CaptainKudzu

Speed limits in the sky

2012-01-27T00:14:00.001-05:00

One of the most common questions that non-pilots ask is whether airplanes have to obey a speed limit like cars do. The answer, as with many things in life, is that it depends.

Aircraft operations are governed by the Federal Aviation Regulations, more commonly called the FARs. Aircraft speed limits are found in FAR 91.117, which spells out different speed limits for several different situations.

A common speed limit encountered by all airplanes is the restriction to fly at 250 knots (288 mph) or less when under an altitude of 10,000 feet. The vast majority of light general aviation airplanes cannot fly faster than 250 knots and most never go above 10,000 feet, but after every takeoff and before every landing jet pilots must make sure that they obey the speed limit. Above 10,000 feet, jets typically fly at faster airspeeds during cruise flight.

A second speed limit applies below 2,500 feet within four nautical miles of “of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area.” Class C or D airports are small to medium-sized airports with a control tower. If an airport has airline service, chances are good that it is a Class C or D airport. Many busy general aviation airports fall within these categories as well. The speed limit for these areas is 200 knots (230 mph).

A speed limit also applies beneath Class B airspace. Class B airspace surrounds major metropolitan airports in places like New York, Atlanta, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Class B airspace starts at the surface immediately surrounding the airport then goes higher as the distance from the airport increases. It is commonly described as an “upside down wedding cake.” When flying underneath the outer rings of Class B airspace, aircraft are restricted to 200 knots (230 mph). Aircraft flying through the Class B airspace, like airliners taking off and landing at the main airport, are not subject to the speed limit, but they do have to abide by the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000 feet.

A common misconception even among experienced pilots is that Class B airspace does not have a specific speed limit. Aircraft flying through the Class B airspace, like airliners taking off and landing at the main airport, are not subject to the speed limit, but they do have to abide by the 250 knot speed limit while they are below 10,000 feet.

Class B airspace typically extends from the surface to 10,000 but in some cases it goes higher. For example, in Atlanta the ceiling of the Class B airspace extends up to 12,500 feet. In Denver, where the airport elevation is 5,348 feet, the ceiling of the Class B airspace is 12,000 feet. If an aircraft is descending into the Class B airspace from above, there is no speed limit when it enters the Class B. It can maintain a higher cruising speed until it descends below 10,000 feet.

Outside of these specific instances, airplanes have a limiting “never exceed” speed. This is a speed that is determined by the aircraft manufacturer and is the maximum safe speed for the aircraft to fly. Above the never exceed speed, the aircraft may not be structurally sound, especially in turbulence or if maneuvered abruptly.

Other than these cases, pilots are free to fly their airplanes as fast as they will go and they usually do. At least until the air traffic controllers make them slow down for other traffic.

This article was first published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/aviation-in-national/speed-limits-the-sky

Romney is more charitable than most, tax returns show

2012-01-26T10:10:00.001-05:00

When Mitt Romney released his tax returns earlier this week, most of the attention was on the tax rate that he paid on his income. Romney paid less than 15 percent of his income in taxes due to the fact that his money comes from capital gains and dividends rather than from a salary, but he still pays a higher rate than most Americans.

The real surprise in Romney’s tax return is that the Republican presidential candidate is more charitable than most Americans. The Wall Street Journal states that Romney gave 13.8 percent of his income to charity in 2010 and more than 19 percent in 2011. This means that Mitt Romney is giving more to private charities than he is giving to the federal government.

In dollars, Mitt and his wife, Ann, earned $21.7 million in 2010 and $21 million in 2011 according to an analysis by CNN. They paid $3 million in taxes in 2010 and $3.2 million in 2011. They donated $2.9 million to charity in 2010 and $4 million in 2011 according to the WSJ figures.

In comparison, the Journal notes that Barack and Michelle Obama gave 13.6 percent of their income to charity in 2010. This was a marked increase from previous years. Between 2005 and 2009, the Obamas gave between 4.6 and 6.2 percent to charity. Before Obama became a national political figure, the rate was much lower, between 0.4 and 1.4 percent.

In another incident last week, Romney put his wallet where his mouth was. On January 14, ABC News reported that an unemployed woman asked Romney for money while he was meeting voters in South Carolina. Romney pulled out his wallet and gave the woman “a wad of cash,” later estimated to be about $50-60. Romney also introduced the woman to Nikki Haley, governor of South Carolina, and the state treasurer, Curtis Loftis. Loftis reportedly gave the woman $150 to pay her light bill. The woman, Ruth Williams, told ABC that God directed her to Romney’s campaign bus and told her to follow it. She has reportedly been volunteering for the Romney campaign since meeting the candidate.

The Washington Post reported that the Romney’s action was not filmed, but was witnessed by an ABC News print reporter who later interviewed Williams. The Post writes, “There was no indication that Romney’s cash gift was calculated or anything more than a spontaneous reaction to one woman’s story of personal struggles.”

Contrast this with President Obama’s reaction when Henrietta Hughes asked him for help at a rally in February 2011 being filmed by Fox News. Hughes was unemployed and living in a car and asked for help finding a house. On live television, Obama responded, "We're going to do everything we can to help you, but there are a lot of people like you."

Hughes did get a house. A local NBC affiliate reported that a couple who owned a vacant rental house had donated its use to Hughes and her family “for as long as she needs it.” The house belonged to Nicholas and Chene Thompson. Nick Thompson is a state representative. They are Republicans. There is no evidence that Obama or his staff ever followed up with Hughes.

These figures may be surprising, but they are not atypical. The 2006 book, “Who Really Cares,” examined giving trends in America. Its author, Arthur Brooks, found that on average conservatives gave more to charity even though liberals typically earned more. This may be partly due to the fact that conservatives tend to be more religious and both Christianity and Judaism encourage charity (Proverbs 14:21, 2 Corinthians 9:6-7).

The difference between Obama and Romney underscores the different philosophies of liberals and conservatives. Where liberals believe that it is the role of government to help people like Ruth Williams and Henrietta Hughes, conservatives see it as their personal responsibility. The liberal philosophy is one of waiting on the government for help while conservatism empowers individuals. Obama made vague promises that help was on the way while Romney and Chene Thompson actually worked to make a difference. Conservatives like Mitt Romney believe that charity, like the economy, is better left in the hands of individuals than delegated to government bureaucrats.

It is obvious that many, if not most, conservatives do not deserve their reputation as heartless moneygrubbers. After all, is it really giving when it doesn’t come out of your own wallet?

This article was first published on Examiner.com:

Roe v. Wade and the global war on girls

2012-01-25T06:21:00.001-05:00

In the 39 years since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, abortion has resulted in a holocaust of unborn babies, not just in the United States, but around the world. One of the great ironies of the abortion debate is that what its proponents tout as “a woman’s right to choose” has resulted in a genocide against baby girls in many countries.

The root of the problem is that abortion is being coupled with sex determination techniques in many parts of the world. In many countries, it is considered more desirable to have a boy than a girl. In some cases, they are patriarchal societies with a bias against women. In other cases, the reasons are more practical. Boys can help work the fields and will be better able to care for parents in their old age than a girl who will likely marry and move away from home. Boys are also needed to maintain the family lineage.

Demographer Nicholas Eberstadt wrote in his report, “The Global War Against Baby Girls,” that normal sex ratios favor boys slightly. Typically boys outnumber girls by about 105 to 100. An early German statistician and priest, Johann Peter Sussmilch, speculated that “the Creator’s reasons for ensuring four to five percent more boys than girls are born lie in the fact that it compensates for the higher male losses due to the recklessness of boys, to exhaustion, to dangerous occupations, to war, to seafaring and immigration, thus maintaining the balance between the two sexes so that everyone can find a spouse at the appropriate time for marriage.”

However, in the last Chinese mini-census of one percent of the population, taken in 2005, the sex ratio at birth was 119 to 100. The sex ratio for children up to four years old was even higher, almost 123 to 100. The ratios for rural areas are markedly higher than for towns and cities, which are still elevated above normal levels. The sex ratios tend to decrease as the location becomes more urban.

