STUDY: CHICAGO HOMICIDES SPIKED DUE TO ACLU POLICE DECREE

STUDY: CHICAGO HOMICIDES SPIKED DUE TO ACLU POLICE DECREE

 BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN POLICING

Paul Cassell is a law professor and former federal district court judge. Richard Fowles is an economics professor. Both teach at the University of Utah.

Cassell and Fowles have studied the spike of homicides in Chicago in 2016. Through multiple regression analysis and other tools, they conclude that an ACLU consent decree triggered a sharp reduction in stop and frisks by the Chicago Police Department, which in turn caused homicides to spike. In other words, what Chicago police officers call the “ACLU effect” is real. That effect was more homicides and shootings.

Cassell explains:

Our article proceeds in several steps. It begins by describing in general terms what is quite accurately called a “spike” in homicides in Chicago in 2016. A 58% year-to-year change [from 480 killed in 2015 to 754 killed the next year] in America’s “Second City” is staggering, suggesting something changed dramatically to initiate the increase.

We next attempt to pinpoint the time when things changed in Chicago—what might be called the “inflection” or “break” point in the data series. We begin by seasonally adjusting Chicago homicide and shooting data, which show significant seasonal fluctuation from cold weather months to warm weather months. Once the data are seasonally adjusted, a change or “break” in the data series can be statistically detected around November 2015.

We next explore the possibility that, as been suggested by a number of observers, a reduction in stop and frisks by the Chicago Police Department that began at the very end of 2015 was responsible for the homicide spike starting immediately thereafter. Good reasons exist for believing that the decline in stop and frisks caused the spike. Simple visual observation of the data suggests a cause-and-effect change. . . . November 2015 [is] the break point in the homicide data. This is precisely when stop and frisks declined in Chicago. . . .

Detailed regression analysis of the homicide (and related shooting) data strongly supports what visual observation suggests. Using monthly data from 2012 through 2016, we are able to control for such factors as temperature, homicides in other parts of Illinois, 9-1-1 calls (as a measure of police-citizen cooperation), and arrests for various types of crimes. Even controlling for these factors, our equations indicate that the steep decline in stop and frisks was strongly linked, at high levels of statistical significance, to the sharp increase in homicides (and other shooting crimes) in 2016.

Cassell and Fowles then searched for other possible factors that might be responsible for the Chicago homicide spike. None fit the data as well as the decline in stop and frisks.

Cassell and Fowles quantified the costs of the decline in stop and frisks in human and financial terms. They found that, because of fewer stop and frisks in 2016, a conservative estimate is that approximately 236 additional homicides and 1115 additional shootings occurred during that year. A reasonable estimate of the social costs associated with these additional homicides and shootings is about $1,500,000,000. And these costs are heavily concentrated in Chicago’s African-American and Hispanic communities.

What caused this deadly reduction in stop and frisks? In the final portion of their analysis, Cassell and Fowles show that it was the ACLU consent decree. This shouldn’t be controversial. The ACLU took credit for the reduction at the time.

Cassell and Fowles conclude by situating their findings within a larger body of developing empirical literature supporting the conclusion that restrictions on law enforcement investigations has real-world consequences by reducing police effectiveness. In Chicago, these consequences appear to be tragic, indeed.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/03/study-chicago-homicides-spiked-due-to-aclu-police-decree.php

STORMY REFLECTIONS--STORMY WEATHER?

STORMY REFLECTIONS

Donald Trump is to the Obama era as Jimmy Carter was to the Nixon era. His presidency could not exist without it. Whereas Obama preserved the outward forms of the presidency as head of state, he broke the forms in substance as head of government. By contrast, Trump breaks the outward forms as head of state while working to restore the substance as head of government.

Beyond Obama, however, last night’s Stormy Daniels interview on 60 Minutes reminded me how important the Clinton presidency was to making Trump possible. Trump would not be president were it not for the presidency of Bill Clinton and the faithful service that Hillary Clinton rendered to its preservation. Hillary was a terrible candidate in her own right, of course, but consider how Bill and Hillary paved the way for Trump every bit as much as Barack Obama did.

The Stormy affair is ancient history. Unlike Clinton’s more notable escapades, at least it was consensual and at least it didn’t take place in the Oval Office. Yet the media — 60 Minutes, Anderson Cooper, and the rest of the Democrats’ mainstream media adjunct that agitated in support of Clinton’s preservation — are working overtime to make the Stormy affair a current political scandal that might take Trump down. I should think that the electorate must already have discounted Trump’s marital bona fides rather heavily when it bought Trump.

The “grab them by the pussy” tape almost proved fatal to Trump’s candidacy. By any conventional standard, he should have been a goner. Trump survived the release of the tape in incredibly Trumpian fashion. Indeed, Trump revealed his skill as a candidate exploiting a Clintonian weakness when he assembled female former victims of Bill Clinton for a news conference and sought to seat them in his VIP box at the debate with Hillary Clinton in St. Louis. His position was that history must be told and a single standard applied.

At a fateful moment of his candidacy, Trump theatrically called Clinton out. It was outrageous. Putting the character of the Clinton presidency on display in this way, Trump flaunted the truth that CBS et al. had sought to suppress in the Clinton era, or the truth from which they had done averted their eyes. Through the drawn-out Lewinksy matter and related impeachment drama, Bill Clinton has done at least as much as any other American to desensitize us. And he did so with the invaluable assistance of the Missus all along the way.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/03/stormy-reflections.php

STORMY WEATHER?

After last night’s 60 Minutes interview, it’s clear that the story Stormy Daniels, her lawyer, and CBS are peddling has three elements: sex, campaign finance law, and intimidation. Let’s look at all three.

Daniels’ claim that she had sex with Donald Trump is more than credible given the money she was paid to keep quiet about it. The idea that Trump would have extra-marital sex just months after his wife gave birth is revolting. However, in the post-Bill Clinton/pussy-grab era, I question whether the sex side of this story has much resonance.

What about the claim that campaign finance law was violated when Trump’s lawyer paid Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet? The theory is that this was a campaign contribution well in excess of what the lawyer was allowed to donate.

We may see Democrats push this theory during impeachment proceedings if they win control of the House. However, I don’t think it moves the needle.

The claim that someone threatened Daniels and her child if the porn star didn’t keep quiet about her relations with Trump would raise very serious concerns if true and if Trump authorized or knew about it. However, so far as I know, we have only Daniels’ word that she was threatened, and no evidence that Trump authorized or knew about any threats.

It’s possible that Daniels was threatened and that Trump was involved. However, I don’t take her word for it. She is not a credible witness.

For one thing, Daniels took $130,000 in exchange for not talking about her relations with Trump, and then talked about them. That’s reason enough not to trust her.

For another, Daniels has previously stated that she didn’t have sex with Trump. Now she says she did. This is not an honest person.

In addition, some of what Daniels told CBS’s Anderson Cooper doesn’t pass the straight face test. When Cooper asked why Daniels consented to having sex with Trump, she said it was because she “had it coming.”

I realized exactly what I’d gotten myself into. And I was like, “Ugh, here we go.” (laugh) And I just felt like maybe– (laugh) it was sort of– I had it coming for making a bad decision for going to someone’s room alone and I just heard the voice in my head, “well, you put yourself in a bad situation and bad things happen, so you deserve this.”

That’s ridiculous. Daniels was under no obligation to have sex with Trump merely because she went to his room alone. And Daniels has a strong will — that’s apparent from the rest of the interview. She could have walked out of Trump’s room, and surely would have had she not seen an advantage in staying for sex.

The advantage may have been sexual pleasure. It may have been the opportunity to do business with Trump, e.g., via an appearance on Celebrity Apprentice. In any case, the true reason why Daniels had sex with Trump was not that she considered it condign punishment for going to his room.

Daniels is dishonest. So is Trump. But she should bear the burden of proving that someone threatened her. In my view, she cannot meet that burden through her word alone.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/03/stormy-weather.php

Hollywood Support For Gun Control Backfires

 by Tom Knighton

By the time you read this, the March For Our Lives should be over. Once again, a bunch of kids is trying to tell us the realities of things some of us have studied in-depth for years now. As I’m writing this ahead of time, I’m not going to comment on the March itself. Yes, I can predict how it will go, but I could also be wrong.

Besides, this isn’t about the march. No, this is about the Hollywood celebrities who are supporting the march.

You see, Hollywood has a love/hate relationship with guns. They love movies with them. They just don’t think you or I should have them, and to make matters worse, they’re vocal about it.

To be sure, they have that right, same as anyone. However, as Hollywood in Toto notes, them exercising that right as vocally as they have been might not work out as well for them as they’d like.

There’s just one problem with this round of celebrity virtue signaling. And it’s huge.

A new study showed that the more celebrities talk up gun control, the more people support the Second Amendment.

Zogby Analytics found that when movie stars, who often have their own gun-toting security protecting them, slam access to guns, support for guns increases.

The poll provided to Secrets found that millennials especially repel at Hollywood’s anti-gun message, which can be especially hypocritical coming from those involved in violent movies, TV shows and video games.

