“To navigate complex challenges, all leaders must take responsibility and have a moral compass grounded in competence, integrity and concern for the greater good,” he wrote, as if President Trump has no moral compass but Sully does so he can lecture us against president Trump. President Trump is a leader, not just the pilot of the airplane. He has amazingly high integrity and concern for even the lowest and poorest Americans and he proves that every day against people who don’t quite grasp how great Trump really is.
“Tragically, people in positions in power today are not projecting their best” Sullenberger wrote.
“Many are cowardly, complicit enablers, acting against the interests of the United States, our allies and democracy; encouraging extremists at home and emboldening our adversaries abroad; and threatening the livability of our planet.”
“Many do not respect the offices they hold; they lack — or disregard — a basic knowledge of history, science and leadership; and they act impulsively, worsening a toxic political environment,” he continued.
Sullenberger, an Air Force veteran, said that the “current absence of civic virtues” should not be normalized.
“We must rededicate ourselves to the ideals, values and norms that unite us and upon which our democracy depends,” he wrote. “We must be engaged and informed voters, and we must get our information from credible, reputable sources.”
Sullenberger wrote that he has been a registered Republican for the majority of his adult life but has “always voted as an American.” Why then is it so important for him to note his bone fides include being Republican. He could register “American”.
“We cannot wait for someone to save us. We must do it ourselves,” he wrote. “This Election Day is a crucial opportunity to again demonstrate the best in each of us by doing our duty and voting for leaders who are committed to the values that will unite and protect us.”…… developing, ….Sully is one of my hero’s too…….
“It’s my only form of fighting back,” Trump said. “I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t do that.”
Lies by the press are protected speech; that is; protected in the federal Constitution. They shouldn’t lie but many times, most of the time it seems, they lie. Friends of the people wouldn’t lie to the people but the press is dominated by the Left who distort the truth in their reports. That’s lying. Friends don’t lie. Enemies do.
“I think I’m doing a service [by attacking the press] when people write stories about me that are so wrong,” Trump responded. “I know what I do good and what I do bad. I really get it, OK? I really get it better than anybody in the whole world.”
Therefore the president is correct to say the press is the enemy of the people.
Bolsonaro overwhelmed the opposition and was elected President of Brazil. He was stabbed in the beginning of the campaign and it was pretty serious. It kept him from campaigning but he won an overwhelming victory in this large country.
Turns out he loves America and Israel.
He’s to the Right of President Trump partly because Brazil is a Catholic country. Brazil has the largest number of Catholics in the world. Roman Catholicism has been Brazil’s main religion since the beginning of the 16th century. It was introduced among the Native Brazilians by Jesuit missionaries and also observed by all the Portuguese first settlers. It drives and explains Bolsonaro’s far far right views and ideas. Bolsonaro is far to the right compared to president Trump.
Brazil is tremendously great country. It’s a great country to visit, a great country to live in ad a great commercial country.
Brazil has a more diverse population than America but the diversity is different.
The coffee is to die for. It’s strong, very, very strong and it’ drunk in small cups like espresso cups. It will keep you awake. Sao Paulo, (Saint Paul) is a tremendous big city. There’s an airport, Congonhas in downtown Sao Paulo where there are large International danger triangles on the roofs of nearby buildings to make sure the pilots see the tops of the buildings as they have to fly very close to them to land and Congonhas. there’s a much safer airport but it’s far from the city and the taxi cost to get to downtown Sao Paulo can approach $100 US.
Sao Paulo is worth a visit. It’s a huge, exciting cosmopolitan city with a lot to see and do. Now that Bolsonaro is the president elect it will be even more favorable for Americans but it’s a long long way from America. The direct flight from JFK to Sao Paulo can take 10 hours.
Dr. Richard Ebling writing for Capitalism Magazine explained in detail how the Federal Government caused America’s Great Depression. It’s a bit of a slog to get through his clear explanation but in a nutshell he proves how the federal government caused the great depression and has distorted the economy as long as the fed has attempted but failed to manage the economy. What government does is print money when the Consumer Price Index goes down too fast and takes money out of circulation when the CPI goes up too fast.
