Friday, March 30, 2018

Stop Indoctrinating Our Children

Without an intentionally dumbed down populace Govt. mind control/re-education and the endless destruction it imposes on the individual and society at large would be impossible.

frontpagemag

New Center pamphlet features the horrors.


Editor's note: The same "progressives" who have made American higher education into indoctrination chambers for cultural Marxism, identity racism and other anti-American ideas are now targeting our K-12 public schools. For instance:
  • At the Edina School District in Edina, Minnesota, all employees, even bus drivers, must take "Equity and Racial Justice Training" instructing them that "dismantling white privilege" is at the core of the district's mission. They must acknowledge their racial guilt, and embrace the district's "equity" ideology.
     
  • To enhance "cultural diversity," students at Maryland's La Plata High School were ordered to copy the Islamic creed "Shahada" which states in part, "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah." One worksheet distributed by the school states, "Most Muslims' faith is stronger than the average Christian."
     
  • As part of transgender instruction in Rocklin Academy in Rocklin, California, a male kindergartener was reintroduced to classmates as a girl. A first grader at the school was sent to the principal's office after she called the student by his given name on the playground – apparently unaware that the five year old had changed gender.
These horror stories are not exceptions to the rule. As our important new pamphlet (co-authored by Sara Dogan and Peter Collier), Leftist Indoctrination In Our K-12 Public Schools, shows, they are happening every day in schools all across our country. You can access this work which provides crucial documentation of the indoctrination crisis in our schools here or read the full text below
Thank You FPM.

Most Direct-To-Consumer Drug Advertisements Do Not Adhere To FDA Guidelines

Few DTC drug advertisements fully adhere to FDA guidelines, the overall quality of information provided in DTC advertisements is low, and some advertisements market off-label indications.

madinamerica
Shannon Peters March 30, 2018

A new study, led by Joseph Ross, associate professor of Medicine and of Public Health at Yale University School of Medicine, examines direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertisements. The results of the study, published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, find that most DTC advertisements in the US do not fully adhere to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines, the overall quality of information is low, and some market off-label indications despite this being explicitly prohibited.

“Though proponents argue that DTC advertising is educational and empowering for consumers, our findings suggest that the information provided is unreliable and potentially misleading,” write the authors.

The FDA has allowed DTC advertising in the US since 1985. Today, someone who watches an average amount of television will watch about nine drug advertisements each day, or 30 hours of advertisements a year. Drugs marketed through DTC advertising have increased demand by patients, higher rates of prescribing, and as a result, higher sales. Those who support DTC advertising suggest it empowers people to make informed medical decisions. Others who are cautious of DTC advertising worry it can lead to inappropriate or over-prescribing and have called to end DTC advertising.

The FDA requires that drug companies provide the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) with all advertisement materials and has regulations for what can and cannot be included in an advertisement. For example, DTC advertisements must list major risks in audio and are prohibited from suggesting any off-label uses for a drug (“off-label” refers to using a drug for a reason that has not been approved by the FDA). However, because of limited resources, the OPDP does not review every advertisement, and previous research has shown that many DTC advertisements do not follow FDA guidelines.

The aim of the current study, as described by the researchers, was to “assess the degree to which recently aired DTC ads for prescription drugs adhered to FDA regulations and guidelines” and “examine whether off-label use was suggested.” The researchers reviewed 97 DTC advertisements that aired in the US between January 2015 and July 2016.

The researchers find that the most common types of drugs marketed through DTC advertising are for inflammatory conditions (18%) and diabetes (16%). Psychiatric or neurological drugs made up 10% of the drug indications advertised. Over three quarters (76%) of the drug indications were for chronic conditions. Based on the traits of the main characters in the commercials, drugs were most commonly marketed to young or middle aged women.

“All advertisements included an approved use for the drug,” find the researchers. While there were no blatantly false statements in the advertisements, the researchers did find the information to be low quality and sometimes misleading. In addition, the researchers find that 13% of commercials, all for diabetes medication, “suggested non-FDA-approved—or off-label—uses, all of which were for weight loss and/or reduction in systolic blood pressure.”

The authors note, “only 26% (n = 25) of ads contained quantitative efficacy information” (e.g., the percentage of people who had successful results from a drug). In addition, “none of the commercials contained quantitative information regarding risks or side effects,” find the researchers. Although advertisements are required to audibly list all major risks, 22% had at least one risk only in the running text.

