Fake News: Barefeet, Diapers, and Teargas. | Global Liberty Media – The Counter Narrative

These children are barefoot. In diapers.  Choking on teargas”  Fake news headline carried by the US mainstream media (aka MSM) this last week of November 2018.

The flashing headlines says US CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) personnel were teargassing women and children at the border crossing to prevent them from seeking asylum in the US.  This fake news is so egregiously biased that it deserves an in-depth break-down.  The photo you see above is the same photo being used by all the major MSM media outlets and shows a Honduran girl in diapers with no shoes about 5 years old crying and in distress.

The immediate questions that comes to mind is why is a 5 year-old Honduran child in diapers (children are typically out of diapers by 1 years old in Central America due to the cost of diapers) and barefoot while the “mom” appears to be well-equipped with clothes and shoes?  How did she make it hundreds of miles from Honduras barefoot?  The full sized version of the picture shows the girl with her finger stuck in a ball.  Why is she really crying?  Lastly, why would a parent attempt to storm a heavily guarded border with children in tow especially since Mexico seems willing to give them safe refuge?

Below:  The full-sized version of the headline photo.

Taking a scan of social media, more questions are also raised by bloggers and other sharp observers.  This picture emerged (below) of the same “family” on the US border running from what appears to be white smoke in the background.  I haven’t seen any firsthand accounts of the incident outside of the MSM but there are some questions.  My firsthand knowledge from my days in the US Army is tear gas come in either a green or gray (with a prominent red stripe) canister but the particular canister shown in the picture below is a civilian market smoke grenade.  Also in the picture, the tear gas is nowhere near the family and they could easily walk away from the smoke.

Picture below: Photos of the “tear gas” event.

Picture below:  Maria Meza holding the same so-called “tear gas canister” as “proof”

Next, let’s zoom out on the scene around the family and you can see that there seems to be a lot of staging going on by the MSM to dramatize the incident.  A heck of a lot of reporters all seem to be creating their own made-for-prime-time news scenes, more like a staged Hollywood movie production than an actual depiction of a real event.

Picture below:  Look at what is going on in the background of this scene.

Picture below:  Another observation.

Picture below:  Take a closeup look at the kid on the extreme left of this scene being pushed towards the fence.

Photo below:  Must be tough being a reporter trying to make “fake news” these days.

While the actual use of tear gas to control crowds on the border is not in question, the MSM coverage of the event is.  It is also worthy to note that during the Obama administration, tear gas was also regularly used when crowds of illegals attempted to storm the border crossings.  However, that fact is conveniently neglected in the backstory by the MSM.  It doesn’t fit with their “Trump Bad” theme.

Picture below:  CBP statistics on the use of tear gas at the border.

What is clear is that the story and the images reported by the MSM is clearly fake and staged by the media themselves for their own purposes.  The purpose is to push a certain point of view and to influence the public (instead of informing) using emotional hooks to elicit reaction.  Just in time for the holidays.

 

Source: Fake News: Barefeet, Diapers, and Teargas. | Global Liberty Media – The Counter Narrative

Advertisements
Posted in immigration, media bias, media bias, news media | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Updated: Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans – Crime Prevention Research CenterCrime Prevention Research Center

16 APR , 2016

Original post: Every place that has banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.

For an example of homicide rates before and after a ban, take the case of the handgun ban in England and Wales in January 1997 (source here see Table 1.01 and the column marked “Offences currently recorded as homicide per million population,” UPDATED numbers available here).  After the ban, clearly homicide rates bounce around over time, but there is only one year (2010) where the homicide rate is lower than it was in 1996.  The immediate effect was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates.  Firearm homicide rate had almost doubled between 1996 and 2002 (see here p. 11).   The homicide and firearm homicide rates only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004.   Despite the huge increase in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate.

UK Firearm Homicide Rate

 

There are a lot of issues about how different countries measure homicide or murders differently, but that isn’t really relevant for the discussion here as we are talking about changes over time within a country.

Other information for Ireland and Jamaica.

Ireland & Jamaica 2

Jamaica’s crime data were obtained from a variety of sources. Its murder data from 1960 to 1967 were obtained from Terry Lacey, Violence and Politics in Jamaica, 1960–70 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1977). Professor Gary Mauser obtained the data from 1970 to 2000 from a Professor A. Francis in Jamaica and the data from 2001 to 2006 from the Statistical Institute of Jamaica (http://www.statinja.com/stats.html). Jamaica’s population estimates were obtained from NationMaster.com (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ peo_pop-people-population&date=1975).

