

Hot News of the day.

By

Chuck Baldwin: Trump’s SCOTUS Pick: More Of The Same

A Republican-dominated Supreme Court (SC) gave us Roe v Wade, homosexual marriage and Obamacare. In fact, Republican appointments have dominated the SC for the last 45 years. All of this talk about Republican presidents appointing pro-life, constitutionalist, originalist justices is just so much hot air.

Republican presidents have given us William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, Harry Blackmun (the man who authored Roe v Wade), Anthony Kennedy (the man who gave us homosexual marriage), and John Roberts (the man who gave us Obamacare). Trump’s appointment of Gorsuch (the man who made it illegal to deport illegal alien criminals) and now Kavanaugh are likewise in the mold of the above justices.

Kavanaugh is a favorite of the establishment. Judge Andrew Napolitano rightly called Kavanaugh a “swamp pick.” He said that Kavanaugh was the “heart and soul of the DC establishment.” He said that Kavanaugh is “a big government guy.” Napolitano also quoted Kavanaugh as repeatedly saying that “the President [ANY President] can do no wrong.”

Judicial Watch founder, attorney Larry Klayman, wrote this:

Judge Kavanaugh either has no respect for the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, or he was unethically attempting to curry favor with the Republican establishment, exemplified by former President George W. Bush and his administration, which Kavanaugh had worked for as staff secretary in the White House Counsel’s office. President Bush and his Vice President Dick Cheney, not coincidentally, had also put in place this mass surveillance, using September 11 as the pretext.

Kavanaugh obviously understood that his aspirations to someday become a Supreme Court justice would depend on his close ties to this Republican Bush-Cheney establishment, who would someday, if the chance arose, push for his nomination. And, indeed this came to pass in the last weeks, after Kavanaugh’s mentor who he clerked for in his early career, Justice Anthony Kennedy, announced his retirement from the Supreme Court. The swamp creatures of this slimy Republican establishment . . . pushed The Donald to name Kavanaugh as the next SCOTUS justice

That ALONE should tell you all you need to know. But it’s actually worse than that. Kavanaugh, like Roberts, is a totally controlled toady of the Deep State.

Kavanaugh helped Ken Starr cover up the Deep State’s murder of former Bill Clinton legal counsel Vince Foster. To quote Joel Skousen:

The Vince Foster cover-up wasn’t a simple case of an erroneous conclusion based upon weak evidence. This was a full blown conspiracy to intimidate witnesses that proved the official version was a lie. As Starr’s deputy, there is no way that Kavanaugh could not have known that there was a cover-up and conspiracy going on.

Kavanaugh will always be subject to the blackmail of “you knew what Starr did to Patrick Knowlton [the key witness exposing the Deep State conspiracy that killed Foster], and you went along with it.” That also implies a more lethal threat of “you know what they did to Vince Foster when he got cold feet about protecting the Clintons.”

Trump’s appointment of Kavanaugh tells me that Donald Trump is completely controlled by the Deep State—all of his rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding. As Skousen notes, Kavanaugh is neck-deep in the Vince Foster cover-up. Accordingly, there can be no doubt that Kavanaugh is owned by the Deep State. And Trump’s appointment of Kavanaugh means that Trump is owned by the Deep State. Always remember that being controlled by the Deep State does not mean that it controls every decision or every vote you make; it simply means that the Deep State has enough power and influence over you that when it needs you to submit to its wishes on a particular decision or vote (such as Judge Roberts’ Obamacare vote and Trump’s appointment of Deep State puppet Brett Kavanaugh), you WILL comply.

As to the life issue, pro-life organizations across the country are lauding Kavanaugh as staunchly pro-life. These endorsements don’t impress me at all. Most of the national “pro-life” (and “Christian”) organizations are unabashed sycophants of the Republican Party. Furthermore, they adamantly refuse to support the only pro-life bills that would actually STOP abortion: personhood bills such as the one repeatedly introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by former congressman Ron Paul.

If passed, Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act would have defined life as beginning at conception and under Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the court, thereby overturning Roe. Yes, the pro-life Republicans in Congress—along with a pro-life Republican President—could overturn Roe v Wade anytime it wanted to. Saying they must wait for a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe is simply a way for cowardly congressmen and presidents to pass the buck and still claim to be “pro-life” at the same time.

The truth is, national “pro-life” groups can no more afford for Roe v Wade to be overturned than national help-us-find-a-cure-for-cancer groups can afford to find a cure for cancer. These groups make millions of dollars “fighting” abortion. If anything, these national “pro-life” groups want to make sure that Roe v Wade is NOT overturned so they can maintain their multimillion-dollar enterprises, while at the same time convincing their gullible donors that they are truly trying to rid the country of legalized abortion. P.T. Barnum could not have cooked up a better scam.

That Kavanaugh has ruled in favor of certain restrictions on abortion “rights” is no indicator that he would do anything to reverse Roe v Wade. In fact, Kavanaugh is on record as saying he respected the government’s “precedent” (Roe v Wade decision) on abortion. Pro-life organizations are using the Garza case to prove Kavanaugh’s commitment to the right to life, but they are conveniently overlooking the fact that in this decision Kavanaugh said the government conceded the teen’s right to an abortion but simply stated that delaying the abortion “did not pose an undue burden on that right.”

