CDC's phony gun statistics

By Joe Baker

The week's news that wasn't 

Unskewing, unrushing, unravelling, uncoloring and unenthusiasming the most disease-ridden, anti-Trump, out-of-context, tipless and waveless fakeries in the week's fake news.

CDC's phony gun statistics

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is a typical feel-good government agency in that its name implies it does something it does not do, and in fact, it does just the opposite of what its name implies.

The CDC does not control diseases. Nor does it prevent them. Nor can it, if pressed, provide any actual evidence that it has controlled or prevented a disease. What it does do is give cover for pharmaceuticals to kill on average 106,000 people per year (that's 1.06 million a decade). And it rakes in millions of dollars annually while doing so.

What the CDC does do well is lie and dissemble. So it's not surprising that we learn the CDC is creating phony statistics to be used as fodder for the anti-gun crowd — including those who have a direct impact on U.S. policy through their status as "nonpartisan experts."

The CDC reports that there is a steady rise underway in the number of people killed or injured by guns (although I'm still waiting to see a single instance of a gun getting up and doing anything to anyone). The agency's most recent study shows that between 2015 and 2016, the number of Americans injured nonfatally by a firearm jumped 37 percent — from 85,000 to more than 116,000. It was the largest single-year increase recorded in more than 15 years, according to fivethirtyeight.com.

But data collected by others — like independent public health and criminal justice agencies — show no such uptrend, and in fact show just the opposite. And even the CDC flags its own gun death data with an asterisk, indicating it should be treated as "unstable and potentially unreliable." But the asterisk gets missed or ignored by people looking for any anti-gun fodder.

As fivethirtyeight.com explains, the agency's 2016 estimate of gun injuries is more uncertain than nearly every other type of injury it tracks. Even its estimates of BB gun injuries are more reliable than its calculations for the number of Americans wounded by actual guns.

That's because the CDC uses computer modeling and estimates from data collected from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. In other words, it makes them up out of thin air, much like it does annual flu deaths. And it is skewed because the numbers come primarily from hospitals in high-density urban areas where the gun deaths per capita are grossly out of whack with the rest of the country.

From fivethirtyeight.com:

Over a dozen public health researchers reviewed The Trace and FiveThirtyEight's analysis and said that the inaccuracy of the CDC gun injury data has serious implications for the national-level understanding of gun violence. "No one should trust the CDC's nonfatal firearm injury point estimates," said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. But many researchers have trusted these numbers, or at least referenced them. Since 2010, at least 50 academic articles have cited the CDC's gun injury estimates. Last year, for example, the American Journal of Epidemiology published a paper that used CDC data to conclude that there was a "hidden epidemic of firearm injury." "For those of us who are doing this kind of research, it's disconcerting," said Priscillia Hunt, a researcher at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization. "With the CDC, there's this general assumption that they are reliable and have good data." Hunt herself cited the estimates in the introduction of a policy paper she published last year.

And therein lies the danger of this government-sponsored fake news, which is really just anti-gun propaganda.

Yahoo's alternate reality

As the U.S. Senate rolled (or roiled) toward a vote on whether Brett Kavanaugh would be confirmed as associate justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, Yahoo tried one last time to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of wobbly Republican voters this week with a story titled, Brett Kavanaugh vote: the two scenarios that could make or break Trump's legacy.

According to Yahoo's expert analysis, if Kavanaugh is confirmed, women are going to "punish Republican candidates" in November's midterms. If Kavanaugh is not confirmed, Trump will be viewed as a failure and will have to nominate a more "moderate" candidate who "can get bipartisan support" next year, and it's for that reason the process of nominating Kavanaugh has been "rushed."

Both claims are poppycock. The only women who are going to try and "punish Republican candidates" if Kavanaugh is confirmed are those leftist, man-hating feminazis and right- and left-coast statist bedwetters who were already out to "punish" Republican candidates. Anyone paying attention to the women in flyover country will hear that they are absolutely disgusted and appalled by the Democrats' character assassination of Kavanaugh and the damage it's done to his wife and daughters.

And the trope that Kavanaugh's nomination is "rushed" is spurious nonsense. Through 2017, the average length of time to confirm a nominee from the day of his nomination was 25 days. As Bob Livingston told you last month, there weren't even confirmation hearings held for the nation's first 100-plus years. That didn't start until 1939.

But the process has grown ever longer over the years. John G. Roberts was an outlier. His confirmation took just 19 days. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's took 50. Sonia Sotomayor's took 66 days. Stephen G. Breyer's process took 74. Samuel Alito's was 82; Elena Kagan's was 87. Clarence Thomas' took 99. Kavanaugh's nomination is at 95 days, by my count. There's been no rush, and anyone who says it's rushed is lying to you.

Yahoo's second alternate reality

Apparently continuing to lose its mind over Kavanaugh, Yahoo took a video clip from an interview with Senator Lindsey Graham and made it seem as if he was disparaging Christine Blasey Ford, the Democrat operative or pawn (not sure which, just yet) who fabricated the story that Kavanaugh had tried to rape her when she was 15.

While reminding the interviewer how those in the Bill Clinton orbit treated people who Clinton actually tried to sexually assault, Graham quoted Democrat operative James Carville, the serpentheaded degenerate who said of Paula Jones, "This is what you get when you go through a trailer park with a hundred dollar bill."



After about 30 minutes of massive Twitter backlash, Yahoo deleted the tweet. The fake news organization then followed it up with another saying it did not accurately reflect the context of Graham's quote.



Yahoo's social media editor is evidently a master at understatement.

Another waitress, another (phony?) racist note

We have told you in this space about several examples in which a restaurant server waiting on a table of whites was left with no tip and a nasty note indicating that the reason no tip was left was because they hated non-whites. Each of those have turned out to be false.

Well, here's another. And while it hasn't yet proven to be false, I would bet a sack of donuts it turns out to be, if I were of the betting sort. As it is, I'll just eat the sack of donuts while I watch the story unfold.

Jasmine Brewer waits tables for Applebee's in Radcliff, Kentucky. As she told the story to WDRB.com, one fine day last week she waited on a table of four who came into the establishment. But it became clear pretty quickly that something was amiss.

"I asked him how they was doing, went through my little rundown," she said, demonstrating her ability to speak in Ebonics but not English.

"As I was talking to them, they barely said anything to me," Brewer said. "They didn't want to tell me their drinks. They didn't want to tell me their food. One person ordered for the whole table."

She kept it professional WDRB.com says, and brought the food to the group in a timely manner. But, when those customers walked out the doors, and Brewer went to look for a tip, there was no money on the table.

"Instead of a tip, I got a note saying 'we don't tip black people,'" Brewer said.

The message was "upsetting" to her, so she texted her mother to tell her about the experience. Her mom did what any mom would do in this situation; she put it on Facebook.

No doubt the radical leftists and social justice warriors (but I'm being redundant) are asking themselves why the good Jasmine would make up a story like this. Well, Wave 3 news may have the answer. She's getting hundreds of dollars — including $500 from one Father Jim Sichko – from people upset by her plight.

Something about Brewer's story doesn't pass the smell test. Particularly the part about them not wanting to tell her what they wanted to eat and drink. And racists don't call black people "black people." They use a word that rhymes with trigger; like colored. So I'm going to call this fake news.

But here's something politically incorrect that Ms. Brewer won't tell you, but it's something you can verify if you talk to people who have waited tables for any length of time and they are honest, at least in Alabama.

Servers by the dozens have told me for years that the overwhelming majority of black diners don't tip. And it doesn't matter whether their server is white or black. And servers white and black have a code for each other for when a group of blacks comes into the restaurant so they can try and avoid having to serve them. They call them Canadians.

So much for the blue wave

We have heard ad nauseum over the last year or so from the propaganda media that Democrat politicians are going to wax the floor with Republicans in the coming midterms. It's going to be such a banner year for Democrats in the November midterms that Democrats are going to control the House and possibly the Senate and Donald Trump and Kavanaugh will both be impeached, the media and Democrat politicians say.

And for a while the polls — the same ones, I add, that said without a doubt that Hillary would be president — showed a heavy Democrat enthusiasm factor indicating a midterm Republican thumping might be in the offing.

But Democrat politicians did what Democrat politicians are wont to do. They overplayed their hand. In the wake of the high-tech lynching of Kavanaugh, Republican voters are now fired up. NPR just published a poll showing the enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans has disappeared. It's down to 2 points from 10 in favor of the Democrats, which is a statistical tie.

It also means Republicans hold the edge because such polls are always skewed Democrat by 5 to 10 points. It's also telling that several red state Democrats up for reelection in states Trump carried have gone underwater in recent polls.

I'd bet a sack of donuts the Republicans are going to gain Senate seats and hold their own in the House, but I've already eaten them all. 

Fighting Cowardly Institutional Tyranny

Originally published at Fox News Newt Gingrich

The anonymous op-ed published by The New York TimesWednesday is the most stunning proof we have seen so far of the liberal media’s aggressive bias and the very real efforts by parts of the institutional establishment to undermine the President, the U.S. Constitution, and the will of the American people.

In its fervor to attack the White House – and influence the midterm elections – The New York Times happily eschewed basic journalistic standards and offered its page and waning credibility to a nameless, disgruntled, elitist coward who seems to believe he or she has the moral authority to ignore and undermine the elected leader of the free world.

The paper’s editorial board clearly said it granted the writer anonymity to “deliver an important perspective” to readers and to protect the writer from losing his or her job. This is a naked endorsement of the subversive efforts described in the piece – The New York Timeswants the author to keep it up.

The collusion between this supposed senior administration official (who could be one of thousands of minor-but-experienced appointees) and the newspaper (which is the standard bearer of elite media power) is also clear evidence that members of the old guard, institutional establishment are working to protect old Washington power structures and prevent the changes that the American people elected President Trump to bring to our country.

In the op-ed, the writer even describes him- or herself as a member of “the steady state.” That’s a catchy name for group of would-be mutineers. In my New York Timesbestselling book Trump’s America: The Truth About Our Nation’s Great Comeback, I called them orderly institutionalist wing of the Anti-Trump coalition.

Don’t be fooled by their self-proclaimed patriotism, the members of this group are working on behalf of institutional processes – not the American people.

This op-ed is also a perfect depiction of the competing alternate reality the anti-Trump forces are trying to impose on the country.

If the President is so unhinged and incapable, why has North Korea said it wanted to work toward truly denuclearizing the peninsula? How is Trump and the Republican Party so close to seating a second constitutionally-focused Supreme Court Justice? How is the economy in its best shape in decades?

This coward who is hiding from the American people that pay his or her salary would have us believe the members of the so-called “steady state” are the ones achieving these goals – despite the fact that they’ve likely been in Washington for decades and were apparently incapable before President Trump took office.

This is egotistical, elitist Washington baloney.

Let’s be clear: This anonymous op-ed will do nothing to change anything about which its author complained. It will do nothing to quiet concerns that some Americans may have about the direction of the country. It will do nothing to help strengthen America on the world stage. It will only help fuel excitement for Democrats in November.

It is nothing but an extraordinary statement of arrogance from someone who didn’t run for office and won't even tell the American people his or her name.

The only honorable, lawful course of action for the author is to publicly resign.

If this supposed patriot wants to steer our country’s future, he or she should ask the American people for permission first.

The fervor for führers

By Becky Akers

The fervor for führers 

One sticky evening in August 1923, "[t]ens of thousands gathered overnight along the ... railroad tracks" in Akron, Ohio, "to stake out a good vantage point. The train [they awaited] was hours late, but the hushed crowd didn't complain. No matter how long it took, they wanted to be there to pay their final respects. President Warren G. Harding, 57, an Ohio native, ... had suffered a fatal heart attack Aug. 2, 1923, in San Francisco.... The Republican president's body was being returned east to Washington, D.C., aboard an 11-car funeral train that had been shrouded in black crepe and purple ribbons. ... Millions lined the tracks across the country after [Mrs.] Florence Harding requested that the train travel slowly so as many mourners as possible could view the somber procession for the 29th president."

Modern morons so worship celebrity, political and otherwise, that we shrug at such stunts. Folks who can't be bothered to visit their elderly parents for an hour will stand in line all night to hear their favorite band or to attend a rally for a politician promising to "Make America Great Again."

We might have supposed our great-grandparents too prudent for such nonsense. Alas, "Millions... across the country" weren't. Why not? Granted, "Harding was popular during his lifetime," with the "revelations ... that sullied the reputation of his administration, including the Teapot Dome bribery scandal and allegations of marital infidelity and a child out of wedlock" yet unknown. Even so, the man was a typical politician: he sponged off the taxpayer for much of his life, first as a state senator in Ohio, then as its lieutenant governor, followed by a stint as its United States senator, and finally, as president.

Nor were his policies admirable (but then, whose are?). He imposed tariffs with all their economic tyranny and trouble, "protecting" American farmers at American eaters' expense. He "sharp[ly] reduc[ed] ... the number of immigrants allowed to enter the United States from southern and eastern Europe", though the Constitution nowhere empowers any branch of the federal government to control movement into or out of the country. He established yet another useless bureaucracy, the General Accountability Office. And "he asked for backing for the nation's highway system "insinuating the Feds into our automotive lives — as well as urging "government regulation of the radio industry." The man's only commendable action seems to have been "privately entertaining friends at the White House with ample supplies of liquor in violation of Prohibition." Too bad all Americans didn't follow suit, flouting lethal, corrupt, and bloody Prohibition into immediate abolition and saving countless lives.

Perhaps a few inebriates stood among the "millions" waiting nationwide to honor Harding, but most must have been stone, cold sober. So why did they linger?

Maybe some savored the historical moment or sought a bit of midnight madness. But I suspect the overwhelming majority had confused "patriotism" with "respecting the president." They likely would have similarly "respected" any occupant of the White House — or of Congress or the Supreme Court. (Intriguingly, I'd bet that's where our long-suffering mourners draw the line. I can't see crowds assembling for a local pol, say a mayor or alderman. Nor do they "respect" bureaucrats, either. When the infamous James Clapper of the NSA has eavesdropped on his last phone call, few if any of his victims will lose sleep over his demise.)

Why do we equate patriotism — which the dictionary defines as "devoted love, support and defense of one's country; national loyalty"with "respect" for the bloodsuckers who lord it over us in office? Shouldn't our affections belong to the country, i.e., the land with its inhabitants and private institutions that nurture our homes and families? Ergo, "country" is completely distinct from the officials ruining it. And isn't it really the quality of life in that country, the liberty it affords us to pursue prosperity, vocations, dreams, etc., that should determine whether we "love, support and defend" it? The Venezuelans fleeing their socialist hellhole are sensible, not unpatriotic. Ditto the Cubans who escaped Castro.

In other words, our dose of patriotism should match the measure of liberty a country offers. Our loyalty and love properly go to freedom, never to the politicians fighting to wrest our God-given, inalienable rights from us.

Yet legions of "patriots" mistake the object of their veneration. And no wonder: politicians — and politics in general — get things done. These powerful people can grant our wishes in an instant. Why should we work at demanding jobs, set a good example that we hope others will follow, or practice patience and virtue when a politician can simply pass a law forcing others to pay our bills or behave as we prefer?

Maybe we want top-notch medical care but not the hefty price-tag such care incurs. Bingo: bureaucrats designed Obummercare as "a substantial redistribution of resources from rich to poor (and from healthy to sick)," as one communist brags. Perhaps we despair that addicts high on opioids, heroin, or cocaine will harm our kids. Abracadabra: tyrants unconstitutionally prevent these pitiable junkies from easily acquiring such drugs and severely penalize them when they do. That's far more instantaneous and gratifying than years of our trying to persuade friends or relatives to kick their habits.

An aide to serial-rapist and president Bill Clinton summarized not only the executive orders he was actually describing but political power's allure in 1998: "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool." But only sociopaths croon that compelling rather than convincing others is "kinda cool."

Still, the can-do guy has long dominated not only politics but the longings of far too many serfs (and those historians who categorize presidents). They fantasize about a "strong leader" who will "create" jobs, protect them from corporate greed, clean the environment or otherwise produce their idea of Nirvana.

But when that fantasy becomes reality, when a powerful ruler arises who "gets things done," look out. Any German who survived a "strong leader" named Adolf Hitler can testify to the consequences.

— Becky Akers 

Orland Park Mayor Keith Pekau update

We had a fairly short agenda last week, though it was a divisive one for residents, as I am sure that you are all aware. We extended Waste Management’s contract without going out for bid.  There were good reasons for this.  First, we have been happy with their service. Second, since we are no longer vacuuming leaves for 13% of the Village, we were able to negotiate an extended period of time each year for Waste Management to pick up yard waste and provide bins to those residents that will need to adjust to the changes in our leaf vacuuming program.  Additionally, there were changes to the recycling program and additional home pickup of electronics and other large items.  More information will be sent by public works. The big issue for the night was gaming.  The explanation of my position and my vote will follow (although I have written about it several times).  The vote was 4 to 3 to pass gaming (Trustees Fenton, Carroll and Ruzich joined me with Yes votes).  My rationale and an explanation of the ordinance is as follows: The State of Illinois passed the law allowing video gaming in 2009.  I think that was a mistake and wish they never did so.  However, they did and now, 10 years later over 92% of Illinois communities allow video gaming and Orland Park is surrounded by it. My position on this has always been that I am not philosophically opposed to video gaming as long as it is tightly controlled.  It also was not a priority issue for me and as such I did not push this issue forward.  However, I felt that if it was pushed forward, we needed to hold several public meetings and meet with the clergy – and we did with over 5 hours of public testimony.  The ordinance passed to allow video gaming subject to the following restrictions: Only businesses with Class A Liquor licenses (restaurants and bars with full kitchens and over 50% of revenue from food) are eligible Businesses are required to have Class A liquor license for 18 months before being eligible for gaming license (keeps out gaming parlors) A six-month probationary period for a new owner of an established business with a gaming license, subject to approval by the Village Board  Of these, it will be limited to 30% of Class A liquor license holders (works out to 21 establishments) Limited to 5 machines per establishment Bet limit of $2 with a payout limit of $500 Not to be located within 100 feet of a school or place of worship No video gaming before 11:00 AM Video gaming must be monitored by a licensed employee at all times Lights and sounds are not to be visible or audible outside of the gaming area A physical barrier must be in place to separate the gaming area and must be approved by the Village All gaming establishments shall have burglar alarm systems and video camera surveillance of the gaming areas.  Orland Park police shall have access to these systems at any time On premise signs must follow the village signage code Off premise signs are prohibited per the village signage code No advertising on public rights of way or public locations A prominent sticker, provided by the Village, must be displayed indicating that gaming is on premises I heard several issues raised to argue against video gaming.  In the end, none of these arguments were strong enough to change my opinion.  These arguments follow: The character of our community will change:  Nobody gave me a concrete example of a village that has a significant change in their character due to video gaming.  In fact, several people told me they would move to Lemont or Mokena if we put in gaming.  Both of those communities have gaming and I visited several establishments with gaming and barely noticed the gaming machines We will have gaming cafes, gaming in gas stations, and flashing signs everywhere.  This ordinance restricts gaming from these locations and all businesses will need to comply with our signage code that does not allow flashing signs  “I won’t go to a place with a sticker in the window that has gaming”:  This is the point.  If you don’t want to patronize a business that has video gaming, then don’t Moral opposition to gambling:  For some, this is absolutely understandable.  However, others expressing this view also point out that they gamble in Vegas, play the lottery, Superbowl pools, BINGO, etc.  Personally, I am not morally opposed to gambling (fantasy football, March madness pools, etc.), and don’t believe there is a distinction. Gambling addiction that will increase in Orland Park:  Addiction is a problem and a concern. Those addicted in Orland Park already live here, and we are dealing with it -- they can go 50 feet outside of Orland Park and gamble. The most common argument against gaming was the outcome of the referendum. First, this is not a rationale for being against video gaming, it only tells me how many people are against it.  Moreover, here are a few facts on referendums: The election results of the Village’s referendum were 6,014 to allow gaming and 6,264 against (49 to 51%) with a turnout of approximately 25%.  Less than 13% of the voting age population supporting a position is not a mandate, particularly on an advisory referendum. On this ballot another non-binding referendum legalizing cannabis passed 54% to 46% in Orland Park.  I won’t be supporting that either. The Sportsplex was put up for referendum and had 7,864 votes to support it and 9,519 against it (45% to 55%) with a turnout of over 50% and the board voted to put the Sportsplex in anyway. Elected officials sometimes need to make hard votes. My position has remained consistent on this issue since I was first asked during the last campaign in 2016.  It is not a priority issue for me, but if it comes before me it warrants significant public discussion (which we had).  Also, I believe that Illinois did the wrong thing by allowing gaming statewide.  However, I am not philosophically or morally opposed to gaming, but it must be tightly restricted and controlled.  As noted, we voted on the most restrictive gaming ordinance in the State of Illinois. This vote was hard for many of us on the board floor and I am no exception because we see both sides of the issue.  Regardless of how each Trustee voted, I know that it was given a lot of thought and there are valid reasons to vote either way. At the end of the day, I believe this was the right decision for Orland Park.  I am convinced that this ordinance is sufficiently restrictive and the character of Orland Park won’t change because of it. ******************************************************* I also want to let everyone know that this whole issue was raised due to politics.  My position on this has been known since December of 2016 and my future opposition has observed that I stick to my positions and don’t flip-flop without factual rationale. For those of you who are against gaming, this is on the agenda because it was put on the agenda by the Village Clerk to have us vote on an ordinance that was already in place.  What would be the motivation to put an issue on the agenda that was already an ordinance?  There is only one motivation - politics.  It’s the same reason he grandstanded by stepping off of the dais to speak on the issue. Additionally, several pamphlets were put in the Metra stations implying that I was corrupt and bought off.  However, they failed to point out the following: The donations were made before this item was put on the agenda, because these restaurants support my leadership in the Village Every Trustee, either as a candidate, or member of the First Orland Party, have received donations from these restaurants – yet they were not called out as “corrupt”, violating ethics, or asked to recuse themselves.  I have to ask why?  Trustee Fenton did make a point (twice) of saying that she never took money from any restaurants on the list.  Just to be clear, in case it comes up, she in fact did - as a candidate in April of 2013 and as a member of First Orland Party in 2015 Others on the board received more than her, but the bottom line is that campaigning costs money and local businesses and residents support candidates I may disagree with the Trustees from time to time, under no circumstances do I think that any of them have ever been influenced by a donation I also received donations from one of the leaders of the anti-gaming effort, who asked me to recuse myself on the board floor Monday night.  Since we never spoke of any specific issues, I assumed, like the restaurants, he supported my leadership This was Chicago and Illinois Politics at its finest.  Mark my word that this was done to create an issue for the upcoming April election and for my re-election.  Regardless of your position on gaming, these types of political games are not good for Orland Park.