Archive for the GUN CONTROL, CRIMINAL JUSTICE & THE HORRORS OF THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM! Category

THE 2ND AMENDMENT SAVES LIVES

Posted in GUN CONTROL, GUN CONTROL, CRIMINAL JUSTICE & THE HORRORS OF THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM!, ONLINE DEBATE with tags , , on October 5, 2017 by drjgelb

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives

 

 

A. Guns save more lives than they take & prevent more injuries than they inflict.

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defence. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year — or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America” — a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that “only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.”[7]

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as “Saturday Night Specials.”

B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime:

 

* Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home. [9] * Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms.

The results of the study showed:

* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; [10] and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.[11]

* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission… without paying a fee… or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union — having three times received the “Safest State Award.”[12]

* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida’s concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state. [13] FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period — thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. [14]

* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.

1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.

2. And even the 155 “crimes” committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport. [15]

C. Criminals avoid armed citizens:

* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole. [16]

* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed. [17]

* Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms.

Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:

* Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and, * Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%. [18] Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection.

* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando’s rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation. [19]

* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful. [20]

Justice Department study:

* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that “a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun.” [21]

* 74% of felons polled agreed that “one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.”[22] * 57% of felons polled agreed that “criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.” [23]

REFS:


[1] Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,” 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164. Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology. Even those who don’t like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,” Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, “What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…. I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence.” Wolfgang, “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188. Wolfgang says there is no “contrary evidence.” Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls — one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times — that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,” Research in Brief (May 1997). As for Dr. Kleck, readers of his materials may be interested to know that he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate.

[2] According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.

[3] Kleck and Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime,” at 173, 185.

[4]Kleck and Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime,” at 185.

[5]Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,” NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt on the internet. The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study’s authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies — nearly a dozen — are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183.

[6]Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.

[7]George F. Will, “Are We ‘a Nation of Cowards’?,” Newsweek (15 November 1993):93.

[8]Id. at 164, 185.

[9]Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, “Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense,” The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 — a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime.”

[10]One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study’s findings in John R. Lott, Jr., “More Guns, Less Violent Crime,” The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000).

[11]Lott and Mustard, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns.”

[12]Kathleen O’Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, “Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003,” Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at http://www.statestats.com/dang9403.htm. Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989. The company specialises in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states.

[13]Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002). 

14Florida’s murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States,” Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79.

[15]John R. Lott, Jr., “Right to carry would disprove horror stories,” Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003).

[16]Gary Kleck, “Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force,” Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15.

[17]Compare Kleck, “Crime Control,” at 15, and Chief Dwaine L. Wilson, City of Kennesaw Police Department, “Month to Month Statistics: 1991.” (Residential burglary rates from 1981-1991 are based on statistics for the months of March – October.)

[18]Kleck, Point Blank, at 140.

[19]Kleck, “Crime Control,” at 13.

[20]U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31.

[21]U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, “The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,” Research Report (July 1985): 27.

[22]Id.

[23]Id.

Advertisements

THE 2ND AMENDMENT

Posted in CRIME & CORRUPTION, GUN CONTROL, GUN CONTROL, CRIMINAL JUSTICE & THE HORRORS OF THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM!, ONLINE DEBATE with tags , , , on October 5, 2017 by drjgelb

Bill Whittle: Your Second Amendment – A Truth Revolt video.

Tired of listening to Progressives tell you that the Second Amendment only allows people in militias to keep and bear arms? Or that the Founders would have never intended the Second Amendment to apply to modern weapons? In his well watched FIREWALL VIDEO, Bill recounts a remarkable conversation about the precise wording of the Second Amendment and sums up why the document says what it means and means what it says. 

TRANSCRIPT:

YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT

Hi everybody. I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.

Just as a quick public service announcement in these days of increasing lawlessness, Federal encroachment on constitutional limits, and crybaby Progressive whininess in general, I thought I might take a moment to pass out a little rhetorical ammunition to those here from those who, if they can no longer pretend the Second Amendment exists, then at least try to misinterpret it to the best of their ability.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Progressives read this and say that only those people in “a well-regulated militia” have the right to keep and bear arms. Let’s find out why this is utter nonsense, shall we?

Over at the Constitution Society, author J. Neil Schulman conducted a remarkable exercise. He sent the text of the Second Amendment not to a lawyer but to an expert on the English Language: Roy Copperud taught Journalism at USC for 17 years and served on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary. Mirriam Webster’s dictionary frequently cites him as an expert on American English usage.

Paraphrasing their remarkable exchange here, Shulman asked Ciopperud the following questions:

“Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

Copperud replied “The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

Schulman then asked if the right to keep and bear arms was granted by the Constitution, or whether that right preexisted the Constitution.

Copperud: The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

Shulman: ”Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

Copperud: “No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia…The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

Shulman concludes with an example even a Progressive could understand. He sent Mr. Copperud a precisely grammatically identical sentence: “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.” Does that mean, he asked, that only a well-schooled electorate — high school graduates, say — are the only ones with the right to keep and read books? 

To which Mr. Copperud replied, “There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.”

So, what does the Second Amendment actually say, according to an expert on the American usage of the English language?

1. A well-regulated militia is one of the nice things that an armed population can provide, but it’s not the only thing, and it’s not the reason to arm the People.


2. The right to keep and bear arms is reserved to the people, not to the militia. This makes sense because a militia is a group of citizens, who, unlike an army, bring their own weapons with them. That’s why it says the people can not only bear arms — they can keep them. At home. Where they live.


3. The right of the people to be armed is not granted by the Second Amendment. That right is inherent in the People, and the Second Amendment says that the government cannot infringe upon that right.

Finally, you might hear Progressives say, well, that right was written back in the days of flintlock muskets! They never would have approved of such a thing in the days of automatic weapons!

Why not? A flintlock musket was the deadliest weapon available at the time. Why didn’t they limit their definition of “arms” to pointy sticks? They placed no limitations on the numbers of the weapons or their lethality.

And if the second Amendment only applies to flintlock muskets, does that mean your First Amendment right to freedom of speech applies only to what you write on parchment in quill and ink, or as far as the sound of your voice can carry in a town square?

Of course not. Why, that would be ridiculous.

SLAVERY, TERRORISM AND ISLAM: THE HISTORICAL ROOTS AND CONTEMPORARY THREAT – Book by Dr Peter Hammond

Posted in GUN CONTROL, CRIMINAL JUSTICE & THE HORRORS OF THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM!, MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 4, 2016 by drjgelb

 

Credit to Dr Peter Hammond:

539202_10151098469687740_1820751410_n

Islamisation begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse (multicultural) societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.  

     
Here’s how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 3% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving Minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:      
                 United States — Muslim 2%
                  Australia — Muslim 2.5%
                  Canada — Muslim 2.8%
                  Norway — Muslim 2.8%
                  China — Muslim 2.9%
                  Italy — Muslim 2.5%        
       
At 3% to 8%, they begin to proselytise from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
               
                  This is happening in:
               
                  Denmark — Muslim 5%
                  Germany — Muslim 6.7%
                  United Kingdom — Muslim 7.7%
                  Spain — Muslim 8%
                  Thailand — Muslim 7.6%
       
       
From 8% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply.      
    
                 This is occurring in:       
       
                  France — Muslim 12%
                  Philippines — 9%
                  Sweden — Muslim 8%
                  Switzerland — Muslim 8.3%
                  The Netherlands — Muslim 8.5%
                  Trinidad Tobago — Muslim 10.8%  

 
       
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.        
       
When Muslims approach 15% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.

Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:         
       
                  Guyana — Muslim 15%
                  India — Muslim 19.4%
                  Israel — Muslim 16%
                  Kenya — Muslim 18%
                  Russia — Muslim 21%        
       
After reaching 25%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:    
       
                  Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%         
       
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:        
       
                  Bosnia — Muslim 40%
                  Chad — Muslim 53.1%
                  Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%        
       
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non- believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:         
       
                  Albania — Muslim 70%
                  Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
                  Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
                  Sudan — Muslim 70%        
       
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:         
       
                  Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
                  Egypt — Muslim 90%
                  Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
                  Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
                  Iran — Muslim 98%
                  Iraq — Muslim 97%
                  Jordan — Muslim 92%
                  Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
                  Pakistan — Muslim 97%
                  Syria — Muslim 90%
                  Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
                  Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
                  UAE — Muslim 96%        
       
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace.. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:     

    
       
                  Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
                  Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
                  Somalia — Muslim 100%
                  Yemen — Muslim 100%        
       
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.      

 

“Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel”. — Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’        
       
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.       
       
Today’s 2 billion Muslims make up 28% of the world’s population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world’s population by the end of this century.        
       
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: 
“Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat”. 

 

IRAN QUIETLY CHEATS ON USELESS NUCLEAR DEAL

Posted in GUN CONTROL, CRIMINAL JUSTICE & THE HORRORS OF THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM! on July 9, 2016 by drjgelb

The article below is easily missed amongst the deluge of news coming from all directions this weekend but it sounds a warning that, whilst entirely predictable, suggests that the future for …

Source: IRAN QUIETLY CHEATS ON USELESS NUCLEAR DEAL

ANZAC DAY IS 25TH APRIL 2016

Posted in GUN CONTROL, CRIMINAL JUSTICE & THE HORRORS OF THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM!, PERSONAL, PRACTICE, PSYCHIATRY with tags , , , on April 6, 2016 by drjgelb

Anzac Day, 25th April 2016, is a difficult day for many if not most Veterans, especially those whose mental health has been damaged by their military service. Current ADF members whose deployment has caused damage to their mental health may also suffer on or around Anzac Day, even among those not yet diagnosed with a mental health condition. It’s important to know that the day itself is not the only day of increased risk for mental distress, worsened symptoms of mental health disorders & suicide. Many Veterans have reported feeling rising tension & increased unease from the beginning of April or earlier that last until well after Anzac day is over. The “Anzac Day Effect”, as I call it, is actually an example of the well known “Anniversary Reaction”, a peak of distress that commonly occurs on important days such as birthdays, Christmas & wedding anniversaries in the bereaved. In other words, it is normal & expected to be common. What is different, is that this common effect is made more likely and more severe in those Veterans already suffering from a mental disorder like PTSD, where reminders of military service have a more severe impact. Regardless of whether or not you have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, be aware that you and/or your Veteran mates are entering a potentially difficult period and keep an eye out for each other. If you’re worried about yourself or a mate, don’t keep quiet & hope it just passes. Ask yourself or your mate if they’re travelling ok, start a conversation about what you are feeling or about what you’ve read about the tough time that many Veterans go through around Anzac Day. The best medicine for distress around Anzac Day isn’t Alcohol, it’s airing these feelings with trusted people…….Veterans, family, friends or your doctor. Suicide results from hopelessness & involves alcohol 75% of the time. Observing Anzac Day with either no alcohol or by limiting your alcohol intake, together with a willingness to talk and awareness of the increased Anzac Day risks amongst the entire Veteran community, will, not might, save lives. To all Veterans, I wish you a solemn and special Day of remembrance, nostalgia and celebration of our national heroes, past, present & future.

AMERICA CANNOT AFFORD TO DUMP TRUMP

Posted in GUN CONTROL, CRIMINAL JUSTICE & THE HORRORS OF THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM!, ONLINE DEBATE with tags , , , , , , , on March 16, 2016 by drjgelb

 

Thomas Sowell writes in RealClearPolitics this week about the 2 front runners, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. He viciously cans Trump without personally knowing anything about the man and IMHO, is at risk of handing the presidency to what Christopher Hitchens called not the First Family but “The Worst Family”!

081215-cartoon-hillary-trust gap

My Comment to Sowell’s Article:

