Wednesday, January 30, 2013

The Right Lane Updated 1.30.13



The 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
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Justice Scalia: The Constitution is Dead by Michael Minkoff
I know what Scalia means, but part of me couldn’t help but think there was a little irony in the Justice’s recent pronouncement: “[The Constiution’s] not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead!” Speaking to a group at Southern Methodist University, Scalia was promoting what he considers a “strict constructionist” interpretation of the Constitution. The debate on how to interpret the Constitution is older than the Constitution. Most of the Founding Fathers were strict constructionists (as you would imagine… since they drafted the document. Of course they wanted it interpreted as it was written). Over time, as high technology and low morals altered the nature of American society and politics, the question started to arise more and more: “Isn’t this document a little outdated? But rather than re-write it, why not just interpret it freshly for our modern circumstances?” Which basically meant, “Why not just ignore the clear intent of the Founding Fathers and just draw from the Constitution whatever we want it to say…” The question of how to interpret the Constitution is similar to the question of how to translate a book out of one language into another. There are really two basic approaches: metaphrase (concerned only with the literal words) or paraphrase (concerned with intent or overall effect). Both methods are problematic for one reason or another.  The problem with literal translations (which we can liken to strict constructionist models of interpretation) is that sometimes they render the original ridiculous or meaningless to a modern reader. Idioms and ideas may not mean the same thing today as they once did, or as they do in other languages. The problem with paraphrase is obvious: unless the translator is extremely careful, knowledgeable, and conscientious, he might twist the original meaning of a text in an attempt to make it accessible.

The Constitution has been abused by both strict constructionists and loose constructionists. Take, for example, the discussion of gun control and gun rights. On one hand, a strict constructionist could say that since the Founding Fathers were protecting the right to muskets, it is only the right to muskets that is currently protected. Not modern muskets (think AR-15 or M-16), mind you. Literal muskets. This is why Scalia, a purported strict constructionist, has not been the greatest champion of your gun rights. He doesn’t think the Constitution allows you to have whatever arms you can afford. Of course, loose constructionists make the Constitution say whatever is convenient. They pretend, in contradiction to all reason and evidence, that the Founding Fathers wanted to protect only their right to hunting rifles. Both approaches fall into error because Justices and Executors have a vested interest in reading the Constitution in their own way.
Probably the most insightful thing Scalia said was, “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” This is like saying, “A translator should not correct the text he’s translating even if he doesn’t like how the original was written.” Unfortunately, that one’s also up for interpretation, and Scalia spoke more truly than he knew when he said the Constitution was “dead.” All we can hope for is that the Constitution writes in to the Supreme Court: “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”
~~~~~~

WI Sheriff Tells Residents “You Have A Duty To Protect Yourself & Your Family” by Tim Brown
Finally, sheriffs from around the country are coming out vocally against potential gun grabs and gun control legislation by the Obama administration and Congress. One of the latest to not only come out in support of the Second Amendment, but in support of the residents of his county to protect themselves and their families is Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke.  After all, Clarke says that calling 911 is not your best option when facing a violent criminal. In a radio ad, Clarke tells the residents of his county that their personal safety is not a “spectator sport.” He said, “I need you in the game.” “With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option,” Clarke declared.  “You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back.” Clarke urges listeners to take a firearm safety course and handle a firearm “so you can defend yourself until we get there.” “You have a duty to protect yourself and your family,” Clarke exhorted. “We’re partners now. Can I count on you?” The Journal Sentinel reports, 
~~~~~~
Father of 6-Year-Old Sandy Hook Victim In Tears: ‘The Problem Is Not Gun Laws’
~~~~~~

How does the left win on such issues as gun control?
For those that have not been paying attention, in order to rouse the public, one has to have a "villain".  Think about the villains of the past. Remember anyone of them that were a single person?  Not, it was a group.  Think "Tea Party"; aspersed to  be racist, bigots, violent and haters.  That, while not one "person" was able to be described as such.  We have been socialized to "hate" the villain.  As well we should.  Villains are the enemy.  Those that intend us harm.  Marvel comics has made a fortune with super hero's fighting villains.  Many of us were raised on this.  The modern version is the video game.  But, villain hating is the motivator for many.  So, in order to "win" the left has turned to the NRA.  Every story you read about "...we must have gun control, but....the NRA".  The NRA is now the villain that is making your life and your children less safe.  Let's take an historical look at the NRA and YOU decide who is the villain; those that want your guns or the NRA?

After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president. The NRA's interest in promoting the shooting sports among America's youth began in 1903 when NRA Secretary Albert S. Jones urged the establishment of rifle clubs at all major colleges, universities and military academies. By 1906, NRA's youth program was in full swing with more than 200 boys competing in matches at Sea Girt that summer. Today, youth programs are still a cornerstone of the NRA, with more than one million youth participating in NRA shooting sports events and affiliated programs with groups such as 4-H, the Boy Scouts of America, the American Legion, U.S. Jaycees and others. NRA continues its leadership role in hunting today with the Youth Hunter Education Challenge (YHEC), a program that allows youngsters to build on the skills they learned in basic hunter education courses. YHECs are now held in 43 states and three Canadian provinces, involving an estimated 40,000 young hunters.

Law enforcement training was next on the priority list for program development. Although a special police school had been reinstated at Camp Perry in 1956, NRA became the only national trainer of law enforcement officers with the introduction of its NRA Police Firearms Instructor certification program in 1960. Today, there are more than 10,000 NRA-certified police and security firearms instructors. Additionally, top law enforcement shooters compete each year in eight different pistol and shotgun matches at the National Police Shooting Championships held in Jackson, Mississippi.

In civilian training, the NRA continues to be the leader in firearms education. Over 50,000 Certified Instructors now train about 750,000 gun owners a year. Courses are available in basic rifle, pistol, shotgun, muzzleloading firearms, personal protection, and even ammunition reloading. Additionally, nearly 1,000 Certified Coaches are specially trained to work with young competitive shooters. Since the establishment of the lifesaving Eddie Eagle® Gun Safety Program in 1988, more than 12 million pre-kindergarten to sixth grade children have learned that if they see a firearm in an unsupervised situation, they should "STOP. DON'T TOUCH. LEAVE THE AREA. TELL AN ADULT." Over the past seven years, Refuse To Be A Victim® seminars have helped more than 15,000 men and women develop their own personal safety plan using common sense strategies.

While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But their successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly four million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs. As former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos said, "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens.

So, who is the villain in this unfolding story.  I would say the NRA is a national treasure and should be protected.  Don't be fooled!  Have you heard one single member of the NRA to be made out a villain?  Likely, you will not.
~~~~~~
59% Favor Stricter Regulation of Companies Mostly Dependent on Gov't
Voters strongly believe that companies that generate most of their income from the government should face more oversight than those that don’t. But voters tend to oppose the government’s involvement in the management of companies it does that much business with. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters think a company that earns most of its revenue from the government should be more strictly regulated than companies who earn most of their money by serving consumers. Twenty-two percent (22%) disagree, and 19% more are not sure.
~~~~~~
Marines, Army shrinking force size under budgetary restraints BY: Adam Kredo
The United States Marine Corps is set to shed more than 20,000 active duty positions in the coming years and have already commenced a process meant to force some senior officers into an early retirement. The Marines are on course to cut around 4,000 positions a year through 2017, decreasing the total number of Marines to 182,100 from its peak last year of 202,100, according to a major scale-down order that was quietly issued last year. The reduction in forces could leave the elite fighting force underprepared to battle multiple regional threats, particularly those in the Middle East, according to military experts. The impending cuts are independent of the $1.2 trillion in mandatory cuts, otherwise known as sequestration, which will take place next month if Congress fails to reach a preventative deal. “The effect will be that there will not be sufficient Marines available to both be ‘America’s 9-1-1 force’ and to be ready for sustained ground combat,” said Steven Bucci, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense who warned that the decreased number of Marines will leave the force overstretched. “Right now, the Marines are trying to go back to the role of floating about on the three ship Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG) missions forward deployed around the world,” Bucci said, referring to a joint Navy and Marine unit that performs sea-to-shore missions. “There was no ARG available to respond to Benghazi [terror attacks] because the Marines have had so many combat units fighting elsewhere.” “Cuts will prohibit [the Marines] from returning to this key role,” said Bucci, director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
~~~~~~~~
How about more of the same, America?
