Do you have a semi-automatic gun? That’s a gun that fires one bullet for every one trigger pull. Most handguns and rifles are semi-automatic. Well, if you have one, then there’s a Democrat planning to confiscate it. And if you don’t want to give it up, then he says that he would use nuclear weapons to destroy you.
A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing [semi-automatic guns] and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
[…]Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”
In the past, Democrats and gun safety groups have carefully resisted proposals that could be interpreted as “gun confiscation,” a concept gun rights groups have often invoked as part of a slippery slope argument against more modest proposals like universal background checks.
Swalwell addressed these arguments directly, saying he and other Democrats had been too deferential to Second Amendment activists and should follow the lead of teenage survivors of the Parkland shooting who have been more strident.
The Washington Times reported on Swalwell’s plan to deal with those who refuse to disarm themselves:
Rep. Eric Swalwell, California Democrat, warned gun owners Friday that any fight over firearms would be “a short one,” because the federal government has an extensive cache of nuclear weapons.
After Joe Biggs tweeted that Mr. Swalwell “wants a war” over the Second Amendment, Mr. Swalwell responded, “And it would be a short war my friend.”
“The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit,” the congressman tweeted. “I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”
People who purchase firearms legally are among the most law-abiding people in the country. Make no mistake. This Democrat lawmaker isn’t threatening to take guns away from criminals. He is proposing to confiscate the guns of law-abiding Americans, who simply want to defend their families and their property from criminals.
It’s very interesting to think about all the law-abiding gun owners in states like Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Michigan, etc. who voted for Democrat senators in the 2018 mid-terms, isn’t it? What were they thinking, when they elected Democrats? Or maybe they weren’t thinking at all. When elections are happening, it’s important to look at the records of the candidates, not what they say in ads and at campaign events.
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.
I think that peer-reviewed studies should be useful for assessing gun control vs gun rights policy. 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, which shows that the 1997 UK gun ban caused violent crime rates to MORE THAN DOUBLE in the four years following the ban. But both studies affirm the same conclusion – more legal firearm ownership means less crime.
One of the common mistakes I see anti-gun advocates making is to use the metric of all “gun-related deaths”. First of all, this completely ignores the effects of hand gun ownership on violent crime, as we’ve seen. Take away the guns from law-abiding people and violent crime skyrockets. But using the “gun-related deaths” number is especially wrong, because it includes suicides committed with guns. This is the majority (about two thirds) of gun related deaths, even in a country like America that has a massive inner-city gun violence problem caused by the epidemic of single motherhood by choice. If you take out the gun-related SUICIDES, then the actual number of gun homicides has decreased as gun ownership has grown.
For a couple of useful graphs related to this point, check out this post over at the American Enterprise Institute.
Michael Avenatti is the lawyer connected to one of Trump’s accusers (Swetnick) who is now under FBI criminal investigation for “potentially false statements”. He appeared many times on CNN and MSNBC during the Kavanaugh hearings. He calls himself “an advocate for women’s rights”.
Avenatti was arrested Wednesday after a woman reportedly filed felony domestic violence charges against him following an incident that allegedly occurred between the two on Tuesday, then a second confrontation the next day.
“We’re told her face was ‘swollen and bruised’ with ‘red marks’ on both cheeks,” TMZ reports.
We’re told security brought her inside the building, took her upstairs and Michael showed up 5 minutes later and ran into the building. He screamed repeatedly, ‘She hit me first.’
[…]Cops showed up and escorted Avenatti into a corner of the apartment lobby and spoke with him for 5 to 10 minutes and then took him into custody.
CNN loved to have Avenatti on to discuss women’s rights and how mean Republicans are to women. Even when there were more important news stories, they just kept bringing him on, and on, and on. How often?
The Washington Free Beacon analyzed 108 appearances by Avenatti on MSNBC and CNN over a 64-day period from March 7 to May 10. To calculate his earned media time, the Free Beacon multiplied the length of his appearances on a program by its “National Publicity Value” determination from media monitoring site TVEyes.com.
The total came out to $174,631,598.07 from at least 65 CNN appearances and 43 MSNBC appearances. Avenatti’s favorite shows include CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” (at least 20 interviews), MSNBC’s “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell” (14), CNN’s “New Day” (12), CNN’s “Tonight with Don Lemon” (eight), and MSNBC’s “Deadline White House” (seven).
65 appearances on CNN over a 64-day period? CNN really liked him. Maybe they really liked what he had to say to their audience about women’s rights, and violence against women.
But other mainstream media shows also had him on to talk about how mean Republicans supposedly are to women:
Avenatti has also been featured on CBS comedy show “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” Showtime’s “The Circus,” NBC’s “Megyn Kelly Today,” ABC’s “The View,” HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” and network morning shows “Today,” “CBS This Morning,” and “Good Morning America.”
In light of his arrest, consider these screenshots of Avenatti’s web site.
Would you say that he has what it takes to follow in the footsteps of Bill Clinton, and win the Democrat presidential nomination, as their anointed champion of women’s rights? It looks like he’s running for President in 2020. As a Democrat. Of course.
According to this tweet from a Daily Wire reporter, everyone except CNN reported on the arrest of CNN’s star lawyer promptly. I wonder what caused CNN to delay reporting on the arrest of their frequent guest? The delayed reporting makes me wonder what they really think about domestic violence, sexual assault, and rape.
Democrat women seem to really like bad boys like Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer, John Conyers, Anthony Weiner… and the twice-divorced Michael Avenatti. They think that pro-abortion Democrat men are great defenders of “women’s rights”, and therefore very attractive and desirable. It never made sense to me, though, why women find a man’s willingness to kill his own innocent unborn children an attractive trait. If a man will stand by while a woman kills an “inconvenient” child, then it seems to me that he could do anything to a grown woman. Domestic violence is mild when compared to murdering an innocent unborn child. When Democrat pro-abortion men commit domestic violence against women, it certainly doesn’t surprise me. Why does it surprise the Democrat women who love them so much?
I’ve been following the Michigan Senate race between Republican John James and Democrat Debbie Stabenow. James, a black conservative, flew attack helicopters in Iraq, and now runs a private sector business. You can’t get more rooted in reality than that. What I’ve noticed about James is his challenge to other blacks to vote for ideas and ideals.
“The Democratic business model is reliant upon keeping black folks dependent on the government,” James said in the ad. “Countless people have died for our right to think and to vote for ourselves, yet Democratic leadership asks us to outsource our voice on a straight-ticket ballot to a godless party that neither represents our values nor our economic best interests.”
“We’ve marched from Selma to New York, we’ve rebelled from Watts to Detroit, and ain’t nothing changed in 50 years,” he said. “The Democratic Party leadership cares more about the black vote than the black people. And it’s time to wake up.”
James, a West Point graduate who served as a commander in aviation missions in Iraq, released his new ad in Detroit on the same day that former president Barack Obama is set to visit that city to campaign for Democrat Debbie Stabenow.
James said in an interview, “The ad is not meant to divide or attack his fellow Michiganders. It is a criticism of the party leadership that took God out of its platform and left Detroit the most segregated city in America.”
Stabenow has consistently held a healthy double-digit lead over James, but has seen that cushion evaporate in the past month.
On Thursday, a Free Press poll conducted by EPIC-MRA of Lansing Michigan put her lead at 7 percentage points. That same poll showed her up 23 points in September.
On Oct. 29, Vice President Mike Pence will host a rally in Grand Rapids for James, who returned home from his military service to run his family’s business.
James is the first black Republican to run for statewide office in Michigan in four decades.
Why should blacks vote for a Republican? Black unemployment is at a record low (along with Hispanic unemployment).
September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs — like black teenagers.
The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records dating to 1972.
If blacks were just voting on objective criteria – raw numbers – they’d vote for Republicans.
Against dependency on the government
I also noted that James is a strong believer in male leadership, and that got him trouble with the anti-male left:
Right now, we have an epidemic in the black community where black women are choosing men poorly, and creating fatherless children in homes who are more likely to be dependent on government. As a non-white conservative, I find this upsetting, because it means that non-whites are arriving at different life outcomes from other Americans through their own choices. When poor choices are made early on in life, it’s difficult to recover even when you learn from your mistakes.
I don’t see how the black community is ever going to recover from a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate unless they start shaming black women for having sex with men who are not willing to commit to leading a family before they have sex. There are single black men of good character who could have been chosen instead. Men who would commit before asking for sex. But if women make choices based on appearances and feelings, then the bad boys will get picked every time.
The Democrat party has an interest in making more people dependent on government, and that’s why they favor government programs that incentivize making fatherless children. Democrats promote premarital sex and welfare programs to blacks, which discourages good black men from working and marrying. They also oppose school choice, so that parents are forced to put their children into failing schools staffed by unionized teachers who are unaccountable. If we’re going strictly on policy, then the Republican party has a lot more to offer black Americans than the Democrats.
My personal opinion on rape (a violent sexual attack that results in genital penetration without consent) is that the attacker should be killed or castrated (if male). Is the left against rape? They don’t seem to tell women how to minimize risk, and they don’t seem be concerned about rapes committed by their interesectional allies. Take a look at this article from the Daily Signal.
As feminists were busy peddling their “War on Women” narrative in the U.S., Yazidi sex slave survivor Nadia Murad was honored with the Nobel Peace Prize for fighting a real War on Women in the Middle East.
Nadia was honored for her efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, together with Dr. Denis Mukwege of the Democratic Republic of Congo, who has been a relentless healer and advocate for women.
[…]Nadia was abducted in northern Iraq in August 2014, when ISIS took over her village. Militants gave the Yazidi people—a Kurdish and Arabic-speaking religious minority—two choices: Convert to Islam or die. Refusing to give in, Nadia watched men get massacred and family members march to their graves.
At just 21 years old, she was kidnapped alongside an estimated 3,000 other Yazidi women and girls, traded as sex slaves from one ISIS fighter to another. She was forced to pray, dress up, and apply makeup in preparation for her rape, which was often committed by gangs.
How much have we heard from the Western feminists about this, as opposed to Christine Ford’s fairy tale?
While any comparison between Nadia’s story and the accusations leveled against newly minted Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh would be completely unfair, it is fair to wonder how news of uncorroborated allegations of gang rape brought by porn lawyer Michael Avenatti can overshadow a gang rape survivor-turned-women’s advocate being honored with the most prestigious award in the world.
For years, it seemed the world didn’t care about Nadia’s story and the thousands of others like it. It took two years for then-Secretary of State John Kerry to declare crimes against Yazidis, Christians, and Shiite Muslims genocide, and the United Nations as well.
[…]…the Obama administration did little to hold ISIS accountable for its crimes or to alleviate the suffering of survivors. The Trump administration is trying to right those wrongs by providing aid to the most vulnerable victims of ISIS genocide, but a lot of work remains to be done.
The author, Kelsey Harkness, wonders why American feminists get so involved with unsubstantiated charges, when there are real rapes going on regularly in other countries.
Let’s face it: the only people who are in a position to stop the rapes going on in places like Iraq are the U.S. Armed Forces. It certainly isn’t Code Pink. And how does the secular left treat the Armed Forces? They want to cut their funding, retreat them out of countries where women have no rights at all, and destroy their fighting ability by pushing liberal policies on them. If you’re not in favor of the American Armed Forces being properly equipped and doing their jobs to keep our enemies in check, then you’re not in favor of someone being there to protect Yazidi women from rape. Period. End of issue. Everyone who voted for Obama, and withdrawal from Iraq, voted to let ISIS rape Yazidi women.
What about Hillary Clinton?
What’s amazing to me is how people on the secular left in America want everyone to believe that they are the party who cares the most about women. But as I’ve argued before, most men and women who support Democrats do so because want to have irresponsible recreational sex without consequences. That is their main issue. But then they turned around and (in 2016) voted for a woman who covered up credible accusations of sexual assault and even rape against her husband, in the 2016 presidential election.
Here’s a story about Hillary Clinton from the Daily Wire:
During a CBS “Sunday Morning” interview, correspondent Tony Dokoupil asked Hillary if her husband should have stepped down after his affair with Monica Lewinsky — and his blatant lie to the American people when he said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
“Absolutely not,” she said.
“It wasn’t an abuse of power?” Dokoupil asked.
“No. No.” Why, you ask? Hillary said the relationship was not an abuse of power because Lewinsky “was an adult.” At the time of the affair, Clinton was 49, Lewinsky was 22.
