A Collection of Information Available to the public. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." This IS IT ~ TIME to reclaim our Freedom from an out of control Tyrannical Government. LIVE FREE and Fight the Good Fight To Keep That Right.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Thursday, March 5, 2015
THE END GAME OF WIND AND SOLAR POWER IS TO HAVE ENERGY RATIONING.
THE END GAME OF WIND AND SOLAR POWER IS TO HAVE ENERGY RATIONING.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Truth and Action.org "Calling all Hands" for Immediate Arrest of President Barack Obama
http://www.truthandaction.org/calling-hands-immediate-arrest-president-barack-obama/
The Sergeant at Arms, currently Andrew B. Willison, ( @SenateAAS on twitter) is the only person with authority to arrest a sitting president – if the president has violated Senate rules – which Obama has certainly done.
But what if the Sergeant at Arms won’t do his job and arrest the president when crimes have been committed?
If Andrew Willison will not perform his duty and arrest the president for crimes Obama has committed, is Mr. Willison not complicit and guilty of a criminal act himself?
Click the link below for more:
Next Page: »
Can we have Mr. Willison arrested or at least removed for failing to perform his duty? Who can perform this arrest or removal?
Furthermore, if this person won’t live up to their responsibility and arrest or remove the Sergeant at Arms who is complicit in the president´s crimes, who can remove that person?
Is there some place where ‘the rubber meets the road’ here?
Is there a point at which “we as a people” can take legal and lawful action, applying pressure where we can, to ultimately arrest the president and all those complicit in his crimes?
We are calling an ‘all hands’ here to try to discover if there is a valid method for ultimately having the president arrested using the above line of thought.
Please share this post and leave any information you might know in the comments. We request that you don’t make any comments that would appear to be physically threatening to the president or advocates any action that is not LEGAL AND LAWFUL.
Thank you patriots.
EVERYONE CAN TAKE ACTION:
1 – Share this post
2 – Leave comments or ideas that are legal and lawful
Calling “All Hands”: The Immediate Arrest Of President Barack Obama
“The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States,” states the senate.gov website.
The Sergeant at Arms, currently Andrew B. Willison, ( @SenateAAS on twitter) is the only person with authority to arrest a sitting president – if the president has violated Senate rules – which Obama has certainly done.
But what if the Sergeant at Arms won’t do his job and arrest the president when crimes have been committed?
If Andrew Willison will not perform his duty and arrest the president for crimes Obama has committed, is Mr. Willison not complicit and guilty of a criminal act himself?
Click the link below for more:
Next Page: »
Can we have Mr. Willison arrested or at least removed for failing to perform his duty? Who can perform this arrest or removal?
Furthermore, if this person won’t live up to their responsibility and arrest or remove the Sergeant at Arms who is complicit in the president´s crimes, who can remove that person?
Is there some place where ‘the rubber meets the road’ here?
Is there a point at which “we as a people” can take legal and lawful action, applying pressure where we can, to ultimately arrest the president and all those complicit in his crimes?
We are calling an ‘all hands’ here to try to discover if there is a valid method for ultimately having the president arrested using the above line of thought.
Please share this post and leave any information you might know in the comments. We request that you don’t make any comments that would appear to be physically threatening to the president or advocates any action that is not LEGAL AND LAWFUL.
Thank you patriots.
EVERYONE CAN TAKE ACTION:
1 – Share this post
2 – Leave comments or ideas that are legal and lawful
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
The IRS's Case In Halbig v. Sebelius Is Crumbling, With A Little Help From Its Friends (UPDATED)
The IRS's Case In Halbig v. Sebelius Is Crumbling, With A Little Help From Its Friends (UPDATED)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/03/24/the-irss-case-in-halbig-v-sebelius-is-crumbling-with-a-little-help-from-its-friends/
PROMOTED STORIES
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/03/24/the-irss-case-in-halbig-v-sebelius-is-crumbling-with-a-little-help-from-its-friends/
The IRS's Case In Halbig v. Sebelius Is Crumbling, With A Little Help From Its Friends (UPDATED)
Comment Now
Follow Comments
Tomorrow morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments in Halbig v. Sebelius, a case that challenges the IRS’s ability to implement ObamaCare’s health insurance subsidies and mandate penalties in the 34 states with federally established health “exchanges.” Though the IRS prevailed at the district-court level, its allies have been inadvertently undermining the agency’s case ever since.
First, a little background. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 clearly, repeatedly, and consistently says that the above-mentioned subsidies and penalties are authorized only “through an Exchange established by the State.” The IRS breezed right past that explicit, recurring, and uncontradicted indicator of congressional intent, however, when the agency announced it would implement those subsidies and penalties in states that did not establish an Exchange and the federal government established one by default. The IRS is thus taxing the Halbig plaintiffs, who reside in states that did not establish Exchanges, without congressional authorization. The plaintiffs don’t like that.
The IRS won at the district-court level thanks to an opinion in which Judge Paul Friedman concluded that Exchanges established by the federal government are “established by the State.” That’s not quite as absurd as it may seem at first. Congress could have deemed federally established Exchanges to be “established by the State” in which they operate, if that had been Congress’ intent. Indeed, that’s what Congress did with respect to Exchanges established by U.S. territories. But Congress did not do so for federal Exchanges. Thus we are firm ground describing Friedman’s ruling as absurd. Congress intentionally offered subsidies only in states that established Exchanges for the same reason it makes numerous categories of federal spending and tax benefits conditional on state action: to induce states to carry out federal priorities.
Ever since the IRS’s victory, however, its friends have been inadvertently undermining the agency’s case.
For one, the Obama administration says it is implausible that Congress meant “established the State” literally. It “makes no sense,” the government asserts, to think that Congress even contemplated allowing federal Exchanges to operate without subsidies. Yale law professor Abbe Gluck writes, “it would be nonsensical to deprive citizens in federal-exchange states of the subsidies.”
Except…several of the government’s friends — including professor Gluck — have now conceded it does make sense, because Congress was actively considering that very idea. Separate amicus briefs by the AARP and the seven congressional Democratic leaders most responsible for the PPACA, as well as a recent blog post by Gluck all acknowledge that allowing federal Exchanges to operate without subsidies was a live issue during the debate that produced the PPACA. (Fun facts: two of those seven congressional Democrats sponsored the idea. And all seven ultimately voted for it in the PPACA, though they now disavow all knowledge. They were for it, before they were against it. Another group of key congressional Democrats complained back in 2010 that the PPACA’s Exchange subsidies, like the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, were conditional and that states could block them. They then voted for the PPACA, yet now claim they never intended subsidies to be conditional. They were against it, before they were for it, before they were against it.)
Gluck further concedes that Congress contemplated withholding those subsidies specifically if states failed to establish Exchanges when she acknowledges the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee’s health care bill would have withheld subsidies from such states for four years.
The government has also argued that Congress deemed federally established Exchanges to be “established by the State,” despite the statute containing no explicit or implicit language to that effect. Gluck undermines this claim as well. In her discussion of the HELP Bill, she concedes that Congress knew how to deem a state to be an “establishing state” even if the state did not establish an Exchange — something the PPACA did not do. We already know, from the PPACA provisions concerning U.S. territories, that Congress knew how to treat non-states as though they were states. Gluck’s reaffirmation is appreciated nonetheless. Unfortunately, she goes on to assert that courts should interpret the PPACA as if it contains such deeming language for federal Exchanges, simply because a prior bill does.
The more the IRS’s defenders write about this case, the more they will undermine the agency’s position in court, because its position is untenable.
Odds and ends:
Gluck misattributes a line from my brief with Jonathan Adler to the appellants’ brief, and therefore does not provide readers a link to the source material. Here it is.
My coauthor Jonathan Adler offers his critique of Judge Friedman’s opinion at the Washington Post‘s Volokh Conspiracy blog.
Click here for critiques of the pro-IRS amicus briefs in Halbig, and here for a rundown of the pro-plaintiff briefs. Visit here for a complete list of reference materials on Halbig and related cases.
Update: Gluck offers “a quick response.” Of note, she again concedes that the HELP bill allowed federal Exchanges to operate without subsidies. Yet she somehow still claims, “Nothing in the HELP bill contemplates a federally operated exchange with no subsidies” and “Congress never contemplated a federal exchange with no subsidies.” I refer Gluck to her own post: “[a] limitation on the subsidies, for federal [Exchanges], was if the state refused to apply the employer mandate to its own state government employees.” Next, I noted above that Gluck incorrectly attributed to the Halbig plaintiffs’ brief something that Jonathan Adler and I wrote in our amicus brief. Gluck’s response? “Cannon also nits that I did not provide a link to his amicus brief (which I did not do because my post referred to his arguments on the blogs). Glad to provide it here.” Hmm. The problem wasn’t so much that Gluck forgot to include a link to the source of the quote; it was more that she misidentified the authors. Now she claims she was quoting my arguments on “the blogs” rather than our brief, even though her post prefaces the quote with “from the brief” (by which she meant the plaintiffs’ brief, not ours). My head hurts. The quote, which I wrote myself, sadly does not appear in any blog but Gluck’s, where it still lacks proper attribution and a link. Those would be appreciated.
First, a little background. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 clearly, repeatedly, and consistently says that the above-mentioned subsidies and penalties are authorized only “through an Exchange established by the State.” The IRS breezed right past that explicit, recurring, and uncontradicted indicator of congressional intent, however, when the agency announced it would implement those subsidies and penalties in states that did not establish an Exchange and the federal government established one by default. The IRS is thus taxing the Halbig plaintiffs, who reside in states that did not establish Exchanges, without congressional authorization. The plaintiffs don’t like that.
The IRS won at the district-court level thanks to an opinion in which Judge Paul Friedman concluded that Exchanges established by the federal government are “established by the State.” That’s not quite as absurd as it may seem at first. Congress could have deemed federally established Exchanges to be “established by the State” in which they operate, if that had been Congress’ intent. Indeed, that’s what Congress did with respect to Exchanges established by U.S. territories. But Congress did not do so for federal Exchanges. Thus we are firm ground describing Friedman’s ruling as absurd. Congress intentionally offered subsidies only in states that established Exchanges for the same reason it makes numerous categories of federal spending and tax benefits conditional on state action: to induce states to carry out federal priorities.
Ever since the IRS’s victory, however, its friends have been inadvertently undermining the agency’s case.
For one, the Obama administration says it is implausible that Congress meant “established the State” literally. It “makes no sense,” the government asserts, to think that Congress even contemplated allowing federal Exchanges to operate without subsidies. Yale law professor Abbe Gluck writes, “it would be nonsensical to deprive citizens in federal-exchange states of the subsidies.”
Except…several of the government’s friends — including professor Gluck — have now conceded it does make sense, because Congress was actively considering that very idea. Separate amicus briefs by the AARP and the seven congressional Democratic leaders most responsible for the PPACA, as well as a recent blog post by Gluck all acknowledge that allowing federal Exchanges to operate without subsidies was a live issue during the debate that produced the PPACA. (Fun facts: two of those seven congressional Democrats sponsored the idea. And all seven ultimately voted for it in the PPACA, though they now disavow all knowledge. They were for it, before they were against it. Another group of key congressional Democrats complained back in 2010 that the PPACA’s Exchange subsidies, like the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, were conditional and that states could block them. They then voted for the PPACA, yet now claim they never intended subsidies to be conditional. They were against it, before they were for it, before they were against it.)
Gluck further concedes that Congress contemplated withholding those subsidies specifically if states failed to establish Exchanges when she acknowledges the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee’s health care bill would have withheld subsidies from such states for four years.
The government has also argued that Congress deemed federally established Exchanges to be “established by the State,” despite the statute containing no explicit or implicit language to that effect. Gluck undermines this claim as well. In her discussion of the HELP Bill, she concedes that Congress knew how to deem a state to be an “establishing state” even if the state did not establish an Exchange — something the PPACA did not do. We already know, from the PPACA provisions concerning U.S. territories, that Congress knew how to treat non-states as though they were states. Gluck’s reaffirmation is appreciated nonetheless. Unfortunately, she goes on to assert that courts should interpret the PPACA as if it contains such deeming language for federal Exchanges, simply because a prior bill does.
The more the IRS’s defenders write about this case, the more they will undermine the agency’s position in court, because its position is untenable.
Odds and ends:
Gluck misattributes a line from my brief with Jonathan Adler to the appellants’ brief, and therefore does not provide readers a link to the source material. Here it is.
My coauthor Jonathan Adler offers his critique of Judge Friedman’s opinion at the Washington Post‘s Volokh Conspiracy blog.
Click here for critiques of the pro-IRS amicus briefs in Halbig, and here for a rundown of the pro-plaintiff briefs. Visit here for a complete list of reference materials on Halbig and related cases.