As the media focuses on BeyoncĂ©’s lip syncing and First Lady Michelle Obama’s bangs, the national unemployment rate now stands at 7.8 percent—where it was when Obama first took office in 2009. Even rosy forecasts don’t see the unemployment rate dropping to pre-recession levels until 2016 at the very earliest. Millions of workers have fled the job market, so a return to George W. Bush-era work force numbers would take years under the best economic circumstances. Circumstances we aren’t enjoying. The Obama economy is only expected to grow at a meager 1 percent to 2 percent rate for the foreseeable future. Fannie Mae, the mortgage-finance company, recently called the sluggish pace of the recovery the “new normal.” Setting aside the real-life consequences of rotten growth, it also means weak revenue will persist, and without any genuine spending or tax reform in our future, the dynamics that have dominated Washington will continue to do so.
~~~~~~~
The 12Ds of “Progressivism”: Liberals at Their Worst  by Sean Aland
In 1832 Noah Webster stated “[I]f the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted”.
The Democratic Party—the so-called progressive party—is not only corrupt but is wedded to what I call the 12 D’s of progressivism: Deny, Defy, Distort, Deceive, Discredit, Demonize, Distract, Discourage, Destroy, Do, Disagree, Disclose. In this day and age, as politics becomes more and more corrupt, the political tactics recommended by Saul Alinsky have been perfected by today’s progressive democrats. Not only that, they are now widely used by our liberals throughout our celebrity society. We have gone from civil discourse, to uncivil, to corrupt in just three administrations. One can pinpoint when the new tactics started: in the early 90’s during the Clinton’s first presidential campaign as they established a “bimbo eruptions team”. Hillary Clinton, who was the brains of the outfit, used her expertise gained from Saul Alinski’s book “Rules for Radicals” to usher in a whole new strategy on how to deal with opposing individuals and ideas. No doubt her expertise revealed in her college thesis was put to good use as she rewrote the rule book for the Clinton camp. Take any politician today, especially a democrat, who gets in trouble and see how many of the 12 D’s they employ. To enable the strategy you need to have a news media that is no longer objective, and panders to those in power, while pushing their own agenda in concert with the politicians. No doubt the mainstream media has sold its soul to the DNC. The media has become the de facto Public Relations arm of the Democrat Party, Obama Whitehouse, and liberals in general. Pravda would be proud. With the media’s assistance, anytime liberals find themselves in an embarrassing or compromising situation, they simply employ the “12D’s of progressivism.
1. DENY. Deny the facts while claiming that the issue in question has nothing to do with the evidence at hand. Common weasel wording includes such lines as: there is an “on-going investigation and I cannot comment on it”. Also deny being part of what has taken place. Bill Clinton’s famous denial ‘I did not have sex with that woman…” is an example of this tactic. Obama’s denials concerning the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya is another example.
2. DEFY. Display artificial indignation and claim to be a victim, even when the opposition has photos, video, recordings and witnesses proving their story to be factual. Then play the beleaguered victim while hurling accusations at the accusers.
3. DISTORT. Cloud the facts, bend the truth, and blame everything on someone else (e.g. the previous administration). With this tactic it is important to use some facts, but not the whole truth and to bend the truth in the desired direction. Mainstream media surrogates make this easier.
4. DECEIVE. When necessary, lie. Go on the attack with the most offensive story possible. Offer up counter accusations to throw the opposition off balance. According to Alinski, if your enemy is spending his time defending himself, he can’t pursue accusations against you.