UPDATE: See also information on Venezuela available here.  It is also true for the Solomon Islands, which even appear to have only had mass public shootings afterthe 1999 gun ban.

How about for DC and Chicago (Figures taken from More Guns, Less Crime)? (Click on figures to enlarge.) Regressions that try to account for lots of other factors are available in that book from the University of Chicago Press.

The raw data for DC over a long period of time is available here (the crime rates are available on the bottom half of the screen).

Now Australia didn’t have a complete ban on guns, they didn’t even ban all semi-automatic guns, but a discussion on the changes in their crime rates from their gun buyback is available here (see also particularly here).

Regarding Japan, the point to make clear is that Japan has had a very low murder rate for as long as data is available, and more importantly, the guns were banned by private citizens.  Some point to the drop in homicides after the 1958 gun law, but they ignore the 1946 regulations under the Allied Occupation and the 1950 Order that continued “the general prohibition of possession of guns by civilians.”  The issue here is to separate out whether it is gun control or something else different about Japan that is important, and unless you can see a change before and after there has been a change in gun control laws it is difficult to infer anything about the impact of gun control laws.

Much of the debate over gun control focuses on what is called “cross-sectional” data.  That is crime rates are examined at one particular point of time across different places.  Here are two paragraphs from John Lott’s The Bias Against Guns that explain the basic problem with cross-sectional analysis.

First, the cross-sectional studies: Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime. Economists refer to this as an “endogeniety” problem. The adoption of the policy is a reaction to other events (that is, “endogenous”), in this case crime. To resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time —not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls.

Unfortunately, many contemporary discussions rely on misinterpretations of cross-sectional data. The New York Times recently conducted a cross-sectional study of murder rates in states with and without the death penalty, and found that “Indeed, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average.” However, they erroneously concluded that the death penalty did not deter murder. The problem is that the states without the death penalty (Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Vermont) have long enjoyed relatively low murder rates, something that might well have more to do with other factors than the death penalty. Instead one must compare, over time, how murder rates change in the two groups – those adopting the death penalty and those that did not.

More information is available in chapters 2 and 10 of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010, third edition).

A cross country comparison and the problems with such a comparison is available here.

Source: Updated: Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans – Crime Prevention Research CenterCrime Prevention Research Center

Posted in crime, guns | Tagged , | Leave a comment

U.K.’s Healthcare Horror Stories Ought To Curb Dems’ Enthusiasm for Single-Payer

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service, which celebrated its 70th anniversary on July 5, is imploding.

Vacancies for doctor and nurse positions have reached all-time highs. Patients are facing interminable waits for care as a result. This August, a record number of Britons languished more than 12 hours in emergency rooms. In July, the share of cancer patients who waited more than two months to receive treatment soared.

Yet enthusiasm for government-run, single-payer health care continues to build in the United States. The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that 70 percent of Americans now support Medicare for All. Virtually all the major candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020 have come out in favor of banning private insurance coverage and implementing a single-payer system instead.

One look across the Atlantic, to the disaster unfolding in the United Kingdom’s government-run healthcare system, ought to curb that enthusiasm.

The NHS has struggled to fully staff its hospitals and clinics since its inception in 1948. But today, the shortages are growing worse. Nine percent of physician posts are vacant. That’s a shortfall of nearly 11,500 doctors.

The NHS is also short 42,000 nurses. In the second quarter alone, nurse vacancies increased by 17 percent. Meanwhile, in the United States, nearly all states will have a surplus of nurses by 2030.

It’s unsurprising that people don’t want to work as nurses in Great Britain; it’s a stressful job, with long hours and terrible working conditions. Some NHS nurses are taking positions at supermarkets because stacking shelves comes with better hours, benefits, and pay, according to a report in the London Economic.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Consider one nurse’s letter explaining why she quit the profession. She described horrific working conditions. Medical professionals worked 12-hour shifts with little time for necessities like bathroom breaks or food. Managers felt they couldn’t do anything to change unsafe conditions created by overcrowded hospitals. “You cannot safely practice under such conditions,” she wrote. “Mistakes will be made and people will be harmed, some fatally.”

The shortage of providers has resulted in longer wait times for patients. In May, 4.3 million people in the United Kingdom were on waiting lists for surgery, a 10-year high. Adjusting for population, that would be like having everyone in the state of Florida on waiting lists. Roughly 3,500 British patients have been on hospital waiting lists for more than a year.

More than one in five British cancer patients waits longer than two months to begin treatment after receiving a referral from a general practitioner. In Scotland, fewer than 80 percent of patients receive needed diagnostic tests — endoscopies, MRIs, CT, scans and the like — within three months.

