DebateGate

Under a 1981 treaty, at least 50 countries, including the United States, have banned their militaries from employing flamethrowers (as “inhumane”), but entrepreneurs have begun to market the devices domestically for $900-$1,600 each (based on the distance of the flame, at 25 feet or 50 feet). Federal regulators appear uninterested (as the contraptions are technically neither “firearms” nor “explosives”), and only two states prohibit them outright, though a few jurisdictions believe flamethrowers are illegal under fire codes. The Ohio startup Throwflame has sensed the need for marketing savvy and describes flamethrowers as primarily for “entertainment.” (Recent news reports indicate a slight run on sales under the suspicion that authorities will soon realize the danger and outlaw them.) [ArsTechnica.com, 8-25-2015; CNN via WTKR-TV (Norfolk, Va.), 8-14-2015]

Gun control groups accused of ‘swatting’ open-carry permit holders, putting lives at risk
By Perry Chiaramonte

Second Amendment groups are accusing the gun control lobby of putting law-abiding owners of firearms in danger by urging people to call the police on anyone carrying a gun in public.

As more states relax rules about open-carrying of guns, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has taken to social media to urge the public to assume gun-toters are trouble, and to call the cops on anyone they feel may be a threat.

“If you see someone carrying a firearm in public—openly or concealed—and have ANY doubts about their intent, call 911 immediately and ask police to come to the scene,” the group wrote on its widely followed Facebook page. “Never put your safety, or the safety of your loved ones, at the mercy of weak gun laws that arm individuals in public with little or no criminal and/or mental health screening.”

That approach, according to a blog post by Ohio-based Buckeye Firearms Association, could give rise to needless, tense confrontations between police and gun owners. The association and other similar groups liken the tactic to “swatting,” or the act of tricking an emergency service into dispatching responders based on a false report. Many online harassment campaigns have been known to participate in the practice.

“This practice is exactly what they [Coalition to Stop Gun Violence] are doing,” said Erich Pratt, spokesman for Virginia-based Gun Owners of America. “It’s one thing if someone is using a gun in an illegal or unlawful manner. No one is questioning that. But this clearly sounds like swatting.”

“They are inciting their radical base to turn their own neighbors in.”- Erich Pratt, Gun Owners of America

Pratt adds that it may be a move of desperation by those looking to get guns off the streets.

“Anti-gun advocates are clearly frustrated. They want guns banned,” he said. “But they have been thwarted in the past, so they are looking for alternative means.

“They are inciting their radical base to turn their own neighbors in.”

It is not the first time supporters of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and other gun control advocates have pressed for the public to call cops on legal gun owners. An October 2014 National Review article found that the Facebook pages and websites of groups including the coalition, Moms Demand Action and GunFreeZone.net included numerous comments from the public advocating that people call the police and intentionally exaggerate what they see in the hopes of getting cops to stop those open-carrying guns.

Open carry rules, in one form or another, are legal in every state except for five—California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and South Carolina, as well as the District of Columbia. However, many states that do permit open carry have put in place stringent laws that require some sort of permit or license.

In this august posting on their Facebook page, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence urges the public to call the cops on any legal open carry gun owner that they feel may be a threat. (Buckeye Firearms Association)
The main issue that gun advocates have with the Coalition’s tactics is the potential of putting law-abiding citizens in real danger. Officials for the anti-gun group say that this is not the case.

“In an era in which individuals are being allowed to carry loaded guns on our streets with no permit, background check or required training, it is common sense for concerned citizens to call 911 when they see an armed individual whose intentions are unclear,” Ladd Everitt, director of communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said in a statement to FoxNews.com. “These [open carry] laws guarantee that we—and law enforcement—will have no idea about the criminal and/or mental health background of these individuals until they actually commit a crime; and by then it could be far too late.  We have full confidence in our men and women in blue to assess these situations.

“Gun-toters who are truly law-abiding and mentally competent have nothing whatsoever to worry about. Their conversations with law enforcement will be brief and professional,” he added. “As for those who are dangerous and have something to hide which would not withstand the scrutiny of a background check or permitting process, they should expect to face some tough questions as a result of these 911 calls. And that makes us all safer.”

