Crime

Maybe Donald Trump Is the Real Ferguson Effect

The FBI releases 2015's crime statistics on the day of the first Trump/Clinton debate.

|

Murder Incorporated

Today the FBI released its report on crime rates in 2015. While property crime continued to decline, violent crime went up 3.1 percent since the previous year, and the most serious violent crime—murder—jumped 10.8 percent.

Some of you are probably scratching your head and saying, "Hold on. We've been hearing about a murder spike in 2015 for ages now. Last week we were already talking about preliminary numbers for 2016. We're only getting the 2015 figures now?" Yes, we are. The wheels of justice, or at least of justice-related statistics, turn slowly. The numbers took so long to drip out, in fact, that there is now a well-established formula for writers who want to reassure readers that they shouldn't panic about crime:

Point out that a lot of the increase is coming from a small group of cities. Much of the country actually saw their homicide numbers go down last year, but certain cities—Baltimore and Chicago, most notoriously—saw big leaps. So while the national numbers are climbing, that doesn't mean they represent a nationwide surge.

Note that crime is close to an all-time low. The U.S. has seen a very long decline in both violent and property crime; in 2014, we enjoyed the lowest homicide rate since 1963. Even after that 10.8 percent jump, last year had the sixth lowest homicide rate of the last half-century. A decade ago, 2015's numbers would have seemed shockingly low.

Remind everyone that we don't know whether this is a blip or a new trend. We've seen brief bumps upward in that long decline before; we've seen them spark fears of a new crime wave too. But year-to-year fluctuations are inevitable. It's too early to assume the long decline is over.

All three of these arguments are accurate. I've made all three at various moments myself. Given how sensationalized crime coverage can be, it's vital to keep them in mind.

But at the risk of reducing the reassurance, I have to point out a little switch you may have missed a third of the way through that list. Point #1 qualifies those rising numbers by noting that the problem is largely a product of a few unlucky cities. Points #2 and 3 then return to talking about the national numbers, local conditions forgotten. If you live in Baltimore, you live in a city where crime is nowhere near an all-time low—indeed, 2015 was the worst year on record for Baltimore homicides. That number has come back down a bit in 2016. (The city's homicide rate has dropped 7 percent compared to this time last year.) But it still has a long way to fall.

There's a big debate about whether these stats reflect a "Ferguson effect." The term alludes to the 2014 death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the intense conflicts that then followed: protests, riots, a heavily militarized police crackdown. Beyond that, what exactly the phrase means is up to the speaker. For the conservative commentator Heather Mac Donald, who popularized the term, the idea is that "the intense agitation against American police departments" produced a "nationwide crime wave." A more moderate version of the concept holds that, even if nothing national is happening, a fear of criticism led many officers to pull back from policing. Either way, the usual aim is to blame the movement against police abuses for the increases in crime.

But those aren't the only ways the term is used. A few months ago, the criminologist Richard Rosenfeld, a prominent critic of Mac Donald's position, released a report suggesting that some of the crime increases might be traced to Ferguson after all. This prompted headlines like The Guardian's "Is the 'Ferguson effect' real? Researcher has second thoughts." But once you read past the headlines to the actual articles, it became clear that Rosenfeld was offering a very different theory than Mac Donald's. The "ultimate cause of violence in these communities," his paper proposed, "is lack of confidence in the police":

SNCC

When the police are called to respond to a crime, they arrive at the scene late or not at all. They do not follow up with vigorous and thorough investigation, even of the most serious crimes. They harass innocent youth. And, too often, they use force unnecessarily and indiscriminately. What matters is not the factual accuracy of these beliefs in every instance; what matters is that they can metastasize into a pronounced "legal cynicism," especially in disadvantaged African-American communities. When people believe the procedures of formal social control are unjust, they are less likely to obey the law.

If this complex of "feelings and beliefs," in [Randolph] Roth's terms, is the ultimate cause of escalations in homicide, the more proximate cause could be widely publicized incidents of police use of force that seem to confirm the validity of the underlying belief system. Lack of confidence in the police among African-Americans predates the recent police killings in Ferguson, Cleveland, New York and elsewhere. But it is likely to be activated by such incidents, transforming longstanding latent grievances into an acute legitimacy crisis.

Rosenfeld did not think this explained all of the increase in homicides, and he acknowledged that a lot of relevant data were not yet available. But he felt there was a reasonable chance that it helped explain both the spikes in murders and the places where many of those spikes occurred.

