The Right Lane update 4.25.13

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

To subscribe, see note below

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This GOP Rep’s Anti-Obama Speech on the House Floor Is Spreading Fast

Freshman Congressman Tom Cotton (R-AR) delivered some thought-provoking comments on terrorism and the Obama administration on Wednesday during a speech on the House floor. “In barely four years,” he said, “five jihadists have reached their targets in the United States under Barack Obama.”But he wasn’t done there. “In the over seven years after 9/11 under George W. Bush, how many terrorists reached their target in the United States?” he added. “Zero! We need to ask, ‘Why is the Obama Administration failing in its mission to stop terrorism before it reaches its targets in the United States?’”

Here’s the video:

~~~~~~

Liberals Have Found A Way To Use The Fabric That Is Cut Out To Make The Hole In Burqas

~~~~~~

Hillary Rejected Benghazi Security, Report Finds by Tad Cronn

A report authored by five GOP congressmen says that Hillary Clinton personally rejected a direct request for more security at the Benghazi, Libya, facility before the September 11 attack that left four Americans dead.

That directly contradicts Clinton’s testimony before a congressional committee that requests for more security did not come to her. The authors of the report released Tuesday had access to Obama Administration memos and emails that the report said shows that reductions in security levels at the Benghazi facility were approved “at the highest levels of the State Department,” including in at least one instance by Clinton herself. In January, Clinton was questioned at a congressional hearing about events in Benghazi and was specifically asked about removal of some Marines from the facility over the objection of State Department officials in Libya. She testified that such decisions were handled far below her authority level. Seven months and we still have not heard from the survivors and the facts of the event!

~~~~~~

Boston Bombing ‘Mastermind’ Was On Welfare!

Marathon bombings mastermind Tamerlan Tsarnaev was living on taxpayer-funded state welfare benefits even as he was delving deep into the world of radical anti-American Islamism, the Herald has learned. State officials confirmed last night that Tsarnaev, slain in a raging gun battle with police last Friday, was receiving benefits along with his wife, Katherine Russell Tsarnaev, and their 3-year-old daughter. The state’s Executive Office of Health and Human Services said those benefits ended in 2012 when the couple stopped meeting income eligibility limits. Russell Tsarnaev’s attorney has claimed Katherine — who had converted to Islam — was working up to 80 hours a week as a home health aide while Tsarnaev stayed at home. In addition, both of Tsarnaev’s parents received benefits, and accused brother bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan were recipients through their parents when they were younger, according to the state. The news raises questions over whether Tsarnaev financed his radicalization on taxpayer money. In 2009, he was quoted in a photo essay as saying, “I don’t have a single American friend, I don’t understand them,” adding that he believed Americans had lost their “values.”

~~~~~~

Russian Calls Out Barack Obama As A Communist by Leon Puissegur

Barack Obama is called a pure Communist by the Russian Press and many in Russia are making that statement. Maybe that is why the Boston Bombers could get away with what they did. It seems that Russia knew that the older brother was one to watch and they informed our intelligence community of it, yet the FBI once again failed because they “did not want to inflame people with Jihad connections or ideology!” Obama has declared that the United States will not “attack” those who hate the United States and instead, Obama wants to try to appease the situation in the terrorists’ favor. One individual, a man named Xavier Lerma, who wrote many articles about Obama and what he has done, along with calling the people of the United States stupid and ignorant for putting him in office has openly called Obama a Communist! His article, “Obama’s Soviet Mistake,” discusses why what Obama is doing now has been done before in Russia and it failed.

Mr. Lerma stated:

“Putin in 2009 outlined his strategy for economic success. Alas, poor Obama did the opposite but nevertheless was re-elected. Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama but failed miserably in Russia with Zyuganov who only received 17% of the vote. Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake.”

This was in the first paragraph of his article where he made the statement about President Obama, “Well, any normal individual understands that as true but liberalism is a psychosis . Obama even keeps the war going along the Mexican border with projects like “fast and furious” and there is still no sign of ending it. He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion.”

~~~~~~

Big Sis: Obama Admin Can Pick Which Laws to Enforce

During her testimony on the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared that she, President Barack Obama and other political officials at the top of this administration have the authority to decide which laws to enforce, and which ones to ignore.  Napolitano made the declaration in an exchange with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) when he was questioning her on how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have alleged that political officials in the Obama administration, including her, have blocked them from enforcing the law. Sessions noted that ICE agents’ union president Chris Crane had testified on Monday “that agents are prohibited from enforcing the law and, indeed, the ICE officers have filed a lawsuit [to that effect].”  “I started out as a federal prosecutor in the Department of Justice in 1975,” Sessions said. “I have never heard of a situation in which a group of law officers sued their supervisor and you for blocking them from following the law. They weren’t complaining about pay, benefits, working conditions. They were saying their very oath they took, to enforce the law, is being blocked by rules and regulations and policies established from on high and that this is undermining their ability to do what they’re sworn to do.”

~~~~~~

Racist Jackass Alert: Comedian Is Cool with White Bostonians Getting Bombed

African-American comedian Paul Mooney hurled racial insults at his audience Saturday at Levity Live in West Nyack, outrageously stating that white people in Boston deserved to be bombed, and as long as no blacks were injured in the attack, he was okay with it. It’s not clear the context preceding Mooney’s remarks, but what he said reportedly caused about 20 persons to leave the performance and demand refunds, management confirmed with media Sunday. As a result of his statements, Levity Live cancelled his Sunday performance and he will not be invited back to the club “anytime soon,” management further confirmed. According to reports printed in Newsday and other outlets, one Twitter user in attendance explained Mooney said: “White people in Boston deserved what they got” and “as long as no blacks got hurt it was OK.”

~~~~~~

Krauthammer: 'The Lengths To Which Obama Will Go To Avoid Telling Us About The Enemy Is Becoming Comical'

Following a powerful Talking Points Memo, Bill O'Reilly spoke with Charles Krauthammer about how Barack Obama is handling terrorism and radical Islam. 

KRAUTHAMMER:

I say I don't know what he is thinking, but I sure know what he is saying and doing. The lengths to which he will go to avoid telling us the truth about the enemy is becoming comical, it's certainly embarrassing. For example, he will never -- forget about the word jihadist, he'll never use that. But he refuses to use the word Islamist which is used throughout the Muslim world. It's used by journalists, authors, on the street, in the parliament, everywhere, in Egypt, it's used in Lebanon, it's used everywhere by Muslims. And yet, Obama won't touch it because he refuses to use any words that might imply a connection between radical Islam and terrorism, which as anybody who is over the age of 9 knows is the single greatest cause of terror in the world today. I'll give you one example, which is completely overlooked by everyone. It was a rather trivial one. When he was in Israel, he gave a speech in Jerusalem. And in the middle of the speech, he talked about the rise of the Islamist parties in Egypt and elsewhere -- the [Muslim] Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya, etc. And what was the phrase he used? 'We have to be concerned about the rise of non-secular parties.' What a weird word to use. The word is religious parties. The word is Islamist parties. Yet, even in this trivial throw away line, in a speech in Jerusalem, he refuses to use the obvious word.

~~~~~~

Anarchy and Hegemony By Robert D. Kaplan
Everyone loves equality: equality of races, of ethnic groups, of sexual orientations, and so on. The problem is, however, that in geopolitics equality usually does not work very well. For centuries Europe had a rough equality between major states that is often referred to as the balance-of-power system. And that led to frequent wars. East Asia, by contrast, from the 14th to the early 19th centuries, had its relations ordered by a tribute system in which China was roughly dominant. The result, according to political scientist David C. Kang of the University of Southern California, was a generally more peaceful climate in Asia than in Europe.

The fact is that domination of one sort or another, tyrannical or not, has a better chance of preventing the outbreak of war than a system in which no one is really in charge; where no one is the top dog, so to speak. That is why Columbia University's Kenneth Waltz, arguably America's pre-eminent realist, says that the opposite of "anarchy" is not stability, but "hierarchy." Hierarchy eviscerates equality; hierarchy implies that some are frankly "more equal" than others, and it is this formal inequality -- where someone, or some state or group, has more authority and power than others -- that prevents chaos. For it is inequality itself that often creates the conditions for peace.

Government is the most common form of hierarchy. It is a government that monopolizes the use of violence in a given geographical space, thereby preventing anarchy. To quote Thomas Hobbes, the 17th century English philosopher, only where it is possible to punish the wicked can right and wrong have any practical meaning, and that requires "some coercive power." The best sort of inequality is hegemony. Whereas primacy, as Kang explains, is about preponderance purely through military or economic power, hegemony "involves legitimation and consensus." That is to say, hegemony is some form of agreed-upon inequality, where the dominant power is expected by others to lead. When a hegemon does not lead, it is acting irresponsibly.  Of course, hegemony has a bad reputation in media discourse. But that is only because journalists are confused about the terminology, even as they sanctimoniously judge previous historical eras by the strict standards of their own. In fact, for most of human history, periods of relative peace have been the product of hegemony of one sort or another. And for many periods, the reigning hegemonic or imperial power was the most liberal, according to the standards of the age. Rome, Venice and Britain were usually more liberal than the forces arranged against them. The empire of the Austrian Hapsburgs in Central and Eastern Europe often protected the rights of minorities and prevented ethnic wars to a much greater degree than did the modern states that succeeded it. The Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and the Middle East frequently did likewise. There are exceptions, of course, like Hapsburg Spain, with its combination of inquisition and conquest. But the point is that hegemony does not require tyrannical or absolutist rule.

Stability is not the natural order of things. In fact, history shows that stability such as it exists is usually a function of imperial rule, which, in turn, is a common form of hierarchy. To wit, there are few things messier in geopolitics than the demise of an empire. The collapse of the Hapsburgs, of the Ottoman Turks, of the Soviet Empire and the British Empire in Asia and Africa led to chronic wars and upheavals. Some uncomprehending commentators remind us that all empires end badly. Of course they do, but that is only after they have provided decades and centuries of relative peace. Obviously, not all empires are morally equivalent. For example, the Austrian Hapsburgs were for their time infinitely more tolerant than the Soviet Communists. Indeed, had the Romanov Dynasty in St. Petersburg not been replaced in 1917 by Lenin's Bolsheviks, Russia would likely have evolved far more humanely than it did through the course of the 20th century. Therefore, I am saying only in a general sense is order preferable to disorder. (Though captivating subtleties abound: For example, Napoleon betrayed the ideals of the French Revolution by creating an empire, but he also granted rights to Jews and Protestants and created a system of merit over one of just birth and privilege.)

In any case, such order must come from hierarchal domination.

Indeed, from the end of World War II until very recently, the United States has performed the role of a hegemon in world politics. America may be democratic at home, but abroad it has been hegemonic. That is, by some rough measure of international consent, it is America that has the responsibility to lead. America formed NATO in Europe, even as its Navy and Air Force exercise preponderant power in the Pacific Basin. And whenever there is a humanitarian catastrophe somewhere in the developing world, it is the United States that has been expected to organize the response. Periodically, America has failed. But in general, it would be a different, much more anarchic world without American hegemony. But that hegemony, in some aspects, seems to be on the wane. That is what makes this juncture in history unique. NATO is simply not what it used to be. U.S. forces in the Pacific are perceived to be less all-powerful than in the past, as China tests U.S. hegemony in the region. But most importantly, U.S. President Barack Obama is evolving a doctrine of surgical strikes against specific individuals combined with non-interference -- or minimal interference -- in cases of regional disorder. Libya and Syria are cases in point. Gone, at least for the moment, are the days when U.S. forces were at the ready to put a situation to rights in this country or that.

When it comes to the Greater Middle East, Americans seem to want protection on the cheap, and Obama is giving them that. We will kill a terrorist with a drone, but outside of limited numbers of special operations forces there will be no boots on the ground for Libya, Syria or any other place. As for Iran, whatever the White House now says, there is a perception that the administration would rather contain a nuclear Iran than launch a military strike to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

That, by itself, is unexceptional. Previous administrations have been quite averse to the use of force. In recent decades, it was only George W. Bush -- and only in the aftermath of 9/11 -- who relished the concept of large-scale boots on the ground in a war of choice. Nevertheless, something has shifted. In a world of strong states -- a world characterized by hierarchy, that is -- the United States often enforced the rules of the road or competed with another hegemon, the Soviet Union, to do so. Such enforcement came in the form of robust diplomacy, often backed by a threat to use military power. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were noted for American leadership and an effective, sometimes ruthless foreign policy. Since the Cold War ended and Bill Clinton became president, American leadership has often seemed to be either unserious, inexpertly and crudely applied or relatively absent. And this has transpired even as states themselves in the Greater Middle East have become feebler.

In other words, both the hegemon and the many states it influences are weaker. Hierarchy is dissolving on all levels. Equality is now on the march in geopolitics: The American hegemon is less hegemonic, and within individual countries -- Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Tunisia and so on -- internal forces are no longer subservient to the regime. (And states like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not in the American camp to the degree that they used to be, further weakening American hegemony.) Moreover, the European Union as a political organizing principle is also weakening, even as the one-party state in China is under increasing duress. Nevertheless, in the case of the Middle East, do not conflate chaos with democracy. Democracy itself implies an unequal, hierarchal order, albeit one determined by voters. What we have in the Middle East cannot be democracy because almost nowhere is there a new and sufficiently formalized hierarchy. No, what we have in many places in the Middle East is the weakening of central authority with no new hierarchy to adequately replace it. Unless some force can, against considerable odds, reinstitute hierarchy -- be it an American hegemon acting globally, or an international organization acting regionally or, say, an Egyptian military acting internally -- we will have more fluidity, more equality and therefore more anarchy to look forward to. This is profoundly disturbing, because civilization abjures anarchy. In his novel Billy Budd (1924), Herman Melville deeply laments the fact that even beauty itself must be sacrificed for the maintenance of order. For without order -- without hierarchy -- there is nothing.

~~~~~~

Obama to Headline at Murderers’ Gala by Dave Jolly

Do you have any idea who is responsible for the most deaths in US history?  Most people I ask that question to say war or the military.  Believe it or not, total US deaths caused by war, both military and civilian since the Revolutionary War is about 1.3 million.  War also accounts for 2.7 million wounded, so the total casualties of war since the start of our nation are around 4 million dead and wounded. However, war is far from being the leading cause of inflicted death in the US. It’s not guns, in case you were going there next.  According to the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute, abortions are the number one cause of inflicted death in the entire history of the United States.  The CDC notes that many abortions are not reported to them and that starting in 1998, their figures did not include abortions performed in New Hampshire and California.  However, they still report that from 1973 through 2008, that there were 39,704,605 abortion deaths.  The Guttmacher Institute for the same period does take into account all states and says that there were 49,333,300 abortion deaths in the United States.  They estimate the total number of abortions to date is 54,559,615. To help put this into perspective, remember when I said that all US deaths attributed to war from the American Revolutionary War through the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan add up to just over 1.3 million.  According to the figures provided by the Guttmacher Institute, there were over 1.3 million abortions every YEAR in the US from 1977 through 2000.  For 24 consecutive years, our nation murdered more unborn children every year than all of the war deaths covering a period of 237 years. Here’s another way to put the total number of murders by abortion in perspective.  Imagine killing everyone that lives in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia and Indiana.  According to the latest census figures, the total population for those 7 states in 2011 was 54.9 million.  Our nation has killed enough unborn children to equal the population of all seven of those states. To commemorate this gruesome and tragic part of American history, it was announced this week that President Barack Obama will be headlining this year’s Planned Parenthood annual gala.  Their announcement read:

    “President Obama has done more than any president in history for women’s health and rights.  We are honored to have President Obama join us…at this pivotal moment for women’s health.”

~~~~~~

Breaking: Saudi Student Alharbi Visited the White House Several Times by Jim Hoft

Saudi student Abdul Rahman Ali Issa Al-Salimi Al-Harbi was injured in the Boston Marathon Bombings. He was once a “person of interest” in the bombings. He was put on a terror watch list after the bombings. Michelle Obama visited al-Harbi in the hospital last week. He posted pictures on his Facebook page:

~~~~~~

Don't let the media tell you they and significant events to not effect how America thinks!

70% Favor Use of Surveillance Cameras in Public Places

Following their use in identifying the suspected perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombings, Americans strongly support the use of surveillance cameras in public areas and believe they help reduce crime.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 18% of American Adults oppose the use of surveillance and security cameras in public places. Seventy percent (70%) support the use of such cameras.  Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.

~~~~~~

The Religious Nature of Evolution Theory and its Attack on Christianity   by John G. Leslie, Ph.D. and Charles K. Pallaghy, Ph.D.

Biologists and other groups have tried to prevent creationism from being taught at our schools and universities, arguing that it is religious or Biblical. They do not seem to want students to hear or see scientific evidence that life could not have developed by chance. One may wonder why scientists, and particularly academics who have devoted their entire careers to seeking new truths, often under great personal hardship, would want to oppose another viewpoint based on available evidence. We believe that the basic reason for this opposition does not so much involve disputations of scientific facts between the two parties, although this may sometimes occur, but rather is a continuing struggle between two faiths-the faith which claims man to be dependent on God, and the faith which rejects God and demands a purely mechanical universe and existence. [The Founders of Evolution Theory Were Anti-Christians

Sir Fred Hoyle (famous astronomer) and Professor C. Wickramasinghe (mathematician) have stated in 1983,

“The evolutionary record leaks like a sieve. … There are so many flaws in Darwinism that one can wonder why it swept so completely through the scientific world, and why it is still endemic today.”

In answer, they commented,

‘The biggest thing going for Darwinism was that it finally broke the tyranny in which Christianity had held the minds of men for so many centuries’—Sir Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe (b. 1939), writing in 1983.  “Undoubtedly, however, the biggest thing going for Darwinism was that it finally broke the tyranny in which Christianity had held the minds of men for so many centuries.”

Is it possible that one of the main motivations of some of the leading designers of the modern evolutionary tenets was to discredit the concept of a Creator, and Christianity in particular

~~~~~~

"It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf."

--Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, 1776

"Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option; that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others."

--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 34, 1788

"When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen; and we shall most sincerely rejoice with you in the happy hour when the establishment of American Liberty, upon the most firm and solid foundations shall enable us to return to our Private Stations in the bosom of a free, peacefully and happy Country."

--George Washington, address to the New York Legislature, 1775

† † † † † † † † † † †