Here is an interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine, which I quote:
"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq Theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.
The firearm death rate in Washington , DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S. , than you are in Iraq .
Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!! REMEMBER ALL THE OTHER PRESIDENTS WITH THEIR DOGS COMING OFF THE PLANE WITH THEM???
NOT THE OBAMA'S...
If this doesn't tick you off....nothing will....
Bo has never traveled in the same means of transportation with the First Family.
I guess since they had to swallow their pride and use the Gulfstream there just wasn't enough room for the dog and one other person.
29 comments:
I say take the dog on a walk in DC, shoot it then add salt, bacon grease and fry it up for Michelle. Tell her it's the local specialty Fricassee Chien D'village.
Bloggers claim Bo flies in his own plane
False
Talk about making sacrifices and tightening the belt. Bo, the Portuguese water dog that Senator Ted Kennedy gave to the Obama family as a present, apparently flies in his own private jet. That, at least, is the claim that seems to have gone viral on the Internet over the weekend.
"As the rest of us toil on the unemployment line, as millions of Americans find their retirement accounts dwindling, their hours at work cut, and their pay scale trimmed, King Barack and Queen Michelle are flying their little doggie, Bo, on his own special jet airplane for his own little vacation adventure," wrote Warner Todd Houston, a blogger on Publius Forum.
The rumor caught our attention, and not just because we're fascinated with the pet air travel industry. Is Bo really commanding his own jet? We decided to look into it.
We quickly traced the origin of the rumors to the Morning Sentinel, a newspaper based in Waterville, Maine. On July 17, 2010, the paper published an account of the First Family's visit to the state's Acadia National Park. Among the details was a reference to Bo.
"Arriving in a small jet before the Obamas was the first dog, Bo, a Portuguese water dog given as a present by the late U.S. Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and the president's personal aide Reggie Love, who chatted with Baldacci," the article stated. It seems that some people took this to mean that Bo actually arrived in his own jet.
Air Force One is usually a Boeing 747, but the Trenton airport runway was too small for the plane, so the Obamas opted for a Gulfstream G3, the article stated. That plane can accommodate up to 19 passengers. To fit everyone in -- the President always travels with multiple staffers and aides -- the Obamas decided to travel in two smaller airplanes, the second of which carried several White House aides and Bo.
Indeed, the Sentinel article was updated to clarify that there were many other people in the jet that carried Bo. "Today's story about the arrival of the Obamas said the Obamas' dog and one aide arrived on a small jet before the First Family, but there were other occupants on the plane, including several other staffers. The presidential party took two small jets to the Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport in Trenton because the airport was too small to accommodate the president's usual jet."
To be thorough, we also checked with the White House. Katherine Bedingfield of the White House Office of Media Affairs told us that the claim is "baseless and absurd." Bo does not even require his own seat, and during the Maine trip he traveled on a government-owned plane with White House staff.
We figured that at least some of the bloggers were being satirical, but from our review of reader comments that followed many of the entries, it's pretty clear that there are those who actually took this stuff seriously, so we wanted to set the record straight.
So, Bo did indeed arrive in a separate jet, but it's ridiculous to claim that he has his own airplane. He traveled on a government-owned plane with government staffers who didn't fit in the small Gulfstream G3 that the First Family had to take because of the physical limitations of the Trenton airport runway. We rate this False.
why is it every time I look at this site ,which is about once a month there are nothing but lies and half truths on here when it comes to our president. Go to snopes.com or any other truth detector site and you will be set free of your lies.
The Truth:
The President's dog, Bo, and his handler did travel to Maine on a second aircraft when the First Family travelled there in July 2010 for their Summer vacation, but Bo and handler were not alone. This eRumor surfaced a year later, in 2011, while the President and his family vacationing in Martha's Vineyard, 367 miles south of the airport where they landed a year earlier.
The Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport in Trenton, Maine is a small airport and can not accommodate large aircraft such as the Boeing 747 that the President uses for Air Force One. For this reason two aircraft were needed for the entire entourage who accompanied the First Family.
Local reporters from the Morning Sentinel of Central Maine were on hand to cover the Obama's arrival at the Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport but somehow not all the facts made it in it's first edition of the local paper. The original story reported that the first family arrived at the airport in a plane shortly after Bo and his handler were seen exiting another aircraft and left the impression that the dog and handler traveled alone on their own plane.
Some time after the story was released the newspaper added a clarification saying, "Today's story about the arrival of the Obama's said the Obama's dog and one aide arrived on a small jet before the First Family, but there were other occupants on the plane, including several other staffers. The presidential party took two small jets to the Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport in Trenton because the airport was too small to accommodate the president's usual jet."
