Appearing on Steve Malzberg’s weekly Sunday commentary show “Eat the Press” Dr. John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and author of Gun Control Myths , blasted President Joe Biden’s recent gun control proposals, claiming they were based on “lies” and will endanger “blacks and hispanics” living in high crime urban areas. After Malzberg called out Biden for denying he intends to limit the Second Amendment while saying “in the next breath” that “no amendment to the Constitution is absolute,” Lott replied that, “In ten minutes or so [Biden] literally made about at least two dozen different lies on [the subject],” with some of the claims being “so outrageous.” “It’s just like one false claim after another,” he added. One example Lott cited was Biden’s claim that the “alleged” reason for the substantial increase in homicides last year was due to a “lack of gun control.” “You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realize that when you have inmates being released from jails and prisons, and some in a number of places more than fifty percent of the inmates being released; when you have police being ordered to stand down and not do their jobs; when you have police budgets being cut and prosecutors in major urban areas refusing to prosecute violent criminals; if you make it so that criminals aren’t being caught, and when they are caught — not being punished, and it’s not risky for them to commit crime, guess what? They’re going to commit more crime.” Lot added the “irony” of the situation is Biden is “claiming that he cares about poor blacks and hispanics that live in these high crime urban areas,” yet “the proposals that he wants are actually going to harm them.” “It’s going to make it so those are the very people who aren’t going to be able to afford the fees and other costs that he’s imposing on law-abiding gun owners,” Lott elaborated. Noting the left simultaneously seeks to prevent effective policing, ...
Executive gun control
De Blasio revisits last year’s failed NYPD plan in effort to curb gun violence
close Video Suspect accused of attacking NYPD officer released without bail Joe Borelli, New York City councilman, argues 'when Democrats control every level of government,' crimes go 'unpunished.' Mayor Bill de Blasio’s plan to curb the surging gun violence in NYC is to try out the failed policing strategy from last year — but this time, with 100 fewer cops. The NYPD will reassign 200 cops to areas where the Big Apple has seen the highest rates of gun violence as part of their annual Summer All Out program, the mayor said Tuesday. NYPD Chief of Department Rodney Harrison said the "bulk" of those cops would be moved to East New York and Brownsville, which have seen gun violence upticks of 67% and 88%, respectively. DE BLASIO, NYPD ASK NYC TV STATIONS TO KEEP COPTERS CLEAR OF DEMONSTRATIONS TO AVIOID, 'HEIGHTENING TENSIONS' He also noted Bronx neighborhoods, Mott Haven, Highbridge and Crotona, would get some additional patrols. But all of those areas were also a policing focus last year during the summer when the city saw a months-long surge in gun violence and assigned 300 cops to the "Summer All Out" initiative. "We’re going to make sure that the officers are where we need them to be and we’ll make adjustments constantly," de Blasio said when asked about the similarities to last year’s plan, which failed to combat the surge in gunplay. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP De Blasio chalked up 2020’s skyrocketing shooting totals to the effect the pandemic had on the city. "Last year again. Perfect Storm. Literal Perfect Storm. Global pandemic. Society shut down, a million jobs lost… everything went wrong simultaneously," the mayor said, brushing off any comparison to this year. Yet, gunplay in New York City still continues the 2020 trend — outpacing the year prior each week. This story first appeared in the New York Post . ...
Tucker Carlson: Maxine Waters shows her true beliefs once again
close Video Tucker: Maxine Waters believes in mob violence for political ends 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' host explains how the left relies on 'intimidation' to get what it wants Closing arguments in former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin's murder trial concluded Monday. Now, Americans have heard quite a bit about George Floyd over the last year and formed their own opinions, but most still cannot say with any specificity just how he died. That, of course, is the essence of the whole story, how Floyd died. So the closing arguments are a chance to assess actual evidence in the case. You would think that would be good news -- more facts, which we could always use. But no, said the media, facts no longer matter, not when BLM's founding myth is at stake. Evidence only counts in countries that have due process, something that they are now telling us is an ugly relic of institutional racism. When unpopular people seem guilty, you just go ahead and punish them. That's the new rule. Years ago, we called this lynching. Now we call it equity. CNN's chief legal analyst, a Princeton graduate called Laura Coates, explained this Monday morning on Twitter. "Defense begins the closing by defining reasonable doubt, not with why #DerekChauvin is innocent," she tweeted. "Think about that." Well, as it happens, we have thought about that. We've thought about it because that is the core principle of our entire justice system in the United States. You are not required to prove your innocence. That's China. In the United States, the government has to prove your guilt. If they can't prove your guilt, they have to let you go. That's the American system. There's no other system that you would want to live under, but then you're not Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. Waters has never believed in Western justice. For decades, she supported the totalitarian government of Cuba, which replaced jury trials with summary mass executions ...
Trump to deploy National Guard to southern border
President Trump Donald Trump St. Louis lawyer who pointed gun at Black Lives Matter protesters considering Senate run Chauvin found guilty as nation exhales US says Iran negotiations are 'positive' MORE signed an order Wednesday night to deploy National Guard troops to the U.S. southern border. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen Kirstjen Michele Nielsen Left-leaning group to track which companies hire former top Trump aides Rosenstein: Zero tolerance immigration policy 'never should have been proposed or implemented' House Republican condemns anti-Trump celebrities during impeachment hearing MORE first announced Trump's plan to deploy the National Guard earlier in the day Wednesday while speaking at the White House. Nielsen framed the move as a way to toughen an immigration system that “rewards bad behavior,” including illegal drug smuggling and border crossings. “It’s time to act,” Nielsen told reporters, adding that the deployments could begin “immediately.” Nielsen did not share key details about the operation, including how many troops will be sent to the border, the length of the deployment or its cost. ADVERTISEMENT The move follows days of warnings from Trump about the dangers posed by illegal immigration, gangs and drugs. Nielsen said the number of immigrants crossing the border illegally has risen since last year, when they fell following Trump’s inauguration. She said the administration is eager to act because crossings are expected to further rise in April. “The threat is real,” Nielsen said. “This threatens not only the safety of our communities and children, but also our very rule of law, on which, as you know, our country was founded.” The announcement sparked backlash from immigrant rights advocates, who dismissed the deployment as a political ploy to satisfy Trump’s supporters ahead of the November midterm election. “Trump’s National Guard ploy is just ...
FLEISCHMAN: GOP Votes Give Jerry Brown Big Win on Cap-and-Trade
The “shadow presidency” of California Governor Jerry Brown scored a win Monday night as eight Republican legislators crossed the political aisle and voted with most Democrats to extend a key component of the “cap-and-trade” program that has literally shifted $4.42 billion from the private sector to the government since mid-2012. While a lot of politicking went into rounding up the votes for the cap-and -trade extension among both political party caucuses in both chambers, it was clear that Governor Brown had enough political capital, along with a willingness to “strategically target” the spending of Cap and Trade tax dollars to woo Democrats. So in the final days preceding a vote, much of the attention was focused on Republican legislators. Because it is a tax increase, the bill required a two-thirds vote to pass. Democrats have barely over two-thirds in either chamber and so, in theory, could have passed it without a solitary GOP vote. But Democrats were not 100% unified, and also at least one Democrat in the State Assembly was going to be absent this week on a long-planned family vacation, meaning at least one GOP vote would be needed in the lower house. On the GOP side it was a David vs. Goliath situation, with a small coalition of small business and taxpayer advocates, as well as GOP groups like the Orange County Lincoln Club. They were out-gunned and out-spent, up against many well-heeled interests, including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Manufacturing and Technology Association, and others. (Big businesses can handle navigating a cap-and-trade system, and largely pass along the costs to consumers. The small- and medium-sized businesses suffer the most, and of course taxpayers in general.)Those billions and billions in taxes paid to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) drive up the costs of so many products — most notably gas and electricity prices: it is estimated that by the early 2020s, cape-and-trade will be adding over ...
