5 Master Crimes You May Have To Explain To Future Generations For Not Stopping

Picture yourself still alive in the future. Perhaps after the new world order is fully operational (2030 or beyond). By then perhaps it’s too late. Humanity had become enslaved forever. Imagine a large percentage of humanity is now dead and gone. Billions succumbed to various diseases all linked to toxins and diseases that you now realize could have been easily avoided. The human species, you now realize, became victims of their own corruption, greed, subsequent policies and mind games. The species had become so locked in to their pre-determined paradigms that by the time enough people began to think on their own too many of them died off one way or another.

The “war on terror” that never did seem to end turned out to be the perfect tool to rationalize permanent war against everyone, anywhere, everywhere and at anytime. The human species essentially killed itself off. All along while one tiny segment of the planet known as the globalists, financial elite or illuminati operating under the guise and interest of nation states all danced along to a script they had laid out many years prior. The script told the story of how they were going to kill everyone off to conquer the world. The generations that lived during that time, as a whole ignored the warnings. Truth seekers, revolutionaries, independent journalists and alternative news entities kept warning for years about this out of control top-down corruption and many other ongoing conspiracies but the overall complacency of the species did not allow for quick enough significant action to take place to stop this agenda.

Before we knew it, it was too late. The wars, the fatalities, the depopulation agenda had all finally come to fruition. The human suffering immeasurable and unimaginable to the average mind would be blocked from sight and mind. Most people alive and surviving in this new world order system would be constantly subjected to wireless signals that provide news and entertainment and control what you see and hear. So if a person doesn’t see the suffering, then to that person it’s as if it’s not happening.

And there you are, in the future, seeing all of this. You awaken and you are surrounded by children of the future. In the future some of these may be your children, some may be neighbors, acquaintances, distant friends and even strangers. The young children want to know something and they look to you with their most important question: How did this happen? You search for an answer and before you know it the children one by one ask you more specific questions. The permanently enslaved children ask questions that they hope you can answer.

You then think to yourself, wondering what will you say to these children of the future to explain to them what your role was in preventing these now very key issues that the generations of the future will demand answers for. In the future, will you have an answer for these key issues that sealed the destruction of humanity? When the time comes, will you be able to answer to future generations and confidently say you did your part to stop these events. What events are these? Here’s a small list for you to think now of what you will say on behalf of yourself for allowing the following crimes to take place while humanity did nothing about it when they had a chance to stop it.

1- Over a decade of geoengineering and in-your-face weather manipulation.

In the distant future, after humanity’s DNA is permanently contaminated from breathing aerosolized metal particles, what will you say you did to stop chemtrails chemical spraying and daily aerosolized nano-sized metal injections in the atmosphere? Will you be able to tell future generations that you did all you could to stop chemtrails and chembomb artificial cloud seeding to manipulate the weather? When the pH of the system is unsustainable for life, when the ecosystem equilibrium is thrown off, when the nutrients of the earth and ocean are fully contaminated and ongoing extreme weather and climate changes destroys the essence of our planet due to geoengineering crimes- what will you say your role was in stopping this?

Will you be guilty of showing outward passion about the climate all the while ignoring years and years of in-your-face global spraying operations spraying dangerous metal particles in the sky that went straight into the ground, the ocean and into your lungs compromising the essence and vibrancy of humanity and the planet?

2- A generation without justice on 9/11 crimes

After over a decade of absolutely illegal wars, torture, war crimes and revelation of mountains of evidence implicating a very long list of political criminals in the 9/11/01 globalist terrorist attacks, what will you say to children of the future when they ask how did your generation allow the criminals who orchestrated this event to get away with it for so many years? Will you have a good answer? Will you be able to say that you did everything you could to stop the cover-up, expose the lies and seek true justice?

When the children of the future read about the overwhelming idiot-proof evidence explaining every detail of the 9/11 globalist terror attacks, and when they hear about how this evidence was freely available to humanity the whole time, what will you say to them to explain how justice was never served? Think about this.

3- Open genetic (GMO) contamination of the food supply of the species

What about when future generations find out that, especially in America, people convinced themselves with Monsanto paid-for propaganda that it was somehow “safe” to eat genetically contaminated food every day and to ignore the simultaneous rise in cancer and many other medical diseases across the board amongst males, females, adults and even children? How will you get out of this one? We’re talking a mass program of progressive stupidity and ignorance that the species decided to suicidally and hypnotically accept to poison their own DNA by poisoning their own food supply so that a small group of people representing several large corporations could profit by imitating the food resource of the planet.

Do you have your story ready? Because future generations will want to know if you threw them under the bus and allowed them to eat proven poison without telling them what they were eating. Will you dissociate yourself from this mass stupidity? Will you be able to show a body of work that you did to stop this?

4- Tons of toxin-laced vaccines injected directly into newborns- no accountability, no proof of safety, no problem!

Speaking of contaminating the DNA of the human race, a pregnant woman and her baby are one of the most amazing things humanity will ever encounter. It’s the start of a new life and the power of nature is at work. The miracle of life is the ultimate miracle of them all.

So if challenged by those in the future, what will you say when they ask you what you did to stop the poisoning of the newborn humans from a long list of mandatory chemical injections, none of which had been proven convincingly safe to the species? This single process of forcefully injecting a laundry list of proven unsafe chemical vaccines saturated with “trace” amounts of deadly toxins into the human newborn may prove to be the crime that you will have the hardest time explaining.

Can you imagine the questions a future generation would ask? How can any company be allowed to create chemical compounds that are directly injected into newborns, while at the same time not being held accountable for the damage their chemicals eventually cause? This may sound like a scene from a monster movie thriller but it’ not. Many will ask in the future. Where was the logic in this? Who was looking out for the safety of the innocent newborn? How can it be that none of these chemical vaccines had been proven safe to humans yet were allowed to be directly injected into innocent babies at such high frequency?

Will you be able to tell someone in the future that you did everything you could to stop this mandatory chemical injection madness? The madness in this is worse than we think.

5- Choosing impractical top-down tyranny over small/self-governance

Don’t you think future generations will realize there was a choice all along beyond just being controlled by a bunch of idiots at some global top level political platform? Some will surely ask- how about plain old freedom and self-governance? Or how about some kind of version of very small government? Think of how upside-down the useless concept of top-down governance will sound to someone in the future? Why allow someone at the very top, someone completely disconnected from who you are and who your neighbors are, to completely control your life, your livelihood and your personal interest. This might be the “WTF” moment in everyone’s life at some point in the future.

Most of us don’t think this way, but imagine if you had to explain to someone in the future as to why you stood by and did nothing about a bizarre top-down dictatorship seeking to control humanity at a global level. Think of how inefficient this is in every way shape and form. Given how incredible humans are, why would they not simply create small, compact and efficient micro-governments or better yet models of self governance to live happy healthy and prosperous lives where they can exercise their own choices? It’s like discovering clean renewable energy that can power the world for free and forever and then opting to go backwards in time and use petro-chemical based, pollution-creating, expensive gasoline again. Who would choose this? The same with freedom and mastering your own domain.

Close your eyes and truly consider these topics and arguments and think- what can you do to change the world? Start with any of these issues and make sure you can defend your actions someday in the future. Remember that the future is inevitable. It will be here with or without you. The globalist have planned out their future. Have you?

The post 5 Master Crimes You May Have To Explain To Future Generations For Not Stopping appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Considering Faking Your Own Death? Then The Philippines Is The Place For You

The technical term is pseudocide - a fancy word that means, essentially, “faking your own death."

Hundreds of thousands of Americans - some struggling with seemingly insurmountable debt burdens or are being hounded by the IRS after stiffing the tax man - have probably fantasized about faking their own deaths. But few understand just how easy it is to - um - execute such an ambitious, if legally precarious, plan.

That’s where purveyors of so-called “death kits” come in. Few westerners are aware of its existence, but there’s actually a thriving cottage industry based in the Philippines, where investors can purchase all the tools they need to fake their own deaths for the surprisingly low price of about 350 pounds (about $500).

Of course, the scheme has several macabre elements. The process involves buying an unclaimed corpse from one of the many morgues in the Philippines where the bodies of John and Jane Does are stored.

According to the Telegraph, many customers who choose this route are desperate Wall Street bankers seeking to escape debt, and men having affairs who want to leave their families.

The Philippines has long been cited in official statistics as the foreign location with the highest number of American tourist deaths. But many of these fatalities are actually fraudulent, the result of desperate westerners faking their own deaths.

Take Elizabeth Greenwood, who “died” as a tourist in the Philippines in 2013. Multiple spectators witnessed her crash her rental car into another vehicle on a busy road in Manila, and doctors at the local hospital pronounced Greenwood dead on arrival - or so her death certificate would have you believe...

Greenwood, who was inspired to fake her own death by her ballooning student debt, is now working as a journalist in New York City after deciding at the last minute that she didn’t want to go through with the scheme.

She first stumbled upon the idea during lunch with a friend who joked about it after she finished ranting about the colossal size of her student debt. But the joke got her thinking. So she started Googling.

“I began poking around online and discovered that death fraud truly is an industry with a whole host of experts and consultants to help you go through with it, and that there are far more people than you might imagine who had done it themselves, with varying degrees of success,” Greenwood explains.

She eventually stumbled on a Wall Street Journal article from the 1980s that referenced “a southeast Asian country” where morgues pick up the bodies of derelicts and freeze them to help customers commit death fraud for insurance purposes.

Greenwood then discovered two elite private investigators, Steven Rambam and Richard Marquez, who consult for life insurance companies seeking to stamp out death fraud.

“Again and again, they named the Philippines as a hotbed for the kind of theatrical death fraud that involves false corpses,” she adds. “They sniff out life insurance fraud all over the globe - it is attempted everywhere - but they told me some memorable stories about cases they’d worked on in the Philippines, so I wanted to check it out myself."

The cost of death fraud can vary widely. A fake death certificate from the Philippines generally costs anywhere in the region of £100 to £350. Some will pay upwards of £20,000 to hire a professional fixer who will help them scratch their trail as they move forward with a new identity.

During a week-long stay in the Philippines, Greenwood found a pair of locals there who obtained a fake death certificate for her from a mole working inside a government agency. All the witness accounts were fake, and there was never a fatal traffic accident as outlined on the papers.

She never crossed the line and actually filed the documents with the US embassy.

“My death certificate sits encased in a plastic sheath at the bottom of my filing cabinet,” Greenwood states.

The difficulty of feigning one’s death depends on the purpose of the fraud. If one is trying to cash in a life insurance policy, then the fraud will require a body and an accomplice, since, without a body, most insurers will wait seven years before paying out a claim. This is why the cottage industry of fake morgues has sprung up.

Some fraudsters might go to the lengths of staging a funeral for their dummy corpse and filming it to submit to the insurance company, she adds, but in most cases, this is an unnecessary flourish.

If insurance fraud isn’t your ultimate aim, then the process of faking your death will be exponentially easier.

“If you’re not committing life insurance fraud, you needn’t go to all the extra trouble,” Greenwood told the Telegraph. “Staging a more open-ended, elegant escape, like disappearing while on a hike, usually looks more believable to investigators."

While insurance companies typically hire private investigators to sniff out death fraud, few cases are ever prosecuted, particularly if they were committed on foreign soil. Often, the only punishment for death fraudsters is their insurance claim being denied.

Greenwood cites one example of a German woman who faked her death and whose fraud remained undiscovered for two decades.

When German authorities discovered she was alive in 2015, after being presumed dead since 1985, the only penalty she shouldered was the trouble of filling out the paperwork necessary to declare herself still alive.

Death fraud happens “constantly”, Greenwood said adding that she detected a spike in cases around the financial crisis.

But while faking one’s death on foreign soil is easier than many believe, the reasons people get caught are also simpler than many might assume.

Particularly if an accomplice is battling it out with an insurance company, fraudsters are typically caught when they try to reach out to loved ones or their parents.

As it turns out, even if they’re dead on paper, many people just can’t cut the ties to their old lives.
 

Three Kinds of Theft

Via The Daily Bell

Taxation is theft. But I’ve seen some people defend taxes with typical arguments like, “It’s not theft because you get something for your money.”

Perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that not all thieves act the same. There are at least three different types of theft in which the government engages.

1. The Con

The con artist cheats you out of your money. He makes you think you are getting something of value, or he tricks you into being robbed without your knowledge. Most people are conned into supporting taxation, assuming taxes are the price of civilization. They assume that is the way it has to be, and that taxes are justified because people get government services in return.

So when someone argues that taxes aren’t theft because you are getting something for your money, this is a con. Yes, the government maintains the roads, but both the price and delivery are the con. You must use the government to get the roads, you have no choice. The con artist convinces you roads could be built in no other way, and for no lower cost. The same goes for security, education, food safety, and so on.

And of course sometimes long after the government has taken your money, you realize that they never delivered on whatever promise they made: to keep you safe, to create more jobs, to strengthen the economy, to reduce crime etc. Think you’ll get your money back? Think again, you’ve been conned.

2. Extortion.

Maybe you see the con coming, as many of us do, and refuse to pay taxes. Well, then comes the extortion.

“You’ve got a nice home here, it would be a shame if someone seized it for back taxes. Come on man, don’t make us come back here, we’re not gonna be as nice next time around. You don’t have health insurance? What’s gonna happen if someone breaks your kneecaps? Pony up buddy.”

Those of us who aren’t conned into thinking taxes are necessary or proper generally pay because we don’t want the government to ruin our lives. It’s the classic mafia style, being forced to pay protection money, even though they are your largest threat. Sure they might keep other thugs off the block, but then again, they might not. Either way, you are going to pay, or they will hurt you in any way they can.

Ultimately, all taxes are collected under the threat of violence. Obtaining something through threats or force is extortion.

3. Armed Robbery.

Finally, if you refuse to play into the con, and you refuse to be extorted, you will face a home invasion, which is really the final phase of extortion. When your home is invaded you will either be kidnapped or killed, depending on your reaction to the assault, and the mood of your attackers.

Then they will take everything of value until the original amount they said you owed is paid, plus some extra for not cooperating. If they claimed you owed them an especially high figure, they will keep you caged as an example to others who refused to be extorted.

So yes, taxation is theft, and most people that disagree have been so easily conned that they simply think they haven’t been robbed. But they never bother to think about what would happen next if they didn’t accept the sham products and overprices services!

Being conned is theft: we are tricked into letting go of our money, or having it taken while we aren’t looking (like inflation). Extortion is clearly theft as well: the “alternative” of having your kneecaps broken or business burned down is no alternative at all, it is simply a method of having you turn over your money in order to avoid a violent attack. And armed robbery is clearly theft. You are in the midst of the violence and can no longer avoid it. You must turn over your money, or see the violence escalate until ultimately you are killed.

No matter how you slice it, taxation is theft.

There"s No Such Thing As An "American" Homicide Rate

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

In September, the FBI released new homicide data, and the overall US homicide rate rose for the second year to an eight-year high. 

According to the report, the nationwide homicide rate in the US in 2016 was 5.3 per 100,000, up from 2015"s rate of 4.9. 

The homicide rate in 2014 - 4.4 per 100,000 - had been a 51-year low, and comparable to rates not seen since the 1950s. 

Homicide rates still remain well below where they were in the 1980s and 1990s, when homicide rates sometimes exceeded 9 per 100,000. 

When it comes to making any serious analysis, however, nationwide homicide rates for a place as large as the United States are next to useless. When we look at numbers on a state-by-state basis, we find that homicide rates vary from 1.3 per 100,000 in New Hampshire to 11.8 per 100,000 in Louisiana. 

To offer some additional context, I"ve included rates from Canadian provinces (using Canada"s 2015 stats) side by side with US states:

Presented as a map: 

There are clear regional differences in many cases. States in the far north and far northeast of the United States report very low homicide rates while certain homicide "hotspots" apparently in Missouri, Maryland, Illinois, and the deep South are driving up US rates. 

These details emphasize the mistake of speaking of the nationwide US homicide rate as if it were in anyway descriptive of any single trend or legislative reality in the US. 

We often hear about homicides are rampant in "America" - presumably caused by high levels of private gun ownership - but any serious look at the numbers forces us to refine our question and instead ask why some parts of the US have some of the lowest homicide rates on earth, while the situation in other areas is considerably different. 

What Are the Important Factors in Homicides? 

Some places largely free of gun restrictions - like the Dakotas, Utah, Idaho, Minnesota, Vermont, and New Hampshire - have very low homicide rates. But other places with similar or more restrictive laws - such as Missouri, California, and most of Latin America - have much higher rates. Obviously, homicide rates are not simply a function of gun laws. 

Even researchers on the political left are increasingly coming to terms with the fact that homicide rates are not simply a matter of passing prohibitionist laws. 

One of the most recent examples of this is new research described by Leah Libresco at the Washington Times. Libresco noted that few, if any, of the gun bans being floated by policymakers is likely to be effective. Libresco notes: 

…my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence...

 

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths...

 

…no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos. … [S]ilencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless...

 

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them.

What Libresco did conclude, was that a host of societal issues are driving much of what we hear about in terms of so-called gun violence. Mental illness, suicide, gang violence, and domestic violence are all important factors that drive gun violence. The problem, Libresco admits, is that simply prohibiting certain types of guns doesn"t really address these issues. 

(For similar articles, see Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic and Justin Cronin at The New York Times.)

Other factors we"ve covered here at mises.org include sky-high incarceration rates in the United States, and how the history, residential mobility, and cultural heterogeneity of the Americas make the US and Latin America quite different from Europe and East Asia in terms of homicide and violence. 

To understand the current trends, then, we have to look beyond a few headlines about rare mass shootings and look at larger demographics and societal trends. A focus on legislation, by contrast, tends to substitute wishful thinking for an understanding of the the complex reality.

 

Germany: Full Censorship Now Official

Authored by Judith Bergmann via The Gatestone Institute,

• Germany has made no secret of its desire to see its new law copied by the rest of the EU.


• When employees of social media companies are appointed as the state"s private thought police and given the power to shape the form of current political and cultural discourse by deciding who shall be allowed to speak and what to say, and who shall be shut down, free speech becomes nothing more than a fairy tale. Or is that perhaps the point?


• Perhaps fighting "Islamophobia" is now a higher priority than fighting terrorism?

A new German law introducing state censorship on social media platforms came into effect on October 1, 2017. The new law requires social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to censor their users on behalf of the German state. Social media companies are obliged to delete or block any online "criminal offenses" such as libel, slander, defamation or incitement, within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint -- regardless of whether or the content is accurate or not. Social media companies receive seven days for more complicated cases. If they fail to do so, the German government can fine them up to 50 million euros for failing to comply with the law.

This state censorship makes free speech subject to the arbitrary decisions of corporate entities that are likely to censor more than absolutely necessary, rather than risk a crushing fine. When employees of social media companies are appointed as the state"s private thought police and given the power to shape the form of current political and cultural discourse by deciding who shall be allowed to speak and what to say, and who shall be shut down, free speech becomes nothing more than a fairy tale. Or is that perhaps the point?

Meanwhile, the district court in Munich recently sentenced a German journalist, Michael Stürzenberger, to six months in jail for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a senior Nazi official in Berlin in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of "inciting hatred towards Islam" and "denigrating Islam" by publishing the photograph. The court found Stürzenberger guilty of "disseminating the propaganda of anti-constitutional organizations". While the mutual admiration that once existed between al-Husseini and German Nazis is an undisputed historical fact, now evidently history is being rewritten by German courts. Stürzenberger has appealed the verdict.