5. DISCREDIT. Create doubt about the opposition’s integrity, honor, character, proof, witnesses, video, or photos through lies, distortions, and counter-accusations—preferably aided by the mainstream media. Get the media on message with talking points and “Key phrases”.
6. DEMONIZE. Accuse and label the opposition. Use the old “they want …” line and fill in the blank from the following menu: They want… to starve kids, to take medicine away from old people, pollute the water and air, live large while others starve, keep it all for themselves, let people to die while they profit, etc. Over the past four years the Obama administration has used the following terms to describe the opposition: “malicious”, “insensitive”, “evil”, “hostile”, “threatening, “the enemy”, and “flat earthers” to name just a few. Class warfare is an effective aspect of this tactic.
7. DISTRACT. Create another crisis such as the fiscal cliff debacle, to distract people from the real story (e.g. Benghazi, etc.). Create a “war on…” women, children, the poor or blame it all on something else such as a video or anything else that will distract observers from the real issue.
8. DISCOURAGE. Threaten the opposition with dire consequences. Get the media to join in by echoing the threat. To see firsthand this tactic in practice watch CNBC or MSNBC.
9. DESTROY. Engage in character assassination. Go after any aspect of their life that might be vulnerable—nothing is off limits—and use maximum intimidation while claiming the opposition is “mean spirited” and engages in the “politics of personal destruction.” Divide and conquer the opposition by pitting them against each other.
10. DO. Press you agenda while the opposition is distracted by your tactics. As the media adds to the distraction by covering your distortions and misdirection, make as much progress advancing your agenda as possible.
11. DISAGREE. Continue to disagree about the facts no matter what happens. Disagree vehemently and loudly with anyone in the opposition no matter how obvious the validity of their claims may be. Follow Hillary Clinton lead in giving testimony on the Benghazi debacle: pound the table in indignation. Look directly at the camera and with all of the artificial sincerity you can muster, claim your innocence.
12. DISCLOSE. Acknowledge the facts of the case but only when the trial is over, the election is won, statute of limitations has passed, you don’t think it will matter anymore, or the book deal payoff is big enough. Finally, admit the truth but make light of it as if the matter is of little importance—after all it happened so long ago. Do not admit to any responsibility, and show no remorse.
These are the tactics that make up the grand strategy of today’s so-called progressive democrats. Observe liberal democrats during Obama’s second term and I believe you will find that Noah Webster was right!
~~~~~
Los Angeles County 'Birth Tourism' Complaints Spike By ALYSSA NEWCOMB
Complaints have spiked over "birth tourism" in Los Angeles County, with 60 alleged maternity hotels being reported in the past month, according to a report by the county planning department.
Authorities have found it difficult to gain access to the alleged maternity hotels and verify suspicions. So far, they have been able to inspect only seven, and found that three of them were in violation of zoning codes. The surge in complaints comes after a high-profile campaign was waged to shut down a "maternity mansion" in neighboring San Bernadino County. Previously, the commission had reported 15 complaints over a period of five years, according to the Jan. 14 report. Nestled in residential neighborhoods, the so-called maternity hotels are overwhelmingly advertised to women from Asia, as evidenced from various websites, offering expectant mothers the chance to give birth to an American citizen. The practice isn't illegal, according to federal immigration law. The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all people born or naturalized in the United States. "This is the sort of thing the government winks at," said David North, a researcher with the non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies. "It's just one more of the elements in which the American immigration policy is an open door situation."
 
~~~~~~

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

The Left Wins With Villains



How does the left win on such issues as gun control?
For those that have not been paying attention, in order to rouse the public, one has to have a "villain".  Think about the villains of the past. Remember anyone of them that were a single person?  Not, it was a group.  Think "Tea Party"; aspersed to  be racist, bigots, violent and haters.  That, while not one "person" was able to be described as such.  We have been socialized to "hate" the villain.  As well we should.  Villains are the enemy.  Those that intend us harm.  Marvel comics has made a fortune with super hero's fighting villains.  Many of us were raised on this.  The modern version is the video game.  But, villain hating is the motivator for many.  So, in order to "win" the left has turned to the NRA.  Every story you read about "...we must have gun control, but....the NRA".  The NRA is now the villain that is making your life and your children less safe.  Let's take an historical look at the NRA and YOU decide who is the villain; those that want your guns or the NRA?