For 45 years, wishy-washy Republicans have bragged about being “pro-life” and have voted for all kinds of compromised “pro-life” bills that have done absolutely NOTHING to overturn Roe v Wade and stop the slaughter of over 60 million unborn babies. Kavanaugh was a clerk for Anthony Kennedy and rose to power in the rabid neocon administration of G.W. Bush. His pro-life credentials are mired in compromise.

Kavanaugh is also being heralded by gun groups for supporting the pro-Second Amendment Heller decision. But Kavanaugh himself said that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms could be regulated and restricted by State and Federal law as long as these regulations and restrictions did not take away the right (the Second Amendment) completely. That’s hardly a strong pro-Second Amendment position.

Yes, radical leftists will vehemently protest Kavanaugh’s appointment. (It is the right that should be protesting, and a few will. Senators Rand Paul and Tom Cotton have already expressed reservations.) But the cacophony of protests from the left means NOTHING. The Deep State doesn’t care about the protestations (or the agendas) of the left or the right. All it cares about is putting people in power that they can control—and Kavanaugh fits that job description perfectly.

Like I said, Trump’s appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court is just more of the same.

P.S. I highly commend Donald Trump for issuing presidential pardons to Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond. This might be the best decision of Trump’s presidency to date—a whole lot better than his SCOTUS pick. Trump’s clemency of the Hammonds overturns an egregious injustice committed against the father-son ranchers by corrupt federal agencies. Throughout their whole ordeal, the Hammonds conducted themselves with dignity and grace. Such cannot be said for the agents of the federal government who behaved more like mafia gangsters than protectors of law and order. This presidential pardon was long overdue.

P.P.S. I am VERY excited about a new book written by Christopher Bollyn entitled The War On Terror. I have read and reread it; and I believe this is one of the most important books written in recent memory. The book connects the dots between the 9/11 attacks and America’s perpetual “War on Terror.”

This book needs to be read by every single American. If it was read and taken to heart by enough people, this book could literally change the course of history and save our republic. The full title of the book is The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East.

From the book’s back cover:

The government and media have misled us about 9/11 in order to compel public opinion to support the War on Terror.

Why have we gone along with it? Do we accept endless war as normal? Are we numb to the suffering caused by our military interventions?

No. We have simply been propagandized into submission. We have been deceived into thinking that the War on Terror is a good thing, a valiant struggle against terrorists who intend to attack us as we were on 9/11.

Behind the War on Terror is a strategic plan crafted decades in advance to redraw the map of the Middle East. 9/11 was a false-flag operation blamed on Muslims in order to start the military operations for that strategic plan. Recognizing the origin of the plan is crucial to understanding the deception that has changed our world.

After selling out, we have now been resupplied with this blockbuster new book.

If you don’t read any other book this year, read Christopher Bollyn’s The War On Terror. Orders for this book are coming in as fast as we are being supplied, so I suggest you order quickly. And after reading this terrific book, I’m sure you will want to order copies for friends. EVERYONE needs to read this book.

Order Christopher Bollyn’s investigative masterpiece here:

The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East

Published: Thursday, July 12, 2018

© Chuck Baldwin

By

Tom DeWeese: Will Brett Kavanaugh Stand for Property Rights?

There’s lots of talk about where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh stands on the Roe v Wade abortion decision and if he would vote to rescind it. There is another very controversial Supreme Court decision made just few years ago, supported by the Anthony Kennedy, the justice he seeks to replace. That is the Kelo decision that basically obliterated private property rights in America. So, where does Brett Kananaugh stand on protection of private property rights? With Kennedy or the Constitution?

In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down an opinion that shocked the nation. It was the case of Susette Kelo, et al. v City of New London, Connecticut, et al. The issue: “Does the government taking of property from one private owner to give to another private entity for economic development constitutes a permissible ‘public use’ under the Fifth Amendment?”

In 2000, the city of New London saw a chance to rake in big bucks through tax revenues for a new downtown development project that was to be anchored by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The company announced a plan to build a $270 million dollar global research facility in the city. The local government jumped at the chance to transform 90 acres of an area right next to the proposed research facility. Their plans called for the creation of the Fort Trumbull development project which would provide hotels, housing and shopping areas for the expected influx of Pfizer employees. There were going to be jobs and revenues A-Go-Go in New London. Just one obstacle stood in the way of these grand plans. There were private homes in that space.

No muss – no fuss. The city fathers had a valuable tool in their favor. They would just issue an edict that they were taking the land by eminent domain. The city created a private development corporation to lead the project. First priority for the new corporation was to obtain the needed property.

In July, 1997, Susette Kelo bought a nice little pink house in a quiet fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London. Little did she imagine that warm, comfy place would soon become the center of a firestorm.

She had no intention of selling. She’d spent a considerable amount of money and time fixing up her little pink house, a home with a beautiful view of the waterfront that she could afford. She planted flowers in the yard, braided her own rugs for the floors, filled the rooms with antiques and created the home she wanted.

