Head of Bloomberg's Moms Demand Action apparently uses armed security!

Dana Loesch had an interaction with the head of Bloomberg's Moms Demand Action head, Shannon Watts.  According to observers:
When confronted by Loesch, Watts refused to answer any questions and eventually was whisked away in an SUV by what Loesch told TheBlaze appeared to be armed security. . . . .
Apparently, it isn't just Michael Bloomberg who uses guns for protection.

By the way, if you want to offset the misinformation that Bloomberg is paying for you might want to follow this link here.



The Violence Policy Center's incredible errors

Save Lives & Deter Criminals -- Help start the Crime Prevention Research Center

More information available here: Crowd funding at Indiegogo.



John Lott versus Jehmu Greene on Fox News over Georgia getting rid of some gun free zones

The video is also available here.

Labels: ,

Georgia governor signs good bill to eliminate gun free zones, but it is hardly "unprecedented"

CNN makes the bill seem pretty controversial:
Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed a wide-ranging gun bill into law Wednesday that has critics howling and proponents applauding.  House Bill 60, or the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014 -- which opponents have nicknamed the "guns everywhere bill" -- specifies where Georgia residents can carry weapons. Included are provisions that allow residents who have concealed carry permits to take guns into some bars, churches, school zones, government buildings and certain parts of airports. . . .
Fox News' headline uses the word "unprecedented," but it includes a quote that puts the new law in a better perspective.
Jerry Henry of GeorgiaCarry.org told GPB News he doesn’t expect to see a surge in gun sales or an increase in gun-related businesses in the state. He noted that other states have far less restrictive gun laws than Georgia. 
The point is that other states already allow concealed carry in all those other places and they are no problems with that occurring.

Labels: ,


Kent County, Michigan Jewelers fend off four robbers who try to rob their store

This seems like an obvious case when you have four robbers where it would be useful to have a sizable magazine in your gun.  From MLive:
For the second time in four years, Paul Medawar Fine Jewelry has thwarted a robbery attempt – this time, apparently leaving at least one of the robbers with gunshot wounds. . . .
Police said two people inside Medawar shot at the robbers, who fled after breaking into a jewelry case. Police believed that at least one suspect had been shot, but that hasn't been confirmed.
Witnesses reported the unnamed victims of the robbery had fired shots at the robbers, injuring at least one of them.  . . . .
During a robbery on Oct. 5, 2010, Paul Medawar secretly called police when robbers came in the store.
That day, he dialed 911 on his office phone, triggering a police response that left robbers rushing out of his store. He spoke briefly to a dispatcher before a robber found him and told him to hang up.
He and his son, David, and a store manager, were told to lie on the floor after he opened a safe containing diamonds. . . .
The robbers fled quickly from that 2010 robbery, then crashed a stolen Jeep into a nearby condominium.
"The police got my (911) call. When the robbers left, the police were outside in the parking lot," Medawar said. . . .

Labels: ,

Andrew Cuomo refuses to debate Rick Perry on whether New York or Texas is better to do business: You can understand his reticence

This is the second time that Cuomo has turned down the chance to debate Rick Perry.  For Cuomo this would give Cuomo the national platform that he desires, but you can understand why he wouldn't want to do this debate.  From the New York Observer:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry was in New York today to make his pitch to business leaders he hopes to lure to the Lone Star State, and took the opportunity to reissue his debate challenge to Gov. Andrew Cuomo–who today declined the request. 
“Yes, I’m here recruiting business. I’m don’t shy away from that. I’m very upfront about that. But I’m also here to help stimulate a conversation with the people of New York state, the people in New York City, the legislators, the governor,” said Mr. Perry, speaking to reporters after a lunch with business owners at Hill Country BBQ. 
Earlier this week, Mr. Perry said he wanted to sit down with Mr. Cuomo face-to-face to debate the two states’ approaches to economic policy, which Mr. Cuomo–whose office did not respond to requests for comment–today dismissed as  “unlikely,” according to reports. 
“I hope he’ll seriously consider doing it. I think it would be good for the people of New York and it’d be good for the country,” said Mr. Perry. “I’ll leave that to you all to probe him on.” . . .


State Department can't name a single "tangible achievement" from the “Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review" under Hillary Clinton

I have to thank Erik Wemple at the Washington Post for identifying this gem.  Those who like no nonsense reporters will love this.

Erik provides this transcript:

LEE: I have one very brief one on the QDDR.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
LEE: Off the top of your head, can you identify one tangible achievement that the last QDDR resulted in?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, obviously it’s an extensive, expansive process.
LEE: So, no.
MS. PSAKI: We’re looking at how it was done last time.
LEE: Just one.
MS. PSAKI: I know. I’m making an important point here.
LEE: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: The Secretary wants it to be focused. It’s going to focus on a more narrow range of issues. It’s always to look at how we can improve things, and we’ll see where we come out on the end.
LEE: So can you, off the top of your head, identify one tangible achievement that was – that resulted from the last QDDR?
MS. PSAKI: I am certain that those who were here at the time, who worked hard on that effort, could –
LEE: One that – since you’ve–
MS. PSAKI: — point out one.
LEE: — that since you’ve come on board that you’ve noticed, that someone has said – that you noticed, that you can point back saying, “Wow, the first QDDR identified this as a problem and dealt with it.”
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, I’ve only been here since it was concluded.
LEE: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: So I’m sure there are a range of things that were put into place that I’m not even aware of were a result.
LEE: I won’t hold my breath.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.


Concealed carry holder in Chicago successfully defends himself against two armed attackers

Police have determined that the person acted in self-defense.  From the Chicago Tribune:
A 53-year-old South Austin man with a valid concealed carry permit was able to shoot at two men who tried to accost him outside of his home early this morning. 
The incident happened about 2:40 a.m. on the 5400 block of West Van Buren Street, said Chicago Police Department News Affairs Officer Michael Sullivan. 
The man was walking from his garage to the front of his home when two males in hoodies appeared in a gangway between his home and the neighbor's home, Sullivan said. 
One of the two men pulled a handgun from his waistband and pointed at the man who took out his own gun and managed to fire several times at the males, Sullivan said.
The males fled the area without being struck and the shooting did not result in any property damage, police said. . . . .

Labels: ,


Note that at its height 115,000 Americans are said to have had pre-existing health issues that made it difficult for them to get "affordable" insurance

Note that this 115,000 number likely seems to be an over estimate because after the Obama administration had a hard time getting people to enter the program it cut the insurance premiums so much that it was actually cheaper for people with pre-existing conditions to get insurance than for healthy individuals.

Still the issue is question is if you want to help out 115,000 people, why not provide those individuals with a subsidy rather than changing health insurance for everyone?



More Media Matters mistakes on gun-free zones

On April 16, 2014, Media Matters has a new post entitled: "Fox's Bolling Inadvertently Advocates For Gun-Free Zones."

1) "Bolling has been a vocal critic of gun-free zones, frequently promoting the right-wing misnomer that mass shooters target places like schools where guns are banned. According to Bolling's logic, gun-free zones are 'easy targets for whackos,' so 'it's time to take those gun-free zones signs down.' He's argued that mass shootings 'would happen with far less frequency' if no such gun bans existed."
Media Matters' link go back to previous posts that they have put up on the topic.  I have put up some notes on their incorrect statements available here

The point of this discussion was that Michael Bloomberg has 24 hour/7 day a week armed body guards.  He understands the benefits from guns for protection, but he opposes others being able to have the same protection.  That he supports a gun-free zone for everyone but himself.  

Of course, Media Matters doesn't directly deal with this point.

Instead, Media Matters points out that gun shows ask patrons not to have guns loaded.  They also make it sound as if there are attacks involving multiple victim public shootings that occur at gun shows.  
2) When shootings do occasionally occur at gun shows, it's been because people don't follow these rules and bring in loaded weapons. As CNN reported in the case of an accidental shooting at a gun show last year, "The original owner of the Taurus semi-automatic 9 mm handgun used in the shooting brought the firearm into the show fully loaded. This is despite the policy of searches to make sure all guns are not loaded and rendered safe before others can handle them."
Gun shows are hardly gun-free zones.  Even in shows where guns are unloaded, both guns and ammunition are easily accessible.  If an attack were to occur, in seconds the guns could be loaded.  There are so many guns that could quickly be loaded at a gun show, it would make only a small difference in being able to respond quickly to an attack.  With lots of people handling guns at a show, the sponsors want to make sure that there are no accidental discharges.  With no real chance of a successful mass shooting or a robbery, it seems reasonable to limit risks of accidental shootings.  The one case that Media Matters points to is an accidental shooting. 
3) "Studies show that most mass shootings in recent years have occurred in places where guns were allowed, and experts say that gun-free zones do not encourage mass shootings. It seems Bolling has finally agreed, albeit inadvertently."
In order, the responses to the links that Media Matters makes are "studies show" available here.  The discussion in the link to "occurred" attacks research that Ann Coulter cites by myself and William Landes, but the problem is that their attack has nothing to do with the research.  In the final link ("experts say"), Media Matters relies on a report by Mother Jones.  The problems with that article are available here.

It was nice of Greg Gutfeld to mention me in his discussion.



Top Hillary fund raiser from 2008 presidential campaign pleads guilty to illegal contribution (comparison to Dinesh D'Souza's case)

This is the same type of crime that Dinesh D'Souza is accused of, though his amount is much smaller ($20,000 versus $180,000).  It will be interesting to see how the penalties compare.  Hillary's donor faces a maximum of 25 years, but agreed to a plea deal that looks like he will face 5.25 years in prison and forfeit $1 million.  From Politico:
A prominent New York hotel magnate who was a top bundler for then-Sen. Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign pled guilty in federal court Thursday to making more than $180,000 in illegal campaign contributions and to witness tampering. 
Sant Chatwal, 70, admitted using employees and vendors for his hotels as straw donors to avoid limits dictated by campaign finance law. Investigators also recorded Chatwal telling an associate not to admit that donations were reimbursed, court papers say. 
"Without [donations] nobody will even talk to you," Chatwal said in a recorded conversation, according to a criminal information filed in lieu of an indictment in the case (and posted here). "When they are in need of money [unintelligible] the money you give then they are always for you.That's the only way to buy them, get into the system." . . .
In Dinesh's case, the maximum penalty is seven years if the prison terms were to run consecutively.
D’Souza was charged Thursday with one count of making illegal campaign contributions, which carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison. He also is charged with one count of causing false statements to be made to the FEC, which carries a maximum of five years in prison. . . . 
A copy of the indictment against Dinesh is available here.  I don't put it past the Obama administration to punish a political opponent, but the evidence seems pretty strong.  This is from Gawker (note that Denise Odie Joseph was Dinesh's mistress at this time and Tyler Vawser was his personal assistant).
On August 30, 2012, according to a quarterly report filed two months later, the Long campaign received a $10,000 donation under the name of Joseph’s husband. On the same day, the campaign received another $10,000 donation, under Vawser’s name. Campaign finance law caps individual contributions at $5,000, so both donations were flagged by Long’s treasurer for “reattribution/redesignation.” (By then D’Souza and his wife Dixie had both contributed the maximum amount to Long’s campaign.)
Vawser’s $10,000 donation was never split up or refunded, according to subsequent FEC filings. But on October 22, 2012—a week after D’Souza’s affair with Joseph scandalized the evangelical community and D’Souza resigned his presidency at The King’s College—Long’s treasurer “reattributed” $5,000 of Louis Joseph’s original donation to Denise Joseph, leaving Louis with an identical $5,000 contribution. (It's not clear from the filings why Joseph received a post-election refund for $5,000—a perfectly legal amount of money.)
If Joseph’s refund triggered the U.S. Attorney’s investigation (and Bharara’s timeline suggests it may have done so), it would have been quick work finding her husband’s original $10,000 donation, Vawser’s donation for the same amount (on the same day!), and finally the trio’s lowest common denominator: Dinesh D’Souza.
D’Souza’s lawyer has denied the charges, claiming they arose from “an act of misguided friendship.”
The problem that I see with Dinesh's defense is that he will have to explain why both donations occurred at the same time.  If it was due to a misunderstanding, he will have to explain why two people had the exact same misunderstanding at the same time.

Labels: ,