The Right Lane 1.19.13

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny

Bottom of Form

Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17% disagree, while another 18% are not sure.

~~~~~~

Debt Ceiling Should Be About Numbers  By Scott S. Powell
It's unsettling that Washington is so much more cavalier in the treatment of budgets and numbers than is the case in the private sector. Any business or family household knows that revenue intake has to offset spending over the long run in order to carry on and remain viable. How is it that Washington can delay the requirements of solvency that apply everywhere else?

In his classic, Modern Times, British historian Paul Johnson explains that our age has been shaped by the misperception of Einstein's theory of relativity. Johnson asserts that as that theory became popularized, "the belief began to circulate for the first time… that there were no longer any absolutes: of time and space, of good and evil, of knowledge, above all of value." Thus, the misconstrued theory of relativity contributed to cutting society adrift of traditional moorings of absolutes in morality and undermined the certainty of numbers. It may have also opened the door to abdicating one generation's sense of responsibility for the next.  

~~~~~~

Shocking! NBC’s Chuck Todd: America Is Not Better Off Under Obama  Watch Here

~~~~~~

Obama economic jump start proposals and executive orders signed flanked by child letter writers about fathers with no Jobs

Hinna Z‘s letter asked Obama a simple question: ‘After watching the news all day Friday, one question pop[P]ed in my head, and that question is: ‘Can we stop dads form losing jobs?’’

REUTERS/Jason Reed

U.S. President Barack Obama high-fives eight-year-old Hinna Zejah after unveiling a series of job creation proposals.

WASHINGTON — Like many children, 8-year-old Hinna Z. of Long Island was frightened by the sheer number of kids having parents without jobs. Unlike most kids, Hinna was moved to action, sending President Obama a letter asking for stronger action to help the economy create more jobs.  And so the precocious third-grader from Oceanside found herself in an unlikely setting Wednesday — standing with Obama at the White House.  She was one of many children who wrote Obama about the job losses — and four were invited to stand with him as he announced his sweeping plan to get the government out of the way to kick start the economy. “You can go ahead and wave, Hinna,” the President said, introducing her. “That’s you!”  Obama then read part of her letter: 

 “I feel terrible for the parents who lost their kpbs... I love my country and I want everyone to have a job.”  Afterward, Obama gave Hinna a high-five. It was all heady stuff for the youngster and her mother, Nadia, an unemployed real estate broker who stood with her at the White House.

~~~~~~

Barack Obama, The Coward Using Our Children

I thought the “NRA Attack Ad” (as the media calls it) made a great point. But USAToday recently reported on the White House response made an even better point: showing us what kind of self-worshiping elitists the populace of the United States is forced to fight against. The NRA TV advertisement presented the fact that Obama didn’t think much of setting up armed guards at the nation’s schools. Yet he and those like him had tax-payer funded armed protection for themselves and for their children. The NRA’s point was that, while Obama demanded everyone “pay their ‘fair share.’” He wasn’t willing to support a “fair share” of security for the nation’s children. He was satisfied with special privileges for his own. I thought the ad was brilliant, because it not only covered the NRA’s proposal for armed guards in our schools (which I’m on the fence about) but also, without mentioning it, raised the issue that, by taking guns, the government is taking away what security they can afford.

“The White House attacked the National Rifle Association on Wednesday for an ad that mentioned President Obama’s daughters… ‘Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight,’ said White House spokesman Jay Carney. The Obama spokesman added: ‘But to go so far as to make the safety of the president’s children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly.’”

Excuse me? Who traveled to Sandy Hook to get photo ops with the sibling children of the victims? Who made his major announcement surrounded by a group of children? Who read letters purportedly authored by children? Whose Vice President introduced him with a litany about the children of Sandy Hook? Who has been trying to disarm Americans in the name of “the children”?