After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president. The NRA's interest in promoting the shooting sports among America's youth began in 1903 when NRA Secretary Albert S. Jones urged the establishment of rifle clubs at all major colleges, universities and military academies. By 1906, NRA's youth program was in full swing with more than 200 boys competing in matches at Sea Girt that summer. Today, youth programs are still a cornerstone of the NRA, with more than one million youth participating in NRA shooting sports events and affiliated programs with groups such as 4-H, the Boy Scouts of America, the American Legion, U.S. Jaycees and others. NRA continues its leadership role in hunting today with the Youth Hunter Education Challenge (YHEC), a program that allows youngsters to build on the skills they learned in basic hunter education courses. YHECs are now held in 43 states and three Canadian provinces, involving an estimated 40,000 young hunters.

Law enforcement training was next on the priority list for program development. Although a special police school had been reinstated at Camp Perry in 1956, NRA became the only national trainer of law enforcement officers with the introduction of its NRA Police Firearms Instructor certification program in 1960. Today, there are more than 10,000 NRA-certified police and security firearms instructors. Additionally, top law enforcement shooters compete each year in eight different pistol and shotgun matches at the National Police Shooting Championships held in Jackson, Mississippi.

In civilian training, the NRA continues to be the leader in firearms education. Over 50,000 Certified Instructors now train about 750,000 gun owners a year. Courses are available in basic rifle, pistol, shotgun, muzzleloading firearms, personal protection, and even ammunition reloading. Additionally, nearly 1,000 Certified Coaches are specially trained to work with young competitive shooters. Since the establishment of the lifesaving Eddie Eagle® Gun Safety Program in 1988, more than 12 million pre-kindergarten to sixth grade children have learned that if they see a firearm in an unsupervised situation, they should "STOP. DON'T TOUCH. LEAVE THE AREA. TELL AN ADULT." Over the past seven years, Refuse To Be A Victim® seminars have helped more than 15,000 men and women develop their own personal safety plan using common sense strategies.

While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But their successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly four million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs. As former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos said, "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens.

So, who is the villain in this unfolding story.  I would say the NRA is a national treasure and should be protected.  Don't be fooled!  Have you heard one single member of the NRA to be made out a villain?  Likely, you will not.

The Right Lane Update 1.29.13



The 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
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Authoritarian Obamacare VS The Freedom To Enjoy Life’s Risks by Chris Graham
“Your freedom is likely to be someone else’s harm.” So said one Daniel Callahan of the Hastings Center, a bioethics-research organization. He was referring to proverbial Paul’s poor health decisions, such as eating too much and smoking, having a deleterious effect on both Peter’s lungs and wallet. One of the rarely spoken-of secondary effects of the government’s new involvement with virtually everybody’s health care, through Obamacare, is that the government now has a vested interest in all of the health decisions we make in our private lives. The government is in our kitchens, and if we take a sandwich or a cigarette into the bedroom, there the government will be with its prying eyes. If everybody is healthy, then government healthcare will cost less. Of course, if the government were not involved with so many people’s health, save those few truly poor, it wouldn’t need to nose in on what’s on my dinner plate. Once again we see the ineptitude of the federal government and its one-size-fits-all solutions: they create more problems than they profess to aim to solve. But is there something to the argument over public-smoking laws? Some independent studies show second-hand smoke is not constant or concentrated enough to be harmful, while other (usually government-funded) studies show that second-hand smoke can be just as dangerous as direct smoking. Let’s go with the belief that second-hand smoke is very dangerous. I used to be a full supporter of public-smoking bans for this very reason. But only recently did I change my mind when I realized the following: Life is risky. Freedom is risky. By stepping out into the public world, I open myself up to all the risks involved. If I’m out with my kid (as yet non-existent) and someone is wearing a profane shirt or shouting vulgarities, I knew before stepping out that people like that exist in public, and I knew there was the possibility that by taking my kid out in public, I might expose him to some of life’s uglier aspects.
