Wednesday break my heart

First a quick Separated at Birth…

…featuring State Senator (and friend and host to actor Clint Howard, featured on the recent Wheels Down Politics Show podcast) Jim Smith of Papillion and former George H.W Bush Press Secretary, Marlin Fitzwater!




After yesterday’s news about the Donald Trump campaign’s financial situation and a change in the campaign organization, Trump has managed to change the narrative, almost immediately.

In a speech today, Trump gave a rousing criticism of Hillary Clinton, in every which way and why. It has been roundly praised by conservatives and Republicans — including by those who have been part of the #NeverTrump movement for some time.

Of course one speech won’t mollify the crowd who has still declared they want someone else to have the GOP nomination. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said yesterday that delegates should vote their conscience in Cleveland.

But if Trump can do more of the above, and less of the intra-party attacks, the chances of a mutiny in Cleveland get smaller and smaller.



In a shocking editorial, the LJS said how awesome it is that Jane Kleeb is the new chair of the Nebraska Democrats.

And yesterday, after ONE website wrote about it, Kleeb and her cronies reinstated the chair of the NDP’s Latino caucus who they had booted over the weekend. (You’re welcome Nebraska Democrats. Now go tell Jane to apologize for taking the dirty Clinton money.)

Of course Jane playing both sides if just par for her 18 holes of politics.

For instance, Jane whines on the Twitter about the Nebraska GOP blocking her from reading their Twitter account.

Screen Shot 2016-06-22 at 9.16.24 AM

Oh, ain’t that cute.
Jane thinks she’s a “scary momma bear”.

And we should all be, what?, appalled by the NEGOP’s actions?

Well, please note that YOURS TRULY is blocked by…Jane:


Screen Shot 2016-06-22 at 12.42.50 PM


Looks like Leavenworth St. is just too scary for Jane to share with.

Then again, maybe she was confused by Leavenworth St. and Leavenstreet Worth


Sit and spin

So, let’s see…

Senator Ted Cruz stops the Senate and the media gets their dresses up over their heads that Government has halted!!!

But a bunch of Democrats sit on the carpet in the House, and, oh my! Look at their courage! They’re doing…something!

Well, actually the polar opposite.

But State Senator Bill Kintner does make a good point:


What to do?

The Twitter: @LeavenworthSt
The Facebook: Leavenworth St.

Click it. Follow it. Like it.


  1. Bluejay says:

    1. The election changed today. Trump pointed out many things but the key thing she has been purchased by the Street and foreign countries. If Trump keeps this up, he wins.

    Hillary has failed on foreign policy. The economy barely grows at 2%. She will manage the decline. She and her cronies get rich. We get shafted.

    2. LJS, “But the battle to stop the Keystone XL also looked like a lost cause when Kleeb jumped into the fray.”

    Kleeb created a controversy where none existed. And it was Gov Dave and TransCanada’s mistake in bill drafting that gave the opponents the legal opening to walk through.

    Isn’t there an rule in journalism? No cheering in the press box.

    Will Kleeb be held accountable when Ashford loses and Hillary loses by 20 plus points?

  2. Sparkles says:

    The record clearly shows –
    The Kleebs received not one thin dime from the Clintons or the CGI.

    Damn those pesky facts.

    • Bluejay says:


      Bill arranged for his friends to fund Scott Kleeb’s business. He put them on the stage. That’s how they work. The Clintons aren’t dumb. Why do you think they work all their bribery deals with obscure foreigners and foreign countries?

      The Clintons are flat out criminals.

      • Sparkles says:

        Ya got nothin’ Bluejay.

        Nothin’ but more frothy right wing conspiracy theories.
        That boy you’ve got crying wolf became irrelevant two decades ago. Nothing but white noise.

        And I hope Shouty McShoutface’s new found affection for the teleprompter and his rehearsed recital of unhinged, fact-free, anti-Clinton screeds continue unabated until November.
        The revulsion inspired will surely lead to a clean sweep; White House, Senate, House.

        What was Moody’s Analytics conclusion on the Donald’s economic plan again???
        Oh yes, I remember now: “lengthy recession” and “loss of 3.5 Million jobs”.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Pat Borchers, if we are discussing rumors, how about Trump mob ties or how he got a pass on answering questions about criminal ties because of political influence when he got his NJ license for the casino. The Russian mob are not my idea of POTUS chums. Maybe we should all agree neither candidate is building a record for the Congregation for the Cause of Saints.

