So Much Worse Than They Realize

Hillary Clinton - the most corrupt presidential candidate in American history - lost the election to Donald Trump, and her supporters are freaking out.

Many are protesting, some are rioting.

Anyone who's been paying attention expected riots, because it's what Leftists do when they don't get their way. Leftists are overgrown toddlers, so when someone tells them "no", they pitch a fit. Besides, it's what they've been doing all along this election year.



Things look pretty bleak for Leftists on the presidential front.

Source: NYT

The mainstream media expected Clinton to carry Florida and Arizona. They certainly didn't expect to lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan (a traditional bastion of union and Democrat support).

Ironically, things are far worse (or better, depending on your perspective) than the vast majority of Clinton supporters suspect. Because they're Leftists, and for Leftists politics are a religion, they see their presidential candidate as a sort of messiah figure.



Because they see their presidential candidates as saviors, they focus almost all their attention on the presidential race, to the detriment of the hundreds of other races throughout the country. Yes, Republicans maintained majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives (though not with a filibuster-proof super majority), and yes, that's bad news for Democrats, but it's the states where things get really ugly for them. Check out these maps from the Washington Post.

When you look at state legislatures alone, the picture looks even worse. From Reason Magazine.

Republicans control 32 state legislatures, but - as the WaPo points out - Nebraska's legislature "is technically nonpartisan but Republican in practice". That means Republicans "in practice" control 33 state legislatures. As the WaPo points out, most of this Democrat decline took place during the Obama administration.

However, this latest decline is part of a 38-year trend, according to Pew Research.

Joe Scarborough put it this way.

Democrats Under Barack Obama

-11 seats in Senate
-60 seats in House
-14 governorships
-900 state legislative seats

Worst since 1922.

— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) November 13, 2016

There are at least two major reasons why this is a disaster for the Democrats. First, state legislatures and governors make up a political party's "bench" for national politics. The Republicans now have a much deeper bench from which to draw national-level candidates than the Democrats do. It's not even close.

The second reason is far more important. Article V of the US Constitution reads...

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

With 33 state legislatures effectively under Republican control, the Republicans can now call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, and they don't even need to convince Democrats to go along. In fact, a convention of the states has been in the works for years. The states already held a simulated convention from 21-23 September 2016. According to National Review...

The simulated convention passed significant amendment proposals on the following six ideas:
1. Requiring the states to approve any increase in the national debt
2. Imposing term limits on Congress (effective retroactively)
3. Limiting federal overreach by returning the Commerce Clause to its original meaning
4. Limiting the power of federal regulations by allowing an easy congressional override
5. Requiring a supermajority to impose federal taxes and repealing the 16th Amendment, which legalized the federal income tax
6. Giving the states (by a three-fifths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation, or executive order  

If the states ratify just half of these proposals, they would greatly limit and decentralize the federal government's power, which would return the country to a point closer to the founders' intent - a federalist system in which the states govern themselves with little input from the federal government, and the federal government is mostly limited to regulating trade between the states and implementing foreign policy.

Now, don't get too excited (or horrified, depending on your perspective). Article V of the Constitution states that new amendments must be...

... ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof... 

... in order to make those amendments...

.... valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution... 

Three fourths of 50 state legislatures equals 38 state legislatures. The Republicans effectively control 33 legislatures, which means they need to convince five legislatures they don't control to ratify any amendments. Right now, there are three bicameral legislatures that are split between Democrats and Republicans.

Can the Republicans convince five state legislatures that are either split, or controlled by the Democrats, to ratify Constitutional amendments that would be a Leftist's nightmare?

We shall see.

There's a lesson here for my Democrat friends. Slandering your fellow Americans as racists so you can wallow in your unearned sense of moral superiority is no way to persuade people to your way of thinking. But, hey, keep it up. Surely you can deliver five more state legislatures to the Republicans.

You're Stuck In This Country With Us

If you've ever watched the movie Watchmen - or better yet, read the comic - you probably remember the following scene. If you're squeamish, skip the video.

Rorschach, one of the heroes, gets locked up with many of the criminals he put in prison. After defeating an attacker in a fight, Rorschach yells at his fellow inmates, "I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with me!"

Prof. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit alluded to that scene when explaining one of the basic functions of government.

Police don’t actually protect law-abiding citizens from criminals so much as they protect criminals from the much-rougher justice they’d get in the absence of a legal system. Burglars would be hung from lampposts, and shoplifters would be beaten and tossed into the gutter if there were no police, as in fact happens in countries where there isn’t a reliable justice system and a civil-society culture that restrains vigilantism. Reminder to the criminal class: Ultimately, we’re not stuck in this country with you. You’re stuck in this country with us.

The following day (3 Sep 2015), Prof. Reynolds linked to a story about the rising trend of street "justice" in Venezuela.

When a man they believed to be a thief sneaked into their parking lot in the Venezuelan city of Valencia, angry residents caught him, stripped him and beat him with fists, sticks and stones. 

They tied him up and doused him in gasoline, according to witnesses, in one of what rights groups and media reports say are an increasing number of mob beatings and lynchings in a country ravaged by crime.

Almost a year later, the trend has not abated. In fact, as Venezuela continues its death spiral under the crushing weight of Socialism, it seems to be getting worse. Why? Caracas city councilman, Jesús Armas, explains...

This year will without a doubt be the most violent in the history of our city...  

The insecurity has three roots. The first is associated with levels of poverty and inequality that we see in the city. Today Venezuela is the country with the highest inflation in the world, with shortages that force people to line up for hours to buy food. For decades neighborhoods have sprung up outside the city, and now more than 50 percent of the city's population lives in places where houses are built with low-quality materials, and where they don't formally have access to basic public services and are without roads or consolidated public spaces. 

Poverty, inequality and no basic public services in the Chavista Socialist paradise? Unpossible!

The second element has to do with a culture of lawlessness. In the country, a habit of disrespect for most basic laws - those related to transit, shoplifting, even the ways the authorities and the rest of the population interact with these laws, has resulted in a collective indifference toward much larger crimes because the law is simply a dead letter. 

When the government officials who are supposed to enforce the law are the biggest thieves, how can anyone else be expected to respect the law? Chavez died a billionaire, and his daughter is the wealthiest person in Venezuela.

Finally, there is the reaction of the national and local government in terms of managing the violence. The truth is that we have a mayor who, through hate speech and a series of acts of violence promoted by groups related to his party and his administration, has over the years exhibited excessive permissiveness toward huge criminal groups that dominate vast and populous parts of the city, either because they handle drug trafficking or because they have a monopoly on violence and illegal activities that generate income. 

Likewise, the state has implemented a policy that has nothing to do with protecting life, liberty and property of citizens, but on the contrary, has driven a socialist model that seeks to limit those freedoms, using crime as a way to maintain power and control of the population. But the truth is that today things are out of control and we are left with a failed state in which the so-called peace zones are micro-states controlled by gangsters and not by constitutional institutions.

Life, liberty and property? Where have I read that before? Mr. Armas hit the nail on the head. A government's sole purpose is to secure the people's rights to life, liberty and property. As Thomas Jefferson stated in his first inaugural address:

... a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

Unfortunately, Venezuela's Socialist government - like all Socialist governments - busies itself primarily with "[taking] from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned", secondarily with buying votes with the bread it took from the mouth of labor, and not at all with its actual responsibility of "[restraining] men from injuring one another".

The result is what we now see in Venezuela. We may not see it for long, not because it'll stop any time soon, but because Venezuela's government - embarrassed by its own impotence and incompetence - banned media coverage of the lynchings. Venezuela's government won't crack down on crime, much less unshackle the people and economy from the disastrous Socialist policies that led to the disintegration of Venezuelan society. They'll just prevent news outlets from talking about it, thereby accomplishing nothing of value.

As European governments refuse to protect their citizens from Muslim migrant criminals and conspire to cover up their negligence, homicide rates in some American cities skyrocket due to the Ferguson Effect, and insurmountable federal debt leads us towards Venezuela-style hyperinflation, lessons abound. The decent among us need to learn those lessons quickly and prepare accordingly. Criminals won't. After all, criminals aren't known for prudence or self-control.

Source: Fox News Latino

Illinois Concealed Carry Fails to Reenact "Tombstone"

In January 2014, Illinois finally became the 50th state to issue concealed carry licenses to law abiding people living within its borders.  Predictably, hoplophobes predicted that Chicago's streets would run red with blood, as crazed concealed carry permit holders reenacted the shootout at the O.K. Corral. 

Source: IMDB

Sadly, for bloody-shirt-waving hoplophobes, but fortunately for everyone else, the hoplophobes' fantasies failed to materialize.  Again. 

Opponents of the concealed carry law in Illinois — which State Sen. Bill Cunningham (D-Chicago) said passed with "overwhelming support" — feared that it would increase rather than decrease crime, putting more guns into the streets that could fall into the wrong hands.

They always do.

