Choosing The Right Lane To Follow 12.19

In pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, free markets and individual liberty

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

--Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801

~~~~~~

1965: 'If I Were the Devil' (Warning for a Nation) - by Paul Harvey

This speech was broadcast by legendary ABC Radio commentator Paul Harvey on  April 3, 1965:

"If I were the Devil . . . I mean, if I were the Prince of Darkness, I would of course, want to engulf the whole earth in darkness. I would have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree, so I should set about however necessary to take over the United States. I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.” “Do as you please.”   To the young, I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is “square”.  In the ears of the young marrieds, I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be extreme in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct. And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to say after me: “Our Father, which art in Washington” . . .  If I were the devil, I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull an uninteresting. I’d threaten T.V. with dirtier movies and vice versa. And then, if I were the devil, I’d get organized. I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing and less work, because idle hands usually work for me. I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. And I’d tranquilize the rest with pills. If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine yound intellects but neglect to discipline emotions . . . let those run wild. I would designate an athiest to front for me before the highest courts in the land and I would get preachers to say “she’s right.” With flattery and promises of power, I could get the courts to rule what I construe as against God and in favor of pornography, and  thus, I would evict God from the courthouse, and then from the school house, and then from the houses of Congress and then, in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and I would deify science because that way men would become smart enough to create super weapons but not wise enough to control them. If I were Satan, I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg, and the symbol of Christmas, a bottle. If  I were the devil, I would take from those who have and I would give to those who wanted, until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. And then, my police state would force everybody back to work. Then, I could separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines, and objectors in slave camps. In other words, if I were Satan, I’d just keep on doing what he’s doing.

Paul Harvey, Good Day."

~~~~~~

Buchanan: The dead soul of Adam Lanza

A desire to be famous coupled with a dead conscience is the common thread running through these recurring atrocities. These loners and losers want us to know who they are. And, to succeed now, each almost has to outdo in horror those who went before. Since the news first came in Friday from Newtown, we have argued about guns in America and mental illness, but heard little about the moral sickness of our society. Americans have always owned guns. But in Prohibition, when gangsters like John Dillinger, “Machine Gun” Kelly and “Baby Face” Nelson were notorious, the most remembered atrocity was the “St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.” Al Capone’s gang executed seven of Bugs Moran’s gang in a Chicago garage. Yet, just two years ago, when one Washington, D.C., drive-by shooting ended with four dead on a sidewalk and five wounded, it was just local news. Why are these atrocities growing more frequent and deadly? We are told that it is because the guns used — especially assault rifles like Russian-made AK-47s and civilian copies of the M-16 used in Vietnam, like the Bushmaster — are all too available. But the guns used in the Sandy Hook massacre were legally purchased by Lanza’s mother, and she and Adam lived in a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country. And the Bushmaster is not a machine gun but a semi-automatic, as are the 100-year-old Colt .45 and M-1 rifle used by GIs in World War II. Fully automatic weapons like the Thompson submachine gun cannot be purchased without a federal license. No fully automatic weapon has been used in any of these massacres. Will ending all sales and transfers of assault rifles and limiting the rounds in clips and magazines reduce these massacres in malls, movie theaters and schools? Did it succeed when the assault weapons ban was in force in the Clinton years? If assault rifles are evil things that ought not be in the hands of decent Americans, why do “shoot-to-kill” video games feature these weapons? Why does Hollywood glamorize assault rifles in action-packed films of slaughter starring Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chuck Norris and Jason Statham? Few of America’s young have seen an assault weapon fired outside the military. Scores of millions have seen them fired on TV. Many of our movies are advertisements for the efficiency of assault weapons in the hands of good guys doing heroic deeds. Are the folks who think America would be a better place with a more restrictive Second Amendment willing to restrict the First Amendment to stop all distribution of movies and cable shows that depict famous actors blasting enemies with assault weapons? Not long ago, there existed in our hearts “a fear of God.”  How, we would ask ourselves, if we commit an evil act like murder, will we answer at God’s judgment seat? For He will decide if we enter what the president called in Newtown, God’s “eternal house in heaven.” But if God is dead, not to worry. Just put the gun to your head and pull the trigger, and it’s over. No trial. No disgrace. No prison. Nothing to worry about anymore. No voice of conscience told Adam: Do not do this evil thing! Now he is no longer a nobody, a nerd, a recluse. He is famous. Everybody is talking about him, and ruminating on what might have motivated him. Adam wanted to be somebody. And now he is. And out there others like him are thinking: That could be me.

~~~~~~

Panel Assails Role of State Department in Benghazi Attack By ERIC SCHMITT and MICHAEL R. GORDON

WASHINGTON — An independent inquiry into the attack on the United States diplomatic mission in Libya that killed four Americans on Sept. 11 sharply criticized the State Department for a lack of seasoned security personnel and for relying on untested local militias to safeguard the compound, according to a report by the panel made public on Tuesday night. The investigation into the attack on the diplomatic mission and the C.I.A. annex in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans also faulted State Department officials in Washington for ignoring requests from the American Embassy in Tripoli for more guards for the mission and for failing to make sufficient safety upgrades. The panel also said American intelligence officials had relied too much on specific warnings of imminent attacks, which they did not have in the case of Benghazi, rather than basing assessments more broadly on a deteriorating security environment. By this spring, Benghazi, a hotbed of militant activity in eastern Libya, had experienced a string of assassinations, an attack on a British envoy’s motorcade and the explosion of a bomb outside the American Mission. Finally, the report blamed two major State Department bureaus — Diplomatic Security and Near Eastern Affairs — for failing to coordinate and plan adequate security. The panel also determined that a number of officials had shown poor leadership, but they were not identified in the unclassified version of the report that was released. “Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus,” the report said, resulted in security “that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.” The attack in Benghazi and the Obama administration’s explanation of what happened and who was responsible became politically charged issues in the waning weeks of the presidential campaign, and Republicans have continued to demand explanations since then. Susan E. Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, took herself out of consideration for secretary of state after Republican criticism of comments she made in the aftermath of the lethal attack threatened to become a divisive political battle. The report affirmed there were no protests of an anti-Islamic video before the attack, contrary to what Ms. Rice had said on several Sunday talk shows days after the attack.

This is the same government that believes it can solve School Massacres!

~~~~~~

Following School Shooting, 86% Want More Action to Identify and Treat Mental Illness

Americans want something done following the horrific news from Sandy Hook Elementary School last week, and a plurality believes a greater emphasis on mental health issues will be the most effective way to prevent such tragedies.

~~~~~~

52% Say Violence in Video Games, Movies Leads to More Violence in Society

Many were wondering whether violence in movies leads to more violence in society.  A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 52% of American Adults do believe violent movies and television shows lead to more violence in society.

~~~~~~

NAACP Shows True Colors Against Only Black US Senator Because He’s Conservative by Tim Brown

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley has made the decision to appoint a replacement for retiring U.S. Senator Jim DeMint. She has chosen Congressman Tim Scott (R-SC), a very conservative Republican. He’s also happens to have dark skin, which would make him the only United States Senator who is black. So why would the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People oppose such a man? Precisely because he doesn’t go along with “their agenda.” Mr. Scott certainly comes from a modest background, experience, and so forth, and should be sensitive to those issues,” he said, referring to Scott’s impoverished single-parent upbringing in Charleston, SC. “Unfortunately, his voting record in the U.S. House of Representatives raises major concerns,” Shelton said. Shelton explained that the NAACP platform is crafted through an annual voting process which engages grassroots-level delegates who vote on the group’s national agenda. That agenda calls for an expansive role for federal government spending in black communities. Shelton said, “Small government usually means, as it’s being described these days, the elimination of the role of government and support for initiatives and programs that are crucial for the African-American community.” The truth is the NAACP’s agenda is anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-life, anti-marriage, anti-family anti-repsponibility, big government dependency and Rep. Scott will not adhere to their agenda. I think it’s a good thing that one’s character stands out the way Rep. Scott’s does, that even those who normally use the issue of skin color are completely beside themselves over the only black man being in the U.S. Senate is a conservative Republican. After all, Democrats claim to be the party of minorities. So much for that hot air!

~~~~~~

Liberal Professor Wants NRA President’s “Head on a Stick”

A professor of history at the University of Rhode Island tweeted that he wanted the NRA president’s “head on a stick.” After people accused Professor Erik Loomis of wanting to assassinate LePierre, the head of the NRA, he clarified, saying that it was only a metaphor. He tweeted:  “Dear right-wing morons, saying you ‘want someone’s head on a stick’ is a metaphor. I know metaphor is hard for you to understand.— 
Erik Loomis.” In another tweet, he added, “Dear rightwingers, to be clear, I don’t want to see Wayne LaPierre dead. I want to see him in prison for the rest of his life.” He called upon the Obama administration to repeal the Second Amendment and labeled the NRA a terrorist organization. Metaphor or not, it’s still violent speech. I’m not saying he doesn’t have a right to express his opinion, but it’s this kind of “metaphor” that he blamed the Gabrielle Giffords shooting on. Specifically, he blamed the “violent speech” of Sarah Palin and the tea party. In the aftermath of the Giffords shooting, he wrote:

 “From a political perspective, the big loser is Sarah Palin. Truthfully, the whole Tea Party movement loses here because a lot of Americans are flinching in the face of the violent rhetoric that propelled them to power. Many Republicans are defending themselves vociferously. Some, such as Rush Limbaugh, claim that Loughner was a liberal and a Democrat, but this just alienates most people at this time. But no one lost more than Palin. Perhaps she was right to be irritated that people connected her with the shooting, but then again, she’s the one who had a target over Giffords’ district. Her aide claiming that it was actually surveyor symbols just insulted our intelligence.”

So Loomis can use symbolic language, and it’s ok even if it is violent. But when Sarah Palin’s PAC publishes a map with “crosshairs” over the representatives who voted for Obamacare, that’s evidence that she and the rest of the tea party caused Jared Lee Loughner to murder Giffords.

~~~~~~

What to Say to a Liberal Who Says “The Rich Can Afford to Pay More in Taxes” by Gary DeMar

Here’s the liberal narrative that even the wealthy have fallen for:

“Stephen Prince, who is 61, lives in a gated golf community near Nashville, Tenn., and owns a condo in New York. Not only can he afford to pay more, he says, but he also believes people in his bracket need to pony up to support essential programs such as education and roads.” I can see an interviewer using Mr. Prince’s statement in an interview with an anti-tax advocate.  I would say, “Mr. Prince, then pony up and shut up. No one’s stopping you from paying more in taxes. You may want to flush your money down a high-priced government toilet, but there are a lot of wealthy people who don’t.” I would then take over the interview by asking the interviewer this question: “What is your net worth and how much do you make in a year?”

Soledad O’Brien is a big-name talker who wants to raise taxes on the rich because “they can afford it.” Her net worth is $5 million. She earns $1.5 million per year. By asking this question, you put her on the defensive. Your goal is to make her stutter and expose her hypocrisy. If she refuses to say how much she makes, tell the viewing audience. You’re goal is to make your case to the people watching the interview. She’s your conduit to the people. Looking into the camera with the red light on, say the following:

“Soledad O’Brien is rich. She makes more about $1.5 million dollars every year. She says the rich can afford to pay more in taxes. This means that she can afford to pay more in taxes. If she believes the rich should pay more in taxes, why shouldn’t the rich pay more for food, clothing, cars, computers, and houses? Why is it just for taxes?”

~~~~~~

Obama Refuses to Compromise with GOP by Dave Jolly

President Barack Obama constantly talks about the need for Democrats and Republicans to work together and come up with a compromised plan to avert the fiscal cliff.  However, in his latest action, he has made it perfectly clear that he has no intention of compromising anything and fully expects Republicans to cave in and agree to ALL of his DEMANDS. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has been caving in bit by bit to Obama’s demands, much to the ire of many Republicans.  In his latest compromised proposal, he has offered to raise taxes on everyone making $1 million per year and extending the debt ceiling by another $1 trillion.  The tax increases on the top earners would place most of them paying over 50% in federal, state and local income taxes and net the federal government an estimated $460 billion a year. However, Boehner’s plan also called for spending cuts, which Obama keeps saying he’ll get to tomorrow, kind of like your kids will clean their rooms tomorrow, but tomorrow never comes.  A year ago when we were in the same situation, Obama promised that if the GOP accepted his ‘compromised’ plan then that he would address spending cuts after the first of the year.  That promise never happened and instead of trying to cut spending, he kept spending more and more.  The Republicans are being played, so walk away while there is still time!

~~~~~~

Taxpayers Aren't Stationary Targets By Sheldon Richman
Actor Gérard Depardieu's decision to flee France for Belgium to avoid a 75 percent marginal tax rate on incomes above $1.3 million sends a message we here in America should heed: Those who are singled out for tax increases are not stationary targets. The means of avoiding and evading the taxman are legion.  U.S. government agencies routinely issue estimates of how changes in the tax code will affect the flow of revenues to the treasury. President Obama says the tax changes he has been seeking will bring in $1.6 trillion over a decade. But such estimates assume taxpayers are something other than human beings who engage in purposive action. People like to keep the money they make—why shouldn't they?—and they typically avail themselves of every legal (and not-so-legal) strategy to do so. Change the tax environment by raising rates or adversely modifying the rules, and taxpayers, especially those in the upper echelons of earners, can be counted on to modify their conduct accordingly; there's no reason to think their wish to hold on to their money has diminished just because the tax code has changed.

~~~~~~

Foreign holdings of US debt hit record $5.48T By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER

Foreign ownership of U.S. Treasury securities rose to a record level in October, a sign that overseas investors remain confident in U.S. debt despite a potential budget crisis. Total foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries rose to $5.48 trillion in October, the Treasury Department said Monday. That was up 0.1 percent from September. Still, the increase of $6 billion was the weakest since total holdings fell in December 2011. China, the largest holder of U.S. government debt, increased its holdings slightly to $1.16 trillion. Japan, the second-largest holder, boosted its holdings by a smaller amount to $1.13 trillion. Brazil, the country with the third-largest holdings, increased its total to $255.2 billion. The new figures show that investors are still seeking the perceived safety of U.S. Treasury's, even as lawmakers and President Barack Obama remain at odds over whether to raise the U.S. borrowing limit as part of a broader budget deal.

~~~~~~

Video: Stop the Surveillance State Learn More Here ..
The truth is, under President Obama, the surveillance state is expanding at an alarming rate to the point where virtually every man, woman and child in the country is under government surveillance.  And FISA - which allows warrantless wiretaps and government eavesdropping of phone conversations - is a key part of the statists' anti-Fourth Amendment schemes to spy on you and me. Under President Barack Obama, warrantless wiretaps have quadrupled. The Federal Government has looked at over 28 million electronic records. They've looked at 1.6 million texts. But these massive government programs don't even work.  One recent internal study showed TSA agents FAIL to catch items passengers are forbidden from taking on planes more than 75% of the time!

~~~~~~

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it."

--Thomas Paine, The Crisis, no. 4, 1777

~~~~~~

From the founding of the colonies to the declaration of the Supreme Court, America's heritage is built up on the principles of the Christian religion.  And yet the secularists are dismantling this foundation brick by brick, attempting to deny the very core of our national life.

You weigh the evidence. Consider the following facts which are being systematically erased from our nation's memory:

• In 1892, the Supreme Court of the United States declared, "This is a Christian nation."
• During the War for Independence, Congress resolved to import 20,000 volumes of the Bible because "the use of the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great."
• The New England Confederation stated that the purpose of the colonies was "to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the gospel in purity with peace."
• Harvard College required that each student believe that "the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life."
• John Adams wrote, "The Christian religion is...the Religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and humanity."
• Engraved on the metal cap on the top of the Washington Monument are the words "Praise be to God."

As the head of your house, make it your role to learn and understand the Christian Heritage of our country.