Although China is well known for its pro-abortion culture and rigid laws preventing large families, the problem extends around the world. Eberstadt notes that abnormal and impossible-under-nature sex ratios are found in many countries around the world. The nations represent all major religious and cultural traditions and almost every continent. Although the United States has a statistically normal sex ratio of 105 according to the Census Bureau, even certain demographic groups within the United States exhibit higher than natural sex ratios. In almost all cases, sex ratios have increased markedly since the 1990s when abortion and sex determination became widely available.

An exact sex ratio at birth statistic for Georgia could not be located, but census data shows that males under five years old outnumber females. There were 346,660 males and 335,654 females under five in Georgia in 2010. This can be extrapolated to determine a sex ratio under five of 103 for Georgia. This is well within the normal range.

Further, Eberstadt cites the World Health Organization’s 2009 Life Tables which reveal that over 60 countries have mortality rates that are higher for age 1-4 girls than for boys. The higher mortality rates are often the result of discrimination and maltreatment of girls and may indicate more areas where the skewed sex ratio is likely to result.

In human terms, the unnatural sex ratio means that millions of baby girls who should have been born never were. Eberstadt estimates that the “girl deficit,” the shortage of females under age 20, can be conservatively estimated at roughly 33 million never-born girls. He also estimates that over 95 percent of these girls were Chinese and Indian.

Tragically, the United States is helping to fuel the diverging birth rates of boys and girls. In 2009, in one of his first acts as president, Barack Obama eliminated the Mexico City Rule prohibiting the U.S. from funding groups that provide abortion services in other countries. The policy was created by President Reagan and reinstituted by George W. Bush after being revoked by Bill Clinton. Under President Obama, American taxpayers are funding abortion, both at home and abroad.

The consequences of the worldwide shortage of girls cannot be stated with certainty. Some believe that since unmarried men are generally less healthy than their married counterparts, larger numbers of unmarried men may not bode well for the health of their societies. Similarly, in countries without adequate pension systems, the rising number of men with no children to support them as they age may lead to increasing instances of poverty. Some economists even believe that as women become more scarce their value will increase, leading to more instances of prostitution, kidnapping, and slavery. A large number of frustrated and single males may also lead to more crime, violence and social instability.

Eberstadt notes that one country, South Korea, has shown elevated sex ratios in the past, but stepped back from the brink. He says that no government policy reversed this trend. Instead, it was “the spontaneous and largely uncoordinated congealing of a mass movement for honoring, protecting, and prizing daughters. In effect, this movement — drawing largely but by no means exclusively on the faith-based community — sparked a national conversation of conscience about the practice of female feticide.”

South Korea’s example illustrates the need for ethics and morality to guide the use of science. When left unchecked, the amoral use of technologies like sex determination and abortion can change the demographics of entire nations and possibly lead to social unrest. Laws are not enough. Eberstadt notes that the Chinese sex ratios are increasingly skewed in spite of the fact that the Chinese government outlawed prenatal sex determination in 1989 and sex selective abortion in 2004.

In the U.S., over 35 million babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. This includes more than 815,000 abortions in Georgia. As in South Korea and China, simply changing the law will not provide a solution. What is needed is a change in our thinking and morality that will help parents to realize that a baby in the womb is a living human and then encourage them to love, honor, and protect the life that they have created.

This article was first published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/roe-wade-and-the-global-war-on-girls

iPads in the cockpit

2012-01-24T20:55:00.001-05:00

The next time you get on an airline flight, don’t be surprised if you see the pilots carrying iPads into the cockpit. Don’t worry. They won’t be planning to catch up their ebook reading or play Angry Birds while enroute. Instead, iPads are replacing paper maps and charts for an increasing number of pilots.

When you see an airline pilot walking through the terminal carrying a rolling suitcase with another smaller bag strapped to its back, it isn’t because he needed more room for his clothes. The smaller bag contains maps, charts, the aircraft flight manual, and company operating procedures. These chart cases often weigh as much as 50 pounds, almost all of which is paper. That is a lot of dead trees.

Now new technology available in the iPad allows all of these maps and books to be contained in one small, lightweight package. The iPad can replace an entire suitcase of books.

IPads have been used by private pilots for years, but were only recently approved for airline use by the FAA. In December 2011, American Airlines became the first of the major airlines to receive FAA approval to replace its paper charts and manuals with iPads. It was quickly followed by United.

IPads are also easier to update than the paper charts they replace. Maps and charts are typically revised every two weeks. Under the old system, pilots were required to thumb through their map binders to find the outdated charts, remove them, and then replace them with the new charts. For companies that fly all over the country or world, this was a time consuming process. Updating outdated pages in the manuals was a similarly lengthy process. With an iPad, updates can be accomplished in a matter of minutes with the push of a button.

Ipads have additional uses for pilots as well. Paperwork can be transmitted via text message or email, rather than carried by hand. When a maintenance problem or broken item is discovered, it may be easier to simply take a picture and send it to the mechanics than describing the problem in detail over the radio. Pilots can obtain weather updates easier with an iPad than through the old process of calling their dispatcher and having him check the weather reports at the destination. This is especially useful when looking at the radar images of a line of thunderstorms. Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words.

Even though many airliners are equipped with in-flight wireless internet, many companies will probably be reluctant to allow their pilots to use the internet in flight. Memories of the Northwest Airlines crew that overflew their destination while looking at a computer are probably still fresh in the minds of many airline policymakers and chief pilots.

Nevertheless, as the internet becomes more ubiquitous and it’s utility to airline flight operations is shown, this will likely change. It would be useful for pilots to have a big picture of weather systems from composite radar rather than relying on the head-on view currently provided by airborne weather radar installed in the airplane even though there is a slight lag in the radar information provided by online weather sites. Airline scheduling departments would also appreciate the ability to notify crewmembers of schedule changes while the airplane is still in flight (although crewmembers might not be so appreciative).

Ipads and similar devices are the future of aviation charts and manuals. The possibilities are limited only by the imaginations of pilots and programmers. With the FAA already considering whether to allow mobile phones to be used in flight, in the not-too-distant future flight crews may never have to put their iPads into airplane mode.

This article was originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/aviation-in-national/ipads-the-cockpit

Occupy Atlanta back in Woodruff Park

2012-01-23T10:32:00.001-05:00

Four months after Atlanta police evicted Occupy Atlanta protesters from Woodruff Park, they are back. With apparently little to no fanfare, a small number of Occupiers and less than ten tents have again taken up residence the downtown Atlanta park.

The new encampment is a far cry from the group that was evicted in October. In mid-October, the activists had set up a thriving hamlet within the confines of what they called “Troy Davis Park” in a nod to the convicted cop-killer who was executed by Georgia in September. At that time, the activists in the park easily numbered more than 100 and scores of tents filled the park. There was a “free store,” a medical tent, and a “free child care” tent. Signs proclaiming “we are the 99 percent” littered the grounds of the park. Visitors were welcomed at tables under a large canopy. The sound of drums permeated the air and protesters marched up and down the sidewalks at intervals. (View photos from the October occupation here.)

In contrast, the new encampment consists of only a handful of tents and three visible occupiers, all men. Two occupiers talked while another played with his dog on the grass. The only sign in evidence, other than scribbled notes on the tents, was one with a rambling message about a “Jewish rebel,” an apparent attempt to link the encampment to Jesus Christ.

One of the occupiers said that he had been a protester during the Vietnam War. The man said that he believed that the U.S. did “need to be in Afghanistan,” but offered his belief that that the City of Atlanta discriminated on the basis of economic status as justification for the presence of the protesters.

As justification for this belief, he said that an Atlanta police officer allegedly arrested him for jaywalking while he was dressed shabbily and had his long hair down. He said that he later did the same thing in front of the same police officer while wearing business clothes with his hair tucked under a hat. On that occasion, he said the officer simply waved at him.

The man said that he had been camping in the park for several months although he did not live there full time because he “like[s] to be indoors.” He did not offer a specific date for when the protesters returned to the park after the Mayor Kasim Reed had them evicted in October. He did say that the current group was very different from the idealists who inhabited the park in the fall. He said that fights now occurred frequently. In October, both police and protesters said that there was no trouble from the Occupiers.

A downtown ambassador wasn’t sure how long the Occupy Atlanta encampment had been back either. He confirmed that the new group was not as peaceful as the original encampment. According to the ambassador, 80 to 90 percent of the new Occupiers were homeless people who spend their time in the park drinking. This often leads to violence. The larger encampment in October prohibited the use of alcohol and drugs. The ambassador did not know if the mayor plans to order the new Occupiers evicted from the park as well.

A spokesman for the mayor was not aware that Occupy Atlanta was camping in the park again. He stated that the group was allowed to be in the park until it closes at 11:00 p.m., but that no overnight camping is allowed. He planned to have Atlanta police officers investigate.

This article was first published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/occupy-atlanta-back-woodruff-park

Democrats may be behind Ron Paul’s success

2012-01-19T11:42:00.001-05:00

Ron Paul’s surprisingly strong showing in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary is likely due to several factors. One of those factors may be Democrats crossing party lines to vote for him in the primary.

There is some statistical support for this notion from the exit polls in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is an open primary state which allows voters unaffiliated with a party to vote in either primary. Voters could also change their affiliation several months before the primary date in order to vote in the other party’s primary.

One way to tell would be to compare the number of registered Democrats and Republicans in 2008 and 2012. However, a comparison of registered voters, either total or by party, between 2008 and 2012 would be skewed because New Hampshire purged its voter rolls of more than 97,000 voters between the two elections. This is a decline in total voters of about 11 percent.

The Boston Globe reports that the number of registered Republicans actually voting in the N.H. primary was down from 2008 and 2010, even though the number of total voters increased in 2012. According to the Globe, there were 249,655 votes cast with “around 152,000” votes cast by registered Republicans. However, the N.Y. Times elections results show a total of 248,485 votes cast for Republican candidates. This means that around 96,000 votes in the Republican primary were cast by independent or unaffiliated voters for Republican candidates. This is almost 40 percent of the total. Former Democrats might well choose to become independent rather than registering as Republican.

New York Times exit polls from New Hampshire seem back up the hypotheses that many of Ron Paul’s votes came from people that typically would not vote Republican. Jon Huntsman won the most votes from self-described Democrats (40 percent), but Ron Paul won the most independents (31 percent). Paul also won younger voters (46 percent) and lower income voters (31 percent). Paul also took 47 percent of the voters who claim no religious affiliation. These categories of voters typically lean Democrat.

CNN exit polls from Iowa show similar findings. Paul won handily among young and low income voters. He also won 40 percent of moderate and liberal voters. Iowa does not allow Democrats to caucus with Republicans, but Paul won the most independents (43 percent).

There are several possible reasons for Paul’s strong showing among Democratic cohorts. One possibility is that dissatisfaction with President Obama is driving Democrats out of their party. This theory is borne out by a Gallup poll from 2011 that shows identification with the Democratic Party is trending down.

If Democrats left their party to support a Republican, Ron Paul would be a logical choice. According to the ACLU, Ron Paul is more “progressive” than President Obama on a host of civil liberties and anti-war issues. There is even a website, BlueRepublican.org, dedicated to “joining the Republican party for one year to help Ron Paul.”

Similarly, Paul may be benefitting from an influx of Occupy Wall Street voters and campus radicals who are unhappy with Obama. Last summer, several of the Occupy Atlanta members reported that they were considering Ron Paul. Other reports throughout the OWS movement revealed anger at Obama for his support of corporate bailouts and his failure to swiftly end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

Another possibility is that Democrats are crossing party lines to sabotage the Republicans. With President Obama running unopposed in the Democratic primary, there is little incentive for Democrats to go to the polls on his behalf. Democrats might be tempted to vote for the Republican least likely to win the general election. Ron Paul would likely meet these criteria, with a number of fringe positions and extremist followers.

As the Republican race continues, more will be learned about Ron Paul’s surge. If Democratic voters are turning out to vote for him in large numbers, he will likely do well in the states with open Republican primaries. Many of these voters will ultimately vote for President Obama or a third party candidate in the general election when Paul fails to become the GOP candidate.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/democrats-may-be-behind-ron-paul-s-suprising-success

Citation Ten makes first flight

2012-01-18T07:58:00.001-05:00

Cessna Aircraft announced the first flight of its new Citation Ten business jet on January 17. The Ten is the prototype of the follow-on to Cessna’s popular and successful Citation X, the fastest commercial jet in production, which first flew in 1990.

According to previous press releases on the Cessna website, the Ten will feature a larger cabin, new G5000 avionics by Garmin, autothrottles, a new electrical system, and a new fiber-optic cabin management system that will undoubtedly include wireless internet. The most obvious change to most observers is the addition of winglets.

The new Ten will be faster than the old X, which cruised at a maximum of 0.92 Mach, 92 percent of the speed of sound. New Rolls-Royce AE 3007C2 engines give more power at greater fuel efficiency. This translates into better time to climb and faster cruise speeds as well as increased range. Cessna estimates the top speed at 527 knots (606 mph) and a range of 3,242 nautical miles (3,728 miles).

Cessna plans to certify the Citation Ten with the FAA next year. Deliveries are scheduled to begin in the second half of 2013.

CaptainKudzu is now the Aviation Examiner on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/aviation-in-national/citation-ten-makes-first-flight

2012 voter guide: Rick Perry

2012-01-17T12:44:00.001-05:00

Campaign Website: RickPerry.org
Supporting PAC: makeusgreatagain.com
Ga. Website: Georgians for Rick Perry on Facebook

Rick Perry is the governor of Texas. Read a full biography of Rick Perry by the Atlanta Conservative Examiner here.

Taxes: Perry favors an optional 20 percent flat tax that can be filled out on a postcard. He would eliminate the capital gains and death taxes, as well as the tax on Social Security benefits. He would reduce the corporate tax rate to 20 percent and tax repatriated profits at a reduced rate.

Economy: Perry would help encourage growth by reducing federal regulation and taxes. He believes that his energy plan would create millions of new jobs.

Obamacare: Perry would repeal Obamacare.

Energy: Perry would open up federal lands to exploration and streamline the permitting process for oil drilling. He would eliminate many of the Obama Administration’s EPA regulations and return environmental authority to the states. He would remove federal subsidies and loans for politically favored companies. Perry favors eliminating the Department of Energy.

Life: Rick Perry is pro-life and has a record of passing pro-life legislation.

Iran: Rick Perry believes that a nuclear-armed Iran is threat to the U.S. He believes that the U.S. should act with its allies to revisit the options for dealing with Iran that President Obama has taken off the table, including tougher sanctions and a military strike.

Immigration: Perry supports secure borders and would deploy the National Guard to border areas. He supports expedited construction of border fencing.
National Security: Perry believes that a strong economy is vital to national security. He believes that the proposed Obama Administration cuts to the defense budget are irresponsible. (CBS News)

Spending: Perry would cap federal spending at 18 percent of GDP and reduce non-defense discretionary spending by $100 billion in the first year. He favors a balanced budget amendment that does not raise taxes.

Entitlements: Perry favors the reform of Social Security and Medicare.

Second Amendment: Perry believes that the second amendment is an individual right and supports the right to carry.

Gay Marriage: Perry supports traditional marriage and a federal marriage amendment.

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-rick-perry

Why did God allow Tebow, Bachmann to fail?

2012-01-16T20:19:00.001-05:00

It is seemingly a bad year for God and his followers. Outspoken Christian Tim Tebow and his Denver Broncos suffered a blowout loss in the NFL playoffs at the hands of the New England Patriots. Of the three Republican candidates who claim that God told them to run for president, two (Michelle Bachmann and Georgia native Herman Cain) have already withdrawn from the race and the last (Rick Perry) is on the ropes.