~~~~~~
What’s Being Done About High Crimes from the Obama Admin? Not a D@*N Thing!
It was reported in the Washington Times back in August of last year. That’s right, in 2012, before Obama was re-elected. The Obama administration was selling arms to al Qaeda in Libya. Of course, who could believe that? After all, it wasn’t reported on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC or in the newspaper of record. The New York Times finally released the story in December, after the election. What convenient timing was that? In a more patriotic day, we used to call arming our enemies treason. A President can be impeached for “high crimes”. Treason would certainly fit the definition. But the amazing thing about the new “transformed” America is that nobody gives a damn. After all, “Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.” What is even more puzzling is that the point man in these arms deals was one Ambassador Chris Stevens, who is now dead because of a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that occurred last September 11, 2012. Doesn’t anybody think that something smells fishy here?  Certainly, security expert Frank Gaffney did. He was reported in the Washington Times last October, before the election, “GAFFNEY: The real reason behind Benghazigate Was Obama gun-walking arms to jihadists?” The story reported:
It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria. As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups … We know that Stevens‘ last official act was to hold such a meeting with an unidentified “Turkish diplomat.” Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria.
~~~~~~
Women in combat bad tactic  Kathleen Parker
I
t must be true what they say about women – that they are smarter, stronger, wiser and wilier than your average Joe. How else could one explain the magical thinking that apparently has prompted Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to abandon all reason and lift the ban on women in direct combat?

This is a terrible idea for reasons too numerous to list in this space, which forces me to recommend my 2008 book, “Save the Males,” in which I devote a chapter to the issue. The most salient point happens to be a feminist argument: Women, because of their inferior physical capacities and greater vulnerabilities upon capture, have a diminished opportunity for survival.

More on this, but first let’s be clear. Arguments against women in direct combat have nothing to do with courage, skill, patriotism or dedication.

Most women are equal to most men in all of these categories, and are superior to men in many other areas, as our educational graduation rates at every level indicate. Women also tend to excel as sharpshooters and pilots. But ground combat is one area in which women, through quirks of biology and human nature, are not equal to men – a difference that should be celebrated rather than rationalized as incorrect.   Remember, we’re not talking about female officers of a certain age pacing the hallways of the Pentagon when we speak of placing women in combat, though perhaps we should be. My favorite bumper sticker remains: “I’m out of estrogen and I have a gun.”

We’re potentially talking about 18year-old girls, notwithstanding their “adult” designation under the law. At least 18-year-old males have the advantage of being gassed up on testosterone, the hormone that fuels not just sexual libido but aggression. To those suffering a sudden onset of the vapors, ignore hormones at your peril.   Now, hold the image of your 18-yearold daughter, neighbor, sister or girlfriend as you follow these facts, which somehow have been ignored in the advancement of a fallacy. The fallacy is that because men and women are equal under the law, they are equal in all endeavors and should have all access to the same opportunities. This is true except when the opportunity requires certain characteristics. Fact: Females have only half the upper-body strength as males – no small point in the field.

Further to the fallacy is the operating assumption that military service is just another job. The rules of civil society do not apply to the military, which is a top-down organization in which the rules are created to maximize efficiency in killing enemies. It is not just another job that can be managed with the human resources department’s Manual on Diversity and Sensitivity.  The argument that women’s performance on de facto front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan has proved concerns about combat roles unwarranted is false logic. Just because women in forward support companies can return fire when necessary – or die – doesn’t necessarily mean they are equal to men in combat. Unbeknownst perhaps to many civilians, combat has a very specific meaning in the military. It has nothing to do with stepping on an IED or suffering the consequences of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It means aggressively engaging and attacking the enemy with deliberate offensive action, with a high probability of face-to-face contact.

