After the tragic incident where a 9-year-old girl accidentally killed her range instructor with an Uzi in Arizona, there were a series of stories debating the presence of kids at gun ranges. As an avid shooter, I see young kids at my range all the time, spending quality time with Dad (sometimes Mom too) learning basic gun safety and how to shoot properly. Kids learning how to shoot is quite common in America–and they don’t always end in tragedy.
Case in point: meet 10-year-old Shyanne Roberts from New Jersey, who is a competitive shooter that practices 15 hours a week. By the way, that’s the minimum amount of time she spends at the range (via CNN):
Shyanne competes alongside junior shooters, who are participants younger than 18, and even adults. Last year, she beat out adult women to place second in the Women's Division of the New Jersey Ruger Rimfire Challenge.
On October 31, she will square off against 200 of the top women shooters at the Brownell's Lady 3-Gun Pro-Am Challenge in Covington, Georgia. Shyanne is the youngest competitive shooter registered at the female-only event, according to the match director. The top shooter has a chance to win $5,000, as well as items from a prize table of guns, ammo and more.
The Franklinville, New Jersey, girl, who now has more than 20 sponsors, started learning gun safety when she was 5. After she could recite the rules and had grasped what guns can do, around age 6, her father started taking her to a gun range. Dan Roberts is a certified firearms instructor and a single dad. He has custody of Shyanne and her younger brother.
When asked how he feels about his daughter using a gun, her father said, "I feel very comfortable because I know she's been extraordinarily well-trained at how to be safe. I could have a fully loaded machine gun, and she would not dream of touching it because the curiosity factor has been eliminated."
Roberts believes early firearm education and training are the keys to reducing gun accidents. He argues that if kids knew about guns at a young age, their curiosity wouldn't get the best of them, leaving tragedy in their trail.
When looking at target shooting across all the styles, there's been a 67% increase in the number of women participating in the past decade. More than 6.4 million women competed in 2012, compared with 3.8 million women in 2003, according to the National Sporting Goods Association's annual sports participation reports.
Roberts says that this isn’t just a hobby for her; she wants to make a career out of it. Best of luck!
This puts the contraception mandate to shame.
Thanks to a newly enforced regulation in California, abortion is now a “basic health care service” in the state. The Federalist’s Casey Mattox reported the unfortunate news:
California’s Department of Managed Health Care has ordered all insurance plans in the state to immediately begin covering elective abortion. Not Plan B. Not contraceptives. Elective surgical dismemberment abortion.
Churches inevitably fall under the “all” category. Besides the human rights issue of abortion is the religious freedom issue. Forcing churches to fund the procedure is a direct violation of their First Amendment rights. Unlike the Christian-owned arts and crafts company Hobby Lobby and its fight against the contraception mandate (which the former thankfully won this summer), the situation in California puts actual religious institutions up against a mandate that would force them to fund abortion in an even more direct route.
In a bit of sad irony, churches in California are exempt from having to fund chemical abortions. Mattox touched on the baffling situation:
This leaves California churches in the illogical and impossible position of being free to exclude contraceptives from their health plan for reasons of religious conscience but required to provide their employees with abortion coverage.
The non-profit legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom and the public interest Life Legal Defense Foundation have filed formal complaints against the mandate with the Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights.
Bob Dole and Mitt Romney will headline an event Monday in Overland Park for Roberts, who is deadlocked against independent Greg Orman in the fight of his political career.
Dole and Romney are just the latest in a parade of big-name Republicans to hit the trail in Kansas, a GOP stronghold that now has a central role in close contests for governor and the U.S. Senate. Jeb Bush, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have all hit the trail in Kansas for Roberts.
As USA Today reported, some of the bigger GOP guns like Cruz and Paul have already hit the campaign trail for him. While the Dole/Romney team might seem odd, given that they are failed presidential candidates, Dole is still an incredibly popular figure in Kansas politics, and seen as a centrist Republican at a time when Greg Orman has been decimating Roberts among self-identified independent voters.
There’s Sen. Tom Coburn’s annual “waste book,” which evinces all the ridiculous ways taxpayers are hosed every year, and then there’s this. Thanks, in part, to the Associated Press’ painstaking and thorough investigative reporting, we now know beyond any doubt that suspected former Nazis, living abroad, have been on the government dole for decades:
Former Auschwitz guard Jakob Denzinger lived the American dream. His company in the Rust Belt town of Akron, Ohio, thrived. By the late 1980s, he had acquired the trappings of success: a Cadillac DeVille and a Lincoln Town Car, a lakefront home, investments in oil and real estate.
Then the Nazi hunters showed up. In 1989, as the U.S. government prepared to strip him of his citizenship, Denzinger packed a pair of suitcases and fled to Germany. He later settled in this pleasant town on the Drava River, where he lives comfortably, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. He collects a Social Security payment of about $1,500 each month, nearly twice the take-home pay of an average Croatian worker.
Denzinger, 90, is among dozens of suspected Nazi war criminals and SS guards who collected millions of dollars in Social Security payments after being forced out of the United States, an Associated Press investigation found.
How on earth could this happen? Easy: in the aftermath of the Second World War, former Nazis simply jettisoned their uniforms, hid who they were, and made for America. Upon arrival, they were happy to apply for citizenship, and once the paperwork went through, enjoy the benefits and generosity of a country they once waged war against. It also seems likely this was no mere oversight, but rather a quid pro quo arrangement between the US government and suspected Nazis to urge them to flee the country as soon as possible. Nevertheless, according to the AP, many of those émigrés were suspected of unspeakable atrocities:
Among those who benefited:
- Armed SS troops who guarded the Nazi network of camps where millions of Jews perished.
- An SS guard who took part in the brutal liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto in Nazi-occupied Poland that killed as many as 13,000 Jews.
- A Nazi collaborator who engineered the arrest and execution of thousands of Jews in Poland.
- A German rocket scientist accused of using slave labor to build the V-2 rocket that pummeled London. He later won NASA's highest honor for helping to put a man on the moon.
This is outrageous. These ex-Nazis should have been thrown off the gravy train as soon as they emigrated. But at least Congress is now trying to rectify the situation. Or will anyway:
Legislation to stop suspected Nazi war criminals from receiving U.S. Social Security benefits will be introduced soon, the latest response to an Associated Press investigation that revealed millions of dollars have been paid to former Nazis who were forced out of the United States. …
The legislation will be offered in mid-November, when Congress returns to session following the midterm elections.
Better late than never.
The Democratic candidate in the Arizona gubernatorial race, Fred DuVal, is having a rough final stretch into Election Day. Earlier this week, The Washington Free-Beacon reported he had a house foreclosed. Last week, he announced that he believes it is perfectly acceptable for 14-year-olds to have abortions without parental consent.
And now, documents obtained from the Arizona Board of Regents show that the six years Fred DuVal was on the Arizona Board of Regents (2007-2012), things didn't go the way he claims.
In three different instances, DuVal said that the increase in Arizona college tuition was because of higher enrollment and budget cuts. The Arizona Board of Regent's records on budget and spending tell a different story.
DuVal claimed during a 12 News Debate that "record levels of new enrollment" and budget cuts were the sole reasons for tuition increases.
These tuition increases for Arizona public universities were no small amount.
Arizona State University's residential tuition rates doubled, a 107 percent increase from $4,700 to $9,700. Northern Arizona University and the University of Arizona also saw over 100 percent increases during DuVal's time on the board.
In one of his YouTube videos and in an interview with The Arizona Republic, DuVal blamed current Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, and the state legislature for cutting $400 million from universities forcing the cost onto students.
Yes, DuVal was correct when he said enrollment was higher. The total number of students at Arizona universities rose 16.6 percent over his six years. But higher enrollment can't be blamed for such drastic increases...Liberal spending played the lead role.
When DuVal joined the ABOR, the state appropriated $860 million in general funds for the universities. Collective spending during the six years DuVal was on the board was up $300.8 million. Five of the six years DuVal oversaw spending for Arizona's universities, spending was higher than the first year he was appointed to the Board of Regents.
Items in yellow represent the fiscal years that DuVal oversaw:
And when money is spent recklessly, borrowing is usually reckless as well.
There was a 286 percent increase in borrowing during DuVal's time on the board.
During DuVal's time, the state issued $1.463 billion in bonds. Compared to the previous six years prior to DuVal, the ABOR only requested and had approved $409.5 million in bonds.
Education has been one of the defining issues facing Arizonans this election season and this new information on Fred DuVal and his time on the ABOR could swing voters.
What WI Ds tell me tonight: after anodyne summer/fall, Burke turning up heat in final lap, will hit Walker hard on integrity/"scandals" — Robert Costa (@costareports) October 24, 2014
The Burke strategy, per a plugged-in state D, is: lay law till 11th hr and then pivot to remind voters re: John Doe stuff, 2011 wars — Robert Costa (@costareports) October 24, 2014
MT @DanielBice: @Burke4WI & allies outspending @GovWaker & allies on broadcast TV by $8.2 m to $7.4 m: http://t.co/MN9YElcuXm — John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) October 24, 2014
A GOP source with knowledge of RGA spending threw cold water on this theory. The source claimed that total RGA spending--a "large majority" of which is "focused on TV ads" but also includes things like polling, research, and field operations--has actually been $6 million in Wisconsin and $10 million in Michigan as of Tuesday. But, the source said, the RGA has $4 to $5 million in TV ad time reserved in Wisconsin for the final two weeks of the election, and the RGA will end up spending more in Wisconsin than Michigan by the time the election is over. (The Center for Public Integrity numbers certainly do appear to miss a lot: CPI doesn't show any RGA spending in Florida, but the source says the RGA has spent $17 million to date in the sunshine state). If these numbers are true--and their accuracy will certainly be scrutinized after the election when all FEC reports have been published--then concerns that Christie is undercutting Walker would appear to be unfounded.
[A] man was detained after he showed up at a federal building in Oklahoma City Friday morning, rambling and making derogatory statements about the president, and admitted destroying the monument, said David Allison, an agent with the U.S. Secret Service in Oklahoma City.
"He claimed he got out of his car, urinated on the monument, and then ran over it and destroyed it," Allison said. "He said Satan told him to do it, and that he was a Satanist."
The man was turned over to the Oklahoma Highway Patrol for questioning, Allison said. A spokesman for the patrol didn't immediately return a phone call seeking information about the man.
The monument in question has been a topic of controversy, as the American Civil Liberties Union has sued to remove it, claiming that its existence is a violation of the separation of church and state.
The ACLU issued a statement saying that it was "outraged" over the vandalism.
Vulnerable Democrats in red states trying to distance themselves from Obama are receiving no help from the leader of their party after he basically said they all support his agenda in an interview with Al Sharpton earlier this week.
In North Carolina, MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt asked incumbent Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan whether she felt if Obama was a strong leader. Let’s just say Hagan could not say anything–with a degree of confidence or certainty–that was positive about Obama. Straight up–she avoided answering the question.
“President Obama has a lot on his plate. And it seems like whether it’s the oil spill that took place a number of years ago in the Gulf, to this Ebola crisis now, to ISIS gaining strength, you look at all the combination of things like that.”
When pressed further on Obama exhibiting strong leadership qualities, Hagan deflected by saying we should have done more to respond to Ebola.
And it’s not just MSNBC that’s noticing how Democrats are trying to run away from the president this year; the New York Times reported that only one senate candidate–Rep. Gary Peters–has appeared with the president while stumping for him in Michigan. The support of the Ebola travel ban, which Hagan flip-flopped on, is one area where the Times notes Senate Democratic candidates are trying to create a veneer of independence from the Obama White House, although they did label it a “right wing talking point.”
Lastly, Jason Zengerie of The New Republic also tried to ask Hagan whether she thought Obama was a strong leader–and on what issues does she think he demonstrated those characteristics if he is one. It was another ride on the merry-go-round:
I asked her if she wanted to clarify her thoughts on whether she thought Obama was a strong leader. I thought her answer was worth sharing now.
“You know, I think that when issues come up for a vote, I stand for North Carolina, whether it’s a Democratic idea or a Republican idea, and I certainly oppose the president in issues where I think that it’s not right for our state,” Hagan said, going on to note her opposition to various trade deals and defense cuts, as well as her support for the Keystone Pipeline. “On the other hand, Speaker Tillis cannot name one issue, one issue, where he would oppose the president—not the president—where he would oppose his party.”
I asked Hagan what, in particular, she thought Obama had been strong on. “I go back to some of the issues that have affected our country,” she said. “I think on two issues in particular, just recently, he’s been slow to act on Ebola and on ISIS. When the BP spill took place in the Gulf, we were beginning to be slow, but then he put the resources to bear and the science to bear to help solve that very disastrous problem.”
So Hagan, who arguably rode Obama’s coattails into the Senate back in 2008, thinks that the one area where Obama’s shown strong leadership was on the Gulf oil spill four years ago—but, even there, he wasn’t particularly strong.
This is just another sign of how Obama’s falling approval numbers has become an anvil on Democrats this election cycle. And when you virtually vote with President Obama the entire time you are serving in the U.S. Senate, that could become a problem as well.