      • Sparkles says:


        “What record”, you ask.
        The comprehensive, all-inclusive, universal record of of the Clinton/Kleeb indictment – every single word.

        And indictment beginning with the original article in Rupert Murdoch’s WSJ.
        An article published May 12, titled ‘Clinton Charity Aided Clinton Friends’

        Then Including every word in a rapid succession of articles written about the private investment Scott Kleeb’s company, Energy Pioneer Solution’s, Inc. received.
        You’ll find the other articles universally shouting of ‘scandal’ in right wing outlets like RedState, right wing World Net Daily, right wing Townhall, right wing Daily Caller, Rupert Murdoch’s right wing NY Post, right wing Inquisitr, (goes w/out saying), right wing HotAir, etc., etc…
        Where you won’t find the story – not a single mention – is in the NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle, Dallas Morning News, CBS News, ABC news, CNN, NPR, etc..

        Because there is no there, there.
        There exists not a single scintilla of evidence of a single cent of “dirty Clinton money”.
        It’s just one more smear campaign in an assault on the Clinton’s that dates back a quarter century. One more fabricated scandal cooked up and with coordination rolled out by a right wing entertainment complex that profits from fear and anger.

        That record.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Bluejay, Domina was a very lackluster candidate. He did not seem to have much interest in the whole process. Pipeline case was never going to carry the day alone.

      • The Grundle King says:

        Bluejay, I think it had something to do with people not wanting to vote for a guy who’s always trying to steal their hard-earned money via lawsuit.

    • Sparkles says:

      Reminiscent of the scene from Tombstone –
      Kurt Russell, double barrel in hand, Val Kilmer & crew flanking him, instructing a fleeing Ike Clanton:
      “You tell ’em I’m coming… and hell’s comin’ with me, you hear? Hell’s Comin’ With Me!!”

    • Pete Botkin says:

      Yea, you’re right. Mighty Jane the insane has really kicked (R) asses up and down the Platte. That’s why democrats hold all of the statewide offices and why her husband is a Congressman.

      Though she would love to take credit for the failure of KXL, everyone knows the Boldies were just a footnote in that saga. Jane has kicked ass at one thing: Promoting Jane Kleeb. Can’t blame her. Self promotion and acting in one’s best interest is logical.

  3. repenting lawyer says:

    To see the great John Lewis sitting was very impressive. To have him criticized by the village twit Kintner was a reminder of what a small man open carry Bill is. Given R majority Ryan was not going to let anything non symbolic happen, sit in or no sit in so Kintner is also ignorant of basic political reality.

    • Bluejay says:


      When John Lewis conducts his sit-in on the streets of Chicago some weekend night I will take him seriously. It was a stunt. A failed stunt. Pathetic.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Bluejay, John Lewis protested, work on voter registration, and sat in when it was extremely dangerous. Yesterday was the anniversary of the murders in Philadelphia ,Miss. Do not let your ignorance show, it humiliates bill.

      • Bluejay says:


        I know about John’s civil rights work as a young man and so that is why today’s stunt was such an embrassment. It devalues what he did before. Today was completely meaningless.

        I saw a clip of Bobby Rush speaking about how important a gun control bill would be because one of his sons was shot and killed in Chicago. So I looked it up. Huey Rush was shot and killed by drug dealers because Rush was a drug dealer and money runner.

        Let’s be frank. A large, large amount of “gun violence” is directly tied to the black culture. No shootings in Ralston but shootings weekly just north of Creighton.

        If Barack, Michelle, Bobby and John went to Grant Park and made the following three points I would respect them. 1. Stop committing crimes and I’m talking about drugs. 2. Finish school and take it seriously. 3. Stop having children out of wedlock and at a young age. No more of this baby mama business.

        But such a speech will never happen. Why? It goes against today’s black culture in the cities. Not everyone, but a sizable number. And, of course, rap music celebrates this crap.

        When Bob Gibson was growing up in Omaha, the above was not a problem.

        I consider Obams’s failure to the black race his biggest disaster after the Iran deal.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Bluejay, I do not agree but that was much better than the original remark. You do not really remember when Bob Gibson was growing do you? I remember seeing him play basket ball, but I was in grade school. CU was alright until he had to let someone else have the ball, but he never quit trying.

      • Sparkles says:


        Ask, and you shall receive.

        I encourage you to google “Barack Obama’s Speech on Father’s Day”.
        You’ll find both a Youtube link and links to the prepared text of the Father’s Day speech by Barack Obama to the Apostolic Church of God, which happens to be located on the south side of Chicago.