In the year of concealed carry permits in Illinois, there have only been a couple incidents involving legal gun owners that have created headlines. In July, a concealed-carry permit holder in Crestwood tried shooting at a fleeing armed robber, hurting no one but forcing a police officer to duck for cover. In Chicago a member of the military who had a concealed carry permit shot and wounded an armed man who fired into a crowd on Chicago's Far South Side. 

Nevertheless, Hayes said he stopped opposing the concealed carry law when he realized that the past year has not resulted in the level of violence some anticipated. 

In fact, just the opposite happened.

Since Illinois started granting concealed carry permits this year, the number of robberies that have led to arrests in Chicago has declined 20 percent from last year, according to police department statistics. Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.  

Those of us who've been paying attention are not the least bit surprised.  After all, we've seen the same trend throughout the United States since 1993.  But those facts don't matter to hoplophobes.

But Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart's office has not changed its overall stance against the concealed carry law and its implementation, which as the Chicago Tribune reported recently, requires applicants to be vetted by a controversial state licensing board. 

"Sheriff Dart has been very vocal about his opposition," said Ben Breit, Dart's spokesman, adding that "it's a tough spot," because "the courts have spoken" to legalize concealed carry. 

"Gun violence is gun violence, whether it's in the suburbs or the city of Chicago," said Cara Smith, a Dart spokeswoman, acknowledging that the Sheriff's officers help police many of the county's suburbs.

Sheriff Dart and his fellow hoplophobes opposed concealed carry - supposedly - because they believed it would result in more crime.  The facts demonstrate that the opposite happened.  Crime rates dropped with concealed carry, just as they did throughout the US, yet Sheriff Dart and his fellow hoplophobes obstinately continue to oppose concealed carry.  Why?  Because Sheriff Dart and his fellow hoplophobes fear law abiding armed citizens more than they fear criminals.  Thus the term hoplophobe.

The next time a city or state considers relaxing gun laws, hoplophobes will again predict blood in the streets, because no matter how many times their prediction fails, it's the only trick they have.  Don't fall for it.

By the way, Tombstone still rocks, especially Val Kilmer's portrayal of Doc Holliday.

Buying a Car Like Buying a Gun

What if buying a car was like buying a gun?  The Truth About Guns answers the question, at least for Californians. 

With the national debate of gun control again rearing its head, let’s do a quick comparison. Since vehicles kill or injure roughly three times more people a year than guns, let’s suppose we applied the same standards to vehicle operation that we do to guns. We will use California for example. Let’s start with purchasing a vehicle. You need a full background check, must be a citizen or legal resident and have no prohibiting factors in your history. Now you’re going wait 10 days to pick up your vehicle. If you’re buying used, you and the individual selling the vehicle must both go to the dealer for the transfer. Don’t forget the dealer’s fees; after all he has to make money too . . .

This is easy so far, inconvenient but easy. Your 10 days is up, time to pick up your vehicle and drive off. WRONG! Now you must have your vehicle transported to your home in an enclosed and locked trailer and stored in a locked garage. Your 10 gallon fuel tank must be EMPTY during transport, and you better make sure all your garage entrances are childproofed. Keep in mind you have now legally purchased a vehicle and stored a vehicle, your rights are not infringed at all.

That's just the beginning.  There's more.  A lot more.  Read the whole thing.

No politician would ever dream of proposing such onerous regulations for car ownership, because their constituents would never let them get away with it.  Americans love their cars.

But here's the irony.  Driving on public roads is not a right.  It's a privilege.  It's certainly not explicitly protected by the Constitution.

Gun ownership, and the carrying of said guns, is a right explicitly codified in, and protected by, the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed 

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines "infringe" as follows:

in·fringe (verb) \in-ˈfrinj\
: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )
: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

California's gun laws clearly do not obey or follow the highest law in the land - the US Constitution - and they wrongly limit or restrict Californian's Second Amendment Rights.  California's gun laws, then, infringe the right of the people of California to keep and bear Arms.

California's politicians proposed and passed those laws with the support of the majority of Californians.  That means that a majority of Californians would fight tooth and nail to keep their non-Constitutional privilege to drive, but paid politicians handsomely (politicians like the gun-trafficking Leland Yee) to violate their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The same is true of voters from other states that similarly infringe on Second Amendment rights.

Crazy, isn't it?

Feds Steal $35K From Small Grocer's Bank Account Despite Finding "No Violations" To Justify the Grab - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Feds Steal $35K From Small Grocer's Bank Account Despite Finding "No Violations" To Justify the Grab - Hit & Run : Reason.com

the feds sent the Dehkos a letter saying that “no violations [of banking laws] were identified.” 

And then, nine months later, the IRS emptied the Dehkos' bank acount of $35,000 without warning. 

In the Dehkos' case, the IRS used civil asset forfeiture, which requires no criminal action or proof of guilt on the part of a property owner to seize that property...

This, ladies and gentlemen, is legalized theft.  The 4th Amendment of the Constitution reads...

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

How can the Feds get away with such a clear violation of the 4th Amendment?

technically, it's a legal action against the property itself. 

I see.  So the feds are punishing the property, not the people who own it.  Makes perfect sense.

Not surprisingly, it's a hugely lucrative practice for government agencies and a hugely controversial one for everybody else. 

I bet.

But the use of asset forfeiture, both civil and criminal, soared at the federal level under the current administration, growing from $500 million in 2003, to $1.8 billion in 2011. 

Surprise!



If this doesn't piss you off, I don't know what will, because if this can happen to the Dehkos, it can happen to any of us.

Gun Grabbers' War on Women

All last year we heard Leftists accuse those on the Right, and Republicans in particular, of conducting a "war on women".  The "thinking" goes that those of us who don't want to be forced to pay for others' contraceptives and abortions deny women's basic human right to never have to pay for their own contraceptives and abortions.

But let's think - and I mean actually think - about this.  The most basic of all human rights is the right to live, because one has to be alive to exercise any other right.  The right to live is spelled out in the Constitution of the United States.

No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Note that life is the first on the list.  Why?  Because one can't exercise any of the others if one is dead.  Pretty simple, right?  If the right to live is the foundation of all other rights, it stands to reason that the second most basic human right is the right to defend ones life from those who threaten to violate ones right to live.

The right to self defense is not spelled out in the Constitution, probably because at the time it seemed to blindingly obvious that it wasn't necessary.  That is no longer the case, apparently.  However, the framers did include the most effective means by which a person can defend ones life.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The framers meant the 2nd Amendment as a last-ditch measure by which the states and the people could defend themselves from enemies, foreign and domestic.  However, by guaranteeing the individual's right to "keep (own) and bear (carry) Arms (firearms; i.e. guns)", the 2nd Amendment guarantees the individual's right to own and carry the most effective tools - guns - for defending him/herself from whomever might threaten his/her life.

The right to keep and bear arms, therefore, is the third most fundamental of all rights, because it supports ones right to defend ones right to live, without which all other rights are meaningless.

Though crucial for all humans, the right to bear arms is more important for women than men, because men are - on average - bigger and stronger than women and most criminals are men.  A gun can give a woman the power to defend herself from a rapist....



...or a violent home invader...

The woman was getting out of the shower when she was met by a strange man with a kitchen knife, police said.... 

The woman tried to fight the man off with a shower a rod, and he forced her into her bedroom, police said. They said she told her attacker she had money in the room. But she grabbed a .22-caliber handgun and shot the man nine times, police said. 

Police said the man ran out of a back door and collapsed in the yard. He later died at the Gwinnett Medical Center. The victim, who was injured in the scuffle, was also taken to the hospital for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries.

...or defend her sister from a violent home invader.

Debi Keeney says she last fired her gun 15 years ago, when she took shooting lessons. 

Debi Keeney (right) and her sister Donna Carlyle

Keeney, 55, said a man forced his way into her apartment in Highland, threw her to the floor and then put her sister, Donna Carlyle, 47, in a choke hold. He demanded money as Carlyle gasped for air. 

“All I could see was Donna’s face going blue, like her life was being choked out of her,” said Keeney. 

The alleged intruder, 33, was being treated at a hospital Sunday for two gunshot wounds and was listed in critical condition, police said.

A gun can help a great-grandmother overpower two criminals.



A gun can even empower a little girl to defend herself from three criminals.



By the way, I freaking love that the gun she used to defend herself is pink!  Also, note that none of these women were particularly well trained.  Good training is always better, but the hoplophobes' (people with an irrational fear of armed citizens, i.e. gun grabbers) insistence that one has to be SWAT trained to successfully operate a gun in self defense is a lie (not that they'd let you own a gun even if you are "qualified").

But hoplophobes just don't see it that way.  They think you ladies simply don't possess the judgement necessary to even identify a threat, much less neutralize it with a gun.

It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.

Got that, ladies?  You're too stupid, flaky, paranoid and impulsive to be trusted with your own self defense.  That may come as a surprise to the following lady.