A big, big problem happens when a major part of the economy, say the steel industry figures out how to lower the cost of steel. Customers buy the less expensive steel but the government only sees the lower prices and reacts as if the economy is in trouble. They increase the cost to do business which they think means they have helped the economy but what they did increased the cost of steel. Instead of helping the country they hurt it by artificially forcing steel to be more expensive than it should be.
All the government has to do about money is to make sure no one is stealing it. They need to be kept out of the economy because it’s impossible to manage the economy of America so anything they do screws up the economy. See Dr Ebling’s article HERE.
She actually cried when Hillary didn’t win the election. Cried.
Barbra Streisand said in an interview with the Associated Press:
“So, I was in tears,” the 76-year-old said. “We walked around of kind of numb. I’m still a little bit numb because I can’t believe it happened, since, you know, Hillary got 2.9 million more votes than Trump and she’s not the president, so I don’t know.” Right. Babs doesn’t know. We know. We know she’s a great singer but a real dummy when it comes to other things.
David Hogg said: “Saying Good Guy with a Gun Stops Bad Guy with a Gun Is Utilized to Sell You Two Guns”. Here’s a flash for Hogg. If a good guy and a bad guy each buy a gun you still don’t get a gun… What does Hogg really know about guns other than he doesn’t like them?
A good guy or gal with a gun has stopped a lot of problems but the left media doesn’t report the times someone used a gun to stop a crime or to catch a bad guy or gal.
In the 1990s, the CDC itself looked into one of the more controversial questions in gun social science: How often do innocent Americans use guns in self-defense, and how does that compare to the harms guns can cause in the hands of violent criminals?
Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck’s results. But Kleck didn’t know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck’s new paper—”What Do CDC’s Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?“**—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Those polls, Kleck writes,
are high-quality telephone surveys of enormous probability samples of U.S. adults, asking about a wide range of health-related topics. Those that addressed DGU asked more people about this topic than any other surveys conducted before or since. For example, the 1996 survey asked the DGU question of 5,484 people. The next-largest number questioned about DGU was 4,977 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), and sample sizes were much smaller in all the rest of surveys on the topic (Kleck 2001).
Kleck was impressed with how well the survey worded its question: “During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?” Respondents were told to leave out incidents from occupations, like policing, where using firearms is part of the job. Kleck is impressed with how the question excludes animals but includes DGUs outside the home as well as within it.
Kleck is less impressed with the fact that the question was only asked of people who admitted to owning guns in their home earlier in the survey, and that they asked no follow-up questions regarding the specific nature of the DGU incident.
From Kleck’s own surveys, he found that only 79 percent of those who reported a DGU “had also reported a gun in their household at the time of the interview,” so he thinks whatever numbers the CDC found need to be revised upward to account for that. (Kleck speculates that CDC showed a sudden interest in the question of DGUs starting in 1996 because Kleck’s own famous/notorious survey had been published in 1995.)
At any rate, Kleck downloaded the datasets for those three years and found that the “weighted percent who reported a DGU…was 1.3% in 1996, 0.9% in 1997, 1.0% in 1998, and 1.07% in all three surveys combined.”
Kleck figures if you do the adjustment upward he thinks necessary for those who had DGU incidents without personally owning a gun in the home at the time of the survey, and then the adjustment downward he thinks necessary because CDC didn’t do detailed follow-ups to confirm the nature of the incident, you get 1.24 percent, a close match to his own 1.326 percent figure.
He concludes that the small difference between his estimate and the CDC’s “can be attributed to declining rates of violent crime, which accounts for most DGUs. With fewer occasions for self-defense in the form of violent victimizations, one would expect fewer DGUs.”
Kleck further details how much these CDC surveys confirmed his own controversial work:
The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)….CDC’s results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.
For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that “CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys.”
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey’s lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article “How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns.” That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual’s right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist or a really dumb guy like David Hogg hasn’t convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun.
Here is a partial list of 23 high profile public attackers who acquired their guns after passing background checks:
Parkland high school attacker (February 14, 2018)
Texas church attacker (November 5, 2017)
Las Vegas attacker (October 1, 2017)
the Alexandria attacker (June 14, 2017))
Orlando attacker (June 12, 2016)
the UCLA gunman (June 1, 2016))
the San Bernardino attackers (December 2, 2015)
the Colorado Springs attacker (October 31, 2015)
the Umpqua Community College attacker (October 1, 2015)
Alison Parker’s attacker (August 26, 2015)
the Lafayette movie theater attacker (July 23, 2015)
the Chattanooga attacker (July 16, 2015)
the alleged Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal attacker (Jun 17, 2015)
the Muhammad Carton Contest attackers (May 3, 2014)
the Las Vegas cop killers (June 9, 2015)
the Santa Barbara attacker (May 23, 2014)
the Fort Hood attacker (April 2, 2014)
the Arapahoe High School attacker (December 13, 2013)
the D.C. Navy Yard attacker (September 16, 2013)
the Aurora movie theater attacker (July 20, 2012)
Gabby Giffords’ attacker (January 8, 2011)
the Fort Hood attacker (November 5, 2009)
the Virginia Tech attacker (April 16, 2007), and many others.
Trying to affirm in part and deny in part her race history Merkle decided to call herself both black and bi-racial. Sorry, but that’s not the way it works. Her father is a white guy, Thomas “Tom” Wayne Markle Sr. He’s 100% white. Her Mom is not white but black. Meghan can call herself whatever she pleases but her racial identity is white and black. She is biracial, period.
Just what is a black biracial person? Is it a person who has more black ancestry than white? But Rachel Meghan is not black. Her mother is 100% black. Her father is 100% white. She’s half white and half black. Perhaps her individual genes did not exactly get the message. Nevertheless, they combined. That much we know. How they combined we don’t know. Even if we did there’s too much variability to explain or even predict which black genes dominated and which white genes dominated. So far as her physiological inheritance and sociological acquisitions she can shed the latter but not the former. Meghan can give up her religion, her country, and her culture. She cannot give up her race. Or, more precisely, she cannot give up the physical side of her race, which, apart from superficial alterations by plastic surgeons and beauticians, is inexorably determined by the laws of genetics, the genes and their combinations.
There are worldwide movements afoot to abolish racism however as indicated by recent events, race is far from being abolished anywhere. Instead it’s becoming intensified everywhere. Look at TV commercials. race is forced into them and the results defy believability.
Instead of attempting to destroy the indestructible, it might be wiser to learn more about homo sapiens racial reflexes. Research into the sources of racism might produce some understanding of effective ways of civilizing it, controlling it, and directing it into more creative and constructive channels. Such knowledge might also aid in distinguishing between the racial behavior that helps build nations and the racial behavior that tears them apart. Meghan and Harry are in the vanguard of the movement.
The publication in 1974 of Race by John R. Baker, an internationally renowned Oxford biologist and a Fellow of the Royal Society minced no words and ducked no issues in what one respected scientific journal called “perhaps the best documented book on human races ever published.” Baker found significant mental as well as physical differences among the races which he classified, analyzed, and evaluated with such professional skill that hardly anyone rose to challenge him. In the United States the book was generally ignored by the mass media. Race in present day America is about increasing the power of black people and diminishing the power of whites. Markles adoption of her blackness makes and proves those points.
The great American dream has been a potpourri of dreams, one of the wilder variety being that of the Melting Pot which envisioned and prophesied that any immigrant, no matter what his race, nationality or social background, once immersed in the giddy liquefaction of American life, would be transformed into a uniquely American solute with all the Old World heritage of caste and cultural disparity dissolved away.
That dream, long dying, is now dead. The Melting Pot, which worked to some extent in the time of the Old Immigration when the ingredients were more racially and culturally harmonious, failed to do its job when the New Immigration was added. Melting Pot advocates seemed to forget that different races thrown together in the same environment rather than fuse are more likely to stratify and separate. The more two different peoples grow alike in externals,” George Santayana pointed out, “the more conscious and jealous they become of diversity in their soul….” In short, the Melting Pot experiment failed. In spite of the hold that race leveling has on academia, Hollywood and the media, the races of America, instead of disappearing in some theoretical solvent, are more often than not precipitating out. The improvements in communications, the internet, and smart phones mean the race stories like the Travon Martin George Zimmerman story, the Eric Gardner story, the Michael Brown story get disseminated almost immediately. The judgments fly fast and the biasas and prejudices are juiced up faster than ever. Racism is more popular than ever and racism goes both ways.
So Race isn’t going away.
So Race isn’t going away.