Concealed Carry Permits For Women Up 270 Percent Since 2007

Leah wrote about some great news over the weekend regarding concealed carry permits. The Crime Prevention Center reported that the number of permits has increased since 2007–and the murder rate has dropped. The main reason is that President Obama has possibly become the greatest gun salesmen of all time (I may be exaggerating).

“The researchers found that the change in trends with regard to permits and gun sales is directly related to Barack Obama’s presidency. Simply put, the greater the push for gun control in the wake of several mass shootings, the more Americans head to the gun shop,” wrote Leah.

Before Noah Rothman went to Hot Air–he’s now with Commentary–he was atMediaite where he reported on a 2014 Applied Economics Letters’ study that showed between 1980-2009, “the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level.”

Of course, liberals disagree, but regarding women and firearms the Crime Prevention Center noted another interesting find: women obtaining concealed carry permits rose 270 percent since 2007. Additionally, some findings found that minorities lining up for their concealed carry permit is increasing twice the rate of whites.

• The number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever- increasing rate. Over the past year, 1.7 million additional new permits have been issued – a 15.4% increase in just one single year. This is the largest ever single-year increase in the number of concealed handgun permits.
• 5.2% of the total adult population has a permit.
• Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population withconcealed handgun permits.
• In ten states, a permit is no longer required to carry in all or virtually all of the state. This is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing somuch faster than the number of permits.
• Since 2007, permits for women has increased by 270% and for men by 156%.
• Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites.
• Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 178%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.

It’s confirmation of what’s been reported already; that women are lining up across the country for their concealed carry permits­–and now we have a percentage of that increase. They’re the next frontier in the gun industry, and even liberals are noticing that these ladies exercising their constitutional right to bear arms often “defy stereotypes.” Fancy that.

Via: Townhall

Continue Reading....

Democrats Scurry From Sanctuary Ship Hillary and the sanctuary sisters of San Francisco.

Democrats now will say anything to distance themselves from sanctuary city policies, even though they have supported these policies for years. In an exclusive CNN interview Tuesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked about San Francisco’s refusal to hand over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement seven-time convicted felon and five-time deportee Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. He stands accused in the fatal shooting of Kathryn Steinle as she took an evening stroll on Pier 14 last week. (After telling a local TV station he shot Steinle by accident, Lopez-Sanchez has pleaded not guilty to murder.) Clinton answered, “The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.”

In a 2007 Democratic presidential debate, the late Tim Russert asked Clinton if she would allow sanctuary cities to disobey federal law. “Well, I don’t think there is any choice,” she answered. Immigrants may not talk to police if “they think you’re also going to be enforcing the immigration laws.” She did not add a caveat that she wanted local law enforcement to work with immigration officials if the federal government had strong feelings that an individual should be deported.

In 2008, Clinton voted against an amendment to yank some federal funds from sanctuary cities. California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer voted likewise — but it didn’t stop them from criticizing San Francisco for releasing a repeat offender.

“The 2008 budget amendment was a choice between sending a political message or funding California law enforcement, and I chose to fund the police,” Feinstein explained in an email. “I continue to believe we can deport criminals who are undocumented and still support law enforcement.”

Perhaps Feinstein and Clinton are living back in 1985, when Feinstein was mayor and signed San Francisco’s sanctuary city law. It was supposed to help immigrants seeking asylum from war-torn El Salvador and Guatemala. Four years later, the law was expanded to cover all immigrants. Then, in 2013, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance, signed by Mayor Ed Lee, that prohibits city law enforcement from releasing undocumented immigrants to ICE based on a detainer request alone. (There’s an exception for recent violent felons, but Lopez-Sanchez did not qualify.)

Sanctuary City supporters cannot say they were not warned. Recently, ICE Director Sarah Saldana told a House committee that reduced cooperation from state and local governments “may increase the risk that dangerous criminals are returned to the streets, putting the public and our officers at greater risk.”

Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., asked Saldana if it would help if Congress made it mandatory for local governments to cooperate with ICE — the sort of bill already rejected by Clinton, Feinstein, and Boxer. “Thank you. Amen. Yes,” Saldana answered.

