The ‘Mary Poppins of Disinformation’ Inadvertently Spills the Truth About What the Board Was Going to Do

Nina Jankowicz, the self-proclaimed “Mary Poppins of Disinformation” who was up until recently supposed to become the chief of Joe Biden’s Orwellian and ominous Disinformation Governance Board, can’t seem to stop herself from stepping on rakes. She has complained, now that the Board has been “paused,” that the Board itself was a victim of “disinformation,” which casts into question how effective it could possibly have ever been, if Jankowicz couldn’t even manage to counter false statements about what it was supposed to be doing. On Monday, she made matters even worse by remarking off-handedly that the Board was meant to do something that Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had said it would not be doing: countering “disinformation” not just from foreign sources, but from Americans.

All right. So on Monday, Jankowicz would have us believe that she had hoped to spend her time as chief of the Disinformation Governance Board, which was part of the Department of Homeland Security, countering alleged disinformation that had “become entrenched in domestic politics.” Now, wait a minute. On May 1, CNN’s Dana Bash asked Mayorkas, “Will American citizens be monitored?” Mayorkas’ answer was unequivocal and reassuring: “No. The board does not have any operational authority or capability. What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries from the cartels and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years.”

Jankowicz fired back with a claim that Bier and Blum were — you guessed it — spreading disinformation: “The thread you’re citing—which you’ve removed the initial context to—is in reference to a paper about *hostile state disinfo.* You can disagree w/ my assessment that it affects domestic politics/discourse, but the strategy described in the paper is the work I’m referring to.” Blum, however, was having none of it, responding, “I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what ‘context’ means. Speaking of something being entrenched in domestic politics necessarily means combating domestic sources of disinformation, which is not what you were hired to do. Not to mention that by disabling replies to your tweets, you are preventing people from introducing any context that might show you are wrong or otherwise refute your claims, so please don’t lecture me on the best practices of informational discourse, Nina.”

To that, Jankowicz replied, “Nope, it doesn’t- Take a look at the recent work to prebunk [apparently she means pre-debunk] Russian narratives about Ukraine. It focused on raising awareness of the falsities coming out of the Kremlin so Americans wouldn’t buy into them. It worked. No ‘combating’ domestic sources anywhere in the mix.” But what if “domestic sources” had repeated these allegedly false narratives? What then?

Certainly the Disinformation Governance Board was going to spend all its time countering the lies of the evil Putin, and never, ever interfering with Americans or the freedom of speech at all. Or maybe Jankowicz offhandedly let slip that what Mayorkas had said about the Board’s scope wasn’t the whole story, and then hastily had to cover for what she had revealed. How can we ever know for sure? If only we had a Disinformation Governance Board to sort it all out for us! But in the meantime, Jankowicz’s longstanding taste for repeating genuine disinformation should lead us to regard her words with more than a little skepticism.

Crap-for-brains SloJoe’s brain has started skipping like a scratched record again, and he’s stuck on the belief that ‘deer guns’ can’t shoot through ballistic armor, when we know that all but a very few rifle rounds will go through kevlar like a hot knife through butter, and most plates as well. But that’s senile dementia for you.

Biden Talks of Deer in Kevlar Vests (Again), Floats ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

President Joe Biden addressed the shooting at Uvalde, Texas, Robb Elementary School, talking again about deer in Kevlar vests and suggesting an “assault weapons” ban.

Biden began his comments with a soft tone, talking about loss, then he erupted with, “As a nation, we have to ask when in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby. When in God’s name are we going to do what we all know in our gut needs to be done?”

He went on to claim that there have been “900 incidents of gunfire reported on school grounds” since the December 14, 2012, attack on Sandy Hook Elementary school. He talked of shootings in theaters, churches, and grocery stores.

Biden said, “And don’t tell me we can’t have an impact on this carnage … When we passed the ‘assault weapons’ ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled.”

He criticized being able to walk into a gun store and buy more than one “assault weapon,” never mentioning that purchases from gun stores require background checks.

Biden said, “What in God’s name do you need an ‘assault weapon’ for except to kill someone? Deer aren’t running through the forest with Kevlar vests on, for God’s sake.”

He then criticized the firearm industry, claiming “gun manufacturers have spent two decades aggressively ‘assault weapons,’ which make them the most and largest profit.”

He called for Americans to stand up to the firearm industry.

On March 1, 2022, Breitbart News reported that Biden brought up deer in Kevlar vests during the State of the Union Address.

He called for a ban on “assault weapons” with “high-capacity magazines that hold up to 100 rounds,” and asked, “Do you think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests?”

Gun Owners of America Uncover Proof of A Secret Gun Registry

Gun Owners of America (GOA) has released documents proving that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) keeps an illegal gun registry.

AmmoLand News has reported that the ATF has been scanning nearly one billion “Out of Business” records using optical character recognition (OCR) software. If you did not know already, out-of-business FFL’s 4473 documents from gun sales made over the duration of that business have been turned over to the ATF. These “out of business” documents include personal information, including social security numbers, addresses, height, weight, eye color, etc. The ATF claims that this database is not searchable by name. This claim is true on the surface because the ATF has disabled the field within the software, but that field can be easily re-enabled at any time with just a few clicks of a mouse.

The database is currently searchable by all other fields except gun owners’ names. GOA and some members of Congress claim that this constitutes an illegal gun registry. Representative Michael Cloud has introduced the No Retaining Every Gun in a System That Restricts Your (REGISTRY) Rights Act in the House of Representatives. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has introduced a REGISTRY companion bill into the Senate.

“We cannot allow Joe Biden and the radical leftists in his administration to establish a permanent gun registry they can use to target Americans they see as their opponents for exercising their Second Amendment rights,” Cruz said in a statement released to the media.

“That’s why I’m proud to introduce the No REGISTRY Rights Act to require the ATF to delete all of their existing transaction records before they can be used against law-abiding Americans,” Cruz continued.

If the bill were to pass, it would require the ATF to destroy all out-of-business records in its possession. Federal firearms license (FFL) holders would no longer send their documents, such as the ATF Form 4473, to the Bureau’s out-of-business office in Martinsburg, WV. The FFL would destroy any record, thus preventing the ATF from scanning the documents into the database.

The ATF has taken other steps to expand the out-of-business registry.

The government agency has strongly encouraged FFLs still in business to turn over records to the ATF. In the past, FFLs only had to keep records for 20 years, but the ATF recently changed the rule requiring FFLs to keep records indefinitely.

The ATF has also stopped issuing variances that allow FFLs to keep records off-site. That change could mean that 1000s of records must be kept onsite even if there is no room to store the forms. The only other choices that the FFLs have is to store the documents digitally or turn them over to the Bureau for scanning into the database. Gun rights activists see this change as a concerted effort of the ATF to acquire all documents to expand the registry.

The Biden administration has pushed for an extensive firearms registry. The administration feels that a searchable database will help it take on the gun industry. Gun rights activists worry that a gun registry will lead to gun confiscation.

The ATF would not comment on REGISTRY. Even if REGISTRY were to pass, the President would veto the bill. There are not enough votes in Congress to overturn a veto, but if Biden loses his reelection bid, it could change the chances of the bill passing.

Liberty is not a means to a political end. It is itself the highest political end.
—John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -Declaration of Independence

There’s your shooter.
This will right quick disappear off the radar since the left can’t stand to have their narrative hashed to bits by one of the weirdos they cater to.

Uvalde, Texas school shooting: 14 students, one teacher killed, suspected shooter dead, Gov. Abbott says
Salvador Romas,18, killed multiple children and a teacher at an elementary school in Uvalde, a small city located 80 miles west of San Antonio, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said

A mass shooting at a Texas elementary school killed 14 children and one teacher Tuesday and the suspected gunman was killed, Gov. Greg Abbott said.

Abbott identified the suspect as Salvador Romas, a Uvalde resident, who is also dead and acted alone, authorities said. He had a handgun and possibly a rifle when he opened fire at Robb Elementary School, he said. Two police officers were shot and wounded but were expected to survive, Abbott said.

“Texans across the state are grieving for the victims of this senseless crime and for the community of Uvalde. Cecilia and I mourn this horrific loss and we urge all Texans to come together to show our unwavering support to all who are suffering,” he said in a statement.

The shooter was likely killed by responding officers but the investigation was still ongoing, authorities said.

A law enforcement officer helps people cross the street at Uvalde Memorial Hospital after a shooting was reported earlier in the day at Robb Elementary School on Tuesday. (Billy Calzada/The San Antonio Express-News via AP)

The Texas Department of Public Safety and the Texas Rangers have been instructed to work with local law enforcement.

As the incident unfolded, Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin told Fox News that the shooter had become barricaded inside. The school, located 80 miles west of San Antonio, serves students in the second, third and fourth grades.

“There is an active shooter at Robb Elementary. Law enforcement is on site,” the school posted on Facebook shortly after shots rang out. “Your cooperation is needed at this time by not visiting the campus.”

University Health in San Antonio said it received two patients – a child and a 66-year-old woman who is in critical condition. The condition of the child was not released. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has been briefed on the shooting.

The agency is also coordinating with local and state authorities. Uvalde Memorial Hospital said Tuesday evening it was having an emergency blood drive on Wednesday, though it was not clear if the event is related to the shooting.

The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District first reported the school lockdown at 11:43 a.m. local time.

“Please know at this time all campuses are under a Lockdown Status due to gunshots in the area. The students and staff are safe in the buildings,” the district had said in a message to parents.

The district initially asked parents not to pick up their children and that students needed to be accounted for before being released. Parents were notified to pick up their children around 2 p.m.

All district and campus activities, including after-school programs and events have been canceled. Parents were being asked to pick up their children at their regular dismissal times at their school campus. School bus transportation has also been canceled.

Police officers will escort students to the parent vehicles.

Folks, I don’t know how many times I’ve posted about this.
IF THE SCHOOL YOU SEND YOUR CHILDREN TO DOES NOT HAVE ARMED SECURITY ON SITE, and by that I mean not just uniformed armed ‘School Resource Officers’, but also armed teachers and staff, you do not have a ‘Gun Free Zone’ but a shooting gallery with your children as the targets.

It’s a continual amazement to me that parents apparently have to still learn this the hard way

Appeals court: illegal aliens not covered by the Second Amendment

Does the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” cover people who are in this country illegally? A three-judge panel on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals said “no” on Monday, ruling against a man who had lived in the United States for almost two decades before he was deported after being convicted on one count of possession of a firearm by an illegal alien.

Ignacio Jimenez-Shilon appealed that conviction, arguing (as he had at trial) that the federal law in question was a violation of his Second Amendment rights. The panel of judges, however, agreed with the lower court that ruled those in this country illegally don’t have a right under U.S. law to either keep or bear arms.

Jimenez’s argument to us is straightforward: (1) Even as an illegal alien, he lived in the United States for decades and was thus among “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects; and (2) as a consequence, he couldn’t be punished for exercising his individual right to possess a firearm.

But the inquiry isn’t as mechanical as Jimenez suggests. As we will explain, being a member of “the people” to whom the Second Amendment applies as a general matter is a necessary condition to enjoyment of the right to keep and bear arms, but it is not alone sufficient. The reason is that the Second Amendment’s text shows that it codified what the Heller Court called a “pre-existing right,” 554 U.S. at 592, 603—the right “to keep and bear Arms”— and that right’s particular history demonstrates that it extended (and thus extends) to some categories of individuals, but not others. Accordingly, as the Supreme Court put it in Heller, certain groups of people—even those who might be among “the people”—may be “disqualified from” possessing arms without violating the Second Amendment.

Illegal aliens, according to the judges, are among those “certain groups of people” who can be disqualified, because both the law and historical precedent in this country have made it clear that  “aliens could not surreptitiously enter a foreign nation in violation of the immigration prerogatives of the sovereign and expect to receive all the rights and protections of the citizenry. Nor can they do so today.”

In order to reach that decision the panel explored several Supreme Court precedents as well as some Founding-era history, which they say points to the idea that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was analogous to the rights of citizens to do so.

To take one example, the Federalist Papers explained that one of the bulwarks of personal liberty was the prospect of “citizens with arms in their hands.” The Federalist No. 46, at 296 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961).

“If the representatives of the people” were to “betray their constituents,” Hamilton proclaimed, then it would be the natural right of the “citizens” to “rush tumultuously to arms.” The Federalist No. 28, at 176 (Alexander Hamilton); see also, e.g., 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1890, at 746 (1833) (“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers” and “enable[s] the people to resist and triumph over them.”).

Yet when the Constitution was submitted for ratification, many feared that the lack of an express guarantee of the right to bear arms would lead to an erosion of liberty—particularly because the new charter empowered Congress to call forth the militia and raise an army and navy. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 598.

Thus, several proposals quickly emerged in the States urging the adoption of an amendment explicitly prohibiting Congress from disarming “citizens.” See Charles, Armed in America, supra, at 94; The Complete Bill of Rights, supra, at 275 (documenting the Massachusetts proposal that Congress be barred from “prevent[ing] the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms,” as well as the New Hampshire proposal that “Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion”).

One of the most interesting aspects of this case was the concurring opinion authored by Judge Kevin Newsom, who was appointed to the Eleventh Circuit by Donald Trump in 2017. As UCLA law professor Eugene Voloch pointed out at Reason, Newsom took the opportunity to discuss the current use of “tiered scrutiny” to determine the constitutionality of laws dealing with the Second Amendment.

Judge Newsom also adds a separate concurrence, in which he questions the use of strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and similar tests both as to the Second Amendment and as to other constitutional rights, such as the First Amendment. Allowing constitutional rights to be overcome by compelling or substantial government interests, he argues, “elevates the normative views of ‘we the judges’ over ‘We the People’ through an ill-defined balancing test.” And, turning to the First Amendment, he adds:

It’s not just that the [First Amendment strict scrutiny / intermediate scrutiny] doctrine is exhausting—although it certainly is that. It’s that the doctrine is judge-empowering and, I fear, freedom-diluting. If we, as judges, conclude—as I’ve said we should—that Second Amendment rights shouldn’t be casually balanced away by reference to manipulable means-ends balancing tests, we might need to start asking the bigger question: On what basis can we do exactly that when dealing with other, equally fundamental rights?

There’s a lot of speculation among Supreme Court watchers that the upcoming decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association will specifically reject the current tiered-scrutiny approach adopted by lower courts in the wake of Heller in favor of a “text, history, and tradition” test that, in the words of attorney and scholar Joseph Greenlee, “focuses on the Second Amendment’s text, using history and tradition to inform its original meaning.” It sounds like Newsom thinks that a similar approach would be valuable for the First Amendment too, though it remains to be seen if SCOTUS will actually adopt that test for Second Amendment cases going forward.

BLUF
At least half of this country knows why Biden did this:

First, to focus Americans’ attention on “white supremacy” rather than on the inflation, looming recession, food crisis and energy crisis he and his party have created with their policies.

Second, to keep black Americans voting Democrat by saying to them, in effect: “You need protection from your fellow hate-filled Americans; we Democrats are your protectors.”

Meanwhile, 9,941 black Americans were killed in 2020. Nearly all were killed by other black people. But to Joe Biden, his party, and the mainstream, i.e., left-wing, media, those black lives don’t matter. At all. Why not? Because they weren’t killed by white supremacists, and they therefore don’t serve the Democrats’ deliberately divisive narrative.

Joe Biden’s Buffalo Speech Was the Speech of an Indecent Man

If an American president has ever given as mendacious, anti-American and hate-filled a speech as President Joe Biden did in Buffalo, New York, last week, I am not familiar with it. Nor are you.

Biden used the terrible mass shooting of black people in a Buffalo grocery store to smear America, divide Americans and foment race-based hatred. A decent man would have given an entirely different speech.

A decent man would have gone to Buffalo and said something like this:

“My fellow Americans, what happened here in Buffalo was pure evil. Let there be no equivocating about this moral fact. If evil exists, what happened here was evil. But, my fellow Americans, this young man and his race-based homicidal hatred represents an infinitesimally small number of Americans, white or otherwise. The overwhelming majority of Americans of every race, ethnicity, and religion get along with each other beautifully. We work alongside each other, date each other, socialize with one another and marry one another. We are the most successful experiment in creating a multiracial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious country in world history. The actions of a deranged teenager do not change this fact.”

Instead, the hater-in-chief went to Buffalo and said:

“What happened here is simple and straightforward: terrorism. Terrorism. Domestic terrorism. Violence inflicted in the service of hate and the vicious thirst for power that defines one group of people being inherently inferior to any other group. A hate that, through the media and politics, the internet, has radicalized angry, alienated and lost individuals into falsely believing that they will be replaced. That’s the word. Replaced by ‘the other.’ By people who don’t look like them.

“Look, we’ve seen the mass shootings in Charleston, South Carolina; El Paso, Texas; in Pittsburgh. Last year, in Atlanta. This week, in Dallas, Texas, and now in Buffalo. In Buffalo, New York. White supremacy is a poison. It’s a poison. It really is. Running through our body politic. And it’s been allowed to fester and grow right in front of our eyes. No more. I mean, no more. We need to say as clearly and forcefully as we can that the ideology of white supremacy has no place in America. None …

“Look, the American experiment in democracy is in a danger like it hasn’t been in my lifetime. It’s in danger this hour. Hate and fear are being given too much oxygen by those who pretend to love America, but who don’t understand America. …

“Now is the time for the people of all races, from every background, to speak up as a majority in America and reject white supremacy …

“We have to refuse to live in a country where black people going about a weekly grocery shopping can be gunned down by weapons of war deployed in a racist cause …”

As noted earlier, this was not only a hate-filled speech; it was a speech of the Big Lie. The Big Lie of white supremacy as a major threat to America generally and to black America specifically.

Let’s examine each of the examples of white supremacist mass shootings he gave:

Continue reading “”

BLUF
Gun-control advocates predict increases in murders with constitutional carry, but the data says otherwise. Self-defense is a natural right. That right can be restricted when there is a strong reason to do so; for example, people confined in prisons are not allowed to possess firearms. But, the opponents of constitutional carry across society have not met their burden of proof.

The Statistical Truth About the Impact of Constitutional Carry

When it becomes clear that a popular change in state law does something fundamentally good for citizens’ freedom without doing harm, it becomes much easier to get legislators to do the right thing. This is part of the reason for the quick spread of constitutional-carry laws, which now cover half of the states, as of press time. (A state is “constitutional carry” if a law-abiding adult who can legally possess a handgun does not need a permit to carry that handgun concealed for lawful protection.)

Another part of the reason for the fast spread of constitutional-carry legislation is the NRA Institute for Legislative Action’s (ILA) team, which has worked across America to bring the facts to state legislators. They have been so effective that a majority of state legislators in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana and Ohio most-recently opted to get their state’s bureaucracies out of the way of their law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

An underlying reason this has been an effective push is the basic fact that law-abiding American citizens are not problems that needs to be solved. Despite what the Biden administration argues, armed citizens help to keep individuals safer. Nevertheless, each time a constitutional-carry law comes up for debate, gun-control groups argue that getting the government out of the concealed-carry-license business will result in “Wild West-style shootouts” on the streets. But each time these laws pass, the data clearly shows that doesn’t happen.

This has been a big change from a few decades ago when Vermont was the sole state with constitutional carry. The term “constitutional carry” comes from legal history; when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, constitutional carry—either open or concealed—was lawful in every state.

Still, as more and more states return to the original understanding of the right to bear arms, opponents warn that constitutional carry (or “permitless carry”) will cause murder rates to increase; for example, Eugenio Weigend, director of the Gun Violence Prevention program at the Center for American Progress, says that constitutional carry will “raise some confrontations in some places, further escalating violence to reach lethal levels.” Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety says states that have moved toward constitutional carry are “abandoning core public safety standards.”

While Vermont has long had constitutional carry, thanks to the 1903 state supreme court decision State v. Rosenthal, the move toward constitutional carry in the 21st century started with Alaska in 2003.

In this article, we present the data about what actually happened when states adopted constitutional carry. The data comes from a report co-written by Alexander Adams and Colorado State University Professor Youngsung Kim. (The data and code are available at: https://github.com/K-Alexander-Adams/Am1st)

Except for Vermont, all the states that currently have constitutional carry already had “shall-issue” licensing systems for concealed carry. That is, applications for concealed-carry permits could not be denied simply because the licensing official did not like citizens carrying firearms.

So, why did the NRA work for constitutional carry in those states? Because even a fairly administered shall-issue system can take weeks or months for a license to be issued. The delays can leave the innocent defenseless for too long; this is especially true for victims of stalkers and for people fleeing domestic violence. The same is true when civil order breaks down, such as during riots or natural disasters—times when law enforcement is often overwhelmed. Some licensing offices, for example, shut down or slowed down during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Even when a state statute sets up a fair process for licensing, local governments can find ways to manipulate the system to delay applications. This has been a long-standing problem in Denver, and is one reason why civil-rights activists are fighting for constitutional carry in Colorado.

A second reason for constitutional carry is cost. To some people, spending a few hundred dollars for fees, fingerprints and so on is no big deal. But for lower-income people, the financial barrier of a licensing system can be severe to prohibitive. Constitutional carry also eliminates the possibility of bias against any racial, gender or socio-economic groups in the permitting process.

Even in constitutional-carry states, many people still choose to obtain permits. Permits make it easier to carry in other states when traveling, because many states have laws that recognize the permits issued by some or all other states. Depending on state law, a permit may allow carrying in some places where constitutional carry is not allowed. 

carry states graphic

How Does Constitutional Carry Impact Crime?
How can we determine the effects of constitutional carry? One approach would be to just compare current crime rates in states with and without constitutional carry; for example, Vermont, with constitutional carry, has much less crime than neighboring New York, which does not. The same is true for Utah versus Colorado. But skeptics would accurately point out that other differences between the states could account for the differences in crime rates. Portions of New York, for example, are more urbanized than Vermont. 

Further, because crime rates change over time, looking at several years is more revealing than just a single year.

To get answers, Adams and Kim studied all 50 states and the District of Columbia from 1980 to 2018. Their study also accounted for 30 control variables—that is, factors other than constitutional carry that might raise or lower a state’s crime rate. The control variables included population density, alcohol consumption, poverty rates, unemployment rates, the Fryer crack-cocaine index, incarceration rates, age cohorts in five-year blocks from age 15 to over 65 years of age, police per capita, other gun control (such as “assault-weapons” bans), racial variables and more.

To show how important it is to consider control variables, we will first show you the results without them, and then the results with the control variables included. 

Here is a short explanation on how to read the tables. Suppose you flipped a coin 100 times, and 65 of those times, it came up heads. Does that prove the coin was biased (unevenly weighted), or could the results just be random chance? In social science, the probability that the result was not due to chance is called “statistical significance.” In the tables, if there is less than a 1% chance the result is due to chance, the result has three asterisks. If the probability that a result is random is less than 5%, there are two asterisks. If less than 10%, there is one asterisk. Traditionally, statisticians use the 5% cut-off to call something “statistically significant,” but they also report results for 1% and 10%. We do the same.

Homicide and suicide rates

Continue reading “”

At Real Clear Politics: When Misinformation Drives Bad Policy

The CPRC commissioned a survey by Real Clear Politics. Dr. John Lott wrote a new piece at Real Clear Politics on the survey evidence.

To President Biden, public health researchers, and the media, violent crime is all about guns. But a new survey finds that people are badly misinformed about how much violent crime involves guns. The average likely American voter is way off, thinking that over 46% of violent crimes involve guns. In fact, the true figure is less than 8%.

Not surprisingly, those who believe that most violent crime involves guns are more likely to view gun control as the solution.

Biden has given four major speeches on violent crime (here, here, here, and here). Each one of them was focused on enforcement of gun control laws. In the four speeches, he mentioned “gun” or “firearm” 179 times. The term “weapon,” sometimes in connection with “assault weapon,” was used another 31 times.

The words “crime,” “violence,” or “violent” were mentioned about half as often — 94 times. He only mentions the words “murder” or “homicide” seven times in these four presentations, which involve guns at a higher rate, and entirely omits them from his two most recent talks.

But this “guns first” approach to reduce overall violent crime ignores a basic fact – over 92% of violent crimes in America do not involve firearms. Although Biden blames guns for the increase in violent crime, the latest data show that gun crimes fell dramatically.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, in the latest year available (2020), shows that there were 4,558,150 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults, and the FBI reports 21,570 murders. Of those, 350,460 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults (see Table 8) and 13,620 murders involved firearms. So, adding those numbers up, 7.9% of violent crimes were committed with guns.

The new McLaughlin & Associates survey of 1,000 likely voters from April 20th to 26th for the Crime Prevention Research Center shows how misinformed people are. People across the country, of all races and incomes, have wildly inaccurate beliefs about how frequently violent crime involves guns.

Even so, there are large differences across groups. The average Democrat estimates that 56.9% of violent crimes involve guns, whereas the typical Republican gave an answer of 37%. Those with the highest incomes (over $250,000 per year) and those who work for the government give the highest numbers — 56.1% and 51% respectively. Women (50%) believe that more violent crimes involve guns than men do (43%). Urban Americans say 48%, whereas rural Americans say 40%. But the biggest difference is between blacks (59%) and Asians (31%).

The McLaughlin survey also gave people three options on the best way to fight crime: pass more gun control laws, more strictly enforce current laws, or have police concentrate on arresting violent, repeat criminals.

Some respondents at least got it right that less than 20% of violent crime involves guns. Just 8% prioritized more gun laws, and 15% focused on stricter enforcement of existing laws. An overwhelming 71% thought the best way of fighting crime was to arrest violent criminals.

Some likely voters thought that more than 80% of the violent crime involved guns. Most supported either more gun control laws (33%) or more strict enforcement of current gun laws (28%). Only 36% of them wanted the focus on arresting violent criminals.

Those who think that most violent crime is committed with guns consistently support more gun control. Those who don’t believe that instead want to focus on arresting violent criminals and keeping them in jail.

Perhaps the gun control debate would be very different if the media had done a better job of informing people about crime. The most newsworthy cases, unfortunately, don’t tend to be typical of violent crime. Focusing on how to solve eight percent of violent crime does nothing to solve the other ninety-two percent.

John R. Lott, Jr., “When Misinformation Drives Bad Policy,” Real Clear Politics, May 16, 2022.

Democrats’ Latest Phony Inflation Scapegoat: Credit Cards

In this administration, it’s always someone else’s fault. Inflation is now the No. 1 concern of voters, so the White House first blamed COVID. Then Donald Trump’s tax cuts. Then Vladimir Putin. Then meatpackers and the poultry industry, Big Oil and pharmaceutical companies.

Now, Democrats have identified a new inflation scapegoat: plastic. Visa, Mastercard, American Express and other credit cards hidden away in your wallet.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) has had it out for credit cards for almost two decades, even though over that period, credit cards, which were once reserved for the rich, are now nearly ubiquitous in our society. Many stores don’t even take cash anymore in the post-COVID world. The benefits and conveniences of paying with a plastic card are easily in the tens of billions of dollars to retailers and shoppers. Stores benefit because shoppers don’t have to have cash on hand to make purchases. They also benefit from not having to deal with the exchange of cash, which can lead to theft by unscrupulous employees at the register.

Credit cards are convenient for consumers because we don’t have to walk around with hundreds of dollars in our wallets.

But Democrats allege that the interchange fee that credit card companies charge retailers and merchants for their service on transactions is excessive. This interchange fee typically ranges between about 1% to 3% of the retail price of the transaction. If retailers don’t want to pay the cost because they think it is exorbitant, they don’t have to accept cards and can take cash only. Few retailers don’t take plastic every day to avoid paying the fees. It’s a free country. But the vast majority of retailers see the benefits far exceeding the costs.

Durbin, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, doesn’t see it that way. Instead, he blames Visa, Mastercard and Discover for making food and gas more expensive. At a recent hearing, Durbin fumed: “Today, we’re going to talk about a hidden fee that fuels the fires of inflation across America every day. What they may not know is this swipe fee is contributing to the problem of inflation.”

But for this to be true, interchange fees would have to be higher than before Joe Biden became president and before inflation surged to 8.5%.

But the fees aren’t rising. Industry sources report that over recent years, the average merchant fee (for debit, credit and prepaid cards) has fallen slightly.

By the way, merchants and retailers get concrete benefits in exchange for the fees they pay to accept credit cards. Those fees cover the cost of security and fraud protection, infrastructure improvements and consumer benefits programs such as cash back and rewards.

What Durbin and the Democrats want is government price controls on credit card companies. They say there isn’t enough competition, but there are at least five major credit cards the public can buy. There is plenty of competition in the industry. Nor is there any evidence that cutting the fees to the retailers will lead to lower prices paid by consumers at the gas pump or the grocery store checkout line.

Today, about 70% of retail transactions take place with credit cards in part because nearly everyone, except those with terrible credit histories, has a credit card these days. Projections say in the next decade, more than 80% of payments will be made with plastic as we move inevitably to digital transactions and a cashless society.

The significant impact of Durbin’s price controls will not be to tame inflation but to restrict who can get access to credit cards. In other words, the poor will get hurt the most. Isn’t that turning out to be the case with nearly every liberal policy these days?

demoncraps weren’t worried about voters being suppressed.
They were worried about fraudulent votes being suppressed.

The Big Lie About Georgia Voting Has Been Shredded.

To its credit, the Washington Post didn’t memory-hole the long freak-out about Georgia, running a story headlined “Voting is surging in Georgia despite controversial new election law.” A better headline would have been “Voting is surging in Georgia despite allegations about new election law.”

A thread throughout the Post story chronicles how Democratic activists have changed their strategies in reaction to the law. But if you can defeat alleged voter suppression with ease by registering people and getting them out to vote in massive numbers, it’s a good sign that there wasn’t any voter suppression to begin with.

The Post report ends with an anecdote about Patsy Reid, a 70-year-old, African-American retiree who was surprised that she could vote early with absolutely no issue. “I had heard that they were going to try to deter us in any way possible because of the fact that we didn’t go Republican on the last election, when Trump didn’t win,” she told the Post. “To go in there and vote as easily as I did and to be treated with the respect that I knew I deserved as an American citizen — I was really thrown back.”

That’s the voice of someone who had been lied to — repeatedly and at great volume.

‘I had to do what I had to do:’ Florida woman, 69, shoots, kills intruder

ORLANDO, Fla. – A 69-year-old woman shot and killed an intruder Sunday afternoon during a home invasion in Orange County, according to sheriff’s officials.

The fatal shooting happened around 12:30 p.m. in the 6500 block of Bentwood Street, near Colonial Drive and Semoran Boulevard.

The Orange County Sheriff’s Office said deputies were called to a burglary in progress and found a man in who had been shot by the homeowner. Deputies later identified the man as 38-year-old Ezequiel Rosario-Torres.

The man was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead, deputies said.

“I feel sorry for his family, but I had to do what I had to do,” said Virginia Morrison, who owns the home.

The sheriff’s office told News 6 that the man entered the home and startled Morrison, who asked the man to leave. She shot the man when he refused to leave the property, according to deputies.

Morrison, who is cooperating with investigators, told detectives that she had never seen the man before.

“Something wasn’t right with the man,” she said, adding that he didn’t say a word. “He had a blank look on his face.”

She said she thought her fiance was outside, so the door to the house was unlocked.

Morrison said the stranger stepped inside so she asked him who he was and what he wanted, but he did not respond.

“I said, ‘I’m getting my damn gun.’ So I went to my bedroom and got my gun and I went out the back door and I came to the fence and he sees me and he starts toward me,” Morrison said. “I fired a shot above him, then said, ‘Back off, dude. I’ll shoot you.’ And he kept coming toward me, so I shot him.”

Morrison said it was the first time she’s ever used her gun.

“Keep your doors locked. Anybody can walk into your house now,” she said. “I killed a man. I didn’t intend to do that. I’m trying to protect me and (my fiance).”

The state attorney’s office will determine whether charges will be filed in the case.

An investigation is ongoing.

Biden seems to want monkeypox to be the next pandemic

The world population checks in at just a little under 7.9 billion people. Of that number, Europe has identified 100 cases of monkeypox and the United States has identified…two cases (out of a population of roughly 330 million people). Nevertheless, Joe Biden is already hard at work ratcheting up the fear. Based on the information available, though, we probably don’t need to worry and this should not turn into a government power grab, complete with election control.

Preliminarily, Dr. Robert Malone has written a great post about monkeypox (“Truth versus Fearporn”), from which I’ve gleaned a lot of my facts about the disease. Let’s start with what monkeypox is: It’s a variola virus that is related to smallpox, as well as to cowpox (which led to Edward Jenner inventing the first true vaccination), and other animal poxes. Like the animal poxes, it’s not very serious for humans.

Essentially, as cowpox did to those long ago milkmaids, monkeypox makes people have the same symptoms as smallpox, only more mildly. The illness is also contagious only through person-to-person contact, which means that classic quarantining and contact tracing work to stop its spread. Symptomatic people are isolated while health agencies find their contacts, and that’s kind of the end of it. No lockdowns and changes to voting required.

Further lowering the risk of monkeypox is the fact that it’s a double-stranded DNA virus. Those double strands slow mutations, which means that immunity, once acquired is good for a long, long time. Those who have been vaccinated against, or had, any of the other poxes, are almost certainly resistant to monkeypox.

It’s also not a very infectious disease for humans, although it obviously has a zoonotic element. You probably didn’t even notice a monkeypox outbreak in the U.S. in 2003. It was no biggie, probably because the establishment hadn’t yet discovered the political benefits of virus fear porn.

Continue reading “”