If the enemy is all around you – and you need every available person – that is one set of circumstances. To ask women to engage vicious men and risk capture under any other is beyond understanding. This is not a movie or a game. Every objective study has argued against women in direct combat for reasons that haven’t changed.

The threat to unit cohesion should require no elaboration. But let’s leave that obvious point to pedants and cross into enemy territory where somebody’s 18-year-old daughter has been captured. No one wants to imagine a son in these circumstances either, but women face special tortures. And, no, the rape of men has never held comparable appeal. We can train our men to ignore the screams of their female comrades, but is this the society we want to create?  And though some female veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have endured remarkable suffering, their ability to withstand or survive violent circumstances is no rational argument for putting American girls and women in the hands of enemy men. It will kill us in the end.
~~~~~~
Hagel Urges US to Turn Over Powers to International Courts
Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee for defense secretary, sits on the board of fund that is the main financial backer of group urging the U.S. to join the U.N.’s International Criminal Court, which could prosecute American citizens and soldiers for “war crimes” and other offenses. WND previously exposed Hagel serves on the board of the Ploughshares Fund, a George Soros-funded group that advocates a nuclear-free world. The Ploughshares Fund has a long history of anti-war advocacy and is a partner of the Marxist-oriented Institute for Policy Studies, which has urged the defunding of the Pentagon and massive decreases in U.S. defense capabilities, including slashing the American nuclear arsenal to 292 deployed weapons. Aaron Klein’s “Fool Me Twice” spells out Obama’s shocking, radical plans for the next four years. Now WND has learned that Hagel’s Ploughshares Fund is a major financial contributor to something called the Connect U.S. Fund, or CUSF.
~~~~~~

Feinstein Says She Wants To Go After More Than Just “Assault Weapons” by Tim Brown
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) appeared on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday told host Candy Crowley that the push for gun bans won’t just be about her alleged “assault weapons.” Today, she basically updated her 1995 60 Minutes interview where she said, “Mr. & Mrs. America, Turn ‘Em All In.” Feinstein told Candy Crowely that it has “always been an uphill battle,” pointing to her “assault weapons ban” bill. “This is the hardest of the hard,” she said. “Will it only be ‘assault weapons’?” she asked. “No,” she declared, answering her own question. “Most likely there will be a package put together.” “If assault weapons is left out the package and I’m a member of the Judiciary, number two in seniority, I’ve been assured by the majority leader I’ll be able to do it as an amendment on the floor, which is the way I did it in 1993,” she said. [Opportunity Harry will not afforded to Republicans] “So that doesn’t particularly bother me. What does bother me is I’ve seen weapons spawned and grown and now in the hands of younger and younger people over these years.” Sen. Feinstein said, “I think enough is enough. Do military style ‘assault weapons’ belong on the streets of our cities? And the answer, according the United States Conference of Mayors, according to major chiefs of police, according to the largest police organization in the world, is absolutely ‘No.’”

Pardon me, but the traitor Senator from California failed to mention the only thing that does matter when dealing with this issue and that is “according to the United States Constitution” the do belong in the hands of American citizens. Let me be blunt. The Constitution doesn’t give a damn about any of the organizations she cited and what they think. If she and these organizations think things need to be changed why don’t they put forth an amendment to the Constitution? But they don’t do that because they know better. Frankly, she and all those who have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and have supported such measures as she has put forth should be put under arrest, tried, and if found guilty of treason against the United States Constitution, which shouldn’t be hard to prove, should be publicly executed for such actions.

While Feinstein claims to have the support of these organizations, notice she does not have the support of the one thing that does matter and that is the United States Constitution.
She was asked if she would concede that the weapons ban she has put forth is a “tough road.”
She conceded that it was a tough road, but said it was because, “The NRA is venal.” This comes from one of the most corrupt politicians warming a seat in the United States Senate!
“They come after you, ” she said. “They put together large amounts of money to defeat you. They did this in ’93 and they intend to continue it, while the opposite can take place too.”
When asked if the NRA was really “venal” or was it that they simply disagreed with her on a matter of policy, Feinstein responded, “The NRA has become an institution of gun manufacturers. This morning, on the front page of the New York Times, I was reading about their program now to provide weapons and training for youngsters from eight years old to fifteen years old and this is supported by the gun manufacturers. In other words, here is a whole other group of people that we can get these weapons to. They just don’t happen to be adults, they’re children.”
The National Rifle Association is not an institution of gun manufacturers. It’s an association of people who support the Second Amendment. One hundred thousand gun manufacturers didn’t join the NRA last month. Individuals did.

I certainly have disagreed with the NRA’s Shield program, but I firmly believe in the NRA’s program to train and educate young kids about gun safety and proper gun use. This will maintain the next generation so that people like Dianne Feinstein fear those of us who properly understand the Second Amendment and realize it is put there to defend ourselves against ogre politicians such as herself, who are the real venal people in the matter, gaining too much money and power from anti-gun lobbies to attack the United States Constitution and in the process, attack the American people. Senator Feinstein doesn’t have a clue that the Second Amendment is to keep government and those in it, like herself, from doing exactly what she wants to do and that is to eventually disarm the people and rule over them. I have two words for Senator Feinstein and any politician or federal government official who wants our guns, “Molon labe!”
~~~~~
"[R]eligion and virtue are the only foundations, not of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all government and in all the combinations of human society." --John Adams
"[T]he current and future role of the Bible in U.S. society is an often-debated topic. A new release from Barna Group shows how this debate plays out regionally and takes a look at how 96 of the largest cities in the nation view the Bible. ... Individuals who report reading the Bible in a typical week and who strongly assert the Bible is accurate in the principles it teaches are considered to be Bible-minded. ... Regionally, the South still qualifies as the most Bible-minded. ... This includes the media markets for Knoxville, TN (52% of the population are Bible-minded), Shreveport, LA (52%), Chattanooga, TN (52%), Birmingham, AL (50%), and Jackson, MS (50%). ... Easily the lowest Bible-minded scores came from Providence, RI (9%) and Albany, NY (10%). ... The New England area is home to most of the markets in the bottom 10 Bible-minded cities, including Burlington, VT (16%), Portland, ME (16%), Hartford, CT (16%), Boston, MA (16%), Buffalo, NY (18%) and New York, NY (18%). The remaining markets in the bottom 10 are primarily in the West and include San Francisco, CA (16%), Phoenix, AZ (17%), and Las Vegas, NV (18%). ... See all 96 cities here. ... Whether you live in a city ranked in the top half of Bible-minded cities or in the bottom half of Bible-minded cities, there are still tens of thousands of people to reach regarding both the message of the Scriptures and their importance. ... The key is to not merely 'preach to those insiders' but instead to equip and empower those who do believe with a strong and relevant message to take out into their communities, vocations and spheres of influence. They are the tipping point and can have great influence on the greater city." --The Barna Group
~~~~~~
Sharpton: ‘People do not have the right to unregulated rights in this country’
Following a public policy meeting of African-American leaders, National Urban League president Marc Morial and National Action Network president Al Sharpton called for a new national assault weapons ban, saying the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be regulated. “The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not absolute. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and hide behind the First Amendment,” said Morial when asked by TheDC if he supports California Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein’s assault weapon ban bill “And we absolutely think that the idea of banning a military style assault weapon, a weapon that I am confident that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison never laid their eyes on, is not inconsistent with the rights of those who self-protect, those who shoot, who want to participate in sporting and hunting,”  The 2nd Amendment was ratified on December 17, 1791 along with the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. While it is a very short amendment, its exact meaning in terms of what types of weapons are protected is still in contention today. Text of the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Intersting, the debate is focused on the type of weapon and conveniently leaves out the last four words.  The question should be; "What did the founding fathers mean when they inserted '..shall not be infringed...'?"
~~~~~~

ShareThis