According to deputies, the woman says Sandoval grabbed a knife, put the knife to her chin and told her to take off her clothes. The woman told deputies she then reached under her pillow, grabbed a loaded gun and shot him. She fled from her home and called 911. 

Officials say Sandoval died at the scene.

Besides, according to "Liberal" blowhard, Bob Beckel, campus rape is a myth.



That might come as a surprise to Amanda Collins.

Amanda Collins is a young rape survivor. While in college in 2007, she was raped 50 feet away from the campus police department office at the University of Nevada-Reno and was lucky to get out alive. Her attacker was James Biela, a serial rapist who raped two other women and murdered another. He attacked her at gun point in a gun free zone. At the time of the attack, Collins was in possession of a concealed weapons permit but was not in possession of her firearm due to university policies prohibiting carrying concealed weapons on campus. She was also a second degree blackbelt at the time and walked to the parking garage with a large group of people. 

"If I had been carrying that night, two other rapes would have been prevented and a young life would have been saved...  I could see the police cruisers less than 50 feet away from me, from where I was being attacked but the moment I saw those cruisers, I knew at the same time that no one was coming for me....they were all off duty. The offices had closed. They weren't in their cruisers, there was no one there. A whistle wouldn't have gotten anybody's attention. It was isolated, it was late at night. It's really frustrating that I'm supposed to hand over my own protection to a man but they're not able to guarantee our protection and the comments that this representative made about women not knowing if they're going to be raped or accidentally shooting the wrong person was extremely offensive because he specifically targeted female students. So, is he saying that all women are unable to make sound decisions in the midst of that, that we should go against our God given gut instinct that something was wrong? I knew something was wrong the moment I was grabbed from behind." 

Red-tape and university policies led to this happening and empowered Biela while punishing Collins. 

"I was legislated into being a victim," Collins said.

Got that?  She was in a "gun-free", "safe zone" when serial rapist Biela raped her at gunpoint.  Boy, those "gun-free zones" sure prevent crime, don't they?  Just ask anyone in Chicago.

What advice would a hoplophobe give a potential rape victim on campus?

Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead!  It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
Remember, every emergency situation is different.  Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.  

Got that, ladies?  "Only you can decide which action is most appropriate", unless you decide using a gun is the most appropriate action to defend yourself, in which case, you're too mentally unstable to be trusted to make your own decisions.  Besides, urinating, defecating, menstruating, diseases and whistles are far superior defensive weapons than guns.  Everybody knows that.  Oh, and passive resistance, too.

A 36-year-old Miami mother of two was walking out of a restaurant Thursday when she was held up for her purse. CBS4 out of Miami reported even after she relinquished her bag, the robber still shot her in the face.

But those are just some morons in Colorado and an idiot on TV.  They don't represent "Liberals" in general, right?  Maybe they do.

“I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,’” Biden said. 

“You don’t need an AR-15—it’s harder to aim,” he added, “it’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!”

Not only is the VP's advice tactically unsound, it's illegal.

Garey said that under Biden's scenario, Jill Biden could be charged with aggravated menacing, a felony, and reckless endangering in the first degree.

But, more to the point of this blog post, the lady who asked him the question believes his answer was sexist.

“I think it was poor advice, and it comes off a little sexist,” Ernest added. “Like, ‘Let me tell you what you need’ versus, you know, ‘Arm yourself or protect yourself in a way that you feel necessary.’”

Here we go again.  Women just can't be trusted with an AR-15, which probably comes as a surprise to every woman who's ever served in the US Army and Marine Corps.  But, really, that's what it comes down to for all of us; "let me tell you what you need".  "Liberals" believe they know what you and I need better than you and I do.  What do you think?  Who knows better what you need; some politician somewhere, or you?

So, who's conducting the real "war on women"?  Nobody has the right to force anyone else to pay for their lifestyle choices, but unless a person has voluntarily relinquished their rights by committing a crime, every human being has the right to defend themselves.  "Liberals" want to take away a woman's best self defense tool, thereby violating her right to defend herself, thereby empowering anyone who wants to violate her.

"Liberals" are conducting the real war on women.

Gun Crimes Increase 89% in UK

How's that "gun control" working out for the UK?

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year  -  a rise of 89 per cent.  

In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.  

In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled. 

The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place. 

How can that be?  How could gun violence and "the carrying of a firearm" "become increasingly common place" in a country that declared itself a "gun-free zone"?  Isn't that what "gun control" is supposed to prevent?

At the same time, violent crime has dropped steadily in the US since its peak in 1991.  As I wrote recently...

the murder rate in the US was far lower in 2011 at 4.7/100,000 than its 1991 peak of 9.8/100,000.  

In other words, murder rates have decreased steadily since 1991, even though gun sales increased.

Still, there are millions of Americans who don't get it, and do things like make schools "gun free zones".  How's that working out?

Dressed in black fatigues and a military vest, a heavily armed man walked into a Connecticut elementary school Friday and opened fire, shattering the quiet of this southern New England town and leaving the nation reeling at the number of young lives lost. 

Within minutes, 26 people were dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School -- 20 of them children. Among the six adults killed were Dawn Hochsprung, the school's beloved principal, and school psychologist Mary Sherlach.

Once again, an evil, depraved person broke the law (surprise!) and took loaded guns into a "gun-free zone" and killed his defenseless victims at will and with zero opposition.

Young students described being ushered into bathrooms and closets by teachers as the first shots rang out. Janet Vollmer, a kindergarten teacher, locked her classroom doors, covered the windows and read a story to her 19 students to keep them calm.  

What if the government hadn't violated those teachers' Second Amendment rights?  What if at least one teacher had the ability to fight back?  How many of the people who are now dead would still be alive?

Glenn Reynolds highlights the insanity of "gun-free zone"-thinking.

"After a shooting spree," author William Burroughs once said, "they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it."

There are a lot of problems with this approach, but one of the most significant is this one: It doesn't work. One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are banned: malls, schools, etc. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well. 

In a way, this is no surprise. If there's someone present with a gun when a mass shooting begins, the shooter is likely to be shot himself. And, in fact, many mass shootings — from the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., where an armed volunteer shot the attacker — have been terminated when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter. 

Policies making areas "gun free" provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren't stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it's the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law.

 Gosh.  Maybe "gun control" has nothing to do with preventing crime!

UPDATE: Psychiatrist, Dr. Keith Ablow, writes... 

One other thing:  Those who call for gun control after incidents like this contribute nothing to the solution.  Gunmen like Friday’s plan their actions, right down to wearing military garb.  They could certainly procure illegal firearms or use incendiary devices to kill.  I only wish the kindergarten teacher and principal in Connecticut had been armed.

I suspect that those who call for gun control after incidents like this don't actually want solutions.

Nobody Needs Assault Rifles (Until They Do)

One of the arguments that anti-2nd-Amendment hoplophobes is that civilians simply don't need assault rifles, therefore they should be illegal.  What weapon, then, is best suited to defend ones family when multiple assailants violate ones home or business?

AR-15 with 30-round magazine

Stephen Bayazes Jr., 57, who lives in an attached apartment in the rear of the business with his wife, said he awoke to a loud bang and the silent store alarm going off.

Police said he got out of bed, grabbed his AR-15 weapon and found three men inside the store.

The men crashed a vehicle into the business and were smashing display cases and taking guns when he said he heard one of the men shout, “kill that (expletive deleted ).”

He told investigators he emptied a .223-caliber 30-round magazine and then retreated to his room to reload.

When he returned, he said he saw the vehicle pulling out from the business.

Note that Mr Bayazes used an entire 30-round magazine, then went back for more.  If anti-2nd-Amendment types had their way, Mr Bayazes - at best - would have been limited to a 10-round magazine.  At worst, they wouldn't allow him a gun at all, which would render him defenceless.

But because anti-2nd-Amendment types didn't have their way, the outcome was very different.

Mr Bayazes' store after the robery

The Aiken County Sheriff’s Office says Eddie Stewart and Franklin Robinson will be charged with burglary 1st, grand larceny and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. Both suspects are still in the hospital and will be taken into custody once they are released.

The Aiken County coroner says the third suspect, 20-year-old K’Raven Goodwin of Eastover, S.C., died from multiple gunshot wounds on Thursday morning.

The whole altercation took but one minute, he said. The burglars escaped with roughly 50 guns that night, however all of them have been returned safely.

But that only happened because Mr Bayazes owns a gun store, right?  If we just made guns illegal, assaults by multiple criminals simply wouldn't happen, right?

A second suspect in the attack on a Tulsa minister was arrested Tuesday night, Tulsa police said.

Markedrik Delmar Wilson, 26, was arrested about 8:40 p.m. after a witness identified him as one of five men who forced their way into the Rev. Kenneth Brooks' home in the 2700 block of North Denver Avenue shortly before 2 a.m. Tuesday, according to police and reports.

......

Five men accused of a home invasion in Wareham where two women say they were raped are now facing Superior Court charges.

Brian Santiago, 20; Justin J. Gomes, Jr., 17; Robert J. Brown, Jr., 18; Jordan J. Gomes, 21 and Kendrick O. Williams, 19 were indicted by a Plymouth County grand jury on Friday in Brockton Superior Court.

All five are charged with four counts of masked armed robbery and one count of armed home invasion. Santiago and Gomes are charged with aggravated rape and Williams is being charged with unlawful possession of a firearm without an FID card.

......

The violence incident unfolded about 1:45 a.m., when a group of four or five men broke into a at near the intersection of Elmwood and Ashland avenues, police said. At least one of the intruders was armed with a handgun.

Four people were inside the home at the time and one of the residents was pistol-whipped, police said.

There are many more such cases.

Have you considered this four-man home invasion in Philadelphia?  Or how about this three-man home invasion in Charlotte, North Carolina?  Or this three-man home invasion in Franklin Country, Alabama?  Or this three-man home invasion in Pawtucket?

There is no better weapon than an assault rifle with which to defend ones family in such a situation, because that is exactly what those weapons are designed to do; defend against multiple assailants at close-to-medium range.  Those who wish to ban such firearms, wish to deprive law-abiding people of the right to defend themselves and their families.  Period.

Finally, anti-2nd-Amendment hoplophobes fail - over and over again - to prove that banning any firearms at all - including assault rifles - reduces crime.  In fact, although sales of such firearms continue to rise, murder rates continue to fall.  The hoplophobes know this.  But their motivation was never to reduce crime.  Their motivation is to exert greater power over their fellow Americans.

Which States Are Best for Jobs?

With thanks to Keith Bloom.

Federalism is part of the genius of the Constitution, which gives the federal government very clear, limited powers, and leaves all other "rights and powers" in the hands of "the people and the various states".  All states face similar problems; crime, unemployment, natural disasters, etc.  But each state devises different solutions to those problems.  Some work better than others.  Some are worse than the problems they're supposed to fix.

When one states' solution works well, other states follow suit, although usually with local variations.  When a solution fails miserably, the smart states learn from their neighbors' mistakes and stay away.  States are also more responsive to their residents than is the federal government, mostly because they have fewer people to please. 

Finally, if a person is unhappy with his/her state, at worst they can move to a state they think does things better, which is a whole lot easier than moving to another country.  Trust me.  I've done both.

And that is what makes Federalism work; competition between states. 

One area in which states compete is the job market.  Some states make it easier than others for businesses to create jobs, which means more businesses move to those states, which means more people move to those states looking for work.  Which states make it easiest for businesses to create jobs?



40% of the US population created 75% of new jobs.

 Since the recession ended in June 2009, almost three out of every four jobs added to U.S. payrolls have been in Right to Work states (1.86 million out of 2.59 million), even though those 22 states represent only 38.8% of the U.S. population (120 million).  In contrast, only about one of every four new jobs were created in forced-unionism states (730,000), even though more than 61% of Americans live in those 28 states (189 million).  Relative to their population, the Right to Work states have been job-creating powerhouses during the recovery, and forced union states haven’t even come close to “carrying their weight” in terms of their share of the population.  Adjusting for differences in population, Right to Work states created four new jobs for every one job added in forced union states, because those 21 RTW states created 2.54 times more jobs even though forced union states have 1.6 times as many people.

That means that, since June 2009, 40% of the population created about 75% of the new jobs in the US.  So, which are these right-to-work, job-creating power houses?

States with right-to-work laws, and forced union membership laws.

You know what?  That map looks kind of familiar.  It looks a lot like the map of...

States with Republican (red) and Democrat (blue) governors since 2010.

But what about state legislatures?

State legislatures by political party

So, is there a correlation between a business-friendly climate and job growth?  If so, which party's policies lead to the most job growth?  Judge for yourself.

Here are the top 20 most-friendly business states according to CNBC:

1.Texas
2.Utah
3.Virginia
4.North Carolina
5.North Dakota
6.Nebraska
7.South Dakota
8.Colorado
9.Georgia
10.Wyoming
11.Minnesota
12.Iowa
13.Idaho
14.Indiana
15.Kansas
16.Tennessee
17.Wisconsin
18.Oregon
19.New Hampshire
20.Arkansas

So, naturally, American voters elected a president with a similar pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda, right?  Not really.

President Obama, speaking at an AFL-CIO conference in April this year, “I believe when folks try to take collective bargaining rights away by passing so-called right-to-work laws, which might also be called ‘right-to-work for less’ laws, that’s not about economics, that’s about politics.”

 Is it any wonder the US economy has been stagnant since 2009?  Pres Obama should thank all those Republican governors and legislators, because without them, he'd have no "jobs created or saved" to brag about.

Ronald Reagan said that "the best social program is a job".  He was absolutely right.  Government welfare programs don't lift people out of poverty.  Jobs do.  Businesses create jobs.  Demonizing businesses and weighing the down with excessive regulation and taxation doesn't work.

But Republican-led states demonstrate what does.

War Plans for Mali

Shhhh.... Nobody tell Obama voters, but the war he got us into in Libya (illegally, without Congressional approval) caused another war in Mali.  And now he plans to get us into that one as well.

Military planners from Africa, the United Nations and Europe in Mali’s capital Bamako last week drew up a battle plan that would involve a foreign force of more than 4,000 personnel, mostly from West African countries. It remains unclear how much of the force would come from Western nations.

Also, don't tell Obama voters that these are "imperialist wars for oil".

In Libya there’s an argument to be made that even though the United States ‘led from behind’ we were nevertheless used by French oil interests among others to increase French prestige and power in the neighborhood. The French are very good at getting other people to do their dirty jobs for them. Mali is part of France’s ghost empire in Africa; there’s a case to be made for remaining well in the rear and not even leading.

I thought Pres Obama was supposed to be the peace president.

It's almost as if Obama voters' "anti-war" stance was really just an anti-Republican stance.  Nah... that's just cynical!

Steal From the Poor, Give to the Rich

Big government often passes itself off as a kind of Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to give to the poor, but in practice, it often works the other way around.

As a part-owner of the New Jersey Nets basketball team, Jay Z profited at taxpayer expense when the state of New York abused its eminent domain powers to seize privately-owned homes and business and then handed that land over to fellow Nets owner and real estate tycoon Bruce Ratner, who built a new arena for the Nets to call home in Brooklyn.

Oh, and Jay Z endorsed Pres Obama.

But that shouldn't be surprising, since most wealthy people vote Democrat.

UPDATE (08NOV12): Pres Obama won eight of the ten wealthiest counties.

In an election that often focused on debates about class warfare, President Barack Obama was favored over multimillionaire businessman Mitt Romney in eight of the nation's 10 wealthiest counties.

And his margin of victory in all eight counties was greater than that of the national vote, in which Obama was leading by 50 percent to 48 percent with 97 percent of precincts reporting.

The findings are based on a CNBC.com analysis of Census Bureau numbers on average annual household income from 2006-2011 and results from Tuesday's elections.

Which is the "party of the rich"?

It Ain't Stealing When Government Does It

So you think government can't take your property without first convicting you of a crime?  Think again.

The federal government wants to seize the Motel Caswell, owned and operated for the past 30 years by Russ Caswell and his wife, because a tiny fraction (.05 percent) of the people who stayed at the motel between 2001 and 2008 were arrested for drug crimes on the property. Local and state authorities who investigated those crimes have never accused the Caswells of any wrongdoing.

If the government succeeds in taking the Caswell's business from them, the bounty from the forfeiture would be split among the very law enforcement agencies attempting to take the property through a program called "equitable sharing," in which the local agency would get 80 percent of the proceeds and the federal government would keep the rest; the Caswells, who have worked their entire adult lives to build and grow this business and who are relying on this business for their retirement, would end up with nothing.

But that's OK, because they didn't build that.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

But, seriously, you know what seems "equitable" to me?  If the Caswells get to keep their entire business, and government bureaucrats keep their greedy paws off it.

This money could be used to pad the budget of the police department, thus giving it a direct financial incentive not to pursue justice, but rather to "police for profit," which is exactly what is going on in the Caswell case. The civil forfeiture action against Caswell family is one of the most outrageous demonstrations of the abuse of forfeiture nationwide.

"Civil forfeiture treats innocent property owners like the Caswells worse than criminals," said Larry Salzman, an IJ attorney on the case. "Criminals must be proven guilty before their property is taken, but once the government targets a property for forfeiture an owner must prove himself innocent to get it back: This turns the American idea that you're innocent until proven guilty on its head and is one of the main perversions of the legal system we're fighting against in this case."

 One would think that this would be a clear-cut, slam-dunk case.  After all, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution states...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

And the 5th Amendment states...

No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Pretty straight-forward, right?  Yes... if, and only if, one uses logic, reason and common sense; all of which are rare in any large bureaucracy.  And government is the biggest bureaucracy of all.