Bill Clinton was also accused numerous times of sexual assault. In 1994, Paula Jones initiated a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton, claiming that he pulled out his penis and told her to “kiss it.” In 1998, Kathleen Willey alleged that Clinton groped her in a hallway in 1993. That same year, Juanita Broaddrick alleged that Clinton had raped her in the spring of 1978. Bill also carried on an affair with lounge singer Gennifer Flowers, and Arkansas State Troopers said they often procured women for the then-governor.
When I think about how secular leftists supported the biggest RAPE APOLOGIST in the history of our nation, it seems ridiculous to me that they would try to present themselves as caring about women. What they care about is recreational sex and abortion, and they’ll abandon real women who need real help if that gets them what they want.
What do Democrats think about North Korea?
Last point. Democrats love to lecture us all on how wonderful things are in atheist countries that have socialism. Well, North Korea’s official state religion is atheism, and they have full-blown communism- the government owns all the means of production. What is it like to be a woman there?
When was the last time you heard a Democrat criticize North Korea? How could they – North Korea is everything they aspire to. And the U.S. Constitution is everything they hate.
One of my friends has been having a debate with one of his former teachers about whether spending more money on government-run education improves tests scores. He tried posting some evidence, but she just dismissed that by claiming:
If we hadn’t spent more money, then the student test scores would have gone down instead of staying the same.
Most of the money that government spends on education goes to vouchers and private schools, not public schools
Economists at prestigious think tanks like that Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute cannot be trusted to accurately cite the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics because of the Koch Brothers
You can’t compare the test scores of American students with the test scores of Asian students who outperform them, (for less government spending), because math is different in Asia compared to America
Let’s look at some data and see if her arguments are correct.
Does more spending mean higher student performance?
Comparing educational achievement with per-pupil spending among states also calls into question the value of increasing expenditures. While high-spending Massachusetts had the nation’s highest proficiency scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, low-spending Idaho did very well, too. South Dakota ranks 42nd in per-pupil expenditures but eighth in math performance and ninth in reading. The District of Columbia, meanwhile, with the nation’s highest per-pupil expenditures ($15,511 in 2007), scores dead last in achievement.
The student test scores are dead last, but National Review notes that “according to the National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, D.C. was spending an average of $27,460 per pupil in 2014, the most recent year for which data are available.” They are spending the most per-pupil, but their test scores are dead last.
CBS News reported on another recent study confirming this:
Decades of increased taxpayer spending per student in U.S. public schools has not improved student or school outcomes from that education, and a new study finds that throwing money at the system is simply not tied to academic improvements.
The study from the CATO Institute shows that American student performance has remained poor, and has actually declined in mathematics and verbal skills, despite per-student spending tripling nationwide over the same 40-year period.
“The takeaway from this study is that what we’ve done over the past 40 years hasn’t worked,” Andrew Coulson, director of the Center For Educational Freedom at the CATO Institute, told Watchdog.org. “The average performance change nationwide has declined 3 percent in mathematical and verbal skills. Moreover, there’s been no relationship, effectively, between spending and academic outcomes.”
The study, “State Education Trends: Academic Performance and Spending over the Past 40 Years,” analyzed how billions of increased taxpayer dollars, combined with the number of school employees nearly doubling since 1970, to produce stagnant or declining academic results.
“The performance of 17-year-olds has been essentially stagnant across all subjects despite a near tripling of the inflation-adjusted cost of putting a child through the K-12 system,” writes Coulson.
Where did the numbers come from? The Koch Brothers? No:
Data from the U.S. Department of Education incorporating public school costs, number of employees, student enrollment and SAT scores was analyzed to explore the disparity between increased spending and decreasing or stagnant academic results.
Well, at least government-run monopoly schools outperform private private schools, right? No:
[…][P]rivate schools, where students excel over public school peers, …manage to operate at budgets about 34 percent lower than taxpayer-funded schools, US Finance Post reports.
Public schools spend, on average, $11,000 per student, per year.
Coulson noted an Arizona study he conducted which showed that the average per-pupil spending at private schools was only about 66 percent of the cost of public schools.
When it comes to math, U.S. high school students are falling further behind their international counterparts, according to results released Tuesday of an ongoing study that compares academic achievement in 73 countries. And the news is not much better in reading and science literacy, where U.S. high schoolers have not gained any ground and continue to trail students in a slew of developed countries around the globe.
In the latest Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) measuring math literacy in 2015, U.S. students ranked 40th in the world. The U.S. average math score of 470 represents the second decline in the past two assessments — down from 482 in 2012 and 488 in 2009. The U.S. score in 2015 was 23 points lower than the average of all of the nations taking part in the survey.
More money is being spent, but the scores are DECREASING.
Now, why is it that increased government spending in the public school monopoly doesn’t improve student performance? Well, one reason is that very little of the money makes it to the classroom.
Where does all the money go?
Let’s look at four places where the money spent on the government-run public school monopoly ends up.
First, a lot of it gets paid to administrations who implement politically correct programs designed to turn the impressionable young people into little secular socialists.
This figure shows we now spend nearly $1,100 per student on retirement benefits. The average public school student teacher ratio is 16 to 1. So we are spending about $17,000 per year per teacher in pension contributions.
[…]The National Council on Teacher Quality writes,
In 2014 teacher pension systems had a total of a half trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities—a debt load that climbed more than $100 billion in just the last two years. Across the states, an average of 70 cents of every dollar contributed to state teacher pension systems goes toward paying off the ever-increasing pension debt, not to future teacher benefits (p. iii).
While we are spending a huge amount to fund teacher pensions, most of that spending doesn’t go to attracting the best teachers. It’s paying off past debts.
We can’t hire good teachers, because all the education spending of today is paying for the gold-plated pensions of yesterday.
That was 2014. The numbers are even worse today. Teachers contribute very, very little to their pensions, but the benefits are enormous compared to what the private sector taxpayers get in Social Security. (Which is going to be bankrupt by 2034, as reported by the far-left PBS)
Third, a lot of it is spent on teacher training, because apparently teaching multiplication, Shakespeare or geography changes every year, so the teachers need tens of thousands of dollars in annual training.
A new study of 10,000 teachers found that professional development — the teacher workshops and training that cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year — is largely a waste.
The study released Tuesday by TNTP, a nonprofit organization, found no evidence that any particular approach or amount of professional development consistently helps teachers improve in the classroom.
[…]The school districts that participated in the study spent an average of $18,000 per teacher annually on professional development. Based on that figure, TNTP estimates that the 50 largest school districts spend an estimated $8 billion on teacher development annually. That is far larger than previous estimates.
And teachers spend a good deal of time in training, the study found. The 10,000 teachers surveyed were in training an average of 19 school days a year, or almost 10 percent of a typical school year, according to TNTP.
Maybe if more of the money spent on education were spent directly on hiring teachers, then we would see an improvement. Unfortunately, a lot of the money meant for teachers goes to the teacher unions. How do they spend that money?
Finally, this is from OpenSecrets.org, concerning political contributions made in the most recent election cycle:
The two largest teacher unions came in at #9 and #11. Most of their donations go to Democrat Party. Democrats believe (against the evidence) that spending more money in the government-run public school monopoly will improve student performance on tests.
So, what’s the solution?
The solution is that we abolish the federal Department of Education, which has done nothing to improve the quality of education for students. We need to push the education of children back down to the state and local levels. We need to empower parents to choose the schools that work best for their children by giving parents vouchers. We need to increase tax-free education savings accounts to help parents with school expenses. We should also give free college tuition to homeschooled students who are admitted to STEM programs at any college or university. We can take the money from the pensions of the union administrators, after we abolish ever single public sector teacher union in the country, and seize all their assets and pensions. If that’s not enough money, then we can seize all the pensions of Department of Education employees – a just punishment for their failure to produce results while still taking taxpayer money.
Finally, we should allow people who already have private sector experience doing things like STEM to become teachers. Let’s face it: the departments that grant Education degrees have the lowest entrance requirements, and produce the least competent adults. People with years of private sector work experience teach better than people with Education degrees. Let’s open up teaching to people who have experience in the private sector doing software engineering, statistics, nursing, etc. and then we’ll have qualified teachers.