Then came blowback from the anti-enforcement community. Saldana released a statement that said such a law would be counterproductive and “lead to more resistance.” You have to figure her reversal was on orders from the White House. Asked about Steinle’s killing at a press conference this week, White House spokesman Josh Earnest blamed Republicans in Congress for blocking “common-sense immigration reform.”

Where is the common sense in shielding repeat felons and border jumpers from the consequences of their crimes? There is no need to look outside the city: San Francisco screwed up. Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, the Board of Supervisors, and the mayor were so busy crowing about their pro-immigrant credentials, and refusing to differentiate between legal and undocumented, that they forgot voters elect them to keep their city safe.

Via: American Spectator

Continue Reading....

Time to Stock Up on Incandescent Bulbs Before They Go Out Permanently

If your New Year’s resolution is to change your light bulbs, don’t worry—the federal government’s here to help.

Beginning January 1, 2014, the federal government will ban the use of 60-watt and 40-watt incandescent light bulbs. The light bulb has become a symbol in the fight for consumer freedom and against unnecessary governmental interference into the lives of the American people.

In 2007, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law an energy bill that placed stringent efficiency requirements on ordinary incandescent bulbs in an attempt to have them completely eliminated by 2014. The law phased out 100-watt and 75-watt incandescent bulbs last year.

Proponents of government-imposed efficiency standards and regulations will say, “So what? There are still plenty of lighting options on the shelves at Home Depot; we’re saving families money; and we’re reducing harmful climate change emissions.”

The “so what” is that the federal government is taking decisions out of the hands of families and businesses, destroying jobs, and restricting consumer choice in the market. We all have a wide variety of preferences regarding light bulbs. It is not the role of the federal government to override those preferences with what it believes is in our best interest.

Families understand how energy costs impact their lives and make decisions accordingly. Energy efficiency has improved dramatically over the past six decades—long before any national energy efficiency mandates.

Via: The Foundry
Continue Reading...

Hillary Clinton in 2007: 'If you have a plan you like, you keep it'

When former President Clinton this week critiqued President Obama's broken promise that Americans would be able to keep their health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act, Clinton was also knocking a similar plan once proposed by another politician: his wife.

"I personally believe, even if it takes a change in the law, the president should honor the commitment that the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got," Clinton said in an interview with OZY.

The remark came across as a stern rebuke of current White House policy — but it could also prove tricky for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is moving toward a bid for president in 2016.

When she was last a candidate for president in 2007, Hillary Clinton unveiled her own health care proposal, which, like Obamacare, included beefed-up benefits and a catchy pitch: "If you have a plan you like, you keep it." Obama went on to defeat Clinton, but he adopted her tag line to help win support for his own health care plan -- making the same promise, for which he recently apologized.

"You can keep the doctors you know and trust. You keep the insurance you have," Clinton said on Sept. 17, 2007, at the Broadlawns Medical Center in Des Moines, Iowa. "If you have private insurance you like, nothing changes — you can keep that insurance."

Clinton's campaign website echoed that claim. "If you have a plan you like, you keep it," it read.

Hillary Clinton is an old hand at health care reform. In 1993, when her husband was president, she led a health care reform effort that ultimately crashed and burned.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading.....

TOP TEN REASONS THE 2007 OBAMA VIDEO MATTERS IN 2012

Even before the Daily Caller released the video last night of President Obama's 2007 speech before a majority black audience in Virginia, our corrupt media was already declaring it "old news."Time's Mark Halperin had a full-blown meltdown and BuzzFeed Politics' Ben Smith declared the story over and dead hours before anyone had read it. What's especially pathetic about Smith is that one of his site's signatures is scouring the Internet for old videos and publishing them as … news!

Once the Daily Caller story did hit, and it became clear that Tucker Carlson had found never-before-seen video of Obama in a way voters have never seen him, none of that mattered. The desperate narrative to protect Obama had already been set and, as though the rest of us were insane, the corrupt media doubled down in its efforts to tell those of us who had never seen this video that we had.

Of course, it's all lies – blatant lies meant to control the explosion of an explosive story, meant to justify why the very same media still obsessed over Romney's "47 percent" moment will now downplay and ignore as a nothingburger Obama caught on video spewing racialist division and the kind of wild conspiracy theories a sitting U.S. Senator had to know weren't true.  

But New Media is The Media, and this video will get disseminated and voters will see it. And like Romney's "47 percent" moment, this new Obama video is a legitimate news story worth covering.

Here are ten reasons why…

1. The video released by the Daily Caller last night does include footage the media never broadcast or reported on.

Furthermore, we're supposed to believe it's just a coincidence that the footage the media ignored just happens to be the most controversial part, where Barack Obama (who at the time was running to be the Democratic nominee for president) goes off-script and tells a majority black audience that the federal government doesn't care about Hurricane Katrina victims because they're black.

Even Politico's mainstream media water-carrier Dylan Byers had to admit this is the case:

But the full footage of the speech included previously unreported remarks in which Sen. Obama suggested that the federal government helped victims of 9/11 and Hurricane Andrew (in Florida), but did not help the victims of Hurricane Katrina because it didn't care about them as much.

By any measure, new video of a sitting president sewing seeds of racial division is not only news, but big news.

If this were Allen West giving the exact same speech, you better believe it would be everywhere. And he's only a congressman.

Via Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Video surfaces of Obama in 2007 suggesting racism slowed aid to post-Katrina New Orleans

It's the Obama speech on race you probably haven't heard.

In June 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama told a mostly black audience of ministers that the country's leaders "don't care about" New Orleans residents, suggesting the city was neglected in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina because of institutional racism, according to a an unedited video uncovered by The Daily Caller.

In the address, delivered during the upswing of the Democratic presidential primary season, candidate Obama specifically criticizes in outspoken terms the decision not to waive a federal law known as the Stafford Act that requires communities hit by disasters to match 10 percent of federal aid.

“When 9/11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act. … And that was the right thing to do,” he tells the crowd at Hampton University in Virginia. “When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, 'Look at this devastation. We don't expect you to come up with your own money. Here, here's the money to rebuild. We're not going wait for you to scratch it together, because you're part of the American family.' "

Obama, echoing rapper Kanye West's infamous anti-Bush remarks a couple years earlier, then argues that New Orleans was treated differently, suggesting the reason was that the city is mostly black.

"What's happening down in New Orleans? Where's your dollar? Where's your Stafford Act money?" Obama says. "Makes no sense. ... Tells me that somehow the people down in New Orleans they don't care about as much."

The Obama campaign didn't response to Fox News.com's request for comment Tuesday night about the Daily Caller report and the video, but the Associated Press reported that Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt dismissed the criticism as "a transparent attempt to change the subject" at a time when Mitt Romney is down in the polls.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading...

UNITED STATES OF O-MERICA: PRESIDENT RELIES ON CULT OF PERSONALITY IN TIGHT ELECTION

It’s difficult to understand how a president with the most failure-ridden foreign and domestic policy in modern history still stands to win some 47 percent of the American vote, according to the latest polls. But the answer is simple. Since 2007, Barack Obama has been building a cult of personality reminiscent of fascist leaders. That doesn’t mean he’s a fascist; it doesn’t mean that he’s Hitler or Mussolini or Stalin. But his semiotics and iconography are far more suited for a fascist country than a vibrant republic.

Yesterday, the Obama campaign tweeted about a brand new set of products on its website: “A poster to say there are no red states or blue states, only the United States.” Only the poster wasn’t of our flag. It was of a United States dominated by the Obama symbol:

The poster was labeled, “OUR STRIPES: FLAG PRINT.” Those are not our stripes. Those are Obama’s stripes. And we are all his subjects.

This, of course, was not the first time that the Obama campaign had expressed the view that the United States are truly the Obama States. Back in May, Obama’s campaign tweeted out this delightful picture, with the exact same slogan: “There are no red or blue states, just the United States”:

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...