WHO DIVIDES US? HUMAN NATURE.

Who divides us? Is it the politicians?

Dann Crain · 

Updated Jan 12

Human nature divides us. Even apes are known to be territorial and warlike, hunting down other tribes of apes. Man is not a peaceful sheep like species, we are a ferocious, territorial, naked, plains ape much more like a snarling baboon than domesticated sheep.

To quote Durant the famous historian: “There have been only 268 of the past 3,421 years free of war.” ― Will Durant

So before pointing out politicians, we must realize it’s our innate nature to fight.

If you are asking about politics in the U.S. (which I suspect you are). As I see it, Republican’s tend to define by class and money, but they see Americans as a whole and not as groups. But by traditional American values of individual self-reliance, hard work and individual worth and a single United America.

To quote Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President: “A house divided itself cannot stand.” This is a Republican core belief.

The Democrats have always been the party of division. In this country, for the first 200 years, they separated man into slave and free. Then for another 100 years, Democrats kept them down and divided with Jim Crow, segregation, their terrorist organization, the KKK and endless racism. Finally, in the ’60s many southerners sickened by Democrat Party’s racism escaped to the Republican Party. After all Robert Byrd, the longest-serving Democratic Senator in Congress was a Grand Kleagle and a Grand Cyclops in the KKK. He was a mentor to Hillary Clinton

In the sixties, the Democrats were heavily influenced by socialism and communism and adopted a collectivist view of people. Americans were not seen individuals as much as a series of collectives which divides people into groups by characteristics shared by every member of the group. I.e., Black people, Brown people, gay people, straight people, and Trans-sexual people: in other words divide people into as many conflicting groups as possible. Democrats love diversity the root word of diversity is divide. To separate, make alone.

The Democrats way to power is to find a scapegoat for these groups to blame for their problems. It’s human nature to blame other people. The German did it to the Jews, the Turks did it to the Armenians, and the English did it to the Irish, it’s a common way to power.

Since the sixties it has been primarily America and white Christian men have been the chosen scapegoats. The Democrats say vote for us, and we will give you part of white Christian men’s money because they cheated you. Your groups were victimized, so it’s morally correct to victimize their group.

Everyone looking to race to the bottom of victimhood and moral superiority. This leads of course division, diversity, and discord

Something for nothing. So now we have gays fighting straights, women fighting men, Brown fighting Black. Black fighting white, non-Christian fighting Christian. The average white Democrat doesn’t realize that he’s been taught the ultimate division…to hate himself. Which explains many Democrats behavior.

-A new study of violent crime and concealed carry law found no correlation between them.

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- -A new study of violent crime and concealed carry law found no correlation between them.

The study compared homicide and violent crime at the state level with changes in concealed carry law over a 30 year period, from 1986 to 2015. During this period there were substantial changes in the laws regulating the carry of concealed weapons. From the study:

Results

During the study period, all states moved to adopt some form of concealed-carry legislation, with a trend toward less restrictive legislation. After adjusting for state and year, there was no significant association between shifts from restrictive to nonrestrictive carry legislation on violent crime and public health indicators. Adjusting further for poverty and unemployment did not significantly influence the results.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated no statistically significant association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over the last 30 years and the rates of homicides or other violent crime. Policy efforts aimed at injury prevention and the reduction of firearm-related violence should likely investigate other targets for potential intervention.

The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

THIS STUDY CONFIRMS WHAT A NUMBER OF OTHER STUDIES HAVE FOUND: HAVING MORE PEOPLE WITHOUT CRIMINAL RECORDS, CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARMS, DOES NOT INCREASE VIOLENT CRIME.

The study examined the levels of homicide and violent crime when states moved from “no carry” to “may carry” to “shall issue” to “unrestricted carry.”

It is a significant finding to be published in a medical journal, as most papers I have read about the subject, in health-related journals, make apparent errors in data selection and the scope of the study.

RELATED:  St. Louis Homeowner Fatally Shoots Man Trying To Break Into Car

This study avoids the errors of scope by looking at the data over all the states for a 30 year period.   It avoids selection bias by considering all homicides and violent crime, not just those involving guns.

This study only looks at detail down to the state level.  The studies were done by Dr. John Lott. Lott looks at data down to the county level, not just the states. Lott examines concealed carry by looking at the number of actual permits issued, not only when the law changed. That level of examination is likely to find subtle differences.

Only a small number of studies claim that homicides or violent crime go up as more people carry concealed weapons legally. They suffer from limited scope and/or data selection bias.

Dr. Lott has debunked studies that claim more guns equal more crimes.

This study differs from studies done by Dr. Lott. It attempts to examine the effect of  “unrestricted carry” also known as Constitutional Carry.  Dr. Lott’s methods have difficulty with measuring the impact of Constitutional Carry. There are no permit numbers to track with Constitutional Carry.

This paper will be used to counter the claims of studies of limited scope, which suffer from data selection bias.

Limiting data to only “gun deaths” or “gun violence” is a clear data selection bias if prevents any consideration of a weapons substitution effect or deterrence from self-defense cases.

Limiting the scope of research to only one state, or just a few years, allows researchers to pick a state or years that agree with their favored thesis.

RELATED:  Armed Civilians Saved Lives (April Edition)

Public health journals have generally been willing to publish poorly researched studies if it validates preconceptions that “guns are bad.”

PERHAPS PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCHERS WILL READ THIS PAPER, AND SEE THE EFFECT OF BIASED DATA SELECTION AND LIMITED SCOPE IN THE OTHER STUDIES.

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

63 Percent of ‘Non-Ctizens’ on Welfare,

Washington Examiner:

Census confirms 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 

4.6 million households

by Paul Bedard

 | December 03, 2018 08:15 AM

Print this article

A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.

In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it. 

Trump lashes out at Mueller for 'screaming and shouting,' 'threatening' witnesses

Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads

The Center for Immigration Studies said in its report that the numbers give support for Trump’s plan to cut non-citizens off welfare from the “public charge” if they want a green card that allows them to legally work in the United States.

“The Trump administration has proposed new ‘public charge’ rules making it harder for prospective immigrants to qualify for lawful permanent residence -- green cards -- if they use or are likely to use U.S. welfare programs,” said CIS.

“Concern over immigrant welfare use is justified, as households headed by non-citizens use means-tested welfare at high rates. Non-citizens in the data include illegal immigrants, long-term temporary visitors like guest workers, and permanent residents who have not naturalized. While barriers to welfare use exist for these groups, it has not prevented them from making extensive use of the welfare system, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children,” added the Washington-based immigration think tank.

The numbers are huge. The report said that there are 4,684,784 million non-citizen households receiving welfare.

And nearly all, 4,370,385, have at least one worker in the house..

In their report, Steven A. Camarota, the director of research, and Karen Zeigler, a demographer at the Center, said that in census data, about half of those are in the United States illegally.

Their key findings in the analysis: 

• In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.

• Welfare use drops to 58 percent for non-citizen households and 30 percent for native households if cash payments from the Earned Income Tax Credit are not counted as welfare. EITC recipients pay no federal income tax. Like other welfare, the EITC is a means-tested, anti-poverty program, but unlike other programs one has to work to receive it.

• Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).

• Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native households. If the EITC is not included, then cash receipt by non-citizen households is slightly lower than natives (6 percent vs. 8 percent).

• While most new legal immigrants (green card holders) are barred from most welfare programs, as are illegal immigrants and temporary visitors, these provisions have only a modest impact on non-citizen household use rates because: 1) most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify; 2) the bar does not apply to all programs, nor does it always apply to non-citizen children; 3) some states provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; and, most importantly, 4) non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth.