Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Thursday, February 27, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 731)
US

Black-Lives-Matter-Shoot-the-Cops-Bathroom-Message

PHOTO: Austin Police Association’s Facebook page

The Austin Police Association said an officer discovered a disturbingBlack Lives Matter message in the restroom of a store where he was taking a police report on Tuesday. “Found in south Austin. Watch your backs,” was the message that accompanied a photo of the message posted on the Austin Police Association’s Facebook page.

“I’m pretty disappointed that it was not reported by the actual business itself, and it’s unfortunate to have an officer uncover that,” Austin Police Association President Ken Casady told KXAN-TV. “People are certainly allowed to give their opinion, but when you call for the death of people, that is absolutely not acceptable.” A criminal mischief report has now been filed, KXAN reported.

Ironically, Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo just met with the members of the Austin chapter of Black Lives Matter as well as organizers for Police Lives Matter to discuss upcoming rallies organized by the two groups for 10 a.m. Saturday. The Black Lives Matter rally will take place at the State Capitol; the Police Lives Matter rally will begin at police headquarters and then participants will march to the State Capitol, KVUE said. Following the meeting, Acevedo said Black Lives Matter has been unfairly judged, referring to recent video showing BLM protestors chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry em’ like bacon!” at the Minnesota State Fair.

“There’re some people trying to hijack that movement by saying things like ‘we should go kill cops,’ ‘we should just kill white people,’” Acevedo added to KVUE. “That’s just crazy people, those aren’t legitimate members of Black Lives Matter.”

However, Acevedo made those comments prior to the recent revelations that cop-killer Joseph Johnson-Shanks, who shot and killed Kentucky State Trooper Joseph Cameron Ponder late Sunday night, was a Black Lives Matter protestor. PPD has not yet received a response to a request for comment regarding the report.

“Sometimes police departments do deserve criticism,” Casady added. “I’m not saying we’re perfect, but you should never, ever call for someone’s death or assassination.”

Following the murder of Darren Goforth, 47, a 10-year veteran of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Ron Hickman slammed anti-police rhetoric coming out of Black Lives Matter activists and politicians. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke went even further, saying “President Obama has breathed life into this ugly movement.”

According to a recent survey, as well as a number of surveys PPD has tracked over the past year, the vast majority of voters agree with and support Sheriff Hickman and Sheriff Clark, not Acevedo. A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 58% of likely voters think there is a war on police in America today, while 60% believe comments critical of the police by politicians fan the flames and make it more dangerous for police officers to do their jobs.

The Austin Police Association said an officer

Politics

Justice-Breyer

Justice Stephen Breyer testified at a House hearing. (Photo/Steven Masker)

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer apparently finds no problem with relying upon the rulings of other nation’s judges when deciding cases. In the latest issue of Time, which highlights his new book, Justice Breyer admits that he sees nothing wrong with American courts–including the Supreme Court–relying upon the laws and judicial rulings of other nations.

Should the Supreme Court care that other countries have abolished the death penalty?

That looming question animates Justice Stephen Breyer’s “The Court and the World,” a brisk but academic book that argues that it is relevant for the nation’s top judges to consider what other countries’ legal systems have decided when faced with difficult issues.

“If someone with a job roughly like my own, facing a legal problem roughly like the one confronting me, interpreting a document that resembles the one I look to, has written a legal opinion about a similar matter, why not read what that judge has said?” writes Breyer, who was appointed by President Clinton in 1994. “I might learn from it, whether or not I end up agreeing with it.”

This revelation, for obvious reasons, is highly problematic. Justice Breyer authored a separate dissenting opinion in addition to the minority opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the latest death penalty case handed down by SCOTUS at the end of June. In the 5-4 decision on a case out of Oklahoma, which decided whether the sedative midazolam could be used in executions without violating the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, the majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito upheld the use of lethal injection drugs.

Alito said death penalty opponents are waging a “guerrilla war” against executions–specifically by working to limit the supply of more effective drugs–because they cannot challenge the constitutionality of the death penalty, itself. Justice Breyer’s dissent, which was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, marked the first time two justices declared–let alone in a dissent–that it was “highly likely” to be unconstitutional. It did not sit well with either Justice Antonin Scalia or Justice Clarence Thomas, who pointed out the obvious and underscored why Breyer’s deference to the law and judicial precedent of other nations is a dereliction of his duty as a Supreme Court justice.