A German court recently sentenced journalist Michael Stürzenberger (pictured) to six months in jail for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a Nazi official in Berlin, in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of "inciting hatred towards Islam" and "denigrating Islam" by publishing the photograph. (Image Source: PI News video screenshot)

Germany has made no secret of its desire to see its new law copied by the rest of the EU, which already has a similar code of conduct for social media giants. The EU Justice Commissioner, Vera Jourova, recently said she might be willing to legislate in the future if the voluntary code of conduct does not produce the desired results. She said, however, that the voluntary code was working "relatively" well, with Facebook removing 66.5% of the material they had been notified was "hateful" between December and May this year. Twitter removed 37.4%, and YouTube took action on 66% of the notifications from users.

While purportedly concerned about online "hate speech," one EU organization, the EU Parliament, had no qualms about letting its premises be used to host a convicted Arab terrorist, Leila Khaled, from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) at a conference about "The Role of Women in the Palestinian Popular Struggle" in September. (The EU, the US, Canada, and Australia, have all designated the PFLP a terrorist organization). The conference was organized by, among others, the Spanish delegation of Izquierda Unida (United Left) as part of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left bloc in the European Parliament.

In the UK, Prime Minister Theresa May also said that she will tell internet firms to tackle extremist content:

"Industry needs to go further and faster in automating the detection and removal of terrorist content online... ultimately it is not just the terrorists themselves who we need to defeat. It is the extremist ideologies that fuel them. It is the ideologies that preach hatred, sow division and undermine our common humanity. We must be far more robust in identifying these ideologies and defeating them -- across all parts of our societies."

Prime Minister May keeps insisting that "these ideologies" are spread "across all parts of our societies" when in reality, virtually all terrorism is Islamic. Meanwhile, her own Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has refused to ban the political wing of Hezbollah. Hezbollah"s hate speech, apparently, is perfectly acceptable to the British authorities. So is that of South African Muslim cleric and hate preacher Ebrahim Bham, who was once an interpreter to the Taliban"s head legal advisor. He was allowed to enter the UK to speak in the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, a government building, at the "Palestine Expo" a large Jew-hate event in London in July. Bham is known for quoting Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels and saying that all Jews and Christians are "agents of Satan". Meanwhile, a scholar such as Robert Spencer is banned from entering the UK, supposedly on the grounds that what he reports -- accurately -- is "Islamophobic".

The British Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) also recently stated that online "hate crimes" will be prosecuted "with the same robust and proactive approach used with offline offending". The decision to treat online offenses in the same way as offline offenses is expected to increase hate crime prosecutions, already at the highest recorded level ever. Prosecutors completed 15,442 hate crime cases in 2015-16.

Jews in Britain, who have experienced a dramatic increase in anti-Semitism over the past three years, are frequently on the receiving end of hate crimes. Nevertheless, their cases constitute less than a fraction of the statistics. In 2016/17, the CPS prosecuted 14,480 hate crimes. According to the Campaign Against Antisemitism:

"we have yet to see a single year in which more than a couple of dozen anti-Semitic hate crimes were prosecuted. So far in 2017, we are aware of... 21 prosecutions, in 2016 there were 20, and in 2015 there were just 12. So serious are the failures by the CPS to take action that we have had to privately prosecute alleged anti-Semites ourselves and challenge the CPS through judicial review, the first of which we won in March. Last year only 1.9% of hate crime against Jews was prosecuted, signaling to police forces that their effort in investigating hate crimes against Jews might be wasted, and sending the strong message to anti-Semites that they need not fear the law... Each year since 2014 has been a record-breaking year for anti-Semitic crime: between 2014 and 2016, anti-Semitic crime surged by 45%".

Almost one in three British Jews have apparently considered leaving Britain due to anti-Semitism in the past two years.

British authorities seem far more concerned with "Islamophobia" than with the increase in hate crimes against Jews. In fact, the police has teamed up with Transport for London authorities to encourage people to report hate crimes during "National Hate Crime Awareness Week", which runs from October 14-21. Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police will hold more than 200 community events to "reassure communities that London"s public transport system is safe for everyone". The events are specifically targeted at Muslims; officers have visited the East London Mosque to encourage reporting hate crimes.

Last year, London mayor Sadiq Khan"s Office for Policing and Crime (Mopac) announced it was spending £1,730,726 of taxpayer money policing speech online after applying for a grant from the Home Office. Meanwhile, Khan said that he does not have the funds to monitor the 200 jihadists estimated to be in London, out of the 400 jihadists who have so far returned to the capital from Syria and Iraq. (He also implicitly admitted that he does not know the whereabouts of the jihadists who have returned). When asked by the journalist Piers Morgan why the mayor could not have them monitored, Khan answered:

"Because the Met Police budget, roughly speaking, 15 percent, 20 percent is funded by me, the mayor. The rest comes from central government. If the Met Police is being shrunk and reduced, they"ve got to prioritize and use their resources in a sensible, savvy way."

When Morgan asked what could possibly be a bigger priority than, "people coming back from a Syrian battlefield with intent to harm British citizens", Khan did not answer. Perhaps because it is hard to admit in public that fighting "Islamophobia" is now a higher priority than fighting terrorism?

"Dangerously Vague" - New US Law Blurs The Line Between Hate Speech And Hate Crime

Authored by Michael Rozeff via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

Eleven years ago, this essay argued against hate-crime laws.

One argument read “People can eventually be accused of hate crimes when they use hateful speech. Hate crimes laws are a seed that can sprout in new directions.”

This has now come to pass, I am sorry to say. This week, the Congress passed S. J. Res. 49, and President Trump signed it, making it part of the U.S. legal code.

The law rejects “White nationalists, White supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups…” But why? Because of their ideas? Because of their expression of these ideas?

No government that stands for freedom and free speech, whose charge is to protect rights, should be singling out specific groups by name and by law declaring them as outlaws or threats because of their philosophies. If they have committed a crime, such as defamation of character or incitement to riot or riot itself, then charge them and try them. But American government has no legitimate authority to single out some of its citizens in this way. This, furthermore, is an exceedingly bad precedent. Who’s next?

The resolution is too specific, but it’s also dangerously vague. The term “other hate groups” has no known definition. Suppose that this term is defined by a group like the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC currently names 917 groups as hate groups (see here for a list). Their criteria are not restricted to violent actions. They comprise SPEECH. They say “All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” They are very clear about this: “Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”

This Congressional resolution is a declaration that certain kinds of groups, some named but many, many others open to inclusion, are to be attacked by the U.S. government.