These delays are deadly. An analysis that covered just half of England’s hospitals found that almost 30,000 patients died in the past year while waiting for treatment — an increase of 57 percent compared to 2013.

In some cases, the NHS has refused to provide treatment at all. In June, NHS England said that it would discontinue coverage of 17 procedures, including tonsillectomies and knee arthroscopies for osteoarthritis patients.

Even when patients receive treatment, the quality of care is poor. Patients in British hospitals are four times more likely to die than in U.S. hospitals, according to an analysis of outcomes from 2,000 similar surgeries conducted by researchers from University College London and Columbia University in New York. Among the more severely ill patients, the disparity was worse; the sickest Brits were seven times more likely to die.

It’s no wonder that Britons who can afford private health insurance pay for it. About 10 percent of the population uses private coverage to help cover the cost of care delivered outside the NHS system — sometimes by NHS doctors.

NHS defenders claim that the system’s poor results are the inevitable result of underfunding. Yet spending on health care in the United Kingdom has more than doubled in the past 18 years, after adjusting for inflation.

The problem is one of supply and demand. Single-payer systems offer “free” care, so patients have no incentive to moderate their demand for care. But government cannot procure enough supply to meet that demand without bankrupting taxpayers. Government officials’ only option is to ration care.

Despite the failings of the NHS, Democrats want to establish a single-payer system in the United States. The Medicare for All bill sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders would outlaw private insurance and funnel nearly all Americans into a one-size-fits-all, government-run health plan. That bill promises comprehensive medical, dental, and even vision care, courtesy of John Q. Taxpayer.

The total bill? A cool $32 trillion over 10 years. Next year, the federal government projects it’ll take in $3.4 trillion in revenue. So Medicare for All’s yearly tab is nearly equivalent to the federal government’s entire annual tax take.

Put another way, the feds would have to essentially double tax revenue in order to pay for Medicare for All.

And Medicare for All’s multitrillion-dollar cost estimate banks on bringing payments for healthcare providers down to the level paid by the existing Medicare program. That would represent a reduction of about 40 percent, relative to private insurance rates. Such pay cuts are likely to drive providers out of business — or discourage the next generation of doctors and nurses from entering the field.

Medicare for All’s proponents say single-payer delivers high-quality, free care to all. Britons idling on wait lists, unable to secure the care they need, would surely beg to differ.

Sally C. Pipes is president, CEO, and Thomas W. Smith Fellow in Health Care Policy at the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is The False Promise of Single-Payer Health Care (Encounter). Follow her on Twitter @sallypipes.

Source: U.K.’s Healthcare Horror Stories Ought To Curb Dems’ Enthusiasm for Single-Payer

Posted in Collectivism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

53K Dead People on Florida’s Voter Rolls | Fox News

Florida’s local election supervisors reacted with skepticism Wednesday to a push by state authorities to remove thousands of potential non-U.S. citizens from the voting rolls, only months before the 2012 elections in which the coveted swing state will play a key role.

The supervisors, meeting at their annual summer conference, peppered state election officials with questions about the list of more than 2,600 registered voters who have been identified as being in Florida legally but ineligible to vote. That list was sent to supervisors recently, but state officials have also said there may be as many as 182,000 registered voters who may not be citizens.

The questions about voter eligibility surface as the state continues its months-long efforts to scrub the rolls, including asking supervisors to remove more than 53,000 dead people discovered by comparing voter rolls to federal Social Security files. This was the first time the state checked the files. It was allowed under a controversial election law that passed the GOP-controlled Legislature last year.

Florida Voter Rolls by the Numbers

Recent examinations of Florida’s voter rolls has several irregularities, including:

  • 53,000 dead people
  • 2,600 immigrants who entered the country legally, but are not U.S. citizens
  • State officials say there may be as many as 182,000 registered voters who are not citizens

The state’s 67 county offices must now reach out to potentially ineligible voters to assess their citizenship status.

State election officials want the state’s 67 county election offices to reach out to those on the potentially ineligible list, determine their citizenship status and remove them from the rolls if they are not U.S. citizens.

But election supervisors – including Democrats and Republicans – asked a range of questions about the level of proof that state election officials had regarding the citizenship status of voters which was culled by comparing voter registration lists to a state driver’s license database. They said they wanted more information before they purge someone from the voting rolls.

“I’m feeling really uncomfortable about this,” Broward County Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes told officials with the state’s Division of Elections.

Brian Corley, the Pasco County elections supervisor, questioned the timing of the push, noting that election officials were first given a list of potential ineligible voters from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles roughly a year ago.

I’m feeling really uncomfortable about this

— Broward County Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes

Corley pointed out how two voters on the department’s list given to him wound up being born in Ohio and Massachusetts. One of the names wound up on the list of non-U.S. citizens because the driver’s license number used to check citizenship had one number wrong on it.

“We want our voter rolls to be accurate, obviously no one wants someone to vote who isn’t a citizen,” Corley said. “But at the same time we are the ones fielding phone calls from voters saying `Why are you questioning my citizenship?”

Added Gertrude Walker, the St. Lucie County elections supervisor: “We don’t have confidence in the validity of the information.”

Gisela Salas, director of the state Division of Elections, said that the delay in giving supervisors the potential match list was because the state was trying to verify the information before it handed it over. Florida has asked for access to a federal database maintained by the Department of Homeland Security but so far the U.S. government has turned the state down.

There are currently more than 11 million active registered voters in the state, but a few thousand votes could make the difference in what is expected to be a tight race between President Barack Obama and GOP presumptive nominee Mitt Romney. The 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore was decided by just 537 votes in the Sunshine State.

Florida law requires voters to be a U.S. citizen residing in the state. Florida also does not allow someone to vote if they are a convicted felon and have not had their civil rights restored.

The state has been responsible for helping screen voters since 2006 when it launched a statewide voter registration database. The state database is supposed to check the names of registered voters against other databases, including ones that contain the names of people who have died and people who have been sent to prison.

Prior to the launch of the database, Florida had come under fire for previous efforts to remove felons from the voting rolls, including a purge that happened right before the 2000 presidential election. An effort to remove felons back in 2004 was halted after it was discovered that the list drawn up by the state had errors.

Several supervisors pointed out they now get a packet of background information before they remove a convicted felon from the rolls. They wanted to know if the state would start providing the same level of detail with both deceased voters and those deemed not to be U.S. citizens.

Maria Matthews, the assistant general counsel for the Division of Elections, acknowledged that the state’s list may not be “foolproof” but she said that in the end it is up to local supervisors to determine if a voter should be purged.

“We do not make the determination, that is what you get paid for,” Matthews told supervisors.

Some supervisors such as Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho – recalling past attempts to remove voters – said he would move slowly before purging anyone.

“Caution is a good code to live by in the election world these days,” Sancho said.

Based on reporting by the Associated Press.

Follow us on twitter.com/foxnewslatino
Like us at facebook.com/foxnewslatino

Source: 53K Dead People on Florida’s Voter Rolls | Fox News

Posted in Vote Fraud | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Do the rich pay their fair share? | The Heritage Foundation

Suppose there were a banquet for 100 people and at the end of the night it was time to split the bill of $50 per person. If that bill were paid for the way we pay our income taxes, here is how it would work. Those in the top half of income would pay roughly $97 each and those in the bottom half of the income would pay an average of $3 each. Almost 40 people would pay nothing. And the single richest person in the room would cough up $1,750.

Liberals would complain that the cheap skate rich guy got away without paying his fair share.

There is food for thought here as we consider a new Associated Press poll which finds that two out of three Americans think the wealthy don’t pay enough federal taxes in America. At the same time, the poll reveals that six of ten respondents believe the middle class pays too much.

This poll result has caused many media mavens to conclude that the voters support President Obama’s policies to raise investment taxes on the super-rich and spread the wealth around to people lower down on the economic ladder.

It’s no great surprise that middle-class voters are feeling overtaxed. This has been a dreadfully slow recovery and millions in the middle class are treading water at best. Since the recession ended median family income has fallen by about $1,500 after adjusting for inflation. So the idea of taxing someone else’s pay check sounds mighty appealing.

But the idea that the rich aren’t paying any taxes is based on misinformation fed to voters. They have been told over and over by politicians and the media that the wealthiest among us — Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Tom Brady, and Taylor Swift — are paying very little income tax compared to the rest of us. We are told by no less than Mr. Obama that these millionaires and billionaires have all the money, but they don’t bear much if any of the burden to pay for the schools, and the roads, and the police, and the welfare benefits, and the rest of the tasks of government.

So time for a reality test. Mr. Obama wants to raise the income tax payments from the top one percent to level the playing field and enhance tax “fairness.” Here are the latest statistics from the IRS for 2011. The top one percent earned 19 percent of the total income and paid 35 percent of the federal income tax. So one of 100 shouldered 35 percent of the entire burden. And the average of the five most recently reported years (2007-2011) is closer to 40 percent. Several years ago Al Sharpton, now of MSNBC said the “top one percent in this country pays very much less than 10 percent” of the income tax. Most Americans no doubt believe the same thing.

