Category Archives: General Education

Information of Value for Citizen Patriots

Would More Religion Make America A Better Place

Would More Religion Make America A Better Place?

Sunday, February 08, 2015

Most Americans say their religious faith is important in their daily lives and think the nation would be better off if they practiced that faith more often.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 53% of American Adults think America would be a better place if most people attended religious services on a regular basis. Just seven percent (7%) think the country would be worse off, while 30% believe more religious attendance would have no impact on society. Ten percent (10%) are not sure.
But 33% believe the government today discriminates against people of religious faith. A plurality (44%) disagrees. Twenty-three percent (23%) are undecided.
Forty-one percent (41%) of Americans also think the Supreme Court is too hostile toward religion, and half believe rulings by judges in recent years have been more anti-religious than the Founding Fathers intended.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) say it’s not possible to have a health community without churches.

The national survey of 800 Adults was conducted on January 26-27, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.
Eighty percent (80%) of voters view the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion as Very Important, but 54% see the government as a threat rather than a protector of their rights.
The more important their religion in their daily lives, the more likely Americans are to agree that regular religious services would make the country better. The more often Americans attend their respective houses of worship, the more likely they are to agree.
Older Americans generally think more religion would be better for the country compared to those who are younger.
Blacks believe more strongly than whites and other minority adults that the country would benefit from more religious attendance
Adults who say religion is Very Important in their daily life are much more likely than those who say it is less important to think the government discriminates against religious people. Evangelical Christians are the most likely to believe this, while Americans of other faiths generally disagree.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of all Americans say there’s not enough religion in the schools, compared to 11% who say there’s too much.
Seventy-six percent (76%) believe Christmas should be celebrated in public schools, and 72% say religious symbols such as Christmas nativity scenes, Hanukkah menorahs and Muslim crescents should be allowed on public land.
Americans support women in the pulpit and in senior leadership positions within the church. But they are more hesitant when it comes to supporting openly gay and lesbian religious leaders.
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe the government should not be allowed to prosecute religious leaders for comments that criticize government and social policies that violate the basic beliefs of their religion.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

The national survey of 800 Adults was conducted on January 26-27, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.

We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.

Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $3.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.

Road user fee drives California Assembly speaker’s transportation plan

Road user fee drives California Assembly speaker’s transportation plan

By Jeremy B. White
Drivers would fund repairs to California’s roads with a new user charge under a proposal unveiled Wednesday by California Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.

“California cannot have a strong middle class or a thriving economy if our roadways are congested and people and goods cannot move efficiently,” Atkins said in a speech to the California Transportation Foundation.
California’s deteriorating highways and bridges have become a perpetual reason for local governments to seek more money. A 2014 report estimated the statewide infrastructure need in the billions of dollars annually, and the state has deferred $59 billion worth of maintenance work on roads. Revenue from the gas excise tax that funds transportation infrastructure has dwindled as cars become more fuel-efficient, in part thanks to state and federal rules intended to improve air quality and combat climate change.
“While it’s great our air is cleaner as cars have become more efficient and less dependent on gasoline, it’s clear we must now move forward to the next generation of transportation funding,” Atkins said in her speech.
Opinion: California’s roads need costly repair

More than 50,000 undocumented California immigrants get driver’s licenses
Fill ’er up: Gas prices spike 4 cents in Sacramento, statewide

An extra $2 billion annually over five years would help fill the gap under Atkins’ plan, with about $1.8 billion of it flowing from a new fee on all drivers. Atkins said she has not yet determined how the fee would be assessed but estimated it would amount to roughly a dollar a week.
“It could take any number of forms,” Atkins told reporters after her speech. “You’ve heard vehicle mileage, you’ve heard vehicle license fee, there’s a way you could attach it to insurance – people pay insurance on a regular basis. Either way, it’s a fee that we have to figure out how best and the easiest way to collect it.”
When Gov. Jerry Brown spotlighted the need for more infrastructure spending in his State of the State speech earlier this year, both Democratic and Republican lawmakers lauded the idea, though Republicans argued that money should be redirected from the high-speed rail project Brown has championed. The governor did not offer any specific proposals.
Republican backing would be necessary for the proposal to break the needed two-thirds vote margin. “In light of recent findings of taxpayer money wasted at Cal Trans and higher than expected revenues, there are funding options for our critical road improvements other than looking deeper into the pockets of Californians,” Assembly Minority Leader Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto, said in an emailed statement.