The law urges “the President and the President’s Cabinet to use all available resources to address the threats posed by those groups.” The term “threats” in the first paragraph is vague, dangerously vague. However, the very next paragraph singles outfree speech actions when “hundreds of torch-bearing White nationalists, White supremacists, Klansmen, and neo-Nazis chanted racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant slogans…” The same sentence joins this with violent actions “…and violently engaged with counter-demonstrators on and around the grounds of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville…”

This law regards free speech as a threat, linking it to violence, painting them with one brush. There can be no justice that can stem from such a completely sloppy and inexcusably amateurish legal treatment. This linkage is made clear in paragraph seven with this language: “…communities everywhere are concerned about the growing and open display of hate and violence being perpetrated by those groups…” There is no distinction made here between the “open display of hate” and “violence being perpetrated”. As I predicted 11 years ago in arguing against hate crime laws, hate speech is being identified with hate crime.

I am just as uncomfortable with the notion of defining and singling out “hate speech” as some sort of new danger or threat or harmful activity or crime, to be dealt with by government or courts of law as I was 11 years ago with the idea of “hate crime”. The standard categories of crime are quite enough without adding to them a government laundry list of prejudices and aversions that everyone is not supposed to express or feel, under penalty of government law.

Key Witness Incriminates Netanyahu

[image: matzav.com]According to Israel’s Channel 2, former Netanyahu chief of staff/close confidant Ari Harow turned state’s witness, incriminating his former boss on bribery and perhaps other offenses.

Netanyahu has avoided prosecution on earlier dubious activities. Whether his checkered past caught up with him remains to be seen.

His highest of high crimes are never mentioned, including partnering in US wars of aggression, waging his own, along with daily persecution of Palestinians, flagrantly violating international law.

He’s potentially liable for bribery, fraud, and breach or trust. According to Israel’s Channel 2, Harow incriminated him in a so-called Case 2000, discussed in a previous day article.

It involves getting caught red-handed on tape, negotiating a quid pro quo with Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon Mozes for more favorable broadsheet coverage in return for legislation prohibiting distribution of the free daily Israel Hayom, YA’s main competitor, owned by Netanyahu supporter Sheldon Adelson.

Mozes was caught on tape, saying “(i)f we can come to an agreement (for legislation prohibiting Israel Hayom’s free distribution), I will do all I can to make sure you stay (in power) as long as you want. I’m looking you in the eye, and saying this as clearly as I can.”

Harow reportedly told police Netanyahu asked him to “advance matters” with Mozes. A gag order through mid-September prevents more detailed information from coming out.

Adelson reportedly testified about Netanyahu raising the possibility of canceling some of his Israel Hayom’s weekend supplements, reducing its appeal and audience size.

It’s for state prosecutors to decide if indicting Netanyahu is warranted. According to justice minister Ayelet (“little snakes”) Shaked, he won’t have to resign if charged with wrongdoing.

He may have no choice. His coalition partners may demand it. If indicted, he’ll be considerably weakened.

He’s also vulnerable to charges in the so-called Case 1,000, involving suspicion of inappropriately or illegally receiving lavish gifts from wealthy supporters, amounting to possible bribery.

Harow is testifying against him in both probes – in return for leniency on charges he faces.

Knowing where the bodies are buried, as the saying goes, he may be able to end Netanyahu’s deplorable career as Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, surpassing David Ben Gurion, provided he completes his current four-year term in 2019.

If charged and forced to step down, prosecutors will rid Israel of the scourge he represents – what enough voters failed to do.

Homicides In Baltimore Top 200, Expected To Break Record

Via StockBoardAsset.com,

A 23-year old man was killed Wednesday afternoon in a double shooting on Baltimore’s 1200 block of Greenmount Avenue topping the city’s 200th homicide. So far, 30 homicides have been reported for the month of July with the expectation of further acceleration into the latter summer months.

The Economist seems to think Baltimore “may see more than 400 murders this year”. This is based on their figures from Jan’17 through May’17 homicides extrapolated by summer seasonal trends. Nevertheless, this would indicate Baltimore is headed for a record breaking year in terms of homicide count.

Earlier this year, Baltimore’s mayor was basically begging the Federal Government for help as her city’s murder rate spiraled ‘out of control’. Per CBS Baltimore: 

“I’m calling on all the assistance we can possibly get because I can’t imagine going into our summer months with our crime rate where it is today, what that’s going to look like by the end of the summer,” says Mayor Catherine Pugh.   “Murder is out of control,” says Pugh.   “We are looking for all the help that we can get,” she says.

Meanwhile, Baltimore’s public safety expert Rob Weinhold isn’t sure the Federal Government alone will solve Baltimore’s descent into chaos. Here’s what he had to say:

“I don’t think relying on federal resources is a new strategy at all, in fact, I think the devil is in the detail. You can talk about the FBI and that’s fine, but I’d actually like to see more emphasis on drug enforcement administration, ATF, and the Marshall service to get these folks who are wanted on warrants off the street,”

All eyes on Baltimore as per CBS:  “Baltimore’s murder rate more than doubles Chicago’s, which has gained international attention for its violence”. Don’t be shocked if Trump’s next tweet on America’s inner cities targets Baltimore….

***********

Video emerges from Baltimore’s 200th homicide scene with anger in the streets.

Alan Dershowitz Slams New York Times For Trump Jr. "Treason" Claims

Over the past couple of days, the emergence of details regarding Trump Jr."s meeting with the Russian-born lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya has prompted a return of the Trump-Russia mass hysteria on the part of the mainstream media and the left. Hillary Clinton"s former running mate, Tim Kaine, even went so far as to refer to Don Jr."s meeting as "treasonous."

Tim Kaine: “potentially treason” in Russia investigation (via @kasie) pic.twitter.com/Cp5aUp9tsI

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) July 11, 2017

Meanwhile, the New York Times published an op-ed detailing how treason statutes could potentially be adapted for the sole purpose of incriminating Don Jr. for taking the meeting with Veselnitskaya.

Although we do not yet have enough facts to judge, Donald Jr. and others may also be liable for conspiracy with respect to espionage, depending on how any illicit information was obtained and the level of their awareness of any spying. Because the Russian campaign that followed was nothing less than an assault on our democracy, we understand why some are raising issues of treason as well. Prosecution under the federal treason statute is ultimately unlikely because we are not at war with Russia. But during the Cold War, treasonous conduct was often prosecuted under other statutes. (Alger Hiss was sentenced to four years in prison for “forgetting” in sworn testimony that he had met with Whitaker Chambers, an American working for the Russians.)

But former Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, a constant voice of reason throughout the post-election hysteria, says all of the discussion of "treason" on the left is nothing more than wishful thinking.  As Dershowitz reasonably points out, while the act of actually stealing or hacking information is illegal, "seeking to obtain the work product of a prior hack would be no more criminal than a newspaper publishing the work product of thefts such as the Pentagon Papers and the material stolen by Snowden and Manning."

Obviously if anyone conspired in advance with another to commit a crime – such as hacking the DNC – that would be criminal. But merely seeking to obtain the work product of a prior hack would be no more criminal than a newspaper publishing the work product of thefts such as the Pentagon Papers and the material stolen by Snowden and Manning.   Moreover, the emails sent to Trump Jr. say that the dirt peddled by Veselnitskaya came from “official documents.”  No mention is made of hacking or other illegal activities. So it is unlikely that attendance at the meeting violated any criminal statute.

Meanwhile, regarding all those "collusion" claims, Dershowitz points out that while the act of "colluding" with a foreign government maybe should be made illegal in the future, it is not currently a crime under existing laws....so tough luck there too.

Whether or not such collusion, if it occurred, is a crime, it is clear that the American people have the right to know whether any sort of collusion –legal or illegal – took place.  And, if so, what was its nature.

The Mueller investigation is limited to possible criminal activity.  Probing the moral, political or other non-criminal implications of collusion with, or interference by, Russia is beyond the jurisdiction of the special counsel.  It is the role of Congress, not the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, to make changes in existing laws.  Perhaps mere collusion by a campaign with a foreign government should be made a crime, so as to prevent future contamination of our elections.  But it is not currently a crime.

Nor will it be easy to draft a criminal statute prohibiting a campaign from using material provided by a foreign power, without trenching on the constitutional rights of candidates.  But this is all up to Congress and the courts, not the special counsel, with his limited jurisdiction.

And here is the full interview with Dershowitz from earlier today:

CarJackers Don’t Want You To See This (VIDEO)

When I used to work in the city, my office location was not in the best area of town. Frequently, there were questionable people walking around. At the time, there had been an increase of violent crimes and some vehicles had been carjacked in the area. Needless to say, I did not want to be the next victim. As an added safety measure I walked with a group out to my car and always had my keys ready. I was lucky to never be a victim of of such heinous crimes, but I was always on the lookout.

Little did I know criminals use multiple ploys to get their victims out of the car. I believe there are ways to prepare for this type of personal crises and it all starts with good old-fashioned common sense and avoidance.

Victims Are Always Chosen With Certain Traits

In a recent article on self-defense, I discussed how victims are not randomly selected. They are observed and picked because they are perceived to be weak. In a study regarding how predators selected their victims, pedestrians were videotaped walking down a street and had incarcerated convicts view them. Within seven seconds of viewing the pedestrians the convicts had selected their targets. Selections were not based on gender, size, age or race, but rather on the body language exhibited. The convicts identified the following body language cues used as their basis for victim selection:

Posture: People that walked with shoulders slouched or slumped were selected as victims as opposed to those who walked with their chin up.
Gaze: Those avoiding eye contact were chosen as victims because of the perception that they were preoccupied. Making eye contact naturally communicates confidence.
Stride: People who walked with a stride that was too long or too short, or those who shuffled or dragged their feet, were selected over those who had a smooth and natural gait.
Rate: Those who walked slowly with no apparent purpose, and those who walked fast as if they were uncomfortable, were selected over those who walked naturally and deliberately.
Fluidity: Those who demonstrated awkwardness in their movements were chosen over those who seemed to glide as they walked.
Wholeness: Those who swung their arms wildly while walking were selected over those who moved from their center, with coordination and balance.

The #1 Way to Avoid Being Carjacked

In a SHTF scenario, many urbanites who are bugging out of the city could easily find themselves in a carjacking situation. In times of crisis, you have to face the fact that people will kill you, if necessary, for what you have, and do anything they can to get you out of your car – even trick you. In a bug out scenario, you will have valuables, computer gear, survival items – these could all be worth taking a life for. They will choose their life over yours’, so keep that in mind. In desperate times, you have to assume the worse and make every priority to keep your family safe. Situational awareness is the number one way to avoid being carjacked.

Situational Awareness Checklist

• Try to guess what individuals around you are thinking or doing.


• Look for odd behavior or things that seem out of place.


• Determine where you would go if you had to seek immediate cover from an explosion or gunshots.


• Find the closest exit.


• Determine whether someone is following you or taking an unusual interest in you.

Understanding where the most likely places for this type of crime are can help you avoid and prepare for the likelihood of what you may come face to face with. For instance, did you know that two out of three vehicles are carjacked at night? Pay extra attention to your surroundings when it’s dark; especially in the more likely carjacking strike locations: gas stations, ATM machines, parking lots and shopping centers. As well, keep these other areas in mind.

• High-crime areas


• Lesser traveled roads (rural areas)


• Intersections where you must stop


• Residential driveways and gates


• Traffic jams or congested areas


• Suspicious roadblocks


• Areas that could easily hide a group of criminals so they blitz you all at once.

Carjacking Tricks that Criminals Use. Don’t Fall for These!

Make no mistake, the entire purpose that carjackers want is to get you out of the car while the keys are in the ignition. There are many tricks used to get you out of your car. Here are a few of their favorite ploys:

Bump and Rob – One of the most common tricks these criminals use a technique called the bump and rob. Criminals will intentionally bump into your car as a tactic to get you out of your car. What to Do: Instead of getting out of your car, take notice of their license plate number, type it into your cell phone or quickly write it down on a piece of paper and drive to the nearest police station. Do not get out of your car if you suspect ill will is at play. If you are bumped from behind or if someone tries to alert you to a problem with your vehicle, pull over only when you reach a safe public place.

Good Samaritan—The attacker(s) stage what appears to be an accident. They may simulate an injury. The victim stops to assist, and the vehicle is taken. Think before stopping to assist in an accident. What to Do: It may be safer to call and report the location, number of cars involved, and any injuries you observed.

The Ruse—The vehicle behind the victim flashes its lights or the driver waves to get the victim’s attention. The attacker tries to indicate that there is a problem with the victim’s car. The victim pulls over and the vehicle is taken. What to Do: Do not get out of your car. Call and report the incident to the authorities.

The Trap—Carjackers use surveillance to follow the victim home. When the victim pulls into his or her driveway waiting for the gate to open, the attacker pulls up behind and blocks the victim’s car. What to Do: If you are driving into a gated community, call ahead to have the gate opened. Otherwise wait on the street until the gate is open before turning in and possibly getting trapped.

Another common trick that could be used is if you are alone on the highway and come across a car blocking the highway or have cones up in order for you to slow down, someone may be trying to carjack your car.

Ever had a promotional paper placed under your windshield? Don’t get out of your car to remove it. It’s another trick being used. Read more here.

