Featured

CPRC in the News: The Blaze, Pittsburg Tribune, Townhall, Epoch Times, KGVO, Epoch Times, and many other outlets, including Peru

18 Sep , 2020  

American experts are not the only ones concerned about mail-in voting. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center reported a comparative study of voting experiences and practices in other countries. Just one vote fraud case in the U.K. involved six politicians who won after a campaign of mail-in vote fraud described by the judge as “massive, systematic, and organized.”  This research found widespread restrictions on mail-in voting in other countries as a protection against such fraud.  For example, 63 percent of countries in the European Union do not allow mail-in voting unless the voter is currently living in another country, and 22 percent do not allow it even then. The other 16 countries in Europe had even more restrictive practices.

Timothy Daughtry, “Red Mirage or Blue Coup? Democrats and the Mail-in Ballot Campaign,” Townhall, September 14, 2020.

A recent report from the Crime Prevention Research Center says 78% of the countries in the OECD (generally representing the developed world) either do not allow mail-in ballots “for people living in the country” or require a photo ID to receive a ballot. The reason they are not allowed is fraud. The report’s author, John Lott, writes, “if concern about vote fraud with mail-in ballots is delusional, it is a delusion shared by most of the world.”

Dorothy Shock, “Make your vote count — in person,” Tribune Review, September 3, 2020.

“This is a sequel to a bad movie,” Institute for Energy Research (IER) senior economist David Kreutzer told The Epoch Times on Aug. 25. . . .

While not very many green jobs were produced, billions of tax dollars were spent in the Biden-managed program during the Obama years; Kreutzer expects a similar outcome if the former vice president is elected in November.

“The hundreds of billions of dollars are going to go to the big donors, the people with connections and so on,” he said, referring to a 2015 analysis by economist John Lott.

“Billionaire Democrat donors who received a lot of money from the [stimulus program] include: Solyndra owner George Kaiser; Tesla Motors owners Elon Musk, [Google co-founders] Larry Page and Sergey Brin; NRG Energy owners Warren Buffett, Steven Cohen, and Carl Icahn; Abound Solar Manufacturing’s Pat Stryker; and Siga Technologies’ Ronald Perelman,” Lott wrote. . . .

Mark Tapscott, “Biden’s Management of Obama Stimulus Program May Preview His $2 Trillion Green Energy Plan,” The Epoch Times, August 25, 2020.

Recent studies confirm that women voters did make a difference. Economist John Lott’s research showed a dramatic change in American politics from the very beginning. There were sharp increases in spending on social programs, especially on health and education. As a result, child mortality decreased by about 15%.

Mary Mosley, “National View: 100 years of woman suffrage have transformed American politics,” Duluth News Tribune, August 24, 2020.
Mary Mosley, “100 Years of Women’s Suffrage: What Difference Has It Made?,” The Sentinel (Hanford, California), August 24, 2020.
Mary Mosley, “Women voters have made a difference in American politics, and there’s more to do,” The Sentinel (Hanford, California), August 24, 2020.
Mary Mosley, “100 Years of Woman Suffrage: What Difference Has It Made?” Twin Falls Times-News (MagicValley.com), September 5, 2020.

Academician and author Dr. John Lott appeared on the KGVO Talk Back program on Monday to speak about the possible future of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the gun rights of all Americans.

Lott said that Joe Biden was tasked with controlling guns as Vice President under Barack Obama.

“During the Obama administration, Joe Biden was in charge of heading up the gun control efforts during the administration,” said Lott. “He’s promised to make Beta O’Rourke, who has publicly come out and said the exact same thing that you just attributed to Kamala Harris (that she would enact a mandatory assault weapon buy-back program). He’s promised to make O’Rourke as the gun controls czar in the Biden administration.” . . .

Peter Christian, “Author — Private Gun Ownership at Risk if Democrats Gain Control,” KGVO, August 24, 2020.

Un estudio bastante serio del profesor John Lott (“More Guns, Less Crime“) demuestra lo contrario. Lott recogió data de 3.034 condados de EE.UU. durante 18 años. Su análisis econométrico muestra que el facilitar la obtención de licencias para portar armas redujo el número de asesinatos en ratios de 3% al año, de violaciones en 2% al año y de robos en 2% al año.

Su conclusión es contraintuitiva, pero es lógica. Delinquir tiene costos. Cuando el costo sube, entonces la cantidad demandada baja. El que la víctima se defienda es un costo para el delincuente (puede ser herido o morir). La elevación de costos reduce la cantidad de delitos.

Pero, desde el otro lado, ¿el facilitar el acceso a un arma no incrementará el número de delincuentes que acceden a una y con ello aumenta los crímenes por otro lado?

Lott dice que no es así. La propensión a pagar por una pistola o un rifle por parte de un delincuente es mayor que la propensión a pagar por parte de un ciudadano común y corriente, porque el arma es la “herramienta de trabajo” del primero. La demanda de armas por delincuentes es inelástica mientras que la de los ciudadanos honrados es elástica (ante un aumento de costos, la cantidad demandada cae más para los honrados que para los criminales). Rara vez un asalto o un asesinato se produce con un arma con licencia.

