UPDATED 1:56 P.M.
The Bolivar County Coroner’s office in Mississippi identified the victim shot at Delta State University as Professor Ethan A. Schmidt, according to the personal Twitter account of Jake Hyman, a CBS Radio News reporter. Hyman reports that Schmidt was a professor of American History at the university.
BREAKING: Bolivar County Coroner’s Office ID’s the deceased Delta State University professor as Ethan A. Schmidt. He taught american history
— Jake Hyman (@JakeHymanNJNY) September 14, 2015
UPDATED 1:50 P.M. A gunman shot and killed a professor at Delta State University in Mississippi on Monday. The campus remains on lockdown, asking those on campus to stay indoors away from windows as the shooter remains at large. CNN reports that the victim was male and was in his office at the time of the shooting. Delta State is a small college (just over 3,000 undergrad students) and is located in Cleveland, Mississippi, just on the Mississippi-Arkansas border.
Video of students at Delta State barricading their classroom while in lockdown. (Video via Heavy.com) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNqqJ99I_Gc&feature=youtu.be UPDATE: 1:13 PM Delta State sent out another Tweet telling students to remain in buildings on the campus.
Campus remains under lockdown. Please do not leave the building. Stay away from windows. More information will be sent out as available. — Delta State (@DeltaState) September 14, 2015
Delta State University has confirmed one fatality. Campus remains under lockdown. Please stay inside and away from windows. — Delta State (@DeltaState) September 14, 2015
This is a developing story that will be updated frequently.
Have a tip? Send it to email@example.com.
What Do You Think?
You Might also like
By John Massey
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, published its most recent report on world wide military expenditures earlier this week.
Two headlines of the report pop out as significant.
The first is that Saudi Arabia has overtaken Russia in military spending, with $87.2 billion to Russia’s $66.4 billion, being behind only the United States and China, at $596 billion and $215 billion respectively. The second is that, beyond the Western Hemisphere and Africa, worldwide military spending is on the rise.
These figures can be paired with known geopolitical trends and instances in order to project what particular actors may be thinking, as well as what is the world’s security zeitgeist.
First, the somewhat surprising figure of Saudi Arabia overtaking Russia in defense spending.
Russia has been working to modernize its armed forces through: professionalization, doctrinal evolution, and working to achieve technological parity with the West (particularly, but not exclusively, in electronic warfare, unmanned vehicles, and force projection).
Indeed, Moscow has been consistently increasing its defense spending since the 2000’s, into the current year.
However, in real terms, the Russian military budget has remained largely stable. This is due to the fact that the Ruble is approximately half its value at the onset of the Ukrainian adventure.
A Ruble just isn’t worth what it used to be.
As a result, Russia’s modernization efforts are slowed for the foreseeable future, perhaps to be completed in the 2020s.
This is in contrast with Saudi Arabia’s large scale investment in weaponry to balance against Iran.
These purchases seem to indicate that Saudi intends to keep Iran at arms length in the event of hostilities, utilizing its overwhelming number of missiles.
Iran in turn, due to the lifting of EU and US sanctions, will likely attempt to counter these Saudi gains.
Of course, Saudi and Russia are not the only ones preparing for conflict.
Asia leads the way in new defense spending, with $436 billion in new spending region wide.
This is driven in large part China’s need to deter American intervention in its periphery. Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam also increased their spending in response to China’s bellicose enforcement of its territorial claims in the South China Sea.
Europe is also continuing its trend of increased spending, in light of the Ukraine Crisis. NATO’s biggest European spenders, Germany, France, and the UK, did not drive any growth.
But some of the Baltic states have built up their militaries.
This is likely due to the perceived threat of future Russian attempts to secure buffer space against the stronger alliance members, and unease about the Americans honoring their security agreements.
The outliers also a tell a story of the global arms buildup.
The Western Hemisphere is largely conflict free due to an end of the Cold War, and other imperialist interventions into Latin America largely subsiding after the Roosevelt administration’s attempt at being a “good neighbor”.
American hegemony over the region is uncontested.
Africa, despite being rife with conflict in: Libya, the Sinai, the West Coast, Somalia, Sudan, and the Congo, is largely devoid of great power politics. Thus, large scale trends of regional military investment are not necessary.
These trends seem to indicate that military spending is increasingly becoming an acceptable investment of revenue in light of perceived dangers for nations from activist states.
This is potentially worrying, as periods of militarism tend to precede periods of conflict.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in public affairs. You can write for us!
Cover Photo Credit: Quinn Dombrowski/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 206
What Do You Think?
Media outlets, government officials and citizens of the world were all astounded when news reports arose that a fake embassy in Ghana had been selling US visas for the past decade without arousing any suspicion.
For a decade, an American flag flew outside a battered pink building in Ghana, welcoming unsuspecting, out of town tourists.
Inside a painting of Barack Obama, the current President of the United States adorned the wall.
Located in the Ghanaian capital of Accra, the embassy sold illegally obtained authentic visas for a price of up to $6,000.
The embassy was said to be operated by a criminal network made up of Ghanaian and Turkish gangsters.
Operatives posed as consular officers and staffed the operation in the fake embassy.
The operatives were not American but spoke English and Dutch.
The State Department issued a statement which said “The criminals running the operation were able to pay off corrupt officials to look the other way, as well as obtain legitimate blank documents to be doctored.”
The officials also said that the embassy was shut down in the summer after a tip from an informant reached the Regional Security office.
Raids conducted resulted in the arrest of a number of operatives and also to the seizure of authentic and counterfeit Indian, South African and Schengen Zone visas as well as passports from over 150 countries.
It is unknown as to how the criminals managed to get their hands on these authentic visas.
The fake embassy was in stark contrast to the real US embassy which is a heavily fortified complex located in one of the country’s most expensive neighborhoods.
The fake embassy was open three days a week and did not accept walk-in customers. Instead, advertising was done openly on billboards.
Despite the size of the scam, the State Department told the Associated Press that no people entered the United States by using forged visas.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.Post Views: 199
What Do You Think?
This article was originally published on agconservative.wordpress.com and is republished below with permission from the author.
When I first got on Twitter, I was a big fan of conservative Talk Radio. I knew several people who became huge advocates for conservatism only after listening to Rush Limbaugh.
I doubt there were many converts from Hannity or Levin (despite L & T being one of my favorite books), but I assumed it was always a good thing to have people with large audiences promoting conservatism.
However, over time, I started to notice a theme: These hosts were often more dedicated to promoting outrage than conservatism.
Sometimes the outrage was justified and helped bring about necessary action, but it was the other times that started to bother me. Most importantly, it seemed the more victories conservatives won, the more these hosts preached despair.
The Republican Party was adopting conservatism to a greater extent than ever before, but these hosts constantly tried to make it seem like things were worse than ever.
Most importantly, they would create the impression that we were always losing by latching on to misinformation and spin.
I would see the same pattern play out constantly. Random blogger misinterprets something or reports a rumor that makes R’s look bad, radio hosts seizes on it and promotes it as proof of Republican betrayal, rumor turns our false or exaggerated, host moves on to the next cycle.
Even the liberal media, which these hosts would often attack as dishonest, would issue corrections, but these hosts seemed to have no interest in the truth.
At this point, I still believed these shows were a net positive, but I also recognized that these hosts were making millions from stoking unnecessary outrage.
This is when I personally gave up listening. These hosts were abusing the trust their audiences placed in them and treating their audience like they are dumb.
Before I go on, let me give a few examples of this phenomenon:
1) After the Boston bombing, Glenn Beck spent months accusing an innocent Saudi kid of being responsible and the Obama admin of covering it up. He based this on an early report about the kid being at the scene.
Every time Beck would provide some new bombshell piece of evidence to prove his theory, I would debunk it with some basic research.
However, every time I would post such a debunking, Beck fans would viciously attack me for questioning him. They weren’t interested in the truth.
As far as I know, Beck never apologized for this accusations. He simply moved on to the next story.
2) One example relevant to today is the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill. I wanted immigration reform, but was wary about this bill given what had happened under Reagan.
I ended up being one of the few people who actually read the whole bill, which made it easy to recognize when someone was saying something false.
There was a period of several months where on almost a daily basis some blogger would misinterpret something or some rumor would come out about the bill, Drudge would promote it, talk radio would seize on it and tell their audience to get outraged, it would be debunked in the days that followed, talk radio would move on to the next controversy without correcting, and their listeners would repeat the debunked rumor for months.
I found this particularly frustrating because there were plenty of real issues with the bill. I ended up opposing it, even though it wasn’t nearly as bad as it is currently perceived among most conservatives. It probably was the best we could have done with a Dem Senate and a Dem President, but I figured we would be better off waiting for a Republican to be in the WH.
There are hundreds more examples of this pattern. It has become fairly common. I still see it all the time. Breitbart, for example, has several reporters that consistently and purposefully print false things about Marco Rubio. Talk radio spreads them without even attempting to confirm.
It bothers me to see fellow conservatives who rely on and trust these sources being deceived in this way.
I was silent about all this, but these last 4-6 months were the final line for me and many other informed conservatives.
Talk radio actively started defending and advocating for someone that is the antithesis of everything conservatism stands for, Donald Trump.
It was one thing for these hosts to hinder conservative wins by saying they weren’t good enough, but now they were promoting the exact opposite of conservatism.
Trump is a con man. His con is aimed at a lot of different group, but the only way he could win conservatives is with assistance from people conservatives actually trust. These hosts chose to give it.
The two biggest issues for conservatives over the last few years were healthcare and the debt.
While these hosts attacked Republicans for not being aggressive enough on fighting Obamacare, they stay silent as Trump promotes single-payer.
While these hosts attacked Republicans for not fighting hard enough to limit Obama’s deficit spending, they stay silent as Trump opposes and demagogues entitlement reform.
These hosts were willing to completely abandon conservatism, and dragged their audiences with them. For me, that was the final straw.
I was silent about their previous dishonesty, but I won’t be as they make a mockery out of the beliefs they claim to represent.
It may not matter what I think, but conservatives shouldn’t be prone to group think. They shouldn’t define conservatism by what Rush, Levin, or Hannity say. Especially when those hosts keep saying things that are dishonest.
It’s time people who care about conservatism actually took a stand against the frauds in our midst. I know I am doing my part, and I hope you will too.
Read the original post on agconservative.wordpress.com
Cover Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 239
What Do You Think?