        Then google – “Obama Hyde Park Speech”, another speech directly to the black community, in Chicago calling out black violence, absentee fathers, and the need for all black youth to aim higher.

        Obama has given many, many such speech’s, consistently and vociferously castigating absent black fathers and denouncing a black culture that too often includes drugs and violence. Barack Obama has been persistent throughout his Presidency demanding black youth work harder and aim higher.

        But alas, this news never penetrates the alternate reality that is the right wing media.

    • Sparkles says:

      The criticism from GOP twits isn’t limited to our local village idiot.

      Congressman Mark Walker (R-NC) just tweeted:
      “Calling this a sit-in is a disgrace to Woolworth’s”

      Mark Walker, a white Baptist Minister from NC, born in 1969, has the gall to lecture John Lewis about the civil rights movement.

      Of course this is the same Mark Walker who said of illegal immigration along the Mexican border:
      ..”if we got to go laser or blitz somebody with a couple of fighter jets for a little while to make our point, I don’t have a problem with that..”

      and of President Obama –
      “..he’s gotten pretty comfortable up there spending all of those billions of dollars on vacations for he and his family.

      Morons on parade.

      • Bluejay says:


        Check your calendar. It is 2016. Not 1966.

        Stop living in the glory days of the last century.

        See my criticism of today’s black culture above.

        You and RL know I am correct about this. Admit it. Set yourself free from the past.

  4. bynd says:

    Two great articles in the OWH today. One by an expert from UNL on stopping mass murders. He says nothing about guns.

    Second is about jobs. Permanent loss of good jobs being permanently replaced by lower paying no benefits jobs, 48+ million and automation. Bottom line seems to be, the job situation has gotten worse as time goes by and it will not get better. Yet from the pundits we hear nothing. As most of us understand, the unemployment rate is a useless number used by politicians to duck the real issues and Wall Srreet to make more money.

    If Jane’s “victory” in the KXL was such a great one for a flaccid NE Dem party, why did she have to fight for the top job? Hey Ricky, how was the convention? You haven’t said squat!

    • Sparkles says:

      Average yearly job growth:
      Clinton: 2,861,375
      Carter: 2,586,250
      Reagan: 2,016,375
      Obama: 1,323,571*
      Bush I: 659,250
      Bush II: 160,125
      *When Obama took office, the economy was on the brink of collapse, hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of jobs a month — 700,000 were lost in his first month as President.

      When you push back the job tracking numbers to account for the policy lag from the previous administration, Obama’s numbers look even more impressive, and G.W. Bush is one of the few Presidents in history to actually lose jobs during his tenure. You can find the numbers here:
      “Guess what: Barack Obama has been a great president for job creation”

      President Obama continues to preside over the longest streak of private-sector job creation in history.
      Every job meaningful.
      Every job much, much more than a “useless number used by politicians”.

      Since dragging our nation back from the precipice of the Great Recession, our economy under Obama has created more than 14 Million new jobs.

      Net job creation during the 15 years that Clinton and Obama occupied the White House has topped 30 million. That is 50 percent more than were created in the 20 years of Reagan and both Bushes.

      According to data compiled by a Moody’s, the United States stands as the strongest major economy in the world.

      From the brink of quite literal disaster.

      • bynd says:

        Sparkles, BJ said it right. You need to get out of the past. All the BS you put up there is just worthless numbers. They don’t show the whole picture. And that is what the article did. Hide your head in the sand if you want. And I see you didn’t answer the article directly. Point by point would be great.

        Strongest major economy in the world. There are many strongest bridges all over this state. But that doesn’t mean you can drive a car across them. Once again, answer the article. You sidestep and dodge with more BS than anyone else here. Try a little direct intellectual honesty.

        Moody’s. That would be one of the big three ratings fiascos that helped fuel the subprime crash of 2007 and 2008. And refuse to tell the truth how it is all happening again. Sub-primes are coming back with a new name. Google new name for subprime packages and read the Bloomberg article. You liberals are going to let it happen all over again. Stupid or ignorant? Doesn’t matter, the results will be the same.

      • bynd says:

        Sparkles, By the way. The article published had nothing to do with politics, presidents or any of that political spin used by sycophant zealots like you. And it is pathetic, that without reading the article you immediately jump into your fantasy world of protection for our current president. Which really only serves to show how disconnected from the world you are.