“Welcome to Groundhog Day. The scene is familiar: Petitioners, sentenced to die for the crimes they committed (including, in the case of one petitioner since put to death, raping and murdering an 11–month-old baby), come before this Court asking us to nullify their sentences as ‘cruel and unusual’ under the Eighth Amendment,” Justice Scalia joined by Justice Thomas wrote. “They rely on this provision because it is the only provision they can rely on.”

Why is it the “only provision they can rely on,” that is, if they aren’t relying on the laws of other countries? Justices Scalia explains, right after taking a shot at the liberal minority opinion.

“The response is also familiar: A vocal minority of the Court, waving over their heads a ream of the most recent abolitionist studies (a superabundant genre) as though they have discovered the lost folios of Shakespeare, insist that now, at long last, the death penalty must be abolished for good. Mind you, not once in the history of the American Republic has this Court ever suggested the death penalty is categorically impermissible. The reason is obvious: It is impossible to hold unconstitutional that which the Constitution explicitly contemplates. The Fifth Amendment provides that ‘[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital . . . crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,’ and that no person shall be ‘deprived of life . . . without due process of law.’”

In other words, the death penalty cannot be considered unconstitutional by any stretch of Breyer’s, Sotomayor’s or any other liberal imagination because the Constitution explicitly states under what circumstances IT IS permissible. Thus, unless you are looking at the laws of other nations, you cannot possibly fulfill your oath to interpret and uphold the Constitution if you rule otherwise.

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer apparently

Elections

What Happened to Scott Walker?

Scott-Walker-Chamber

FILE – In this Sept. 10, 2015 file photo, Republican presidential candidate, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker speaks in Eureka, Ill. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman, File)

The top relevant question heading into the CNN Republican debate tonight on Google search is “What happened to Scott Walker?”, behind only “Who is Scott Walker?” The former, for the searchers’ and governor’s sake, I can and am going to answer. While the latter question is one only the governor himself can answer, I am going to give Scott Walker advice before the CNN Republican debate Wednesday night he, no doubt, badly needs but will not get from his team of “advisors.”

If the Wisconsin governor chooses to ignore it, he will do so at his campaign’s peril. Walker, who was the odds-on favorite in the Iowa caucus up until July, gave a performance in the first debate in Ohio that might have seemed sufficient in an average primary election cycle. But Election 2016 has been anything but average. He simply cannot afford to repeat his prior mistakes–or, the candidate who PPD’s election projection model views to be one of the strongest–will sink into permanent irrelevance.

Let’s break this into two different categories–strategy and optics–beginning first with strategy.

In the August debate hosted by Fox News, Walker’s answers were short, not-so sweet and took far less time than is allotted to the candidates outlined in the debate rules. Strategically, you always take the entire time available in a debate because 1) you only have a short time to introduce yourself and convey your message to the viewers/voters and, 2) every second you forfeit is a second you give to your opponent that could potentially result in a break out moment. The governor’s debate prep team was certainly aware of the debate rules, yet were so inept they prepared answers for their candidate that did just that, a la Ben Carson.

Speaking of prepared answers, the governor should just go ahead and throw them in the garbage–like right now. Here is where we inevitably obfuscate strategy and optics, albeit necessarily. The answers in the first debate were canned, resembling more Mitt Romney circa 2012’s second and third presidential debates than Scott Walker circa 2015’s Iowa Freedom Summit. Of all the desired characteristics our focus groups keep telling us they want to see in a candidate this cycle, it is “authentic,” “genuine” and “believable” that we hear over-and-over again.

Scott Walker should be Scott Walker; the Scott Walker who became the first governor ever in American political history to survive a recall election; the Scott Walker who won three elections in four years in a state Republicans haven’t carried since President Ronald Reagan in 1988; and, the Scott Walker who did all this after taking on and defeating big labor in a purple state progressives proudly call “Labor Union’s Historic Birthplace” state.

Finally, on strategy, DO NOT attack Donald Trump, the current and clear frontrunner. Walker’s team, from the beginning, has stubbornly believed criticizing Trump’s controversial statements and positions, all the while trying to one-up him (see building a fence on the Canadian border), is a smart electoral strategy. It isn’t. It’s stupid. In fact, it’s the stupidest thing he could do.