Another important finding was that 60% of DTC advertisements discussed potential savings or payment methods. The researchers highlight that, although drug coupons could reduce costs in the short term, the savings are often time-limited, and may result in a higher societal cost if people are choosing higher cost drugs over less expensive options.

The researchers summarize, “Our findings demonstrate that the quality of information in DTC television ads is low: none described drug risks quantitatively; only one-quarter described drug benefits quantitatively, and suggestions of off-label promotion were common for diabetes medications.”

“The promotion of off-label indications, poor quality of information, distracting risk presentations, and the fact that risks are never quantified could distort the perception of benefit and risk information,” highlight the authors. Therefore, the researchers call for more detailed regulations for what quantitative information about drug risks is required in DTC advertising. They also suggest the FDA charges a “user fee” to DTC advertisers, which could then fund more comprehensive oversight of advertisements. The authors conclude by reminding us why tighter regulations on DTC advertising are essential:

“Broadcast DTC advertising could lead patients to make healthcare decisions and request certain expensive, brand-name medications based on ads containing low-quality and incomplete information.”

Patients deserve quality, comprehensive information about drug benefits and risks in order to provide informed consent and be truly empowered in their healthcare decisions. In their current form, most DTC advertisements are misleading rather than promoting informed consent.

****

Klara, K., Kim, J., & Ross, J. S. (2018). Direct-to-consumer broadcast advertisements for pharmaceuticals: Off-label promotion and adherence to FDA guidelines. Journal of General Internal Medicine. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11606-017-4274-9 (Link) 


Thank You Ms Peters and MIA.

K-12: Illiterate New World

American Thinker 
Bruce Deitrick Price  March 30, 2018

Aldous Huxley's Brave New World appeared in 1932. Everyone at that time was dazzled by the technocratic skills of the Ford Motor Company, able to turn out identical cars by the millions on highly efficient assembly lines. In Huxley's novel, the calendar counts years A.F. – After Ford – and God's new name is Ford.

The zeitgeist was obsessed with control. Ideologues liked the possibility of more precise social engineering. Communists in particular were focused on planned societies and central economies, with super-smart experts sitting around a table and deciding what every citizen could do and could not do. Psychiatrists like Ivan Pavlov wanted to show how drastically you could manipulate cognition and personality.

Aldous Huxley devised a single beautiful image for capturing all of these hopes and fears: a hi-tech assembly line where infants were manufactured to specification. In particular, oxygen levels were adjusted to create babies of very low, low, medium, and very high intelligence. This image, this metaphor, was stunning in its concreteness. A huge industrial operation, all clean and shiny, all stainless steel and glass, did what nobody had thought of doing before: control human intelligence in embryo.

It turns out there is an activity in the real world, in real society, that is exactly parallel. That was the creation of readers to order. By the simple device of depriving some children of certain key information, they were stunted, no longer able to become professors, more or less predestined for low-level jobs.

As Huxley in the year 1931 was doing the final edit on his book, this country's Education Establishment built a new sort of assembly line for producing flawed children. Instead of withholding oxygen, this factory withheld the alphabet. Parents were told that the ABCs are not essential and could be ignored. As one famous expert announced dogmatically, "[c]urrent practice in the teaching of reading does not require knowledge of letters." Really?

Instead of the alphabet (twenty-six fairly simple objects that can be memorized in a month or two), children in this new factory were told to focus on complete words. Instead of memorizing B, for example, you had to memorize BEACH. Just five letters, but a hugely complex design – and there were more than 200,000 of them. Parents were told their children could routinely memorize these visual designs with "automaticity." That's like instant recall. The child was supposed to know hundreds and then thousands of these designs with perfect accuracy. In reality, virtually no child could do this, except the few with photographic memories. So in practice, the factory created millions of non-readers and weak readers.

In this ruthless new factory, the obsession with power and control was the same as in Huxley's factory. Humans would be conditioned and engineered to be what the controllers wanted. This creepy, highly invasive scheme was a brilliant "success," once it's understood that the new goal was limited literacy. Anyway, that was the predictable result. Reading levels dropped from 1931 onward. Several decades later, the country had tens of millions of functional illiterates. T hose are people who memorize several hundred sight-words with good accuracy, and probably hundreds more with medium or low accuracy. Reading as traditionally understood – a skill both easy and fun – was extinct for a great percentage of the population. What this bold new factory was creating was damaged readers, like the embryos that didn't get enough oxygen.

This scheme was wildly improbable from the first day. What sort of unconscionable people would dare to perpetrate it? That the citizenry could accept it was improbable. How many semi-literate people would the society tolerate? That so-called "experts" could put this scheme over on the public remains unlikely to this day. It's probably not doable unless the Education Establishment has the support of certain unions, certain government agencies, certain foundations, certain universities, and much of the media. There is a big silence. How will the public learn the truth if the controllers make sure it's well hidden? (Check the archives of the New York Times. You will not find insight into why sight-words can be considered a dubious development.)

Hardly 20 years after the introduction of this brave new illiteracy, the situation was already so bad that Rudolf Flesch felt compelled to write a book explaining what had happened to the country (Why Johnny Can't Read, 1955). Many millions of Americans felt compelled to read the book. Almost everyone knew that something had gone horribly wrong. It continues to go wrong today.

In Brave New World, the controllers are always smugly pleased with their factory. The same sort of people seem to be controlling K-12 education for the past century.


Thank You Mr Price and American Thinker.


It would be nice if we could say "And You Wonder how almost our Entire Society Fell for Psychiatry?"

But you can't.

You can't even ask "How can our Entire Society STILL Believe in it?"

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Penn Appeals Court Won't Reconsider Risperdal Lawsuit Punitive Damages Ruling

RX Injury Help
Published on March 27, 2018 by Sandy Liebhard

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has denied a defense motion seeking reconsideration of a recent ruling that could allow thousands of Risperdal lawsuit plaintiffs to pursue punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson and its Janssen Pharmaceuticals unit.

In January, a 3-judge panel of the Superior Court remanded a Risperdal gynecomastia lawsuit filed on behalf of Timothy Strange back to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, ordering the trial court to determine whether or not punitive damages were warranted in the case.

Strange was awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages in December 2015. But like other Pennsylvania Risperdal plaintiffs, he was initially barred from seeking punitive damages because of a trial court ruling that applied New Jersey law to his claim. Johnson & Johnson and Janssen are headquartered in New Jersey, which forbids punitive damages in product liability claims involving federally-approved medications.

However, the Superior Court panel found that the trial court should have considered the law of plaintiffs’ home states when considering whether or not punitive damages should be allowed, opening the door for Strange and other plaintiffs to seek such awards.

Earlier this month, Janssen motioned the entire Pennsylvania Superior Court for reconsideration of the Panel’s ruling. That motion was denied on March 16th, allowing the January decision to stand.


Risperdal Gynecomastia

More than 6,200 Risperdal lawsuits are currently pending in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, all of which were filed on behalf of men and boys who allegedly experienced excessive male breast growth (gynecomastia) due to their use of the atypical antipsychotic drug. Many of these plaintiffs were prescribed Risperdal as children, long before it had been approved for any pediatric uses by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration.

Plaintiffs claim that Johnson & Johnson and Janssen knowingly concealed the potential for Risperdal to cause excessive male breast growth from doctors and patients. They also contend that, prior to October 2006, the companies illegally marketed Risperdal for off-label pediatric indications.

Risperdal was not approved for use in children until October 2006. That same month, the drug’s label was updated to indicate that gynecomastia had occurred in 2.3% of male adolescents prescribed the medication. Up until that point, the label described the condition as a rare side effect affecting just 1 in 1,000 patients.


Thank You Ms Liebhard and RX Injury Help.

Monday, March 26, 2018

Asia Times: US Trade Report Lays Bare Chinese Government Cyber Espionage

freebeacon
Bill Gertz
March 26, 2018 3:03 pm

China’s government is engaged in a systematic program of cyber attacks on American and foreign companies, according to a US government trade report made public last week.

The cyber intrusions into corporate networks are one of four areas identified by the office of the US Trade Representative as unfair trading practices. These have prompted the administration of US President Donald Trump to impose tariffs on Chinese products in the coming weeks.

The other areas outlined in the USTR report include restrictions on businesses operating in China designed to induce technology transfers, and systematic acquisitions of technology companies to obtain advanced commercial know-how. Read the entire article at Asia Times.

All Eyes On North Korea

Here's the US Trade Representative's report on China's compliance with WTO agreements. 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Reports/China%202017%20WTO%20Report.pdf

We're getting screwed and it is this blogger's considered opinion that North Korea's missile hurling fit a few months back was done as Bejing's proxy, expressing their displeasure with President Trump's decision to stop 'Giving Away The Store'.


