Sunday, April 13, 2014

Newest piece at Investor's Business Daily: "Michael Bloomberg, Gun Control And Fabricated Numbers"

Here is John Lott's newest piece at Investor's Business Daily:
No doubt, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg passionately believes in gun control. To his credit, he puts his own money — tens of millions of dollars, and possibly much more — into pushing the issue politically. 
But Bloomberg's push hasn't been just political advertising, lobbying and media appearances. He also funds studies that have gone overboard in backing up his anti-gun beliefs. 
To put it plainly, they have not only exaggerated their conclusions but have fabricated numbers. And these incorrect numbers have then been used to push for more regulations. 
The connections to Bloomberg are not always obvious, as he has funded several organizations, making it look like there is more widespread support. There are Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health and two organizations of which he is the primary financial supporter though they are not directly connected to his name: Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action. 
Over the last couple of years, studies from these organizations have received massive, uncritical news coverage, without even the slightest questioning of the numbers presented. 
Take the recent report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action on school shootings, which was covered in more than 2,000 news stories. . . . .
The piece is continued here

Labels: ,

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Newest Fox News piece: "ABC News reports on guns mislead Americans"

Hitting likes on Facebook for this piece would be greatly appreciated.  My latest piece at Fox News started this way:
Gun control advocates not only push new fees and taxes on guns to reduce ownership, but they also employ another tactic: scaring people into not owning guns. 
Last week, on January 31, ABC News saturated its news programs with the alleged danger of gun ownership. 
It started early in the day with a segment on “Good Morning America,” then came a report on the evening news, and finally an entire hour devoted to the subject on "20/20."
The reports all focused on the dangers guns pose for children. 
Although a producer for ABC News spent hours asking me questions about this subject before the reports aired on various news programs, our discussions seemed to have had no impact. 
What I told them just didn’t fit the type of story they wanted to tell. 
The producers appeared to want to argue that gun ownership had fallen, dropping as low as 33%, implying that gun ownership really is not all that popular any more. 
Yet, as I explained to the producer I spoke with, the General Social Survey poll they wanted to cite was unusual. Other polls had found much higher rates of gun ownership. 
Indeed, I pointed out, much to her surprise, ABC News’ own polls show that gun ownership has changed little, currently holding at 43%. But in their reports, ABC didn’t even mention their own polls, instead cherry-picking the one with the lowest number.
ABC’s goal was to make people believe that little, innocent children frequently play with guns, accidentally hurting themselves and others. 
"World News" anchor Diane Sawyer warned: “Every hour a child is rushed to the emergency room because of gun shots.” . . .

The rest of the piece and how ABC completely misreported number on accidental gun deaths is available here.


Monday, January 6, 2014

Newest Fox News op-ed: "Why most Americans believe the US economy is poor (and they're right)"

My newest piece at Fox News starts this way:
It has been over four-and-a-half years since the economic “recovery” began, yet a new CNN poll indicates that almost seven out of every ten Americans considers the economy to be in poor shape.   
Democrats want to claim that the economy is improving at the same time that they will be pushing Monday for a continued extension of unemployment benefits. Democrats also refuse to acknowledge that up to two years of unemployment insurance benefits actually creates unemployment
Indeed, people are so worried about the job market that they are clinging to their current jobs at remarkably high rates. 
Quit rates that usually rise after recessions, particularly after long recessions when they have stayed with jobs they might not care for, are still lower over the last three months than they were during the recession. 
But how can that possibly be?   
The official unemployment rate keeps falling. We are told that the job market is improving.  Are Americans just not realizing that things are getting better? Or do they perceive of something that the unemployment numbers are not picking up? . . .

Friday, December 13, 2013

Newest Fox News piece: "1 year after Newtown, support for stricter gun control has disappeared"

My newest op-ed piece starts this way:
President Obama has pushed hard for gun control this year and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has spent millions of dollars on ads, but the administration's promise to coordinate "a November lobbying effort and plan events to commemorate the first anniversary of the Newtown, Connecticut" has gotten little traction. 
Last year the Newtown shooting, with it horrific slaughter, lead to an immediate national movement for gun control. But that was short-lived, and opposition to gun control is currently very strong. Indeed, it appears to be the strongest in decades. 
recent CNN poll finds the highest level of opposition to any new gun control measures since CNN started asking about it in 1989. Rising from only 28 percent opposed to new gun control measures then to 50 percent today. And it's not the only poll with such findings. Gallup finds that opposition to stricter laws has risen from 19 to 50 percent. 
What’s more, these polls don’t reflect that most people in favor of gun control don’t have strong feelings about it. Monthly Gallup polls from June to October this year reveal it’s just not viewed as a pressing issue. . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.


Thursday, December 5, 2013

Newest Fox News piece: "NFL hypocrisy -- Bloomberg anti-gun ads ok but ad about ‘protection’ is banned?"

My newest op-ed piece at Fox News starts this way:
New York City Mayor and gun control advocate Michael Bloomberg sure knows how to get his way. 
This week the NFL, after featuring anti-gun ads during the last two Super Bowls, it decided that an ad offering the opposite point of view in the upcoming Super Bowl XLVIII on February 2 was just too much.  
The NFL turned down an ad from a company called "Daniel Defense" which sells guns and outdoor gear that discussed "personal protection and fundamental rights."  It featured a former Marine talking his family's safety, noting that he is ultimately responsible for their protection.  
Unlike Bloomberg’s ads, the "Daniel Defense" ad never even mentions the word "gun," just the concept of personal protection.  
The very end of the initial version of the ad did show the company's logo, a picture of a gun. But this wasn't the stumbling block, as the company told the NFL that it would happily to remove the logo and replace it with a picture of an American flag.  
Still the NFL found that unacceptable. . . .


Thursday, November 21, 2013

New York Post piece on the "nuclear option" push in the Senate

My newest piece at the New York Post starts this way:
President Obama’s timing could have been better. Only two weeks ago in Texas, at a fundraiser, he bragged about “remaking the courts.” 
Obama told the audience: “In addition to the Supreme Court, we’ve been able to nominate and confirm judges of extraordinary quality all across the country on federal benches. We’re actually, when it comes to the district court, matching the pace of previous presidents. When it comes to the appellate court, we’re just a little bit behind, and we’re just going to keep on focused on it.” 
This was quite a change from June, when he accused Republicans of “cynically” engaging in “unprecedented” obstruction of judicial nominations. The president made those charges when he nominated three judges to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia: Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard and Robert Wilkins. 
With Republicans filibustering these nominations over the last three weeks, Democrats are now threatening to deploy the “nuclear option” — in effect, ending the ability of senators to filibuster court nominations. On Monday, after the vote to break the filibuster on Wilkins failed, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) warned: “The talk about changing the cloture rules for judicial nominations will no longer be just talk. There will be action.” 
But this is all political rhetoric; the complaints are exaggerated. In fact,  . . .


Saturday, November 16, 2013

Newest Fox News piece: Why insurance companies who follow the ObamaCare 'fix' could face legal troubles

Here is the way that my newest Fox News piece starts:
Will Obama's newest “if you like it you can keep it” offer for health insurance really let Americans get their canceled plans back? 
No. And the president knows it.  
The proposal was rushed out on Thursday for two purposes: to give Congressional Democrats cover today before a vote in the House and shift the blame to others. As will be explained shortly, Obama ignored that there is no way for insurance companies to ignore the current law as it stands. 
Five million Americans have so far lost their insurance and they are suffering sticker shock from the new policies. More Americans on individual plans will soon get notices.  
Unfortunately, the problem won’t be limited to the five percent of Americans that Obama claimed on Thursday. Over the next year, at least a total of 129 million Americans will find that they can't keep their current policies as employer-based insurance policies face renewal. 
Obama's "solution" to people losing their policies is to promise he will not enforce part of the ObamaCare law for one year.  . . .