Doug Powers wrote a commentary on that July 17, 2010 news story that appeared in the Morning Sentinel of Central Maine. It was then posted on the Michelle Malkin website but went viral on the World Wide Web a year later.
It appears Mr. Powers and Ms. Malkin posted the commentary prior to the Sentinel clarification, which resulted in the massive flood of emails on the Internet about the celebrity canine named Bo.
Death rate comparison of Iraq and Washington DC-Fiction!
Summary of the eRumor:
An eRumor comparing the number of gun-related deaths among soldiers killed in action in IRAQ with the number of gun related deaths in Washington DC . It concludes that the ratio of deaths per 100.000 in Washington DC was worse than the same ratio in Iraq and closes by saying that the US should pull out of Washington!
The Truth:
This eRumor has circulated for several years and is meant more to be a joke than a serious assessment of statistics.
In addition to Washington DC , TruthorFiction.com has received various versions naming different cities including Philadelphia , New York, and Chicago .
Sometimes the eRumor claims that the text is from a magazine article.
It is not clear what date the eRumor was first circulated so it’s hard to know what actual figures, if any, the writer was using for the 22-month comparison but here is the best we can come up with:
The total U.S. war casualties referenced in the eRumor is 2112.
That would mean that the probable date of those figures would be November, 2005 when, according to month-by-month figures the casualties in Iraq reached 2113.
We’re not sure why the writer chose to refer to that as a 22 month count because from the beginning of the war in March, 2003 to November, 2005, was actually about 30 months and that’s the period of time it took to reach a casualty count of 2113.
For approximately the same period, the number of gun-related deaths in Washington DC was 464. The population of Washington DC during that same period averaged about 560,000, for a rate of deaths per 100,000 of about 82.
The eRumor’s calculation of the death rate in Iraq , however, is incorrect. It’s not 60 per 100,000. It’s 1,320 per 100,000.
Additionally, the death rate of U.S. soldiers in Iraq has not been just "gun related." Many have been killed in other ways such as through roadside bombs.
So the whole point of the email falls to the floor.
At the risk of sounding grim, the numbers here are a bit misleading.
Washington DC does not have a firearm death rate of 80.6 per 100,000 per year. In 2003 the deaths due to firearms in dc was 26.9 per 100,000 (http: //www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?cat=2&ind=... )
By the way, there were 195 homocides in DC in 2009. That comes out to a 35.4 manslaughter rate (which includes unintentional manslaughter). In comparison, Houston had only 16.3. (http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate)
The 2867 US troops killed in Iraq killed in a 22 month period average out to 130.3 per month. Assuming there really were 160,000 troops in country during that time (the real number is a little lower than that) that means a death rate of 102.3 per 100,000 per year--or about four times higher than the DC death by firearms rate.
Except that the DC death rate counts civilians. If we count civilians killed in Iraq, then there have been 76,000 documented cases of Iraqis killed by violence in the last 4 1/2 years, or about 17,000 per year. For a population of 27million, than means 63.3 per 100,000 population, which includes the parts of Iraq like Basra and Kurdistan that the president keeps assuring us aren't very violent at all. Of course that's also counting bombs, RPGs and beheadings. I don't know if we keep stats on beheadings in Washington DC. I'm pretty sure there's not enough of them, however.
Of course if we just count US troops being killed in Iraq, that's like only counting cops killed in DC each year to figure out how big the violent death rate is. When you count metro police, US park police, and the Capital police force, last year all armed police forces in DC had a death rate of 0 per 100,000.
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE. At it again are you Bob-o.Printing blatantly false stories again.Shame on you and IS.
I'm willing to bet a lot that the firearm death rate in Washington DC is not 80.6 per 100,000 per month. That is preposterous. If that were the case, with a firearm death rate of 80.6 per 100,000 per month, this means 10,462 people would have died over the course of 22 months (since DC's population is around 590k).
To the Democrat commentators you are correct. Bo did not fly the gulfstream he does not have hands nor a pilot's license. Keep up the good work and we'll keep on laughing.
To the Republican ,tea bagger commentors, keep up the lies and we will all keep laughing at you!
and the repugs will be laughing come Jan.2013
Zero wont carry the electorial college vote. He will lose Va NC Ohio and Pa. There goes 111 at least
On the dog BO. muslims dont like dogs snoope that if you have to and snoops has been found to full of bs as well. Its a group out of Canada who are not conservatives. They are socialist supporters.