Foreign Policy
|

With talk of a “bloody nose” strike against North Korea being debated in Washington, public attention has focused on conventional military preparations for a U.S. attack on Pyongyang. Less noticed, but possibly even more telling, is the surge in recent months of intelligence resources.

Senior officials have made no secret of the fact that the administration is ramping up its intelligence capabilities to focus on the Korean Peninsula, but six sources familiar with U.S. planning described a nearly unprecedented scramble inside the agencies responsible for spying and cyber warfare.

In fact, the initial strike against the North Korean regime could be digital rather than physical, according to two former intelligence officials with knowledge of the preparations. 

“The first shot will be cyber,” one of the former officials said.

As North Korean leader Kim Jong Un flaunts his nation’s strides in missile development, the U.S. government for the past six months has covertly begun laying the groundwork for possible cyberattacks on North Korea in countries including South Korea and Japan. This process involves installing fiber cables as bridges into the region and setting up remote bases and listening posts, where hackers may attempt to gain access to a North Korean internet that’s largely walled off from external connections.

Continue Reading.


If you're tempted to think confronting Chinese Communism is mere political bluster;

 Trump Bans Most Transgender People From Serving In Military

With a post surgery attempted Suicide Rate of 41% these Psychologically/Psychiatrically misled victims have no business in a combat zone endangering the lives and safety of their team members.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

You also need to ask why John Bolton is in right on the heels of this stop screwing up the miltary by making it an 'Everyone gets a big hug and their own parade to lead', Social Engineering playschool. 

The Military Options For North Korea: by John Bolton

Bolton: Trump's Punitive Trade Policies Are 'A Little Shock Therapy' For China

dailycaller
Ryan Pickrell China/Asia Pacific Reporter
11:07 AM 03/25/2018

The nearly $60 billion in tariffs on Chinese exports may be “a little shock therapy” for Beijing, President Donald Trump’s latest pick for White House national security adviser said Sunday.

“I don’t think anybody is looking to have a trade war,” John Bolton explained to New York AM 970 radio host John Catsimatidis, according to The Hill. “For far too long, China has taken advantage of its place in the world … the trade arrangements it has with the United States and other countries.”

“The United States lives by these agreements,” he asserted. “All we’re asking for here is for the Chinese to do the same. So I think this could be a little shock therapy, get their attention, and hopefully it’ll have a good impact.”

The president announced Thursday tens of billions of dollars in trade penalties in response to Chinese theft of American intellectual property. Trump’s trade moves prompted countless trade war hot takes from experts and journalists, and it seemed to shake the markets. Furthermore, the proposed penalties resulted in criticism from Beijing.

“China does not want a trade war with anyone,” the Chinese Embassy in the United States said Thursday. “But China is not afraid of and will not recoil from a trade war. China is confident and capable of facing any challenge. If a trade war were initiated by the U.S., China would fight to the end to defend its own legitimate interests with all necessary measures.”

China revealed a few hours later it is considering high tariffs on U.S. exports to China worth around $3 billion in response to the steel and aluminum tariffs the president announced earlier this month. China has signaled that it will take an even tougher approach to the trade penalties imposed on China in response to alleged intellectual property theft.

China’s Ministry of Commerce urged the U.S. Friday to not put “bilateral trade relations in jeopardy.”

In a phone call with Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin, China stands “ready and capable of defending its national interest and hopes both sides will remain rational,” China economic czar Liu He revealed.

The U.S. is launching a “trade offensive” against China — a clear rhetorical response to U.S. claims that China engages in “economic aggression” — the nationalist Chinese state-run tabloid Global Times asserted

“Intimidating China won’t work. If Washington moves ahead with a trade war, it will mire itself in great loss,” the paper argued, adding, “China doesn’t fear a long trade war with the U.S. and will never be the first one to retreat. China doesn’t support a trade war, but it is determined and prepared not to be the defeated side. To have a trade war or talks, that’s the U.S.’ call.”

Speaking at the China Development Forum in Beijing Sunday, Vice Premier Han Zheng warned a trade war benefits no one. “A trade war serves the interests of none. It will only lead to serious consequences and negative impact,” he explained, calling for rational negotiation.

Beijing has been complaining about the proposed tariffs on an almost daily basis. 



Thank You Mr. Pickrell, Mr Bolton, and Pres Trump. 