“Hollywood interjecting itself into the debate makes even the Democratic base want to bear arms,” said the survey analysis in a surprising finding. “There could also be an element of hypocrisy driving the numbers, since many actors and actresses have bodyguards who carry guns and Hollywood churns out movies depicting guns and violence,” it said.

Given that reality, stars would be wise to keep quiet and let the activists seize the day. They can still write as many checks as they wish for the cause, albeit without any huzzahs (or press releases). By standing down they’ll give the movement a greater chance to succeed.

Students who survived a school shooting, in theory, are far more effective at getting the message out than any A-lister. Even diehard NRA members have sympathy for students who survived a mass shooting even if they respectfully disagree with their solutions.

Only the stars can’t help themselves. They have to inject themselves into the march.

Author Christian Toto is absolutely correct; they can’t. Even when they think it will distract from whatever, many will argue that it won’t and go anyway, which is fine.

I want them to go and be seen. I want the average American to see the privileged elite marching, surrounded by bodyguards, as they make their way through the crowd. I want people to see the complete hypocrisy in their desire to see us disarmed while they outsource personal protection.

They’re not the only ones who face danger, after all, so why should they get a monopoly on protection?

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/03/25/hollywood-support-gun-control-backfires/

TAGS:HOLLYWOODHOLLYWOOD HYPOCRITESMARCH FOR OUR LIVES

Parkland Student: The Attacks On Marco Rubio Aren’t Provocative Enough

ALLAHPUNDIT

Via the Free Beacon. “What’s puzzling,” wrote Reihan Salam last month, “is that Rubio seems more intensely disliked on the left than politicians well to his right, who don’t share his zeal for making the tax code more generous towards the working poor.” Why would progressives disdain a centrist, with whom they share some common ground on ends if not means, more intensely than they do doctrinaire right-wingers? Why would David Hogg and the adult gun-grabbers hiding behind him want to make an example of Rubio, who’s offered multiple bills aimed at curbing gun violence over the past month, more so than a red-stater from gun country like Ted Cruz or Ben Sasse or Jim Inhofe?

SEE ALSO: CNN poll: Trump approval highest in months as GOP midterm deficit with Dems shrinks

I’ll re-up the point I made yesterday:

Rubio may also be stuck as the hate object here *because* he’s been the Republican most open to compromise on gun control lately. That seems counterintuitive: Why punish the guy who’s willing to work with you? By definition, though, the guy willing to work with you is more susceptible to pressure than the guy who isn’t. It’d do them no good to attack a Republican who’s adamantly pro-gun and won’t compromise. And why would they credit Rubio for his proposals when those proposals are way, way short of their ambitions? It’s not just lunatics whom they want to disarm, it’s the law-abiding. They don’t want “gun-violence restraining orders” to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous people, they want a ban on assault weapons at a minimum and ideally something much more far-reaching. Agreeing to Rubio’s proposals might actually damage the cause of banning guns since it might sate the public’s appetite for greater regulation, at least for a good long while. They want all the guns, and increasingly they’re not shy about saying so.

The problem with a guy like Rubio is that if his proposals are implemented and they work, the air goes out of the balloon for the other side. If “gun-violence restraining orders” prove popular and effective in keeping weapons out of the hands of nuts while leaving law-abiding gun owners in peace, the political energy needed to impose a sweeping ban on popular types of guns collapses. The left will still be gung ho for it because they’re the left but the ocean of persuadeables who don’t feel strongly one way or another will be satisfied that Rubio’s solution has made a bad situation better and accept the new status quo. Having Cruz or Inhofe intone on the Senate floor about the Second Amendment poses no threat to gun-controllers because everyone understands that that core group of strong-form gun-rights supporters exists. Persuadeables have heard their arguments for years. Ask a gun-grabber and they’ll tell you that Second Amendment absolutism in the face of horrors are Parkland is among their best tools in recruiting people to the side of gun-grabbing. What Rubio’s trying to do is create a new group of gun-rights supporters that’s somewhat less strong, more willing to take weapons from a gun owner who presents “red flags” but unwilling to take them from average citizens.

That’s the guy who threatens to split your coalition if you’re a gun-controller, not the others.

And that’s why David Hogg, whatever his age, is shrewd to keep demagoging Rubio. If the goal really were to prevent mass shootings and not take guns out of Americans’ hands to the fullest extent possible politically, Rubio would be an ally. But the goal is what it is and therefore they have to keep marginalizing him as a figure every bit as radical as the most radical right-wing gun-rights supporters. He’s still supported by the NRA, Hogg notes here when asked why the students keep attacking him. The NRA is the central boogeyman in all of this, any contact with which taints one irretrievably regardless of the legislation one proposes. “They’re pathetic f***ers that want to keep killing our children,” Hogg said elsewhere of the NRA recently, and Rubio shares their baseline view about the average citizen’s right to own guns. What more do you need to know? He’s a child-killer by association. Don’t listen to him!

And to be doubly fair to Hogg, accepting a compromise right now really might mean squandering an unusual opportunity. Many a reporter surveying the data on public interest in gun control after Parkland has noted that Americans’ engagement with this issue has been much more durable than it’s been after other mass shootings. It’s *possible* that this will be an issue in the midterms. Even if it isn’t, galvanizing grassroots support on the left might frighten congressional Democrats sufficiently to make this a key agenda item when they’re back in charge of the House and Senate. Why would you cede any of that political momentum by agreeing to Rubio’s half-a-loaf solutions? The maximalist position is to press your advantage and aim for total victory. They can get that assault-weapons ban if only they refuse to compromise and keep flogging their opponents. And the more an opponent reaches for the political middle, the harder he should be flogged.

But this is all a truism. Of course maximalists hate centrists, in gun policy and every other kind of policy. What else is new?

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/26/parkland-student-attacks-marco-rubio-arent-provocative-enough/

TAGS:COMPROMISEDAVID HOGGFIX-NICSMARCO RUBIONRAPARKLANDPROVOCATIVESTUDENT

Could France's Islam Problem Happen Here?

Could France's Islam Problem Happen Here?

 

BY ROGER L SIMON

Remember radical Islam or Islamism or Islamic terror or whatever you want to call it?  In the welter of calamities (sometimes pseudo-calamities) that are occurring, or we are told are occurring, in this country on a daily basis, it seems to have been forgotten or ignored.  This despite its civilizational implications.  Even the near-defeat of ISIS as a state is met with a yawn. Nevertheless, it continues:

A gunman killed three people in southwestern France on Friday in a burst of violence that included hijacking a car, shooting at police officers and opening fire and taking hostages in a supermarket.

The gunman, who witnesses said claimed to be acting on behalf of the Islamic State, was later killed by police officers who stormed the market. An officer wounded after exchanging places with some hostages was “fighting against death” in the hospital on Friday night, President Emmanuel Macron said.

The attack rattled nerves in a country that has been hit hard by terrorism in recent years, and it underscored the threat posed by individuals inspired by terrorist propaganda but who act outside of any structured networks, making it difficult for intelligence services to monitor them.

“The level of the terrorist threat on our territory has not waned,” said François Molins, the Paris prosecutor, who handles terrorism investigations nationwide. “It is the result of radicalized individuals who are on our national territory.”

Monsieur Molins is undoubtedly correct, but the threat on their territory exists because French leadership lets it.  You would think the horrific attacks at the Bataclan theatre, Charlie Hebdo offices and Hypercacher supermarket would have been sufficient, but no. Change has not occurred.

Finally, 100 diverse French intellectuals have had enough. This week they published a denunciation of Islamist totalitarianism in Le Figaro. (The translation is by Leslie Shaw of the invaluable Clarion Project.)

We are citizens of differing and often diametrically opposed views, who have found agreement in expressing our concern in the face of the rise of Islamism. We are united not by our affinities, but by the feeling of danger that threatens freedom in general and not just freedom of thought.

That which unites us today is more fundamental than that which will undoubtedly separate us tomorrow.

Islamist totalitarianism seeks to gain ground by every means possible and to represent itself as a victim of intolerance. This strategy was demonstrated some weeks ago when the SUD Education 93 teachers union proposed a training course that included workshops on state racism from which white people were barred.

Several of the facilitators were members or sympathizers of the CCIF (French Collective Against Islamophobia) or the Natives of the Republic party. Such examples have proliferated recently. We have thus learned that the best way to combat racism is to separate races. If this idea shocks us, it is because we are Republicans.

We also hear it said that because religions in France are trampled on by an institutionalized secularism, everything that is in a minority — in other words Islam — must be accorded a special place so that it can cease to be humiliated.

Sound familiar?  Ce n'est pas seulement la France, mes amis. Islamism or Islam in general seeks  to "represent itself as a victim of intolerance" not just in the cafés of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, but equally in the dining halls of Harvard and Yale and we don't seem to be any more honest about it than the French.

The intellectuals' statement goes on:

This same argument continues by asserting that in covering themselves with a hijab, women are protecting themselves from men and that keeping themselves apart is a means to emancipation.

What these proclamations have in common is the idea that the only way to defend the “dominated” (the term is that of SUD Education 93) is to set them apart and grant them privileges.

Not so long ago, apartheid reigned in South Africa. Based on the segregation of blacks, it sought to exonerate itself by creating bantustans(territories set aside for black South Africans) where blacks were granted false autonomy. Fortunately this system no longer exists.

Today, a new kind of apartheid is emerging in France, a segregation in reverse thanks to which the “dominated” seek to retain their dignity by sheltering themselves from the “dominators.”

This too seems not very far from what is going on on our college campuses today where the dreamed-of integrated society of MLK and others has been turned on its head with people of color banning whites from classrooms and self-segregating.

The results have not been quite as bad as in France -- yet.  But the warnings of these French intellectuals should be heeded. They are ominous.

The entire statement is available here.

Roger L. Simon is an award-winning novelist, Academy Award-nominated screenwriter and co-founder of PJ Media.  His latest book is I Know Best:  How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If  It Hasn't Already. He tweets - although his number of followers may have been suppressed - @rogerlsimon.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/frances-islam-problem-happen/

Michelle Obama admits her vegetable garden shtick was all a ruse

By Monica Showalter

In the midst of a flap about Washington Post pop fashion writer Robin Givhan getting kicked out of a Black Entertainment Television conference for violating confidentiality, we learn something new about the Real Michelle Obama from Givhan's reporting, first spotted in a buried lede in a New York Post story:

"The garden was a subversive act," she said. "You can't go in with guns blazing until people trust you."

The passage continues in the Givhan report in the Washington Post here:

And there could be no reprimanding.  No finger-wagging.  Because she knew that her finger-wagging, a black woman's finger-wagging, would be both amplified and resented.

So she gave herself a bit of advice: Put down your finger and pick up the garden hoe.  "What's more innocent than a garden?" Mrs. Obama said.

All to conceal her real agenda by enticing people to trust her?  Because anyone would be racist not to?
Reporting this was what got Givhan kicked out of the conference.  Apparently, the conference-organizers thought she would ignore her journalist's nose for news and continue to carry water for the Obamas as she always has.  Apparently, she just couldn't resist – and in any case, Givhan probably thought the passage flattered Michelle Obama.
It didn't.  The statement was meant to be off the record, private, and secret, just as President Obama wanted his speech to an unimportant sports conference kept top-secret.  This is what she says in private when she thinks the cameras are off.
And it doesn't paint a pretty picture.  In a bid to advance a wide-ranging left-wing agenda on America, Michelle Obama strategized that it would be best to fool the American people first into thinking she was just a nice garden lady and concerned only about nutrition.  Her "nasty-rotty" food left the trust thing a failure, but never mind that.
What she had in mind was an Alinskyite grand plan for eurotrashifying America into one of Europe's miserable failing social democracies, where the government watches every bite you put into your mouth and everything else you do, leaving you with zero choices.  The ruse to get it in place is an Alinskyite tactic.  Instead of just saying up front and outright that she wanted socialism, she came gently, proffering a basket of healthy vegetables to the trusting American people as bait before presumably moving on to her real agenda.
Why else would she reveal her strategy that way and not want it to become public?
Voters should remember it if and when Michelle Obama runs for president.

In the midst of a flap about Washington Post pop fashion writer Robin Givhan getting kicked out of a Black Entertainment Television conference for violating confidentiality, we learn something new about the Real Michelle Obama from Givhan's reporting, first spotted in a buried lede in a New York Post story:

"The garden was a subversive act," she said. "You can't go in with guns blazing until people trust you."

The passage continues in the Givhan report in the Washington Post here:

And there could be no reprimanding.  No finger-wagging.  Because she knew that her finger-wagging, a black woman's finger-wagging, would be both amplified and resented.

So she gave herself a bit of advice: Put down your finger and pick up the garden hoe.  "What's more innocent than a garden?" Mrs. Obama said.

All to conceal her real agenda by enticing people to trust her?  Because anyone would be racist not to?

Reporting this was what got Givhan kicked out of the conference.  Apparently, the conference-organizers thought she would ignore her journalist's nose for news and continue to carry water for the Obamas as she always has.  Apparently, she just couldn't resist – and in any case, Givhan probably thought the passage flattered Michelle Obama.
It didn't.  The statement was meant to be off the record, private, and secret, just as President Obama wanted his speech to an unimportant sports conference kept top-secret.  This is what she says in private when she thinks the cameras are off.
And it doesn't paint a pretty picture.  In a bid to advance a wide-ranging left-wing agenda on America, Michelle Obama strategized that it would be best to fool the American people first into thinking she was just a nice garden lady and concerned only about nutrition.  Her "nasty-rotty" food left the trust thing a failure, but never mind that.
What she had in mind was an Alinskyite grand plan for eurotrashifying America into one of Europe's miserable failing social democracies, where the government watches every bite you put into your mouth and everything else you do, leaving you with zero choices.  The ruse to get it in place is an Alinskyite tactic.  Instead of just saying up front and outright that she wanted socialism, she came gently, proffering a basket of healthy vegetables to the trusting American people as bait before presumably moving on to her real agenda.
Why else would she reveal her strategy that way and not want it to become public?
Voters should remember it if and when Michelle Obama runs for president.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/03/michelle_obama_admits_her_vegetable_garden_schtick_was_all_a_ruse.html#ixzz5Ags9YXZI
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Is California Governor Jerry Brown Mentally Ill?