DC is a slum waiting to explode. You want to talk about Zeros home town of Chicago? Bet not. This past June 52 people were shot, killed and wounded. One other night 10 were killed. During the year 2006 more BLACK KIDS were killed in Chicago than blacks in Iraq.
And Chicago has a no hand gun law..yep it works real good in the hood.The three biggest killers of blacks are hand guns black on black crime and then you have Margret Sangers way. ABORTION..now sit down and have a fruit cup.
snopes this if you need to and deny it. I am always astonished when white liberals attack black men and women who have succeeded. Shouldn't they be glad, whether or not that person is a Republican or a Democrat? It appears to me that they fear them. Don't forget: prominent Democrats in the sixties opposed the Civil Rights movement. Check it out. Also, one of the most vicious sheriffs in the South was Bull Connor who was in the forefront of the attacks on blacks who were trying to assert themselves as full citizens of the country. Lester Maddox, the former governor of GA, used to carry an ax handle. He would go into restaurants where blacks were attempting to eat and start slugging them.
In the 60s it was Democrats who opposed every civil rights vote that came up! It was Democrats who donned the KKK uniforms. It was Democrats who opposed integration. It was Democrats who burned crosses and lynched black men. It was Democrats who eventually decided to move black slaves from the plantations of land to the plantation of government, trying to keep blacks dependent and in control and unsuccessful in society. If your local friendly Democrat will help feed you, give you health care, give you housing (although some of it not worthy for rats to live in....), give anything except true freedom to become successful through education and hard work, then the Democrats know that blacks will still be their slaves. The new slave owners only wants loyalty of votes in order to continue the charade of false compassion. It is a false compassion that leads to a cycle of human depravity and conditions that seem to only get worse over time. Black Americans need to wake up and see the truth, and begin the healing process of embracing the hope our great nation has given everyone.
The irony is that the so-called black leaders are really entrepreneurs. ie the Justice Brothers Sharpton, Jackson and others They make their money by playing the race card and via class warfare, just like most democrats seek votes. They are Ho's in suits.
Blacks and white liberals, they convince themselves Whitey only likes Cain because he's not authentic? And Obama is? Even though it's obvious Cain is authentically comfortable in his own skin.Where as Obama only feels white when he is looking for money. Maybe reclaiming one's freedom is nearly as hard as reclaiming one's soul. Obama has no soul to reclaim.
Snopes has received praise from folklorist Dr. Jan Harold Brunvand, author of a number of books on urban legends and modern folklore, who considers the site so comprehensive as to obviate the necessity for launching one of his own.[11]
In 2007, the Snopes site featured pop-up ads for the controversial Zango adware product.[23][24] Snopes stopped serving the ads in January 2008, after criticism from tech sites, security experts and users.[25]
Snopes receives more complaints of liberal than conservative bias, but insists that it applies the same debunking standards to all political urban legends. FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in American elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You’d be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them.[26][27]
Is Snopes biased or are Republicans both stupider and more dishonest than Democrats? I think at least on this site its obvious . The inanae ramblings of repugs on here just proves the point.
Republicans, why do many of you make up so many lies about your President?
Republicans, why do many of you make up so many lies about your President? I hear some of the most outrageous accusations.
Obama has a plan to make energy less affordable.
Obama wants to make the USA a slave state.
Obama wants to make the USA a communist country.
Obama wants to destroy the constitution.
Obama wants to create a secret police force.
Obama wants to destroy America.
Obama this ... Obama that, The truth is that none of this is even remotely true.
None of you know what Obama is thinking. Besides that, he doesn't create the USA policy alone. There are many people, checks and balances, that must be addressed before any serious policy change.
Why do many Republicans spew forth this filth instead of advancing your own political and economic philosophy? It is almost as if the Republicans have no political and economic philosophy except to attack and hate.
If Republicans spent 1/2 as much time advancing their own agenda instead of making up silly attacks against your own President, then maybe people would start to migrate towards your point of view.
It is perfectly fine if you disagree with the President. I encourage it.
I agree that Obama has changed much of what he said he was going to do, but the level of hate directed at him for these things, is ridiculous.
It's alright if you are disappointed with Obama, I am too. But on a personal level, how can you not respect the man? As I have stated, he is the very embodiment of the American dream. He is proof of what determination, intelligence, passion, and dedication, can accomplish.
George W. Bush, the son of a former President and the Director of the C.I.A., a Yale legacy who had everything in his life given to him, somehow ran for President an outsider. Obama, a man who had nothing given to him, is somehow an 'out-of-touch elitist?' What is it about Obama that these people despise on such a deep and personal level? He should be an inspiration for every poor American with no connections.
Same with Bill Clinton. Clinton was a man whose father died before he was born, whose stepfather was a drunk who beat his family, who became a bookworm who studied his way to a scholarship to Georgetown and then a Rhodes Scholarship. He too is the definition of the American Dream, and yet somehow these men are called 'liberal elitists' by oil magnates and Yale legacies. And this is done with a straight face.
So what is it that makes these people hate Obama so much?
It's not deficit spending. They didn't raise a peep when Reagan or Bush wasted trillions of dollars. There is no justification for hating Obama for bailouts Bush created, or for an American economy which 'Conservatives' have been steadily undermining for thirty years.
It's not healthcare. The healthcare plan was based on ideas that most Republicans agreed on years ago. It's quite similar to the healthcare plan Republican Mitt Romney passed as Governor of Massachusetts. So why is Obama's healthcare plan tyrannical, whereas Romney's was pragmatic and prudent?
It's not that he's an elite. We've already explained that.
So what could it be? I'm not talking about reasonable objections or concerns with the Obama administration. I'm talking about the hatred.
And it's racism pure and simple. It all boils down to the fact that the country has been changing, undergoing drastic demographic shifts. Since the Kennedy's transformed the nation's immigration laws in the 60's, the country has been becoming drastically browner. And it will continue to do so. And not everyone is happy about that.
If you don't hate Obama because he is black, then please explain why you did not object to the radical and careless spending and borrowing of the Bush or Reagan administrations.
On Sunday my wife and I went to see my grandmother who is 95 at her nursing home. When we came out someone had written over my Obama 08 sticker on my car "Stupid Nigger". This was quite a shock because even in Republican Suffolk,va. where my Grandmother's facility is located. The vandalism and its intent to shock really effected me and it caused me to pause.
I have heard all kinds of vitriol about President Obama and not just from the Fox News crowd. The reality is that an entire segment of our population hates President Obama for what he stands for and his race is just added wood on that fire.
There is a whole social class of people who really believe that they have worked hard and that they dont owe anything to anyone. My cousin Gregory has this mindset as does my Aunt Bonnie and Uncle Chuck. They believe that what Obama is doing is "socialism" because he wants a modicum of real equality in our society. What these people want to do is eat at the trough and fill their bellies while the nation declines.
Now, I have not been totally pleased with President Obama. The lack of investigations of the Bush administration really bothers me. George Bush and Dick Cheney should be in jail right now for their crimes. I am also not happy with his stance on torture and labor unions he needs to do more. But he is trying. He has put forth a moral argument that everyone in America deserves health care, something that is a right in most rich countries. The Right is frothing at the mouth and we his supporters are not out there for his plan enough. The truth is if you really want to reduce healthcare then it needs to be Single Payer but lets give him a chance.
In the end there is a whole population of White middle and upper middle class people who hate what President Obama stands for and calling him "Stupid Nigger" makes them feel good I guess? But to see such hatred played out on my car was a shock- but it has not changed my opinion.
Obama is no Herman Cain and thats a fact.Obama has never experienced black lifestyle nor lived in its history.
As for your saying what someone wrote on your bubmper sticker, you have the klan, you have the Panthers and the CBC.Those are groups made up of indivuals who breed racism. You experienced the ignorance of one moron.
As for the rest of the commentary about Obama and made up BS regardign his policies, you might need to sit back, take a deep breath. Ie. when the coal plants start shuting down who is going to produce the electric power to run those Chevy Dolts opps volts. you need to read Cap and Trade. How come Brazil got 7 billion for offshore drilling and we cant drill? I am so sick of hearing blacks playing the race card. Last time I looked Pelosi, Reid, Durban, Kerry, etc etc they are all white and they are liberals. Its not about skin color. Would MLK be treated badly by the blacks today . Would you call him a hose Negroe, Uncle Tom etc etc? You know he was a registered REPUBLICAN right?
Liberals speak of republican lies?Here is one lie that wasnt spoken by a republican but has become the biggest lie in our history.
I, Barrack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.So help me God.
Obama Inauguration. 20 Jan 2009
Obama and his Marxist handlers have used the ‘race card’ to bludgeon anyone who disagrees with anything he does or says. A Cain candidacy sucks all the oxygen out of that plan rendering it useless.
And third Herman Cain would annihilate Obama in the debates. Obama is a malignant narcissist, in a debate with Cain Zero would come off cold, and aloof. He would be exposed as the unfeeling, teleprompter reader that he is. Cain, by contrast actually loves people. He connects with real people because he is real. With them standing side by side in a debate the contrasts would be glaringly obvious to everyone who has not been drugged by the Cool-aide.
And as an added bonus Herman Cain can think on his feet because he is what you see, so he will slice and dice Obama in a debate. Obama can’t do that because he is a radical Marxist who has to hide what he is and couch every sentence in coded lies, to prevent him exposing his true thoughts and desires. This takes so much time in Obama’s tiny brain that he often stutters and pauses for long periods of time while just speaking before friendly crowds. Imagine how he would respond in a lively debate?
Cain and Obama are as different as black and white. Hows that for a "racist" observation?
In late breaking news.....Rick Perry, not to be outdone by the Hermanator, will release his new economic plan, 2-4-6-8, to cheer the economy on....when asked to explain the program, gov. perry just looked bewildered .
Whenever I need to back away from a false belief, like that the sun revolves around the earth, I try to do so as slowly as possible. Just like your pal, Locked.
I think complete social isolation is a precurser to that kind of ignorance. Maybe he was all up in a bottle of gin when he developed his ideas. That doesn't make it right though.
ANON 1:48
If you can debunk what I said with fact, feel free to do so. In the meantime stop showing your liberal mindset as you bring nothing to the table so you attack. And I dont drink gin.. Have a fruit cup. Until you can debunk or debate sit down or maybe you could return to the fetal position from which you live in.
Rick Perry? He is the Harry Reid of the repug party
Bloses Cain has promised free garlic breadsticks with every vote. Eatin good in the hood.
You wonder what the death rate is in any border town along the Mexican border might be? I can think of one whereit was the direct fault of Zero and Holder.
Over 60 k deaths and now watch more to be killed on this side of the border.Texas and Arizona are seeing death rates rising. McCain has done nothing. Perry invites them across. Obama has the HSD put up signs that say danger.Votes and death go hand in hand and it is both parties who go along with this. Cain is right, put up an electrical fence. You dont have to fry anybody just a nice reminder of a shock that says STAY OUT.
There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S., and these physicians cause 120,000 accidental deaths per year. That’s an accidental death rate of 0.171 per physician. Now on the other hand, there are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. and perhaps 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year. That’s an accidental death rate of 0.0000188 per gun owner.”
Watch out for those doctors who own guns.
The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in North Carolina surveyed 201,881 respondents nationwide, asking them, “Are any firearms now kept in or around your home? Include those kept in a garage, outdoor storage area, car, truck, or other motor vehicle.”
Perhaps the “Behavioral Risk Factor” in this case is the lack of gun ownership. It appears that violent crime is higher in states where gun ownership is lower, although I caution against drawing that conclusion given the many other factors involved.
The national average was 31.7%. In ten states, over half the households have firearms. In 10 states, fewer than one-quarter of households had firearms.
The correlation between gun ownership and violent crime is intriguing.
Of the 10 most armed states, only one ranked in the top 10 for violent crime among the 50 states and D.C. Four ranked among the 10 safest states.
D.C. was last in gun ownership, first in violent crime.
Of the 10 least armed states, three ranked among the 10 most violent states.
Only one ranked among the 10 safest but Hawaii just missed it, ranking 11th.
Obviously there are many other factors than gun ownership involved in violent crime. Rural states seem to have low incidences of violent crime, but then so does Rhode Island.
My point is simply that concluding that high gun ownership leads to violence is, well, cuckoo.
In my “study” I had to go by 2004-2005 crime statistics to compare to a 2001 gun ownership survey.
Gun ownership by state by household (ranking on violent crime):
Top gun states:
Wyoming 59.7% (46)
Alaska 57.8% (8)
Montana 57.7% (36)
South Dakota 56.6% (48)
West Virginia 55.4% (39)
Arkansas 55.3% (15)
Idaho 55.3% (45)
Mississippi 55.3% (37)
Alabama 51.7% (23)
North Dakota 50.7% (51)
Bottom gun states and D.C.:
D.C. 3.8% (1)
Hawaii 8.7% (41)
New Jersey 12.3% (27)
Massachusetts 12.6% (20)
Rhode Island 12.8% (42)
Connecticut 16.7% (35)
New York 18.0% (20)
Illinois 20.2% (11)
Maryland 21.3% (4)
California 21.3% (13)
Florida 24.5% (3)
Post a Comment