  5. repenting lawyer says:

    Bynd, there is a considerable literature on why US is unique in its very high rate of single shooter mass murders Availability of assault weapons not banned in 1930s. Social science blog of Washington Post had a good survey last week. One article is hardly a literature search.
    Declining jobs is very often discussed by pundits, part of discussion of increasing inequality and decline of the middle class. Unemployment rate is not a useless number, particularly change, as a measure of economic health. True it does not measure quality of jobs created, on the other hand that is an important part of health care finance discussion both in terms shrinking coverage at work and growth of part time employment, particularly that which is make believe part time.

    • bynd says:

      RL. No disrespect but, what one needs to know to understand how the US compares to the top 12 in mass shooting in the world, is how it is adjusted for population.
      Rampage shooting fatalities, per 1,000,000 2009-2013
      total rampage shootings fatalities 2009-2013
      fatal rampage shooting incidents per 1,000,000 2009-2013
      total fatal rampage shooting incidents 2009-2013.
      level of gun restrictions
      Indeed, in the time frame 2009-2013, the US fell from number 1 to number 7 when adjusting for population. That would be the whole story. From ijreview.

      As to employment. Your disagreement is not with me. I am certainly not the expert. But if you take the time to read the article in the money section, you should have a better understanding of what the whole picture of employment/unemployment/underemployment and lost forever employment is. Just as the numbers above show the whole story of mass murders.

      To reduce such complex areas to one number can be labeled as dishonest when one knows the truth of all the numbers. And using all the numbers paints a much different and more accurate picture less prone to manipulation. But then, one must also have the desire for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth:)

    • bynd says:

      RL: PS.
      One article can be an excellent literary search depending on the depth of research accomplished for that one article.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Bynd, the issue is mass shootings by lone gunmen that is where USA is on top . Those are the cases caused by our lack of control over assault weapons. 2nd Cir. based its upholding of Conn. and NY laws against 2nd Amendment challenges on this reason. No one thinks groups will not be able to circumvent controls and it is here where we fall behind. Probably a tribute to law enforcement in USA.
        The change in job quality and its relation to inequality and the impact on availability of health insurance are a subject of constant discussion. I first talked about it in class early 1970s. Even made it into religious press because of suicide of permanent part time non tenure track teacher who was ill and with no insurance at a Catholic U in PA. Particularly important is the disappearance of jobs that will support a family on one income. We are not in disagreement about this, but about your claim these facts are being ignored’
        I never suggested unemployment numbers alone were sufficient. As I pointed out they do not measure job quality, though that criticism is better aimed at job creation numbers. You seem set on defending your invention of the wheel. It has been around for a while.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Bynd, I do not doubt the value of literature search articles. I referred you to the social science blog of the Washington Post on single shooter mass killings. But you assumed because WH article did not address those numbers that it answer your issue, when it did not. It talked about one chaps work not all the work in the field. Survey articles try to look at all the research.

  6. bynd says:

    I must admit, there are times, quite a few, where I have no idea what you are talking about.

    As to employment numbers, ask your average voter about them. They have no clue because of the shallow coverage by today’s media. And it is important because today’s numbers should push tomorrows policies. Indeed, just watch on here, all you see is the unemployment rate as the gold standard for the zealots to push. I’m glad you taught such things way back when, your students were a step ahead of the other 95% (my hyperbole) who studied basket weaving and social work.

    But if jobs are more scarce, especially one family income jobs, and the Millennials are even larger than the Boomers, then something is going to go wrong for many unfortunate youg’uns. And the answer is???? Not coming from our current politicians, either side.

    As to the mass killing issue, no doubt it is about definitions and agendas. But what makes one set of numbers better or worse than another? When the Pres. states we are the worse in the world based on raw numbers not adjusted by population, then what he states is wrong. We are not. As to the guns. I use to own some but do not now. No reason, I just don’t. But I see the uselessness of debate over banning them now as just political rhetoric meant to pander to the base. It is frustrating as it will make no difference because those horses, millions of them, left that barn a long time ago. And more will die as the experts, one from our own UNL, are ignored by those who could care less about who is killed rather than making points on the grief of the dead. The X Files had one thing right, the truth is out there. But it is hard to find anyone who cares what it really is. Power is not based on truth. And a sit-in in congress over meaningless laws is certainly not to the credit of anyone. I’ll go with BJ on that one. It is an embarrassment.

    • Sparkles says:

      “I must admit, there are times, quite a few, where I have no idea what you are talking about.”

      What would be far more beneficial, is if you were to admit that there are times, a preponderance in fact, that you have no idea what you are talking about.

      • bynd says:

        Sparkles, Let’s make a joint statement. You live in the past and do not understand current reality. I live in the current reality and don’t understand the political past. I always know what I am talking about. Although I don’t always express it well. You, on the other hand are easy to interpret, because the gist of cut and paste is a redundant and boring system that is not hard to understand after you state the same thing the umpteenth time. I do not take your not understanding as my problem, despite the classic model of communications.

    • repenting lawyer says:

      Bynd, I think the average voter thinks jobs are a problem and knows about shrinking middle class, what they know about causation I leave to you. The problem has a multitude of causes and no simple answer, and voters probably do not deal well with complexity. Reliance on tv and internet and decline of print media do not help.
      You are simply wrong about POTUS. He is talking about single shooter mass killings in which we do lead Multiple shooters and other group terrorist activities, 9 11 and OK City are major exceptions to success of our law enforcement in dealing with these. Bar to purchase by those on no flight list might help on both, though both NRA and ACLU say they are an irrational mess. Number of guns out there is a problem but not a reason for not trying. Repeal of ban on assault rifles made things worse.

      • bynd says:

        RL: And thus the correct accusation that POTUS real doesn’t know what the issue is or the remedy. which compounds the problem and needlessly the complexity. Google Professor Mario Scalora from UNL.

        As to the number guns already out there, if you are not solving the problem then you are wasting time and infinite resources, while more needlessly die. Since assault rifles are readily available regardless of the ban and in that “assault” rifles seem to be not the problem depending on the definition, there is no way to substantiate your claim it has gotten worse since the ban expired. There is no nexus. As we have seen, if not assault rifles, then pressure cookers or fertilizer. Although we could ban fertilizer and kill two birds with one stone, water pollution and mass deaths. However, we would then probably have mass deaths from starvation. Once again, read what the expert Professor Scalora has to say. He says nothing about guns.

  7. repenting lawyer says:

    Bynd I have spent an enormous amount of time reading on this issue, and read WH article. Fact UNL chap says nothing about guns is proof of what? POTUS clearly understands issue, you do not. Assault rifles are the and there availability are a problem in single shooter cases. Ban on these weapons make it harder for the single shooter to get them, even with underground availability. You delight in giving Obama no credit on anything, which despite your claim to nonpartisanship places you near the silly fringe of the right. Incidentally, the WH is not a refereed journal so hardly a source for front line social science research.

    • bynd says:

      RL: The fact that Prof. Scalora says nothing about guns would indicate it is not part of what he believes the solution is. Ironic, when science backs up what some one believes it is a good thing. when not, then it is ignored. Just this morning POTUS said about the SCOTUS decision on immigration that he took actions within his authority. But yet, the decision, at this point, says not so. It is claimed that had the SCOTUS been fully manned, outcome would have been different. How can anyone know that? For now, it is the law of the land until changed.

      Sorry RL: but almost every politician is not there to understand, except as their bias and their understanding as to how it helps them, tells them to understand. Otherwise, we would not have gridlock. And no, it is not just one side. Weapons ban have been in place all over the world for all sorts of weapons, yet, those banned from them still get them. I can not think of one single incident where a ban has proven to have stopped a single shooter from obtaining what they needed to accomplish their goal. Mass deaths, by any means. You can stop floods by getting rid of water, you can stop tornadoes by getting rid of storms. Neither is practical or doable. If you want to stop or inhibit mass murders, politicians do not have the answer and we should listen to those who do. Banning guns is a feel good. If I thought it would do any good, I would support it. I can not get one answer on why such a ban would lessen mass murders. But it appears our biggest disagreement is your optimism vs my pessimism. For 50 years we have banned illegal drugs. Yet, we are no better off than 50 years ago. Indeed what that ban has cost is tens of thousands of dead innocent Mexicans and billions of dollars. Same for alcohol. Lot’s of dead, lots of money. Bans don’t stop anything. They just push it underground.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Bynd, You are reading Scalar’s view on guns from silence on the subject, not logical, and he is not the only expert. However your cherrypicking one expert is rather lawyer like.
        You are totally confused by what SCOTUS did, an affirmation by an equally divided court is not precedent. Programs are stopped for now because of 5th Cir case, but issue is still open.
        I see no analogy between gun bans, particularly on assault weapons, and drugs. We had a ban on assault weapons and it worked. Incidentally 50 years ago we were cutting back on drug penalties at the federal level. Absurd penalties had packed federal prisons with drug offenders and there was strong support for legalizing weed. When we reversed back into draconian mode I thought it would be a disaster, it was. I am a pessimist about a lot of things, but we are discussing only one matter.

  8. bynd says:

    RL: If one is presenting his views on being able to lessen/stop mass murders, was presented as expert on the subject, and if gun control was relevant, why would he leave it out? I might also point out, nothing that POTUS stated was peer reviewed. I do not consider other politicians of the same party being a valid peer review. I don’t know where you got your info on the 1994 ban, but the results were mixed and a firm statement that it worked is not true. You can go to and see the studies and results there of, so you don’t need to believe me. A ban is a ban is a ban. If you can’t learn something from each of them to apply to such a policy, that would be the first time that like topics had nothing to do with each other. If you disagree that is fine. Then I guess we need to just continue instituting bans and watch them fail, again. I can testify to the fact that a person good with a pump shotgun can shoot off shots so fast you can not tell the difference between the pump and a semi automatic. The issue isn’t so much how fast but how many. The studies also pointed out that since not all semi automatics with large magazines where include with the ban, and those guns were used in more incidents than those banned, before they were banned, it was hard to tell the effects of the ban. It would make more sense to just limit all guns to one shot. So, why not go for something that could make a difference? Because, even though I don’t believe in using a gun personally for protection, if I had one, I would want as many shots as possible because shooting under stress makes on a very bad shot. If people are really upset about Sandyhook, why not fortify schools so it can’t happen? Many buildings are. Now there’s an answer that can work. Sometimes people just have to realize, there is no answer. And if it is that important, no cost is too much.

    • repenting lawyer says:

      Bynd, A ban is a ban? 1930s weapon bans seem to work. Limit on number of shells in a shot gun, 3 as I recall. Your imagination is working over time from minding reading UNL proof, pretending there in only one expert, the one you mind read,, and ignoring the success of old ban in dealing with single shooters. Jack Horner method, pull one piece of data out of the mass of material and proclaim “What a good boy am I.”

  9. Sparkles says:

    And now, a word from our sponsors!
    This never ending national argument about gun violence in America is paid for from the overflowing, blood stained coffers of the NRA and proudly presented by the well stuffed back pocket of your local Republican legislator!

    Federal research of gun violence was banned, 20 years ago, by the 1996 Dickey Amendment. An amendment slipped in as a rider to a spending bill by Republican Congressman Jay Dickey, of Pine Bluff, Arkansas,
    An amendment that for 20 years has spawned headlines like these:

    Feb 13, 2013 – The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) –
    “Silencing the Science on Gun Research”

    Jan 16, 2013, Business Insider –
    “How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun Violence Research”

    June 24, 2015, The Hill –
    “GOP keeps in place funding ban on gun violence research”

    April 12, 2014, Pro Publica –
    “Republicans Say No to CDC Gun Violence Research”

    Dec 19, 2012, Slate –
    “How Congress Blocked Research on Gun Violence – The ugly campaign by the NRA to shut down studies at the CDC.”

    Dec 11, 2015, Vice –
    “The Republican Behind the Federal Ban on Gun Violence Research Explains His Big Regrets”

    Alas, but the obstruction is finally coming to an end.

    June 14, 2016, LA Times –
    “The NRA has blocked gun violence research for 20 years. Let’s end its stranglehold on science.”

    June 15, 2016, ThinkProgress –
    “The Most Powerful Medical Association In The U.S. Gears Up To Fight Congress Over Guns”

    June 15 2016, Forbes –
    “Doctors Will Challenge NRA’s Hold On Federal Gun Research”

    June 15 2016, Consumer Affairs –
    “AMA calls gun violence a public health crisis, gears up to fight Congress”

    June 18, 2016 –
    “Gun Violence Research: If Republicans in Congress Won’t Do It, California Will”

    • The Grundle King says:

      There is no ban on federal dollars being used to research firearm related violence. To say that such a ban exists is a lie. To repeat it ad nauseum makes you a liar.

      The ‘ban’ you speak of was actually a measure to strip funding for research that supported gun control measures. The fact that the number of CDC papers on firearms has held steady, and even increased, would indicate that there is no “ban”. The folks at the CDC brought this on themselves when they openly admitted to pursuing confirmation bias through their “research”. They had conclusions in mind, and just needed the study to prove out those conclusions. That’s not science, and it’s not research…that’s political activism. The CDC should exist to provide us with information…they should not serve as a de facto lobbying arm for the Brady Campaign.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.