By Lloyd Marcus

Leftists are relentlessly selling their bogus narrative that Trump is insane.  Here are samples of leftists' headlines: "Lawmakers Met With Psychiatrist About Trump's Mental Health," "President Trump's Mental State An 'Enormous Present Danger,'" "The Awkward Debate Around Trump's Mental Fitness," "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists Assess."
So what has Trump done to convince leftists that he must be crazy?  Unlike Republicans, Trump fearlessly confronts fake news media, calling them out when they lie.  Unlike Obama's punish-evil-America-first presidency, Trump has America's best interest at heart.  Unlike leftists seeking to dissolve our borders, Trump plans to build a wall to protect our people and our economy.  Insanely, leftists cheered when Obama allowed Ebola into America, claiming it was racist and unfair for Americans not to be subjected to the disease.  Unlike Obama, Hillary, Democrats, and fake news media's war on Christianity (forcing a 100-year-old order of Catholic nuns to fund contraception and forcing Christian businesses to service same-sex ceremonies), Trump vows to defend religious liberty.

So I guess, according to leftists' perverse way of thinking, that Trump must be crazy, along with the 63 million Americans who voted for him.
Meanwhile, leftists are ignoring glaring reasons to question the sanity of California's governor, Jerry Brown.  The entire country is talking about the collapse of California due to decades of insane liberal policies.  And what is Governor Brown's response?  He implemented hundreds more destructive liberal rules, regulations, and giveaways to illegals.  An article listing the top ten stupidest new California laws includes "Single-User Restrooms," "Controlling Cow Flatulence," "Legalizing Child Prostitution," and "Felons Voting." 
Governor Brown signed a new law making California a sanctuary state, doubling down on his bizarre quest to undermine American citizens.  In essence, Brown gave federal law, President Trump, and legal California residents his middle finger.  Numerous California families have suffered devastating losses of family members killed by illegals with long felony records who have been deported several times and welcomed back with open arms by Brown.  One mom whose son was killed by an illegal with two DUIs and two felonies said Brown should be arrested for treason.  Isn't it reasonable to question Brown's sanity?
Liberal governing has transformed beautiful California into the poverty capital of America with the worst quality of life.  Crazy taxes, crazy high cost of living, and crazy overreaching regulations have crushed the middle class, forcing the middle class to exit the Sunshine State.  All that is left in California are illegals feeding at the breast of the state, rapidly growing massive homeless tent cities, and the mega-rich.  Would a sane governor take pride in causing this to happen to his state?
Headline: "San Francisco Is A Literal [s-]hole, Public Defecation Map Reveals."  Can you imagine homeless people pooping on the streets being so pervasive that an interactive map was created to help citizens avoid the piles of poop?  Human feces carries infectious diseases.  What kind of irrational logic deems posing such health risks to constituents an act of compassion?  Is Governor Brown crazy?
Insanely, three fourths of California's taxpayer dollars – more than $30 billion – is spent on illegal aliens.  Meanwhile, despite the highest taxes in the nation, California is $1.3 trillion in debt – unemployment is at a staggering 11%.  California's wacko giveaways to illegals include in-state tuition, amounting to $25 million of financial aid.  Nearly a million illegals have California driver's licenses.  L.A. County has 144% more registered voters than there are residents of legal voting age.  Clearly, illegals are illegally voting. 
Get this, folks: Americans are spending almost a billion dollars a year on auto insurance for illegals.  Brown is gifting illegals billions in welfare and housing while his constituents cannot find a place to live.
Ten years ago, a buddy of mine excitedly moved his family from Maryland to California to accept the highest-paying job of his career.  Despite his lucrative salary, he was forced to move back east due to the outrageously high cost of living.  My buddy said if he were an illegal, practically everything would be free.  His story inspired me to write and record a Beach Boys-style song titled "Can't Afford the Sunshine." 
Once again, I ask you, folks: would a rational governor do what Brown is doing to his constituents?  Is Governor Jerry Brown mentally ill?
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth
http://LloydMarcus.com

Leftists are relentlessly selling their bogus narrative that Trump is insane.  Here are samples of leftists' headlines: "Lawmakers Met With Psychiatrist About Trump's Mental Health," "President Trump's Mental State An 'Enormous Present Danger,'" "The Awkward Debate Around Trump's Mental Fitness," "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists Assess."
So what has Trump done to convince leftists that he must be crazy?  Unlike Republicans, Trump fearlessly confronts fake news media, calling them out when they lie.  Unlike Obama's punish-evil-America-first presidency, Trump has America's best interest at heart.  Unlike leftists seeking to dissolve our borders, Trump plans to build a wall to protect our people and our economy.  Insanely, leftists cheered when Obama allowed Ebola into America, claiming it was racist and unfair for Americans not to be subjected to the disease.  Unlike Obama, Hillary, Democrats, and fake news media's war on Christianity (forcing a 100-year-old order of Catholic nuns to fund contraception and forcing Christian businesses to service same-sex ceremonies), Trump vows to defend religious liberty.
So I guess, according to leftists' perverse way of thinking, that Trump must be crazy, along with the 63 million Americans who voted for him.
Meanwhile, leftists are ignoring glaring reasons to question the sanity of California's governor, Jerry Brown.  The entire country is talking about the collapse of California due to decades of insane liberal policies.  And what is Governor Brown's response?  He implemented hundreds more destructive liberal rules, regulations, and giveaways to illegals.  An article listing the top ten stupidest new California laws includes "Single-User Restrooms," "Controlling Cow Flatulence," "Legalizing Child Prostitution," and "Felons Voting." 
Governor Brown signed a new law making California a sanctuary state, doubling down on his bizarre quest to undermine American citizens.  In essence, Brown gave federal law, President Trump, and legal California residents his middle finger.  Numerous California families have suffered devastating losses of family members killed by illegals with long felony records who have been deported several times and welcomed back with open arms by Brown.  One mom whose son was killed by an illegal with two DUIs and two felonies said Brown should be arrested for treason.  Isn't it reasonable to question Brown's sanity?

Liberal governing has transformed beautiful California into the poverty capital of America with the worst quality of life.  Crazy taxes, crazy high cost of living, and crazy overreaching regulations have crushed the middle class, forcing the middle class to exit the Sunshine State.  All that is left in California are illegals feeding at the breast of the state, rapidly growing massive homeless tent cities, and the mega-rich.  Would a sane governor take pride in causing this to happen to his state?
Headline: "San Francisco Is A Literal [s-]hole, Public Defecation Map Reveals."  Can you imagine homeless people pooping on the streets being so pervasive that an interactive map was created to help citizens avoid the piles of poop?  Human feces carries infectious diseases.  What kind of irrational logic deems posing such health risks to constituents an act of compassion?  Is Governor Brown crazy?
Insanely, three fourths of California's taxpayer dollars – more than $30 billion – is spent on illegal aliens.  Meanwhile, despite the highest taxes in the nation, California is $1.3 trillion in debt – unemployment is at a staggering 11%.  California's wacko giveaways to illegals include in-state tuition, amounting to $25 million of financial aid.  Nearly a million illegals have California driver's licenses.  L.A. County has 144% more registered voters than there are residents of legal voting age.  Clearly, illegals are illegally voting. 
Get this, folks: Americans are spending almost a billion dollars a year on auto insurance for illegals.  Brown is gifting illegals billions in welfare and housing while his constituents cannot find a place to live.
Ten years ago, a buddy of mine excitedly moved his family from Maryland to California to accept the highest-paying job of his career.  Despite his lucrative salary, he was forced to move back east due to the outrageously high cost of living.  My buddy said if he were an illegal, practically everything would be free.  His story inspired me to write and record a Beach Boys-style song titled "Can't Afford the Sunshine." 
Once again, I ask you, folks: would a rational governor do what Brown is doing to his constituents?  Is Governor Jerry Brown mentally ill?
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/03/is_california_governor_jerry_brown_mentally_ill.html#ixzz5Agofx28Y
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Don's Tuesday Column

                 THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   3/27/2018

              Republican dinner, kids march, Facebook

Do you want a reason to plan to attend the 17^th Annual Red, White and Blue Dinner where Tehama County Republicans salute Tehama County Agriculture? Keep reading, mark the date, Saturday, April 14, and write down the phone numbers: 865-2666 and 200-0091.

It can be a bit frustrating, to say the least, to be surrounded by fellow Tehama County residents that vote overwhelmingly for candidates and propositions in line with our conservatism: Republicans for Sacramento, the House, U.S. Senate, and President, traditional marriage and so on. Then the reality hits that you can vote for conservatism and still not get it, as evidenced by the abominable “Omnibus” (Abom-nibus?) budget bill just passed and signed by President Trump.