Less than a year later, the trouble started. A real estate broker suddenly showed up at her door representing an unknown client. Susette said she wasn’t interested in selling. The realtor’s demeanor then changed, warning that the property was going to be condemned by the city. One year later, on the day before Thanksgiving, the sheriff taped a letter to Kelo’s door, stating that her home had been condemned by the City of New London.

Then the pressure began. A notice came in the mail telling her that the city intended to take her land. An offer of compensation was made, but it was below the market price. The explanation given was that, since the government was going to take the land, it was no longer worth the old market price, therefore the lower price was “just compensation,” as called for in the Fifth Amendment. It was a “fair price,” Kelo and the homeowners were told over and over.

Some neighbors quickly gave up, took the money and moved away. With the loss of each one, the pressure mounted. Visits from government agents became routine. They knocked on the door at all hours, demanding she sell. Newspaper articles depicted her as unreasonably holding up community progress. They called her greedy. Finally, the bulldozers moved in on the properties already sold. As they crushed down the houses, the neighborhood became unlivable. It looked like a war zone.

In Susette Kelo’s neighborhood, the imposing bulldozer was sadistically parked in front of a house, waiting. The homeowner came under greater pressure to sell. More phone calls, threatening letters, visits by city officials at all hours demanding they sign the contract to sell. It just didn’t stop. Finally the intimidation began to break down the most dedicated homeowners’ resolve. In tears, they gave in and sold. Amazingly, once they sold, the homeowners were then classified as “willing sellers!”

Immediately, as each house was bulldozed, the monster machine was moved to the next house, sitting there like a huffing, puffing dragon, ready to strike.

Finally Susette’s little pink house stood nearly alone in the middle of a destruction site. Over 80 homes were gone: seven remained. As if under attack by a conquering army, she was finally surrounded, with no place to run but to the courts. Under any circumstances the actions of the New London government and its sham development corporation should have been considered criminal behavior. It used to be. If city officials were caught padding their own pockets, or those of their friends, it was considered graft. That’s why RICO laws were created.

The United States was built on the very premise of the protection of private property rights. How could a government possibly be allowed to take anyone’s home for private gain? Surely justice would finally prevail.

The city was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, one of the largest proponents of eminent domain use, saying the policy was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects. However, the Supreme Court had always stood with the founders of the nation on the vital importance of private property. There was precedent after precedent to back up the optimism that they would do so again.

Finally, her case was heard by the highest court in the land. It was such an obvious case of government overreach against private property owners that no one considered there was a chance of New London winning. That’s why it was a shock to nearly everyone involved that private property rights sustained a near-death blow that day.

This time, five black robes named Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer shocked the nation by ruling that officials who had behaved like Tony Soprano were in the right and Susette Kelo had no ground to stand on, literally or figuratively.

These four men and one woman ruled that the United States Constitution is meaningless as a tool to protect individuals against the wants and desires of government. Their ruling in the Kelo case declared that Americans own nothing. After deciding that any property is subject to the whim of a government official, it was just a short trip to declaring that government could now confiscate anything we own, anything we create, anything we’ve worked for – in the name of an undefined common good.

Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, who opposed the Court’s decision, vigorously rebutted the Majority’s argument, as she wrote in dissent of the majority opinion, “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing a Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

Justice Clarence Thomas issued his own rebuttal to the decision, specifically attacking the argument that this was a case about “public use.” He accused the Majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment’s “Public Use” clause with a very different “Public Purpose” test. Said Justice Thomas “This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a public use.”

Astonishingly the members of the Supreme Court have no other job but to protect the Constitution and defend it from bad legislation. They sit in their lofty ivory tower, with their lifetime appointments, never actually having to worry about job security or the need to answer to political pressure. Yet, these five black robes obviously missed finding a single copy of the Federalist Papers, which were written by many of the Founders to explain to the American people how they envisioned the new government was to work. In addition, they apparently missed the collected writings of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington, just to mention a very few. It’s obvious because otherwise, there is simply no way they could have reached this decision.

So, in a five to four vote, the Supreme Court said that it was okay for a community to use eminent domain to take land, shut down a business, or destroy and reorganize an entire neighborhood, if it benefited the community in a positive way. Specifically, “positive” meant unquestioned government control and more tax dollars.

The Institute for Justice, the group that defended Susette Kelo before the Supreme Court, reported that it found 10,000 cases in which condemnation was used or threatened for the benefit of private developers. These cases were all within a five-year period after the Kelo decision. Today, that figure is dwarfed as there is seemingly no limit on government takings of private property.

The Kelo decision changed the rules. The precedent was set. Land can now be taken anytime at the whim of a power elite. So again, the question must be asked: if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, will he stand to protect private property rights against massive overreach by local, state, and federal governments? Will he support an effort to overturn the Kelo Decision?

July 17, 2018 17:48 ET
 

https://americanpolicy.org/

By

Guns Save Over Two Million Lives In America Every Year

By Chuck Baldwin
Published: Thursday, April 26, 2018

Back in the fall of 1995, Florida State University criminologist Professor Gary Kleck published what is probably still to date the most comprehensive study ever conducted in the use of defensive arms by American citizens. His findings concluded that the American people use a gun to defend themselves and others over two million times a year. You read it right: over two million times a year.

Now, Professor Kleck reports that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has confirmed his statistics. Why haven’t you heard about it? Because the anti-Second Amendment CDC and their anti-Second Amendment cohorts in the mainstream media have hidden the report.