"Beijing has been complaining about the proposed tariffs on an almost daily basis."

 Ed; Of course they have. Fair Trade is not Free Trade (giving away the store) which is what we've been doing with China for decades.

Communism needs true free mkt economies to sponge off. And we can't continue feeding them from our bag of phony accounting tricks.

We'd like to add that it must suck living under Communism, but we've got it right here in America anyway and it's getting worse by the day. It's called Govt. compassion.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Bring Out Your Dead: San Francisco's Impending Cholera Epidemic

American Thinker
March 13, 2018
By J.R. Dunn

Years ago, Tom Wolfe published a funny piece dealing with the reappearance during the Summer of Love of diseases never seen in the modern epoch. Wolfe's overall term for these disorders was, if I recall correctly, "The Crud." Doctors were unfamiliar with these conditions and in some cases uncertain as to how to treat them. Some of those children of nature ended up with chronic disorders.

This served as a life lesson for the counterculture, most of whom resumed bathing. But now, fifty years later, we – at least those of us in California – are about to receive another such lesson, this one more drastic and widespread.

Over the past year or so, AT readers have derived quite a few laughs over what has come to be called the "s‑‑‑ map," a map of the neighborhoods of San Francisco in which the streets are inundated with human waste left by the homeless. (Some commentators assumed that the map was intended as a warning to tourists. But in fact, its creator has recently added a comment asserting that it is intended to "bring attention to the issue of homelessness." Thanks very much.)

 


This is a remarkable development. Filth-encrusted streets were a pre-modern phenomenon, an aspect of a medieval world that no longer exists in most of the northern hemisphere. Filthy streets were a standard element of urban existence until late in the 19th century. In the U.S., the original Progressive movement (a reform movement, let's remember, with little relationship with postmodern "progressives") made sewage systems a primary goal of its program.

The result was dramatic upgrading of urban life throughout the industrial world, rendering it more pleasant, healthier, and infinitely less lethal.

It was less lethal because the squalid conditions of pre-modern urban streets acted as a breeding ground for a plethora of diseases. The result of these fetid conditions was chronic low-level disorders of the skin and intestinal tract, broken by occasional full-bore epidemics that could carry off large fractions of a city's population.

The prince of these epidemic diseases was cholera. Currently unknown in the industrialized West (most doctors have never seen a case), cholera was a filth-based disease caused by human and animal waste and nothing else. Originating in the Ganges delta, cholera spread across the planet until, in the 19th century, it was a standard feature of urban life. Cholera epidemics were chronic, breaking out wherever sewage mixed with drinking water. Cholera was an oddity among diseases in that it often progressed with no visible symptoms. An individual showing no symptoms at all could suddenly collapse at noon and be dead by sundown.

Cholera still exists in the Third World. According to the WHO, the most recent pandemic broke out of South Asia in 1961 and reached the Americas by the 1990s. "Cholera is now endemic in many countries."

We will also point out that the city of San Francisco is a sanctuary city, or, in the words of the ordinance itself, "a City and County of Refuge." That is, San Francisco has put out the welcome mat for tens of thousands of third-world illegals. The city has made itself a magnet for refugees from countries with no modern sewage systems and no tradition of personal hygiene – the same countries in which the WHO asserts that cholera has become "endemic."

So put these two factors together – streets engulfed in human s‑‑‑ and immigrants from countries overrun with infectious diseases – and what do we get?

We get a blast from the past. We get a taste of urban life in the 18th and 19th centuries. We get a form of terror unwitnessed by any living American.

We get a cholera epidemic.

This will come. It is, by very the nature of things, unavoidable. It is one of those things described by the novelist Robert Heinlein as "two trains on the same track accelerating toward each other." It may well come with the hot weather next summer.

There's no point in asking whether the state of California will be "prepared." Of course it is. There will be plenty of marches and petitions. Donald Trump is available to be blamed. The unicorns and butterflies are ready to chase all the bad things away.

And beyond that, we have diphtheria, typhus, yellowjack, dengue fever...the possibilities are endless.

Ain't liberalism grand? 


Thank You Mr Dunn and American Thinker.

Monday, March 12, 2018

Sacklers Lie, People Die: The Met Gets Littered With Pill Bottles For Accepting Money From Opioid Profiteers

dailycaller
Steve Birr Vice Reporter
12:57 PM 03/12/2018


Addiction activists descended on the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City Saturday to excoriate the institution for accepting massive contributions from the family blamed for igniting the opioid epidemic.

Led by photographer Nan Goldin, demonstrators entered the Sackler Wing of the museum, which houses the famous Temple of Dendur, and littered the exhibit with prescription pill bottles in protest of donations from the opioid-enriched Sackler family. The bottles, which activists threw into the Temple’s reflecting pool, had labels that read, “OxyContin…prescribed to you by the Sacklers,” reported The New York Times.

Protesters carried banners reading “Shame on Sacklers” and “Fund Rehab” as they chanted, “Sacklers lie; people die,” from inside the halls of the wing bearing the family’s name. Goldin, who was addicted to OxyContin from 2014 to 2017, wants to highlight the family’s aggressive marketing of opioid painkillers in the late 1990s that lead to widespread opioid abuse and more than 200,000 prescription overdose deaths between 1999 and 2016.

The Sackler Wing at the Met is named for brothers Arthur, Mortimer and Raymond Sackler, who bought Purdue in the early 1950s. Arthur is known for pioneering the aggressive marketing campaigns now commonly employed by pharmaceutical companies to maximize their drug sales.

This strategy helped Arthur make Valium the first $100 million drug in the U.S., according to the Medical Advertising Hall of Fame.

Arthur died years before the company rebranded as Purdue Pharma and released OxyContin. However, Mortimer and Raymond lived to see the painkiller become a massive success. The Sacklers’ Purdue, through a major association that accredits health organizations, funded and distributed educational material beginning in the late 1990s that downplayed the risks of opioids. (RELATED: Billionaire Family Behind OxyContin Apparently Spends ZILCH Rehabbing Addicts)


Purdue’s profits from OxyContin sales topped $1.5 billion by 2001, up from $48 million in 1996. Dr. Richard Sackler, Raymond’s son, became president of Purdue Pharma in 1999 and co-chairman of the board of directors in 2003, formative times for the company during which it intensely marketed OxyContin and pushed doctors to prescribe opioids for nearly all forms of pain.

OxyContin eventually helped the Sackler family achieve a $13 billion net worth, earning them the 19th slot on Forbes’ annual list of the wealthiest families in the country. Despite their massive wealth, the family has spent nothing on addiction rehab or treatment. (RELATED: Opioid Heir Ignores Addicts, Buys $23 Million Bel-Air Mansion Instead)

Goldin’s advocacy group Prescription Addiction Intervention Now, or PAIN, aims to hold the Sackler family accountable by making them fund opioid addiction treatment centers. She also wants to draw attention to the Sackler’s philanthropy. “They have washed their blood money through the halls of museums and universities around the world,” the photographer said in January.

“We are artists, activists, addicts,” Goldin said during the protest at the Met Saturday, according to The New York Times. “We are fed up. We’re just getting started. We’ll be back.”

The Daily Caller News Foundation first highlighted on Aug. 28 the role Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family played in fueling the opioid crisis through a deceptive marketing campaign that pushed knowingly false information downplaying the addictive risks of painkillers.

An Oct. 9 investigation by TheDCNF revealed the large sums of opioid profits the Sackler family has donated to medical research and art institutions, like the Met, many of which honor the family with wings bearing their name. It found none of those profits have gone towards helping victims of addiction.

Subsequent reporting by Esquire on Oct. 16 and The New Yorker on Oct. 30 further exposed the origins of the Sackler family wealth and their ties to esteemed art galleries and other nonprofits.

A report by TheDCNF on Nov. 13 detailed 44 nonprofits that took at least $100,000 from the Sacklers between 2013 and 2015. Every organization contacted, including prestigious institutions such as the Met, the Brooklyn Museum and the Guggenheim Museum, were all seemingly indifferent to their funding source, some even defending the Sackler family.

Purdue Pharma denies allegations of complicity in the opioid epidemic and says they are committed to curbing rates of opioid abuse.

“We are deeply troubled by the opioid crisis and we are dedicated to being part of the solution. As a company grounded in science, we must balance patient access to FDA-approved medicines, while working collaboratively to solve this public health challenge,” a company spokesman previously told TheDCNF.

Drug overdoses are now the leading cause of accidental death for Americans under age 50, killing more than 64,000 people in 2016, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data released by the National Institute on Drug Abuse on Sept. 7 paints a grim outlook for the future of the drug crisis ravaging American communities.