Why aren’t our children “off limits,” Mr. President?

~~~~~~

Backfire: Obama Approval Plummets During Gun Push

Just a week before the New Year, Obama enjoyed his highest approval ratings of 2012. According to Gallup, 58% of Americans approved of the job Obama was doing. Survey results released today by Gallup, though, show Obama’s approval rating has plummeted to just 49%. It is a dramatic drop, especially coming over a holiday period when people traditionally pay little attention to politics. Four years ago, at his first inauguration, a full 69% of Americans approved of Obama. The drop in Obama’s approval from 4 years ago is understandable, given the sluggish economy and the hope American’s had as his presidency began. The considerable drop from just a few weeks ago is more puzzling. According to the media, he was the “winner” of the fiscal cliff negotiations, getting most of the tax hikes he campaigned on and avoiding spending cuts.

~~~~~~

Fox News poll: Twice as many favor more guns over banning guns to reduce crime

Nearly twice as many voters say there would be less violent crime if more law-abiding Americans owned guns, than if guns were banned. In addition, while American voters generally favor strengthening gun laws, 71 percent do not think tougher laws can stop shootings like the one last month in Newtown, Connecticut. Some 22 percent say new laws can prevent the next Sandy Hook. These are just some of the findings from a Fox News poll released Friday. Majorities of gun owners (81 percent), non-gun owners (58 percent), Democrats (58 percent), independents (72 percent) and Republicans (85 percent) say the people who do these kinds of things “will always find the guns” to commit violent acts.

~~~~~~

GAO report: US on ‘unsustainable long-term fiscal path’

The Government Accountability Office warned in a report that if cuts are not made to mandatory spending — including Social Security and Medicare — there will be a fundamental gap between spending and revenue as more baby boomers retire. “Significant actions to change the long-term fiscal path must be taken,” the GAO warned. The report was released amid heated debates between the president and congressional Republicans trying to hammer out a deal over taxes and spending. If no deal is reached, taxes go up and major spending is cut. The GAO warned that discretionary spending is not the crux of the problem. “Discretionary spending limits [which includes defense spending] alone do not address the fundamental imbalance between estimated revenue and spending, which is driven largely by the aging of the population and rising health care costs.”

~~~~~~

Whoops: PolitiFact’s ‘Lie of the Year’ Turns Out to Be True

Last month, PolitiFact selected its “Lie of the Year.” Given PolitiFact’s dubious record of singling out Republicans for lying far more often than Democrats, you probably could have guessed the winner of this particular sweepstakes was a Mitt Romney campaign ad:

It was a lie told in the critical state of Ohio in the final days of a close campaign — that Jeep was moving its U.S. production to China. It originated with a conservative blogger, who twisted an accurate news story into a falsehood. Then it picked up steam when the Drudge Report ran with it. Even though Jeep’s parent company gave a quick and clear denial, Mitt Romney repeated it and his campaign turned it into a TV ad.

By expanding Jeep production to China [announced this week], instead of increasing Jeep production in the U.S., it’s safe to say Jeep (or more properly, Fiat, which now owns Chrysler) is choosing to create more jobs overseas instead of in America where taxpayers bailed the company out.

~~~~~~

Media Selective Outrage

~~~~~~

47 states revolt against Obama gun control

Thousands of gun owners across America have had enough of the Obama administration’s attack on the Second Amendment – and they’re preparing to take their concerns to the capitols in at least 47 states this Saturday at 12 p.m.  Texan Eric Reed, founder and national coordinator of the “Guns Across America” rallies, told WND he’s irritated about all the talk of new gun-control regulations and overreach by the federal government in violation of our Second Amendment rights. “I was trying to figure out why people weren’t being more proactive about this, Reed said. “Then I realized I’m part of the problem. It takes somebody to stand up and say, ‘Hey, we’re not going to accept this. We’re against it.’ “We want Americans who feel the same way to come out. We want to stand up, be united and get our point across.”

~~~~~~

Rangel: Southern States “Have Cultures That We Have To Overcome” - Regional Racism

REP. RANGEL (D-NY): "New York is different and more progressive than a lot of areas in other states, and some of the Southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome. But we do have a model set of what Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, have come together and put the party labels behind them and come forward with something that says, ‘hey, we may disagree, but one thing is clear, that we have to do something’ and that’s exactly what they’ve done."

