https://cached-assets.patriotpost.us/images/2015-10-07-acf66d22_large.png" width="454" height="227" />
by Jordan Candler:  It was just a few weeks ago when Equifax finally came clean about a staggering security breach that imperiled the data of some 145 million Americans. Earlier this year, hackers infiltrated the company’s database and retrieved troves of intimate consumer data, including Social Security and credit card numbers. Security breaches happen, but this case was particularly infuriating due to some company officials’ lackluster — perhaps even criminal — response and the preventable way in which the breach occurred.

          Another agency that retains some of your most personal information is the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS isn’t exactly trustworthy either, as demonstrated through the actions of Lois Lerner, who walked away with impunity after targeting conservative groups. The last thing consumers and taxpayers want these two agencies doing in teaming up. So guess what? That’s exactly what they’re doing. What could possibly go wrong?
          On Sept. 29, the IRS awarded a $7.25 million contract “to establish an order for third party data services from Equifax to verify taxpayer identity and to assist in ongoing identity verification and validations needs of the Service.” How ironic — and damning — it will be when some untold number of IRS applications are flagged for fraud by Equifax due to the leaking of information … by Equifax. At this point it’s basically inevitable.
          According to Fox News, “The contract stated that Equifax was the only company capable of providing these services to the IRS, and it was deemed a ‘critical’ service that couldn’t lapse.” That may or may not be true. But as Rep. Early Blumenauer made very clear, “I am shocked that the IRS would contract with this firm for activities that they are clearly unfit to carry out.” The agencies are either tone-deaf or perverse — or both. Hardly surprising — but nonetheless exasperating — coming from such contemptuous agencies.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51696

by Jordan Candler:  It was just a few weeks ago when Equifax finally came clean about a staggering security breach that imperiled the data of some 145 million Americans. Earlier this year, hackers infiltrated the company’s database and retrieved troves of intimate consumer data, including Social Security and credit card numbers. Security breaches happen, but this case was particularly infuriating due to some company officials’ lackluster — perhaps even criminal — response and the preventable way in which the breach occurred.

          Another agency that retains some of your most personal information is the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS isn’t exactly trustworthy either, as demonstrated through the actions of Lois Lerner, who walked away with impunity after targeting conservative groups. The last thing consumers and taxpayers want these two agencies doing in teaming up. So guess what? That’s exactly what they’re doing. What could possibly go wrong?
          On Sept. 29, the IRS awarded a $7.25 million contract “to establish an order for third party data services from Equifax to verify taxpayer identity and to assist in ongoing identity verification and validations needs of the Service.” How ironic — and damning — it will be when some untold number of IRS applications are flagged for fraud by Equifax due to the leaking of information … by Equifax. At this point it’s basically inevitable.
          According to Fox News, “The contract stated that Equifax was the only company capable of providing these services to the IRS, and it was deemed a ‘critical’ service that couldn’t lapse.” That may or may not be true. But as Rep. Early Blumenauer made very clear, “I am shocked that the IRS would contract with this firm for activities that they are clearly unfit to carry out.” The agencies are either tone-deaf or perverse — or both. Hardly surprising — but nonetheless exasperating — coming from such contemptuous agencies.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51696

by Political Editors:  As the investigation into Las Vegas mass murderer Stephen Paddock continues, authorities have yet to determine his motivation. This fact hasn’t stopped Democrats, leftist celebrities and the anti-gun lobby from laying the blame on America’s “gun culture” and specifically the National Rifle Association. Thursday evening, NRA executive director Chris Cox responded in an interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, calling for Americans to have an honest conversation about what problems motivate murderous actions like those seen in Las Vegas.

          Cox noted that Paddock was not a NRA member, but that NRA members were murdered and wounded in his shooting rampage. He emphasized that the NRA exists “so that good honest people aren’t left defenseless.” He also pointed to a simple fact: “Gun control is a failed policy. And it’s safe to say that it doesn’t keep people safe.”
          In what was his most poignant defense of the NRA, Cox said, “The NRA spends millions of dollars each year teaching safe and responsible gun ownership, and Hollywood makes billions promoting and glorifying gun violence. And then the same hypocrites come in and say that we’re to blame for this.”
          Carlson then asked him specifically about “bump stocks” and whether the NRA was calling for them to be banned. Cox responded, “Barack liar-nObama’s administration approved the sale of bump stocks and these other devices. What we have said is that the ATF needs to do their job. ATF needs to look and if there is technology that has come to the market that allows a semi-automatic rifle to function as a fully automatic rifle they need to be regulated differently. We didn’t talk about banning anything, we talked about ATF going back and reviewing whether or not these are in compliance with federal law. And if not let’s look at working together and figuring out a way to address this moving forward.”
          Cox closed by once again emphasizing the need for honesty. “We need to have a broader conversation about a violent culture and what’s happened with gratuitous violence out of Hollywood; what’s happened with prescription drugs. Being honest with one another that if we’ve tried something and it’s failed it’s time to move on.”
          Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Nancy Pulosi (D-CA) yesterday hinted at exactly why the NRA exists — to defend our first civil right. In calling for Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) to schedule a vote on a Democrat bill that would ban bump stocks, Pulosi was asked if she viewed this bill as a potential slippery slope toward further gun restrictions. She replied, “I certainly hope so.”  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51712

https://cached-assets.patriotpost.us/images/2017-10-06-4e57523f_large.jpg" width="454" height="227" />
by Michael Swartz:  As is their practice after a shooting with casualties on a mass scale, leftists are blaming the guns for the behavior of a man who obviously lost sight of the commandment, “You shall not murder.” And while we mourn the victims, the mainstream media seems preoccupied with the possibility of multiple shooters and the need to ban “bump stocks.” Many folks have also lost sight of the big picture: Statistically, we’re at far greater risk in a hospital than at a public concert like Sunday night’s Route 91 Harvest festival in Las Vegas.

          One statistician, in fact, concluded that the gun control measures being proposed would be rather ineffective in addressing the problem. Leah Libresco, who is described by The Washington Post as “a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site,” came to this realization as part of a large effort by her former employer — something FiveThirtyEight reminded us of this week — to analyze all 33,000 deaths by firearm in a particular year. She makes the case that “bump stocks,” bans on so-called “assault rifles,” and even gun buybacks would do little good when the largest portions of gun deaths involve their usage as “suicide machines” or as a method for young gangbangers to settle scores.
          “But, but,” stammers the Left, “look at how little gun violence there is in Australia — a place where certain types of guns were confiscated under penalty of law two decades ago after their own mass shooting.” While it’s true that no significant mass shootings have since occurred in Australia, a 2016 study by three Australian researchers found the data was inconclusive regarding the effects of the gun buyback: “Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.”
          Moreover, as Corey Iacono of the Foundation for Economic Education points out, another study that used the adjacent island nation of New Zealand — where there are fewer restrictions on guns — as a control found that both had roughly the same decline in mass shootings. “Gun control advocates have built their entire case about Australian gun control on lazy data analysis, or perhaps no data analysis at all,” argues Iacono. “If anything, Australia proves the complete opposite of what advocates of gun control want.”
          He added, “A national gun confiscation scheme which reduced the civilian firearm stock by an astounding twenty percent and nobody can seem to find any clear evidence it caused a meaningful effect on the firearm murder rate? That’s not only embarrassing, it goes against everything they believe about the nature of the relationship between guns and murder rates.”
          Then, when we consider this longstanding fact that more guns have yielded less crime, leftists’ case really begins to unravel. Not that they’ll stop shouting from the rooftops about it anyway — their newest cause is to repeal the Second Amendment. Our response? Molon labe.
          The leftist viewpoint — shared, apparently, by the New York Times’ token “conservative,” Bret Stephens — doesn’t come close to meeting the smell test. Stephens’ anti-gun prejudices lead him to use faulty numbers, including counting five years’ worth of murder statistics to give himself a number that finally exceeds the annual toll in auto accidents. Even at this emotion-driven moment, this is all the gun-grabbers have.
          Should we remind them yet again that stridently anti-gun Europe, whose elites would love to see our pesky Second Amendment consigned to the dustbin of history, suffers more mass shootings on a statistical basis than the U.S. does? Europe’s restrictions don’t allow a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with one. As we often point out, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Stephen Paddock reportedly spent about 11 minutes firing at the crowd before a security guard finally made it to his room. Local police were even further behind.
          In the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, Congress will certainly feel pressured to “do something,” with the most likely outcome a feel-good ban on bump stocks. Even the NRA doesn’t have a problem considering that, and a Republican lawmaker already has the bill set to go.
          Despite the statistics that have shown a trend toward more security, our government cannot make us perfectly safe — though armed citizens certainly have made us safer. Even if the government took away all the so-called “assault weapons,” deranged individuals bent on causing mass casualties would find a way to do so. One need look no further than the 85 people mowed down last year by a jihadi with a truck in Nice, France.
          Incidents like these are a problem of evil. Instead of debating the repeal of the Second Amendment — which was, after all, placed in the Bill of Rights as a check against a tyrannical government having all the firepower — we should be discussing the lack of self-control that our culture seems to encourage. There are still many laws on the books that extend the command of “you shall not murder,” and perhaps the first order of business should be to restore a much-needed respect for life.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51717

https://cached-assets.patriotpost.us/images/2017-10-06-4e57523f_large.jpg" width="454" height="227" />
by Michael Swartz:  As is their practice after a shooting with casualties on a mass scale, leftists are blaming the guns for the behavior of a man who obviously lost sight of the commandment, “You shall not murder.” And while we mourn the victims, the mainstream media seems preoccupied with the possibility of multiple shooters and the need to ban “bump stocks.” Many folks have also lost sight of the big picture: Statistically, we’re at far greater risk in a hospital than at a public concert like Sunday night’s Route 91 Harvest festival in Las Vegas.

          One statistician, in fact, concluded that the gun control measures being proposed would be rather ineffective in addressing the problem. Leah Libresco, who is described by The Washington Post as “a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site,” came to this realization as part of a large effort by her former employer — something FiveThirtyEight reminded us of this week — to analyze all 33,000 deaths by firearm in a particular year. She makes the case that “bump stocks,” bans on so-called “assault rifles,” and even gun buybacks would do little good when the largest portions of gun deaths involve their usage as “suicide machines” or as a method for young gangbangers to settle scores.
          “But, but,” stammers the Left, “look at how little gun violence there is in Australia — a place where certain types of guns were confiscated under penalty of law two decades ago after their own mass shooting.” While it’s true that no significant mass shootings have since occurred in Australia, a 2016 study by three Australian researchers found the data was inconclusive regarding the effects of the gun buyback: “Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.”
          Moreover, as Corey Iacono of the Foundation for Economic Education points out, another study that used the adjacent island nation of New Zealand — where there are fewer restrictions on guns — as a control found that both had roughly the same decline in mass shootings. “Gun control advocates have built their entire case about Australian gun control on lazy data analysis, or perhaps no data analysis at all,” argues Iacono. “If anything, Australia proves the complete opposite of what advocates of gun control want.”
          He added, “A national gun confiscation scheme which reduced the civilian firearm stock by an astounding twenty percent and nobody can seem to find any clear evidence it caused a meaningful effect on the firearm murder rate? That’s not only embarrassing, it goes against everything they believe about the nature of the relationship between guns and murder rates.”
          Then, when we consider this longstanding fact that more guns have yielded less crime, leftists’ case really begins to unravel. Not that they’ll stop shouting from the rooftops about it anyway — their newest cause is to repeal the Second Amendment. Our response? Molon labe.
          The leftist viewpoint — shared, apparently, by the New York Times’ token “conservative,” Bret Stephens — doesn’t come close to meeting the smell test. Stephens’ anti-gun prejudices lead him to use faulty numbers, including counting five years’ worth of murder statistics to give himself a number that finally exceeds the annual toll in auto accidents. Even at this emotion-driven moment, this is all the gun-grabbers have.
          Should we remind them yet again that stridently anti-gun Europe, whose elites would love to see our pesky Second Amendment consigned to the dustbin of history, suffers more mass shootings on a statistical basis than the U.S. does? Europe’s restrictions don’t allow a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with one. As we often point out, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Stephen Paddock reportedly spent about 11 minutes firing at the crowd before a security guard finally made it to his room. Local police were even further behind.
          In the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, Congress will certainly feel pressured to “do something,” with the most likely outcome a feel-good ban on bump stocks. Even the NRA doesn’t have a problem considering that, and a Republican lawmaker already has the bill set to go.
          Despite the statistics that have shown a trend toward more security, our government cannot make us perfectly safe — though armed citizens certainly have made us safer. Even if the government took away all the so-called “assault weapons,” deranged individuals bent on causing mass casualties would find a way to do so. One need look no further than the 85 people mowed down last year by a jihadi with a truck in Nice, France.
          Incidents like these are a problem of evil. Instead of debating the repeal of the Second Amendment — which was, after all, placed in the Bill of Rights as a check against a tyrannical government having all the firepower — we should be discussing the lack of self-control that our culture seems to encourage. There are still many laws on the books that extend the command of “you shall not murder,” and perhaps the first order of business should be to restore a much-needed respect for life.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51717

by Michael Swartz:  As is their practice after a shooting with casualties on a mass scale, leftists are blaming the guns for the behavior of a man who obviously lost sight of the commandment, “You shall not murder.” And while we mourn the victims, the mainstream media seems preoccupied with the possibility of multiple shooters and the need to ban “bump stocks.” Many folks have also lost sight of the big picture: Statistically, we’re at far greater risk in a hospital than at a public concert like Sunday night’s Route 91 Harvest festival in Las Vegas.

          One statistician, in fact, concluded that the gun control measures being proposed would be rather ineffective in addressing the problem. Leah Libresco, who is described by The Washington Post as “a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site,” came to this realization as part of a large effort by her former employer — something FiveThirtyEight reminded us of this week — to analyze all 33,000 deaths by firearm in a particular year. She makes the case that “bump stocks,” bans on so-called “assault rifles,” and even gun buybacks would do little good when the largest portions of gun deaths involve their usage as “suicide machines” or as a method for young gangbangers to settle scores.
          “But, but,” stammers the Left, “look at how little gun violence there is in Australia — a place where certain types of guns were confiscated under penalty of law two decades ago after their own mass shooting.” While it’s true that no significant mass shootings have since occurred in Australia, a 2016 study by three Australian researchers found the data was inconclusive regarding the effects of the gun buyback: “Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.”
          Moreover, as Corey Iacono of the Foundation for Economic Education points out, another study that used the adjacent island nation of New Zealand — where there are fewer restrictions on guns — as a control found that both had roughly the same decline in mass shootings. “Gun control advocates have built their entire case about Australian gun control on lazy data analysis, or perhaps no data analysis at all,” argues Iacono. “If anything, Australia proves the complete opposite of what advocates of gun control want.”
          He added, “A national gun confiscation scheme which reduced the civilian firearm stock by an astounding twenty percent and nobody can seem to find any clear evidence it caused a meaningful effect on the firearm murder rate? That’s not only embarrassing, it goes against everything they believe about the nature of the relationship between guns and murder rates.”
          Then, when we consider this longstanding fact that more guns have yielded less crime, leftists’ case really begins to unravel. Not that they’ll stop shouting from the rooftops about it anyway — their newest cause is to repeal the Second Amendment. Our response? Molon labe.
          The leftist viewpoint — shared, apparently, by the New York Times’ token “conservative,” Bret Stephens — doesn’t come close to meeting the smell test. Stephens’ anti-gun prejudices lead him to use faulty numbers, including counting five years’ worth of murder statistics to give himself a number that finally exceeds the annual toll in auto accidents. Even at this emotion-driven moment, this is all the gun-grabbers have.
          Should we remind them yet again that stridently anti-gun Europe, whose elites would love to see our pesky Second Amendment consigned to the dustbin of history, suffers more mass shootings on a statistical basis than the U.S. does? Europe’s restrictions don’t allow a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with one. As we often point out, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Stephen Paddock reportedly spent about 11 minutes firing at the crowd before a security guard finally made it to his room. Local police were even further behind.
          In the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, Congress will certainly feel pressured to “do something,” with the most likely outcome a feel-good ban on bump stocks. Even the NRA doesn’t have a problem considering that, and a Republican lawmaker already has the bill set to go.
          Despite the statistics that have shown a trend toward more security, our government cannot make us perfectly safe — though armed citizens certainly have made us safer. Even if the government took away all the so-called “assault weapons,” deranged individuals bent on causing mass casualties would find a way to do so. One need look no further than the 85 people mowed down last year by a jihadi with a truck in Nice, France.
          Incidents like these are a problem of evil. Instead of debating the repeal of the Second Amendment — which was, after all, placed in the Bill of Rights as a check against a tyrannical government having all the firepower — we should be discussing the lack of self-control that our culture seems to encourage. There are still many laws on the books that extend the command of “you shall not murder,” and perhaps the first order of business should be to restore a much-needed respect for life.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51717