Daniel Zimmerman writes:

In the 1990s, the CDC itself did look into one of the more controversial questions in gun social science: How often do innocent Americans use guns in self-defense, and how does that compare to the harms guns can cause in the hands of violent criminals?

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.

Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck’s results. But Kleck didn’t know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.

The report goes on:

The CDC dug into the question of how often Americans defend themselves using firearms. And they did an impressive job of it, in Kleck’s opinion. The only problem with their findings was that they confirmed Kleck’s results.

Why is that a bad thing? Because based on his research, Kleck found that the number of defensive gun uses in the US was somewhere between 2.1 and 2.5 million per year, a huge multiple over the number of crimes involving firearms. Not the lower (though still significant number of 500,000) total that the CDC had claimed.

For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that “CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU (Defensive Gun Use) frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys.”

Gee, why would they bury important results like that? It’s almost as if the white coats at the CDC would rather not publicize any findings that would cast a bad light on the argument for more control and restrictions of civilian-owned firearms.

See the report here:

CDC Study Confirmed Kleck’s 2.5 Million Defensive Gun Use Statistic…So They Hid The Data

Are you grasping this, my friends? American citizens use a gun in self-defense some 2.5 million times every year. That is over 6,800 times EVERY DAY. This absolutely dwarfs the numbers of Americans who are killed with guns.

FBI statistics report that 9,400 people are murdered with a gun each year in this country and 4,000 are murdered with instruments other than a gun. These are four-year averages from the most recent data (2013 – 2016).

So, for every one homicide committed in the United States with a gun, at least 266 lives are SAVED with a gun. And that statistic is actually very conservative, as there is no way of knowing exactly how many lives are truly saved each time a gun is used in self-defense. A large percentage of those DGU’s obviously involved multiple potential victims—i.e., family members, friends, neighbors, fellow retail customers, etc.—so the actual number of potential lives saved with a gun each year could realistically total well in excess of ten million.

Think of it: Up to ten million (or more) men, women, teenagers, children, babies, elderly people, disabled people, mothers, daughters, sisters, brothers, sons, fathers, grandfathers, grandmothers, husbands, wives, cousins, friends, neighbors, and fellow townsmen are potentially SAVED each year by the presence of a defensive firearm. And in a large percentage of the time, the mere presence of a gun averted a crime—the gun was not even fired.

I can personally attest to at least three occasions when the presence of a defensive firearm thwarted a crime against my family members. In each of these occasions, the gun was never fired; the mere sight of the gun was enough to scare the would-be assailants away. Who knows how violent those crimes would have been had they been fully carried out? How many of my family members would have been seriously injured or killed had not a defensive firearm been present? Thankfully, we will never know.

Businesses that prohibit customers from being armed in their establishments risk the lives of their employees and customers daily. The shooting at a Nashville Waffle House is just the latest example of this gun-free business establishment being victimized by a criminal with a gun—this one was a criminal who was already prohibited by law from having a gun, by the way. Yet Waffle House continues to insist that its restaurants be gun-free.

Of course, the Nashville Waffle House was not the first Waffle House to be the site of a criminal attack. The around-the-clock Waffle Houses are routinely and frequently the targets of violent crime.

A recent sample of Waffle House attacks include Lawrence, Indiana (robbed four times in three months); New Albany, Indiana; Charlotte, North Carolina; Camden, Delaware; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Hermitage, Tennessee; North Little Rock, Arkansas; Biloxi, Mississippi; Orlando, Florida; Raleigh, North Carolina; Atlanta, Georgia; Columbia, Missouri; Memphis, Tennessee; Houston, Texas; Tuscaloosa, Alabama; Panama City Beach, Florida; Georgetown, South Carolina; Fort Myers, Florida; etc. The list is endless.

In the Fort Myers Waffle House shooting, four men violently attacked a single patron in the restaurant who had the good sense to be carrying a concealed handgun in spite of Waffle House rules and shot one of his attackers in self-defense. All the attackers fled the scene, and the criminal who was shot died before his partners in crime could get him to a hospital.

Yet Waffle House management is so fanatically anti-Second Amendment, not only does it prohibit its patrons from being armed in its restaurants (good luck with that in Montana) but also its employees and SECURITY GUARDS. Truly, the corporate executives at Waffle House are a bunch of imbeciles—and so is anyone who would frequent a Waffle House restaurant (or any other restaurant) WITHOUT being armed.

Then, of course, the big news this week was how the driver of a van in Toronto, Canada, killed ten people and injured fifteen others by deliberately running them over with his van. Will we hear any calls from the media for bans on “assault” vans? This is not the first time this kind of mass killing has taken place (London, England; Barcelona, Spain; and Muenster, Germany; for example). So, where is the call for “van control”?

You and I both know that the gun control Nazis are not interested in public safety. If they were, they would be insisting that gun-free zones be eliminated and that as many people as possible be always armed and prepared to use those arms in the defense of themselves and others. The facts confirm Professor Kleck’s research that GUNS SAVE LIVES.

The issue is NOT public safety; it is not even gun control. The issue is people control or the complete and total control of people by government. A disarmed citizenry is totally helpless not only against the attacks from individual criminals but more importantly against the attacks from tyrannical government.

Totalitarian governments have murdered more people than all of the John Dillingers, Al Capones, Bonnie and Clydes, Stephen Paddocks, Adam Lanzas, and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebolds of the world combined.

R.J. Rummell’s exhaustive research in Death By Government chronicles the fact that over 262 million people were murdered by despotic governments around the world during the 20th century alone. And the one single common denominator in all of these government mass murders is that the people were disarmed before they were slaughtered.

America’s Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights specifically for the purpose of the American people reserving their right and duty to cast off oppressive government by ALWAYS vigilantly maintaining their right and duty to keep and bear arms—including and especially the AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle.

And as Professor Kleck has shown (and which has now been grudgingly confirmed by the CDC), the presence of a gun potentially saves the lives of at least 2.5 million people every year in this country.

Borrowing from the old American Express commercial:

Your personal defense gun: Don’t leave home without it.

And I would add one more proverb:

Your liberty defense gun (the AR-15 and similar semi-automatic rifles): Don’t ever surrender it.

P.S. I have two DVD messages and one book on the subject of the duty and necessity of being armed from a Biblical Natural Law perspective.

The two DVD messages are:

A Biblical Portrait Of The Righteousness And Requirement Of Bearing Arms

And

The Attack Against Our Guns And The Christian Duty To Repel The Attack

And the book I co-authored is:

To Keep Or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns

It is critical that Christians and pastors understand their God-ordained duty of always maintaining their means of self-defense. I believe these two messages and the one book will do MUCH to help clarify and explain this sacred Christian duty. I encourage you to order as many as you can for your family and friends.

P.P.S After researching this study, the initial publication issued this update:

You will note the original link doesn’t work right now. It was pointed out to me by Robert VerBruggen of National Review that Kleck treats the CDC’s surveys discussed in this paper as if they were national in scope, as Kleck’s original survey was, but they apparently were not. From VerBruggen’s own looks at CDC’s raw data, it seems that over the course of the three years, the following 15 states were surveyed: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. (Those states, from 2000 census data, contained around 27 percent of the U.S. population.) Informed of this, Kleck says he will recalculate the degree to which CDC’s survey work indeed matches or corroborates his, and we will publish a discussion of those fresh results when they come in. But for now Kleck has pulled the original paper from the web pending his rethinking the data and his conclusions.

But, I am confident that the move by the CDC to stop their research after 15 states only serves to confirm Professor Kleck’s data all the more. The CDC is a rabid anti-Second Amendment government bureaucracy, and the fact that their research matches Kleck’s in the 15 states that they surveyed is doubtless why they suspended their research. They KNEW their results would match Professor Kleck’s data across the board. Professor Kleck’s original data from 1995 has never been scientifically challenged, because the research is irrefutable.

 

© Chuck Baldwin

Reposted from ChuckBaldwinLive.com

 

By

Putting Mass School Shootings Into Perspective

 

Perspective
By Robert W. Peck

When a shocking tragedy like the recent Parkland, Florida mass school shooting takes place, the media keeps it in the headlines for days. Television inundates our senses with sights and sounds that reinforce the human emotion of the calamity while the drama is relived in front of our eyes day and night. The media milks an event like this for all the ratings it’s worth, keeping it in the news-cycle for up to a week, or at least until the next natural disaster or political scandal comes along.

Our senses can easily become overwhelmed by the relentless rehearsing of the story and its horrific details, all presented in a manner calculated to elicit an emotional response rather than rational thought. If we’re not alert, and diligent to exercise critical thinking, we can quickly lose perspective and join Chicken Little in believing that the sky really is falling, that mass shootings are sweeping the land, and that if the government doesn’t do something quick, “we’ll all die!”

Mass public shootings (properly called “mass murder,” unless you’re trying to sensationalize a particular aspect of the incident) are indeed a terrible thing that we should be working to prevent. But how much of the American landscape does the phenomenon of mass shootings really take up as opposed to the amount of news headlines it’s given?

Before we start passing new laws, giving up our rights, or consent to being strip searched at every checkpoint, perhaps we should put the matter into perspective and ask exactly how many children are actually being killed by mass shootings as compared to the various other threats to their lives. We want to stop all evil and protect every child, but it would be wise to know where to focus our attention and direct our efforts so as to have the greatest effect and save the most lives.

Actual Risk of Death Due to Mass Shootings

According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, about 20 people per year were being killed in mass public shootings in the early 2000s, a number that rose to an average of 37 per year in the period of 2009-2013. Since that report, my research indicates that we’ve averaged 60 deaths per year over the past four years. This is for all mass public shootings, which includes workplace, school, restaurant and other public places. A listing of each mass shooting from 1982 to 2018 reveals that 14 percent of those shootings took place at schools (including colleges), giving us an expected annual average of fewer than 10 deaths per year coming from school campuses.

To put these numbers into perspective, in a country of 327 million people, 60 killed per year in all mass public shootings is 1 per 5.5 million. To look at it another way, that’s one person killed per year from among the entire population of Minnesota, or about the same as are killed by lightning each year (51).

