Like so many others, the teen initially kept the abuse to herself, concealing the violence from friends and family until she couldn’t hide the bruises and swollen lips any longer. The final straw came when her abusive ex threw a table at her, shattering a window and alerting a good Samaritan.
It would be a life-changing moment in more ways than one.
“What I went through is something nobody deserves to go through,” Villegas told Mic. “I made a decision to make a positive from a negative and give people an outlet and a voice to get out of it. I know how hard it can be and how alone you can feel when you’re in that situation.” At the end of “Didn’t Mean It, Villegas posted the number of the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and calls increased by 54% the day of the video’s premiere.
In 1996, Republican Rep. Jay Dickey removed $2.6 million from the CDC budget — the precise amount the CDC spent on gun research in 1995 — at a time when the center was conducting more studies into gun-related deaths as a “public health phenomenon,” according to The New York Times. The NRA and some pro-gun Congressmen perceived this as more of an attack.
Here’s an excerpt of a 1997 article in Reason about the fight to kill gun science:
Since 1985 the CDC has funded scores of firearm studies, all reaching conclusions that favor stricter gun control. But CDC officials insist they are not pursuing an anti-gun agenda. In a 1996 interview with the Times-Picayune, CDC spokeswoman Mary Fenley adamantly denied that the agency is “trying to eliminate guns.”
An organization the proposes to advocate safe gun use and ‘KEEPING GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS” has been silent on the issue of Domestic Violence. As ” Approximately one in three females murdered in the United States is killed by a partner, whereas approximately one in twenty U.S. males murdered is killed by a partner).” one would think the NRA would be very serious about keeping firearms out of the hands of known abusers.
This video from the NRA is the an attempt to show that the organization is compassionate on the issue of Domestic Violence. The spokesperson states “I don’t have an answer” while quoting statistics and berating politicians and the media.
Yet I have seen to news reports that they have come to the aid of Marissa Alexander or that they feel this South Carolina Ruling that Stand Your Ground laws are not meant to be applied to Domestic Violence situations is incorrect.
The NRA seems blind to what every law enforcement officer knows. The greatest threat is not from without, it is from those who have the most power over you. Your own family.
THIS article IS A REPOST FROM EARLIER THIS YEAR.
So why did it change its stance on this particular issue, and why did it do so without any public notice?
The gun lobby wouldn’t say, but the timing suggests that politics, both internal and external, were at play. Documents and press releases reviewed by HuffPost show that the NRA began to relax its position on gun restrictions for alleged domestic abusers after March 2013 — the same month the New York Daily News reported that a top NRA official, Richard D’Alauro, had pleaded guilty to harassing his wife “by subjecting her to physical contact.” A judge served D’Alauro, the NRA’s field representative for New York City and its suburbs, a protective order and ordered police to remove all 39 guns from his home.
D’Alauro’s wife claimed that he had physically abused her for years. He settled the case by pleading guilty to harassment — a less serious charge than a misdemeanor. But once the case started attracting media attention, the NRA began softening its position on gun rights for accused domestic abusers.
A spokesman for the NRA confirmed that D’Alauro is no longer employed by the group, but said he could not comment for this story due to the personnel issues involved.
Well, here you are, looking at this, trying, hoping, floundering, scrabbling, wishing, dying to find out the mystery of “how to” write a sentence. Or possibly you have tried write sentence and failed utterly.
Never mind and never fear. I am an, thankfully, expert of sentences. Read on and be disbelieving! There is much to have taught you, and little time, so very, very little and small time.
Where shall/should you/one start/begin? At the start/beginning, of course! You ought always, and in everything you do, to begin a sentence at the beginning. It is simply no good to start in the middle and work your way out. I guarantee that you will become confused and have to sit down, or lie down if you’re already sitting, and perhaps turn off the lights and do some breathing.
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, National Rifle Association C.E.O. Wayne LaPierre warned that the N.R.A. would vigorously oppose any legislation that “limits the sale, purchase, or ownership of politicians.”
“Politicians pose no danger to the public if used correctly,” said Mr. LaPierre, who claims to have over two hundred politicians in his personal collection. “Everyone hears about the bad guys in Congress. Well, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a vote is a good guy with a vote. I’m proud to be the owner of many of those guys.”
Mr. LaPierre’s comments drew a sharp rebuke from Carol Foyler, a politician-control advocate who has spent the past twelve years lobbying for stricter limits on the sale of politicians.
“Right now, a man like Wayne LaPierre can walk right into Congress and buy any politician he wants,” she said. “There’s no background check, no waiting period. And so hundreds of politicians are falling into the hands of people who are unstable and, quite frankly, dangerous.”
How a South Dakota County Is Suppressing the Native American Vote
The Crow Creek Indian Reservation lies along the Missouri River in central South Dakota, an area marked by rolling hills of corn fields, a government-constructed dam and a Native American town centered around the tribe’s casino.
While South Dakotans across the state have been voting for weeks — the state offers 46 days of early absentee voting — the Crow Creek Sioux have yet to see their ballots. The closest early voting site is a 50 mile roundtrip away in Gann Valley, a town with a population of 14. The Buffalo County auditor, a white resident of the town, has refused to set aside federal funds to open a satellite office for early voting on the reservation this year.
That 50-mile trip is effectively impossible for many people on the reservation. Sixty-five-year-old Crow Creek resident Sylvia Walters lives in a government-subsidized apartment building for the elderly and disabled in Fort Thompson, the largest town on Crow Creek. She told ThinkProgress that because she doesn’t have a car, she has to pay someone to drive her if she wants to leave her immediate part of town. “I stay home a lot. Let’s put it that way,” she said. Although she plans on voting in November, she said she would have preferred having the option to vote early. “Sometimes you forget on the day or you’re busy,” she said. “This way when you’re thinking about it you can get it done.”
At the link you can see Emily Yoffe’s reply, but what would you say to this person of questionable humanity?
I live in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the country, but on one of the more “modest” streets—mostly doctors and lawyers and family business owners. (A few blocks away are billionaires, families with famous last names, media moguls, etc.) I have noticed that on Halloween, what seems like 75 percent of the trick-or-treaters are clearly not from this neighborhood. Kids arrive in overflowing cars from less fortunate areas. I feel this is inappropriate. Halloween isn’t a social service or a charity in which I have to buy candy for less fortunate children. Obviously this makes me feel like a terrible person, because what’s the big deal about making less fortunate kids happy on a holiday? But it just bugs me, because we already pay more than enough taxes toward actual social services. Should Halloween be a neighborhood activity, or is it legitimately a free-for-all in which people hunt down the best candy grounds for their kids?
—Halloween for the 99 Percent
House Speaker John Boehner came out swinging hard last June when he announced that his chamber would take President Barack Obama to court. The suit, charging that the president grossly exceeded his constitutional authority by failing to implement portions of the Obamacare law, was billed as an election-season rallying point for aggrieved Republicans. But days before the midterms the House’s legal guns seem to have fallen silent.
Some attribute the delay to electoral politics — suggesting that Republicans were worried it could rile up the Democratic base — though the GOP is mum on why the suit has yet to be filed.
Whatever the reason, the delay means the core of the suit could effectively be moot before the Obama administration even has to respond to it in court. The case was expected to center on an employer mandate provision that Obama twice delayed but is now set to kick in for many employers on Jan. 1.
“I thought this was a constitutional crisis and the republic was in jeopardy because Obama overstepped his bounds. Now, they can’t even get around to filing it?” asked former House Counsel Stan Brand, a Democrat. “It, to me, emphasizes the not-serious nature of it.”
The altercation was captured by a private company’s security camera. Several police officials who saw the video told The Times that the officer delivered a powerful kick to the suspect’s head. One said the officer resembled “a football player kicking a field goal.” Another described it as “horrific.” The suspect, they said, had surrendered and was not resisting the officers…
The suspect, Clinton Alford, 22, sustained a gash on his ear and was taken to a hospital for stitches and a head scan. He was booked on suspicion of drug possession and resisting arrest and later released on his own recognizance. He has pleaded not guilty. ..
After a short foot pursuit, two officers caught up to Alford. Footage from the security camera on a nearby building captured Alford voluntarily laying down on the street and putting his hands behind his back, according to several people who viewed the recording. The officers restrained Alford, who made no movements and did not resist, the sources said…
The officer then dropped to the ground and delivered a series of strikes with his elbows to the back of Alford’s head and upper body, sources said. Alford’s head can be seen on the video hitting the pavement from the force of the strikes, two sources recounted. Afterward, the officer leaned his knee into the small of Alford’s back and, for a prolonged period, rocked or bounced with his body weight on Alford’s back, the sources said. At one point, the officer put his other knee on Alford’s neck, a source said.
Paul should be credited for broadening the GOP foreign-policy debate. And there’s considerable merit in his preference for thinking carefully through the endgame of war, building congressional support before seizing the sword, and recognizing the potential for blowback from drone strikes.
But there are also problems with the Paul Doctrine—some of them potentially irreconcilable. The senator laid out his criteria for when to fight wars and then immediately violated those criteria by backing the campaign against ISIS, where there is no clear endgame. “Although I support the call for defeating and destroying ISIS, I doubt that a decisive victory is possible in the short term, even with the participation of the Kurds, the Iraqi government, and other moderate Arab states,” he said.