It isn't an implausible idea—it's certainly more plausible than Mac Donald's—but it's kind of confusing to refer to it as a "Ferguson effect," since that term was already taken. But let's roll with it: If an effect is related to Ferguson, I guess we can call it a Ferguson effect. And since the first Trump/Clinton debate is scheduled for tonight, let's consider the effect Ferguson had on the American right. Conservatives hit a fork in Ferguson in August 2014, and they took a path that led straight to Donald Trump.

This may be hard to remember two years later, but the right's thinking on policing and incarceration was in flux before Ferguson erupted. Republicans were spearheading state-level criminal justice reforms. Right-wing pundits were protesting police militarization. Rand Paul kept citing Michelle Alexander, the woman who wrote that "mass incarceration is, metaphorically, the New Jim Crow." And that was where the momentum was. Ferguson marked the return of the law-and-order cause.

It's not hard to see why that happened. It's not exactly unprecedented for a riot to spark a backlash. But at the time, that didn't feel like a guaranteed outcome. In mid-2014 the militarized response to the protests was unleashing a backlash too, and some of the voices raised against it were indisputably conservative. (Read Mark Steyn's columns from that period—he was clearly no fan of either Michael Brown or the rioters, but he was also upset to see cops behaving like "an occupying army faced with a rabble of revolting natives.") The populist right was torn; you could see the early stirrings of Trumpism, but there were still currents of Paulism too.

We all know which side came out ahead. Republican criminal-justice reform isn't dead on the state level—not everywhere, anyway. But on a federal level, this is steadily less likely to be seen as a transpartisan issue. The GOP's presidential nominee sounds downright apocalyptic when he talks about crime. Between today's new FBI numbers and last week's riot in Charlotte, chances are high that he'll have a lot to say about the subject tonight. And that, in itself, is a Ferguson effect. A big chunk of Trump's base is deeply concerned about law and order, and he has made it one of his core issues, fearmongering heavily along the way.

Funny thing about that. Like I said above, much of 2015's increase in murders came from a handful of cities, the biggies being Baltimore, Chicago, Houston, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Washington. How many of those do you think Trump will carry in November?

NEXT: America's Proxy War in Yemen

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Point out that most of the increases are coming from a small group of cities. Much of the country actually saw their homicide numbers go down last year, but certain cities?Baltimore and Chicago, most notoriously?saw big leaps. So while the national numbers are climbing, that doesn’t mean they represent a nationwide surge.

    Soooo, places run by Dems for generations are seeing all of the increase?

    1. It’s not their fault. They have good intentions.

      1. Good intentions/ road to hell.

    2. shh… don’t ruin the narrative. Everyone knows it’s all caused by racist teabaggin’ rednecks.

    3. But crime is down in Philly, which is just as much of a sewer. Maybe the crime just moved across the river to Camden as that hellhole ranks first in crime per capita.

    4. “Rand Paul kept citing Michelle Alexander, the woman who wrote that “mass incarceration is, metaphorically, the New Jim Crow.” And that was where the momentum was. Ferguson marked the return of the law-and-order cause.”

      Plus, I see a possible effort by the fading Nanny-Staters to create panic and mass demand for police state to stay after all. If everyone is safe, racially getting along and the USA is out of the Great Recession why do we need the Nanny-State?

      Obama’s leaving office and we are not out of the Great Recession, race baiting is at a high not seen for decades and people are starting to want to shrink the bloated the government- BOOM! All of a sudden we need more cops, more government, more militarized cops, more domestic surveillance, more foreign entanglements, more more more.

    5. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $15000 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, Go to this website and click tech tab to start your own business… http://goo.gl/zVWhVg

  2. ? Point out that most of the increases are coming from a small group of cities. Much of the country actually saw their homicide numbers go down last year, but certain cities?Baltimore and Chicago, most notoriously?saw big leaps. So while the national numbers are climbing, that doesn’t mean they represent a nationwide surge.

    So, you mean as long as we don’t live in a progressive sewer where single party rule has been in effect for a half-century or more and the police union funds the campaigns of the Democrats they sit across from during contract negotiations that we’re probably safer than we’ve ever been? Sounds good to me.

    1. Where I live [small community, Northern US] most of us own guns, and yet we manage to not shoot one another. Not a single incident. I guess it’s because our guns are “smart” and don’t misbehave whereas Chicago et al are overrun with stupid guns that are always going off and hurting somebody.

  3. Places like Chicago and Baltimore are waging wars on guns and ‘gangs’. This results in escalating violence. Hiring more law enforcement will only worsen the problem. Also Baltimore has been targeted for decades with mental illness indoctrination: “You have a disorder in your brain that makes you commit crimes.” How fun is that.

    1. Gotta love that Democrat governance.

  4. The problem with this post is that Trump has not been a “declare a curfew and shoot the bums” kind of candidate. He has been critical of the police on several occasions, including (gasp) suggesting that even if the officer in the Tulsa shooting was not guilty of murder, perhaps she should not be a cop anymore if she negligently overreacted and killed someone. Trump, as far as I can tell, became the first candidate of either party to actually suggest a cop be held professionally accountable for screwing up.

    I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about the reason for the rise in violent crime and the role if any the recent animosity towards police has played in it. I do no see how Trump has much of anything to do with that debate and don’t really understand why Jesse thinks he does.

    1. Trump, as far as I can tell, became the first candidate of either party to actually suggest a cop be held professionally accountable for screwing up.

      Pretty sure Rand Paul suggested that and more when he proposed his criminal justice reform package although he was maybe less explicit.

      1. I meant nominee. Paul did that but I have never heard Paul say this cop should be accountable in this case in quite the way Trump did there. It was sadly pretty remarkable.

    2. I do no see how Trump has much of anything to do with that debate and don’t really understand why Jesse thinks he does.

      I think what Jesse’s trying to get at is whether Trump’s nomination and possible presidency is related (not the cause of, mind you, just related) to low-grade anxiety over upticks in crime, or at the very least, breathless media coverage of said crime. Trump’s certainly echoing “law and order” rhetoric and his supporters are tying in his border wall proposal to public safety as a whole.

      The past few months of BLM riots and shenanigans would certainly contribute to increasing normie desire for someone who won’t put up that stuff. BLM’s tactics are VERY reminiscent of the IWW 100 years ago (truck in non-resident protestors, cause social havoc, and pack the jails) as well as 1968 unrest, and we all know how that turned out on the political scale for the protestors.

      1. There are two issues here; the BLM riots and the actual crime rate. The former is most certainly going to help Trump. I don’t think the latter is other than as it relates to the BLM riots and the Democrats desire to placate BLM and the black vote causing them to be seen to be pro chaos for lack of a better term.

        The election to me is a separate issue. The deeper issue is how do you do something about police accountability without the police just refusing to do their jobs and the crime rate going up. That is a very hard question.

        1. The deeper issue is how do you do something about police accountability without the police just refusing to do their jobs and the crime rate going up.

          Some of what’s driving this particular issue is the perception that government institutions have become so corrupted that they can’t be trusted to police themselves anymore. In years past, police shootings, justified or not, were typically run through an internal investigation and it would be closed with little fanfare. Now there’s a perception that the police will do everything they can to cover their own ass, while a lot of police officers, who to be fair are dealing mostly with the refuse of human society, feel that they’re now in a Catch-22 situation when dealing with a potentially violent suspect.

          I think that the city hiring independent investigators rather than allowing internal reviews following police shootings would mitigate this somewhat, but ultimately a lot of these problems are socially systemic in nature and I don’t think there’s much that can be done to solve it in the long term other than a complete change in US culture. High-trust societies tend to not have these problems and the modern US certainly is not one of those.

          1. High-trust societies tend to not have these problems and the modern US certainly is not one of those.

            I’m not sure what a “high-trust society” is if the US isn’t one, but I will generally take American police over European or Japanese police any day. Our cops can be loose cannons, but “beat him until he talks” is still not SOP like it is elsewhere.

            1. Japan, for instance, is a very high-trust society, If you lose your wallet in a park there, with hundreds of dollars in it (let’s not get started on Japanese ATMs- they are closed on the weekend, cause….) you will likely get it back with all your money in it.

              That’s great, but let’s note that Japan is not doing so well- it might be the case that that too much trust is as bad as too little. Dunno.

            2. I see what you are saying red rocks. Maybe high trust is not the ideal term but a society where there is transparency of government and accountability of the powerful. We all know that does not exist anywhere but it did exist in the US more than anywhere else until now.

              One thing is for certain, the powder keg we have now is certainly attributable to the complete moral bankruptcy of many American citizens. hard to argue that that condition is not mostly the result of the destruction of the black American family and the stupidity of the average american citizen dumbed down by complacency and sloth.
              If I were stuck being a cop, I would not even enter the worst parts of town. That is the consequence unfortunately of rioting prior to letting due process take its course.

    3. I do believe that the Tulsa shooting was one in which the shooter said to herself, “Oh shit, Tasers don’t go BANG.” For which she should probably face involuntary manslaughter charges, and never be a cop again. If every police department/district attorney’s office worked that way, there would be no problem. Sure, people would get beat up and occasionally killed. Just like people occasionally die or are injured by garbage trucks. I’m not saying some level of negligence is acceptable, but maybe just inevitable.

      Its the bullshit like in Charlotte, where they can’t just say, “maybe the officers made a bad decision. Maybe they didn’t have to shoot. Maybe we’ll let a jury decide the matter.” Or where they were obviously giving that guy in Baltimore the nickel ride. Were they trying to kill him? No. Were they being responsible police officers treating the guy like a potentially innocent citizen? No. And then they just start lying and covering. Poorly.

    4. “The problem with this post is that Trump has not been a “declare a curfew and shoot the bums” kind of candidate.”

      Umm, what? . At his convention speech, Trump YELLED that he was the LAW AND ORDER CANDIDATE.

      1. And he also has questioned the behavior of police in these candidates. Maybe the truth is more complex than the cartoons that play in your head?

        1. or maybe, since he’s someone who pretty much says whatever pops into his head at any given moment, he’s due a gem every now and then? i think, much like the crime stats themselves, the long term trends would be more accurate of what he really thinks, and that doesn’t bode well for questioning the police.

      2. Everything Trump pumped was in the 2012 GOP platform, EXCEPT not stoning women in the public square for getting an abortion, and stoning doctors instead. But that was a Sarah Palin feint back when she was a National Socialist candidate. The 2012 GO-Pee platform called for a “fence” and the current one calls for a Berlin “wall.” Their current platform also tries to smear libertarians by pretending we’re pals ‘n buddies with God’s Own Prohibitionists.

    5. See, that’s true, but the media have been pretty clear that Trump hates blacks/muslims/hispanics/etc, is the “Law Enforcment Candidate”, etc.

      Whether that’s Trump’s fault or not is arguable, since I’m not convinced that he’s personally racist, but he’s given the media plenty of ammunition to promote their chosen narrative, and has pulled a lot of rather misinformed people out of the woodwork.

      1. EDIT: Sorry, left off the last sentence. The completion of the thought was “And the narrative may be what’s driving the problem”.

  5. “an occupying army faced with a rabble of revolting natives.”

    You said it, they stink on ice.

  6. Interesting statistics but if you live in one of these towns, I would say that there is a little of the furguson effect in that politicians have stoked these fires for the want of chaos to distract from the financial malaise created by Washington. There is also unemployment and desperation and savagery among many americans because of the breakdown of society.

    In my southern town of 250k citizens, we have been watching some serious violent crime upheaval for about 3 years now.
    The last time our town seemed this dangerous was in the late 80-s – early 90s when our per capita murder rate was as high at Detroit’s. For those who live in the scary towns, touting statistical decreases in crime over decades means nothing because the fear of going downtown is palpable and has an effect on the economy which effects elections and other areas that reality sways.
    The real conundrum is how to combat what everyone knows is the problem. When you have the poorest segments of the population preying on anyone, do you have to control with aggressive police tactics that are clearly violations of liberties? Or do you spend on massive police forces to have a better presence? Either way, the citizen is open to either physical abuse or fiscal abuse. In the meantime, which would you rather have when you are watching innocent people being slain? Class warfare is not helping much either which lays entirely at the feet of Obama-pimp.

  7. Statistics, reasoning? Who needs that when there is a handy-dandy narrative and a bubble nearly depleted of oxygen?

  8. In addition to a misconduct problem, police have a perception problem. The public in many areas has so lost faith in the police and the ability and willingness of the authorities to hold the police accountable for misconduct, even where the officer is in the right, large segments of the public refuse to believe it.

    This didn’t happen by accident. I don’t know but I am willing to guess that mistrust of police is the highest in cities were police unions are the strongest. Police unions as anyone paying attention knows are notorious for covering up and excusing misconduct by their members. So what is happening is a case of the same logic that supports broken windows policing applying to police. Once police are given immunity for low level misconduct, the public sees that and rationally concludes that they are immune from all misconduct. Even if it really isn’t true and this time the cop is really going to be held accountable, it doesn’t do any good because the police no longer have the credibility change the public’s perception. Once the police refuse to hold their own accountable for beating someone up or shaking down a small time drug dealer or prostitute or any of the other hundreds of incidents of misconduct that police routinely get away with in this country, there is no way the government can then expect the public to believe it will hold a cop accountable for anything no matter how serious or how determined the government actually is to do so.

  9. For a long time you were saying there was no Ferguson effect because the numbers didn’t show it. Now that the numbers are out and they contradict your position you dance around it. I don’t know if I think there is or is not a Ferguson effect. The world is complicated, and I am always trying to make sense of it, (and mostly failing to do so I imagine.) But if you aren’t at least a bit consistent about this I’m not going to take you very seriously from now on.

    I’m not saying there is a Ferguson effect- I’m saying that there might be, and you ought to be open to the possibility even if it means adjusting your priors.

    1. I agree. There very well may be a Ferguson effect. Reason would do well to at least entertain the possibility that having big nasty police forces did result in lower crime rates. That of course doesn’t necessarily justify the harm created by having big nasty police forces. It may, however, be true. And if it is true, those who support police accountability and don’t want big nasty police forces whether or not they produce lower crime rates, would do well to acknowledge reality instead of denying it. Denying reality only destroys your credibility.

    2. For a long time you were saying there was no Ferguson effect because the numbers didn’t show it. Now that the numbers are out and they contradict your position you dance around it.

      While I’ve always rejected Mac Donald’s version of the Ferguson Effect argument, I wrote more than a year ago that “if we’re looking at local factors, we also have to consider the possibility that a Ferguson effect is at work in some locations but not in others.” At that point, I thought the numbers didn’t show such an effect in St. Louis but believed the case was “stronger, though still cloudy” in Baltimore.

      Anyway. Rosenfeld’s paper, with its alternate version of the Ferguson Effect, has been out for several months now, so this isn’t a new development. His study is linked in the post & I recommend reading it.

      1. I reject that there is a guy named Mac Donald.

        This sounds like more fantastical reporting to keep the sheep at bay.

        1. Mac Donald is a fucking clown.

      2. Can you give me a link to Rosenfled’s paper? Since you cite it I don’t feel like I can respond without having read it.

        That said, I do think that Reason has tended to make emphatic statements based on sketchy numbers, and that Reason has had a certain bias in this regard. I’m not going to say that I see a “Ferguson effect” without very solid statistics, but I can probably find tens of hit and run posts that essentially say “There is no Ferguson effect” based on very small samples.

        1. Can you give me a link to Rosenfled’s paper?

          It’s here.

          1. Thanks- it is a heavy paper, so I’ll take some time to read and digest.

            1. Honestly, this paper seems to support the Feguson effect, or at least some effect: “The current task, however, is not
              to explain a long- or even short-run trend in crime rates, but rather a trend reversal in the
              nation’s large cities”

              Trend-reversal is shorthand for murder rates declining until they saw a sharp uptick, right? And it really is a very sharp uptick, right?

              Is that the Ferguson effect? I don’t know. But, unless you have a very strong argument I’m inclined to think you don’t either.

              1. Honestly, this paper seems to support the Feguson effect, or at least some effect

                That’s what I said: “A few months ago, the criminologist Richard Rosenfeld, a prominent critic of Mac Donald’s position, released a report suggesting that some of the crime increases might be traced to Ferguson after all.” So he’s suggesting a Ferguson effect. It’s just that it isn’t the same as “the” Ferguson effect promoted by Mac Donald et al.

                1. OK, well I might you an apology- I think I might have misunderstood you, and beyond that I might have conflated your views with the views prevalent among Hit and Run contributors. I am interested in hearing about how you think MacDonald’s Ferguson effect differs from the one you can discern.

    3. He doesn’t seem to be saying much for sure at all about what a Ferguson effect is or whether it is happening.

      But I think you are right that we can’t really know what’s behind any reduction or increase in crime rates or definitively attribute a specific cause to such change.

      And I agree with John that it’s silly to pretend that it isn’t a possibility that more aggressive policing has contributed to lower crime rates.

      In the real world you just can’t untangle discrete causes and effects like that.

  10. much of 2015’s increase in murders came from a handful of cities, the biggies being Baltimore, Chicago, Houston, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Washington. How many of those do you think Trump will carry in November?

    Maybe Houston. Maybe.

    1. The Houston metro area, possibly. The actual city? Not as likely. Houston proper has been voting Democrat (witness the affiliations of the “non-partisan” mayors for evidence) for a while.

      1. The cities will go to Hillary. The surrounding metro areas where the fear of the cities is drummed up, will mostly go to Trump.

  11. If the “Ferguson effect” is police being reluctant to do their jobs because they are being criticized for excessive force, murder and collusion to hide or excuse these things among their fellow officers, then what is it that they think their jobs actually are?

    1. To the degree that that’s the case- well, fuck tha police.

      1. Sure. But that doesn’t solve the problem. We still need a police force. I don’t want to continue to let police get away the the things they do anymore than you do. But, if police make the price of doing that the crime rate exploding, then we have a real problem and I honestly don’t know how you solve it, because the public is not going to tolerate the crime rate going back up to what it was in the 1980s much less the 70s.

    2. Look at who signs their paychecks. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The DemoGOP Kleptocracy Lysander Spooner warned us against is the signer and piper: a secretly-elected band of robbers and murderers. We should be surprised they rely on violence? fear? intimidation? coercion? murder?

  12. “Like I said above, much of 2015’s increase in murders came from a handful of cities, the biggies being Baltimore, Chicago, Houston, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Washington. How many of those do you think Trump will carry in November?”

    Zero. Big cities will all go to Hillary

    1. Because they want more of that Democrat governance that has worked so well for them in their cities.

    2. All places containing women voters not desirous of being raped at gunpoint and forced to reproduce, then having their kids interned in Hitlerjugend prison camps over a hemp seed, will vote against even the Don’s watered-down version of GO-Pee National Socialism. The Pro-Life-After-Death fanatics are committing suicide again, and taking the party they infiltrated and ingested like an anaconda down with them. Like that line in Ghostbusters… I’m gonna MISS those guys!

    3. Like the professional bookies at Paddypower, I’m betting two to one the female soviet socialist beats the bloody snot out of the blowhard Jerry-Falwell-loving national socialist. And I am voting libertarian no matter what the teevee shrieks.

  13. ‘we don’t know whether this is a blip or a new trend’
    Well, it’s a 9% increase (in murders/capita), and this year (2016) looks like another 10% increase. Biggest 2-year increase since 1968.

  14. How many urban, non-car-owning, latte-sipping, white proggies now live in neighborhoods that they would have been scared to go into 20 years ago? We all know which candidate they will be voting for, which could explain why she has not condemned the police shootings too strongly or embraced BLM. We must have a police state to protect the white wussies!

  15. RE: “Is he protecting you?”

    Umm…only if you consider being watched constantly, listened to all the time and is ready to shoot or beat you to death “protecting you.”
    Otherwise, I can do without Herr policeman taking a deep seated interest in me.

  16. No, The Donald is the Progressive Effect!

  17. What we are seeing is the Herbert Hoover effect. George Waffen Bush copied Herb Hoover’s enlistment of venal state gub’mint men with guns to ramp up use of tax laws for prohibitionist asset forfeiture. Naturally the economy exploded again. NO WAY will they admit this any more than Hoover did. But the Kenyan was elected twice during the meltdown and States have gone on a repeal of prohibition spree (as in 1932-3). Many insiders have figured out that looters-by-law destroy the economy just like Adam Smith and Ayn Rand guaranteed they would. Nobody (but the Klan) will vote Republican, and even they are null now that Obama is out of the picture and bookie odds favor the Dems 2 to 1. But the prohibitionists that took over the GOP in 1928, wrecked the economy then, and in 1987, and in 2007, still run it, complete with National Socialist Lutheran religious fanaticism. From here it looks like The Don is a secular effort to wrench the Go-Pee from the Prohibition and Tea party fanatics so entrenched in its soft machine. When this fails, and they’ve lost to a “naygur” then a “grrrrl,” those looters will hopefully go the way of the Federalists and Whigs.

  18. If you don’t trust the police and the formal social control, then you’ll watch a dozen vagrants beat the living snot of your son and refuse the call the police?

    If you don’t call the police in the face of danger, whatever happens to you is in your hands, and the lack of policing effectively becomes an issue. If anyone thinks that’s a defensible position because of police misconduct, then he’s being completely irresponsible. I mistrust the US government and Barack Obama (who has way more blood on their hands than the police) but it doesn’t mean I won’t alert the FBI if I overheard an Al Qaida plot to blow up a Kindergarten. If some white survivalist took his kids to a shed in the forest because he feared the police and the government, what’d be the response from the media?

    1. Second Amendment. Anyone touches my kid gets to meet my little friend, not a bunch of asset forfeiture looting dry killers. The Mohammedans and Republicans are identical, and deserve each other.

  19. my Aunty Aubrey recently got an almost new gold Mazda Sedan only from working part time off a mac book
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  20. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.NetNote70.com

  21. “an occupying army faced with a rabble of revolting natives.”

    Dont think so he has a strong support..

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.