https://cached-assets.patriotpost.us/images/2015-12-07-749f5422_large.jpg" width="454" height="227" />
by Nate Jackson:  Until leftists are willing to admit that they want to repeal the Second Amendment, there’s little point to their yammering about gun control after the massacre in Las Vegas. So in a way it’s refreshing to see documentarian Michael Moore’s pathetic attempt at relevance in his call for a 28th Amendment to heavily regulate gun ownership and “repeal the ancient and outdated 2nd Amendment.” At least he’s being honest about his intentions. (To be fair, so is The New York Times’ token “conservative,” Bret Stephens.)

          His proposed amendment reads: “A well regulated State National Guard, being helpful to the safety and security of a State in times of need, along with the strictly regulated right of the people to keep and bear a limited number of non-automatic Arms for sport and hunting, with respect to the primary right of all people to be free from gun violence, this shall not be infringed.” That just spells out more clearly how leftists already misinterpret the Second Amendment.
          Moore’s further ideas include banning all automatic and semiautomatic guns, limiting magazine capacity to six, forcing men to obtain waivers from the significant woman (or man) in their lives in order to purchase guns, requiring “smart” guns that fire only for the registered owner and mandating storage of the few remaining guns in a “licensed gun club or government-regulated storage facility.”
          We’d be outraged if Moore’s proposal wasn’t such a sad joke. Let’s say just for the sake of argument he succeeded in passing his amendment — what then? Confiscation. Otherwise, his new amendment is a dead letter. Why is it that deporting a few million illegal aliens is impossible but confiscating 300 million guns is just within reach? More pointedly, is he proposing to send armed government agents to confiscate all 300 million firearms in America? If so, they would collect the ammo first, if you know what we mean. Is “doing something” to stop the next murder worth a civil war?
          It’s quite ironic that Moore has described President Donald Trump as an “authoritarian” and a “fascist” and yet is apparently calling for Trump’s government to have the power to take away the God-given and constitutional right of the people to defend themselves against tyranny.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51672

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c90bfe8bc4613f3a727efe339/images/c50_bar.jpg" />

by Nate Jackson:  Until leftists are willing to admit that they want to repeal the Second Amendment, there’s little point to their yammering about gun control after the massacre in Las Vegas. So in a way it’s refreshing to see documentarian Michael Moore’s pathetic attempt at relevance in his call for a 28th Amendment to heavily regulate gun ownership and “repeal the ancient and outdated 2nd Amendment.” At least he’s being honest about his intentions. (To be fair, so is The New York Times’ token “conservative,” Bret Stephens.)

          His proposed amendment reads: “A well regulated State National Guard, being helpful to the safety and security of a State in times of need, along with the strictly regulated right of the people to keep and bear a limited number of non-automatic Arms for sport and hunting, with respect to the primary right of all people to be free from gun violence, this shall not be infringed.” That just spells out more clearly how leftists already misinterpret the Second Amendment.
          Moore’s further ideas include banning all automatic and semiautomatic guns, limiting magazine capacity to six, forcing men to obtain waivers from the significant woman (or man) in their lives in order to purchase guns, requiring “smart” guns that fire only for the registered owner and mandating storage of the few remaining guns in a “licensed gun club or government-regulated storage facility.”
          We’d be outraged if Moore’s proposal wasn’t such a sad joke. Let’s say just for the sake of argument he succeeded in passing his amendment — what then? Confiscation. Otherwise, his new amendment is a dead letter. Why is it that deporting a few million illegal aliens is impossible but confiscating 300 million guns is just within reach? More pointedly, is he proposing to send armed government agents to confiscate all 300 million firearms in America? If so, they would collect the ammo first, if you know what we mean. Is “doing something” to stop the next murder worth a civil war?
          It’s quite ironic that Moore has described President Donald Trump as an “authoritarian” and a “fascist” and yet is apparently calling for Trump’s government to have the power to take away the God-given and constitutional right of the people to defend themselves against tyranny.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51672

The Jazz Singer: 

Ninety years of talking pictures

It became very necessary that I should impress a certain young lady. I had a date with her for a certain evening. I wanted to show her the best time to be had in the town of Champaign, Illinois. I borrowed ten dollars and bought two tickets for the one-night performance of Al Jolson in Robinson Crusoe Jr.

I shall never forget the first five minutes of Jolson-his velocity, the amazing fluidity with which he shifted from a tremendous absorption in his song. I still remember the song, 'Where the Black-Eyed Susans Grow...' That figure in blackface, kneeling at the end of a runway which projected him into the heart of his audience, flinging out his white-gloved hands, was embracing that audience with a prayer-an evangelical moan-a tortured, imperious call that hurtled through the house...

My G0D, this isn't a jazz singer. This is a cantor!

In every living soul, a spirit cries for expression - perhaps this plaintive, wailing song of Jazz is, after all, the misunderstood utterance of a prayer.

In a saloon, who do you think I saw singing raggy time songs?

I'll teach him better than to debase the voice God gave him... First he will get a whipping.

Diamonds! With stones in it! You didn't do any wrong, did you, Jakie?

Mama, you ain't heard nothing yet!

There is one moment in The Jazz Singer that is fraught with tremendous significance. Al Jolson, appearing as a Jewish youth, returns to his old home after years of wandering around the Pantages circuit. His strictly orthodox father has disowned him because he chose to sing mammy songs in music halls rather than chants in the synagogue; his mother, however, welcomes the prodigal with open arms. Al sits down at the piano and sings 'Blue Sky' [sic] for his mother. Thanks to the Vitaphone attachment, his marvelous voice rings out from the screen, the sound agreeing perfectly with the movements of his mobile lips, the wriggling of his shoulders, the nervous tapping of his feet. After the song, there is a brief bit of spoken dialogue, and then Al bursts into 'Blue Sky' again. When he is halfway through the chorus, his father enters the room, realizes that his house is being profaned with jazz, and shouts 'Stop!'

At this point the Vitaphone withdraws and The Jazz Singer returns to a routine of pantomime punctuated with sub-titles... I for one suddenly realized that the end of silent drama is in sight.

Would you be the first Rabinowitz in five generations to fail your God?

We in the show business have our religion, too - on every day, the show must go on!

by Mark Alexander:  According to Pew Research crime data, the rate of violent crime dropped almost 50% in the decade up to 2015. At the same time, the rate of firearm sales and ownership has steadily increased. Thus, as research by former Yale professor John Lott concludes, “More Guns, Less Crime.”

          Notably, however, the latest FBI crime stats indicate that violent crime in 2015 and 2016 is trending upward, due in large measure to the “Ferguson Effect,” a correlation noted by crime researcher Heather Mac Donald, who authored “Are Cops Racist?”
          After the justified shooting of a Ferguson, Missouri, thug, national and local Demo politicians joined Barack liar-nObama’s war on cops, condemning police for “racial profiling.”
          Mac Donald explains, “Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened. Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by.”
          After the Baltimore riots in 2015, Mac Donald wrote about rising crime: “The most plausible explanation of the current surge in lawlessness is the intense agitation against American police departments over the past nine months. Since last summer, the airwaves have been dominated by suggestions that the police are the biggest threat facing young black males today. A handful of highly publicized deaths of unarmed black men, often following a resisted arrest — including Eric Garner in Staten Island, N.Y., in July 2014, Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in August 2014 and Freddie Gray in Baltimore last month — have led to riots, violent protests and attacks on the police. Murders of officers jumped 89% in 2014, to 51 from 27.”
          She continued, “liar-nObama and Attorney General Eric Holder … embraced the conceit that law enforcement in black communities is infected by bias. The news media pump out a seemingly constant stream of stories about alleged police mistreatment of blacks, with the reports often buttressed by cellphone videos that rarely capture the behavior that caused an officer to use force. … Acquittals of police officers for the use of deadly force against black suspects are now automatically presented as a miscarriage of justice. Proposals aimed at producing more cop convictions abound.”
          Of course, now NFL celebrity athletes are taking a knee to protest and promote this fake injustice — a protest started by former San Francisco quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who recently donated funds to honor a cop-killer.
          Professor Walter Williams observes that the issue should be intra-racial homicide — black-on-black murders. But as I have noted previously, that doesn’t fit the Democrats’ race-bait political agenda constituent narrative.
          Attorney General Jeff Sessions previously voiced his concern that the 2015 increase was “the beginning of a trend,” noting, “That is the thing that has concerned me the most.” His concerns are now reality.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51669