While every life matters, so does the truth, and the truth is that the excessive amount of media attention given to mass shootings is creating a very skewed perspective as to the role that they actually play in our society.

The sensationalizing of mass shootings has created a public perception of our country being awash in an ever-rising tide of murder and mayhem reigning in our streets and on school campuses. However, the truth is actually just the opposite. Homicide rates in the U.S. have decreased dramatically over the last couple decades, from over 9 per 100,000 in the early 1990s to only 4.5 in 2014.

At the same time, the number of guns in America increased from 242 million in 1996 to 357 million in 2013. The number of new guns being introduced into the population nearly quadrupled during the same period, from 4.4 million per year to 16 million. While guns may be a preferred weapon of mass murders, the sheer number of guns present in our society obviously is not driving the homicide rate as the two statistics are moving in opposite directions.

Mass Shootings Compared to Other Threats to Children

Though I was not able to find a single definitive document directly comparing the rate of mass school shooting deaths to other leading causes of death among school-age children, I did manage to find the following facts that help provide context for this discussion.

Auto Accidents – The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that over a 10 year period more than 9,000 children ages 12 and younger were killed in car crashes. If we factor in teens and college students, most of which are beginning to drive and have higher accident rates, I expect the number could reach as high as 20,000, or an average of 2,000 per year, as compared to an average of 10 per year killed in mass school shootings. Again, every life is precious, but as opposed to panicking with fear over mass school shootings, it would make 200 times more sense (mathematically speaking that is), to fear putting the kids in the car for a drive to Walmart, or to school for that matter.

Suicide – Suicide is the second leading cause of death in the 15 to 24 year old age group, coming in at over 5,000 per year. That’s 500 times more deaths by suicide than by mass school shootings. Some of the leading causes of teen suicide are listed as, “being bullied, social rejection, relationship breakup, academic failure in school and grade retention.” Bullying generally takes place at school and most social activity and relationships also tend to be related to school activities for this age group. Academic issues of retaining grades is directly a school matter. I expect that as many as a thousand of the 5,000 annual teen suicides could be to some degree school related. As compared to the number of students killed in mass shootings each year (average of 10), teen suicides arising from school-related issues alone is an outright holocaust taking as many as a hundred times more lives.

Drug Overdose – In 2015 there were 772 drug overdose deaths among teens ages 15 to 19. That’s 77 times more killed in this very small age group, spanning only five years, than are killed in all mass school shootings. While not all drug use is the product of school attendance, school is certainly a leading place where children become exposed to drugs, discover connections for obtaining drugs, and sometimes experience peer pressure to try drugs. One addiction treatment center states that “nearly 44% of high school students know a classmate who sells drugs.” If death by mass shootings in schools is “a problem,” then, by comparison, death by drug overdose among students is “an epidemic.”

Gang Violence – The National Gang Center shows gang-related homicides at 2,363 in 2012 as compared to an average of only 60 annual deaths for all mass public shootings. Though school-age children would only account for a portion of those deaths, yet the teenage years are where gang involvement tends to begin. Seattlepi.com reports that, according to a CDC study, “45 percent of high school students have gangs or gang members on their campuses,” a number that drops to 2 percent for private schools, though it is thought that increased parental involvement plays a part in that. Though public schools certainly are not making themselves a target of gang violence on purpose, it seems obvious that the threat to the lives of children arising from gang-related activity on school campuses far surpasses that of mass shootings by many magnitudes.

Sports Injuries – According to Youth Sports Safety Alliance statistics, 1.3 million children were admitted to emergency rooms with sports-related injuries in 2012. From 2008 through 2013, an average of 45 children per year died of sports-related injuries. Even sports programs, most of which presumably originate on school campuses, appear to be killing more than four times as many kids as mass school shootings.

Sexually Transmitted Disease – 6,721 Americans died of HIV/AIDS in 2014. As of 2015, youth ages 13 to 24 accounted for more than 1 in 5 new HIV diagnoses. An estimated 44 percent of those living with the disease are believed to be unaware. By extrapolation, we can expect to lose 200 per year to this disease from among this age group as future annual deaths – and this is only one of the potentially fatal STDs. Sexual promiscuity, much of it originating on high school and college campuses, is killing at least 20 times more of our youth than mass shootings. Yet I don’t hear the same cries to ban sexual promiscuity that I do to ban guns, but that’s a matter of hypocrisy that will have to be addressed another time.

Transit to and From School – A reported 815 students die each year, and 152,250 are injured, during travel to and from school. Those numbers do not include extracurricular activities like traveling to sporting events or marching band competitions, which would likely put the total over a thousand. This is an amazingly small number of deaths considering the total number of children transported to and from schools every day. Nevertheless, transporting kids to and from school, and school-related activities, is killing a hundred times more children each year than are mass shootings. Yet no one is clamoring to “ban the buses” as that would clearly be irrational.

Now that we have some context for the subject, we can easily see that mass school shootings are among the least of the threats that children face. Nevertheless, we certainly want to take whatever appropriate actions we can to protect children from the rare, and rather unpredictable, mentally deranged and demonically tortured individuals who are driven to commit mass murder.

However, if saving lives is really the main focus, then there are much greater opportunities in areas like suicide, drug abuse, gang violence, and the spread of sexually transmitted disease. These deaths are much more preventable than are those caused by the extremely infrequent mass murder perpetrated by a random psychopath, and these activities are killing hundreds, or possibly even thousands of times more children.

Nevertheless, mass school shootings, like all threats to children, ought to be addressed.

Currently, the public is looking almost exclusively to the federal government to address the problem of school shootings. However, the federal government has no jurisdictional authority in this area. The U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government any power over schools or education and it prohibits the federal government from interfering with gun ownership. Therefore, any actions taken by the federal government on these topics are without the force of law, or as the American Founders put it in the Declaration of Independence, they are “pretended legislation.” To be lawful, any actions taken to address schools, school shootings, guns, or school violence in general, must come from the states and/or communities.

Frankly, in light of the above listing of the ways children are being killed, the numbers of children being killed by each, and the degree to which each is associated with schools and school-related activities, I find myself questioning whether it might just be the government schools themselves that are the greatest danger to children.

© Robert W. Peck

Republish with attribution and link back to http://robertpeck.net

By

Official Endorsement: Roy Moore

I, Sam Bushman, hereby officially endorse Roy Moore for the United States Senate in the Great state of Alabama. After personal discussions in my incredible, on-air radio interviews and news coverage of Mr. Moore he has been found to be a good, honest and wise man.

Further, I am convinced his valiant leadership in the sacred cause of liberty, demonstration of complete fidelity in his personal and public life, along with a true fundamental understanding of American principles, makes him uniquely qualified for my endorsement as one of the next leaders of the free world.

I personally encourage all Americans to come together and join us in “A Valiant Stand” to make America moral and free again. After all, the issue is honesty.

It’s about the company you keep. It’s about moral leadership.

The status quo has got to go.

By

WILLIAM NORMAN GRIGG, RIP

Author: Joel Skousen

It is with great sadness that I announce that Will Grigg, principle writer at Liberty News Daily has died suddenly, from complications of a severe infection. I quoted often from Will’s news summaries in World Affairs Brief.

There was probably no greater wordsmith in the conservative/libertarian movement than William Norman Grigg, nor a man with more passion for liberty. He has written for the New American and various Libertarian publications. His personal website, Pro Liberate, went to great efforts to expose police and government corruption, especially when improperly covered up by law enforcement, the media and the courts.

I had the privilege of editing Will’s writing for Liberty News Daily, and have had to fill in for him during his hospitalization, and am still doing so until Sam Bushman of www.LibertyNewsDaily.com can find a replacement. For Will, it was a labor of love for liberty as well as a part time job with only modest financial compensation. If any of my readers are interested in writing some news summaries for Liberty News Daily, review what has been written on the website and then contact Sam Bushman at

Finally, I need to say that Will leaves behind his wife Korrin and six children who now have little means of support in their modest home in Idaho.

I would encourage all who can to contribute what you can to the www.GoFundMe.com account which has been set up for support of Will’s family by his friend, A. J. Ellis.

www.gofundme.com/medical-support-for-will-grigg

Sam’s Note: * William Norman Grigg — February 4, 1963—April 12, 2017 — RIP my Dear Friend and Brother!

By

An Open Letter to Talk Show Hosts, News Makers and All Media Personnel

 
I have become more and more alarmed as we watch increasing, divisive, never ending battles and downright hostile attacks that seem to permeate every segment of our society. Men against women, black against white, rich against poor, liberal against conservative, gay against straight and even believer against the unbeliever. It’s truly crazy! Even those who claim to be on the same side find something to feud about. Sadly, America has become a house divided; surely she cannot stand if we allow the current negative trend to go unchecked. There must be a better way.

When we think about it, we agree on much more than we disagree. If that’s true, then why is it that we spend so much time and energy on our disagreements? Thus it is vital to downplay or minimize our disagreements, while spending the bulk of our time focusing on that which is productive and on which we can agree. In short, building common ground, coming together and advocating for productive solutions should be the order of the day.

Further, we should agree that there is a difference between free speech and attacks that cross the line, limited by laws surrounding defamation, libel, and slander. Protection of first amendment rights and respect for one another is a prerequisite to restoring trust in America today.

Might I suggest what we lack most in our so called “enlightened day” is open, kind and moral leadership. What we need is good, honest and wise statesman. We need Americans who are governed by moral principle in thought and deed in private as well as their public lives. We need leaders who will lead by example and show us a better way.

We should always be willing to follow the Prince of Peace and stand for that which is right. We should be willing to talk and work with everyone in an effort to unify all people to make America great again. I for one will try harder, will accept constructive criticism from others, and will commit to do better.

Our Open Invitation

In the spirit of eternal optimism, we exhort all Americans to demonstrate true leadership by returning to the high moral standard of civility in all we do and say. Indeed we need to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated.

We look forward to working together to show the American people a better way as we “make America great again”. Even though we may disagree on some issues, we can still have open dialog and respect for one another’s beliefs.  As Hall wrote in The Friends of Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.  After all, isn’t this the pure genius of America?

Sincerely,

Sam Bushman
801-756-9133

By

The Transgender Lie in Government Education

This is Not Justice and This Is Not Education!

