Eye Of The Tyger

The "Useful" Idiot

Creeping Nazism

Doctors Kill More People Per Year Than Guns

The following article, written by Nathan Tabor, while having a tongue-in-cheekish (is that a word?) uses a beautifully logical argument to put the issue in perspective.

If I could write this well, I would take the thesis and write something original....let's face it, I don't, so I'm reduced to shamelessly copying the article (assuaging my conscience by appropriately giving credit). 

"By Nathan Tabor

Back before the November election, many mainstream media pundits — trying desperately to get John Kerry elected — began to harp on President Bush's unwillingness to stop certain federal gun control laws from expiring as scheduled.

But their propaganda efforts came to naught because this issue was a non-starter with the American people. The fact is, in this day of post-911 increased security consciousness, most average Americans simply don't want more gun control. They want more guns on hand to defend themselves and their loved ones in the face of possible life-threatening danger.

Soccer moms are now taking handgun proficiency courses down at the local firing range. Liberals are always complaining about getting to the root of the problem — unless it deals with gun rights. Then they abandon all logical analysis and resort to hysteria, distortion and downright lies.

Today I want to set the record straight and dispel a few of the more common myths with some hard facts. First, according to statistics provided by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, there is an interesting correlation between accidental deaths caused by guns and by doctors. Doctors: (A) There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. (B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians total 120,000 per year. (C) Accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171. Guns: (A) There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. (B) There are 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups. (C) The percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.

Statistically, then, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners. Fact: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR. Following the logic of liberals, we should all be warned: "Guns don't kill people. Doctors do." More seriously, Dr. Glen Otero of the Claremont Institute has published an enlightening article entitled "Ten Myths About Gun Control." (This entire article can be found at the website of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws http://www.dsgl.org.)

Here are just a few of his well-documented findings. Approximately 80 percent of all adult American citizens own firearms, and a gun can be found in nearly half of American households. Between 1974 and 1995, the total number of privately owned firearms in America increased by 75 percent, to 236 million. During the same period, national homicide and robbery rates did NOT significantly increase. Less than 1 percent of all guns are involved in any type of crime, which means that 99 percent of all guns are NOT used to commit any crime.

In 1987, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated that about 83 percent of Americans would become the victims of violent crime during the course of their lifetime. The National Self-Defense Survey found that between 1988 and 1993, American civilians used firearms in self-defense almost 2.5 million times per year, saving up to 400,000 lives per year in the process.

Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter crime. Where U.S. counties have enacted concealed-carry laws, murder rates fell by 8 percent, rape by 5 percent, and aggravated assault by 7 percent. Urban counties recorded the largest decreases demographically. You get the picture: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But sometimes law-abiding citizens with guns can save the lives of other innocent people. It's time to restore some common sense to the hysterical debate over gun control.

When Cain killed Abel with a rock, God didn't ban all rocks. He dealt with Cain personally. We need to enforce our criminal laws against murder, robbery, and assault. I will cite the testimony of just one more expert witness. No, it's not another politician or media pundit. Here's what former Mafia underboss, self-confessed hit man, and government informant Sammy "The Bull" Gravano had to say: "Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."

It's time for Liberals to go out and buy a gun. And maybe get a life or at least protect one."

What a Sorry Spectacle!

Is this really the President of the United States, fawning over the King of Saudi Arabia, and mouthing flattering platitudes to him?

One wonders if O'bama was smeared by any of the blood of the three dissidents who were beheaded today?

This REALLY IS "Change you can believe in!"

Scott Rasmussen and Douglas Schoen Nail It

Wall Street Journal has an article by Scott Rasmussen and Douglas Schoen, the well-known and respected pollsters that puts to paper a feeling that I have held for a couple of months now.

The plain fact is that Barack Hussein Obama is an empty shell, without the intellect or capability to lead this country.  Empty (though ringing) rhetoric spouted from behind an everpresent teleprompter in increasingly noticed by the public.

The article says:

By DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN and SCOTT RASMUSSEN

"It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.

Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date.

M.E. Cohen

Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.

A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives.

There is also a clear sense in the polling that taxes will increase for all Americans because of the stimulus, notwithstanding what the president has said about taxes going down for 95% of Americans. Close to three-quarters expect that government spending will grow under this administration.

Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seeded, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.