Why would God put some of his most high-profile followers in the position to suffer such humiliating defeats? Why would God tell three different candidates to run for office in the same election? Is God hedging his bets?

Questions similar to these are not new. Believers have wrestled with the question of why bad things happen to good people at least since the Old Testament days of Job and probably earlier. Job was tormented by Satan, who that took all his worldly possessions, killed his family, and left Job with painful illnesses.

In response to Job’s questioning, God answers that he is the sovereign ruler of the universe and does not answer to men. Essentially, humans with limited knowledge cannot hope to understand why God chooses to do what he does.

Nevertheless, it is tempting to speculate on the possibilities. One obvious answer is that God may not have instructed the candidates at all. It is possible that one or more may have misinterpreted his message. Atheists would probably default to this argument since they don’t believe that God is real. Therefore, any presumed communication from God must be a misunderstanding in their view.

A second possibility is that God’s goal for his people was not what the rest of us think. It is obvious that God’s priorities are not the same as our own. In some cases, God gives instructions to people that are not meant to succeed by the world’s standards. The Old Testament prophet Hosea is one such case.

Hosea was called by God to preach God’s unending love to the people of ancient Israel. During the time of Hosea’s ministry, the ancient Israelites were rejecting God in favor of Canaanite gods such as Baal. God sent Hosea to tell the people that he still loved them, but that they would be punished if they continued to reject him. In the process of spreading God’s message, Hosea entered into an unhappy marriage in which his wife was unfaithful. Her rejection of Hosea became a metaphor for Israel’s rejection of God. Hosea never had a single convert throughout his ministry, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he was a failure since he fulfilled the role that God had for him.

Maybe Tim Tebow isn’t a failure because he failed to win the Super Bowl. Maybe Tebow is a success because he honors God and sets a good example. Maybe Tebow is a success because he lives the words of the Apostle Paul who said, ”Whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Colossians 3:17). It is much more difficult to be a good loser than a good winner.

Perhaps Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Rick Perry had a purpose for being in the presidential race that did not involve becoming president. Perhaps they added a dimension to the race that would not have existed otherwise. Cain’s 9-9-9 plan changed the debate by introducing the idea of sweeping tax reforms that would change the entire structure of the American tax system. Other candidates responded to his proposal with their own reform ideas. Maybe that’s why he was there.

Perhaps, the failures of Tebow, Bachmann and the others affected something or someone in a way that will not be known for years, if ever. Like the Butterfly Effect, a small and seemingly insignificant event can lead to cataclysmic events in the future. Perhaps, their failures now prepare them, or someone that they touched, for future success.

In Herman Cain’s case, God may have led him to run for president in order to deal with Cain’s secret sins. God does not allow sin to persist in a believer’s life indefinitely. God disciplines his people when do wrong (Revelation 3:19). As Jesus said, “Nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light” (Luke 8:17).

One thing that is evident from the failures of Tebow, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry is that belief in God and following God’s commands is not an easy thing. Contrary to charges from atheists that belief in God is intellectually lazy, they illustrated the principle of John 16:33 in which Jesus told his followers, “In this world you will have trouble.” Failure and problems are not a possibility; they are a certainty, even for believers.

The last part of the verse is what makes all the difference. Jesus concluded by saying, “But take heart! I have overcome the world.” The God who created the universe holds the earth and its occupants in his care and has our best interests at heart (Jeremiah 29:11, John 14:27).

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/why-did-god-allow-tebow-bachmann-to-fail

What to expect from the Obama birth certificate hearing

2012-01-16T01:00:00.001-05:00

Earlier this month, a Georgia judge set the stage for a confrontation between President Obama and attorneys representing the birther movement. In the case, David Weldon, a Georgia citizen, had filed a complaint questioning the legality of Obama’s placement on the ballot due to their belief that he is allegedly not a “natural born citizen.” A Georgia judge refused a request by Obama’s lawyers to dismiss the case and set January 26 as the date for a hearing.

As illustrated by the comments on a recent Examiner.com article, many birthers believe that this case will result in the dismissal of President Obama and the rescission of all the legislation and executive orders of the past three years. They should disabuse themselves of such foolish notions.

Article II of the Constitution makes only three requirements for eligibility of a president. First, a president must be a “natural born citizen.” Second, he must be 35 years old. Lastly, he must have been a resident of the U.S. for 14 years.

The Constitution does not define what a “natural born citizen” is, but the evidence is that Barack Obama is one. Although he had released a short form birth certificate in 2008, in 2011 Obama released his long form birth certificate that shows that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became America’s 50^th state on August 21, 1959. Therefore, Barack Obama is a “natural born citizen” by virtue of the fact that he was born in the United States and “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (14^th amendment).

There is other circumstantial evidence to support the information on the birth certificate as well. Obama’s birth announcement was in not one but two Honolulu newspapers in 1961, the Sunday Advertiser and the Star Bulletin. A Honolulu obstetrician actually remembers discussing the birth of Obama according to Snopes. The combination of a Stanley giving birth (Obama’s mother’s name), the first black student at the University of Hawaii, and the “musical name” of Barack Hussein Obama apparently made the birth memorable.

On the other hand, the evidence against the birthers is mounting. Several purported Kenyan birth certificates have been proven forgeries. Likewise, claims that Occidental College records showed that Obama, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, was awarded a scholarship for foreign students was revealed to be an email hoax. Occidental has not released his records at all. A claim that Obama’s grandmother said that he was born in Kenya is taken wildly out of context. The full transcript makes it clear that she said that Barack Obama was born in the U.S.

Obama is also a natural born citizen because his mother was a U.S. citizen. In the Wong Kim Ark case (1898) the Supreme Court ruled that the only native-born children excluded from citizenship were those born to foreign diplomats, born on foreign public ships, born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of enemy territory, or to Indian tribes which were excluded from U.S. jurisdiction.

Birthers argue that, because Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen and British subject, Barack Obama is a British citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948. According to FactCheck.org, Obama did indeed hold dual citizenship as a child. After Kenyan independence, however, the Kenyan Constitution prohibited dual citizenship. Dual citizens lose their Kenyan citizenship at age 23 unless they renounce their non-Kenyan citizenship and take an oath of allegiance to Kenya. Obama never did so.

Dual citizenship does not affect Obama’s status as a natural born U.S. citizen. In Afroyin v. Rusk (1967) the Supreme Court ruled that “"Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof." Again, in Vance v. Terraza (1980), the Court ruled that citizenship must be surrendered voluntarily. Barack Obama has never renounced his U.S. citizenship.

Even if Barack Obama were not a natural born citizen, there is no legal remedy for his removal from office at this point. If such a fact were determined prior to the 2008 election, or ideally before his election to the Illinois legislature and the U.S. Senate, he could have been kept off the ballot, but the Constitution makes no provision for removing a president from office because he is ineligible.

According to the Constitution, there are only two ways to remove a president from office. The first and most obvious way is to have him lose his re-election attempt. The second method is impeachment, which is addressed in Article II Section 4.

Grounds for impeachment and removal from office include “Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Being ineligible to hold office is, perhaps ironically, not grounds for impeachment. This is especially true in light of the fact that Obama has no personal knowledge of his birthplace. No one can remember the time and place of their birth.

Even to allege fraud on the part of the president, which is arguably not a “high crime and misdemeanor,” prosecutors would have to prove that Obama had the intent to deceive, not with regard to his radical agenda, but with regard to his birth certificate. Obama can plausibly make the claim that he thought that he was born in Hawaii because his parents told him so and gave him a Hawaiian birth certificate.

Further, in the impeachment process the House of Representatives makes the original finding of guilt, but the Senate has to vote to remove the official from office. Given that the Democrats control the Senate, can anyone seriously believe that they would vote to remove a president of their own party on such as flimsy basis? By the time the Republicans gain control of the Senate, Barack Obama will hopefully be out of office as well.

The Constitution does not give the judiciary the power to remove any elected official from public office. It would therefore be unconstitutional for a judge to exceed his authority and remove President Obama from office. This is a good thing. It would set a terrible precedent for an unelected judge to overrule the will of the people and their electoral college.

Even if President Obama were impeached and removed from office, it would not erase the damage of the past three years. People who believe that all of the Obama-era legislation and executive orders would magically disappear are deluding themselves.

Article I Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that “if any Bill shall not be returned [vetoed] by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law” unless Congress adjourns before the ten days is up. The president does not have to sign a bill for it to become law. Even if President Obama is not eligible, the members of Congress who voted for legislation such as the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and the Dodd-Frank financial reform were eligible to hold office and voted to pass legislation that was legally binding. These bills would have become law even without Obama’s signature.

When the hearing is held in an Atlanta courthouse on January 26, the judge’s hands will be tied. The only question that he is legally entitled to decide is whether Barack Obama is eligible to appear on the ballot for Georgia’s 2012 presidential election. When Obama’s lawyers present the president’s Hawaiian birth certificate, the judge will rule in their favor.

Read this article on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/what-to-expect-from-the-obama-birth-certificate-hearing

2012 voter guide: Jon Huntsman

2012-01-15T23:58:00.001-05:00

Campaign Website: jon2012.com
Supporting PAC: ourdestinypac.com
Ga. Website: Georgia for Jon Huntsman Jr. on Facebook

Jon Huntsman is a former governor of Utah and U.S. ambassador to China. He is an experienced businessman, having served as an officer in his family businesses. Read a full biography of Jon Huntsman by the Atlanta Conservative Examiner here.

Taxes: Huntsman supports a version of the Bowles-Simpson commission’s “zero plan.” He favors a revenue-neutral plan that replaces current individual tax rates with three new rates: 8, 14, and 23 percent. In exchange for lower rates, all tax deductions and credits would be eliminated. Huntsman would reduce the corporate tax rate to 25 percent and eliminate the capital gains and dividends taxes. He would also eliminate taxes on repatriated profits.

Economy: Huntsman proposes regulatory reform that would repeal Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, rein in the EPA, and improve the cost-benefit ratio of future regulation. He supports free trade and would pursue new trade opportunities, especially in the Pacific Rim.

Obamacare: Huntsman favors the repeal of Obamacare.

Energy: Huntsman supports the safe use of fracking and conversion of coal to liquid fuel. He believes that the importation of Canadian oil can help the U.S. reduce its dependency on unfriendly nations. He would remove roadblocks to the development of American natural gas fields. Additionally, Huntsman favors the modernization of the electrical grid with an eye toward the increased use of electric vehicles in the future.

Life: Huntsman is pro-life. He would reinstate the Mexico City policy and veto a budget that funded Planned Parenthood. He opposes most embryonic stem cell research, but would allow the use of discarded embryos. (lifenews.com)

Iran: Huntsman said, “"I cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran. If you want an example of when I would use American force, it would be that." (Politico)
Immigration: Huntsman supports “a pathway out from the shadows” for illegal immigrants. He personally does not like the idea of a border fence, but says that one is necessary. (the politicalguide.com)

National Security: Huntsman believes that the U.S. has made great accomplishments in the war on terror, but that “mission has evolved into an ill-advised counterinsurgency campaign which continues to carry heavy costs in terms of blood and treasure.” He believes that the core of the military needs to be rebuilt after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and continually modernized. He believes that counter-terrorism needs to become more flexible and that preventing WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists should be a primary goal.

Spending: Huntsman favors spending cuts and is favor of a balanced budget amendment. He believes that the current level of debt is a threat to national security. He believes that some defense cuts are necessary as well.

Entitlements: Huntsman favors entitlement reform along the lines of Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal for Medicare, which do not cut benefits for current seniors. He believes that nothing is off the table to reform Social Security, including means testing. (Wall St. Journal, thepoliticalguide.com)
Second Amendment: Huntsman supports gun rights and is viewed positively by the NRA. (2012.republican-candidates.org)

Gay Marriage: Huntsman supported civil unions as a governor of Utah, but he does believe that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman. (thepoliticalguide.com)

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-jon-huntsman

2012 voter guide: Newt Gingrich

2012-01-15T00:32:00.001-05:00

Campaign website: newt.org
Supporting PAC: winningourfuture.com
Ga. website: newt.org/states/georgia

Biography: Gingrich is a former Speaker of the House of Representatives from Georgia. Read his full biography by the Atlanta Conservative Examiner here.

Taxes: Newt Gingrich would make the low Bush-era tax rates permanent. He would also create an optional flat tax with a 15 percent rate. This tax would preserve the home mortgage interest and charitable deductions, as well as establishing a $12,000 standard deduction.
Economy: Gingrich would encourage job creation by repealing cumbersome regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley, the Dodd-Frank finance law, and the Community Reinvestment Act. He would replace the EPA with an “Environmental Solutions Agency” that works closely with local governments. Gingrich would like to break up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to eliminate their implicit government backing.
Obamacare: Newt Gingrich would repeal Obamacare. He favors tax credits, health savings accounts, and the sale of health insurance across state lines. Gingrich would set up a high risk pool to cover sick people who would otherwise be uninsurable. He would prohibit insurance companies from canceling policies or raising rates due to sickness. Gingrich believes that an electronic health records system could prevent fraud. He favors tort reform and government investment in “research for health solutions.” He would reform the FDA to speed new treatments.
Energy: Gingrich favors development of American energy sources including shale oil and offshore drilling. He would finance clean energy research with oil and gas royalties. Gingrich would replace the EPA with an “Environmental Solutions Agency” which would use incentives and cooperation with local governments and industry and consider the economic impact of environmental regulation.
Iran: Gingrich believes that the U.S. should consider a military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear program “as a last recourse, and only as a step toward replacing the regime." (Wall St. Journal)
Immigration: Gingrich favors secure borders. He would reform the immigration process and give precedence to those adhere to the law, but would also create a path to legalize illegal immigrants who have deep ties to the U.S. He would encourage investment and legal immigration. Gingrich would allow noncitizens to earn U.S. citizenship through military service. He believes that English should be the official language.
National Security: Gingrich says, “Military force must be used judiciously and with clear, obtainable objectives understood by Congress.” He would try to understand our enemies and build a grand, unified strategy to fight the terrorists. He would create a plan to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and incentivize math and science education to ensure that the U.S. remains a leader in technology.
Spending: Gingrich presided over the House of Representatives when Congress balanced the budget in the 1990s. He has signed a pledge to “cut, cap, and balance.” (thepoliticalguide.com)
Entitlements: Gingrich has released a comprehensive plan to reform entitlements. He favors allowing young workers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in personal accounts based on a successful program in Chile. He would use block grants to the states to make welfare and Medicaid more efficient. Gingrich’s plan would reduce federal spending by 10 percent GDP when fully implemented. (Forbes)
Second Amendment: Gingrich believes in an individual right to keep and bear arms. He is a Life Member of the NRA and has earned an NRA A+ rating.
Gay Marriage: Gingrich believes that marriage is between a man and a woman and that same-sex marriage is “a temporary aberration that will dissipate.” (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.

2012 voter guide: Rick Santorum

2012-01-14T06:15:00.001-05:00

Rick Santorum recently gained notoriety as the second place winner of the Iowa caucuses. Santorum is a lawyer and former U.S. Senator representing Pennsylvania. Read a full biography of Santorum by the Atlanta Elections Examiner here.

Campaign website: ricksantorum.com

Supporting PAC: Red, White and Blue Fund (rwbfund.com)

Ga. website: fundly.com/georgiaforsantorum

Taxes: Rick Santorum would simplify personal income taxes by establishing two lower rates: 10 and 28 percent. He would reduce corporate taxes to 17.5 percent (from 35 percent) and eliminate the tax on repatriated income. He would eliminate the death tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax. Santorum would also increase a variety of tax credits and deductions.

Economy: Santorum would repeal all Obama-era legislation that costs more than $100 million to implement. He also promises to negotiate five free trade agreements in his first year. Santorum favors tort reform and would approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Santorum also supports an audit of the Federal Reserve and a return to its original charter in which its sole purpose is to manage inflation.

Obamacare: Santorum would repeal Obamacare. He favors health savings accounts and giving Americans the option to purchase low cost, high deductible major medical plans. He would like to increase competition to lower costs, along with allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines. He would give a tax credit for health insurance premiums paid by individuals. Santorum would enact tort reform to cut costs and give Medicare block grants to the states.

Energy: Santorum opposes cap-and-trade and believes that ethanol subsidies should be phased out. He believes that the U.S. needs an “all of the above energy policy that utilizes oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy.” He would remove government roadblocks to domestic oil exploration. (thepoliticalguide.com)

Life: Santorum opposes abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide and human cloning. He supports stem cell research that uses non-controversial methods and does not destroy human embryos. He supports religious freedom and opposes discrimination on the basis of opposition to abortion.

Iran: Santorum would support the Iranian democracy movement and work with Israel to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat, using military force if necessary. He would use sanctions and diplomatic pressure against the Iranian regime. He would work to implement a missile defense system and defend against an EMP attack. He would also put pressure on Hamas and Hezbollah and recall the U.S. ambassador to Syria.

Immigration: Santorum supports comprehensive immigration reform including a border fence and eliminating benefits to illegal immigrants. He does believe that immigrants already in the U.S. must be dealt with separately. Santorum would make English the official U.S. language. (thepoliticalguide.com)

National Security: Santorum favors a missile defense system and protection against EMP attacks. He opposes cuts to the defense budget, but would work to eliminate waste. He cites the need to have U.S. bases around the world in order to fight the War on Terror. While in the Senate, Santorum had a pro-military voting record. (ontheissues.org)

Spending: Santorum would cut $5 trillion in five years and immediately cut non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels. He favors a balanced budget amendment that would cap spending at 18 percent of GDP. He would cut the federal workforce by 10 percent and freeze non-defense salaries for four years. He would reduce foreign aid and his website specifies a number of government programs and subsidies that he would cut or eliminate.

Entitlements: Santorum favors the Paul Ryan plan to reform Medicare while preserving current benefits for seniors. He would reform Social Security to put the program on a sustainable path. He would use block grants to empower the states to find more efficient Medicare and welfare solutions.

Second Amendment: Santorum is a supporter of the individual right to keep and bear arms and has received high ratings from the NRA and other gun groups.

Gay Marriage: Santorum is a supporter of traditional marriage. He also authored the “Workplace Religious Freedom Act” to ensure individuals of all faiths could not be discriminated against while on the job.

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-rick-santorum

Does new law allow for indefinite detention of US citizens?

2012-01-13T21:18:00.001-05:00

Many Americans are concerned about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by Congress in December 2011. Rumors have spread around the internet that the NDAA contains a sweeping assault on civil liberties that includes the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism.

H.R.1540, “the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,” was signed into law by President Obama on December 31, 2011. According to Govtrack.us, the House passed the bill in May 2011 by a vote of 322-96. It passed the Senate in December 86-13.

Both votes were passed by strong bipartisan majorities. The only member of the Georgia House delegation to vote against the bill was Rep. John Lewis. All other Georgia representatives, both Republican and Democrat, voted for the bill, as did both of Georgia’s senators.

The controversy centers on sections of the bill that would purportedly allow the U.S. government to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without trial or even being charged. An alert by the ACLU from November 2011 says, “The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.” The alarmist cry was picked up by conspiracy mongers such as Alex Jones and even mainstream talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh.

If true, the claims would be very disturbing. The right to habeas corpus, which requires the government to give cause or evidence to imprison people, is a fundamental part of American law. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” Imprisoning Americans without evidence would clearly be unconstitutional.

Section 1022 of the bill, “Military custody of foreign a-Qaeda terrorists,” allows the military to “hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” Paragraph (2) specifies that the law covers people who are determined to become a “member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and who “have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States.”

Missed by the alarmists, however, is paragraph (b) of Section 1022. Paragraph (b) (1) explicitly says “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States” [emphasis added]. Paragraph (b) (2) further states that the law “does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States… except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.”

Further, in the preceding section (1021 “Affirmation of the authority of the armed forces of United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the authorization for use of military force”), the authors of the legislation also specifically excluded U.S. citizens from the detention law. Paragraph (e) says, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

When the bill is examined in its entirety, it is clear that the conpiricists and alarmists are wrong. The NDAA does not allow the government to arrest and imprison American citizens without charge. Instead, the law allows the military to hold captured foreign terrorists who are captured abroad while engaging in hostile acts against the United States. In short, the law appears designed to prevent the extension of habeas corpus rights to terrorists who are not U.S. citizens or legal aliens and who are captured outside the United States.

Additionally, the law provides for a waiver in Section 1022 (a) (4). This paragraph allows the president to submit to Congress that a waiver of the requirement to hold the terrorists prisoner is “in the national security interests of the United States.” Therefore, prisoners can be released from military custody by the president if he deems that they are no threat.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/does-new-law-allow-indefinite-detention-of-americans

CDC death statistics challenge liberal beliefs

2012-01-13T10:42:00.001-05:00

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

2012-01-13T09:29:00.001-05:00

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)

Read this article on Examiner.com:

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

2012 voter guide: Ron Paul

2012-01-12T10:44:00.001-05:00

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)

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

2012-01-11T13:00:00.000-05:00

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

2012-01-11T09:37:00.001-05:00

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

2012-01-06T09:35:00.001-05:00

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

2012-01-03T06:56:00.001-05:00

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

Woman who mailed pig foot shot by police in apparent jihad attempt

2011-12-28T08:50:00.001-05:00

A Marietta grandmother who mailed a package containing a bloody pig foot to N.Y. Rep. Peter King and a Curious George doll to N.Y. State Senator Greg Ball earlier this year was killed by police on Christmas Day at her home. Her death came a few weeks after her indictment and plea of not guilty in federal court for mailing threatening communications. The federal judge had ordered her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation according to WSB TV. She was reportedly out on bond.

According to reports of the incident, Jameela Barnette, 53, a self-described “Messenger of Allah,” was killed by Cobb County police officers responding to a panic alert triggered from her apartment. Barnette allegedly attacked the officers with a gun and a knife when they responded to the alarm. The officers shot her in the course of defending themselves.

Examiner readers may remember that the Atlanta Conservative Examiner published a series of articles on the mail incident beginning on April 18, 2011. The original article appeared on my personal blog, CaptainKudzu.com, simultaneously with its publication on Examiner.com. Barnette, herself a blogger who waged an internet campaign against people and websites that she perceived as anti-Muslim, read the article on Captain Kudzu and left several comments. I subsequently published some of these comments in a second Examiner article on April 19. Barnette also posted several comments on a Captain Kudzu Easter article, “In defense of miracles,” during the same time period.

I was able to obtain her email address through the comments she left and attempted to contact Barnette to learn why she sent the packages. Although she initially had no interest in telling her side of the story, she later consented to an email interview and provided me with the now-famous picture with Dustin Hoffman. The email exchanges culminated in an article simultaneously published on Examiner and CaptainKudzu.com on April 26.

After that article was published, she thanked me for my objectivity and “unbiased honesty” in another email. Other than occasionally receiving more of her messages “from Allah,” which were soon relegated to my spam folder, I had no other contact with her after that. Until her death made the news this week, I was not even aware that she had been indicted for her mailings. She had been confident that she would escape prosecution because she didn’t make any overt threats.

In our correspondence Jameela was always polite and respectful. It was only when she got up on her Islamist soapbox, that she spouted hatred. Her messages are some of the most vile, racist and profane missives that I have ever read. Although a former Jew, she unapologetically likened Jews to apes and pigs (Surah 5:60) and was no friendlier to Christians who worship “a bloodied, battered and partially-eaten and bled-out, rotting DEAD [emphasis hers] Jew.” She was not shy about her desire to turn the United States into a Muslim nation in which “white b-----s” [expletive deleted] name their children Mohammed and wear veils in accordance with Islamic law.

A major reason that I gave Jameela the chance to speak out in my column was that I felt that she provided a valuable insight into the minds of radical Muslims. Jameela might have been a loner in Marietta, but there are thousands of other Muslims in this country and millions around the world who share her beliefs. It was people who shared Jameela’s beliefs that carried out the 9/11 attacks. It is people who share Jameela’s beliefs that have been at war with the United States for decades, much longer than the United States has been in Iraq or Afghanistan.

While not all Muslims share Jameela’s fanatical and racist ideology, even a small percentage of them can add up to thousands of extremists in this country and millions around the world. A withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan will not change the attitudes of these radicals. For them, it was never about Iraq or Afghanistan. It is about spreading their brand of orthodox Islam around the globe and ridding the world of the Jews.

Even though I had not thought of Jameela in months, I cannot say that I was surprised to hear of her death. My initial thought was that the incident sounded like what is often called “suicide by cop,” in which someone who wants to die threatens police in order to get them to kill him. After more consideration, however, I no longer believe that to be the case.

My opinion is that Jameela launched her own terrorist attack against representatives of the United States. Lacking the knowledge and materials to build a suicide bomb vest, she summoned police with the intention of killing as many as possible and then becoming a martyr. In her twisted theology, she likely believed that the police were infidels who doing the bidding of their Jewish masters in tormenting her. In the end, she was no different from the terrorists in Iraq and Palestine who believe that sacrificing themselves to kill innocents is a worthy and noble cause that will secure their place in heaven.

To most of us, Jameela’s words and actions seem crazy. If she was crazy though, what does that make the multitudes of other radical Muslims around the world who share her beliefs and are also willing to martyr themselves?

I wish to extend my condolences to Ms. Barnette’s family, especially her grandchildren, who will now have to grow up with the shame of her actions on top of the loss that they will undoubtedly feel after her death. I also pray that God will have mercy on her poor misguided soul.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/woman-who-mailed-pig-foot-talked-to-examiner-before-police-shooting

The Ron Paul phenomenon

2011-12-19T07:07:00.001-05:00

Ron Paul is beginning to frighten me.

To be totally accurate, it isn’t just Dr. Paul that frightens me, but his followers as well. The relationship between Ron Paul and his followers seems to be almost unique in modern American politics. Dr. Paul’s followers, often referred to as “Paulestinians” by talk show host Michael Medved (listen to Medved on Atlanta’s AM-920 WGKA), are fiercely loyal to their candidate, which explains why Paul often wins straw polls. These contests are not normal elections, but consist of activists who often have to pay or go out of their way to take part. Paul’s supporters, while small in number, are fully dedicated to Paul’s success.

Ron Paul is in the Republican Party, but is not of it. He was originally sent to Congress as a Republican, but later left the party to run for president as a Libertarian in 1988. He was re-elected to Congress as a Republican in 1996 and has run for president twice, both times as a Republican, since then. When he failed to win the Republican nomination in 2008, Paul did not support John McCain. Instead, he endorsed Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

Most of his supporters do not seem to consider themselves Republicans either. In fact, the majority of Ron Paul supporters that I have come in contact with see both major political parties as two sides of the same coin. Recently, a Ron Paul supporter told me that it was her opinion that Obama was “Bush’s third term.” This is not the view of a majority of the Americans regardless of their party affiliation.

Many of the other views of Paul and his disciples are not shared by other Americans. Paul criticized President Obama for ordering the raid on Osama bin Laden’s hideout and his foreign policy platform smacks of isolationism. He has favored extending friendship to Iran, rather than threatening sanctions or attacks to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

Paul claims to be for “nonintervention” rather than isolationism. In a speech posted on Youtube, Paul explains that this means he is for trade and talk between countries, rather than for sealing the country off from other nations. He doesn’t explain how he would protect Americans abroad (or at home for that matter) without intervening militarily against foreign threats from people who have no such compunctions about using military force against Americans.

Many Ron Paul supporters also seem to be more at home with members of the Occupy Wall Street movement than with the Tea Party. When I visited Occupy Atlanta last October, more occupiers professed an admiration for Ron Paul than any other presidential candidate, including Barack Obama. Paul supporters are often quick to parrot liberal criticism of the Tea Party and the Koch brothers, even though Paul is widely considered to be one of the inspirations of the Tea Party movement.

Paul’s most vocal supporters seem willing and even eager to believe the most outlandish conspiracy theories. Ron Paul supporters have argued with me that Israelis are not really Jewish, that FEMA is secretly building concentration camps around the country, and that American soldiers are required to take an oath to kill their own families if ordered to do so. Many are believers in the 9/11 truther and birther movements as well. These are only a few of the many paranoid fantasies that Ron Paul supporters have supported in dialogues with me. The only requirement seems to be that the conspiracy must be anti-American and anti-Israeli.

Even Paul himself has seemed to endorse conspiracy theories as well. He says at a gathering recorded and posted on Youtube that the government investigation of the attacks was “a cover-up, basically.” As late as 2007, Paul told liveleak.com that he believed that there was a cover-up of 9/11, even though he denied being a truther. In an article from his newsletter posted on ConservativeNetwork.com, Paul shared “research” that speculated that the U.S. government created the AIDS virus.

Paul also has a history of racist statements in his newsletters. I could find no statement where Paul has renounced the racist statements in his newsletters or the anti-Semitic comments of his supporters that are common on websites dedicated to Paul. While Paul cannot be held responsible for the behavior of his supporters, there is evidence that he authored or had direct knowledge of the contents of his newsletters. When asked to condemn the behavior of his supporters by “American Spectator” blogger Jeffrey Lord, he failed to do so. He is, however, on record as saying that “the philosophy of white supremacy is wrong and immoral” in an interview posted on Youtube.

Paul and his supporters both seem to agree that he is the only candidate who is worthy successor to the Founding Fathers as an upholder of the Constitution, yet they both misunderstand American history. For instance, Paul criticizes the Federal Reserve as unconstitutional, but fails to note that Congress established a central bank, the Bank of the United States, in 1791. This was only three years after the Constitution was ratified.

Likewise, Paul criticizes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as unconstitutional. He fails to note, however, that Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations,” such as genocides and crimes against humanity. Military interventions are not new. According to “the Savage Wars of Peace,” U.S. Marines landed abroad 180 times between 1800 and 1934, with one of the first actions, the war against the Barbary pirates, occurring during Thomas Jefferson’s administration in 1801.

As disturbing as their political beliefs is the ardor with which Paul’s disciples support their man. Their fervor approaches the point of becoming a cult of personality. They seem to see him as a Messiah-figure. Many unabashedly pronounce their belief that Ron Paul is the only hope for the country and the world. The only thing that comes close in recent U.S. history is the leftist adoration of Barack Obama prior to the 2008 election.

When others fail to see the world as the Paulestinians do, they are denounced as “sheeple,” unthinking people who follow the crowd and do what they are told. When presented with evidence contrary to their beliefs, they cite a conspiracy to cover up the “truth” (even though Paul hasn’t been silenced over his long career and the conspiracy sites are still up). When Ron Paul suffers an electoral defeat, it is because he was ignored by the media, not because his ideas only appeal to a small, vocal minority. (In 2008, he won less than three percent of the Republican primary votes in Georgia and less than two percent of delegates nationally.)

Admittedly, there are some casual supporters of Paul. These are people who may have heard him in the debates and like his fiscal policies, without knowing the details of the man, his platform and his disciples. Their existence is illustrated by Paul’s recent rise in the polls as Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich faltered. These people have not yet been swept up into the world of paranoid fantasies that the Paulestinians inhabit. Some will. Others will take a closer look at the candidate and reject him as they have rejected other Republicans this primary season.

Nevertheless, if, by some miracle, Ron Paul became the Republican candidate in 2012, I would support him. In spite of the good doctor’s foreign policy failings and questionable attitudes about race, his economic policies would make him a better president than Barack Obama… but just barely.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/the-ron-paul-phenomenon

Georgia Tech plays role in Climategate 2.0

2011-12-15T11:28:00.001-05:00

Two years ago, before a UN climate conference in Copenhagen, an anonymous hacker revealed a trove of private emails in which climate scientists apparently colluded to cover up the lack of scientific evidence for global warming and discredit climate change skeptics. Several investigations of the emails in the US and the UK did not find wrongdoing on the part of the scientists. Under the Obama Administration, the scandal had little effect on federal climate policy.

Recently, just before the climate conference in Durban, South Africa, history repeated itself. A hacker calling himself “FOIA,” a reference to the Freedom of Information Act, released another bundle of more than 5,000 hacked emails. Many of the same figures from the 2009 release figure prominently in the 2011 release as well. The emails from both releases are compiled on the FOIA2011.org website in a searchable database. The emails span over ten years with the most recent dated November 10, 2009. Few media outlets in the US have picked up the story of the 2011 release.

The emails contain many examples of climate scientists making unguarded comments that are starkly different from their normal public statements. One scientist, Tommy Wils of the University of Swansea, cast doubt on the notion that climate science is settled: “Scientists talk about probabilities, not about truth or knowledge….” He continued, “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal [sic] natural fluctuation? They'll kill us probably...” (1682).

Several scientists acknowledged the flaws in current climate models. Phil Jones, a prominent climatologist at the University of East Anglia, wrote that the “basic problem is that all models are wrong - not got enough middle and low level clouds” (email 4443). Rob Wilson of Edinburgh University wondered whether the sun might be responsible for warming. He wrote that “by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from the sun alone” (2267). He worried that “Jeez - I sound like a sceptic [sic] - this is not my intension [sic].”

The Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period from the 9^th to the 13^th century when temperatures were warm enough to allow limited agriculture in Greenland, was difficult for the climatologists to rationalize. Edward Cook of New York’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory wrote that the MWP “was more regionally extreme (mainly in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts [sic]) than anything we have seen in the 20^th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the MCA [Medieval Climatic Anomaly] period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.”

In another email, a Chinese scientist, Rean Guoyoo, wrote that “we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big…” (0044). Guoyoo went on to say, “Unfortunately, when we sent our comments [on how urban heat skews temperature readings] to the IPCC AR4 [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report], they were mostly rejected.” Guoyoo’s research seems to support anthropogenic warming locally, rather than globally.

In another email from 2004 that preceded the common usage of the term “climate change,” Asher Minns of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and Bo Kjellen of the European Institute for Policy Studies discuss how “global warming freezing,” the idea that global warming might lead to a colder climate, causes public relations problems (4141). They discuss rebranding global warming as “climate change” to provide “a new story for the old news.”

A number of the emails refer to Georgia Tech. A Tech student, Jun Jian, requested and received climate data from East Anglia’s Phil Jones (1320). The email containing the data was also sent to Dr. Peter Webster, a professor at Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. Dr. Webster apparently told Canadian mathematician and climate change skeptic Stephen McIntyre about the data. At the time, McIntyre was performing a statistical analysis of the famous “hockey stick graph.”

When McIntyre asked Jones for a copy of the data supplied to Georgia Tech, Jones apparently refused to supply it. According to one email (125676554), McIntyre then submitted a request for the data under the Freedom of Information Act and was again refused. When Jones refused requests for the data citing confidentiality agreements, readers of McIntyre’s blog, ClimateAudit.org, submitted requests for the agreements and only a few were found to exist. Neither Webster nor McIntyre were immediately available for comment.

This is not necessarily conclusive proof that global warming is not real. As the Atlanta Creationism Examiner wrote in a recent article, there is still strong evidence that the human activity is warming the earth. However, the comments in many of the emails do show that the data is not as convincing as many would have it appear.

Some hardliners evidently took pains to hide this doubt. Phil Jones himself wrote that “one way to cover yourself… would be to delete all emails” (2440). Jones also said, “I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts.” Further, Jones wrote that “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well hidden” (1577). Duke University’s Thomas Crowley assured Jones that “there will be no dirty laundry in the open” (2733). Crowley continued in another email (4693) that “truth” may not always be “worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.” This attitude of secrecy and hiding data is at odds with the scientific ideal of objectively making predictions that can be verified and tested in the future.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/georgia-tech-plays-role-climategate-2-0

Parental Advisory: Xbox Kinect game contains bestiality

2011-12-14T08:15:00.001-05:00

There have been numerous debates about sex and violence in such popular video games as “Grand Theft Auto,” but many parents would probably be surprised to learn that a popular game being sold in a bundle with a sensor for Microsoft’s Xbox Kinect video game system contains scenes of graphic bestiality.

On a recent visit to an Atlanta-area Best Buy electronics store, the game was playing on the in-store Kinect demonstrator. The game, “The Gunstringer,” featured a skeletal cowboy who fights a surly lumberjack in a flashback. In the course of the fight, the lumberjack falls from a high platform and lands atop a large alligator. In a long scene, the lumberjack writhes atop the alligator in an unmistakably sexual manner.

The scene cuts away from the two to a movie audience, most of who look appalled with eyes wide and mouths agape. In one instance, a man watches laughing and the woman next to him angrily hits him. As the scene shifts to the next level of the game, the narrator speaks about the “terrible union” and the cowboy, now back in present day, must fight the offspring of the lumberjack and alligator.

“The Gunstringer” is made by Twisted Pixel Games and is rated “T for Teen.” According to the company’s website, the game is about a “skeleton cowboy marionette” out to get revenge on members of his former posse who left him for dead. The website says that the Gunstringer witnessed the conception of the “gatorjack,” who is now one of the hero’s archenemies.

The manager of the Best Buy said that he was unaware of the content of the video game demo and stated that he would look into the situation. He agreed that the content was not appropriate for an open store floor where children of all ages could see and play the game.

Best Buy’s central customer service had a similar response in an email. A company spokesman wrote, “I wouldn’t want to pick up a demo to play and see that” (emphasis in the original) and promised to forward the information to “corporate offices and store upper management so this doesn’t happen in any store.” The email ended with an apology. On a subsequent visit to the same store, the Kinect demo was not playing at all.

A representative from Microsoft’s Xbox support team pointed out that the Xbox Kinect allows users to limit the type of content viewed on the game system based on the rating level of the game. This includes online and offline content such as video games, movies, and television shows. He apologized for the inappropriate content of the game and said that the Xbox Development Team would investigate “the Gunstringer” to determine whether the “T for Teen” rating is appropriate for the game.

Video games are rated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). This is not a government agency, but a self-regulating trade group. According to the group’s description of the ratings on its website, “T for Teen” games may include “violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.” “Suggestive themes” are defined as “mild provocative references or materials.” “Crude humor” is “depictions or dialogue involving vulgar antics, including ‘bathroom’ humor.” ESRB content ratings for “the Gunstringer” also note that it contains “sexual themes.”

The response from Twisted Pixel Games was lukewarm and brief. Company spokesman Jay Stuckwisch said in an email, “Thanks for your concern and sorry you were offended by the game. We appreciate your feedback and understand why you would not be interested in purchasing the game.”

The problems with “the Gunstringer” illustrate the difficulties facing parents in protecting their children from inappropriate and offensive material. Dr. Phil recommends that, in addition to reviewing ratings for video games, movies and television shows, parents check company websites and talk to other parents to find out the details about what their children are being exposed to.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/parental-advisory-popular-xbox-game-contains-bestiality