On Friday, May 14th, a joint letter from the Department of Education and the Department of Justice was sent to the nation’s public schools with guidelines regarding transgender students.  The Obama Administration pretends these guidelines were designed to ensure that, “transgender students enjoy a supportive and nondiscriminatory school environment.”

Darrell Castle, Constitution Party Presidential Candidate, is right when He says “We Must Show President Obama That He Is Not a Dictator.” The 1.25 Million plus Americans who have signed the Boycott Target Pledge, hosted by the American Family Association, should be commended for their stand as well. This politically driven agenda is not education and violates time honored moral codes of conduct.

I condemn this order and further state that it is illegal and unconstitutional. The states and school districts are under NO obligation to obey. I further urge them to completely reject and ignore this pretend Law. Many states, speaking through their elected officials, have vowed defiance and their courageous stand should be encouraged. This President may consider himself an absolute dictator but it is our duty to show him that he is not.

Let’s hope that people will finally realize that the system doesn’t have to continue to disintegrate and divide. When Obama threatens to withhold federal funding over non-compliance, it becomes an unconstitutional, federal, de facto bribe. All 50 states should reject the filthy lucre. The American people must demand a firm stand on principle, defined in Supreme Law, aka Our Constitution. Public officials have taken an oath and have an obligation to use the checks and balances our founding fathers gave their lives for to protect liberty.

We call on all Elected Officials, especially County Sheriffs who have sworn an oath before God to stand against this propaganda scheme, to join Oklahoma lawmakers who are urging Congress for Obama’s impeachment over transgender bathrooms.

He has gone too far this time. Please claim the moral high ground and reject this tyrannical action once and for all.

The Status Quo Has Got to Go!

By

Official Endorsement: Darrell Castle, Scott Bradley

 
I, Sam Bushman, hereby officially endorse Darrell Castle President and Scott Bradley Vice President for the United States of America.

After personal discussions, knowing them both for years and my incredible, on-air radio interviews with Darrell Castle and Scott Bradley, they have been found to be good, honest and wise men. Further, I am convinced their valiant leadership in the sacred cause of liberty, demonstration of complete fidelity in their personal and public lives, along with a true fundamental understanding of American principles, make them uniquely qualified for my endorsement as the next leaders of the free world.

I personally encourage all Americans to come together and join them in “A Valiant Stand” to make America free again. After all, the issue is honesty.

It’s about the company you keep. It’s about moral leadership. The status quo has got to go.

Sam Bushman – 801-756-9133

By

An Open Letter to Mr. Donald Trump

 
Dear Mr. Trump,

I am concerned about the fantastic interview we had with your son, Donald Jr. on my radio show, Liberty RoundTable Live, on March 1, 2016 – Super Tuesday. The reason I am troubled relates to the series of events that have taken place after our interview.

The lame stream “press-titutes” have misrepresented the facts, and in many cases, have outright lied about Donald Jr., myself, and James Edwards. The intentional insertion of these misrepresentations by the bogus press into your campaign is even more reprehensible and wrong!

To understand what’s happening, please see the headline from my Liberty RoundTable radio show notes:

  • The Bogus Press-titutes Now Try to Pit Sam Bushman, James Edwards and the Trump Campaign Against Each Other– Liberty RoundTable

Now see some of the headlines from the intellectually dishonest media:

  • White Nationalist Show’s Syndicator Threatens To Release Emails Proving  Trump Camp Lied About Interview– Media Matters
  • Donald Trump Jr. Explains That White Supremacist Radio Interview Was an Accident – Mediaite
  • Radio personality who interviewed Donald Trump Jr.: Slavery is ‘greatest thing’ that happened to African Americans! – Politico  (Politico has since printed a correction/retraction)
  • Donald Trump Jr Disavows Radio Host Over Racist Views –  Bloomberg
  • Donald Trump Jr. appears with white supremacist on radio – Reuters

We believe this constitutes an intentional assault on the free speech rights of all Americans.

A few years ago, James Edwards appeared multiple times on CNN as a political contributor/commentator. CNN clearly knew who James was and still allowed Mr. Edwards to speak for himself regarding his personal views, to which he’s entitled. In fact, it was because of his willingness to tackle controversial topics that they sought his opinion. During each of his appearances CNN always accurately introduced Mr. Edwards as a “conservative” talk radio host rather than the slurs we read today.

Now the media wants to indoctrinate the American people to falsely believe that if the Trump Campaign – and specifically Donald Trump Jr. – doesn’t directly disavow James Edwards and Sam Bushman, then somehow the Trump Campaign is evil and endorses a so-called “white supremacist” view. This falsehood highlights the problem with their dishonest reporting and (lack of facts) agenda.

We should agree that there is a difference between free speech and attacks that cross the line, limited by laws surrounding defamation, libel, and slander.   We further believe this right applies to all Americans and that neither the media nor government should be allowed a platform to abuse the citizens they are supposed to serve. Protection of first amendment rights and respect for all is a prerequisite to restoring trust between citizens and those who serve them. We declare that silence on this critical matter has become a de facto endorsement of free speech violations under the guise of political correctness. We intend to use our rights in the form of nationally syndicated talk radio shows, YouTube and web articles to document this moral crisis, expose corruption and the egregious personal attacks articulated above.

Scroll Up