Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Harvard study: True facts about gun control and violence

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.

Glenn Beck: Benghazi tragedy CIA weapons deal gone wrong? Obama in deep doo doo?

Friday, December 21, 2012

Gun control is control of the citizenry

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.

Saturday, December 15, 2012


Opinion: Secular society and drugs, not guns, are reasons for increase in mass murders

Hollywood celebrities are out in force today, trying to use the tragedy in Newtown as the “crisis not to waste”, and advocating strict gun control laws. My take on the situation is two fold. One is the proliferation of drugs used to modify behavior, many of which have rare but extreme side effects. There is no evidence, as yet, that Adam Lanza was on drugs. What is true, is that the secular society, that the President and these celebrities embrace, and the class hatred espoused by our President, are changing our country and leading us away from religion and the Judeo Christian philosophy embraced by our founders.

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Soldiers Deck of Cards

America’s fiscal cliff and the President’s “balanced” solution

This is an excerpt of an article I wrote for Examiner.com
Excerpt:  President Obama, Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate, have, for three years, refused to pass, or even seriously propose or discuss a budget as required each year by law. This has necessitated the need for continuing resolutions to keep our government running as it reaches its borrowing limits. Following the last debt ceiling crisis, the plan for sequestration was enacted as an incentive for Congress and the President to enact legislation that both parties believed would put us on a sustainable economic path. The January 1, 2013 deadline looms, as the can has once again been kicked down the road.
Each time, the Democrats have used the debt crisis to demonize the Republicans, as the President is doing now, blaming them for the stalemate. This is both a political and tactical maneuver to advance his liberal, progressive spending goals and he has no intention of changing direction.
The President campaigned on a “balanced approach” to the crises that he and the Democrats created. His proposal, as presented by Treasury Secretary Geithner, was to increase taxes by $1.6 trillion, mostly on the job creators, spend an additional $25 billion on failed stimulus projects, defer the sequestration spending cuts and maybe reduce some “unspecified” entitlement spending. He also proposed the removal of the requirement for Congressional approval for debt ceiling increases.
Read my full Examiner.com article here. 

Saturday, December 1, 2012