The top 10 percent pay two-thirds of the income tax. And the bottom 50 percent — all Americans with an income below the median — pay just 3 percent of the income tax. The federal income tax, according to a recent study by the Tax Foundation, is one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. Scott Hodge, president of Tax Foundation, says: “Almost no other industrialized nation depends on the rich to pay the bills more than the United States.”

What about the super duper rich? The multimillionaires and billionaires. Warren Buffett famously says he pays a smaller share of his income in tax than his secretary. But when properly accounting for the taxes paid and income earned, the top 0.1 percent paid 16 percent of the income tax. So the top 0.1 percent paid an aggregate amount more than five times that of half the population. That isn’t enough?

Mr. Obama wants to raise the capital gains and dividend taxes to 28 percent — almost twice what they were when he entered office. He wants an effective inheritance tax rate of over 50 percent. It’s a Robin Hood strategy.

But raising tax rates on the rich is a proven failed policy to increase the share of taxes paid by the wealthy. History proves that cutting tax rates is a better way to get money out of the rich than raising them. In 1980 when the highest income tax rate was 70 percent, the richest 1 percent paid roughly 19 percent of the income tax. In 2007 when the top tax rate was 35 percent, the tax share of the richest 1 percent was more than twice that amount. How did that happen? Raising tax rates on the rich takes money right out from under small and medium-sized business owners and hurts the economy. It takes dollars from employers which leaves less left over for hiring more workers.

The best way to soak the rich is to through low tax rates on work and investment which creates a prosperous economy with rising incomes for everyone. You don’t have to believe me. Listen to John F. Kennedy who said in 1962 at the New York Economics Club that “it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.” A lot of our problems in America could be solved if more politicians in both parties thought like that now.

– Stephen Moore is the chief economist at the Heritage Foundation.

Originally appeared in The Washington Times

Source: Do the rich pay their fair share? | The Heritage Foundation

Posted in economics, taxes | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Keanu Reeves warns that the elite of Hollywood drinks blood from babies

Hollywood elite uses baby blood to get high” according to American actor Keanu Reeves, who warns that “these people believe that the more innocent the child and the more he suffered before he died, the higher they reach. ”

“The revelations that come out of Hollywood now, I tell you, are just the tip of the iceberg,” said Keanu Reeves in Milan, Italy, where he presented three motorcycles he designed for a company he founded in 2007.
Explaining that he is trying to build a future that will be free of Hollywood bondage, the star of the John Wick series spoke horrifyingly about Hollywood.

“Children are respected, placed in prominence, but also tortured, raped, murdered and consumed in a variety of ways. It is a source of money. And it is sad to say that this practice seems to be becoming more open to these circles in recent years. » Keanu Reeves, whose younger sister suffers from leukemia, thinks it’s “unthinkable” that anyone can be so selfish as to ruin a young person’s life for his personal pleasure.

“But that’s the kind of person who runs Hollywood,” said Reeves, who gave 70% of his earnings from the Matrix trilogy to hospitals treating children with cancer. “These people are sociopaths, clean and simple”.

Source: Keanu Reeves warns that the elite of Hollywood drinks blood from babies

Posted in crime | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Merkel: “Nation states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty”

No this wasn’t something Adolf Hitler said many years ago, this is what German Chancellor Angela Merkel told attendants at an event by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin on Wednesday.

“In an orderly fashion of course,” Merkel went on to say. She even went so far as to condemn those in her own Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party who think Germany should withdraw from the controversial UN migration pact:

“There were [politicians]who believed that they could decide when these agreements are no longer valid because they are representing The People”.

“[But] the people are individuals who are living in a country, they are not a group who define themselves as the [German] people,” she stressed.

She has previously accused critics of the UN Global Compact for Safe and Orderly Migration of not being patriotic because, “That is not patriotism, because patriotism is when you include others in German interests and accept win-win situations”.

Her words echo recent comments by the beleaguered French President Emmanuel Macron who stated in a Remembrance Day speech that “patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism [because]nationalism is treason,” which successfully reduced his approval rating, yet again.

Macron, who has much of his country in highly visible protests at the moment, told the Bundestag that “the Franco-German couple [has]the obligation not to let the world slip into chaos and to guide it on the road to peace”.

“Europe must be stronger… and win more sovereignty,” he went on to demand, just as Merkel has, that EU member states surrender national sovereignty to Brussels over “foreign affairs, migration, and development” as well as giving “an increasing part of our budgets and even fiscal resources”.

Source: Merkel: “Nation states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty”

Posted in Deep State, New World Order, sovereignty | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
%d bloggers like this: