The Right Lane update 5.05.13

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

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Helping liberals clear up their confusion by Walter E. Williams

The liberal world vision and reality are often at variance, for example, with equal pay for equal work. I’ve often watched “Lockup,” a show that features California supermax prisons, including Pelican Bay and Corcoran. Often, a recalcitrant prisoner must be extracted from his cell through brute force. I’ve never seen female guards remove a prisoner. If they are part of the process at all, it’s to videotape the extraction for legal purposes. It’s my bet that female guards receive the same salaries as male guards while not having to risk injury.

Along the same lines, women on aircraft carriers earn as much as their male counterparts, but I have yet to see women hefting a hernia bar to attach a 500- or 1,000-pound bomb to a fighter jet wing.

All of this suggests that liberals are for equal pay for unequal work. Or could it be sex discrimination whereby equally qualified women are denied the opportunity to extract beastly inmates from their cells and load heavy bombs on fighter planes?

Here’s another bit of liberal confusion. Liberals deny that raising labor cost through minimum wages reduces incentives to hire. But if you asked a liberal for advice on how to stop rich people from shirking their tax obligations, they’d say raise the penalty. Ask low-information Harvard University doctors what should be done to stem gun violence and they answer that government should institute “a new, substantial national tax on all firearms and ammunition.”

Ask Illinois’ Cook County Board of Commissioners President Toni Preckwinkle how to reduce purchases of bullets and guns. She’d say levy a nickel tax on each bullet and a $25 tax on each gun. Liberals demonstrate they understand the law of demand – that raising the cost of something lessens the amount taken – but they deny that it applies to labor.

That’s as ludicrous as suggesting that the law of gravity applies to everything in the universe except cute creatures, such as pandas and puppies.

Liberals love political correctness that conceals information. For example, how does one know whether the “chair” of a board of directors or the chair of a city council is a man or woman? This issue arose during my (1995-2001) chairmanship of George Mason University’s distinguished economics department. At a chairman’s meeting or gathering, I was referred to as department chair. I told the speaker that I am a chairman and that I have empirical evidence as proof. Needless to say, it didn’t go over well, but academics don’t like the terms chairwoman or chairperson, either, but puzzlingly, God forbid that people refer to their idol as Chair Mao instead of Chairman Mao.

How liberals identify black people must be confusing to whites. Having been around for 77 years, I have been through a number of names. Among the more polite ones are colored, Negro, AfroAmerican, black and, more recently, African-American. Among those names, African-American is probably the most unintelligent. Let’s look at it. To identify their races, suppose I told you that I had a European-American friend, a South America-American friend and a North America-American friend.

You’d probably say, “Williams, that’s stupid. Europe, South America and North America are continents and home to different races, ethnicities and nationalities.” You might suggest that my friend is a German-American instead of European-American. My friend from Brazil is a Brazilian- American rather than a South America-American, and my friend from Canada is a Canadian-American instead of a North America-American. So wouldn’t the same apply to people whose heritage lies on the African continent?

For example, instead of claiming that President Barack Obama is the first African-American president, he’s the first partially Kenyan-American president. Obama is lucky; he knows his national heritage. The closest thing to a national identity for most black Americans is some country along Africa’s Gold Coast. Adding to the confusion, what would you call a white American of Afrikaner or Egyptian descent? Is he an African-American?

Liberals suffer confusion and cognitive dissonance because the rest of us don’t help explain things to them.

~~~~~~

NRA president: Obama ‘motivated by revenge’ By Patrick Howley

Porter, an attorney from Alabama, made his remarks at the annual NRA leadership conference in Houston, Texas, on Saturday. “Last fall just before the elections, as community organizer-in-chief, President Obama demanded that his followers extract [sic] revenge. I can’t remember a president ever publicly using that word against fellow Americans,” Porter said. ”And revenge is what is motivating the president’s unremitting attacks on gun owners today.” “Just look at his reaction to his defeat in the U.S. Senate, with his step-at-a-time gun owner registration under the guise of universal background checks,” Porter said, referring to the president’s inability to get the Manchin-Toomey background checks bill past a Republican filibuster in the Democrat-controlled Senate last month. “He is now threatening Democratic senators who are friends of NRA. He will destroy them if he can,” Porter said. “Obama is meeting and plotting with the who’s who of the gun-ban movement, scheming to create gun control by bureaucracy,” Porter said. The Daily Caller reported in April that anti-gun New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition switched-out ads attacking Republican Pat Toomey in his home state of Pennsylvania with a positive ad after the senator announced his support for background checks. The pro-Obama messaging group Organizing for Action (OFA), meanwhile, sent an email Saturday urging supporters to sign a petition featured on my.barackobama.com to pressure congressmen to support background checks. “We have to keep the pressure on Congress to move on background checks — and only you can hold your members of Congress accountable,” OFA national organizing director Sara El-Amine wrote in the email. “It’s a make-or-break moment for our movement — a real test of our commitment to keep fighting, even when it gets hard, for the things we believe in.” Watch and Listen if you wish

~~~~~~

Jason Collins: Agonizing Comparisons Reveal Misplaced Priorities By Steve Pauwels

Just reported: five more American troops killed in Afghanistan the past day or two. Will they be hailed as “courageous” everywhere you look, will an avalanche of commentators talk about how “proud” they are of them, will high government officials telephone their families to express admiration?  Did any of that happen for the half-dozen U.S. men in uniform who gave all in the same, far away land a week before that? (What about the “Benghazi Four”? Are throngs still talking about them? Drawing attention to them?)  Just wondering — because a professional athlete who “came out” with a fashionable, politically correct admission this past week got that treatment. I think maybe these others, most of whom gave their lives keeping barbarism at bay, deserve, at least, the same.  God, bless their families we pray.

~~~~~~

DHS Seeks Millions More Rounds of Ammunition by Paul Joseph Watson
Market survey asks companies if they can provide 2 million bullets within 30-60 day period. The Department of Homeland Security has released a market survey asking companies if they are able to provide 2 million rounds of ammunition within a short time period, increasing concerns that the federal agency is continuing its arms buildup in preparation for domestic unrest.  With the DHS already having committed to purchasing over 1.6 billion bullets over the course of the last year, a “request for information” on “reduced hazard training ammunition” posted on the FedBizOpps website quizzes bullet manufacturers on how fast they can supply large quantities of ammo;

- Are you capable of producing large quantity orders of any training caliber specified with a short turnaround time of 30-60 days?

- What would your lead time be for an order of 2 million rounds of a single type listed above?

- If you were awarded a contract for some of the calibers listed above, submitted a production lot of one million rounds and that lot or portion of the lot was not accepted, would you be able to replace that order with an additional one million rounds within 60 days?

The DHS’s apparent urge to find companies that can supply them with millions of rounds of ammunition within a short time frame will do little to calm concerns that the federal agency is making contingency plans for riots or some form of social dislocation. The federal agency’s need to find companies that can commit to manufacturing large quantities of bullets quickly also lends credence to claims made by a firearms manufacturer who called into the Michael Savage show in March that the DHS is trying to exhaust ammunition supplies as part of an end run around the Second Amendment.

Ammunition is becoming increasingly scarce, with gun stores across the nation forced to resort to bullet rationing in an attempt to satisfy as many customers as they can, while some police departments are having to barter between themselves to meet demand. The market survey also indicates that the DHS is interested in purchasing ammunition that will safely fragment when fired against an “armor steel plate,” which will only serve to stoke fears that the feds are gearing up to use the ammunition in an offensive manner. Despite official denials backed up by unquestioning media reports that the DHS is buying an abnormal amount of bullets, the Government Accountability Office announced earlier this week that an investigation of the purchases is “just getting underway.”

~~~~~~

If we can’t be proud of Cameron Lyle, how can we be proud of Collins?

But Tim Tebow is a villain for showing his values. Can’t wait for it to come out that Collins isn’t really gay just after attention. So I guess you’ve heard. Fading, 34 year-old NBA free agent Jason Collins has been declared a hero for publicly announcing that he digs dudes. Well, it’s about time! Used to be all a guy had to do was die at Omaha Beach or some other such nonsense. The Imperialist USA is finally seeing some major progress. What callous soul wouldn’t be moved by this youngish man’s gallantry? Who wouldn’t shudder at his sacrifice? Merriam-Webster’s defines courage as “mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty.” Think of it. Just as his middling basketball career was coming to a close and he was preparing to fade into relative obscurity – joining millions of others in the Obama unemployment lines – Jason Collins stood tall and said, “No! I will not take the easy road!” This selfless giant of a man put everything on the line and valiantly announced to the world (Optional: may or may not insert theme to “Battle Hymn of the Republic” here) – announced to the world: “I’m a 34-year-old NBA center. I’m black. And I’m gay.” But then it occurred to me. Collins had a girlfriend of eight years. In fact, they were engaged to be married before he dumped her. This would make him “bisexual,” then, wouldn’t it? So – and bear with me here – if being “gay” makes him a hero, does being “bi” make him a superhero? That. Is. Awesome! I don’t know: “Captain Switch-Hitter”? (Sorry for the mixed metaphor.)  Then again, if he’s “bisexual,” might that actually diminish his heroism? Would it make him only half a hero, or would it just cancel out altogether, making him ordinary again? It’s all so confusing. Who is Cameron Lyle, you ask? Well, little chance you’d know. And why should you? He’s just some attention-grabbing track and field star from the University of New Hampshire who sacrificed his athletic career to undergo the excruciating process of donating bone marrow to a total stranger dying of leukemia. Yeah, I know. What a prima donna. They call that “heroic”? Puhleeze. Sure, like in a 1950s kinda way. We’ve evolved. We’re talking “gay pride” here. So, naturally, Collins gets the call – a little “one-on-one” if you will – while Lyle gets the shaft.

~~~~~~

Abortion: The Evolution Connection by Jake Hebert, Ph.D., and Michael Stamp

Within a consistent evolutionary worldview, there is no logical basis for moral absolutes. If mankind is truly a cosmic accident, then there is no Creator-God to whom we must give an account, and there is no logical and objective basis for claiming that a given action is morally right or wrong. In such an amoral worldview, it’s perfectly “natural” for the strong to prey upon the weak, as often occurs among animals in the wild. And if it’s natural for the animal, it’s also natural for strong humans to discard the weak. An individual might claim that he prefers that a frail human not be harmed, but is one’s mere preference an objective basis from which to make a moral claim that applies to all people? The recent trial of American abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell dramatically illustrates this deep ethical problem with the evolutionary worldview. Gosnell is charged with killing four newborn infants who had apparently been born alive after surviving his attempted abortions. He is also charged with murdering a 41-year-old woman, but the grisly killings may have gone far beyond even this (see references below). Many of those familiar with this case (including evolutionists) have been horrified by it. But if evolution is true, why is Gosnell’s behavior wrong? Some might argue that his behavior is wrong simply because he broke the law—but then why is breaking the law wrong? On what basis can one claim that any behavior is wrong? The essential question is straightforward: Is human life precious and sacred or not? When we witness atrocities like the Gosnell crimes, we recoil in horror because human life has been ravaged. Our collective consciences concur that his acts were wrong and even malicious. At these moments we all agree human life is sacred—it’s uniquely precious—and that sacredness is the objective basis for our determining right and wrong….

~~~~~~

Eric Holder Threatens Kansas Over Gun Control Nullification Bill  by Philip Hodges

Recently, we told you about a rather watered-down version of a nullification bill that Kansas passed and Governor Brownback signed. The gist of it was that federal or state agents attempting to enforce unconstitutional gun laws on Kansas-made firearms would face felony charges and prosecution. It may have been watered down, but it offended Attorney General Eric Holder enough that he had to issue a fast and furious response. Here’s what he wrote in part in a letter to the Kansas Governor:

 “In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, SB102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional. … Under the Supremacy Clause…Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities.  And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities.  Because SB102 conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supersedes this new statute; all provisions of federal laws and their implementing regulations therefore continue to apply.”

 First of all, where does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to regulate firearms at all? It doesn’t, and that’s why anything the feds do with respect to gun control, no matter how well-intentioned, is unconstitutional.

~~~~~~

Hypocrisy on Parade: Obama Tells Mexico Drug Deaths are Americans’ Fault  by Tad Cronn

Talk about the pothead calling the kettle black. … President Obama, in possibly the most solipsistic action by an executive in chief in recent memory, actually dared show his face in Mexico and lecture an audience that Mexico isn’t really to blame for drug-related violence, but it’s the United States’ fault. Not the United States of which he is in charge, mind you. Not the United States of which he is the primary representative, the big honcho, the head cheese. Not the United States whose policies, laws and actions are controlled and enforced by him and his underlings, effectively making him the embodiment of the actual “United States” for all legal purposes. No, he meant the OTHER United States, the country which you and I live in but with which he has no involvement, except for turning in the occasional voucher for a round of golf. Here’s how Reuters reported it:

“Drug-fueled violence in Mexico is not entirely the fault of the Mexican people, he said. Instead, the United States shares the blame because much of the violence is centered around the Americans’ demand for illegal drugs and the fact that guns are smuggled into Mexico from the United States.”

~~~~~~

WH spokesman Jay Carney: “Benghazi happened a long time ago”

 Remember that little Benghazi incident? That’s old news, according to White House press secretary Jay Carney. During his daily press briefing, Carney was asked about rumors that Benghazi whistleblowers are being prevented from testifying about the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks. The White House spokesman denied the allegations.

“Let’s be clear,” Carney said. “Benghazi happened a long time ago. We are unaware of any agency blocking an employee who would like to appear before Congress to provide information related to Benghazi.”

On Tuesday, during a special press conference, President Obama also said he had no knowledge of anyone being blocked from testifying. “I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody’s been blocked from testifying,” he told members of the media. “What I’ll do is find out what exactly you’re referring to.” And while the POTUS doesn’t seem to know much about the Benghazi whistleblowers, he was more than happy to give his opinion on basketball. Watch Carney’s statement

~~~~~~

Will the Real National Socialists Please Own Up?  by Marilyn Assenheim

“Projection.” Psychology defines this term as accusing others of thoughts, intentions or actions that are, in reality, what they themselves, think, intend, or do.

Democrats have accused the right of being Nazis for ages (remember Bush=Hitler?). Last year saw Nikki Haley accused of channeling Eva Braun, Paul Ryan linked with Josef Goebbels’ “big lie” and so on. Pure projection.  Democrats might consider being careful about hollering “Nazism” at others; the “Nazi” shoe appears to fit Democrats better than the glass slipper fit Cinderella.  National Socialism is a charged label. And just like the original Party, it gets traction from the top down.

The time has come to remove our politically correct blinkers and have the honesty to declare who has really adopted the tenets of National Socialism. America’s future depends on it.

National Socialists, for example, relied on unions. Membership was, theoretically, voluntary but union activity was instrumental in cementing National Socialist control of Germany. Mandatory dues raised millions of Deutschmarks, annually, for the National Socialist Party. It became difficult to get a job without being a union member. The blind devotion unions (e.g. SEIU, Teamsters, teachers unions) grant the Democrat party is comparable. Democrats are, in return, staunch advocates of union dominance. Democrat candidates from the top down get enormous amounts of cash and support from unions. Vilification, even physical assault on non-union employees has become depressingly common. Elections are hijacked and state officials are forced into recall elections by union strong-arm tactics. Obamacare promotes unionization of the health care industry (including physicians). Such Brown Shirt tactics aren’t being perpetrated by the GOP; they are the result of escalating Democrat harassment. The irony is, apparently, lost on the true perpetrators. The DAF (German Labor Front) was born biased against capitalism and advocated that large companies be nationalized by the German state. Sound familiar? Think General Motors. Think health care. The Fuhrer-In-Chief isn’t done yet.

A primary doctrine of National Socialism was all about “redistribution of wealth.” National Socialism ascended when Germany’s economy was not just circling the drain but had become solidly lodged in the toilet. “Hope and change” was pledged to revive Germany’s glory. Today’s Democrat Party is systematically destroying the U.S. economy after gaining power. The president is still blaming the GOP for his own, raging profligacy. National Socialism sought national ascendency. The Democrat Party . . . descent. Same methods, different results. Both intentional.

The media was National Socialism’s most powerful, internal tool, fabricating “news” out of whole cloth in support of the Nazi regime. Terrifyingly, no discernible difference exists today. The “mainstream media” was even discovered submitting prospective stories to the White House for approval. The Democrat Party invents whatever fantasies advance their agenda and a collusive media hammers us with them even after the lies are exposed by fact checkers. Reich Minister of Propaganda, Jay Carney, attempts to pass off unpopular elements of the regime’s latest budget as GOP ideas. Concern about journalistic malpractice is non-existent.  So untouchable does the press consider itself that they lie about criminal activity carried out on behalf of the current regime and suppress factual information.

The president adopted “Forward” as a 2012 campaign slogan. “Forward” a Marxist catchphrase in origin. It was also a favorite of Hitler’s. “Vorwartz” (forward) was the name of a National Socialist newspaper, employed by Hitler. The only good news is that there are (still) news sources other than the mainstream media. Without them news that does not fit the regime’s template would have no platform. Serious effort is underway, however, to silence alternative media voices. The president is within inches of taking control of the internet. The Lyin’ King has, time and again, committed unlawful and unconstitutional acts. Yet the media coverage he receives remains reverential.

National Socialism rejected any religion other than a secular, unconditional devotion to the state. We’re getting there. Six million Jews were exterminated. Most people are no longer aware that Catholics, too, were rounded up for a one-way stay at concentration camps during WWII. Remember the Democrat convention? Their agenda was pre-approved by the president. Democrat-sanctioned mentions of G-d had to be shoe-horned in, via amendment to the official agenda, contrary to the very vocal “Nay’s!” from most of the Democrat delegates. After three, unacceptable votes, the mayor of Los Angeles peremptorily ruled a “2/3 majority” in favor of the Almighty’s backhanded invitation to the circus; a pitiable joke. The Supreme Court struck down the federal government’s attempt to select ministers for churches, in 2012. It’s no coincidence the president has deliberately misquoted the Declaration of Independence on several occasions, intentionally excising the word “G-d.” He even demanded that “INRI” (Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum/Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews) be covered before agreeing to speak at Georgetown University . . . a Catholic institution.

National Socialism’s allies in the Middle East during WWII were Muslim leaders. Democrats today have made the same choice. Throwing Israel, our only democratic ally in the Middle East, under the bus was just the beginning. The “understandable outrage” on display in dozens of Muslim countries is a perfect example of “the big lie” by which Democrats live. The president and his entire administration lied persistently, shamelessly, about Benghazi. Americans were expected to believe that 27 countries were sparked to “spontaneous” outrage by a ridiculous video simply because the Lyin’ King insisted it was so. Even when evidence contrary to official story surfaced and the narrative flipped 180 degrees the president apparently didn’t get the memo. He mulishly refused to use the word “terrorism.” His United Nations address self-righteously insisted the video was the fire-starter. His then-Secretary-of-State, Hillary Clinton, has been exposed as a duplicitous fraud in the matter. Yet the media is enthusiastically flogging her candidacy for president in 2016.

The precedents for the policies being inflicted on America today were created in WWII Germany. It is clear which party is a replica of National Socialism. It is even more evident which party, despite the lie being big enough and repeated often enough, isn’t.

~~~~~~

† † † † † † † † † † †