~~~~~~~

Guns Don’t Kill People, the Mentally Ill Do

Seung-Hui Cho, who committed the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, had been diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder as a child and placed under treatment. But Virginia Tech was prohibited from being told about Cho’s mental health problems because of federal privacy laws.  At college, Cho engaged in behavior even more bizarre than the average college student. He stalked three women and, at one point, went totally silent, refusing to speak even to his roommates. He was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for one night and then unaccountably unleashed on the public, whereupon he proceeded to engage in the deadliest mass shooting by an individual in U.S. history.  The 2011 Tucson, Ariz., shopping mall shooter, Jared Loughner, was so obviously disturbed that if he’d stayed in Pima Community College long enough to make the yearbook, he would have been named “Most Likely to Commit Mass Murder.”  After Loughner got a tattoo, the artist, Carl Grace, remarked: “That’s a weird dude. That’s a Columbine candidate.” One of Loughner’s teachers, Ben McGahee, filed numerous complaints against him, hoping to have him removed from class. “When I turned my back to write on the board,” McGahee said, “I would always turn back quickly — to see if he had a gun.” On her first day at school, student Lynda Sorensen emailed her friends about Loughner: “We do have one student in the class who was disruptive today, I’m not certain yet if he was on drugs (as one person surmised) or disturbed. He scares me a bit. The teacher tried to throw him out and he refused to go, so I talked to the teacher afterward. Hopefully he will be out of class very soon, and not come back with an automatic weapon.” So, tell me what law or executive order will prevent future Seung-Hui or Jared Loughners? I submit none.  They were intent on committing an atrocity and could have cared less about any law. Oh, wait a minute; we already have laws against murder!

~~~~~~

NBC Poll: Public Blames Parents, Hollywood Over Guns for Violence By: Jim Meyers

Americans place more blame for mass shootings on parents and Hollywood than they do on guns, a surprising new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll reveals. Asked how much responsibility several choices might bear for the shootings that have taken place in Tucson, Ariz.; Aurora, Colo.; and Newtown, Conn., guns came in fifth. The top choice was “parents not paying enough attention to what is going on in their children’s lives” — 83 percent said that was “a great deal” or a “good amount” responsible. Only 4 percent said “none at all.” The second choice, selected by 82 percent as “a great deal” or “a good amount,” was “the lack of effective treatment for mental illness.” Next came “the amount of media coverage of mass shootings,” at 67 percent. Fourth was “movies, television programs, and video games that portray violence and violent behavior,” chosen by 62 percent. Tied for fifth place at 59 percent each was “assault and military-style firearms being legal to purchase,” and “the availability of high capacity ammunition clips.” Another 49 percent blamed “the lack of security measures at schools, malls, and other places where people gather.” The poll also found that 56 percent believe the laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, compared with 42 percent who want them less strict or kept the same. However, support for stricter controls is significantly less today than it was during the 1990s, when more than 60 percent supported stricter laws, topping out at 78 percent in 1990. Another interesting finding of the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll: Asked how they view the National Rifle Association, 24 percent said “very positive” and 17 percent said “somewhat positive,” while 20 percent were “neutral.” That’s up from 21 percent “very positive” in January 2011, and significantly higher than in June 1995, when just 12 percent said “very positive.”

~~~~~~

Bob Schieffer: Obama Taking On NRA Equal to Defeating The Nazis by Frank Camp

I desperately tried to find a great quote that would summarize my thoughts on what I’m about to write. I searched all over the web, and could find not a single quote that encapsulated the preposterousness of what Bob Schieffer said on Wednesday. So rather than blather on with platitudes, like I usually do, I’m gonna get right to it. According to Bob Schieffer, President Obama’s battle against the NRA is comparable to both Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights battles, and the defeat of the Nazis in World War II. Here’s the exact quote for your perusal and general amusement:

“Let’s remember: there was considerable opposition when Lyndon Johnson went to the Congress and…presented some of the most comprehensive civil rights legislation in the history of this country. Most people told him he couldn’t get it done, but he figured out a way to do it. And that’s what Barack Obama is going to have to do…what happened in Newtown was probably the worst day in this country’s history since 9/11. We found Osama bin Laden. We tracked him down. We changed the way that we dealt with that problem. Surely, finding Osama bin Laden; surely, passing civil rights legislation, as Lyndon Johnson was able to do; and before that, surely, defeating the Nazis, was a much more formidable task than taking on the gun lobby.”