America’s addiction epidemic will continue to deteriorate, pushing drug deaths to an estimated 71,600 in 2017, the study predicted. If the estimates prove accurate, 2017 will be the second year in a row drug deaths surpass U.S. casualties in the Vietnam War.

Follow Steve on Twitter


Thank You Mr Birr and the DC.

Friday, March 9, 2018

There's One US Town Where Guns Are Required By Law

If you're unfamiliar with Kennesaw Georgia;

townhall
Leah Barkoukis
Posted: Mar 08, 2018 3:20 PM 




While many politicians are scrambling to curb the Second Amendment rights of Americans in an effort to ensure public safety, one U.S. town has had the opposite approach for decades: require all residents to have a gun.

According to local law in Kennesaw, Georgia, “every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm."

While the 1982 law isn’t actually enforced, the town’s mayor spoke highly of it nonetheless.

"If you're going to commit a crime in Kennesaw and you're the criminal -- are you going to take a chance that that homeowner is a law-abiding citizen?" asked Kennesaw Mayor Derek Easterling, reports CNN.

Lt. Craig Graydon of the Kennesaw Police Department explained the law “was meant to be kind of a crime deterrent.”

And while it’s difficult to prove a causal relationship between the law and crime in the town, Kennesaw, which boasts a population of 33,000 people, has a violent crime rate of less than 2 percent and has only had one murder in the last six years.

"We can't say that just that gun law contributes x number of percent to why we have a low crime rate. It may be part of it, but it needs to be looked at from a whole picture," said Graydon, who’s been with the police department for 30 years.

Town officials have been fielding calls from across the country in the wake of recent mass shootings, inquiring about the town’s gun law.

"We get a lot of calls, conversation, and it seems to keep crime control, gun safety, things like that on the minds of many of the residents, because people are constantly talking about the gun law," said Graydon. "So that's been somewhat of a benefit to us."

And many are surprised by the town when they actually visit.

"The first thing that most people say when they meet us, you know as a community is 'oh, it's not what I expected,'" said Mayor Easterling. "I don't know what they expect of people who arm themselves with guns at home, or what they're looking for, but really we're not that."

"People kind of get the image that it's the Wild West, where everybody walks around with a firearm strapped to their side, and it's not like that," resident Wayne Arnold told CNN. "It's strictly a home defense system type of deal. There's no shootouts down the street."



Thank You Ms Barkoukis and Townhall. 



BTW: regarding the Democrat howling for more gun control in the wake of the Parkland mass murder:

 

Trump Blasts Oakland Mayor As 'Disgrace' Over Warning About Immigration Raids

townhall
Leah Barkoukis
Posted: Mar 09, 2018 7:30 AM

President Trump blasted Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf as a “disgrace” on Thursday for warning residents about upcoming immigration raids.

“What the mayor of Oakland did the other day was a disgrace. Where they had close to a thousand people, ready to be gotten, ready to be taken off the streets. … The mayor of Oakland went out, and she went out and warned them all: scatter,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting.

“So instead of taking in a thousand, they took in a fraction of that, about 150,” Trump continued.

“It’s certainly something we’re looking at with respect to her, individually,” he added.

Schaaf had publicly warned residents of the San Francisco Bay Area that Immigration and Customs Enforcement would be conducting an operation in the area “starting as soon as within the next 24 hours.”

Acting ICE director Thomas Homan said he believed her warning helped some of their targets evade capture.

While the agency made more than 150 arrests, he said 864 “criminal aliens and public safety threats remain at large in the community, and I have to believe that some of them were able to elude us thanks to the mayor’s irresponsible decision.”

The Department of Justice is reviewing whether Schaff broke any laws, including obstruction of justice, in her decision to warn residents. In the meantime, however, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced earlier this week that it filed a lawsuit against the state of California over its sanctuary city policies.

Schaaf fired back at Sessions's decision: “How dare you vilify members of our community by trying to frighten the American public into thinking all undocumented residents are dangerous criminals?”

“How dare you distort the reality about declining violent crime in a diverse sanctuary city like Oakland, California, to advance your racist agenda,” she added.

“It was not my intention to get caught up in a national debate, but I do believe that I am speaking for the residents of my city,” Schaaf continued. “The agenda of this administration is petty political vindictiveness."


Thank You Ms Barkoukis, Townhall, and President Trump. 






Schaaf continued. “The agenda of this administration is petty political vindictiveness."

Ed; Really?

US Title 8 Section 1324: Bringing In and Harboring Certain Aliens

(a) Criminal penalties
(1)
(A) Any person who—
(i)
knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii)
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii)
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv)
encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I)
engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II)
aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
(i)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
(ii)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
(iii)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(iv)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
(C)
It is not a violation of clauses [1] (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A), or of clause (iv) of subparagraph (A) except where a person encourages or induces an alien to come to or enter the United States, for a religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious organization in the United States, or the agents or officers of such denomination or organization, to encourage, invite, call, allow, or enable an alien who is present in the United States to perform the vocation of a minister or missionary for the denomination or organization in the United States as a volunteer who is not compensated as an employee, notwithstanding the provision of room, board, travel, medical assistance, and other basic living expenses, provided the minister or missionary has been a member of the denomination for at least one year.
(2) Any person who, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien shall, for each alien in respect to whom a violation of this paragraph occurs—
(A)
be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; or
(B) in the case of—
(i)
an offense committed with the intent or with reason to believe that the alien unlawfully brought into the United States will commit an offense against the United States or any State punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year,
(ii)
an offense done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(iii)
an offense in which the alien is not upon arrival immediately brought and presented to an appropriate immigration officer at a designated port of entry,
be fined under title 18 and shall be imprisoned, in the case of a first or second violation of subparagraph (B)(iii), not more than 10 years, in the case of a first or second violation of subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii), not less than 3 nor more than 10 years, and for any other violation, not less than 5 nor more than 15 years.
(3)
(A)
Any person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in subparagraph (B) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
(B) An alien described in this subparagraph is an alien who—
(i)
is an unauthorized alien (as defined in section 1324a(h)(3) of this title), and
(ii)
has been brought into the United States in violation of this subsection.
(4) In the case of a person who has brought aliens into the United States in violation of this subsection, the sentence otherwise provided for may be increased by up to 10 years if—
(A)
the offense was part of an ongoing commercial organization or enterprise;
(B)
aliens were transported in groups of 10 or more; and
(C)
(i)
aliens were transported in a manner that endangered their lives; or
(ii)
the aliens presented a life-threatening health risk to people in the United States.
(b) Seizure and forfeiture
(1) In general
Any conveyance, including any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft, that has been or is being used in the commission of a violation of subsection (a), the gross proceeds of such violation, and any property traceable to such conveyance or proceeds, shall be seized and subject to forfeiture.
(2) Applicable procedures
Seizures and forfeitures under this subsection shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 46 of title 18 relating to civil forfeitures, including section 981(d) of such title, except that such duties as are imposed upon the Secretary of the Treasury under the customs laws described in that section shall be performed by such officers, agents, and other persons as may be designated for that purpose by the Attorney General.
(3) Prima facie evidence in determinations of violationsIn determining whether a violation of subsection (a) has occurred, any of the following shall be prima facie evidence that an alien involved in the alleged violation had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law:
(A)
Records of any judicial or administrative proceeding in which that alien’s status was an issue and in which it was determined that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
(B)
Official records of the Service or of the Department of State showing that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
(C)
Testimony, by an immigration officer having personal knowledge of the facts concerning that alien’s status, that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
(c) Authority to arrest
No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.
(d) Admissibility of videotaped witness testimony
Notwithstanding any provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the videotaped (or otherwise audiovisually preserved) deposition of a witness to a violation of subsection (a) who has been deported or otherwise expelled from the United States, or is otherwise unable to testify, may be admitted into evidence in an action brought for that violation if the witness was available for cross examination and the deposition otherwise complies with the Federal Rules of Evidence.
(e) Outreach program
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall develop and implement an outreach program to educate the public in the United States and abroad about the penalties for bringing in and harboring aliens in violation of this section.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 8, § 274, 66 Stat. 228; Pub. L. 95–582, § 2, Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2479; Pub. L. 97–116, § 12, Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1617; Pub. L. 99–603, title I, § 112, Nov. 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 3381; Pub. L. 100–525, § 2(d), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2610; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60024, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1981; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title II, §§ 203(a)–(d), 219, title VI, § 671(a)(1), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–565, 3009–566, 3009–574, 3009–720; Pub. L. 106–185, § 18(a), Apr. 25, 2000, 114 Stat. 222; Pub. L. 108–458, title V, § 5401, Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3737; Pub. L. 109–97, title VII, § 796, Nov. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 2165.)


[1]  So in original. Probably should be “clause”.