Interesting facts from the National Vital Statistics Report for 2011 put out by the Centers for Disease Control.
Suicide by firearm............19,766
Suicide by other means....18,519
Apparently people will kill themselves whether they have a gun or not.
Homicide by firearms...................................11,101 *not sure how many,if any, were in self defense.
Accidental discharge of firearms........................851
Let's see just how deadly all those firearms are when compared to other vicious "killers" shall we?
Drug induced deaths (not suicides)....................................40,239
Alcohol............................................................................26,256
Accidental poisoning........................................................33,554
Motor Vehicle accidents...................................................34,677
Pneumonia.......................................................................52,136
Parkinson's Disease.........................................................23,107
Alzheimer's......................................................................84,691
Leukemia........................................................................22,982
People shouldn't "have" assault weapons because they are deadly. I "have" an AR-15. According to some people this makes me dangerous.
Based on these statistics:
-Any person with alcohol in their home is 2X more dangerous than myself...........................Prohibition worked really well.
-Michael J. Fox is 2X more dangerous because he "has" Parkinson's.....................................Are you trying to ban him?
-Anybody with a car is 3X deadlier than me......................................................................................Do gun-control advocates drive?
-Old people, nearly 8X
-Those bald little kids connected to machines at the Shriner's Hospital (2X)
All are more dangerous simply because of what they "have". Does the argument that it's dangerous simply because I "have" it still stand up?
Hell, more people died in Idaho last year (12,026) than were killed by firearms in the whole country. Idaho doesn't seem nearly as dangerous as Oregon (32,786), Washington (49,692) or California (238,993) though. Looks like Montana (9,117) and Alaska (3,849) are pretty safe places to be....despite all those conservative "gun nuts".
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Friday, December 7, 2012
A Letter from Hobby Lobby Stores CEO
I gotta say I support Hobby Lobby on this one.
A Letter from Hobby Lobby Stores CEO
By David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's word. From there,Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.
We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.
But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.
Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It's not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief.
So, Hobby Lobby and my family are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.
My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that's a choice no American and no American business should have to make.
The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not except Christian organizations including the Catholic church.
Since you will not see this covered in any of the liberal media, pass this on to all your contacts.
Sincerely,
David Green, CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/hobbylobby.asp
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Guardian: No way media can be nicer to Obama
"For the better part of four years, progressive media has had President Barack Obama's back," [Politico reporter Dyland Byers wrote Sunday.]I want to focus on this claim that media progressives will now be "tougher" on Obama, but first, an aside: Hendrik Hertzberg proclaims that they will now be even "more respectful" of Obama than they have been. Short of formally beatifying him, or perhaps transferring all their worldly possessions to him, is that even physically possible?
"Now that he's won re-election, it is faced with a choice: Should the left continue always to play the loyal attack dog against the GOP, blaming the opposition at all hours of the news cycle for intransigence? Or, should it redirect some of that energy on the president, holding him to his promises and encouraging him to be a more outspoken champion of liberal causes?
Study: Drug coverage to vary under health law
WASHINGTON (AP) - A new study says basic prescription drug coverage could vary dramatically from state to state under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
That’s because states get to set benefits for private health plans that will be offered starting in 2014 through new insurance exchanges.
The study out Tuesday from the market analysis firm Avalere Health found that some states will require coverage of virtually all FDA-approved drugs, while others will only require coverage of about half of medications.
Consumers will still have access to essential medications, but some may not have as much choice.
Connecticut, Virginia and Arizona will be among the states with the most generous coverage, while California, Minnesota and North Carolina will be among states with the most limited.
That’s because states get to set benefits for private health plans that will be offered starting in 2014 through new insurance exchanges.
The study out Tuesday from the market analysis firm Avalere Health found that some states will require coverage of virtually all FDA-approved drugs, while others will only require coverage of about half of medications.
Consumers will still have access to essential medications, but some may not have as much choice.
Connecticut, Virginia and Arizona will be among the states with the most generous coverage, while California, Minnesota and North Carolina will be among states with the most limited.
Democrats shrug off Republicans’ ‘fiscal cliff’ counter
House Republican leaders delivered a $2.2 trillion “fiscal cliff” counteroffer to President Obama on Monday that included $800 billion in tax increases, but the White House and congressional Democrats said that still isn’t enough revenue to begin negotiating.
The GOP outline, which came in a letter from House Speaker John A. Boehner and his top lieutenants to Mr. Obama, called for $900 billion in cuts to projected entitlement spending and would also use a lower inflation measure to calculate future Social Security benefits.
Mr. Boehner told reporters he was trying to craft a middle-ground starting point after the White House last week proposed what he called a “la-la-land offer” that asked for $1.6 trillion in new taxes and up to $400 billion in potential spending cuts.
“That couldn’t pass the House, couldn’t pass the Senate and it was basically the president’s budget from last February,” the Ohio Republican said, referring to legislation that was defeated on unanimous votes in both chambers earlier this year.
The Republicans said they could raise taxes $800 billion by ending loopholes for the wealthy rather than raising their income tax rates, but the White House has insisted most of the new money must come from higher rates.
“The Republican letter released today does not meet the test of balance,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said. “Their plan includes nothing new and provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which Medicare savings they would achieve.”
He said Mr. Obama “is willing to compromise” but that won’t happen until Republicans “get serious about asking the wealthiest to pay slightly higher tax rates.”
Both sides are rushing ahead of a year-end deadline to avoid across-the-board tax increases and $110 billion in automatic spending cuts, which have been dubbed the fiscal cliff. Together, they would plunge the country into a short, sharp recession, but would leave it in better fiscal and economic shape over the long run, the Congressional Budget Office said.
Lawmakers, though, want to minimize the pain. All sides want to extend the lower tax rates for most Americans, leaving the chief dispute over what happens to the tax cuts for couples making $250,000 or more a year.
The GOP made a major concession Monday when Mr. Boehner and his top House Republican allies said they would be willing to accept $800 billion in new taxes from those high-income taxpayers.
Republican leaders had said they would be willing to consider revenue but had left it vague whether that money would come from real tax increases or from the economic benefits of expanded growth. On Monday, top congressional aides said it would be real revenue under the definitions of the Congressional Budget Office, which is the official scorekeeper for these matters.
The new stance surprised some key Republicans.
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, head of the Republican Study Committee caucus, said he did not know that House leaders planned to roll out their framework for averting the fiscal cliff.
“My general reaction is the good news is that it is obviously better than the bullet points the president gave, which was ridiculous,” Mr. Jordan said. “The bad news is that it is a tax increase and I am not going to vote for a tax increase because it hurts economic growth.
“If you are going to lower rates and close loopholes and do genuine tax reform, that is one thing because that contributes to economic growth,” he said. “But if you are going to raise taxes through closing loopholes, deductions, that is not economic growth. That is just a different way to raise taxes.”
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and the man who runs the influential no-new-taxes pledge, had urged the Republicans to hold firm in rejecting any tax increase. An ATR spokesman said the group didn’t have enough details Monday to evaluate the plan.
Much of the debate comes down to whether it’s possible to squeeze $800 billion in revenue out of the wealthy through loopholes alone. Mr. Boehner says it is possible, while Mr. Obama and his allies say it isn’t.
Democrats said until Mr. Boehner agrees to rate increases, nothing can be negotiated.
“Republicans are simply digging in their heels by refusing to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share and actually calling for lower tax rates,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said.
The Republican offer comes five days after Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner met with congressional leaders and laid out broad targets that included $1.6 trillion in new tax increases, and hundreds of billions in new stimulus spending and extended benefits for the unemployed.
Mr. Boehner said the last time he talked personally with Mr. Obama was Wednesday, though the two sides hinted they could talk on the sidelines of the White House holiday ball Monday night.
The GOP plan doesn’t lay out specific tax increases or spending cuts but instead gives broad goals to achieve the $2.2 trillion in lower deficits over the next decade: $800 billion in revenue, $600 billion in lower projected health spending, $300 billion from other entitlements, $200 billion by lowering automatic increases in spending and benefits, and another $300 billion from annual discretionary spending.
The Republicans’ offer says nothing about Mr. Obama’s call for more stimulus spending or about his demand that Congress give up its power to control the federal debt ceiling, which Republicans hope to use to keep an upper limit on spending.
• Susan Crabtree contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)