drjgelb • a few seconds ago

The RNC will fail to remove Donald Trump from being the GOP Nominee despite your attempt to demonise him without having sat down one on one with the man in an open exploration of his aspirations and intent. It is anti-Trump pundits who have failed to analyse the strategies Trump has used to gain $2Billion worth of media exposure for an expenditure of only $10million. Hearing pundits on cable-news today makes me wonder what has happened to taking a deeper look at candidates, speaking to them, interviewing their business partners, investors, friends and others who love & trust a candidate, before dredging every oozing barrel for dirt on the aspirants. Of course past performance is an indicator of future performance BUT it is not the only indicator. Very few people know the private Donald Trump who secretly finds people in dire need due to unfortunate circumstances and puts them back on their feet. Some of these stories have been revealed and indicate that inside the brash, larger than life candidate is a compassionate, generous man, who neither smokes or drinks & who has worked extremely hard in respect of every advantage and opportunity he inherited from his father to emerge with an even larger business empire. Watch Mitt Romney’s great praise for Trump in 2012 and recognise that his recent back stabbing of Trump says far more about Romney’s despicable character than it does about Donald Trump. Trump is an educated, life-experienced patriot who lacks the weasel-words of career politicians. You don’t need a book on politics to know that the job description is best suited to psychopaths……conscienceless, callous disregard for the needs and and feelings of others. Anyone who provides Hillary Clinton with one drop of support has their head deep in the sand. The history of her corrupt character begins in her first job as a lawyer and constantly escalates. Today she’s telling supporters that her handling of Libya cost no American lives……how quickly she’s able to don this mantle of lies and attempt to sweep Benghazi and the tragic deaths of 4 Americans under the carpet. As they say, if you stacked Hillary’s lies one on top of the other, they’d reach the moon and back! Thomas Sowell, do you really want to hand the Democrats another 4yrs of tearing down America?

NETANYAHU PREFERS STAYING HOME TO VISITING OBAMA

Posted in GUN CONTROL, CRIMINAL JUSTICE & THE HORRORS OF THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM!, MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 9, 2016 by drjgelb

1926294_944691332224189_8380835010442326891_oThis article appeared in The Atlantic: 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/benjamin-netanyahu-obama-visit/472806/?utm_source=sfsdsf

 

I felt the need to comment:

 

“Another glib article on U.S.- ISRAELI relations that fails to make any attempt to discuss the genesis of the rift between Netanyahu and Obama in a real-world sense rather than characterising the testy relationship by invoking child-like memes involving arrogance & petulance. Obama flagged his large scale changes in the bilateral relationship whilst campaigning for President, when he said that he wanted to “put more air between America & Israel”, to weaken the relationship, which he clearly felt was too close. Crucially, Obama had intended and did indeed carry out shifting America’s loyalties from Israel to the Palestinians. His feigned ignorance of the history of Israel’s creation, meant that Arab lies were all too often accepted as truth, to the detriment of all Israelis. Obama’s scheming “Irangate” actions saw him begin dialogue with one of the free world’s archenemies at least 2-3yrs prior to anyone knowing & without Congressional or Democratic Party approval. No one considers that Netanyahu continued normal relations with America whilst being betrayed by Obama’s secret efforts to befriend the enemy sworn to Israel’s total destruction. The actual deal struck with Iran and objected to by anyone who understands the science and the facts, further convinced Netanyahu that the temperature of the relationship was ice-cold. Netanyahu, along with a majority of the world’s Jews, were terrified of the deal and remain so today. Israel’s very survival is at risk less than a century since European Jewry came within a hairs breadth of annihilation. Obama is to blame for the Jews’ fear of the future and their rising anxiety. The fuss over settlements has been proven to be a furphy, as development is in fact proceeding only in current Jewish residential areas in the disputed territories. Further Obama Administration behaviour that does nothing to bring Israel close includes:

1. Obama’s insistence on a Two-State Solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict whilst Hamas, Fatah and the Muslim Brotherhood are bound to charters, manifestos & constitutions that commit to the destruction of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants, engenders only distrust and suspicion of his true intent. Foreign Policy pundits observe that the 1967 borders are unsurvivable for Israel, as is the ridiculous notion that 5 million Arabs have a right of return to Israel. Israel has no-one to negotiate with in a reasonable manner.

2) Obama’s deceitful whitewashing of Islam, from the falsehood that Islam means Peace when it actually means “Submission”, to his refusal to admit that ISIS is indeed Islamic and in compliance with Sharia, reveal him to be nothing more than an Apologist for Islam……in fact a promotor of it! His latest falsehood, describing Thomas Jefferson as an admirer of Islam and the existence of Jefferson’s personal copy of the Qur’an as proof of that admiration, is breathtaking and disturbing evidence of Obama’s willingness to dissimulate & obscure from the American people’s view, the true nature of Orthodox Islam.

For Netanyahu, these factors add to the long list of serious concerns that have led him to perceive that Obama is no friend of Israel or the Jews. In that setting, Netanyahu prefers not to continue to face Obama’s Jew/Zionist hatred & would rather devote his time to protecting the Jewish State from its enemies.”

%d bloggers like this: