CDC death statistics challenge liberal beliefs

For years, liberals have held that crime was linked to the economy and a person’s socioeconomic status. Although it seems logical that poverty and economic stress could induce people to commit crimes, statistical data observed since the onset of the Great Recession in 2008 challenges the idea.

If there really is a link between poverty and crime, then crime should increase during a major period of economic upheaval such as the Great Recession. The reality, however, is that according to FBI crime statistics, crime rates have actually been falling throughout the past several years.

The release of new cause of death statistical report by the Centers for Disease Control, headquartered in Atlanta, is further confirmation that the link between poverty and crime does not exist. In the new report, homicide is not among the top 15 causes of death in the United States for the first time since 1965. Homicide was replaced as the 15th leading cause of death by “Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids.” In the most recent data for Georgians, Department of Public Health statistics from 1999-2002, homicide was not one of the top ten causes of death.

The declines in crime and homicide are all the more unexpected because of the dramatic increase in gun ownership in the past few years. Gun sales spiked in the weeks and months following Barack Obama’s election victory in November 2008. The trend has not stopped. Atlanta’s 11 Alive reports that, according to the FBI, December 2011 was a record high month for gun sales.

According to a Gallup poll from October 2011, gun ownership is at its highest level in almost 20 years with one in three American adults personally owning a gun. Guns are in almost half of U.S. households. In southern states like Georgia, the gun ownership rate is even higher.

Under prevailing liberal orthodoxy, in a bad economy with gun sales at record high levels, crime rates should be through the roof. As with other liberal beliefs that have recently been discredited, such as the belief that spending is the proper prescription for an ailing economy, it is time to reevaluate the belief that crime is a product of poverty and guns.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/cdc-murder-statistics-challenge-liberal-beliefs

2012 voter guide: Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts. He was the head of Bain Capital, an investment firm that bought troubled companies, and also managed the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. Read a full biography of Romney by the Atlanta Elections Examiner here.

Campaign website: mittromney.com

Supporting PAC: restoreourfuture.com

Ga. website: gaformitt.com

2008 Ga. results: 30.2 percent/third place (RCP)

Latest 2012 Ga. poll: 15 percent/second place (RCP)

Taxes: Mitt Romney would maintain current tax rates on personal income and capital gains. He would eliminate the death, capital gains, interest and dividend taxes for taxpayers with an AGI of under $200,000. He would reduce corporate tax rates to 25 percent (from 35 percent currently) and push for a complete overhaul of the tax system.

Obamacare: Romney favors a repeal of Obamacare.

Energy: Romney would amend regulation to allow expedited approval of resource development projects, including nuclear plants. He would open America’s energy reserves for development, including shale oil and gas. Romney supports the construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the U.S. Romney believes that the government should not be involved in “steering investment toward particular politically favored approaches,” but should limit its funding to basic research.

Life: Romney’s website does not address abortion or other life issues. He is formerly pro-abortion, but says that he had come to believe abortion was immoral before his first presidential run in 2008. His record on abortion is mixed. Romneycare, the Massachusetts health plan, covers abortion, but it did not do so in the original legislation. In a veto message regarding an emergency contraception bill, Romney cited his belief that life begins at fertilization and his support for parental consent laws. (aboutmittromney.com, prolifeprofiles.com, Factcheck.org)

Iran: Mitt Romney wrote in the Wall Street Journal that he would back up American diplomacy with a “very real and very credible military option.” He states explicitly that he will act with U.S. allies to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Immigration: Romney supports the right of states to restrict illegal immigration. He would veto the DREAM Act and opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants. He supports secure borders. (Fox News)

National Security: Romney believes that military spending should be increased to four percent of GDP and would increase the active duty work force by 10,000. He would pursue military, nonmilitary and diplomatic avenues against the jihadists. He believes that the FBI should have the power to wiretap mosques and investigate suspected domestic terrorists. He regrets not having served in the military. (boston.com, 2012.republican-candidates.org)

Spending: Mitt Romney believes that “we have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in.” He would end deficit spending and work toward a balanced budget. He would have the federal government publish a balance sheet each year.

Entitlements: Mitt Romney would reform entitlements as a path toward balancing the federal budget. Romney will not cut benefits for current retirees.