When Gallup asked whether we should be spending more or less in the economic stimulus, by close to 3-to-1 margin voters said it is better to have spent less than to have spent more. When asked whether we are adding too much to the deficit or spending too little to improve the economy, by close to a 3-to-2 margin voters said that we are adding too much to the deficit.

Support for the stimulus package is dropping from narrow majority support to below that. There is no sense that the stimulus package itself will work quickly, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, close to 60% said it would make only a marginal difference in the next two to four years. Rasmussen data shows that people now actually oppose Mr. Obama's budget, 46% to 41%. Three-quarters take this position because it will lead to too much spending. And by 2-to-1, voters reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's call for a second stimulus package.

While over two-thirds support the plan to help homeowners refinance their mortgage, a 48%-36% plurality said that it will unfairly benefit those who have been irresponsible, echoing Rick Santelli's call to arms on CNBC.

And although a narrow majority remains confident in Mr. Obama's goals and overall direction, 45% say they do not have confidence, a number that has been growing since the inauguration less than two months ago. With three-quarters saying that they expect the economy to get worse, it is hard to see these numbers improving substantially.

There is no real appetite for increasing taxes to pay for an expanded health-insurance program. Less than half would support such an idea, which is 17% less than the percentage that supported government health insurance when Bill Clinton first considered it in March of 1993.

While voters blame Republicans for the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, the fact is that they do not believe Mr. Obama has made any progress in improving the impulse towards cooperation between the two parties. Further, nearly half of voters say that politics in Washington will be more partisan over the next year.

Fifty-six percent of Americans oppose giving bankers any additional government money or any guarantees backed by the government. Two-thirds say Wall Street will benefit more than the average taxpayer from the new bank bailout plan. This represents a jump in opposition to the first plan passed last October. At that time, 45% opposed the bailout and 30% supported it. Now a solid majority opposes the bank bailout, and 20% think it was a good idea. A majority believes that Mr. Obama will not be able to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term.

Only less than a quarter of Americans believe that the federal government truly reflects the will of the people. Almost half disagree with the idea that no one can earn a living or live "an American life" without protection and empowerment by the government, while only one-third agree.

Despite the economic stimulus that Congress just passed and the budget and financial and mortgage bailouts that Congress is now debating, just 19% of voters believe that Congress has passed any significant legislation to improve their lives. While Congress's approval has increased, it still stands at only 18%. Over two-thirds of voters believe members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping the American people. When it comes to the nation's economic issues, two-thirds of voters have more confidence in their own judgment than they do in the average member of Congress.

Finally, what probably accounts for a good measure of the confidence and support the Obama administration has enjoyed is the fact that they are not Republicans. Virtually all Americans, more than eight in 10, blame Republicans for the current economic woes, and the only two leaders with lower approval ratings than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

All of this is not just a subject for pollsters and analysts to debate. It shows fundamentally that public confidence in government remains low and is slipping. We face the possibility of substantial gridlock along with an absolute absence of public confidence that could come to mirror the lack of confidence in the American economy that the Dow and the S&P are currently showing."

I got an email from my daughter defining recession, depression and recovery: 

" Recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job; and recovery is when Barack Obama loses his."

The New Urkel

A tip of the hat to Michelle Malkin (www.michellemalkin.com)

Spring Comes To Huntsville, Alabama...(Well, almost)

Today started out in a magnificent way....a bright, sunny morning with a cool, but not cold temperature.

Everywhere one looks, the signs are there...the maples and Bradford pears are blushing with the first of their blooms, Forsythia is out and 'showing off', and the weeping willows are beginning their first tinge of green, with their little baby leaves.

I live on a 125 acre lake, so when the North breeze comes across the expanse of water, it IS a bit chilly.  The ever-present ducks and the few remaining Canada geese don't seem to mind.  I don't think that the coots ever even noticed winter.  In South Alabama, we used to call them "Poul doux" or "didappers".

Down in Greenville, Alabama (some 225 miles to the South), the paper whites have been out for weeks, and the dafodil are in their glory. I understand it was a civil 78 degrees today in Greenville.

It is often said that seasons travel at the rate of 13 miles per day.  If true, my many friends up in Boston should be experiencing the same weather in oh, about a hundred days, or early June...sounds about right to me.

Once again, proof positive that God loves us best.

Obama at War With America

The following was sent to me by a friend.  In this piece, Scott Wheeler expresses the case much more eloquently than I....so I am stealing it shamelessly.

"By: Scott Wheeler

Obama has declared war on America.

He says he is gearing up to fight anyone who disagrees with him, and he has singled some of us out by name: Joe the plumber, Rick Santelli and of course the mightiest voice among us, Rush Limbaugh.

Rush, as the Democrats tell it, is the leader of Republicans. The Democrats say this because they need to attach a face to represent the patriotic Americans that they are planning to attack.

The Obama administration and the Democrats keep repeating Rush's line that he wants Obama to fail, and they say that nothing could be more un-American than to root for Obama to fail.

Well there are a great many things more un-American than wanting Obama to fail — Democrats rooting for the United States to fail in the war on terrorism, for example. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in April 2007, “This war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything”; and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced to the world that we had lost in Iraq, and we should bring the troops home in defeat, empowering our enemies to kill more American soldiers.

Why did they make these inflammatory statements?

They did so for selfish reasons. Undermining the war effort and dividing the nation provided them with an opportunity to win more seats in the House and Senate and win back the White House.

That is far more un-American than anything anyone has said about Obama.

The truth is, nobody hopes Obama fails; but many of us are rooting for America's survival as a free and prosperous nation and that means blocking Obama's agenda everywhere we can.

What is striking about this is that while Obama has declared war on his fellow Americans at home, he is attempting to establish friendly relations with some of the worst people in the world — anti-American dictators and self proclaimed enemies of the United States.

Perhaps voters should have noticed when so many of our nation's enemies were supporting Obama during the presidential campaign. Hamas leaders endorsed him, as did Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Cuba's Fidel Castro, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and others.

Obama says he wants talks with the Iranian leader and even the terrorist group Hamas, while savaging patriotic Americans.

“I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak,” Obama said in his weekly radio address.

He's right — we are gearing up for a fight.

I am not ready to surrender the greatest nation in the history of the world to tim pan tyrant who never outgrew his adolescent communist stage.

“The old way of doing business” as Obama puts it, is the American way, and it has lead to more prosperity than any other “way” and provided more opportunity and economic freedom than the world has ever seen.

That “old way” of limited government and free enterprise however, is an impediment to Obama's aggressive socialist agenda and so he declares that he is going to fight us. Obama is fine with burning the bridge of prosperity behind him because he has his wealth, but he didn't earn it the “old way” — he got his the easy way, by trading favors from his public office for private ones and using his elected office to sell books about himself.

If he had gotten it the hard way, like many of the people he plans to take from, he would have too much respect for their work ethic to take from them their resources to buy votes that increase his power and his lot.

Maybe he should try his “new way” with some of the former Soviet Republics, who in the 1990s, broke free from the chains of tyranny. He would have a hard time selling his views to get them to trade their new economic freedom for his promises of government-sponsored security.

They have been down that road before.

Obama has fired a shot at those of us who oppose his onerous socialistic policies by characterizing our dissent as preparing for battle. he warns us, “My message to them is this: So am I.”

My message to Obama is this — Mr. President why don't you stand up to those who hate America instead of declaring war on those of us who love it?"

How Can It BE?

ABC News has printed a shocking statement relative to Obama's attempt at socialized medicine,

"President Obama’s kicking off his health care reform today in the worst possible way: with a mischaracterization of data.

“The cost of health care now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds," Obama said at the opening of his White House forum on health care reform. The problem: That claim, based on a 2001 survey, is simply unsupportable.

The figure comes from a 2005 Harvard University study saying that 54 percent of bankruptcies in 2001 were caused by health expenses. We reviewed it internally and knocked it down at the time; an academic reviewer did the same in 2006. Recalculating Harvard’s own data, he came up with a far lower figure – 17 percent.

A more recent study by another group, approaching it another way, indicates that in 2007 about eight-tenths of one percent of Americans lived in families that filed for bankruptcy as a result of medical costs. That rings a little less loudly than “one every 30 seconds.”

Excuse me?  Isn't "mischaracterization of data" what we used to call a LIE?

Of course, that would be only as applied to those wascally Wepubwicans.  To chant, "Obama LIED, the economy DIED" is just not done.

I'm reminded of the old idea that 'the King can do no wrong'....therefore, Obama's pronouncements MUST de facto be correct.