Hang on there a minute, Mr. Schieffer. Aside from being incorrect in your sentiment, you have some facts a bit skewed. First, Schieffer is implying that because Johnson was a Democrat, that his opposition must have come from Republicans in regard to civil rights legislation. In actuality, it was Democrats that were largely against civil rights –more Republicans voted for it than Democrats. Now onto the second part of Schieffer’s diatribe. In his rant, he equates going up against the NRA with defeating the Nazis. Seems a bit extreme. Bob Schieffer is exaggerating to such an extent, that it goes beyond simple hyperbole; it moves toward irresponsibility. So, when actually analyzed, the information in Schieffer’s quote is nothing more than simple lies through omission, and grotesque exaggerations. It is really disturbing to me that this man is regarded as a national treasure in the news industry. He distorts the truth, and propagates gross misrepresentations; which is the exact opposite of what a journalist should do. I would admonish Schieffer; tell him that he’s better than this garbage; but I know he’s not. Schieffer is just one of a million “journalists” who are propping this President up. Don’t believe a word he says, because he is a snake.

~~~~~~~

Rasmussen: 65% See Gun Rights as Protection Against Tyranny

Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65 percent of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17 percent disagree, while another 18 percent are not sure. Not surprisingly, 72 percent of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57 percent) of those without a gun in their home hold that view. Many gun control advocates talk of the right to gun ownership as relating to hunting and recreational uses only. While there are often wide partisan differences of opinion on gun-related issues, even 54 percent of Democrats agree with 75 percent of Republicans and 68 percent of those not affiliated with either major party that the right to own a gun is to ensure such freedom.

~~~~~~

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1795

"If there be a principle that ought not to be questioned within the United States, it is, that every nation has a right to abolish an old government and establish a new one. This principle is not only recorded in every public archive, written in every American heart, and sealed with the blood of a host of American martyrs; but is the only lawful tenure by which the United States hold their existence as a nation." --James Madison, Helevidius, No. 3, 1793

~~~~~~

Real, Successful CEO Slams Obamacare–Take Note! by Frank Camp

There’s an eerie perception in this country, on the part of Liberals, that government is the ultimate benefactor; the final word on what is good and right. We all know about this peculiar world-view, but it bears reminding. On the flip-side, those who are in actual positions of success, such as CEOs, and real businessmen, are demonized and regarded as evil, greedy people who have no interest beyond their own. In an NPR interview, the CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, said this of Obamacare: “Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. In fascism, the government doesn’t own the means of production, but they do control it—and that’s what’s happening with our health care programs and these reforms…We no longer have free enterprise capitalism in health care. It’s not a system any longer where people are able to innovate. It’s not based on voluntary exchange. The government is directing it so we need a new word for it, I don’t know what that right word is.”  It’s one thing when a Conservative business or businessman slams Obama, but when you have a supplier of healthy, organic foods–who’s corporation you’d expect to be on the Liberal side of the aisle, honestly–makes a derisive comment; it sticks in the mind.  Whole Foods is an extraordinarily successful chain with extremely modest beginnings. From there, it grew into a model of business success. Whole Foods employs thousands of people, and it’s success depends on many factors; with healthcare costs nearing the top of the list. John Mackey, and CEO’s like him, are the beginning and the end of our economy. His opinion of Obamacare reflects not only the opinion of many business owners, but basic economic truth. This President has presided over one of the biggest economic interventions in history and it is stifling business, which is killing our economy. It is simple, obvious, and powerfully clear. Instead of dismissing or demonizing businessmen, we should be looking to them for guidance in a troubled economy. When the President acts in direct opposition to the advice of successful people; and directly against the best interest of the American people, it may be time to consider dismissing the President. Impeachment? Maybe; maybe not. Just a thought.