The Right Lane updated 2.26.13

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

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Republicans aim to call Obama’s ‘bluff’ on spending cuts

With just four days remaining until automatic budget cuts kick in, Republicans are looking to call President Obama’s “bluff” — by giving him the flexibility to spread around the budget-ax pain in a way that would prevent the kind of fiscal doomsday his administration is predicting. The White House on Sunday evening ramped up its campaign to pressure Republicans, releasing state-by-state reports detailing the purported impact of the cuts. For days, top Cabinet officials have taken to the media to warn about the widespread damage if Congress does not agree to avert the cuts with an Obama-endorsed blend of spending reductions and tax increases. But Republicans have recently questioned whether the president might have more flexibility than he’s letting on. The $85 billion in cuts on tap for this year, they note, amounts to a little more than 2 percent of the federal budget — enough to be felt, but not enough to necessarily herald a crippling of government functions. The Pentagon would be hit disproportionately, but some hope that with a little discretion, the administration could spare the military and other departments from a devastating budget blow.

~~~~~~

Have you fallen for the "bluff" predictions and doomsday scenarios?
If you have only listened to the political class and their surrogates, you may well be frightened about going over the cliff.  However, if you have taken the time to explore other and more reliable sources, it is not going to be an Armageddon.   Sure, it will hurt.  When you cut your own budget it hurts.  Few if any of the dismal predictions by the White House and his department heads are true.  At the earliest, it will take at least a month for the cuts to take place and most Americans won't even notice. Many of the draconian employment impacts being spoken about are not true; teachers, police and fire fighters are NOT federal government employees!  Further, the House has offered to give the President the ability to modify the cuts by agency to reduce more/less to modulate the negative impacts on more vulnerable areas.   Maybe it is time to step back and actually use a bit of critical thinking.  If, as the administration claims, they are not the father/mother of the Nanny state, then these cuts should NOT hurt ones immediate welfare.  You will go to work, conduct your day as usual and pay your taxes as usual.  Another point to think about is when Federal spending doubled, did you notice a huge benefit to you?  More money in your check, lower gas prices and lower medical bills?  NO!  According to many polls the American public does not trust Washington to make the hard decisions to bring the debt and spending under control.  So sit back and relax and watch the mice scramble to "explain" why they did nothing.

~~~~~~

Most Voters Still Understand Sequester Cuts Aren’t Cuts in Current Spending

The longer and louder the political debate in Washington, D.C. gets, it seems the less voters know. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that nearly one-in-four Likely U.S. Voters (23%) now think the automatic government spending cuts scheduled to take effect on Friday will cut the current level of federal spending. That’s up six points from 17% at the beginning of this month.  Fifty-four percent (54%) recognize that the so-called sequester cuts will merely reduce the growth of future spending. That’s down slightly from 58% in early February. Twenty-three percent (23%) still aren’t sure. Propaganda works!!

45% Think Deficit Should Be Reduced By Spending Cuts Alone

A plurality of voters continues to believe spending cuts alone are the best way to reduce the federal deficit. But even among those who favor a “balanced approach” of tax hikes and spending cuts instead, half want more emphasis on spending cuts. Forty-five percent (45%) of Likely U.S. Voters think, generally speaking, that the long-term federal budget deficit should be reduced by cutting spending, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Thirty-six percent (36%) think the better way to reduce the deficit is through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. However, this includes 18% who want the combination to include more tax increases than cuts and 18% who want more spending cuts than tax hikes. Only six percent (6%) feel the deficit should be reduced by raising taxes alone. Thirteen percent (13%) are undecided.

~~~~~~

Real Defense Department Spending Up 54 Percent in 10 Years By Terence P. Jeffrey

Over the past ten fiscal years, inflation-adjusted Defense Department spending has increased by approximately 54 percent, according to Treasury Department data. Real Defense Department spending increased not only under President George W. Bush--in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and during the simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--but also under President Barack Obama a decade after the Sept. 11 attacks and after the Iraq war had ended. In fiscal 2002, which started on Oct. 1, 2001--three weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks—Defense Department spending was $423,856,810,000 in constant 2012 dollars. Ten years later, in fiscal 2012, Defense Department spending was $650,869,000,000 in 2012 dollars. Thus, from fiscal 2002 to fiscal 2012, Defense Department spending increased by $227,012,190,000 in constant 2012 dollars—or by 53.558 percent. In fiscal 2008, the last full fiscal year before President Obama took office, Defense Department spending was $634,152,610,000 in constant 2012 dollars. In fiscal 2012, it was $650,869,000,000—an increase of $16,716,390,000. That is a real increase of 2.568 percent. (The Defense Department spending numbers cited in this article were taken from the U.S. Treasury Department's Monthly Treasury Statements and adjusted to 2012 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics online inflation calculator.)

~~~~~~

Hey, Goofy Leftists: What Happened to Nations When Their Governments Did The Following?  By Rad Magnum

The one thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.

What happens to nations when their governments…

… rob from the rich to buy votes from the poor?

… take legal citizen’s jobs, financial security, medical care and tax dollars and use them to buy votes from illegal immigrants and bribed minorities?

… tax away incentive from the 1% responsible investors to buy votes from the 99% irresponsibly entitled?

… disenfranchise, condemn and discriminate against those with traditional proven values to embrace radical change from politically correct change agents as the norm?

… policies produce more walkers than strollers emptied by government funded birth control and abortions?

… disarm individuals from self-protection to arm a private army (SS, DHS) for enforcement of executive orders?

… vote themselves the treasury, the federal reserve, unrestricted spending and tax exemptions to fund youth indoctrination camps for unscrupulous change agents (like Acorn and now Fair Share) to canvas the       country to slander opposition with big lies, propaganda, and mindless allegiance to a slanted totalitarian power base?

… train, practice and prepare for armed assaults on its own cities, farms, business, and non-combative populace?

… terminate law enforcement and military leadership that refuses to fire on their own civilian population?

… excessively fine businesses that do not share their radical views of deviant inclusivism to buy votes from fringe movements?

… spend more effort popularizing their photo ops with infatuated blind media than disaster relief with emergency services?

… buy votes with money from foreign oil (BP), foreign investment (Pakistan), foreign kickbacks and foreign America hating organizations?

… idolize a leader without a background check, while they criminalize the population by requiring background checks?

… export jobs and import foreign dependence?

… bail out bank usury, investor fraud, and wall street exploitation as they support foreclose on families and allow hoarding of the bail-out money by lenders?

… tolerate, legitimize, support and engender hatred for a selected conservative race, dissenting creed, upper class or opposing party?

… are intolerant of … and discriminate against racial majorities to pander to illegal immigrants, racial vengeance, and minority exploitation?

… finance voter fraud and cover ups?

… threaten loss of wages to steam roll uncontrolled spending?

… embrace junk fringe science bankroll public policy?

… weight statistics to support their agenda?

… approve emergency powers acts to constitutionally exercise dictatorial power without legal objection from other branches of government?

… exploit tragedy and violence as a pulpit to advance political objectives and to recruit party members willing to do the same?

… blend political acuity, deceptiveness and cunning to convert a party’s non-majority but plurality status into effective governing power?

… rewrite history to create a mythology surrounding their rise to power, countries greatness and hidden agendas.

… gain power by false promises denied by big lies, glittering generalities and fringe group appeal?

… criminalize free speech, censor the church and replace dependence on God with dependence on government?

~~~~~~

Guts to Speak the Truth About Islam  by Pete Parker
It is time to wax veracious about one of the most disturbing and chilling realities in US history: When it comes to speaking the truth about Islam – our political class just doesn’t the nerve. This gaggle of sniveling shills has demonstrated (ad nauseam) that they’d rather bestow sugary accolades upon Islam than discuss its hyper-anti-Semitic and misogynistic practices. Practices — by the way– that are profoundly rooted in Koranic dogma. In fact – it was this very class that coined the spurious (not to mention laughable) mantra that: “Islam is a religion of peace.” Truth be told – this bit of mantra will go down as the most acrid, vile and disingenuous piece of dung ever to be flumped by US politicians.   Our nation’s political class is of the expedient opinion that on 9/11 Islam was hijacked. This group mendaciously claims that 19 terrorists co-opted and twisted the “religion of peace” when they slaughtered 3,000 innocent Americans on that fateful day.   Again – this opinion is a glaring and spot-on manifestation of a total lack of guts.  To claim that Islam was “hijacked” on 9/11 is to infer that the Prophet Muhammad (Islam’s founder) was a civil and law abiding individual. This, of course, is nothing more than a craven lie constructed by our nation’s politicos who have been castrated by Allah’s rabid lapdogs (think CAIR and ISNA).  According to Islamic scholars (and narrators) – such as Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari – Muhammad engaged in over 72 military campaigns to propagate Islam, via the sword. During some of his bloodiest battles (including Badr, Medina, Uhud and Mecca) he displayed his brutal anti-Semitic and misogynistic propensities by slaughtering Jews and raping women without an ounce of compunction. Subsequent to the Battle of Medina, Muhammad introduced the preferred method of killing infidels (which terrorists mimic today) when he decreed that every male of the Jewish tribe of Quraiza be beheaded.  After Muhammad’s conquest of Mecca, he declared that: “The hour {of the Last Judgment} will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone which a Jew will be hiding behind will say. O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.” Muhammad’s paradigm is one of unfettered bloodshed, mayhem and genocide. After examining his life (through the lens of Islamic scholars) — it is wholly obvious that the 9/11 terrorists did not hijack Islam, but rather followed its icon’s savage archetype. The historic account of Islam’s founder (thus Islam) is there for all to see. But, sadly – our political class has chosen to remain spinelessly reticent out of fear of being labeled Islamophobic. A fear they wouldn’t have – if they only had the guts!!

~~~~~~~

Texas Public School Students Put On Burqas, Learn That Muslim Terrorists Are ‘Freedom Fighters’

Texas Public Schools have come under fire again. This time, a teacher allegedly encouraged high school girls to dress up in full-length Islamic burqas and then instructed the entire class that Muslim terrorists are actually freedom fighters. The incident occurred in a world geography class at Lumberton High School in the small town of Lumberton, Texas. The general topic of the class that day was Islam. An unnamed student explained the teacher said, “We are going to work to change your perception of Islam.” “I do not necessarily agree with this,” the teacher also allegedly said, “but I am supposed to teach you that we are not to call these people terrorists anymore, but freedom fighters.” The controversial lesson came from a lesson plan provided by CSCOPE, an all-embracing, online K-12 educational curriculum used in 80 percent of the school districts in Texas. A rapidly growing chorus of critics charges that CSCOPE is a radical, backdoor way for progressives to circumvent both the Texas legislative process and the desires of local school boards and communities. See above!

~~~~~~

Obama Group Plans Unlimited Donations

Two of President Barack Obama’s top political strategists are behind the launch of a new liberal activist organization that will be funded by seemingly unlimited donations of $50,000 or more from “Hollywood studio executives, California energy investors and Chicago business titans,” according to the Washington Post.The move has shocked some former progressive allies of the president and represents a complete turnaround for a leader who, as candidate, once pushed for stringent campaign finance reform and strict limits on donations.  They are blasting Obama for abandon his campaign stances in favor of a group that can raise unlimited sums with limited transparency – “the very circumstances he complained about publicly in 2010 when the Supreme Court granted corporations and unions the opportunity to contribute to groups seeking to influence elections,” the Post reports.  “This is an unprecedented vehicle providing a whole new entry point for corruption by individuals and companies that may seek to buy influence with the administration,” said Fred Wertheimer, a Washington lawyer and reform advocate who is president of the organization Democracy 21, told the Post. “It will either lead to scandal or the appearance of scandal.” “This OFA idea is a terrible example of individuals and corporations being asked to pay to get access” to administration officials, added Bob Edgar, a former Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania who heads Common Cause, referring to the new group, Organizing for Action.

~~~~~~

Big Bank Bailout Rolls On: $83 Billion a Year   by Gary North

U.S. taxpayers cough up $83 billion every year for the 10 largest U.S. banks. The top five get about $64 billion. This is equal to their total profits. The public does not know this. Congress does not know this. Top bankers know this, because the story of how banks do it was published by the International Monetary Fund. There has been an article on published by Bloomberg. One short article. Do I mean the Dodd-Frank law did not eliminate this? Correct. Whenever new legislation passes Congress, it has already passed the big banks’ lawyers. These banks are considered too big to fail. All the political positioning about the sequesters of $80+ billion in fiscal 2013 are needless. The government is paying that much to the top 10 banks.

~~~~~~

Where Could We POSSIBLY Cut the Federal Budget?

If you had to cut your family’s budget, where would you cut? Would you immediately start starving your children and stop wearing shoes? Of course not. You would look at the extras in your life—whether they were coffee shop lattes, movie tickets, or restaurant meals. It’s a good thing the President wouldn’t be handling your budget. As Dan Holler of our sister organization, Heritage Action for America, has said: “If President Obama were making the decision for your family… he’d tell you to stop buying gas for your car and explain how you could only eat five days a week.” Now that President Obama has turned against sequestration, he is suggesting that spending cuts to federal agencies must result in dire consequences. Firefighters, emergency responders, and teachers will all be cut, he claims. Media outlets have played up these sob stories, copying White House releases in their local news stories and soliciting sad testimonials from people who supposedly would be affected by these cuts. See above.

~~~~~~

Jimmy Carter unloads on Obama?