Editor’s Note: This post was corrected from print and online versions to put the estimated cost of the user fee at $1 a week instead of $1 a day. Corrected at 10:15 a.m. Feb. 5, 2015.

Call Jeremy B. White, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 326-5543.



Thought you would enjoy this educational moment in American history.
Do you know what it is?
Give it a guess, then look below for the answer.


Used by a physician ………. It’s a medical tool ………

Tobacco Smoke Enemas (1750-1810)

The tobacco enema was used to infuse tobacco smoke into a patient’s rectum for various medical purposes, primarily the resuscitation of drowning victims.

A rectal tube inserted into the anus was connected to a Fumigator and bellows that forced the smoke towards the rectum. The warmth of the smoke was thought to promote respiration, but doubts about the credibility of tobacco enemas led to the popular phrase “blowin’ smoke up your ass.”

It has been reintroduced in Washington, by the Obama Administration as an integral part of the new Health Care program.

Palin on New GOP Majority: Its Not Just the Patriots Who Are Dealing with Deflated Balls

Palin on New GOP Majority: Its Not Just the Patriots Who Are Dealing with Deflated Balls

January 23, 2015
Palin loves to tell it how it is.
Check it out:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin declined to speculate on a potential 2016 run Thursday at the 2015 SHOT Show in Las Vegas, but she did offer the GOP some free political advice. We caught up with Palin as she was promoting the second season of her show, “Amazing America,” which airs on the Sportsman Channel Thursdays at 9 p.m. ET.

“I’m not going to talk politics except to say the GOP had better go on offense. Man, they are not going to win any game on defense,” she told TheBlaze. “Being in the majority there in D.C. — we’re blowing it if we just bend our back.”

She added, “That GOP leadership, that establishment, they’ve got to get their stuff together. I love what they believe in, I believe in it too. But they’ve got to get tough, man. You know what? It’s not just the New England Patriots who are dealing with deflated balls right now.”

Sharp new critique of same-sex marriage rulings

Sharp new critique of same-sex marriage rulings

Three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sharply protesting a three-judge panel’s October ruling in favor of same-sex marriage in two states, argued on Friday that courts at that level of the federal judiciary have no authority to decide that question. The Supreme Court, those judges argued, took away that power forty-two years ago.
The critique, one of the strongest dissenting statements yet issued amid a wave of federal and state court rulings striking down bans on same-sex marriages, came as the en banc Ninth Circuit refused to reconsider the panel’s combined decision in cases from Idaho and Nevada. Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain wrote the dissenters’ opinion, joined by Circuit Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Carlos T. Bea. It is unclear how many judges on the full court voted to deny rehearing.

Perhaps by coincidence, the fervent judicial protest came on the same day that the Supreme Court considered anew whether it should step in now to resolve the constitutional controversy over same-sex marriage. (The Justices examined that issue in private Friday but did not act on it.) The O’Scannlain opinion bluntly argued that “the same-sex marriage debate is not over.” It could have the effect of building resistance within the Supreme Court to moving soon toward a nationwide ruling in favor of such unions.

The heart of the dissent was its argument that lower courts are still bound by the Supreme Court’s one-line decision in 1972 in the case of Baker v. Nelson, declaring that a claim to same-sex marriage did not raise “a substantial federal question.” Judge O’Scannlain wrote that the Baker precedent remains binding on lower courts, and he added that the Supreme Court had made clear that “federal courts must avoid substituting their own definition of marriage for that adopted by the states’ citizenry.”