In the following video, more tactics that carjackers use trick drivers is discussed. A police officer goes on to discuss how you can get out of that particular situation. He emphasizes that the key to survival is to always stay mobile. Keep that in mind when watching the video.

Don’t Make Yourself an Easy Target

Remember, in many cases, predators watch their potential victims before they strike making sure they are too weak or not paying attention. Staying alert will prevent a carjacking from taking place because you know what is going on in your environment. Here’s what you need to know to stay safe:

1. Keeping your door locked at all times and make every effort to keep your window up, especially when stuck in stop and go traffic.


2. Leave space between your car and the car in front of you when stopped so you have room to escape if someone tries to carjack your car. A good rule of thumb is if you can look over the hood of your car you can see the wheels of the car in front of you touch the pavement, then you have room to go around.


3. Choose well-lit areas to park your vehicle and avoid remote parking areas.


4. When you are returning to your car, always have your keys in hand when you approach so you are not fumbling around your car door. Having mace or pepper spray in hand would also be advantageous.


5. If you feel that you are trapped, trust your instincts and escape from the situation.


6. Mobility is key. If your car is stopped and can’t move, crooks will see an opportunity to get you out of the car.


7. Do not try and talk to the criminals. That includes arguing or fighting with them. Leave the situation immediately.

Much of this information is good common sense, but there are times when unavoidable situations arise and it’s paramount to be ready for them. Avoidance is the easiest solution to preventing a carjackings. That said, if you find yourself in a questionable area of town, make sure you are aware of the situation you are going into.

Man Jailed For Anti-Islam Facebook Posts, Germany Raids Homes Of 36 People Accused Of Hateful Social Media Posts

Authored by Jon Hall via Free Market Shooter blog,

1984 is seemingly already in full-effect in the EU.

An anti-racism demonstration in London, 2016.

After countless terror attacks in the name of Islam on European soil, it seems authorities in the EU are more angry over citizen’s freedom of speech and expression…

On Tuesday, Sussex police arrested 50 year-old Nigel Pelham; charged with eight counts of “publishing… written material intending to sir up religious hatred against Muslims”, it’s laughable to consider what he’s being punished for – it’s surreal! The “offensive” posts spanned between February 24 and November 16, 2015.

On that same day, German police raided the homes of 36 people accused of hateful postings over social media. Yes, the biggest problem facing the EU is hate but not the kind they’re punishing. Thus, Mr. Pelham and the 36 who had their homes raided had their fundamental human rights violated…

At least, in the U.S. they did…

Thank God for our forefathers. Thank God for their foresight to decree and memorialize our fundamental rights in the Constitution. I fear of the repercussions and injustices that would be perpetrated by our already corrupt and power-hungry government if we didn’t have the Constitution and its protections.

Interestingly, the two things protecting us from Islam is also protected under our Constitution:

The Freedom of Speech and Press

The Right To Bear Arms

Therefore, without the Constitution – we would probably already be sliding down the slippery slope of hate crimes and thought police a la in Europe. Reaction to terrorist attacks from European leaders writes off the threat. Dying in a suicide bomb is just “part and parcel to living in a big city”, according to London mayor, Sadiq Khan. The Independent instructed citizens of Britain there was only one way to respond to attacks like Manchester; that saw scores of children killed at an Ariana Grande concert. Their advice? To carry on exactly as before.

 

Then, a week and a half later, another attack in the name of Islam was perpetrated on London bridge that saw three attackers mowing down pedestrians in a van and launching a knife attack on a market. Therefore, it’s a bit hard to “carry on exactly as before” when it keeps happening.

Europe holds no future if they begin to prosecute the only ones standing up against the invasion of a conquesting horde.

Picked up our #pride car all ready to support @EastbournePride & @HastingsPride as part of pride season. @sussex_police @NPLGBT #ByYourSide pic.twitter.com/IRXQOZImAF

— Insp Mark Evans (@Inspmarkevans) June 21, 2017

Notably, here’s some replies to the tweet above:

“Diversity budget”? Nevermind… Europe is already toast…

These Are America's Most Dangerous Cities

Given that 2016 was the worst year for homicides in nearly two decades in Chicago, it comes as little surprise that the city has a reputation as one of the most violent places in the United States.

Last year, there were 762 murders, 3,550 shooting incidents and 4,331 shooting victims with an average of 12 people shot every single day.

In fact, the Windy City experienced more murders than New York and Los Angeles combined last year with the number of homicides there since 2001 eclipsing U.S. war dead in Iraq and Afghanistan by late November.

However, as Statista"s Niall McCarthy notes, even though it had more murders than any other U.S. city last year, is Chicago"s violent reputation entirely justified?

You will find more statistics at Statista

According to nonprofit news outlet The Trace, Chicago is actually far behind other major U.S. cities in homicides per 100,000 residents.

It found that between 2010 and 2015, New Orleans had a homicide rate of 46.9 per 100,000 inhabitants compared to just 16.4 in Chicago.

As bad a problem as Chicago has on its hands, this metric does show that many other cities actually have higher levels of violence.

Albuquerque Becomes America's No. 1 "Hotspot" As Car Thefts Soar

With vehicle thefts believed to have risen last year at the fastest pace in more than a decade, Albuquerque, New Mexico rose from the number-two spot to claim the title of car-theft capital of the US, according to the National Insurance Crime Board"s annual "HotSpots" report. 

As Bloomberg noted, Albuquerque unseated Modesto, Calif., the number-one seed from 2015, which fell to the No. 4 spot last year. Car thefts are believed to have risen 6.6% in 2016 - the largest annual increae in at least a decade, according to preliminary figures from the FBI"s uniform crime report. However, despite the increase, theft totals remain well below peaks seen in the early 1990s. The historic peak year for vehicle theft was 1991, with 1,661,738 reported thefts. In 2015, the total was 707,758. That is a 57.4 percent reduction since 1991.

The Albuquerque metropolitan statistical area logged 10,011 vehicle thefts last year, for a rate of 1,114 thefts per 100,000 residents – the highest in the country. Pueblo, Colo came in second, with 899 thefts per 100,000, even though it only recorded 1,325 vehicle thefts in 2016.

The NICB published an interactive map with its report that breaks down the data by state.

New to the top 10 this year are the metro areas of Anchorage, Alaska (No. 6) and Billings, Mont. (No. 10). As a population-based survey, an area with a much smaller population and a moderate number of thefts can—and often does—have a higher theft rate than an area with a much more significant vehicle theft problem and a larger population to absorb it.

The rate would be even lower if more people followed simple security practices like not leaving keys in an unlocked car.

For the years 2013 through 2015, a total of 147,434 vehicles were reported stolen with the keys left in them—57,096 in 2015 alone. With the debut of “smart keys” in 1997 and all of the improved anti-theft technology since, it is worthless if drivers continue to leave their keys in the car or leave their vehicles running, unattended, while they make a quick stop at a convenience store.

Mexico's Crime Wave Spirals Out Of Control As Auto Thefts Surge

For a country that generates roughly 10% of its GDP from tourism, mostly from Americans, Mexico"s surging violent crime rates, courtesy of its notoriously brutal drug cartels, is quickly becoming a "yuge" economic issue.  As we recently noted, more Americans have been killed while traveling abroad in Mexico than any other country, by a staggering margin, no less.  

Source: data.world

And while Mexico would love to shake it"s bad rap when it comes to violence, the negative datapoints just continue to pile up.  The latest such data comes courtesy of Mexico"s car insurance association Amis, which found that auto thefts spiked in March 2017 by over 20% and current stand at multi-year highs.  Per Bloomberg:

In March, the number of auto thefts rose 21 percent from the same month a year earlier, according to numbers from the car insurance association known as Amis. Meanwhile, the recovery rate -- the percentage of stolen cars that police were able to recover -- dropped to its lowest since at least 2005.

The car-theft trend “will continue throughout the second quarter which will, in turn, have an impact on first-half returns," Francisco Uriostegui, an analyst at Moody’s who helped write the report, said in an interview. “In the end, it’s the customer that will have to pay more, for a higher premium and it’ll be due to a drop in the recovery rate for these vehicles."

And while auto thefts may not seem all that threatening, it is just another datapoint that suggests an alarming trend in overall violence in a country that already leads the U.S. State Department"s ranking for most travel warnings.

Source: data.world

Oddly enough, no amount of State Department warnings have yet caused Americans to curb their appetite for those cheap Cabo vacations...

Source: data.world

Though we suspect it"s only a matter of time.

A Look Inside the Watch List Chicago Police Fought to Keep Secret

One of the men had been arrested 12 times for violent crimes, all before turning 20. He’d also been charged with illegal gun possession. Two others each had been arrested eight times for violent crimes and caught three times with guns. Another man had been busted three times for illegal guns, racked up four arrests for violent offenses and been shot twice.

“We have 1,400 individuals that drive this gun violence in this city,” police Supt. Eddie Johnson said in August, assuring the public his department was keeping tabs on the people on its closely guarded “Strategic Subject List.” “We’ve gotten very good at predicting who will be the perpetrators or victims of gun violence.”

Yet the list is far broader and more extensive than Johnson and other police officials have suggested. It includes more than 398,000 entries — encompassing everyone who has been arrested and fingerprinted in Chicago since 2013.

Nearly half of the people at the top of the list have never been arrested for illegal gun possession. About 13 percent have never been charged with any violent crime. And 20 of the 153 people deemed most at risk to be involved in violent crime, as victim or shooter, have never been arrested either for guns or violence.

That’s according to a version of the list that the police department released to the Chicago Sun-Times after a lengthy legal dispute.

The police concluded the people who hadn’t been arrested for guns or violence were at great risk to  commit a violent crime or become the victim of one — and, as a result, should be watched closely — because they:

• Had been shot or assaulted.

• Had been identified by the police as a gang member.

• Or recently were arrested for any crime, even a nonviolent offense.

The police say the list helps them determine which people they need to target for warnings or offers of help.

51% Of Murders In The U.S. Come From Just 2% Of The Counties

Authored by John R. Lott, Jr. via Crime Prevention Research Center

The Distribution of Murders

The United States can really be divided up into three types of places. Places where there are no murders, places where there are a few murders, and places where murders are very common.

In 2014, the most recent year that a county level breakdown is available, 54% of counties (with 11% of the population) have no murders.  69% of counties have no more than one murder, and about 20% of the population. These counties account for only 4% of all murders in the country.

The worst 1% of counties have 19% of the population and 37% of the murders. The worst 5% of counties contain 47% of the population and account for 68% of murders. As shown in figure 2, over half of murders occurred in only 2% of counties.

Murders actually used to be even more concentrated.  From 1977 to 2000, on average 73 percent of counties in any give year had zero murders. Possibly, this change is a result of the opioid epidemic’s spread to more rural areas. But that question is beyond the scope of this study.  Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime” showed how dramatically counties within states vary dramatically with respect to murder and other violent crime rates.

  

Breaking down the most dangerous counties in Figure 2 shows over half the murders occur in just 2% of the counties, 37% in just the worst 1% of the counties.

Figure 1 illustrates how few counties have a significant number of murders. Figure 3 further illustrates that with a cumulative perspective. 54% of counties have zero murders, 69% have at most one murder, 76% have at most two murders, and so on. To put it differently, only the top four percent of the counties have 16 or more murders.

If the 1% of the counties with the worst number of murders somehow were to become a separate country, the murder rate in the rest of the US would have been only 3.4 in 2014. Removing the worst 2% or 5% would have reduced the US rate to just 3.06 or 2.56 per 100,000, respectively.

Even within the Counties with the murders, the murders are heavily Concentrated within those counties

When you look at individual counties with a high number of murders, you find large areas with few murders. Take Los Angeles County, with 526 murders in 2014, the most of any county in the US. The county has virtually no murders in the northwestern part of the county. There was only one murder each in Beverly Hills, Hawthorne, and Van Nuys. Clearly, different parts of the county face very different risks of murder.

The map below shows the distribution of murders in Indianapolis, with 135 murders. Although the city extends well beyond the 465 Highway that encircles downtown Indianapolis, there are only four murders outside of that loop. The northern half of the city within 465 also has relatively few murders.

Washington, DC has large areas without murders. 14^th Street NW divides the eastern and western parts of the district, with murders overwhelmingly limited to the eastern half. The area around the capitol is also extremely safe.

Here is the murder map for Dallas.

Gun Ownership

According to a 2013 PEW Research Center survey, the household gun ownership rate in rural areas was 2.11 times greater than in urban areas (“Why Own a Gun? Protection is Now Top Reason,” PEW Research Center, March 12, 2013).   Suburban households are 28.6% more likely to own guns than urban households. Despite lower gun ownership, urban areas experience much higher murder rates. One should not put much weight on this purely “cross-sectional” evidence over one point in time, but it is still interesting to note that so much of the country has both very high gun ownership rates and zero murders.

Conclusion

This study shows how murders in the United States are heavily concentrated in very small areas. Few appreciate how much of the US has no murders each year.  Murder isn’t a nationwide problem.  It’s a problem in a very small set of urban areas, and any solution must reduce those murders.