But the Buckeye Firearms Association believes the effort amounts to "conspiring to obstruct legal justice.”

Pratt agreed, and said people who call the police without legitimate reason should be charged.

“They would likely be the ones arrested for filing a false report,” he said. “And we are certainly hoping that would be the case.”


Perry Chiaramonte is a reporter for FoxNews.com

Mike Freeman
Sep 5, 2015
The problem Tim Tebow had, the problem Tim Tebow has long had, is that the idea of Tebow was always better than the reality of Tebow.

The idea of Tebow: Captain America in cleats...a football savior...he throws spirals and emotes hope...a cure...a phenomenon...a man who could turn around any franchise...an athlete...a passer...a winner...a winner who wants to win more than winning ever wanted to win because winning.

The reality of Tebow: slow, plodding even...mostly inaccurate passer...overblown as a multifaceted threat...or even a two-point threat because a restricted space like a two-point conversion requires quick thinking, accurate throwing and foot speed—he has none of those.

Many teams became enthralled by the idea of Tebow. First, the Broncos did, making one of the worst picks in the history of the draft, selecting him at 25th overall. He had his moments in Denver, sure. But again, the reality took over. Once teams studied Tebow, they adjusted. He couldn't.

All the good ones, and especially the great ones, could thwart defenses because they could throw an accurate football from the pocket. Go down the list. Look at all the good ones and great ones. Throwing accuracy was the key.

Despite that, look at all of the NFL minds that fell in love with the idea of Tebow: Josh McDaniels, John Fox, Bill Belichick, Rex Ryan and then Chip Kelly. Remove Kelly from the equation and all of those coaches, as either assistants or head coaches, have dozens of playoff appearances and multiple Super Bowl victories.

That is a great deal of NFL brainpower. Especially when you look at Belichick and Kelly. Belichick is the best coach of all time who stays vibrant by studying the college game. Kelly just left that universe and fancied himself, I believe, as someone who could fix Tebow.

But not even a genius, and someone who thinks he's one, could merge the idea of Tebow and the reality of Tebow into one workable image.

It's possible the Eagles bring back Tebow at some point later in the season. It's also possible some other team is fooled by Tebow's mostly prosthetic allure. He is a powerful, seductive force. There's no doubting that.

But in all likelihood, this is it. It's over for Tebow and the NFL.

This is what I'll get from some:

—You're a Tebow hater.

—He played well in the preseason.

I look at Tebow not through malicious or blind eyes. This is strictly football—and while, again, Tebow has had his NFL moments, he has never truly been an NFL quarterback.

Some fans, and even coaches, have wanted Tebow to succeed because of everything they perceive him to stand for. They've ignored his football handicaps—one of the biggest being his inability to digest a defense post-snap—and embraced the phenomenon.

This is why the Jets signed him. They wanted the circus and potential ticket sales. In New York, Tebow was an unmitigated disaster.

No, this isn't even close to personal. This is the truth. It certainly isn't anti-Christian, as I've been accused of. It's solely anti-bad quarterback.

And this preseason? He looked better, with an improved throwing motion, but there were still the same Tebow problems: missed open receivers, indecision post-snap and taking bad sacks.

At his press conference, broadcast on the NFL Network, Kelly said Tebow "just needs more playing time." That's a nice way of saying Tebow wasn't good enough to make the roster.

"Tim's really progressed, but we didn't feel like he was good enough to be the '3' right now," Kelly said. "He just needs to get out there and get more reps."

Keep in mind the Eagles will have three quarterbacks on their roster. That tells you a great deal. Kelly wanted Tebow to make it, but after watching him, he just couldn't keep him.

Not to mention that in the preseason, Tebow was going against mostly backups, many of whom won't be in the league either.

When Tebow came into the league some five years ago, it was a totally different time in the NFL. The league, of course, had experience defending running quarterbacks and had done so for decades against names like Steve Young, Randall Cunningham and Mike Vick.

Boy, 11, Fatally Shoots Teenage Intruder During Home Invasion
by PHIL HELSEL

An 11-year-old St. Louis-area boy fatally shot a 16-year-old who entered his home during an alleged home invasion Thursday, police said.

The shooting happened on Hallwood Drive in northern St. Louis County at around 2:20 p.m. local time (3:20 p.m. ET), police said.

Two people had approached the home twice before Thursday, and on the third attempt entered the house through the front door, police said. The 11-year-old who lives in the home shot the 16-year-old intruder in the head, St. Louis County police said in a statement.

Police found the shot teenager dead in the foyer, and a second person who fled was caught nearby.

Police were working to verify the second person's identity Thursday afternoon. The names of those involved, and a possible motive in the suspected home invasion, were not released.

Police said the 11-year-old and a 4-year-old girl who was also inside the home were not injured. Their mother, who was not home at the time of the shooting, is cooperating with the investigation, police said.

The gun belonged to the 11-year-old's mother, St. Louis County police Sgt. Brian Schellman told NBC station KSDK.

"Initial statements the mother made to our detectives is that she purchased it because her home has been the target of several burglaries over the past few years, and she purchased it for self-protection," Schellman said.

Schellman said Thursday's shooting was the latest instance of a child using a gun with deadly consequences. He referenced last week's deadly accident in which a 21-month-old toddler in another part of the county found a loaded handgun and shot himself. The child later died at a hospital.

"Children have access to guns all too often, and all too often they end in tragic circumstances," Schellman said.


Or not so tragic - in this case defending innocent lives.

Roughly half of immigrant households in the United States receive at least one form of welfare, with that number rising to 73 percent for immigrant households from Central America and Mexico, a new report released Wednesday said.

The report, released by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) – a group that calls for lower levels of immigration – falls in the middle of a fiery political debate on the presidential campaign trail over immigration policies. The report says immigrant households use welfare at much higher rates than the American-born population. The study used Census Bureau Survey of Income and Program Participation data.

“In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an [illegal or legal] immigrant reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households,” the report said.

The report found starkly different welfare rates among different groups, with 73 percent of immigrant households from Central America and Mexico and 51 percent of households from the Caribbean receiving welfare. Meanwhile, only 26 percent of immigrant households from Europe and 17 percent from South Asia received welfare in that period.

The types of welfare examined in the study included Medicaid as well as cash, food and housing programs.

However, the report came under immediate criticism in some corners, with the libertarian Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh telling FoxNews.com “there’s virtually nothing redeemable about this report.”

“When you compare households to households, they’re all of different sizes and so it’s hard to compare them in a way that reveals anything interesting,” Nowrasteh said. “Statisticians spend their lives trying to compare apples to apples and CIS didn’t even bother.”

Nowrasteh also said that by measuring households -- not individuals -- the CIS report ignores the possibility that some immigrant-led households will include native-born Americans using welfare.

Rather, Nowrasteh argued in a lengthy blog post that poor immigrant individuals are less likely to receive welfare than others at their income level, and the problem is a welfare problem, not an immigration problem. “It’s easier to build a wall around the welfare state rather than a wall around the country,” Nowrasteh said. “I use immigration as an argument against welfare, they use welfare as an argument against immigration.”

Steven Camarota, director of research at the CIS and author of the report, said the fact remains that many immigrant households “struggle to feed their own children.”

Camarota noted that immigrants often are receiving welfare not due to unemployment, but because they are not earning enough to be ineligible.

“Most people think either you work, or you are on welfare – but that’s just wrong,” Camarota said. “A mom with two kids working full-time earning $12 an hour is still eligible for most welfare programs.”

The report also found that education, or a lack thereof, was an important factor. “In 2012, 76 percent of households headed by an immigrant who had not graduated high school used one or more welfare programs, as did 63 percent of households headed by an immigrant with only a high school education,” the report said.

Camarota told FoxNews.com the high welfare use can also be explained in part by strong ethnic social networks that help fellow immigrants both get a job and navigate complex welfare programs.

The report received some heavyweight backing, with the office of Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., drawing attention to it via email. “In all the recycled, power-washed talk about our “broken immigration system,” (which inevitably centers on how to help corporations) the exploitation of the welfare system remains one of the most endemic and overlooked problems,” the statement said.

