Archive for the ‘Educational’ Category
1. Mrs. Clinton had cozy and improper relationship with the mainstream media.
2. The State Department paid special attention to “Friends of Bill.”
3. Mrs. Clinton argued for “a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.”
4. The Clinton campaign was in touch with Department of Justice officials regarding the release of her emails.
5. The Clinton camp was tipped off to the release of the Benghazi emails.
6. Mrs. Clinton admitted sometimes her public and private positions differ.
7. Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman mocked Catholics and evangelicals as “severely backwards.”
8. Mrs. Clinton admitted she has a hard time relating to the struggles of the middle class.
9. Mrs. Clinton campaign used Benghazi as a distraction from the email scandal.
10. The Clinton team strategized on how to delay releasing emails, knowing it was against the law.
A perspective based on facts…not democratic spin.
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016.
Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population die from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant!
What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
. 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
. 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
. 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
. 3% are accidental discharge deaths
So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
. 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
. 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
. 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
. 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation – or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others.
For example, California had 1,169 – and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault – all are done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That’s why they are criminals.
But what about other deaths each year?
. 40,000+ die from a drug overdose – THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
. 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
. 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)
Now it gets good:
. 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!
. 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers!
So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides …… Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!
So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple. Taking away guns gives control to governments.
The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.
So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.”
Remember, when it comes to “gun control”, the important word is “control”, not “gun”.
Surprisingly, these are not the statistics you hear about from the media or from the White House.
Dear Mr. President, Senator Hatch, and Speaker Ryan:
We are a diverse group of American faith leaders from all political, religious and ideological perspectives. We write to you as the authorities responsible for appointing members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
We wish to express our deep concern that the Commission has issued a report, Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Non-Discrimination Principles with Civil Liberties, that stigmatizes tens of millions of religious Americans, their communities, and their faith-based institutions, and threatens the religious freedom of all our citizens.
The Commission asserts in its Findings that religious organizations “use the pretext of religious doctrines to discriminate.”
What we find even more disturbing is that, in a statement included in the report, Commission Chairman Martin Castro writes:
“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.”
We understand that people of good faith can disagree about the relationship between religious liberty and antidiscrimination laws in our country, and how that relationship should best be structured. These questions have to do with issues critical to the common good such as marriage, the family, contraception, abortion, and the source of human dignity.
At the same time, we are one in demanding that no American citizen or institution be labeled by their government as bigoted because of their religious views, and dismissed from the political life of our nation for holding those views. And yet that is precisely what the Civil Rights Commission report does.
The genius of American democracy is that it invites everyone into the public square, on the basis of full equality, to contend over the laws and policies that reflect our values and our understanding of the common good. In our system it is they–free citizens and voluntary institutions–that inform and drive the debate over the public good, a debate that the national government should not prejudice or distort.
The construction of our Constitutional settlement–this great experiment, as our first president called it–was in substantial part due to the religious ideas of the founding generation. The very foundation of our nation’s notion of equality—and in turn, the foundation of our various laws against discrimination—is the radical religious truth claim that “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”
Each of us opposes hateful rhetoric and actions. We believe in the equality of all Americans before the law, regardless of creed or community. But we are both determined and unafraid to speak the truth about beliefs we have held for millennia. A robust and respectful debate over ideas is not something harmful to be demonized. Rather, debate is good for our democracy, and should be encouraged. Slandering ideas and arguments with which one disagrees as “racism” or “phobia” not only cheapens the meaning of those words, but can have a chilling effect on healthy debate over, or dissent from, the prevailing orthodoxy. Such attacks on dissent have no place in the United States where all religious beliefs, the freedom to express them, and the freedom to live by them are protected by the First Amendment.
We are grateful particularly to President Obama for his willingness to recognize that the religious and moral dimension of our laws is not only unavoidable, but has long served the cause of civil rights:
Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King – indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history – were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
(Call to Renewal, Building a Covenant for a New America, 2006).
In light of this, we call upon each of you to renounce publicly the claim that “religious freedom” and “religious liberty” are “code words” or a “pretext” for various forms of discrimination. There should be no place in our government for such a low view of our First Freedom—the first of our civil rights—least of all from a body dedicated to protecting them all.
We look forward to your reply.
Most Reverend William E. Lori
Archbishop of Baltimore
Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Bishop Gérald J. Caussé
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Sheikh Hamza Yusuf Hanson
Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
Southern Baptist Convention
National Association of Evangelicals
Distinguished Professor of Theology
Founder and President Emeritus
Evangelicals for Social Action
Frank Madison Reid, III
The African Methodist Episcopal Church
Governing Body Commissioner
Minister of Communications
International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON)
Bishop Gregory John Mansour
Eparchy of Saint Maron of Brooklyn
Religious Freedom Advocate
Cheryl Mitchell Gaines, J.D., M.Div., Senior Pastor
Regeneration House of Praise
Imam at the Adams Center
Chairman, Interfaith Peace Corps
Nathan J. Diament
Executive Director for Public Policy
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Reverend Eugene F. Rivers III
Seymour Institute for Black Church and Policy Studies
Jacqueline C. Rivers
Seymour Institute for Black Church and Policy Studies
Director, Religious Freedom Project
President, Religious Freedom Institute
Compare this “I am royalty” approach of modern politicians to Harry Truman, a man of character.
Harry Truman was a different kind of President. He probably made as many, or more important decisions regarding our nation’s history as any of the other 42 Presidents preceding him. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.
The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence Missouri. His wife had inherited the house from her mother and father and other than their years in the White House, they lived their entire lives there.
When he retired from office in 1952 his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an ‘allowance’ and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.
After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There was no Secret Service following them.
When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, “You don’t want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn’t belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it’s not for sale.”
Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, “I don’t consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise.”
As president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.
Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale.