Category Archives: News

America’s abandonment of traditional values has hurt the black community

Economist Walter Williams
Economist Walter Williams

My two favorite economists are Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, who are coincidentally both black. Both have been around long enough to see how the Great Society welfare programs and the Sexual Revolution have affected blacks.

Here is Walter Williams commenting on the black community in The Daily Signal.

He writes:

How might one explain the greater civility of Philadelphia and other big-city, predominantly black neighborhoods and schools during earlier periods compared with today? Would anyone argue that during the ’40s and ’50s, there was less racial discrimination and poverty? Was academic performance higher because there were greater opportunities? Was civility in school greater in earlier periods because black students had more black role models in the form of black principals, teachers, and guidance counselors? That’s nonsense, at least in northern schools. In my case, I had no more than three black teachers throughout primary and secondary school.

Starting in the 1960s, the values that made for civility came under attack. Corporal punishment was banned. This was the time when the education establishment and liberals launched their agenda that undermined lessons children learned from their parents and the church.

Sex education classes undermined family/church strictures against premarital sex. Lessons of abstinence were ridiculed, considered passé, and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills, and abortion. Further undermining of parental authority came with legal and extralegal measures to assist teenage abortions, often with neither parental knowledge nor parental consent.

Customs, traditions, moral values, and rules of etiquette are behavioral norms, transmitted mostly by example, word of mouth, and religious teachings. As such, they represent a body of wisdom distilled through the ages by experience and trial and error.

The nation’s liberals—along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals, and the courts—have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. Many people have been counseled to believe that there are no moral absolutes. Instead, what’s moral or immoral is a matter of personal convenience, personal opinion, what feels good, or what is or is not criminal.

We no longer condemn or shame self-destructive and rude behavior, such as out-of-wedlock pregnancies, dependency, cheating, and lying. We have replaced what worked with what sounds good.

The abandonment of traditional values has negatively affected the nation as a whole, but blacks have borne the greater burden. This is seen by the decline in the percentage of black two-parent families. Today, a little over 30 percent of black children live in an intact family, where as early as the late 1800s, over 70 percent did. Black illegitimacy in 1938 was 11 percent, and that for whites was 3 percent. Today, it’s respectively 73 percent and 30 percent.

It is the height of dishonesty, as far as blacks are concerned, to blame our problems on slavery, how white people behave, and racial discrimination. If those lies are not exposed, we will continue to look for external solutions when true solutions are internal. Those of us who are old enough to know better need to expose these lies.

I know why Democrat leaders lie to the black community about the relative importance of “racism” compared to bad decisions about whether to finish high school, whether to have sex before marriage, whether to break the law, and whether to work rather than collect welfare. The truth is that a person cannot be poor in the United States if they make good decisions. Normally, when people (of any color) make bad decisions, they learn not to do it on their own, or they find themselves advisors to help them learn. But the Democrats are there to tell those who make mistakes that their mistakes are caused by other people. This harms the people making the mistakes instead of helping them.

Concealed carry permit holders commit fewer crimes than police officers

A message from Females with Firearms
A message from Females with Firearms

A new report was reported on at the Daily Signal.

Excerpt:

Concealed-carry permit holders are nearly the most law-abiding demographic of Americans, a new report by the Crime Prevention Research Center says—comparing the permit holders foremost with police.

“Indeed, it is impossible to think of any other group in the U.S. that is anywhere near as law-abiding,” says the report, titled “Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States 2016.”

From 2007 through 2015, permits issued by state and local governments increased by 215 percent, to more than 14 million Americans, according to the data.

The study compared permit holders to police, who committed 703 crimes from 2005 to 2007, and 113 of those were firearm violations.

[…]The study refers to Texas and Florida, which it says mirror most other states, to compare permit holders with police and the overall population. It used data from 1987 through 2015.

“We find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” the report says. “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10. That is just one-seventh of the rate for police officers.”

Did you know that? It is very difficult to get a concealed carry permit, and the people who get them don’t want to lose them, because they’d be losing their ability to defend themselves. That’s why they are so informed about how to use their firearms safely in a law-abiding manner.

Although there is opposition to gun ownership in certain circles, the academic literature is quite clear and decisive. Legal ownership of firearms reduces rates of violent crime. Whenever laws that allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense, violent crime rates decrease. Whenever laws are passed that restrict law-abiding citizens from owning and carrying firearms for self-defense, violent crime rates increase.

The peer-reviewed research

Whenever I get into discussions about gun control, I always mention two academic books by John R. Lott and Joyce Lee Malcolm.

Here is a paper by Dr. Malcolm that summarizes one of the key points of her book.

Excerpt:

Tracing the history of gun control in the United Kingdom since the late 19th century, this article details how the government has arrogated to itself a monopoly on the right to use force. The consequence has been a tremendous increase in violent crime, and harsh punishment for crime victims who dare to fight back. The article is based on the author’s most recent book, Guns and Violence: The English Experience (Harvard University Press, 2002). Joyce Malcom is professor of history at Bentley College, in Waltham, Massachusetts. She is also author of To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an AngloAmerican Right (Harvard University Press, 1994).

Upon the passage of The Firearms Act (No. 2) in 1997, British Deputy Home Secretary Alun Michael boasted: “Britain now has some of the toughest gun laws in the world.” The Act was second handgun control measure passed that year, imposed a near-complete ban on private ownership of handguns, capping nearly eighty years of increasing firearms restrictions. Driven by an intense public campaign in the wake of the shooting of schoolchildren in Dunblane, Scotland, Parliament had been so zealous to outlaw all privately owned handguns that it rejected proposals to exempt Britain’s Olympic target-shooting team and handicapped target-shooters from the ban.

And the result of the 1997 gun ban:

The result of the ban has been costly. Thousands of weapons were confiscated at great financial cost to the public. Hundreds of thousands of police hours were devoted to the task. But in the six years since the 1997 handgun ban, crimes with the very weapons banned have more than doubled, and firearm crime has increased markedly. In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose—by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offences were committed.

[…]According to Scotland Yard, in the four years from 1991 to 1995 crimes against the person in England‟s inner cities increased by 91 percent. In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century.

I think that peer-reviewed studies – from Harvard University, no less – should be useful to those of us who believe in the right of self-defense for law-abiding people. The book by economist John Lott, linked above,compares the crime rates of all U.S. states that have enacted concealed carry laws, and concludes that violent crime rates dropped after law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry legally-owned firearms. That’s the mirror image of Dr. Malcolm’s Harvard study, but both studies affirm the same conclusion – more legal firearm ownership means less crime.

Obama’s Department of Justice shuts down FBI investigation of Clinton Foundation

Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help
Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help

The Federalist reported on the latest revelation from the Clinton e-mail investigation:

Newly released emails reveal President Obama’s Justice Department rejected the FBI’s request to investigate the Clinton Foundation’s relationship with the State Department.

The FBI asked the DOJ to open an investigation into a potential pay-for-play relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation, which spends a very small fraction of its funds on actual charity work, but the DOJ wasn’t interested — saying it had tried and failed to probe the organization in 2015, CNN reports.

Earlier this week, Judicial Watch, a non-profit integrity group,released a batch of emails revealing that top State Department aides did favors for Clinton Foundation bigwigs during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State.

[…]The DOJ’s refusal to probe the Clinton Foundation’s use of the State Department seems to be more than just a lack of evidence at hand, as U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch has a special relationship with the Clintons.

Hillary Clinton is reportedly planning to keep Lynch as attorney general, if Clinton wins the election. In late June, Bill Clinton secretly met with Lynch aboard a private plane on the tarmac of a Phoenix airport just before she announced the DOJ wouldn’t press charges against Clinton for using a private, unsecured email server while serving as secretary of State. The curious timing of these developments led many to believe there is an underlying conflict of interest at play.

The Daily Wire explains what there is to investigate:

The State Department and Clinton Foundation clearly colluded. The Clintons used Teneo, an advisory business, as a go-between; the firm hired Huma Abedin even as Abedin worked at the State Department. Teneo’s Chief Executive Declan Kelly worked as a special envoy for Hillary at the State Department. Former Clinton Foundation head Doug Band “formed the Teneo consulting firm” in June 2011, with “Bill Clinton as the paid honorary chairman.”

And, of course, the Clinton Foundation had corrupt dealings with countries and figures all over the world, trading favors from Hillary Clinton’s State Department for cash donations and speaking fees for Bill.

The New York Post concludes:

Hillary Clinton put the State Department up for sale, with top aides pulling strings and doing favors for fat-cat donors to the Clinton Foundation — including a shady billionaire, according to smoking-gun emails released Tuesday.

The stunning revelations include how wealthy contributors seeking influence or prestigious government gigs could fork over piles of cash to get access to Clinton’s inner circle, including top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.

It’s pretty clear what needs to be investigated, but I noticed that the mainstream media is studiously ignoring the Clinton scandals in order to cover Donald Trump’s stupidity. They’re not lying, they’re just choosing not to cover anything that makes Clinton look bad, and everything that makes Trump look bad.

Newsbusters explains:

The liberal “Big Three” networks seemed to try everything in their power to not mention Hillary Clinton’s latest e-mail controversy Wednesday. Throughout all of their news programs, both morning and evening, they gave the e-mails a total of 6 minutes 59 seconds. In stark contrast, they dragged out Trump’s “Second Amendment people” comment with a whopping 25 minutes 54 seconds of coverage. “One day after Donald Trump used the second amendment to shoot himself in the foot, Hillary Clinton used her first amendment right to speak out against him,” touted anchor Scott Pelley on CBS Evening News.

ABC’s World News Tonight had the largest disparity in coverage of the two stories Wednesday evening. The network dedicated a mere 38 seconds to the e-mail controversy, as they mixed it in with other coverage of Clinton.  “Today, the Clinton campaign saying, “Hillary Clinton never took actions as Secretary of State because of donations to the Clinton Foundation,” reported Cecilia Vega, “But Trump says the e-mails exposed pay for play connections.” ABC gave Trump’s comment 3 minutes 24 seconds that evening.

38 seconds.

That’s why nobody trusts the mainstream media to report accurately on politics. They have their candidate, and they are backing her all the way to the White House.