For years the White House has argued it had nothing to do with Operation Fast and Furious while it was active and certainly wasn't involved the fallout and cover-up that followed after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in 2010 by Mexican bandits carrying guns from the lethal program.
Now years later, a Vaughn Index describing Fast and Furious documents being held from the American people and Congress under President Obama's assertion of executive privilege shows White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett played a key role in Attorney General Eric Holder's changing testimony to Congress.
More from Judicial Watch:
Practically lost in the 1,000-plus pages of records is an index that shows Jarrett was brought in to manage the fact that Holder lied to Congress after the story about the disastrous gun-running operation broke in the media.
The files received by JW include three electronic mails between Holder and Jarrett and one from former U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke to Jarrett. The e-mails with Holder are all from October 4, 2011, a significant date because, on the evening of October 3rd, Sharyl Attkisson (then at CBS news) released documents showing that Holder had been sent a briefing paper on Operation Fast and Furious on June 5, 2010. The paper was from the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, Michael Walther.
This directly contradicted Holder’s May 3, 2011 testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, during which he stated that he, “probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.” The October 4, 2011 date may also be significant because it came shortly after the August 30, 2011 resignation of U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke and reassignment of acting ATF director Kenneth Melson to the position of “senior forensics advisor” at DOJ.
The description of one of the e-mails, written from Jarrett to Holder, reads, “re: personnel issues.” Another, also from Jarrett, reads, “outlining and discussing preferred course of action for future responses in light of recent development in congressional investigation.” Unfortunately, the index is vague and that’s all the information we have about them. Nevertheless, given the timing and subject of these e-mails, it seems clear that Jarrett quickly became a key player in the Fast and Furious cover-up in the immediate aftermath of the revelation that Holder had lied to Congress.
Despite evidence showing Attorney General Eric Holder lied about when he became aware of Operation Fast and Furious and about the extent of his involvement with the initiation of the program, he has maintained that the testimony he gave under oath to Congress was "truthful and accurate." As a reminder of the timeline of Holder's inconsistent testimony:
In a late Friday afternoon dump, Attorney General Eric Holder has sent a letter to the House Overight Committee addressing Operation Fast and Furious and the allegations that he lied to Congress on May 3 when he said he had only known about Fast and Furious for "a couple of weeks." Memos released this week show Holder was briefed and sent direct memos on the program at least five times in July and August 2010, nearly a year before Holder admitted under oath.
In the letter Holder sent to Congress, which is mentioned above, he said the following:
"Much has been made in that past few days about my congressional testimony earlier this year regarding Fast and Furious. My testimony was truthful and accurate and I have been consistent on this point throughout. I have no recollection of knowing about Fast and Furious or hearing its name prior to the public controversy about it. Prior to early 2011, I certainly never knew about the tactics employed in the operation and it is my understanding that the former United States Attorney for the District of Arizona and the former Acting Director and Deputy Director of ATF have told Congress that they, themselves were unaware of the tactics employed."
Jarrett is President Obama's closest advisor at the White House.
Michelle Obama traveled to Colorado Thursday to rally support for incumbent Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) and things got awkward.
Keep in mind: Udall is the very same man who tried to distance himself from Obama only a few short weeks ago by claiming he is the senator the White House feared the most. So much for disassociation.
Not only did Michelle Obama show she wanted Udall back in the Senate (a desire which hardly seems fear-driven), she boasted about Udall’s role in creating Obama’s ‘hope’ and ‘change:’
The chance of this helping Udall in his race against Republican Rep. Cory Gardner is slim. Two-thirds of likely voters claim their opinion of the president will be a deciding factor in how they vote on Nov. 4, according to a recent Denver Post poll, and 56 percent of Coloradans disapprove of Obama’s work.
But for all her love and support, Michelle Obama revealed that she perhaps didn’t really know which candidate she was there to support:
FLOTUS was not the only one to forget her notes, however. Remember that famous quote by Martin Luther King, Jr. about judging people by “the content of their character, not the color of their skin?” Unfortunately, Mark Udall didn’t. While introducing the First Lady, Udall made this uncomfortable slip:
“In 2008 and 2012, we showed that Dr. Martin Luther King had it right which is that in America, at our best, we judge people by the content of their color -- "
Yikes! Imagine if a Republican candidate had made that gaffe; the media would have a field day. It didn’t take long for the response of the crowd to alert Udall of his mistake.
According to a Quinnipiac University poll released Friday, Gardner is up at 46 percent while Udall sits at 41 percent.