The dissenting opinion used much stronger language than a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit had used in November in upholding bans on same-sex marriage in four states — an opinion that also had relied upon the Baker precedent.
Judge O’Scannlain did make some of the same other points that the Sixth Circuit panel’s majority had, such as the argument that an issue as sensitive as same-sex marriage should be left to the people and the state legislatures to resolve, and that it will be better for the nation and for its people to have it worked out by representative government rather than by the courts.
The panel’s decision in the Idaho and Nevada cases, Judge O’Scannlain wrote, “shuts down the debate, removing the issue from the public square. In doing so, it reflects a profound distrust in — or even a downright rejection of — our constitutional structure.”
The Ninth Circuit dissent, though, added another point that went beyond the Sixth Circuit’s ruling against same-sex marriage. The dissenters said that the courts simply have no authority to decide any question about marital policy, because there is a flat “domestic relations exception” to federal court jurisdiction over that field of law, since it is to be left to the states.
That notion dates all the way back to a Supreme Court decision in 1890 in the case of In re Burrus. That jurisdictional argument, although picked up by some state attorneys general in recent same-sex marriage cases, had not been embraced by any court as a reason not to rule on the constitutional issue. It has received some recent support in academic literature.
The three-judge panel decision so forcefully opposed by the dissenters Friday was written by Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt. He and Judge O’Scannlain have been long-time philosophical adversaries on the Ninth Circuit. Judge Reinhardt’s opinion for a panel majority against the Idaho and Nevada bans went further in its constitutional reasoning than any other federal court had in the lengthy series of decisions against state bans.
The Ninth Circuit took almost three months to reveal its vote on whether it would reconsider the panel decision before a full eleven-judge court. The governor of Idaho had asked for such a rehearing of the case involving that state’s ban, as had the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, a group opposed to same-sex marriage, in the Nevada case. State officials in Nevada had abandoned a defense of their state’s ban.
The Idaho governor and the state’s attorney general have filed separate petitions asking the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s panel decision. Those petitions were not among those that the Justices considered at their private Conference on Friday, because they were not yet ready to be submitted to the Justices.

Recommended Citation: Lyle Denniston, Sharp new critique of same-sex marriage rulings, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 10, 2015, 7:46 AM),

Fox’s Greta Van Susteren’s Apology Letter to France About Obama

Fox’s Greta Van Susteren’s Apology Letter to France About Obama is GOING VIRAL!

President Barack Obama and his left-wing administration are facing heavy criticism today for not attending the Paris Unity rally this past weekend, inspired by the attacks on the newspaper Charlie Hebdo. More than 40 world leaders attended, and America’s absence was sorely felt.

Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, who is a liberal, took to Facebook and apologized to the French people for Obama ignoring the important occasion. And her post is going viral!

My Personal Note to French Citizens:
Dear French Citizens,

This is a personal note from me but I suspect it represents the sentiments of many Americans.

I am sorry that our President didn’t go to France today and stand with your President and other world leaders against terrorism. It was an important statement to send to France, to the world and to terrorists and frankly he blew it. It was a big missed opportunity for my President and thus for all Americans. He should have gone. It was a mistake that he did not. Sometimes mistakes like that are made.

I stand with you and I think all Americans do stand with you. I had wanted the President to go to Paris today to represent how I feel and how most Americans feel after Paris was terrorized but that did not happen. President Obama didn’t just disappoint you — he disappointed many Americans today. Maybe there is a reason for his absence that I just don’t know but right now the White House has released no explanation.

Despite today’s absence, I know our President wants to stop world terrorism but his bad manners today – or maybe just dropping the ball – is not something we should harbor but rather drop and move on. It may be easier for you to drop than many Americans. As already noted, I am not happy with him tonight, but I will get over it. But, in the mean time, I do want the citizens of France to know we Americans stand with you and that we need each other to fight terrorism.

I also want everyone in France to know – and this is very important 0 that we have not forgotten that it was the French President who was the first national leader to show up at the White House after 9/11. You don’t forget things like that. (Nor have we forgotten LaFayette who fought for us in the Revolutionary War but that’s a bit farther back!)

I love your nation and have spent a lot of time there over the years – from college onward. Your citizens have been friendly to Americans and to me (although many have looked askance at me when I speak my very fractured French. You could be a tad bit nicer about my French.) Our nations have had their difference over the years but always I know fundamentally we are friends even when we might have some disagreements. We have the same goals and the same dreams.

So….I apologize for my President’s absence. Tonight I am mad at him but I will get over it and I hope you do, too. We have a bigger fight to fight than bad manners. We need to fight terrorism.

Greta Van Susteren