Jimmy Carter knows who to blame for the world’s troubles: the United States.  Speaking Sunday in San Francisco, the former president told the Commonwealth Club, “Our country is now looked upon as the foremost war-like nation on earth, and there is almost a complete dearth now of commitment of America to negotiate differences with others.” It’s just the latest slam on the U.S. He’s also blasted staunch allies Britain and Israel, while offering words of support for America-haters Iran, Hamas, Saddam Hussein and North Korea. This time, Carter even scorched the Obama administration for its handling of the Mideast. “The United States has, you might say, zero influence either in Jerusalem or among the Palestinians, and I’m very grieved about that.” Carter also faulted Obama for being too tough on American enemies that are pursuing nuclear capabilities. Carter thinks the U.S would have more influence if it promised to drop sanctions against Iran and North Korea. And he believes talk is the answer.  Hmm!  Just because some idiot is a past president, he is an expert on today's foreign policy.  Now I get it!

~~~~~~

Why Do We Treat Prisoners Better Than Our Elderly?

“Here is some food for thought…We should place the elderly in prisons. They will get a shower a day, video surveillance in case of problems, three meals a day, access to a library, computer, TV, gym, doctor on-site, free medication if needed.”

“Put criminals in nursing homes.  They have cold meals, lights off at 7pm, two showers a week, live in a smaller room and pay rent at $4,000 a month!!!  It’s pretty sad that we treat prisoners better than the elderly.”

~~~~~~

Louis Farrakhan: Gang Members Can Serve As Protectors By Quinn Ford,

I understand and agree that subscription and registration on this site constitutes agreement to the site's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. That came at the Nation of Islam's annual Saviours' Day convention. Farrakhan, 79, renewed the call for African Americans to pool money and buy as much land as possible, in order to "control means of production" and produce food and other goods, such as clothing. Farrakhan said collectively owning land is a way for black people in America to prosper economically. The calls were part of a speech that lasted more than three hours and touched on topics including Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, U.S. Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel and a national push for gun control. Farrakhan told a crowd of more than 7,000 people at the UIC Pavilion that national lawmakers are using Chicago's violence epidemic to push for stronger gun control laws but said the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the spate of shootings in Chicago. "The guns that every one of our young people have, are they legal? No!" Farrakhan said. Instead, Farrakhan had a different idea for how to address gun violence. In addition to sending letters to black military leaders, Farrakhan said he planned to contact the city's gang leaders to recruit gang members to "protect" any land the Nation of Islam might buy in the future. "All you gangbangers, we know you love to shoot, but you're killing yourselves," Farrakhan said. "All your weapons are illegal and you're using them like savages." But Farrakhan said gangbangers are "natural soldiers" and could be taught "the science of war" to become protectors of the Nation of Islam's assets in the future. On Monday, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel weighed in on Farrakhan's gang plan. "I don't think gang members are part of public safety," Emanuel said during a news conference. "They're the problem. And it's quite clear they're the problem."

~~~~~~

Calvin Coolidge Gets New Deal in Revisionist History By Michael Barone
Calvin Coolidge began his political career during the Progressive era, a time of expanding government. But he came to national notice when that era was ending in turmoil.  It was a time of revolution in Russia and attempted revolutions elsewhere in Europe, a time of continuing war in parts of the world even after the armistice formally ended World War I.  At home, it was a time of unemployment and inflation, of bombs set off before the attorney general's house and on Wall Street, of labor union strikes in coal and other basic industries.  Coolidge was governor of Massachusetts and in charge of the Boston police when they went on strike in September 1919. The cops had legitimate grievances. But the strike was followed by nights of violence and murder, looting of department stores and shops.

Coolidge fired the striking policemen. He explained why in a telegram to labor leader Samuel Gompers. It concluded, "There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, anytime."  "The time for disruption was over; in order for the next day to be better," Shlaes writes, "law must be allowed to reign now."  Coolidge became a national celebrity. The Republican bosses in the smoke-filled room picked someone else to be Warren Harding's running mate. But the convention delegates stampeded and nominated Coolidge.  That made Coolidge president on the sudden death of Harding (who comes off much better here than in the New Deal histories) in August 1923.

Shlaes tells how he settled into a routine of meeting regularly with the director of the new Bureau of the Budget, paring down spending any way he could.  Coolidge's Republicans had small majorities in Congress, and many favored big new spending programs — veterans' bonuses, farm subsidies. Coolidge said no, with vetoes that were sustained.  At the same time, he pressed Congress for tax cuts. After Coolidge won a full term in 1924, the top income tax rate was reduced from the wartime 70 percent to 25 percent.  An economy that lurched from inflation to recession between 1918 and 1922 suddenly burst into robust economic growth.  That helped Coolidge achieve budget surpluses ever year — surpluses that he used to pay down the national debt.  In the summer of 1927, while vacationing in the Black Hills of South Dakota, Coolidge announced, "I do not choose to run for president in 1928."  

~~~~~~

"[A] rigid economy of the public contributions and absolute interdiction of all useless expenses will go far towards keeping the government honest and unoppressive."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Marquis de Lafayette, 1823

~~~~~~~~~~~~