First of all, Walker’s support has been shifting somewhat to Carly Fiorina but mostly to Ben Carson, the latter of which hasn’t exactly surged to second place by attacking The Donald. If Walker or any other candidate wants to end up at the bottom of the barrel, then pull a Sen. Rand Paul or Gov. Bobby Jindal. See how that works out. The smart play would be to attack the media, specifically Jake Tapper, who is planning on pitting Walker and the rest of the candidates against each other tonight.

“What the team and I have been doing is trying to craft questions that, in most cases, pit candidates against the other–specific candidates on the stage–on issues where they disagree, whether it’s policy, or politics, or leadership,” Tapper told Brian Stelter on CNN’s Reliable Sources. “Let’s actually have them discuss and debate.”

The strongest moment for Scott Walker in the first Republican debate was when he said–after an hour of unproductive television–that the candidates had spent too much time attacking each other than directing their fire at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It was the only line that wasn’t canned or disingenuous because it came from Scott Walker, not his team. But, keeping with his team’s overall advice, he backed off too soon and put out his own fire.

Last but not least controversial–and, I am certain this is going to cause myself and my outlet problems–Gov. Walker needs to shake up his campaign if for no other reason than optics.

Fire George Will’s wife–immediately. I don’t know Mari Will or whether she is a wonderful woman. Perhaps she is, but I don’t and Walker shouldn’t care. If anecdotal evidence–as in Donald Trump’s success, or the roaring of the crowd after he rips Will on the stomp–isn’t enough to convince Walker, then let me be as blunt as possible.

GOP primary voters are in no mood to nominate–let alone help elect in a general election–another candidate claiming they will “fight and win” for them, while lining the pockets of the same establishment class they understandably view in such an unfavorable light. It is far more damaging in the minds of GOP primary voters than Walker might realize to have Will compare him to President Ronald Reagan, while disclosing his wife serves in a shadowy “advisor” capacity to the former Iowa frontrunner.

Will, who in 1976 infamously characterized President Reagan’s supporters as consisting “primarily” of “kamikaze conservatives,” now refers to Walker as “a pure Reaganite.” He also referred to establishment favorite Gov. Jeb Bush as a bonafide Reagan conservative. While speaking of Walker’s decline Monday on Special Report with Bret Baier, Will said the campaign’s internal polling shows Walker leading among Iowa caucus-goers who actually braved the cold in 2008 and 2012. In the years I have been analyzing, studying and listening to state and national campaigns, that kind of desperate parsing of polling data has always been the argument coming from the loser.

Now, the question remains: Does Gov. Scott Walker want to win, or lose? Walker, excluding the non-politician candidates, has been the only candidate to hold an early lead in both Iowa and New Hampshire, which is a rare electoral appeal for Republican presidential hopefuls that cannot be understated. Taking the advice above won’t catapult him back in the lead the morning after the debate, but it will get him back on track to again being competitive–even a frontrunner.

PPD's senior political analyst answers the top

Polls

Hillary’s Honest and Trustworthy Numbers Continue to Suffer

Hillary-Clinton-Ed-Henry

Hillary Clinton takes questions from Fox News’ Ed Henry in New Hampshire Tuesday amid reports the FBI believes someone tried to wipe the server.

With her support in national and early state surveys falling precipitously, 59% of voters now say the former secretary of state likely broke the law by sending and receiving classified information on a private home brew server. A new Rasmussen Reports poll finds that just 34% believe it is unlikely Clinton did anything illegal, but numbers include 42% who say it is “Very Likely” she broke the law and only 15% who think it’s “Not At All Likely.”

With even 37% of her fellow Democrats saying it is likely Clinton broke the law–including 16% who say it is very likely–it should come as little surprise that the Democratic frontrunner is now trailing the Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in a head-to-head matchup, with The Donald dominating on the issues that are a top concern to voters. Eighty-two percent (82%) of GOP voters and 63% of unaffiliateds believe Clinton is likely to have broken the law.

In New Hampshire last month, Clinton faced toughed questions from Fox News’ Ed Henry amid reports the FBI believes someone tried to wipe the server. Further, the FBI said they are “optimistic” that they can recover at least some of the data. “What, like with a cloth or something?” Hillary ridiculously said in response to Henry’s question about whether or not she “tried to wipe the whole server.”

This answer, as well as past answers, have not been sufficient in the voters’ minds. Only 28% of all voters believe Clinton has done a good or excellent job handling questions about her use of the private e-mail server as secretary of State, including just 51% of Democrats. Meanwhile, 51% say her handling of these questions has been poor.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on September 10 and 13, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

In a new poll, 59% of votes

Books, Opinion

conservative-vs-liberal-reagan-vs-obama

President Ronald Reagan, left, the conservative standard-bearer with deep libertarian notes, and President Barack Obama, right, who wants to be the liberal big government standard-bearer, with deep modern liberal notes, which Reagan said resembles fascism.

A hostile review of my new book–Wealth, Poverty and Politics— said, “there is apparently no level of inequality of income or opportunity that Thomas Sowell would consider unacceptable.”

Ordinarily, reviewers who miss the whole point of a book they are reviewing can be ignored. But this particular confusion about what opportunity means is far too widespread, far beyond a particular reviewer of a particular book. That makes it a confusion worth clearing up, because it affects so many other discussions of very serious issues.

“Wealth, Poverty and Politics” does not accept inequality of opportunity. Instead, it reports such things as children raised in low-income families usually not being spoken to nearly as often as children raised in high-income families. The conclusion: “It is painful to contemplate what that means cumulatively over the years, as poor children are handicapped from their earliest childhood.”

Even if all the doors of opportunity are wide open, children raised with great amounts of parental care and attention are far more likely to be able to walk through those doors than children who have received much less attention. Why else do conscientious parents invest so much time and effort in raising their children? This is so obvious that you would have to be an intellectual to able to misconstrue it. Yet many among the intelligentsia equate differences in outcomes with differences in opportunity. A personal example may help clarify the difference.

As a teenager, I tried briefly to play basketball. But I was lucky to hit the backboard, much less the basket. Yet I had just as much opportunity to play basketball as Michael Jordan had. But equal opportunity was not nearly enough to create equal outcomes.

Nevertheless, many studies today conclude that different groups do not have equal opportunity or equal “access” to credit, or admission to selective colleges, or to many other things, because some groups are not successful in achieving their goal as often as other groups are.

The very possibility that not all groups have the same skills or other qualifications is seldom even mentioned, much less examined. But when people with low credit scores are not approved for loans as often as people with high credit scores, is that a lack of opportunity or a failure to meet standards?

When twice as many Asian students as white students pass the tough tests to get into New York’s three highly selective public high schools — Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech — does that mean that white students are denied equal opportunity?

As for inequality of incomes, these depend on so many things — including things that no government has control over — that the obsession with statistical “gaps” or “disparities” that some call “inequities” is a major distraction from the more fundamental, and more achievable, goals of promoting a rising standard of living in general and greater opportunity for all.

There was never any serious reason to expect equal economic, educational or other outcomes, either between nations or within nations. “Wealth, Poverty and Politics” examines numerous demographic, geographic, cultural and other differences that make equal outcomes for all a very remote possibility.

To take just one example, in the United States the average age of Japanese Americans is more than 20 years older than the average age of Puerto Ricans. Even if these two groups were absolutely identical in every other way, Japanese Americans would still have a higher average income, because older people in general have more work experience and higher incomes.

Enabling all Americans to prosper and have greater opportunities is a far more achievable goal than equal outcomes. Internationally, the geographic settings in which different nations evolved have been so different that there has been nothing like a level playing field among nations and peoples.

Comparing the standard of living of Americans at the beginning of the 20th century with that at the end shows incredible progress. Most of this economic progress took place without the kind of heady rhetoric, social polarization or violent upheavals that have too often accompanied heedless pursuits of unachievable goals like the elimination of “gaps,” “disparities” or “inequities.”

Such fashionable fetishes are not helping the poor.

[mybooktable book=”wealth-poverty-and-politics-an-international-perspective” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Economist Thomas Sowell responds to a hostile

Opinion

us border patrol

How many wars can we fight? Our presidential candidates demand “stronger action” against both illegal immigration and illegal drugs. But those goals conflict. The War on Drugs makes border enforcement much harder!

America’s 44-year-long Drug War hasn’t made a dent in American drug use or the supply of illegal drugs. If it had some positive effect, prices of drugs would have increased, but they haven’t. American authorities say drugs are more available than ever.

Drug prohibition, like alcohol prohibition, creates fat profits that invite law-breaking.

Cato’s Ted Galen Carpenter says, “Economists estimate that about 90 percent of the retail price of illicit drugs is due to this black market premium.” Ninety-percent profits inspire lots of criminal risk-taking.

“Washington’s policy empowers the most ruthless traffickers — those willing to use violence, intimidation and exploitation of the vulnerable to gain market share.” Continues Carpenter: “When drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will sell drugs.”

Since the drug gangs can’t settle disputes in court, they settle them with guns. In Latin America, they’ve killed thousands of people.

“Honduras has been living in an emergency,” says Honduran President Juan Hernandez. “The root cause is that the United States and Colombia carried out big operations in the fight against drugs.”

Mexico’s former president, Vicente Fox, now supports legalization. Leaders of Guatemala, Colombia, Costa Rica and Bolivia have begun to object to the militaristic anti-drug tactics pushed by the United States.

Yet Hillary Clinton called taxpayer money spent on counter-narcotics efforts in Central America “money well spent.”

She’s closed-minded and wrong. Our Drug War creates the carnage that drives poor Latin Americans to abandon their villages and move north. That increases resentment against immigrants, as expressed by Donald Trump, who said, “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime.” Some do bring drugs, but most wouldn’t bring crime if they could legally do business with us.

Our crazy, failed policy turns our neighbors to the south into a deadly menace.

“Coyotes,” who help impoverished refugees escape, often require even the children to become drug mules — to smuggle small amounts of drugs. The children obey, since many fled places where they’d be shot at or tortured by gangs. They know the drug gangs and coyotes are their only hope for reaching a better life.

Drug profits give smugglers the money to do what poverty-stricken immigrants can’t: dig long, high-tech tunnels with lighting and ventilation systems. A border fence doesn’t secure the border when immigrants — and criminals — can tunnel underneath it.

U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy recently bragged to reporters about “the fifth super-tunnel we’ve intercepted.”

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agent Derek Benner claimed that the interception dealt “a stunning blow to the Mexican cartel who built it.”

But that’s absurd. Benner admitted they’d done the same thing two years before “in virtually the same scenario.” They found five of how many? Hundreds? With a border almost 2,000 miles long, they’re unlikely to find them all.

Drug prohibition, by making drug cartels rich, enables them to build a literal underground railroad to the north. The whole process — dig, build, raid, destroy, repeat — is just one more pointless activity that happens when government tries to suppress popular activities such as drug use.

Other countries are wising up. Argentina, Peru, Mexico and Portugal decriminalized small amounts of drugs. Uruguay legalized marijuana entirely, as have Colorado and Washington State.

The Center for Investigative Reporting says 90 percent of the drugs seized on the U.S.-Mexico border are some form of marijuana, meaning almost every time the Border Patrol makes a drug bust, it confiscates a drug that’s legal in Colorado.

This is crazy.

We keep trying to do things the hard way — spending over $1 trillion on the Drug War. If there were a clear benefit, you might say it was worth it. Instead, it yields death, dislocation of populations and enrichment of murderous cartels, without reducing drug abuse. Why do we put up with this?

Government’s attempts to prohibit what people want tend to fail. The wars on immigration and drugs are two more wars we won’t win.

Our presidential candidates demand strong action against

Video

[brid playlist=”614″ player=”1929″ title=”Planned Parenthood”]

Vanessa Cullins, the Vice President of External Medical Affairs, expressed concern an undercover video that if authorities and the public found out they were trafficking in fetal body parts “it could destroy your organization and us.”

Cullins thought she was talking to a prospective buyer in the fourth episode in a new documentary web series and 10th video released by The Center for Medical Progress, a pro-life group. It features several top-level Planned Parenthood executives discussing the organization’s lucrative and illegal practices involving the trafficking of aborted baby body parts.

“This is important,” Cullins says. “This could destroy your organization and us, if we don’t time those conversations correctly.”

The video also sheds light on conversations with Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, Senior Medical Advisor for PPFA; Dr. Vanessa Cullins, Vice President for External Medical Affairs for PPFA; and Deborah VanDerhei, the National Director for the Consortium of Abortion Providers (CAPS) at PPFA. Westhoff also expresses the same concern as Cullins over what would be a public relations nightmare if the public ever learned of their activities, which the media have simply ignored.

“We’ve just been working with people who want particular tissues, like, you know, they want cardiac, or they want eyes, or they want neural,” says Dr. Westhoff to a prospective fetal organ buyer. “Certainly, everything we provide–oh, gonads! Oh my God, gonads. Everything we provide is fresh.” Westhoff continues, “Obviously, we would have the potential for a huge P.R. issue in doing this.”

Westhoff goes on to offer to introduce the would-be buyers to “national office abortion people” from Planned Parenthood. The video flies in the face of the statements made by PPFA President Cecile Richards.

“From email black-outs to contorted oxymorons like ‘donation for remuneration,’ the lengths to which Planned Parenthood leadership will go to cover-up their illegal sale of aborted baby parts are nothing less than the desperation of a guilty conscience,” notes David Daleiden, Project Lead for CMP. “Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards openly admits they receive ‘$60 per tissue specimen,’ and their contracts with StemExpress offer payments per fetus ‘determined in the clinic to be usable.’ Planned Parenthood runs their abortion and baby parts business in open disregard for the law and should be prosecuted immediately. Their taxpayer funding should be reassigned to Federally Qualified Health Centers, which provide more and comprehensive health services at locations outnumbering Planned Parenthood 20 to 1.”

A top Planned Parenthood (PPFA) executive is

US

Delta-University-Shooting-Victim-Suspect

Prof. Ethan Schmidt, left, was killed in a shooting on Monday morning by Professor Shannon Lamb, right, who was an Instructor of Geography and Social Science Education. (Delta State University)

The man suspected of shooting and killing Professor Ethan Schmidt and the woman he lived with killed himself shortly after vowing he’s “not going to jail.” Professor Shannon S. Lamb, 45, the Geographer and Coordinator Director of the Social Sciences Education Program, died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound late Monday, authorities said.

Lamb was being chased by police in his black Dodge Avenger on Highway 1 near Greenville when he pulled the car over, bailed out on foot, and ran into some woods along the side of the road. Delta State University police chief Lynn Buford told the Associated Press that the pursuing officers heard a single gunshot before finding Lamb wounded. The suspect was taken to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Chief Buster Bingham, Cleveland Police Department, said DSU police were contacted Monday morning about a shooting in Jobe Hall, and reports indicate that the shooting occurred in Schmidt’s office. Lamb, the Geographer and Coordinator Director of the Social Sciences Education Program, was identified as a person of interest by law enforcement. His girlfriend was found dead in the town of Gautier, Mississippi, on the morning of September 14 shortly before the shooting at Delta University commenced.

Officials say the motive is not yet totally clear, but it is believed the two victims and the suspect were in a potential love triangle. However, law enforcement officials have contradicted themselves multiple times, including an earlier statement that there was “no information, no evidence” of a “love triangle,” as well as first claiming not to have spoken with Lamb.

Nevertheless, police say they believe that hours before Lamb shot and killed Schmidt, he murdered his domestic partner, 41-year-old Amy Prentiss, at the home the couple shared in Gautier, Miss., which is located approximately 300 miles from Delta State’s campus in Cleveland. Prentiss was described by her ex-husband of 7 years as a “good person.” Shawn O’Steen, who said the two divorced 15 years ago but remained friends, also said he and Prentiss had a daughter, who is now 19. She was reportedly “devastated” and she and her mother were “absolutely best friends.”

The man suspected of shooting and killing Professor Ethan

Policy

America Falls to #16 in Economic Liberty Gauge

Statue-of-Liberty-New-York-background

Statue of Liberty in front of the New York City skyline.

Last month, I cited data from Economic Freedom of the World to explain that the United States was becoming less competitive because of creeping protectionism and reductions in the rule of law and property rights. Now, I have more bad news to share.

Last year, the United States ranked #12 for economic liberty. But according to the new rankings released yesterday, the United States now has dropped to #16. Here are the new rankings (based on a 0-10 scale), with Hong Kong and Singapore once again leading the pack.

Why did the United States drop? In part, because our score fell from 7.81 to 7.73, but also because of what happened to the scores of other nations. The bottom line is that Georgia, Taiwan, Qatar, Ireland, and the United Kingdom jumped ahead of the United States, while Finland fell behind America.

Now, let’s get more depressed.

If you dig through the archives and get the rankings for 2000, you can see that the latest fall from #12 to #16 is part of a very disturbing pattern. The United States used to be #3 in the world, with a score of 8.5.

Wow, falling from 8.5 to 7.73. That’s definitely an indictment of statist policy during the Bush and Obama years. But I’m going to share even more depressing data. The folks at the Fraser Institute who put together Economic Freedom of the World retroactively alter scores and rankings as they get more data (sort of the way the U.S. government periodically revises GDP and employment data).

So, if you look at their big excel spreadsheet, you’ll see that the United States actually wound up ranked #2 in 2000 with a score of 8.65, marginally ahead of Singapore, which had a score of 8.61.

So we’ve actually dropped from #2 to #16 in the rankings, and our score has plunged from 8.65 to 7.73.

I’ve saved the worst for last. I crunched the numbers to see which nations suffered the biggest declines since 2000. As you can see, the United States has the unfortunate distinction of being on a list with basket case economies such as Venezuela and Argentina.

To make matters worse, at least the U.K. has been moving in the right direction in recent years, with a slight increase from 7.80 to 7.87 between 2010 and 2013. And Iceland also has been trying to improve. Its score has jumped from 6.43 to 6.87 over the past three years. The United States, by contrast, has downward momentum.

P.S. The nation with the biggest improvement since 2000 is Romania. Thanks to reforms such as the flat tax, its score has skyrocketed from 5.31 to 7.69, an increase of 2.38 points. At this rate, they’ll easily pass the United States in next year’s rankings.

Last year, the United States ranked #12

Politics

“Club for Growth Action is committed to exposing Donald Trump for the liberal he is on economic policy”

Donald Trump Holds Campaign Rally In Dallas

DALLAS, TX – SEPTEMBER 14: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump greets supporters during a campaign rally at the American Airlines Center on September 14, 2015 in Dallas, Texas. More than 20,000 tickets had been distributed for the event. (Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images)

Club for Growth Action, a political arm of the Club for Growth, announced an ad buy in Iowa on Tuesday targeting Republican frontrunner Donald Trump. The ad campaign, which totals more than $1 million, features two 30-second television ads that will air on broadcast, cable and satellite television in the first-in-the-nation caucus state.

“Donald Trump is the worst Republican candidate on economic issues,” said Club for Growth president David McIntosh. “It’s astonishing that he’s even running as a Republican. Trump is the most liberal candidate on fiscal policy in the whole field, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders.”

The billionaire real estate mogul currently leads his closest rival Dr. Ben Carson in the PPD average of polls taken among Republican caucus-goers in the Hawkeye State by roughly 7 points, 26.8% to 20.0%. Nationally, The Donald holds a much larger 16.4%. Whether that lead holds following the second Republican debate, as time draws closer to voting days or in the face of intense criticism, remains to be seen.

“His angry style may reflect the deep frustration Americans have with Washington leaders who have failed to keep their promises. But the policies he’d implement would benefit himself and his own interests, not the American people. That makes him the worst kind of politician.”

In fact, the name of the first ad is entitled, “Politician,” which ironically challenges Trump’s entire campaign narrative. After rattling off a series of positions on the issues–such as health care, taxes and the Wall Street bailout–the ad narrator says the former reality TV star “is just playing us for chumps. Trump: just another politician.”

[brid video=”15288″ player=”1929″ title=”&quotPolitician&quot by Club for Growth Action”]

The second ad–entitled, “100%”–focuses on the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision on eminent domain, which gave the government a massive, never before recognized new power to take private property and give it to corporations. For anti-crony, free market capitalists and economic freedom proponents such as the Club for Growth, the court’s decision was a disaster. The ad highlights that The Donald said he “agrees with it 100%” during an interview on “Your World” with Neil Cavuto in July, 2005.

[brid video=”15290″ player=”1929″ title=”&quotOne Hundred Percent&quot by Club for Growth Action”]

Thus far, attacks on Trump’s past statements have had little impact on his standing among GOP primary voters. In fact, since candidates and their surrogates have begun their onslaught, the frontrunner has only widened his lead. Trump, himself, has likened himself to former President Ronald Reagan, the now-conservative standard-bearer who was once a Democrat. While it has satisfied voters, and even echoed by America’s Mayor former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, President Reagan’s son has voiced his disagreement with the comparison.

“Club for Growth Action is committed to exposing Trump for the liberal he is on taxes, trade, health care, and eminent domain. These ads let Trump speak for himself, about his Democrat core and his full support for giving government the power to take private property and give it to corporations.”

Club for Growth Action, a political arm

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe