Harvard study: True facts about gun control and violence

Image

Conservatives base their decisions on facts, Liberals base their decisions on politically expedient emotions and twist the facts to suit their view. Harvard can hardly be called a bastion of Conservatism, but their study supports the Conservative views on gun control.

Excerpt: International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that
fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.

Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and
factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.
It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound
assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United
States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.

Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has
the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact
of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the
true homicide rates. Since well before that date, the Soviet Union possessed extremely stringent gun controls
that were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. So
successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have
firearms and very few murders involve them. Yet, manifest success
in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet
Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the
developed world. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun‐less Soviet
Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those
of gun‐ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then
steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically
that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times
higher than that of the United States. Between 1998‐2004 (the latest
figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly
four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also
characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various
other now‐independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.

Thus, in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning
into current‐day Russia, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.” While American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France,Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries,
however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed
nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example,
Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership
of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times
higher than Germany in 2002.

Read full report here.

Advertisements

Gun control is control of the citizenry

Image

Excerpt of my Examiner.com article:  In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, Liberal Democrats in the Congress and President Obama are promising “quick action” to make certain that tragedies like this never happen again. A term from John Stossel’s new book comes to mind, “no, you can’t”.

Although espousing a balanced approach including gun control, restrictions on violent TV, movies and video games, and review of procedures for those in need of psychiatric help; the Liberal establishment is focusing its attention on gun control.

On Tuesday, Jay Carney, President Obama’s spokesperson stated that the President remains committed to reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Senator Dianne Feinstein has already stated that she intends to introduce such a bill as soon as the new Congress convenes. However, by then, celebrations of Christmas and the New Year will have come and gone, and our representatives in Washington will be getting back to political reality.

The main reason the federal assault weapons ban was let to expire in 2004 was that the NRA and its influence on significant voting blocks had many Democrats running scared. Attempts to extend the ban went down to defeat by a vote of 90 to 8 in the Senate. Few people believe that a January vote on this issue will have different results.

Opposition to any restrictions on a citizen’s Second Amendment right to bear arms is ingrained in our heritage. Not only are guns used for hunting, sport and personal protection, there is possibly an even greater need never mentioned by our government or the main stream media, the need of a strong deterrent from foreign aggression and government overreach.

Read the full article on Examiner.com.

Government redistribution scam: ‘Poverty’ like we’ve never seen it

Image

Poverty stands right in front of you

Poverty stands right in front of you (Photo credit: torephoto)

And this is before food stamps, free lunches, free cell phones and the like.  It is just another liberal scam to hide their real intent to redistribute the wealth to the “under worked”  class.

Excerpt:  Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities.

Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered “poor” if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston, $39,500; in New York, $37,900.

Remarkably, for the first time these new poverty thresholds are linked to an “escalator” that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.

Look at it this way: If the real income of every single American were to double overnight, the new measure would show no drop in poverty because the poverty-income thresholds also would double. Under this new definition, we can reduce poverty only if the incomes of the “poor” rise much faster than those of everyone else.

The goal of fighting poverty is no longer about meeting physical needs; instead it has been covertly shifted to equalizing incomes, or “spreading the wealth.”

Divorced from actual living conditions, the new government report on “poverty” is merely an advertising tool for expanding the welfare state.

 

Read full NY Post article here.

TOP-10 ” Only In America ” Observations ~ by a Canadian:

Image

English: Portrait of US Rep. Charles B Rangel

English: Portrait of US Rep. Charles B Rangel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Received this email today.

TOP-10 ” Only In America ” Observations ~ by a Canadian:
1) Only in America , could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.
2) Only in America , could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black.
3) Only in America , could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
4) Only in America , can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

5) Only in America, would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just ‘magically’ become American citizens.

6) Only in America , could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as “extremists.”

7) Only in America , could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

Religion and civility casualties to liberalism

Image

Excerpt:  The father of a football player at the local high school remarked that those players, who want to pray before the game, have to find an area off field to do it. It is probable that the vast majority, and maybe the entire team, has no problem with prayer, and it is only the threat of a lawsuit that has forced the school administration to adopt this rule. A more inclusive option would be, for those offended, to be able to opt out and allow the motivational prayer to take place. But as in too many cases, the most vocal and litigious among us have prevailed.

Religion is being systematically removed from all government supported institutions, much to the chagrin of those founding fathers who are looking down on us. The intent of the “separation of church and state” was never meant to eliminate religious principles from our government, as evidenced by reference to God on most of our Federal buildings, “endowed by our creator” in the Declaration of Independence, and “In God We Trust” on our money supply.

The Democrats eliminated reference to God and also to Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel from their platform prior to the convention. Because of the bad press they were getting, an amendment was proposed. The Democrat party chairman ruled the amendment approved, but only after three voice votes that appeared to reject God, This, along with President Obama’s statement that conservatives cling to guns or religion, and his war on the Catholic church’s stand against abortion and contraception, show that the Democrat Party has moved to the extreme left of the political spectrum.

Read my full article on Examiner.com here.

Related articles:

Missouri’s religious ‘prayer’ amendment could affect public school students
2012 marks 50th anniversary of Court decision regarding prayer in schools
School prayer bill passes in Florida
National Day of Prayer 2012 theme “One Nation Under God”

Sneaky President Obama issues major “green energy” executive order

Image

President Barack Obama speaks at the Departmen...

President Barack Obama speaks at the Department of Energy. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Another example of Obama going around Congress, usurping their Constitutional authority and acting like a dictator. Unless we get rid of the Democrat stalemate, and Congress gets some backbone, we will be a free Republic no longer.

Excerpt: Between conservatives focusing all their attention on the successes/failures of the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., and the left having a meltdown over the supposed “racism” and unprecedented disrespect of Clint Eastwood’s “Empty Chair” routine, little attention has been given to an executive order issued last Thursday by President Barack Obama that targets industrial “efficiency” and carbon emissions.

“Today, we are taking another step to strengthen American manufacturing by boosting energy efficiency for businesses across the nation,” said President Obama.

The order, which aims to increase the number of cogeneration plants in the U.S. by 50 percent by 2020 and slash carbon emissions by 150 million tons per year, is the administration’s latest effort to “deploy cleaner and more efficient energy production in the country by working around political resistance to climate change and ‘green’ energy legislation on Capitol Hill,” Reuters reports.

“The Federal Government has limited but important authorities to overcome … barriers, and our efforts to support investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP [Combined heat and power] should involve coordinated engagement with a broad set of stakeholders,” the order says.

Translation: If duly elected representatives of the people get in the way of “climate change” (formerly known as “global warming,“ formerly known as ”global cooling”) legislation, work around them.

“The man is legislating by presidential fiat!” conservative author and radio show host Mark Levin said Friday. “This is unconstitutional.”

Read full article here.

World Begs US to Stop Burning Shrinking Food Supply – Ethanol

Image

To increase the genetic diversity of U.S. corn...

To increase the genetic diversity of U.S. corn, the Germplasm Enhancement for Maize (GEM) project seeks to combine exotic germplasm, such as this unusually colored and shaped maize from Latin America, with domestic corn lines. U Deutsch: Maiskolben (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It has been proven that use of corn to produce ethanol does nothing to alleviate the CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.  But it has also been proven that food prices have skyrocketed since this ill conceived environmentalist legislation.  It is time for the repeal of this legislation and get back to feeding the world. 

Excerpt:This mandated glass of stomach-churning regulation remains a primary component of United States energy and environmental policy, elevating food prices worldwide and further destabilizing countries hovering at the edge of political unrest.

Saving Obama the trouble of appointing yet another commission to study the issue, the deleterious effects of biofuel subsidies and mandates have already been well documented.

Both the public and private sector have catalogued in-depth the rise in food prices caused by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act that reallocated corn harvests from hungry stomachs to internal combustion engines. The Congressional Budget Office showed that the mandates accounted for ten to fifteen percent of the price rise from 2007-2008, and the National Chicken Council commissioned a study showing a seventy-nine percent acceleration in the Consumer Price Index for meat, poultry, fish, and eggs since the bill went into law. A full forty percent of the current corn crop is dedicated to fuel instead of food.

On top of these existing price rises, the USDA’s latest production forecast predicts that corn and soybean production will be down 12% from last year due to the ongoing and severe drought ravaging corn crops in the heartland. While the United States recovers from a limp economy and continues to pay out food stamps to 46.4 million citizens, current ethanol policy increases the price of these handouts even as our national debt approaches a staggering $16 trillion. The USDA forecasts that by the end of 2012, domestic grocery prices will have risen another 2.5 to 3.5 percent.

As the leading food exporter in the world, U.S. commodity shortfalls affect food prices across the globe. The U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization’s overall food price index climbed six percentage points in July alone. A Tuft University report shows that U.S. ethanol policy caused our Mexican neighbors to incur an additional $1.5 billion to $3.2 billion in import costs from 2006-2011. This while millions of its citizens illegally fled to the United States to escape poverty. Mexico’s most recent food riot was in 2008, and it may only be a matter of time before the next one.

Read full report here.