Asked about how he hoped the report would contribute to the immigration debate, Camarota said he hoped it would lead to a sober discourse.

“[Collecting welfare] shouldn’t be seen as a moral failing on the part of immigrants, but reflective of what happens when you let lots of people who have modest levels of education in a modern society,” Camarota said. “Either you select immigrants who aren’t going to need programs or accept that they’re going to take up a lot of welfare. You can’t try and solve it once they’re here.”
 000

Adam Shaw is a Politics Reporter for FoxNews.com. He can be reached here or on Twitter: @AdamShawNY.

By Steve Bittenbender - Reuters

MOREHEAD, Ky. (Reuters) - Invoking God's authority, a Kentucky county clerk defied the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and stood by her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has refused to issue marriage licenses to any couples - gay or straight - since the court in June ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry under the U.S. Constitution.

On Monday, the same court rejected Davis' request for an emergency order allowing her to deny marriage licenses to gay couples while she appeals a federal judge's order requiring her to issue them.

Amid calls for her resignation, death threats and an order that she appear in federal court on Thursday, Davis clung to her religious beliefs.

"I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will," she said in a statement. "To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s word. It is a matter of religious liberty."

"It is not a light issue for me. It is a heaven or hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience," she said.

Outside the building in Morehead, Kentucky, that houses the clerk's office, large crowds supporting both sides on the issue gathered and chanted slogans.

Those favoring same-sex marriage chanted, "What do we want? Equality," said Chris Hartman, director of the Louisville-based Fairness Campaign.

Backers of Davis included a person dressed as a Revolutionary War patriot.

"These couples, they torment her because of her beliefs," said Penny Stinnett of nearby Mount Sterling, who came out to support Davis.

'UNDER GOD'S AUTHORITY'

Four couples filed a federal lawsuit against Davis in July challenging her office's policy of not issuing marriage licenses.

On Tuesday the couples filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge David Bunning to hold Davis in contempt of court, seeking fines but no jail time for the clerk.

During a call with attorneys for both sides, Bunning ordered Davis and her deputies to appear in federal court in Ashland, Kentucky, on Thursday, said Joe Dunman, an attorney for one of the couples who had sued.

Last month, the judge said Davis had to live up to her responsibilities as county clerk despite her religious convictions.

Lawyers for at least three same-sex couples said they were refused licenses on Tuesday. She said her office would go on denying marriage licenses pending an appeal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

The videotaped exchange between a couple seeking a license and Davis was posted on the Courier-Journal newspaper website. (http://cjky.it/1Q4Yvtf)

In the video, David Ermold and David Moore, a same-sex couple, ask Davis under whose authority was she denying them a marriage license. "Under God's authority," Davis replies.

While issues related to gay marriage have arisen in courts in several states, the American Civil Liberties Union said the organization was unaware of any other U.S. county clerk refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

"She's an outlier,” ACLU national spokeswoman Allison Steinberg said of Davis.

Democratic Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear said in a statement on Tuesday that he could not remove Davis from her job or relieve her of her statutory duties without a change in state law, something that cannot be done until state legislators convene in four months. He said calling a special session of the general assembly would be too costly.

"The future of the Rowan County clerk is now in the hands of the courts," he said.

A spokeswoman for Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway said on Monday that his office was reviewing a request for a special prosecutor to determine if Davis committed official misconduct. On Tuesday morning she said a final decision was pending.

Official misconduct is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 365 days in jail, the spokeswoman said.

Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins, who requested the special prosecutor after one of the plaintiff couples complained to him, said he expected the attorney general's office to decide the matter by Thursday.

(Additional reporting by Daniel Bases in New York, Susan Heavey in Washington and Suzannah Gonzales in Chicago; Writing by Ben Klayman; Editing by Jonathan Oatis, Howard Goller and Lisa Shumaker)


Render unto Caesar...