El resultado: limitando el acceso a armas legales, los delincuentes se arman más rápido que las personas comunes, con lo cual se produce un desbalance de fuerzas, no hay equilibrio, y los crímenes violentos comienzan a crecer.

Alfredo Bullard, “Más armas, menos crímenes,” Elcato.org, December 16, 2019.

According to the study “Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?”, John R. Lott Jr. (Yale University) and Lawrence W. Kenny (University of Florida) found:

“Since women tend to have lower incomes, they benefit more from various government programs that redistribute income to the poor, such as progressive taxation. Hence, single women as well as women who anticipate that they may become single may prefer a more progressive tax system and more wealth transfers to low-income people as an alternative to a share of a husband’s uncertain future income. Indeed, we have found that after women have to raise children on their own, they are more likely to classify themselves as liberal, vote for Democrats, and support policies such as progressive income taxation.”

This explains Democrats’ hostility toward the nuclear family and support for the extreme feminist agenda that seeks to “abolish the patriarchy” and “challenge the concept of gender roles.”

Staff, “Trump pardons Susan B. Anthony, the woman on the coin we hate,” Communities Digital News, August 20, 2020.

“Even if there are error rates by the United States Postal Service of a couple of percent, we are talking about millions of ballots,” John R. Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, a think tank headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, told The Epoch Times.

“An audit of the 2018 election by the USPS found that the share of election and political mail that was delivered on time averaged 84.2 percent” in the seven lowest-performing distribution centers, including suburban Maryland, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, and Royal Palm, Florida, he said.

“With the surge in election-related mail that is going to occur this year, that percent would be a disaster, involving tens of millions of votes.”

The USPS report, issued by the agency’s inspector general, found that high-performing locations such as Seattle; Norfolk, Virginia; and Southern Maine, averaged 99.6 percent on-time delivery of electoral and political mail.

“Democrats are claiming that President Trump is trying to sabotage the postal system, but this audit was done long before mail-in ballots became an issue this year,” Lott said.

Matthew Vadum, “Election Security Debate Heats Up Over Mail-In Ballots,” The Epoch Times, August 11, 2020.

The author, John Lott, is right. Things are different. He’s also right that the Second Amendment is at stake. . . .

Tom Knighton, “Does Second Amendment’s Fate Hinge On This Election?” Bearing Arms, September 9, 2020.

Read “How Biden Just Blew Up the Claim That He’s an Honest, Decent Guy,” by John Lott (Townhall.com, 8/21). While Joe Biden’s character was praised by convention speakers, he displayed a mean, disingenuous side, saying that Trump defended “white supremacists and white nationalists” as “fine people” after the 2017 riots in Charlottesville. 

Don Polson, “Dems are toast, but don’t get cocky,” Daily News (Red Bluff, California), August 31, 2020.

What does eliminating the filibuster mean? The Senate would then pass legislation on a simple majority vote and no Republicans could stop or even slow their agenda. I would recommend you read Real Clear Politics article Ending Filibuster, as Dems Vow, Would Push U.S. Far Left by John R Lott Jr.

Terry Guanella, “Eliminating the Filibuster,” Amery Free Press, September 1, 2020.

Crime Prevention Research Institute, the nonprofit aggregator of crime- and gun-related statistics led by John Lott of Tennessee, just released a new data analysis that should be music to the ears of gun owners. With high and growing rates of gun ownership, the United States of America, according to this new study, enjoyed below-average incidents of mass public shootings from the two decades 1998-2017.

Eve Flanigan, “New Study: USA Below Average in Mass Public Shootings,” All Outdoor, September 1, 2020.

Meanwhile, with this level of violent crime, one might assume that arrests for these murders and shootings would be equally record-setting, but that isn’t so. In a recent FOX News opinion piece, John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, noted: “Chicago and Illinois politicians are well known for always blaming the ‘gun problem’ for their high crime rates. But there is a much more obvious explanation. In 2019, Chicago police recorded 486 murders, but only made 109 arrests—an arrest rate of just 22%. In the last few years, the nationwide rate has remained at over 70%.”

Lott’s conclusion: “When you don’t catch criminals, the obvious result is more crime.”

Lott also detailed several changes Chicago politicians have made that have worked to weaken the Chicago Police Department. As NRA-ILA noted, Chicago Mayor Carrie Lightfoot lays the blame for her city’s ever-escalating violence on guns, and wants the federal government to enact even more stringent gun-control laws. . . .

Staff, “CHICAGO’S MAYHEM ISN’T THE FAULT OF LEGAL GUN OWNERS,” Guns in the News, August 28, 2020.

John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, who has researched the question extensively, notes that “[i]n  state after state, the data show that permit holders are extremely law-abiding, even relative to police officers,”making it very unlikely that licensees are driving crime or lawlessness in New York City or elsewhere.

“Gun Licensees and Privacy in the Empire State,” NRA-ILA, August 3, 2020.

“Is @CNN now like the old USSR or 1984 where they airbrush out inconvenient history so that no one will remember it? When does CNN register as a campaign org?” asked John R. Lott, the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center.

Carlos Garcia, “CNN airs doctored photo of Biden with Washington Redskins logo removed — and blames the Biden campaign after getting mocked for it ,” The Blaze, September 9, 2020.

By


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *