DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—The Federal Bureau of Investigation quietly revised its national crime data for 2022, showing that violent crime actually increased instead of decreased, as was initially reported, according to RealClearInvestigations. The FBI Uniform Crime Report initially showed a slight 2.1% decrease in violent crime from 2021 to 2022, however, the revision, which was only briefly mentioned on its website, shows an increase in violent crime of 4.5%, according to RealClearInvestigations. The revision comes after the release of the 2023 Uniform Crime Report data in September, which showed a 3% decrease in national violent crime, according to an FBI press release. “I have checked the data on total violent crime from 2004 to 2022,” Carl Moody, professor at the College of William & Mary who specializes in crime, told RealClearInvestigations. “There were no revisions from 2004 to 2015, and from 2016 to 2020, there were small changes of less than one percentage point. The huge changes in 2021 and 2022, especially without an explanation, make it difficult to trust the FBI data.” The change is only discoverable when downloading the new set of data now and comparing it to the old, with the FBI issuing no statement reflecting the change, RealClearInvestigations reported. The post-release change is similar to the revisions the Bureau of Labor Statistics does for its jobs numbers, which overestimated the amount of jobs in America in 2023 by an average of 105,000 a month. “The [FBI’s] processes, such as how it tries to ‘estimate’ unreported figures, has long been a black box, even to the Bureau of Justice Statistics—the Department of Justice’s actual statistical agency,” Jeffrey Anderson, who headed the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 2017 to 2021, told RealClearInvestigations. “We definitely would have highlighted in a press release or a report the 6.6% change recorded for 2022, which moved the numbers from a drop to a rise in violent crime.” The Bureau of Justice Statistics releases its own measure of crime called the National Crime Victimization Survey, which reported a rise in violent crime victimizations in 2022, according to the report summary. The National Crime Victimization Survey is a national survey that also accounts for unreported crimes, unlike the FBI Uniform Crime Report data, which relies on reported crimes to police departments around the nation. “With the media using the 2022 FBI data to tell us for a year that crime was falling, it is disappointing that there are no news articles correcting that misimpression,” Moody told RealClearInvestigations. “We will have to see whether the FBI later also revises the 2023 numbers.” The FBI did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post FBI Quietly Revises Violent Crime Data, Now Showing Surge Instead of Reported Decrease appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The institutional Left is dumping millions into what has become the most expensive redistricting ballot initiative in history—to change how a red-leaning state elects members of Congress and the state Legislature.  The Sixteen Thirty Fund, client  of Arabella Advisors network, is the largest donor to Ohio’s Issue 1, which would amend the state’s Constitution to establish what proponents call a nonpartisan Citizen Redistricting Commission, according to Ballotpedia.  Supporters of the change have given a total of $26.1 million, according to campaign finance data from July, the most recently available from the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office. The total includes multimillion-dollar contributions from the liberal Tides Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union. “This is an attempt by the Left to circumvent the democratic process,” Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, who added that “99% of the money supporting this is from entities outside the state.” Snead rejected the claim that appointed officials in Ohio would be less likely to engage in partisan gerrymandering than elected officials. “A lie can get around the world before the truth gets out of bed,” Snead said. “They are trying to outspend the truth. They want to gerrymander the state to the Left and hide behind a veneer of nonpartisanship.” A “yes” vote on Issue 1 is to amend the Ohio Constitution to establish a 15-member Citizen Redistricting Commission made up of five Republicans, five Democrats, and five independents.  Anyone could apply to be on the commission. A bipartisan panel of four retired judges would appoint the commissions after screening applicants for qualifications, conflicts of interest, relevant experiences, and other factors. The four retired judges—two Democrats and two Republicans—would be chosen by partisan members of the Ohio Ballot Board, which oversees elections. The petition for the ballot question says: “Districts shall ensure the equal functional ability of politically cohesive and geographically proximate racial, ethnic, and language minorities to participate in the political process and to elect candidates of choice.” If voters approve the initiative, this process would replace the seven-member Ohio Redistricting Commission. The existing commission is made up of the governor, state auditor, secretary of state, a member appointed by the speaker of the Ohio House, a member appointed by the state Senate president, and two members appointed by the opposition leaders in each legislative chamber. A campaign committee called Citizens Not Politicians welcomes support from any organization in making the change, spokesperson Chris Davey said in an email to The Daily Signal, adding that “people of all political persuasions hate gerrymandering.”   “It’s nationally known that Ohio is one of the most gerrymandered states in the country, and there have been seven Supreme Court rulings that politicians ignored,” Davey said. “Our campaign includes Republicans, Democrats, and independents, and we’re very proud of that. This amendment is supported by a broad coalition including small business owners, veterans, faith leaders, strong conservatives, and Republicans.” The Sixteen Thirty Fund contributed a total of $6.5 million Citizens Not Politicians, according to Ballotpedia.  A spokesperson for the Sixteen Thirty Fund didn’t respond to inquiries from The Daily Signal before publication.  Tied for a distant second place by giving $3.5 million each are the ACLU and Article IV, a group focused on redistricting reforms in states. The Daily Signal sought comment from both the ACLU and Article IV. Neither responded by publication time.  Our American Future Foundation, which trains aspiring Democratic congressional candidates, gave $2.4 million. A spokesperson for the organization did not respond to an inquiry for this story.  The Ohio Progressive Collaborative and the Tides Foundation each contributed $2 million, according to Ballotpedia. A Tides Foundation spokesperson did not respond to an inquiry for this story. The Daily Signal called a representative of Ohio Progressive Collaborative who passed along the message, but the organization did not respond by publication time.  Other high-profile organizations on the Left that contributed to the ballot initiative include two teachers unions—the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association—which each gave $500,000 to Citizens Not Politicians, according to the campaign finance data from the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office.  Neither union responded to inquiries for this story.  The Soros family-connected Open Society Policy Center contributed $200,000, as did Democracy Fund, financed by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. Neither responded to requests for comment, although the Open Society Policy Center acknowledged receiving the inquiry.  The Brennan Center for Justice, an advocacy group affiliated with New York University, contributed $100,000, according to the data. The Brennan Center acknowledged receiving a request for comment, but didn’t comment by publication time.  The $26.9 million in contributions in support of Ohio’s Issue 1 during the first two quarters of 2024 is more money than was raised for the entirety of past redistricting commission reforms in the states. In 2018, Michigan’s redistricting ballot initiative brought in $16.9 million; donors gave $5.8 million to Colorado’s initiative; and Utah’s measure brought in $2.8 million. Only California’s redistricting reform on the ballot in 2010 came close to the dollar amount, bringing in $20.8 million. (Adjusted for inflation, that total is more than what’s been raised so far for the Ohio measure.) Organizations endorsing the initiative include the Ohio NAACP, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio, Abortion Forward, and the League of Women Voters of Ohio. In 34 states, the legislatures draw up legislative and congressional district boundaries.  A total of 14 initiatives regarding redistricting commissions have been on state ballots since 1983, according to Ballotpedia.  Generally, “Barone’s law” is applicable in debates over redistricting processes, said Michael Watson, research director for the Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank that monitors nonprofit groups.  Named for pundit and historian Michael Barone, the principal author of The Almanac of American Politics, Barone’s law says every process argument is insincere. Put another way, “good government” reforms usually are aimed at gaining political advantage.  Watson noted that in some states conservative groups and Republican politicians have backed independent commissions to draw up congressional and legislative districts. The details of  individual state commissions matter, he said.  “Progressives apparently think they can win more congressional seats if Ohio redistricting is done this way than under the current way redistricting is done,” Watson told The Daily Signal. “Given who supports the measure, I suspect it gives an advantage to the progressive institutional universe, which is larger than the conservative institutional universe.” The post Who’s Bankrolling Ballot Initiative to Move Ohio Blue? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Surprising exactly no one paying attention to the slow erosion of privacy, the US General Services Administration (GSA) has rolled out its shiny new toy: facial recognition technology for accessing login.gov. Yes, that beloved single sign-in service, connecting Americans to federal and state agencies, now wants your face—literally. This gateway, clicked into over 300 million times a year by citizens has decided the most efficient way to keep us all “safe” is by scanning our mugs. How very 2024. Related: Facial Recognition Continues To Proliferate at Concerts and Festivals But of course, this little “upgrade” didn’t just appear overnight. Oh no, it dragged itself through bureaucratic purgatory, complete with false starts, delays, and some spicy critique from the Inspector General. Apparently, login.gov had been fibbing about its compliance with Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2)—a fancy label for a government-mandated security standard that requires real-deal verification of who you are. Up until now, that “verification” meant having someone eyeball your ID card photo and say, “Yep, that looks about right,” rather than dipping into the biometric surveillance toolkit. Facial recognition was supposed to make its grand debut last year, but things got complicated when it turned out login.gov wasn’t actually playing by the rules it claimed to follow. The Inspector General, ever the fun police, caught them misrepresenting their tech’s adherence to the IAL2 standard, causing the rollout to stall while everyone scrambled to figure out if they could get away with this. Now, after enough piloting to give a nervous airline passenger a heart attack, login.gov has finally reached compliance, but not without leaving a greasy trail of unanswered questions in its wake. Smile for the Algorithm So here we are, with the GSA proudly offering up facial recognition as the answer to all our identity verification problems. Just snap a “live selfie,” upload it to the cloud, and let some “best in class” algorithm work its magic by comparing your face to the one on your government ID. What could possibly go wrong? According to the GSA, nothing. They swear these photos are used solely for verification purposes and won’t be stored, misused, or, you know, somehow end up in the hands of anyone you wouldn’t want to have your biometric data. But hey, let’s not get too distracted by the fine print. “Best in class” algorithms? That’s a bold claim coming from the same government that brought us Healthcare.gov’s disaster debut and the IRS phone service from hell. There’s something hilarious about throwing out a vague phrase like “best in class” as if it absolves them of any responsibility. We’re just supposed to trust that their mysterious, highly proprietary facial matching system is doing the right thing behind closed doors—no questions asked, citizen. The Privacy Mirage Of course, the skeptics among us—the kind of people who read the full terms of service before clicking “I agree”—aren’t buying the GSA’s feel-good assurances. Privacy advocates have been sounding the alarm for years about the dangers of biometric data collection, and facial recognition technology has become the poster child for Big Brother’s relentless march into our lives. How do we really know that these selfies won’t be stored somewhere, only to be hacked or sold off like digital cattle at a data auction? And even if they are just for verification now, who’s to say that won’t change later? Let’s not forget that the government doesn’t exactly have a spotless track record when it comes to handling sensitive personal data. The Office of Personnel Management hack in 2015, anyone? That little debacle only exposed the personal information of over 21 million people, including fingerprints. And yet, here we are, being asked to believe that this time, this time, they’ve got everything under control. It’s hard not to picture a row of bureaucrats crossing their fingers behind their backs while issuing their promises of security. Even Hanna Kim, the Director of login.gov, acknowledges that the decision to integrate biometric tech came in response to “partner agency demands for handling high-risk scenarios.” Translation: Some agencies wanted an easy way to ramp up security, so now the rest of us get to hand over our facial data for the sake of “high-risk” situations. Except, it’s not just the high-risk cases that should concern us—it’s the creeping normalization of using biometric data for everyday tasks. Today it’s logging into government websites. Tomorrow it’s buying groceries with a retinal scan. Choose Your Poison For now, users of login.gov still have a choice—they can opt to verify their identity the old-fashioned way, without giving up their face to the algorithmic overlords. But that choice, like so many others in the digital age, comes with strings attached. Sure, you can avoid the facial recognition route, but the fact that it’s now on the table means we’re only a few policy changes away from it becoming mandatory. After all, how long before certain agencies start saying, “You know, for security reasons, we need your biometric data. If you want that social security check or to file your tax return, you’re going to have to play ball”? Related: The TSA Plans Big Digital ID Push in 2024 There’s something sinister about this slow, methodical erosion of choice. First, it’s presented as an option, just one of many verification methods, no big deal. But as the machinery of government grinds on, options have a way of disappearing, replaced by convenient mandates. And when it comes to biometric data, once it’s out there, good luck getting it back. The Fine Print of Freedom Let’s call this what it is: another step towards a world where privacy is little more than a quaint relic of the past. The GSA’s move to facial recognition is part of a larger trend, one where security and convenience are dangled like carrots, while individual freedoms are quietly signed away in the background. Sure, your face is unique, but so is your right to keep it out of a database. At some point, we’re going to have to ask ourselves: is the convenience of a quicker login worth trading in the last shreds of privacy we’ve got left? Or are we too busy snapping selfies to notice that the surveillance state just got a little closer to home? If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Logging Into a Brave New World: How Facial Recognition Just Got Personal appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Without the State, Who Would Confiscate the Generators?

Stealth Edit: FBI Quietly Revises Violent Crime Stats Higher

Israel Is Getting Ready To Strike Iran, And Once That Happens Everything Will Change

Democrats (Re)Embrace Election Denial

Eat the Bugs Update: Nuclear for We and Not for Thee, Peasants

CNN senior political analyst Nia-Malika Henderson seems to be under the impression that if you repeat a falsehood enough times, it will suddenly become true. On Wednesday’s episode of Inside Politics, Henderson claimed that Donald Trump and Republicans are struggling on abortion because pro-life laws are killing women. Host Dana Bash recapped a recent town hall with Fox News and invited Henderson to “talk about that kind of big picture before we get to the nitty-gritty of IVF and abortion.”     Henderson declared, “If you're Donald Trump, you really hope that the campaign turns on these issues where he is strong with voters: immigration and crime, and in many ways, those are culture war issues,” because “he is very, very weak on abortion.” She further observed, “You see this playing up and down the ballot with not only Donald Trump, but Republican candidates all across the country who are really having to sort of try to reframe their approach in the language around abortion.” Henderson also claimed, “I think some of the most effective moments in the debate, some of the most effective moments that Kamala Harris has had on the campaign trail, have really been dissecting what their Republican approach has actually meant for actual women on the ground and some of these states, you saw Colin Allred, who we’ll talk about later, talk about this in the debate against Ted Cruz.” What Henderson meant by “actual women” is a story that the liberal media has repeated several times in recent weeks, “So, Donald Trump doesn't have a real answer for the reality that some women are facing, including some women who have died in Georgia, Amber Thurman, who died because of these abortion restrictions. He is fond of saying, 'Listen, it's back in the states of that's what everybody wanted. That's not what everybody wanted.'” Amber Thurman died because of medical malpractice by her doctors. There was nothing in Georgia’s pro-life law or pro-life ethics that prohibited her from getting the care she needed. The media also routinely likes to claim that Donald Trump is a lying liar who lies all the time, but as the narrative around Georgia’s pro-life law illustrates, for the media, some lies are better than others. Here is a transcript for the October 16 show: CNN Inside Politics with Dana Bash 10/16/2024 12:05 PM ET DANA BASH: Let's talk about that kind of big picture before we get to the nitty-gritty of IVF and abortion. NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON: Yeah, listen, I mean, if you're Donald Trump, you really hope that the campaign turns on these issues where he is strong with voters: immigration and crime, and in many ways, those are culture war issues. They are motivating issues, quite frankly, in a way that the economy is not. He is very, very weak on abortion and you see this playing up and down the ballot with not only Donald Trump, but Republican candidates all across the country who are really having to sort of try to reframe their approach in the language around abortion. And you saw, I think some of the most effective moments in the debate, some of the most effective moments that Kamala Harris has had on the campaign trail, have really been dissecting what their Republican approach has actually meant for actual women on the ground and some of these states, you saw Colin Allred, who we’ll talk about later, talk about this in the debate against Ted Cruz. So, Donald Trump doesn't have a real answer for the reality that some women are facing, including some women who have died in Georgia-- BASH: Yeah. HENDERSON: -- Amber Thurman, who died because of these abortion restrictions. He is fond of saying, “listen, it's back in the states of that's what everybody wanted. That's not what everybody wanted.”

ABC New is desperate to get Vice President Kamala Harris elected president. How desperate? Joy Behar, co-host of news program The View, repeatedly fear mongered that former President Trump planned to have “the Air Forces” bomb their studio and have the military kill liberals if he was elected again. On Wednesday’s show, she told viewers not to trust the polls and the media, suggesting they were on his side and were trying to depress Democratic voter turnout. “Let me tell you something. I was watching interviews with MAGA supporters. They do not believe that he will do what he says he’s going to do. That's what we're up against,” she decried on Tuesday’s episode. What sort of stuff was she upset MAGA supporters didn’t believe? She couldn’t wrap her mind around how they didn’t believe he was going to be a dictator like she did, or how she foresaw him bombing their studio: So, if you say he's going to be a dictator on day one, he wants to punish with the – with the air forces, whatever we have – the armed forces, he wants to punish people who disagree with him like people like us! Okay? And they say, ‘oh, he's not going to do that.’ He's going to take us out of NATO. ‘No, he's not going to do that.’ So, it's very hard for us to talk to these people, because they refuse to believe. And I guess they're hearing it on Fox or elsewhere. On Wednesday, she wanted “talk about fascism for a second,” and how Trump’s picture was in the dictionary.     “This is the definition. It’s defined as a political movement that embraces the far-right nationalism and the forceful suppression of any opposition, all overseen by an authoritarian government. That definition has Trump's picture next to it in the dictionary,” she proclaimed, without evidence of the picture. And without evidence of Trump claiming he was going to have liberals slaughtered if they disagree with him, the ABC News hosted repeated he claim: I mean, he wants to send the military to attack liberals if he gets in. That is basically – And the king of fascism is Mussolini who spoke better English than he does, by the way. And so, I think that to say that he's a fascist is completely accurate. I mean, it does fit the definition. He wants to send the military in to attack his opponents. I mean, what more do you need to hear? Later in the show, Behar pretended she was not a member of the media as she whined about them not rejecting the reality of the polling. “I'm starting to worry about the polls because I see a lot of the media saying that he's leading and everybody is getting nervous and all that,” she bellyached. She and moderator Whoopi Goldberg then proceeded to claim that the media was actually on Trump’s side and that they were intentionally trying to depressed Democratic voter turn out: GOLDBERG: That's why they're saying it. BEHAR: But they're doing that on purpose! GOLDBERG: Yes, that's what I've been saying! BEHAR: Because basically, it's so disheartening for Democrats and people who are leaning towards Kamala to say, ‘well, what's the point?’ Don't buy into that. Back in reality, numerous Media Research Center studies have shown that ABC was indeed in the tank for Harris (that’s not to mention CBS, the purported “fact-checkers,” and many more). And is Behar really thought Harris was in danger, why hadn’t she donated to her campaign yet? The transcripts are below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View October 15, 2024 11:09:58 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: Let me tell you something. I was watching interviews with MAGA supporters. They do not believe that he will do what he says he’s going to do. That's what we're up against. So, if you say he's going to be a dictator on day one, he wants to punish with the – with the air forces, whatever we have – the armed forces, he wants to punish people who disagree with him like people like us! Okay? And they say, ‘oh, he's not going to do that.’ He's going to take us out of NATO. ‘No, he's not going to do that.’ So, it's very hard for us to talk to these people, because they refuse to believe. And I guess they're hearing it on Fox or elsewhere. (…) October 16, 2024 11:07:53 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: Let's talk about fascism for a second. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Okay. BEHAR: Because that came up also. I think you covered this in your part. This is the definition. It’s defined as a political movement that embraces the far-right nationalism and the forceful suppression of any opposition, all overseen by an authoritarian government. That definition has Trump's picture next to it in the dictionary. SUNNY HOSTIN: Right. BEHAR: I mean, he wants to send the military to attack liberals if he gets in. That is basically – And the king of fascism is Mussolini who spoke better English than he does, by the way. [Laughter] And so, I think that to say that he's a fascist is completely accurate. I mean, it does fit the definition. He wants to send the military in to attack his opponents. I mean, what more do you need to hear? (…) 11:19:31 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: I'm starting to worry about the polls because I see a lot of the media saying that he's leading and everybody is getting nervous and all that. GOLDBERG: That's why they're saying it. BEHAR: But they're doing that on purpose! GOLDBERG: Yes, that's what I've been saying! BEHAR: Because basically, it's so disheartening for Democrats and people who are leaning towards Kamala to say, ‘well, what's the point?’ Don't buy into that. (…)