Update: Gluck offers “a quick response.” Of note, she again concedes that the HELP bill allowed federal Exchanges to operate without subsidies. Yet she somehow still claims, “Nothing in the HELP bill contemplates a federally operated exchange with no subsidies” and “Congress never contemplated a federal exchange with no subsidies.” I refer Gluck to her own post: “[a] limitation on the subsidies, for federal [Exchanges], was if the state refused to apply the employer mandate to its own state government employees.” Next, I noted above that Gluck incorrectly attributed to the Halbig plaintiffs’ brief something that Jonathan Adler and I wrote in our amicus brief. Gluck’s response? “Cannon also nits that I did not provide a link to his amicus brief (which I did not do because my post referred to his arguments on the blogs). Glad to provide it here.” Hmm. The problem wasn’t so much that Gluck forgot to include a link to the source of the quote; it was more that she misidentified the authors. Now she claims she was quoting my arguments on “the blogs” rather than our brief, even though her post prefaces the quote with “from the brief” (by which she meant the plaintiffs’ brief, not ours). My head hurts. The quote, which I wrote myself, sadly does not appear in any blog but Gluck’s, where it still lacks proper attribution and a link. Those would be appreciated.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Obama to Fundraise in Texas Today, Won't Visit Child Crisis on the Border - Katie Pavlich
Obama to Fundraise in Texas Today, Won't Visit Child Crisis on the Border - Katie Pavlich
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/07/09/obama-to-fundraise-in-texas-today-wont-visit-child-crisis-on-the-border-n1860304
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/07/09/obama-to-fundraise-in-texas-today-wont-visit-child-crisis-on-the-border-n1860304
Ex-border agents: Immigrant flood ‘orchestrated’
Ex-border agents: Immigrant flood ‘orchestrated’
http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/ex-border-agents-immigrant-flood-orchestrated/
An organization of former Border Patrol agents Wednesday charged that the federal government, under the administration of President Obama, is deliberately arranging for a flood of immigrant children to arrive in America for political purposes.
“This is not a humanitarian crisis. It is a predictable, orchestrated
and contrived assault on the compassionate side of Americans by her
political leaders that knowingly puts minor illegal alien children at
risk for purely political purposes,” said the statement released by the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers.
“Certainly, we are not gullible enough to believe that thousands of unaccompanied minor Central American children came to America without the encouragement, aid and assistance of the United States government,” the officers said.
WND EXCLUSIVE: Congressmen say Obama “attempt to flood border” part of infamous socialist “Cloward-Piven” strategy
“Anyone that has taken two six- to seven-year-old children to an amusement park can only imagine the problems associated with bringing thousands of unaccompanied children that age up through Mexico and into the United States.”
Republicans are blaming Obama’s immigration policies for enticing the illegals, particularly the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program launched in 2012, which recently was renewed.
More than 33,000 have been caught in Texas alone over the last eight months, the report said, overwhelming Border Patrol capabilities.
A federal judge even concluded the White House “has simply chosen not to enforce … border security laws.”
FoxNews.com reported this week Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer calls the situation a “creation” of the federal government, and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., assigned blame for the “calamity” to Obama.
Fox News reported it had obtained a memo from an official with Customs and Border Protection who said the current policies are serving as an incentive for illegal aliens to sneak into the U.S.
“If the U.S. government fails to deliver adequate consequences to deter aliens from attempting to illegally enter the U.S., the result will be an even greater increase in the rate of recidivism and first-time illicit entries,” said Ronald Vitiello, a deputy Border Patrol chief.
Officials say among Obama’s policies that are attracting illegals is his instructions for “deferred action” for young illegals. Recently, the federal government said it was hunting for lawyers to provide legal help to children who are in the U.S. illegally.
The White House is asking for $1.4 billion more for the illegal-alien children, which by some estimates will grow to 150,000 next year.
The former Border Patrol agents said the campaign is a “political deception,” and the responsibility rests with the political leaders who support “a path to citizenship, regularization or any other form of amnesty for illegal aliens before providing for full protections for national security (jobs and economy) and public safety (the right of the people to be secure in their property and person).”
The officers argue that the non-enforcement of immigration laws is “the next step in becoming a failed state.”
“Yes, our leaders are guilty. However, we are responsible because it is the American voter [who] has placed untrustworthy people in positions of power and kept them there when they have clearly demonstrated that they have violated that public trust.
“These successful con artists are well dressed, attractive and charming,” the statement said.
The officers even questioned whether “this heartless criminal exploitation of Central American infants and children [will] finally awaken Americans to the ruse being foisted upon them by their government, the media and other interested parties.”
“Has America lost her ability to stand up against the tyrants and do what is right rather than what is easy? Obviously, this administration thinks you are as corrupt as they are and will vote them back into office or these young children would not be streaming into America to tug at your hearts and empty your heads of reason,” the statement said.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/ex-border-agents-immigrant-flood-orchestrated/#hXaRSirV7melfjbP.99
http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/ex-border-agents-immigrant-flood-orchestrated/
Ex-border agents: Immigrant flood 'orchestrated'
'We are not gullible enough to believe thousands came without aid and assistance'
Subscribe to feed- Text smaller
- Text bigger
An organization of former Border Patrol agents Wednesday charged that the federal government, under the administration of President Obama, is deliberately arranging for a flood of immigrant children to arrive in America for political purposes.
“Certainly, we are not gullible enough to believe that thousands of unaccompanied minor Central American children came to America without the encouragement, aid and assistance of the United States government,” the officers said.
WND EXCLUSIVE: Congressmen say Obama “attempt to flood border” part of infamous socialist “Cloward-Piven” strategy
“Anyone that has taken two six- to seven-year-old children to an amusement park can only imagine the problems associated with bringing thousands of unaccompanied children that age up through Mexico and into the United States.”
Republicans are blaming Obama’s immigration policies for enticing the illegals, particularly the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program launched in 2012, which recently was renewed.
More than 33,000 have been caught in Texas alone over the last eight months, the report said, overwhelming Border Patrol capabilities.
A federal judge even concluded the White House “has simply chosen not to enforce … border security laws.”
FoxNews.com reported this week Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer calls the situation a “creation” of the federal government, and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., assigned blame for the “calamity” to Obama.
Fox News reported it had obtained a memo from an official with Customs and Border Protection who said the current policies are serving as an incentive for illegal aliens to sneak into the U.S.
“If the U.S. government fails to deliver adequate consequences to deter aliens from attempting to illegally enter the U.S., the result will be an even greater increase in the rate of recidivism and first-time illicit entries,” said Ronald Vitiello, a deputy Border Patrol chief.
Officials say among Obama’s policies that are attracting illegals is his instructions for “deferred action” for young illegals. Recently, the federal government said it was hunting for lawyers to provide legal help to children who are in the U.S. illegally.
The White House is asking for $1.4 billion more for the illegal-alien children, which by some estimates will grow to 150,000 next year.
The former Border Patrol agents said the campaign is a “political deception,” and the responsibility rests with the political leaders who support “a path to citizenship, regularization or any other form of amnesty for illegal aliens before providing for full protections for national security (jobs and economy) and public safety (the right of the people to be secure in their property and person).”
“Yes, our leaders are guilty. However, we are responsible because it is the American voter [who] has placed untrustworthy people in positions of power and kept them there when they have clearly demonstrated that they have violated that public trust.
“These successful con artists are well dressed, attractive and charming,” the statement said.
The officers even questioned whether “this heartless criminal exploitation of Central American infants and children [will] finally awaken Americans to the ruse being foisted upon them by their government, the media and other interested parties.”
“Has America lost her ability to stand up against the tyrants and do what is right rather than what is easy? Obviously, this administration thinks you are as corrupt as they are and will vote them back into office or these young children would not be streaming into America to tug at your hearts and empty your heads of reason,” the statement said.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/ex-border-agents-immigrant-flood-orchestrated/#hXaRSirV7melfjbP.99
ATOMIKTIGER: Mass Shootings Are Responsible For Less than 100 Out of 12,000 Annual Homicides in the U.S.
ATOMIKTIGER: Mass Shootings Are Responsible For Less than 100 Out of 12,000 Annual Homicides in the U.S.
http://atomiktiger.blogspot.com/2013/08/mass-shootings-are-responsible-for-less.html
Massive media publicity over mass shootings in the last year have brought gun control back to the forefront in the U.S. Banning so-called "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines are all the rage. Calls have been made for an honest national dialogue that puts every option on the table. An honest conversation ought to look at as complete of a picture as possible so we can correctly assess "just how big of an issue is it?"
To adequately evaluate this question, we should examine how many homicides there are in the U.S. overall, compared to homicides from firearms (handguns, rifles, shotguns), compared to homicides from rifles only (in which so-called "assault rifles" would fall), and homicides that occur in mass shootings. We ought to further compare homicides to other causes of death to get a comparative indication of the magnitude of each compared to other public health risks that cause death in the U.S. This will help us understand the relative significance of the issue.
Total U.S. homicides: The total number of homicides in the U.S., reported by the FBI, is about 12,000-13,000 annually. Generally, this has trended downward since the early 1990s and 1980s, which saw several years with homicides ranging from 21,000-24,000 homicides. In 2010, the last year available, the number was 12,996. In 2009, it was 13,752.
Firearm homicides: Out of the total homicides, about 2/3 are committed with firearms, 1/3 from other causes. We'll look at both. In 2010, firearm homicides were 8,775, or 67.5% of all homicides. In 2009, the number was 9,199, or 66.8% of all homicides.
Rifle homicides: The FBI reports the total number of rifle homicides is about 350 annually the last couple of years. This includes bolt-action rifles, as well as semi-automatic rifles and so-called "assault rifles." There is a separate category for shotguns, so they are not included in this number. In 2010, the number of rifle homicides was 358, or 2.75% of all homicides. In 2009, the number was 351, or 2.55% of all homicides.
Mass shooting homicides: Pop-media classification of "mass murder" varies. For instance, CNN's Piers Morgan and The Nation cite shootings in which only 1 or 2 homicides occur. However, the FBI defines mass murder as 4 or more killed.
In 2012, there were either 81 or 88 murdered in mass shootings, depending on your source. Less than 100 no matter, which source, is used. So if we assume high at 100 homicides from mass murder and assume low at 12,000 annual homicides that means that mass murders account for 0.0083 of all homicides, or a fraction of 1%.
Personal weapon homicides: FBI data shows that "personal" weapon homicides, which is defined by hands/feet (beating someone to death) are 7-800 annually. In 2010, it was 745; in 2009, 817. This is more than double all rifle homicides. It is more than 7 or 8 times the number of mass murder homicides.
Compared to other causes of death — public health & safety issues:
Motor vehicle deaths: There are between 32-42,000 deaths from vehicle collisions every year. This dwarfs both homicides firearm homicides easily. When compared just to rifle homicides at ~ 350, motor vehicle deaths is massive & rifle homicides is minuscule.
Unintentional injury deaths: The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported 118,021 accidental deaths in 2009, the last year reported. Compared to this mass murder again appears relatively insignificant in terms of loss of life and public health concern.
Accidental fall deaths: 2009 saw 24,792 accidental fall deaths. This accounts for 247 times the number of mass murder deaths.
Others reported by CDC:
Drug-induced deaths - 39,147
Alcohol-induced deaths - 24,518
Accidental poisoning - 31,758
READ MORE:
http://atomiktiger.blogspot.com/2013/08/mass-shootings-are-responsible-for-less.html
http://atomiktiger.blogspot.com/2013/08/mass-shootings-are-responsible-for-less.html
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Mass Shootings Are Responsible For Less than 100 Out of 12,000 Annual Homicides in the U.S.
Massive media publicity over mass shootings in the last year have brought gun control back to the forefront in the U.S. Banning so-called "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines are all the rage. Calls have been made for an honest national dialogue that puts every option on the table. An honest conversation ought to look at as complete of a picture as possible so we can correctly assess "just how big of an issue is it?"
To adequately evaluate this question, we should examine how many homicides there are in the U.S. overall, compared to homicides from firearms (handguns, rifles, shotguns), compared to homicides from rifles only (in which so-called "assault rifles" would fall), and homicides that occur in mass shootings. We ought to further compare homicides to other causes of death to get a comparative indication of the magnitude of each compared to other public health risks that cause death in the U.S. This will help us understand the relative significance of the issue.
Total U.S. homicides: The total number of homicides in the U.S., reported by the FBI, is about 12,000-13,000 annually. Generally, this has trended downward since the early 1990s and 1980s, which saw several years with homicides ranging from 21,000-24,000 homicides. In 2010, the last year available, the number was 12,996. In 2009, it was 13,752.
Firearm homicides: Out of the total homicides, about 2/3 are committed with firearms, 1/3 from other causes. We'll look at both. In 2010, firearm homicides were 8,775, or 67.5% of all homicides. In 2009, the number was 9,199, or 66.8% of all homicides.
Rifle homicides: The FBI reports the total number of rifle homicides is about 350 annually the last couple of years. This includes bolt-action rifles, as well as semi-automatic rifles and so-called "assault rifles." There is a separate category for shotguns, so they are not included in this number. In 2010, the number of rifle homicides was 358, or 2.75% of all homicides. In 2009, the number was 351, or 2.55% of all homicides.
Mass shooting homicides: Pop-media classification of "mass murder" varies. For instance, CNN's Piers Morgan and The Nation cite shootings in which only 1 or 2 homicides occur. However, the FBI defines mass murder as 4 or more killed.
In 2012, there were either 81 or 88 murdered in mass shootings, depending on your source. Less than 100 no matter, which source, is used. So if we assume high at 100 homicides from mass murder and assume low at 12,000 annual homicides that means that mass murders account for 0.0083 of all homicides, or a fraction of 1%.
Personal weapon homicides: FBI data shows that "personal" weapon homicides, which is defined by hands/feet (beating someone to death) are 7-800 annually. In 2010, it was 745; in 2009, 817. This is more than double all rifle homicides. It is more than 7 or 8 times the number of mass murder homicides.
Compared to other causes of death — public health & safety issues:
Motor vehicle deaths: There are between 32-42,000 deaths from vehicle collisions every year. This dwarfs both homicides firearm homicides easily. When compared just to rifle homicides at ~ 350, motor vehicle deaths is massive & rifle homicides is minuscule.
Unintentional injury deaths: The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported 118,021 accidental deaths in 2009, the last year reported. Compared to this mass murder again appears relatively insignificant in terms of loss of life and public health concern.
Accidental fall deaths: 2009 saw 24,792 accidental fall deaths. This accounts for 247 times the number of mass murder deaths.
Others reported by CDC:
Drug-induced deaths - 39,147
Alcohol-induced deaths - 24,518
Accidental poisoning - 31,758
READ MORE:
http://atomiktiger.blogspot.com/2013/08/mass-shootings-are-responsible-for-less.html
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Barack Obama's Hidden Past - With Bill Whittle (Part 3) - YouTube
Barack Obama's Hidden Past - With Bill Whittle (Part 3) - YouTube
COMMENTS:
LstraighuPeople do care, they do listen, they are horrified, and if they try to get the serious facts of the matter out there, other than what the information wardens have been able to throw everyone off with "conspiracy theory" whack job labels and allow for other "issues" to come up. (keep in mind they're trying to label as many people as they can with a "mental illness", associating them with shootings, and coming up short everytime they try to associate those "mentally ill" shooters with their implied "right winger anti-government group', and all you have to do to acquire that label is care about truth and This Country. Your phone will conveniently not be receiving or sending out calls or messages, your normal connections online will seem like they've disappeared, and if you went to a doctor, or plan to ( BEWARE: there are meds with a wide scope of their use for certain conditions
a drug now commonly being
prescribed for people with occasional insomnia is one that came out
originally to treat "Schizophrenia", then over the last five - seven
years, that med has expanded it's scope of treatment to insomnia,
headaches, restless leg syndrome, erectile dysfunction, and pain
associated with diabetes, just for starters. Accept that med, and be
coded as having a history of mental illness, which makes you a sitting
duck. There are ways people get controlled... They even have close
family friends, or family members who "suddenly die" and if they look
for answers, they get put off, shut down, and then intimidated in
multiple ways. I've seen it happen to everyday people, people of
prominence and success in their community, upstanding, law abiding
citizens, and I've had a few things that may or may not have been
coincidental, but regardless, I'm light hearted, open, but not an
extremist, a zealot, or fanatic for anything "right wing". I didn't
even know that my solid exposure to a platform of the Law would make a
large company squeamish and take aggressive measures to TRY and apply
them to me only to find that my options are slightly more extensive than
meets the eye. All just to have protection for simply discussing on
a small scale and scope, these deliveries of unlawful and unjust
actions that could have escalated. I don't reach many people or take
part in community efforts, other than supporting veterans on a volunteer
level, no tackling of scandals, that's the job of those elected and
appointed to do so. Until those people who are failing are out, the
people can do whatever they're able to, or are willing to until they
reach a road block. Or go head to head with that block, it's not a
legitimate one, and the word gets out. It is, and the number of people
getting the word to people is on a level this gov't has no clue about..
They hear it all and see it all on their survey USA system, but people
know, and it's not to commit crimes (like this gov't) or over throw it,
but it's definitely conducive to returning the judicial system at the
highest level to those who serve as they promised by oath, and also
believe in the Constitution, law, due process, and Our Legal System.
The numbers are manipulated to create confusion among strong, sane, and
intelligently aware people.. They're purposely propagandized in many
forms to lie to us and give the illusion that many more are still in
support of the hideous fraud. NOT TRUE. They have usurped power,
therefore funds, and secured people with those funds to stay "loyal" and
maintain the brain draining lies, and the ties that bind us, THE
MAJORITY, who are fed up with the unprecedented and outrageous crimes
imposed upon us, our military, and any group of people that don't fit
their sick progressive, medieval brainwashed profile of supporters, and
there aren't many. That's why the massive accumulations of unjust
detainments, releases, and agreements with people who want to kill us go
by with seemingly no consequences. Be Safe, Be Sound, stay level
headed, and responsibly apply your rights to do what's good for This
Country. Do no harm. Do no harm by failing to ignore those who clearly
and undeniably are doing us all egregious harm. "Evil prevails when
good men do nothing to stop it"... (look the other way and be guilty
of aiding and abetting an atrocity) Do it safely and with the intention
of minimizing further harm by ending the Commander in Chief's abuse of
Power ruining this country, creating more problems than we've had in
close to a century, still of a lesser level of crime, but never the
less, acts that are undeniably impeachable, WITH time. --- The
detainment of any Benghazi attacker at this time is too late. He never
intended to get the guy, but he is because he, himself is the one found
to be responsible.. The usual.. He gets his feet put to the fire, so he
goes to the last resort - the terrorist now owned or at least the fall guy for hire. BULLSH**! IMPEACH OBAMA, CUFF, DETAIN, AND REMAIN....
satanicmechanic86
5 months ago
If you ignore Barack Obama the person and just look at Barack Obama the president, it's pretty clear that he is in no way qualified for the job. The DNC wanted a sure bet that they could control and it never occurred to them that they might actually make things worse, like they always do.
4
Enki35Productions via Google+
5 months ago
THE REAL BARACK OBAMA PT III
Reply
·
1
Suzanne Stearns
4 months ago
Why must we endure this? Why is America so blasé when it comes to who leads it? Why is no one interested in these facts? Have we been so brainwashed that we don't care about anything anymore, especially such important issues as who leads us in Washington?
Reply
·
4
Yesica1993
6 months ago
It's sad how long this information has been out there and yet... no one cares.
Reply
·
2
Suzanne Stearns
4 months ago
It's even sadder that, as you said, NO ONE CARES!
Reply
·
1
Dominick DelliPaoli
2 months ago
I really don't care that much about, what could quite possibly be lies, obamas' autobiography. Answer this question, why are people in Kenya saying he was born and raised in Kenya? There are documents that prove he was also raised in Indonesia and taught in the madrassas there. His transgendered " wife " has said he is from Kenya, video evidence of it. Barry even openly said it too so the whole thing about him growing up in Hawaii is a lie, period. People have said he came to this country as a foreign exchange student. I think his " autobiography " is lies to be used as propaganda. The problem with barry is he says one thing one moment then switches it the next, just like obamacare. The word truth isn't in barrys' vocabulary.
Reply
·
Jerry Curtis
6 months ago
Part 3 of 3, Just Listen
3
DarcPrynce
5 days ago
Barack Obama's Hidden Past - With Bill Whittle (Part 1)
Reply
·
2
DarcPrynce
5 days ago
Barack Obama's Hidden Past - With Bill Whittle (Part 2)
Reply
·
KattyWhompUs1
5 months ago
Not enough hours in the day,days in the years etc for all this to be true.
People who follow this guy are morons,
Reply
·
Glenn Lienhop
6 months ago
Dead on !
Reply
·
Ozzy Mosley
2 months ago
If this is all completely true, I'm seriously concerned. And I'm even more concerned that people support him.
Reply
·
1
Leslie Jones
7 months ago
There is a petition for congress to investigate in Obama's forged birth certificate and stolen SSNs. Go to orlytaitzesq, and then there's a .com. Scroll down and click on the Statue of Liberty picture to petition.
Please pass this on to others! Together we can make a huge difference. To learn more about this issue go to youtubeDOTcom/watch?v=BUcyb5pmUKI
Reply
·
letsthinkitover1
3 months ago
Satan was cast from heaven, do you feel sorry for him? Sad satan invented music right? Evil is evil, sad that good people get hurt by evil people.
Reply
·
osburrob000
2 months ago
Wow......... why did we vote for him again. I garenty most people who voted for him didn't know this stuff.
Reply
·
plzwork100
2 months ago
Super Villain Origins: Barack Obama
Reply
·
Audrianne Giroud
3 months ago
He wasn't abandoned. Those aren't his parents. This story goes much deeper...
Reply
·
Call Me Mom
2 years ago
Spot on with that rant, Mr. Whittle.
Ted Walker
1 year ago
He's the perfect leader for the NWO. Soros's & company. Bring America to its knees in a financial collapse then install global monetary system. Nobody can bitch cuz he's black & will b labeled rascist. Its perfect.
Ted Walker
1 year ago
Lots of convenient deaths associated w/ him also. Gay men, grandmother, & now watch this guy in chicago jail right now who wants to blow up fast&furious. Bet he doesn't live to see trial. Watch & see.
Linda D
2 years ago
unless he was abandoned 3x by age 7, you can't blame his narcissism on abandonment. If that is true then he already came that way.
Peter Grigore
2 years ago
the sad part is that out of more than ten thousand people that watched this clip, probably more than half will go back and vote for him in 2012 again.
Show more
COMMENTS:
LstraighuPeople do care, they do listen, they are horrified, and if they try to get the serious facts of the matter out there, other than what the information wardens have been able to throw everyone off with "conspiracy theory" whack job labels and allow for other "issues" to come up. (keep in mind they're trying to label as many people as they can with a "mental illness", associating them with shootings, and coming up short everytime they try to associate those "mentally ill" shooters with their implied "right winger anti-government group', and all you have to do to acquire that label is care about truth and This Country. Your phone will conveniently not be receiving or sending out calls or messages, your normal connections online will seem like they've disappeared, and if you went to a doctor, or plan to ( BEWARE: there are meds with a wide scope of their use for certain conditions
Obama ‘went to bed while people died’
Obama ‘went to bed while people died’
http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/obama-finally-blamed-for-benghazi-disaster/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)