Category Archives: conspiracy

Second Broward County Sheriff’s deputy dead, at 53

On April 9, 2018, I re-blogged Dr. James Tracy’s post on the sudden and untimely death, at age 42, of Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy Jason Fitzsimons, who had questioned the Parkland school shooting’s gun control agenda.

Now comes an announcement of another Broward County deputy death — that of 53-year-old Marshall Peterson. Yesterday, the Broward Sheriff tweeted this:

The reaction to the tweet is one of skepticism:

“I don’t see this on the news. Why not?”

“What’s really going on in Broward County? We need answers!”

“How strange? Did the Clintons move to Broward County? #ROFL these murder coincidences usually follow them around.”

“2nd deputy to die in his home. PEOPLE PLEASE WAKE THE F UP”

“Musta been pro-2A.”

“What did he know?”

“Are these all the cops that know the truth about recent shootings?”

I scoured the web but was unable to find more information on Peterson’s death:

  • No obituary, probably because the death occurred only yesterday.
  • No Facebook account
  • No Twitter account
  • The only likely “Marshall Peterson” on LinkedIn has a bare-bones profile identifying him only as “Law Enforcement at Private, Miami, Florida”.

TruthFinder says he’s single; lives with his 79-year-old mother in a 3-bed 3-bath home in Hollywood/Pembroke Pines, Florida, which is owned by the mother.

Please help me find more information on Deputy Marshall Peterson. I’ll update this post when I have more information.

H/t FOTM‘s Maryaha

~Eowyn

Happy Tuesday: The NRA broke a 15-year fundraising record

nra This is what happens when proggies try to mess with our Constitutional rights.

From Miami Herald: The National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund raised $2.4 million from March 1 to March 31, the group’s first full month of political fundraising since the nation’s deadliest high school shooting on Valentine’s Day, according to filings submitted to the Federal Elections Commission. The total is $1.5 million more than the organization raised during the same time period in 2017, when it took in $884,000 in donations, and $1.6 million more than it raised in February 2018.

The $2.4 million haul is the most money raised by the NRA’s political arm in one month since June 2003, the last month when electronic federal records were readily available. It surpasses the $1.1 million and $1.5 million raised in January and February 2013, the two months after the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Most of the donations, $1.9 million of the $2.4 million total, came from small donors who gave less than $200. The NRA doles out money to political campaigns from the victory fund, but most of its spending is on activity that isn’t directly linked with a lawmakers’ campaign where the group is not bound by state and federal campaign finance limits. For example, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio received only $9,900 in direct contributions from the NRA during his 2016 U.S. Senate campaign, but his campaign benefited from $3.3 million in outside spending from the NRA to help him defeat Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy.

In Florida, the NRA has donated to four Republican members of Congress during the 2018 cycle, including Miami Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, but the four donations are $2,750 or less, a pittance when a competitive congressional campaign typically costs millions. The NRA hasn’t donated to candidates at the state level in Florida for years. Instead, the group’s political power comes from its thousands of members who are typically a powerful voting bloc in Republican primary elections.

The NRA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Marion Hammer, the NRA’s powerful lobbyist in Florida, recently circulated a letter to members titled “It’s Time to Name the Betrayers Who Voted For Gun Control,” an attack on Republican members of the Florida Legislature who helped to pass a gun bill that raised the age to legally purchase a firearm from 18 to 21, instituted a three-day waiting period for purchasing rifles and shotguns, and banned devices called bump stocks that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire at a higher rate.

“We did NOT support the gratuitous gun control provisions added to the bill by REPUBLICANS,” the letter reads. “Republican legislators are responsible for passage of the ‘gun control bill.’ They lacked the courage to uphold their oath of office and keep their word to constituents who voted for them. They were in total control. They no longer deserve your trust.”

The letter went on to call state Sen. Doug Broxson the “lynchpin” who helped pass the bill by one vote in Tallahassee’s upper chamber. The Gulf Breeze Republican defended himself in an op-ed after the vote, saying, “When politicians cannot agree in Washington, they pack up and go home, leaving the American people frustrated and angry. Here in Florida, that’s just not how we do things.”

The NRA spent $31 million to attack Hillary Clinton or support Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, and the NRA’s lobbying arm also spends millions on federal elections, but it does not have to report information on its donors or finances to the FEC. The NRA’s Political Victory Fund ended the month with $5.8 million on hand as the 2018 campaign season ramps up.

Gun control groups haven’t been able to match the NRA’s fundraising.

Everytown for Gun Safety’s Political Action Fund raised $13,580 in March while former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ Political Action Committee raised $129,589 in March. Two South Florida lawmakers have received donations from gun control groups this election cycle. Miami Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo, who introduced a bill to ban bump stocks after the Las Vegas shooting, received $1,000, while Democratic state Rep. David Richardson, who is running for Congress to replace retiring Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, received $14,108 from gun control groups.

The March for Our Lives group founded after the Parkland shooting has raised $3.5 million since Feb. 18 via the online service GoFundMe, though that money was put toward organizing marches around the country and helping families of the victims.

See also:

h/t Twitchy

DCG

Texas boy hit & killed by truck after leaving school during #NationalSchoolWalkout

janthan benko killed during school walkout

Tragic. And Preventable.

Remember, Daivd Hogg started this #NationalSchoolWalkout movement. Because of the NRA.

From Daily Mail: An 11-year-old boy was killed after he participated in a school walkout to protest gun violence and was hit by a car. 

Police say Jonathan Benko was with other students from Parkland Middle School in El Paso, Texas, when they left the designated walkout area Friday morning. The students attempted to cross a busy highway when Benko, who was at the back of the pack, got struck by a Ford F150 truck.

Benko sustained critical injuries from the hit and was taken to the University Medical Center Emergency Department in El Paso where he died.

Ysleta Independent School District Superintendent Xavier De La Torre said Benko was one among 12 to 15 students who used the National School Walkout as an opportunity to leave the middle school to go to the park, the El Paso Times reported.

The school district sent parents a voicemail after the accident to inform them that it was a student from Parkland Middle School.  ‘It is with great sadness and heavy hearts that we inform you of the death of a Parkland Middle School student who left campus this morning and was struck by a vehicle on Loop 375,’ the voicemail said.

A memorial fund for the family has been set up by the University Medical Center Foundation after Benko died.

The student’s mother, Ashley, reportedly works as a registered nurse at the UMC’s Emergency Department and his uncle, Michael Benko, works as a respiratory therapist.

‘All of us at UMC are heartbroken by the loss of a child belonging to one of our Associates, especially a child as young as Jonathan,’ said Jacob Cintron, UMC President & CEO.

‘As a father, I can only imagine how hard this must be for Ashley and her family. She is also one of our family at UMC. Our support, thoughts and prayers are with her and her family throughout this difficult time.’

DCG

Pro-gun control CDC suppresses its research data on defensive gun use

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution specifies that we have the right to bear arms.

In 2008 in a landmark though razor thin 5:4 ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court states that the Second Amendment protects the individual‘s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In its ruling, SCOTUS even leaves open the possibility that the individual’s right to bear arms may include military-grade weapons.

Guns used for self-defense is Defensive Gun Use (DGU). Guns used not for self-defense but to attack another is Offensive Gun Use (OGU).

Instead of supporting and upholding the Second Amendment, a federal government agency — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — does just the opposite.

The CDC has often been criticized by gun owner organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA) as being “antigun” and for awarding research grants on firearms and violence only to researchers with strong anti gun or pro gun control publication records. In particular, CDC has helped finance surveys on defensive gun use (DGU) by researchers such as David Hemenway, which claim a low incidence of DGU. That research is then used to buttress gun control.

Now a professor of criminology, Gary Kleck, has discovered that in 1996, 1997 and 1998 during the Clinton Administration, the CDC conducted its own research on DGU but never released the findings or even acknowledged they had studied the topic. Not only did CDC research find a high incidence of DGU — of 2.46 million a year — the annual number of defensive gun use is 3.6 times that of offensive gun use, which certainly reinforces the correctness of the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling.

In his paper, “What Do CDC’s Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?,” February 14, 2018, Gary Kleck, David J. Bordua Professor Emeritus of Criminology at Florida State University whose research specialty is gun control, writes:

It is less widely known that CDC itself conducted surveys in which huge nationally representative samples of the U.S. adult population were asked about DGU, as part of their Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys….

Why didn’t the CDC report their DGU results? The agency clearly regarded the topic as sufficiently important to insert DGU questions into a very expensive national survey that had never previously included any questions about self-defense, and to do so in three of the surveys…. Accepted scholarly standards dictate reporting the findings accompanied by appropriate caveats about limitations and possible problems with the survey. This allows readers to judge for themselves whether the limitations were so severe that the findings must be discounted altogether. Every one of the critics’ claims that surveys overstate DGU prevalence have been thoroughly refuted (Kleck and Gertz 1997; Kleck 2001), but even if they had not the ethical course for CDC still would have been to release the DGU prevalence findings.

If doubts about the validity of these findings cannot justify their suppression, why did CDC personnel decide not to report them? One obvious explanation would be that they recognized that their own surveys’ finding of a high DGU prevalence was unfriendly to gun control efforts – efforts repeatedly endorsed by CDC-financed researchers (Kates 2001). Such a decision could have been made at the level of administrators who supervise the BRFSS, or perhaps just lower-level personnel who understood that these findings would be unwelcome news to their bosses. Regardless of how the decision was made, it was a disservice to the American people, who paid for the survey and the information it yielded, but who were not allowed to see it and judge its worth for themselves.

Robert R. Redfield, M.D., is the current director of the CDC, since March 2018. Dr. Redfield must drain the CDC swamp. Demand that the CDC release its research findings on defensive gun use!

  • Address: 1600 Clifton Road Atlanta, GA 30329-4027
  • CDC’s phone number: 800-232-4636
  • Email CDC-INFO

H/t Breitbart

~Eowyn

Not a coward: Florida school resource officer hailed a hero after responding to school shooting

sheriff james long marion county sheriff's office photo

A man who knows his duty: Sheriff James Long/Marion County Sheriff’s Office photo

Pay attention Broward Cowards: That is how you do your job.

From Fox News: A Florida school resource officer was hailed a hero after immediately jumping into action and arresting a man who was suspected of shooting a student Friday.

Deputy James “Jimmy” Long of the Marion County Sheriff’s Office was hailed a hero by his colleagues Friday after he arrested the suspected gunman Sky Bouche just three minutes after he opened fire at Forest high School in Ocala, Fla. Bouche allegedly shot through a classroom door and pellets hit a 17-year-old student in the ankle. The student was taken to the hospital with a non-life-threatening wound to his ankle.

Bouche, 19, said, “Sorry,” followed by, “It doesn’t matter anyway,” to reporters as he was led from the school in handcuffs by several deputies. Authorities said Bouche was a former student at the school.

“I didn’t shoot anyone,” he said to reporters. He ignored most of the other questions until asked what he’d say to the shooting victim. That’s when he said, “Sorry.”

Other people credited with helping dilute the incident include Kelly McManis-Panasuk, a teacher at the school who spoke with Bouche during the incident as Long and the school’s principal Brent Carson rushed over. Bouche was not injured and “didn’t offer any resistance when arrested,” Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods said.

Woods praised Long’s quick response as well as school personnel.

Long “did not hesitate. He went right in,” Woods said at a news conference. Woods said Long heard a “large, loud banging sound” and immediately responded.

“Marion County does everything to protect their children,” Woods said.

Bouche was held on charges of “terrorism, aggravated assault with a firearm, culpable negligence, carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a firearm on school property, possession of a short-barrelled shotgun, interference in school function and armed trespass on school property,” the Ocala Star-Banner reported.

Authorities said the suspected gunman carried the weapon in a guitar case inside the school. The school along with all other schools in the district were placed on a lockdown following the incident.

The injured student, who was not identified, told officials that he was “glad it was me and not one of my friends.”

Read the rest of the story here.

DCG

Alyssa Milano, Alec Baldwin, Amy Schumer help launch anti-NRA campaign

alyssa milano

BRING. IT. ON.

They obviously missed what happened when Hogg thought he could take on the NRA all by himself.

From Hollywood Reporter: Less than a month after March for Our Lives events swept through American cities to protest gun violence, a group of Hollywood stars including Alyssa Milano, Amy Schumer and Alec Baldwin have partnered with Parkland, Fla., students, activists and policy experts to launch a new initiative aimed at advocating for gun control and reducing the political influence of the National Rifle Association.

The No Rifle Association initiative (#NoRA) announced its formation and goals in a letter to NRA executive vp Wayne LaPierre on Friday. It was signed by over 130 celebrities and activists including Parkland shooting survivors David Hogg and Cameron Kasky, #MeToo founder Tarana Burke, Ashley Judd, W. Kamau Bell, Don Cheadle, Minnie Driver, Jon Favreau, Nathan Fillion, Jordan Horowitz, Jimmy Kimmel, Julianne Moore, Michael Moore, Patton Oswalt, Annabella Sciorra, Jill Soloway, Amber Tamblyn and Constance Wu.

“We’re going to shine a bright light on what you and your organization do to America. We’re going to make sure the whole world sees your bloody hands. We’re coming for your money. We’re coming for your puppets. And we’re going to win,” the strongly worded letter announces.

The letter says the #NoRA movement will “rais[e] the voices of all victims of gun violence,” citing as examples people from communities of color, which are disproportionately affected by gun violence, women who have survived domestic violence and children who have died in shootings. The letter also says that the organization intends to “counterac[t] the influence of NRA money in the political system.”

Since 1998, the NRA has spent more than $11 million in contributions to federal lawmakers and political candidates. In 2016 alone, the group spent about $54 million in the presidential and congressional races.

The formation of #NoRa follows in the footsteps of the #MeToo movement, the Time’s Up Organization and the #AskMoreofHim campaign, which have all seen starry groups of Hollywood players leveraging their platform to advocate for social change.

And gun control has proved to be a strong issue with stars and Hollywood creatives, who showed up in force during March for Our Lives events last month. Kim Kardashian, Kanye West, George Clooney and Jimmy Fallon attended the D.C. march, while Connie Britton, Laura Dern, Willow and Jaden Smith and more showed up at the L.A. edition.

Read the full letter to Wayne LaPierre here.

DCG

UN admits ‘refugees’ are ‘replacement migration’ for Europe and other low-fertility countries

For those of us who’ve long suspected there’s a hidden agenda behind the invasion of “refugees” and “migrants” in Europe, here’s the smoking gun.

In 2000, the United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs issued a report, Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?, which proposes “replacement migration” for countries with an aging and declining population.

Below is the UN’s press release on the report, dated March 17, 2000 — that’s how long ago the “refugee” and “migrant” plan was hatched.

Press Release
DEV/2234
POP/735

NEW REPORT ON REPLACEMENT MIGRATION ISSUED BY UN POPULATION DIVISION

NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) — The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.

Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.

Major findings of this report include:

— In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.

— Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.

Some immigration is needed to prevent population decline in all countries and regions examined in the report. However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants — a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years.

— The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections. The only exception is the United States.

— The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working-age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 — between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.

— Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number — 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.

— The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.

— In the absence of immigration, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.

— The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require a comprehensive reassessment of many established policies and programmes, with a long-term perspective. Critical issues that need to be addressed include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health care benefits for the elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration, in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.

Note that, unlike Europe and other developed countries, the United States is a lone exception. Instead of population decline and ageing, our population is projected to increase by a quarter in the next 50 years.

That means America does not need to open our doors to immigrants, migrants and refugees. In fact, the UN report concludes that we only need to bring in 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.

The U.S. population in 2018 is 327.16 million. That means that, at most, we need to bring in less than half a million (425,000) migrants a year — if even that.

See also:

~Eowyn