The measured reaction—after the ranting from the usual talkers on radio and cable shows ebbs—should be to regroup, retrench, buck up and look for the “silver lining,” if there is one. In our case, there is a pony under all the barnyard manure: our own Representative Doug LaMalfa, who voted against the Omnibus-spending monstrosity. Hats off to Doug for not going along with the “beltway crowd,” as they hold hands and jump of the fiscal cliff.

That said, the invitations are in the mail but the mailing list does not include all prospective attendees. If you receive one, do use the reservation section as soon as possible so head counts can be tallied for the caterer, Rockin’ Ricks BBQ. April 14 is just around the corner so here are highlights for the night: Starting at 5:30, you’ll be able to socialize with fellow Republicans, and make offers on an abundance of nifty, practical or even whimsical “silent auction” items contributed by Tehama County businesses. What you are really doing is supporting our scholarship program and outreach budget.

Local radio impresario Cal Hunter will be the MC and deliver a patriotic message; our National Anthem will be sung, veterans saluted and a prayer and invocation will be led by Pastor Gilbert DeLao of Calvary Chapel. All will occur at the Veteran’s Memorial Hall, 735 Oak Street.

This year’s Guest Speaker will be local (from Glenn County) rancher, Shannon Douglass, 1^st Vice President of the California Farm Bureau Federation. As co-owner of Douglass Ranch, she works to raise beef cattle, sunflowers, pumpkins, corn and forage crops. Her background includes directing the Glenn County Farm Bureau, CFBF Young Farmers and Ranchers State Committee, as well as numerous other Youth, Leadership, county fair and employment advocacy positions.

That’s April 14; tickets are $45 per person, with tables for 4 or 8 available for your group. Call Linda Alston at 530-865-2666 or Jerry Crow at 530-200-0091. These are always one of the high points in the local calendar; you’ll be among friends, elected officials and candidates.

Writing on Saturday, the day of the national march by students for banning guns, err school safety, everything I wrote for last week’s column applies even more. The usual leftist organizing groups, public employee unions, anti-gun activists and liberal-run cities with buses to spare are staging a march featuring liberal youth that will not advocate a single policy that would have saved lives in Florida or any other mass shooting. Armed school personnel would have worked; undoing the grossly misdirected relaxation of school discipline under the guise of keeping minority miscreants from experiencing the consequences of criminal misbehavior—that would be a start. I see a long plan to radicalize the young.

The MSN quickly shunted away news that a 17-year old shooter with a grudge (who would have had his gun regardless of bans on sales to those under-21) was stopped, before inflicting more damage, by a school resource officer in Maryland. Good guy with gun stops bad kid with gun. It works almost every time it’s tried. “Liberalism: When you believe immature teenagers don’t know enough about guns to own them, but know enough about guns to make laws about whether you should own guns” (Patriot Journal). Hating the NRA solves nothing; it deflects attention from the real problems.

We have two liberal hypocrisy awards this week: 1) Outrage over Facebook data being used by Republican Trump; 2) Cued-up caterwauling over President Trump’s call to Russia’s Putin.

Apparently it was not well known that a celebrated part of Barack Obama’s second presidential win was the massive effort to coordinate with Facebook to build the biggest database in history. Included were the minute details of prospective voters’ online activity—all to precisely target voters most susceptible to political pitches tailored to their “profile.” Are you shocked to learn that all those “free” services, apps and sites consider you to be as much a product as a customer?

“Facebook sells ads based on what it knows about you. That’s its core business. To think otherwise is foolish…In 2007 Zuckerberg opened the Facebook platform to outside developers, who would then write their own applications to interact with users and gain access to their data on a wide scale…As The Washington Post reports, Barack Obama’s campaign made use of the same mechanisms to build its formidable social media organization.

“The New York Times reported in 2013 that Team Obama’s activities in data mining triggered alarms at Facebook.” They shrugged it off, expecting it to stop after Nov. 7 (Ed Morrisey, Theweek.com). Richard Viguerie pioneered direct mailing for Reagan’s campaigns. Door-to-door voter outreach utilizes extensive data to target individuals with select messages. Big deal.

Barack Obama congratulated 1) Vladimir Putin, 2) Turkey’s strong man, Islamist Erdogan, 3) Egypt’s wannabe Islamic dictator Morsi, 4) current strongman al Sisi and 5) America’s Islamic enemy-in-Iran, Rouhani—all questionable elections. Obama couldn’t bring himself to congratulate America’s only Middle East ally, who won an open and fair election: Israel’s Bibi Netanyahu.

Kicker: “The same people who insisted that Bill Clinton’s sex life was nobody else’s business, won’t shut up about Stormy Daniels” (Imgflip.com)