The solution seems clear enough to me...if your religion prevents you from doing your job, either change religions or quit your job. Or is that nice government paycheck too much to give up to make a stand for principle?

by Ivan Eland, September 01, 2015
Print This | Share This
Rather than a contest between two or three viable candidates, U.S. presidential elections have historically been a referendum on the administration holding power. With at least some awareness of this fact, Republican candidates are busy criticizing President Barack Obama’s foreign policy and desperately trying to link Hillary Clinton, his former Secretary of State and still the most likely Democratic nominee, to it (for example, beating the inconsequential Benghazi incident to death). Obama can be faulted for many bad policies domestically – for example, increased government intrusion into the health care market, a massive pork barrel "stimulus" program, and socialization of some of the big American car companies – and an unneeded war to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi that has brought chaos and terrorism to that country and destabilized surrounding nations. However, Obama cannot be blamed for the rise of Iran in the Persian Gulf region and the heretofore acceleration of its nuclear weapons program.

The fifth anniversary of Obama declaring that the U.S. combat mission in Iraq had ended should make us rewind even farther back to George W. Bush’s invasion of that country, which aggravated both of these major problems with Iran. Before this invasion, Lt. Gen. William Odom (Ret.), the general that was Ronald Reagan’s blunt-talking chief of the National Security Agency, was one of the few military men to oppose what turned out to be a predictable disaster. Although many military men are well versed military operations and tactics, fewer do strategy well – the late Odom was one of them. Even in the hysteria after 9/11 that led to the invasion of Iraq, Odom courageously objected to that invasion for the same reason that he had opposed the Vietnam War: such a war would help the main American adversary. In the Cold War, it was the Soviet Union, and in the Persian Gulf, it was Iran. Odom’s reluctance to fight these questionable conflicts shows that all wars are not patriotic or even smart. Odom couldn’t have been more prescient about either conflict.

And although the number of public voices objecting to Bush’s military adventure were few, many experts in the region certainly raised their eyebrows about Bush’s plan to democratize Iraq uusing military power and then use the example to create a domino effect in the Middle East. Iraq was probably one of the least likely candidates for democracy in the Middle East because of its historically ruthless political culture and because, as prior and subsequent events demonstrated, it is an artificial country with severe ethno-sectarian cleavages. Even when the president’s own intelligence community blew another one of Bush’s justifications for the alleged preventive military action by concluding that even if Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his chemical and biological weapons – no one believed he had nuclear weapons, the only true weapon of mass destruction – he was not likely to use them unless backed into a corner (read: by a U.S. invasion). The last rationale for the war was that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden and the other perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks in al Qaeda, which was preposterous dissembling. And so Bush foolishly marched to war.

A war conducted for no good reason and with little thought to the predictable and adverse unintended strategic consequences fulfilled Odom’s prediction of a resurgent, yet uneasy, Iran. In the Persian Gulf, overthrowing Saddam in Iraq removed the major counterbalance to the much larger and more populous Iran. Also, Bush’s lack of respect for non-nuclear Iraq made Iran accelerate its nuclear program to keep the same thing from happening to it. Obama, with a nuclear agreement containing a good inspection regime for enforcement has now put that nuclear program in the deep freeze for at least 10 to 15 years. Even though Congress’ rejection of the agreement likely would make Iran race toward getting a bomb as the international sanctions regime fell apart, Israel and some of Iran’s other enemies, supporting such a rejection, apparently aren’t worried as much about an Iranian nuclear weapon as they are Iran’s rise as a powerful regional adversary. A nixing of the agreement might result in the United States eventually bombing Iran, which would weaken their main regional adversary.

The Republicans complain about Obama not doing enough to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb nor enough to blunt Iran’s increasing regional influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, yet one of their own – George W. Bush – had a big hand in aggravating these problems in the first place. On the campaign trail, Republican candidate Jeb Bush recently became red-faced and flummoxed when a college student reminded him that ISIS originated as a derivative from opposition to his brother’s invasion of Iraq. Yet another unintended consequence of that same fiasco, however, is the rise of Iran and the acceleration of its nuclear program, which the Democrats should mention to the Republicans. But Hillary Clinton may not be the best candidate to do so, because while she was in the Senate, she gleefully supported Bush’s idiotic war of aggression. 

1970's Vietnam-era 'bush' fatigue jacket