Second Amendment: Romney supported gun control while governor of Massachusetts. He became a life member of the NRA in 2007. He now opposes a nationwide “assault weapons” ban and supports the second amendment as an individual right. (thepoliticalguide.com)

Gay marriage: Mitt Romney opposes gay marriage, but has stated his opposition to discrimination against homosexuals in the past. (LA Times)

Where possible, the positions of the candidate were taken from the campaign websites cited above. When this was not possible, the source of the information presented is cited in parentheses and linked.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/2012-voter-guide-mitt-romney

2012 voter guide: Ron Paul

Ron Paul is a Republican representative from Texas in his third presidential run. He is a medical doctor who has a private practice as an obstetrician. Read a full biography of Ron Paul by the Atlanta Elections Examiner here.

Campaign website: ronpaul2012.com

Supporting PAC: revolutionpac.com

Georgia website: ga4ronpaul.com

Georgia 2008 results: 2.9 percent/fourth place (Real Clear Politics)

Latest 2012 Georgia poll results: 5.0 percent/third place (Real Clear Politics)

Taxes: Paul supports a constitutional amendment to end the income and death taxes. He would also repeal the capital gains tax. He supports a flat tax or the Fair Tax as a replacement for the current tax system. He believes that a zero percent tax rate can be achieved with cuts in spending. Paul would abolish the Federal Reserve and establish a new gold standard.

Obamacare: Ron Paul would repeal Obamacare and enact a tax credit for health insurance premiums and medical expenses. He would allow the sale of health insurance across state lines. Paul favors health savings accounts and tort reform. He opposes a taxpayer-funded national database of health records and the government “interfering with Americans’ knowledge of and access to dietary supplements and alternative treatments.”

Energy: Ron Paul opposes federal interference in the energy markets and cap-and-trade. He would repeal the federal gasoline tax and ease government restrictions on coal and nuclear power. Paul would create tax credits for alternative fuel technologies.

Life: Paul would pass a “We the People Act” to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the issue of abortion to the states. Paul would pass a “Sanctity of Life Act” that would define life as beginning at conception. He opposes taxpayer funding of abortion.

Iran: Ron Paul does not believe that Iran threatens U.S. national security (ABC News).

Immigration: Ron Paul supports secure borders, while opposing amnesty and REAL ID laws. He supports an end to birthright citizenship and opposes government benefits for illegal immigrants.

National Security: Ron Paul opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would avoid future nation-building. He opposes the PATRIOT Act and would end all foreign aid. Paul would “revitalize” the military by eliminating waste in the military budget.

Spending: Ron Paul would refuse to raise the debt ceiling, forcing Congress to live within its means. Paul has proposed $1 trillion in spending cuts. He would eliminate the Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development. He would also abolish the TSA, return most spending to 2006 levels, and cut ten percent of the federal workforce. Paul would take a salary equal to that of the average American in lieu of the president’s current salary of $400,000. (Yahoo)

Entitlements: Ron Paul points out that “entitlements are not rights.” (Washington Post)

Second Amendment: Ron Paul believes that the second amendment is the “guardian of every other right.” He would repeal the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. He would end U.S. membership in the U.N. “to ensure American tax dollars are not used to fund global gun control schemes like the so-called ‘Small Arms Treaty.’”

Gay marriage: Paul opposes federal efforts to redefine marriage, but opposes a federal marriage amendment. Paul voted to end Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell. (Yahoo)

Where possible, the positions of the candidate were taken from the campaign websites cited above. When this was not possible, the source of the information presented is cited in parentheses and linked.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/2012-voter-guide-ron-paul

Prominent Creationist to speak in Atlanta

Kenneth Samples, a senior researcher at Reasons to Believe, a ministry that uses science to defend the Bible and Christianity, will have two speaking engagements in the Atlanta area later this month.
Samples will appear at Christ Fellowship Church in Carrollton, Ga. on Tuesday, January 24 at 7:00 p.m.  The topic will be "Is Jesus a Man, Myth, Madman, Menace, Mystic, Martian, or the Messiah?"  For more information, call the church office at 770-834-1772.

The following night, Wednesday, January 25, at 6:30 p.m., Samples will speak on "Blaise Pascal and the Wager" at Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in Marietta.  The church phone number is 770-973-6561.

Kenneth Samples is the author of "Without a Doubt" and "A World of Difference."  He cohosted the "Bible Answer Man" radio show and takes part in number of RTB podcasts.  He has also contributed to a number of other books, including the UFO book, "Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men."  Samples has undergraduate degrees in philosophy and social science and an MA in theological studies.

Reasons to Believe is a ministry started by Dr. Hugh Ross, a physicist and astronomer, who, according to reasons.org, "studied the world’s religions and 'holy books' and found only one book that proved scientifically and historically accurate: the Bible."

The mission of Reasons to Believe is to demonstrate that "sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature." 

Read this article on Examiner.com:http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/prominent-creation-apologist-to-speak-atlanta-area

Obama’s imperial presidency

During the Bush presidency, the president was often accused by the left of acting unilaterally as an “imperial president.” It was charged that President Bush often ignored the will of the people and flouted the law with signing statements, acting more like a king than a president.

While the term has rarely been applied to President Obama, the current president’s actions have often been deserving of it. One of the most egregious examples of President Obama’s disregard for the rule of law and the Constitution was his decision to appoint three new members to the National Labor Relations Board and a head to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau last week. Obama styled the appointments as recess appointments although neither the House nor the Senate was in recess.

Article II section 2 clause 3 of the Constitution gives the president the power to fill vacancies that occur while the Senate is in recess. These recess appointments escape the immediate need to be confirmed by the Senate, but expire at the end of the next session of Congress.

Article I section 5 clause 4 states that neither house of Congress can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other. This is done by passing a resolution in both the House and the Senate. In this case, there is no disagreement that Congress was not formally recessed since neither the House nor the Senate had passed a resolution to end the session.

President Obama’s claim is that since Congress was not conducting business, he met the constitutional requirement. In the New York Times, White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler said that “the Senate is functionally in recess,” even though neither house had passed a resolution to end the session as required by the Constitution. In fact, Congress acted on the president’s payroll tax bill only a few days before Christmas and had considered other legislation as well.

The recess appointments were a reaction to the failure of the Senate to confirm a number of Mr. Obama’s nominees including Richard Cordray, the nominee to lead the new consumer protection bureau. Republicans had filibustered Cordray’s nomination last month over opposition to the lack of oversight of the new agency. It is worth noting that President Bush declined to make recess appointments while Congress was in session even though Democrats had filibustered a large number of his nominees as well.

President Bush also took criticism for launching the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he did so with congressional approval in both cases. In contrast, President Obama not only launched his Libyan war without consulting Congress, but he also claimed that the War Powers Act, which requires authorization from Congress when U.S. troops are in combat for more than 60 days, did not apply.

In the past, President Obama has also ignored Congress and the legislative process on other issues as well. A year ago the Atlanta Conservative Examiner detailed how two of President Obama’s agency heads bypassed Congress. The FCC enacted net neutrality rules as administrative law after a federal court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to regulate the internet. At about the same time, the EPA began regulating carbon emissions in the same manner after Congress failed to pass a cap-and-trade law.

There have been other legislative power grabs by President Obama and his regulatory heads as well. In a well-known case, the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against Boeing because the aircraft manufacturer, which is unionized at its Washington State plants, planned to build a new factory in South Carolina, which is a right-to-work state. The complaint alleged that Boeing was illegally retaliating for strikes by workers in the Washington factories. There is no law preventing unionized companies from opening new locations in right-to-work states. The NLRB and the union withdrew the complaint last month after Boeing’s union workers approved a new contract.

In one case, the Obama administration’s disregard for the law played into the hands of its opponents. After the passage of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, the Department of Health and Human Services began issuing waivers that allowed favored companies and unions to keep their current health care plans until 2014. According to The Hill, over 1,200 organizations received the waivers. The large numbers of groups requesting waivers allowed Republicans to claim that the health care law was expensive and unworkable.

The problem is the ACA did not authorize the government to grant waivers or deviations from the new health insurance requirements. According to the Daily Caller, the Department of Health and Human Services granted itself the waiver authority in an apparent violation of the law. The article cites Heritage Foundation health policy expert Edmund Haisimaier who noted, “I count twenty-one other sections of PPACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] in which Congress did grant HHS explicit, new waiver authority with respect to specific provisions. Thus, it is reasonable to presume that if Congress had intended the department to institute a waiver process as part of its implementation of this particular provision, Congress would have said so in the statute.”

Another recent revelation from the Obama White House is reminiscent of Marie Antoinette’s “let them eat cake” moment from the French Revolution. According to a new book, “The Obamas” by New York Times correspondent Jodi Kantor, during the height of the Great Recession in 2009, the Obamas threw a star studded Halloween party. The N.Y. Post reports that the party, put on by Johnny Depp and Tim Burton, coincided with the release of Burton’s film adaptation of “Alice in Wonderland.” In addition to Depp’s Mad Hatter, the party also featured George Lucas’s emissary, the original Chewbacca, mingling with guests. The party was apparently covered up by the White House amid concerns about how it would look amid a time of recession and high unemployment.

President Obama’s tenure has resulted in unprecedented expansion of the powers of the executive branch. His overreach should alarm liberals as well as conservatives because it is likely that his practices will be continued by future presidents of both parties. Americans have a right to expect better of a former professor of constitutional law.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/obama-s-imperial-presidency

Obama’s green war on jobs and energy

In spite of acknowledging the need to wean the United States off of Middle Eastern oil, the Obama Administration, prompted by core supporters in the environmental lobby, is waging a job-killing war against two projects that would help the economy, produce jobs for Americans, and, perhaps most importantly, reduce our dependence on oil imported from unfriendly foreign countries.

The first issue is the EPA’s proposed regulation of fracking. “Fracking” is a slang term for hydraulic fracturing, the process of injecting fluids, primarily water, into rocks to create larger fissures. The larger fissures allow more oil or natural gas to flow into the well. The process makes it possible to tap into previously unreachable oil and natural gas reserves. The debate on fracking centers on the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania and Ohio and the Dakota oil and gas fields. Fracking has also been used safely in Texas since the 1950s.

Opponents of fracking are concerned about the impact on air and water quality. Opponents will likely be heartened by the recent release of an EPA report that suggests that fracking may contaminate groundwater. The Wall Street Journal notes that the report, which has not been peer reviewed, admits that chemicals detected in the water in Pavilion, Wy., where the tests were done, are within acceptable limits. Further, the problematic chemical detected is not used in fracking at all, but is a common fire retardant used in plastic components for drinking water wells. This leads many to believe that the contamination is not from fracking at all.

The decision on whether to allow fracking in the Marcellus Shale is important because of the size of the field. It contains an estimated 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The amount recoverable, estimated at about ten percent of the total, is almost equal to two years of natural gas production for the entire rest of the country. As technology advances, more oil and gas that was previously unreachable can be recovered.

Allowing fracking would not only create jobs in the natural gas and oil industries, it would be a boon to the rest of the economy in the form of cheaper energy costs as well. When energy costs go down, manufacturing costs decrease as well. This makes American products more competitive and helps American businesses grow.

The second project that President Obama’s administration is intentionally delaying is the Keystone oil pipeline. The Keystone pipeline would run from Canada’s Athabasca oil sands in Alberta to American refineries in Texas.

The benefits of the pipeline are easy to see. Most obviously, it would relieve U.S. dependency on Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil and contribute to national energy security. The additional supplies of oil should also help drive down energy costs. Further, TransCanada, the pipeline’s owner, estimates that construction of the pipeline would create 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Other jobs would be created in other industries, such as restaurants and hotels, as well. The effect of lower energy prices would create positive effects across the economy. Total value to the U.S. economy is expected to exceed $20 billion.

The pipeline was proposed in 2008 and approved by Canada’s National Energy Board on March 11, 2010. Since then, the proposal has been winding its way through a labyrinth of state and federal bureaucracies. Almost two years later, no final decision has been made at the federal level.

President Obama had previously announced his intention to delay making a decision on the pipeline until 2013, but a provision in the payroll tax extension bill forces him to make a decision in 60 days, moving up the deadline to late February. Given the enormous economic benefit in a time of economic crisis, why is President Obama delaying the approval of the pipeline?

The answer lies in the makeup of President Obama’s base. Environmental groups that are key supporters of President Obama oppose the pipeline over concerns about global warming, possible groundwater contamination in the event of an oil spill, and basic opposition to any development of the oil sands.

There are problems with this position. One is that if the Keystone pipeline is canceled, the oil sands are still likely to be developed. If the United States does not gain access to this Canadian oil, it will, in all likelihood, go to the Chinese. If the Chinese buy Canadian oil, it will be transported via tankers to China, which is a far less safe mode of transportation than a pipeline.

Even though the United States still imports almost half of the oil that it consumes according to the Energy Information Administration, in 2011 the U.S. became a net exporter of fuel. With additional Canadian oil flowing to U.S. refineries combined with a weakening dollar, U.S. export numbers should continue to improve.

Ironically, Obama’s base is becoming split over the pipeline issue. While environmentalists oppose the project, unions have voiced their support for the pipeline on the grounds that it will create jobs and help the economy. If he decides against the pipeline, President Obama risks losing support to a pro-growth candidate. On the other hand, if he approves the pipeline, environmental activists may support a third party candidate, such as a Green, or stay home.

The interference of President Obama’s EPA with fracking and the president’s long delay in approving the Keystone pipeline are two examples of how President Obama’s commitment to a future green energy system and his environmentalist supporters are hurting the United States today. High energy costs could be somewhat reduced by more oil supplies and more jobs could be created if the president approves these projects.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/obama-s-energy-policies-cost-jobs

ACLU: Ron Paul is more progressive than Obama

Ron Paul supporters claim that Rep. Paul is the only candidate who represents a change from what they see as the almost identical policies of Presidents Obama and Bush. A closer look reveals that just the opposite is true. Not only are the policies of President Obama starkly different from those of President Bush on most issues, but the platform of Rep. Paul is almost identical to that of President Obama in many key areas. A new report card by the American Civil Liberties Union, Liberty Watch 2012, ranks Paul higher than Obama on a host of progressive and anti-war issues.

The area where President Obama and Ron Paul are the most alike is on foreign policy. Both seem to share the conviction that the United States is to blame for many of the world’s problems. Obama said in 2009 that “America has shown arrogance.” In many other statements, he has made clear his belief that the U.S. does not have the moral authority to lead the world. In a similar vein, Ron Paul stated in a 2007 presidential debate on Fox News that the 9/11 attacks were “blowback” from U.S. interference in Middle Eastern politics.

Both Paul and Obama opposed the War on Terror. In 2001, Paul voted for the Authorization to Use Military Force (H.J.R. 64) in Afghanistan, but the next year he voted against the authorization to use force against Iraq (H.J.R. 114). More recently, Paul has called for an end to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and would like to have the U.S. exit from the U.N.

For his part, President Obama also originally supported the war in Afghanistan while opposing the war in Iraq. In 2002, just prior to the congressional vote on Iraq, in a video on CNS News Obama said, “… After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars.  ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.”

A central part of Obama’s 2008 platform was the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. At the end of 2011, the last U.S. troops left Iraq on Obama’s orders. He is currently withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan with the last American soldier scheduled to leave in 2014 according to the New York Times. At the same time, Obama has stepped up drone attacks on terrorists, a policy which Ron Paul has criticized.

On the issue of gay rights, Ron Paul also shares similarities with President Obama. Paul was not in Congress in 1996 when Georgia’s Bob Barr (then a Republican, but now a Libertarian) sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act and President Clinton signed it into law. He did state on Fox News that he opposes a federal marriage amendment on the grounds that marriage is a religious and state issue and that the federal government should not be involved, although he did co-sponsor the Marriage Protection Act, which never became law. Paul was one of only 15 Republicans to vote for the repeal of “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell.”

President Obama has called the Defense of Marriage Act “unconstitutional” and instructed Attorney General Holder not to defend the law against legal challenges. Obama signed the repeal of “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” into law, and under his authority the Pentagon permitted military chaplains to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Hillary Clinton, Obama’s Secretary of State has said that U.S. policy is that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.”

On a number of issues, Ron Paul is even farther to the left than President Obama. President Obama recently rebuffed a petition to legalize marijuana. Ron Paul advocates an end to the drug war, which he claims is rooted in racism. In a 2011 debate on Fox News, Paul also defended the legalization of prostitution. Paul would end all foreign aid. Paul voted against the PATRIOT Act. President Obama reauthorized the law in May 2011.

Ron Paul has criticized President Obama for the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was a senior recruiter and theological leader of al Qaeda. Paul believes that Awlaki should have been given due process, even though he was beyond the reach of the American legal system in Yemen when he was killed in 2011.

Paul is also the only candidate of either party who does not believe that Iran’s nuclear program poses a threat to world peace. On December 30, 2011, Paul told ABC News that “they [the Iranians] don’t threaten our national security,” in spite of the recent revelations of an Iranian plot to plant a bomb in a Washington, D.C. restaurant. President Obama has called a nuclear Iran “unacceptable” and pursued sanctions as a means of isolating that country. Ron Paul calls these sanctions an “act of war.”

Rep. Paul and President Obama travel on two different ideological roads, but they often reach the same destination. Often Paul is farther down the road than Obama. Perhaps that explains why more members of Occupy Atlanta favored Ron Paul than Obama.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

 

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/aclu-ron-paul-is-more-progressive-than-obama