The Right Lane update 7.31.13

The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom and individual liberty

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

More good, old-fashioned charity needed Marley Belair, Kenwood, OH
Kudos to Trish Thomas Henley for pulling herself up and out of poverty, but I am afraid she is the exception not the rule (“Food stamp cuts might deal heavy blow to region,” July 28). Her story and example just looked like an excuse for those considering relying on the government for help they don’t need. I can count on one hand the times I had any meat to put in our noodle dishes over the last 20 years as a parent, and I have never had the luxury of beef in my stroganoff. If we have any meat, it is chicken, but that is pretty rare. Does that mean I should seek help elsewhere to feed my kids? No, my kids are healthy and they eat well. But I am one of those who, when Hamburger Helper is on sale, buys plenty for me and plenty to share with the poor at a food pantry. When cereal is on sale, I do the same. Ditto toothpaste, soap, etc. I have plenty to give and I do give, but I guess I could put beef in my stroganoff instead of giving to the poor. And by the way, I feed my entire family on less than the allotted money for a family of four on food stamps. We need more good, old-fashioned charity and less government handouts.

~~~~~~

Outside View: Obama stirs passions but makes income inequality worse - UPI

Slow economic growth and increasing inequality are ripping the social fabric of the United States -- vanquishing the dreams of working families, saddling the young with onerous student debt and frustrating retirement plans.  U.S. President Barack Obama is stirring passions by proposing government initiatives he hopes will stifle Republican efforts in the House of Representatives to curb federal spending but those can only end in tears.

Early in his first term, he pushed through more than $4 trillion in deficit spending on stimulus, broader Medicaid benefits, alternative energy projects and other industrial policies. Through last fall, growth was an anemic 2.1 percent and has since slowed by half.  He blames sequestration, which subtracted about $45 billion from government spending. However, his rhetoric ignores $200 billion in higher taxes he demanded from Congress in January, and the doubling of the trade deficit on oil and with China to $540 billion since the recovery began.  Sequestration will remove about 1 million jobs, while higher taxes and the trade deficit will cost Americans more than 10 times as many.  Instead of forcefully confronting Chinese for cheating on trade in ways recommended by liberal and conservative economists alike, Obama merely pleads with Beijing. The Middle Kingdom responds with criminal activity -- pirated commercial technology costs U.S. companies at least $300 billion a year and U.S. workers about 5 million jobs.

Oil and natural gas production is up on private and state lands in South Dakota and elsewhere but the president keeps drilling locked down on federally controlled reserves off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.  Oil imports could be eliminated but instead the president promotes alternative energy projects -- similar to Solyndra -- that enrich his political friends.

Government subsidized electric cars are a bust, whereas private investments in more fuel-efficient internal combustion engines and hybrids are delivering big gains. Ford, which received no bailout money, is rolling out one eye-popping high MPG model after another.  Obamacare mandates are driving up healthcare costs for large businesses on full-time employees. No surprise then that since January 833,000 more Americans have reported working part-time, while 97,000 fewer have full-time positions.  Income inequality is getting worse. The pay of ordinary workers is stagnating, while CEO compensation at large companies increased 16 percent last year. Top executives have accomplished a compensation cartel by serving on each other's boards of directors and tying up votes in shareholder elections through proxies. They vote one another outlandish salaries and block accountability to investors.

The U.S. Justice Department is charged with protecting Americans against such anti-competitive behavior but is too busy intimidating reporters, slow-walking investigations of IRS abuses and harassing Texas election officials for discriminatory conduct that has been dead 50 years. Wall Street's big banks have exploited Dodd-Frank to scarf up smaller banks that cannot cope with the avalanche of new regulations and thereby monopolized the CD market in many cities. Even as mortgage rates have risen, the elderly aren't being offered decent returns that once helped finance their retirements. Increasingly, they work in grocery stores and wait on tables, competing down the wages of the younger working poor.  Don't look for the Justice Department to investigate CD rate rigging. Democrats raise too much campaign money on Wall Street for U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to take an interest.  A roll-back of recent tax increases, tough responses to Chinese cheating on trade and theft of intellectual property, developing more domestic oil, scrapping Obamacare and a Justice Department that investigates monopoly behavior that hurts ordinary Americans would raise incomes and combat inequality. The last thing American families need is more of the same failed Obama policies.

~~~~~~

Newspaper spanks Obama: 'Shove it, Mr. President' Editors scorch 'umpteenth different' jobs plan by Bob Unruh

A newspaper editorial today greeted Barack Obama in an entirely new way as he traveled to Chattanooga, Tenn., to visit an Amazon.com business center and lobby for his newest strategy to try to create jobs for Americans. “Take your jobs plan and shove it, Mr. President: Your policies have harmed Chattanooga enough,” said a commentary in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.  “Forgive us if you are not greeted with the same level of Southern hospitality that our area usually bestows on its distinguished guests. You see, we understand you are in town to share your umpteenth different job creation plan during your time in office. If it works as well as your other job creation programs, then thanks, but no thanks. We’d prefer you keep it to yourself,” the newspaper said. “That’s because your jobs creation plans so far have included a ridiculous government spending spree and punitive tax increase on job creators that were passed, as well as a minimum wage increase that, thankfully, was not. Economists – and regular folks with a basic understanding of math – understand that these are three of the most damaging policies imaginable when a country is mired in unemployment and starving for job growth.”

~~~~~~

From the Left: Holder fights back on voting rights by E.J. DIONNE

Attorney General Eric Holder has opened what will be an epic battle over whether our country will remain committed to equal rights at the ballot box. In a display of egregious judicial activism in late June, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Holder made clear last week he intends to fight back.  The struggle will begin in Texas, but it won’t end there. “We cannot allow the slow unraveling of the progress that so many, throughout history, have sacrificed so much to achieve,” Holder told the National Urban League’s annual conference.

He wasn’t exaggerating the stakes. From the moment the Supreme Court threw out Section 4 of the act, which subjected the voting laws in states and jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to Justice Department scrutiny, conservative legislators in those places gleefully signaled their intention to pass laws to make it harder to vote. In addition, Texas re-imposed a redistricting map that a federal court had already ruled was discriminatory. These hasty moves were unseemly but entirely predictable, proving that Chief Justice John Robert’s opinion in the case will become a Magna Carta for voter suppression. Without having to worry about “pre-clearance” from the Justice Department, legislators can go about their business of making it more difficult for voters who would throw them out of office to reach the polls – and of drawing racially gerrymandered districts that prolong their tenure.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg understood a logic here that escaped Roberts. “A governing political coalition,” she wrote in her dissent, “has an incentive to prevent changes in the existing balance of voting power.” This in turn means that when a political party fares badly with minority voters, it will try to turn them away from the polling booths. That’s what segregationist Southern Democrats did in the past. Many Republican controlled legislatures are doing it now.

Holder announced he was using Section 3, a different part of the Voting Rights Act that was left standing, to ask a federal court to re-subject Texas to pre-clearance. It is a less efficient way to achieve what the pre-gutted act allowed automatically, but it is the best that can be done for now. It would be better still if Congress reinstated a revised version of Section 4. In the meantime, the hope is to limit the damage of the high court’s folly – and perhaps also give other states pause before they rush into new discriminatory schemes. “This is the department’s first action to protect voting rights following the (Supreme Court) decision, but it will not be our last,” Holder declared. His department is likely to move this week against the Texas voter-identification law, and to go to court eventually against other states that pass comparable statutes.

To get a sense of how bad these laws are, consider the bill Republicans rushed through both houses of North Carolina’s Legislature that should be called the Omnibus Voter Suppression Act of 2013. It reads like a parody written for Stephen Colbert’s show with its cornucopia of provisions that would make it as hard as possible for African-Americans, Latinos and young people to vote.

As the Charlotte Observer reported, it shortens the early-voting period, eliminates the opportunity to register and vote on the same day during that time, and ends pre-registration for teenagers age 16 and 17. The bill also prevents counties from extending voting hours when lines are long – which they will be with the cutback on early voting days. It not only requires photo identification but also narrows the list of what’s acceptable, eliminating college IDs, for example. Oh, yes, and remember the old civic tradition of using all avenues to encourage people to register to vote, a favorite cause of that famously revolutionary group, the League of Women Voters? This bill would ban paid voter registration drives.   Throughout the world, our country proclaims its commitment to equal rights and broad democratic participation. We seem to be abandoning those ideals at home. You have to wonder what this will do to our witness on behalf of democracy.   It won’t shock you to learn that after Holder made his announcement, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas condemned the Obama administration for showing an “utter contempt for our country’s system of checks and balances.” Actually, what Holder’s move shows is an utter contempt for efforts to deprive our fellow Americans of their right to cast a meaningful ballot. It is a contempt that all of us should feel.   [enough lies, half truths and paranoia to do anyone for a long time]

~~~~~~~

Devious election plot bypasses Constitution Strategy takes 36 states out of voting decision Aaron Klein

The National Popular Vote effort, which could see only 14 states – those with the largest populations – decide the presidency for voters in all 50 states, is fully partnered with a George Soros-funded election group. The group, the Center for Voting and Democracy, received original seed money in 1997 from the Joyce Foundation, a non-profit that boasted President Obama served on its board at the time of the grant. Obama was a board member from July 1994 until December 2002.  The National Popular Vote, or NPV, is run by individuals with a history of support for the Democratic Party, WND found.

Last week, the Washington Post reported NPV is “now halfway to its goal of electing future presidents via the popular vote, after Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (D) made his state the latest to sign on.”

The Post story described NPV as a campaign seeking to “get states that comprise a majority of the 538 votes in the Electoral College –270, to be precise – to agree to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.”

The states will not be required to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner until NPV has signed up enough states to garner 270 electoral votes. The Founding Fathers firmly rejected a purely popular vote to elect the president because they wanted to balance the power of the larger states against the smaller. The Electoral College was fashioned as a compromise between an election of the president by direct popular vote and election by Congress. Now the NPV effort could change the way Americans vote without amending the U.S. Constitution. The plan simply requires that enough states sign up by voting in their own legislatures and then having their governors approve. It takes two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass a constitutional amendment to repeal the Electoral College.

To bypass the constitutional amendment process, NPV minimizes the number of states that would need to agree. Instead, once enough states agree to allot their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, the Electoral College becomes irrelevant. With the addition of Rhode Island to the NPV effort, the pact now has nine states plus the District of Columbia for a total of 136 of the 270 electoral votes needed. The other states signed up are Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington, Vermont and California.

~~~~~~

~~~~~~

Krauthammer Nails Obama: 'This Is His Economy and He's Pretending He's Just Stumbled Upon It'   by CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I find it astonishing that he goes around making speeches in which he deplores the state of the economy, the growing income inequality, chronic unemployment, staggering middle class income, and it's as if he has been a bystander, as if he's been out of the country for the last five years. It's his economy; he's the president. He's talking as if this is the Bush economy, I don't know, the Eisenhower economy, and he just arrived in a boat and he discovers how bad the economy is. This is a result of the policies he instituted. He gave us the biggest stimulus in the history of the milky way, and he said it would jump start the economy. The result has been the slowest recovery, the worst recovery since World War II, and that is the root of all of the problems he's talking about, the income inequality -- the median income of the middle class of Americans has declined by 5% in his one term. So who's responsible for that? Those were his policies. He talks about this in the abstract and he actually gets away with it in a way that I find absolutely astonishing, it's magical. This is his economy and he's pretending he's just stumbled upon it. And the policies he proposes are exactly the ones he proposed and implemented in the first term.

Top of Form

† † † † † † † † † † †

The Right Lane update 7.30.13

The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom and individual liberty

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Economics Lesson Washington Must Learn  By Sheldon Richman
President Obama is again turning his attention to the elusive economic recovery. His "pivot" will be for naught, however, as long as he continues to ignore two important points: first, government is a major squanderer of scarce resources, and second, its regulations are impediments to saving and investment.

We live in a world of scarcity. At any given time our ends outnumber the means to achieve them. Hence we economize so that we can achieve as many of our ends as possible. Resources, labor, and time devoted to one purpose can't also be used for other purposes, and the alternative forgone is the true cost of any action. We individually choose among competing ends after assessing the trade-offs, because we don't want inadvertently to give up something we prefer in exchange for something we don't value as much. The marketplace, when it's free of government privilege and regulation, lets us accomplish this to a remarkable degree. In doing so, it raises our living standards and creates an orderly environment, thanks to the price system, which coordinates and facilitates our plans.

Government throws this process out of whack. When politicians forcibly extract resources from us (through taxation) and borrow, they leave us less with which we can improve our lives through entrepreneurship, business formation, and the like. But, you may ask, aren't the politicians' projects worthwhile? Actually, many government projects are of zero value or worse. The costly global empire is beyond useless: it endangers us. Other projects might be useful, but — and this is key — we can't be sure, because they are not subject to the market test. If a private entrepreneur acquires resources in a quest for profit, she must create value for consumers or she will fail. The market's profit-and-loss test will see to that. That test is administered by countless millions of consumers who are free to take or leave what the entrepreneur offers. This test is relayed back to the investors who lend money to entrepreneurs for productive ventures. They know that if the entrepreneur fails, they will also suffer losses. So they must scrutinize projects in terms of their potential, ultimately, to please free consumers.

The upshot is that consumers' un-coerced actions signal (through prices and profit/loss) what pleases them and what does not. Suppliers must pay heed or face bankruptcy. This explains why markets, when not burdened by government privileges and arbitrary rules, work so well to raise living standards.  Note how government projects differ essentially from market projects. Politicians and bureaucrats obtain their money through force, not consensual mutual exchange. (What happens if you tell the IRS you don't want to purchase its "services"?) Even the money obtained through voluntary loans is expected to be repaid with the taxpayers' money. It's taxation all the way down.  Moreover, government "services" are not offered in a competitive market where consumers are free to take them or leave them. Since we're forced to pay a monopoly provider regardless of whether we want the "services," at the point of delivery they appear to be free. You can't opt out of paying for "free public schools" even if you don't want to use them. Everyone pays into Social Security, a (meager) pension plan, under threat of force. In other words, government services are not true services in the market sense because they face no market test from consumers free to withhold their money without penalty.

The market test assures that bad trade-offs are avoided, or at least quickly corrected if they are made. If steel is being used to make one product when consumers are demanding something else, the competitive entrepreneurial process sees to it that steel will be redirected. No corresponding process exists in the political realm. It contains no incentives to look out for the consumers' welfare. Instead, we have political theater and value destruction.  This would be bad enough, but it's actually worse. What government does with the stolen resources typically makes it harder for us to use the remaining resources productively. Uncertainty about future taxation and regulation, for example, increases the risk of investment and hence reduces it.

An indispensable prerequisite of economic well-being is humility on the part of politicians.

~~~~~~~

What is going wrong with our black teens?  Who is paying attention?
BALTIMORE (WJZ) — A man is brutally attacked by a group of teens in Little Italy. Police say four of the attackers are in custody. Three of them are juveniles. The victim was walking home from work when he was attacked near Bank and Exeter Streets. Police say the brutality of the crime is why three juveniles arrested are being charged as adults. A brutal attack in the heart of Little Italy. Police say a man walking home from work at an area restaurant is attacked and severely beaten near Bank and Exeter Streets by a mob of at least ten teens. Four of the alleged attackers, three of them minors, have been arrested and charged. “It’s very upsetting because you feel suspect now. Now you see a group of kids, children, and you have to worry if they’re not going to pounce on you,” said Giovanna Blattermann, neighbor.

The assault happened in front of Giovanna Blattermann’s house. She’s also watched video of the attack–captured by her neighbors surveillance camera. While the suspects took the man’s phone, Blattermann says that’s not what they were after. “They beat this boy. He got up, he’d run, they beat him. He got up, he’d run, they beat him. He got up, he’d run, they beat him,” said Blattermann.

The suspects range in age from 16 to 19, but police say because of the brutality of the crime, the minors aren’t being charged lightly.

~~~~~~

U.S. churches warned of 'jihadist' threat - Drew Zahn

Man tells police within 2 weeks everyone will know his name

Police in Fort Collins, Colo., are warning local churches to report any suspicious behavior after a self-proclaimed “Islamist jihadist” threatened Mormons and Catholics “would be destroyed” in the next two weeks.

According to the Coloradoan, police released a memo describing an unnamed white man in his early 30s who was stopped for attempting to shoot a video while driving. Wearing a T-shirt wrapped around his head and a bandana and sunglasses over his face, the man reportedly claimed he was the Archangel Michael and told police everyone would know who he was in the next two weeks, but didn’t elaborate or make threats specific enough to warrant arrest.

The man is also reportedly linked to a white Honda coupe spray-painted with “F— DHS” (Department of Homeland Security) on the trunk, “Rev 14-7″ on its side and “YHVH” (the Hebrew name for God) on the back bumper and hood. The verse on the vehicle, Revelation 14:7, reads, “Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.”  At this point, however, Fort Collins police have told the public there is no evidence of immediate danger. Sgt. Paul Wood further told the Coloradoan he doesn’t believe the man has a criminal background nor is wanted for any crimes, which is why police haven’t released his name. “(His behavior is) way out of line for what we consider terrorism,” said Wood, who is also a liaison to the Colorado Information Analysis Center, established after 9/11 as a way to coordinate terrorism prevention. “Right now, we don’t feel there’s any danger to the public.”

Still, Wood said, “With recent and not-recent events, we can’t take any [threats] for granted.” Rev. Steven Voss, of St. Joseph’s Catholic Church in Fort Collins, told the Coloradoan he’s heard from other religious leaders the man is “non-violent,” but that he’s made harassing and derogatory comments outside churches, notably in Utah. When he first read the Fort Collins Police Services memo, Voss said, its words of caution made his “blood run cold.” He also read the bulletin during Mass on Saturday and reported an “audible gasp” from those seated in the pews. To reassure the congregation, Voss invited a police officer to stand watch during weekend services.

~~~~~~

CAIR Director: Muslims Are Above The Law by Tim Brown

According to the leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslims living in America should not be bound by U.S. law. “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Herman Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch. I suppose at the very least, Carroll is being honest about what practicing Muslims believe. This is what we’ve been telling people all along. Now CAIR is becoming a bit more vocal about what they are really about. Carroll made the statement at a rally in Austin, Texas as part of a nationwide effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events. According to the event website Muslims came to the Texas capitol to “promote civic and political activism throughout the wider Muslim community.”

~~~~~~

The Disgusting Lie Called “The War On Women.” by Frank Camp

Walter Lippmann said: “When distant and unfamiliar and complex things are communicated to great masses of people, the truth suffers a considerable and often a radical distortion. The complex is made over into the simple, the hypothetical into the dogmatic, and the relative into an absolute.”

We live in a society in which we are often forced to dilute our intellect to accommodate the lowest common denominator. We live in a world in which complex ideas are chipped away into terribly simple ones because the general public is unwilling to stretch their brains in order to understand something outside their small, carefully constructed world. Unfortunately, this dumbing down often leads to misunderstandings. There are so many important issues in our world that need to be thought about carefully, one of which is the oft mentioned “War on Women.” The Left in the United States constantly bring up the GOP’s supposed “War on Women.”

The Liberal talking point is that Conservatives want to “tell women what to do with their bodies,” that they want to “force women back into the kitchen.” There are numerous lines used by the Left to try to legitimize this invented war. And because our society lowers every issue into the gutter of the “lowest common denominator,” lines are all we hear: talking points. The Left capitalizes on this, using slogans and small truth-twists to manipulate the masses. In the following segment, I will break down both sides of the “War on Women.”

What Liberals say:

1.     Conservatives want women to revert to 1950’s stereotypes, serving men as their masters.

2.     Conservatives don’t want women in control of their healthcare; they want men in control of women’s healthcare.

3.     Conservatives couldn’t care less about the suffering of rape victims and victims of incest.

4.     Conservatives want to force upon women the burden of an unwanted child.

5.     Men shouldn’t have any say in abortion law.

Those are the basics that you will hear coming out of the mouths of Liberals in reference to the “War on Women.”

What Conservatives say:

1.     Conservatives want to protect the lives of unborn children, which means abolishing abortion, except in cases in which the life of the mother would be in jeopardy. In that case, it is up to the woman, the doctor and the family to decide what to do.

2.     Conservatives believe that life begins at conception because all of the genetic material exists upon the union of egg and sperm. After conception, what is developing inside a woman’s body is a human being. This human being is developing in the same way that a flower seed develops after being planted and watered. A sprout emerges from the seed, but remains underground until it can breach the surface. Does the fact that the flower hasn’t yet breached the surface mean that it isn’t alive? Does it make it any less of a flower? No, it is simply in one stage of development. We, as human beings, are continuously in stages of development; a two year old isn’t as developed as a ten year old. Does that mean that a two year old is less human? No. So why is an infant inside the womb considered less human that one outside of the womb? Why do seconds matter? Why is one doctor in prison for severing the spinal cord of an infant seconds after birth, and another doctor is praised for severing the head of an infant just before birth? Is a flower not a flower until it blooms?

3.     Conservatives do care about the suffering of victims of rape and incest. However, we also care about the suffering of the unborn. The fact that an infant is a result of an atrocious crime doesn’t make it any less human, it doesn’t make it terminable. In addition, Conservatives don’t believe that taking the life of an unborn child will change history; it will not erase the pain of the crime committed against a woman. Finally, only 6% of abortions are a result of rape, incest, and threats to the lives of mothers, 94% are elective. The Left wants us to believe that 99% of abortions are because of trauma. That is what is known as lying.

4.     Conservatives don’t want to force a child upon anyone. There are plenty of couples that would happily adopt an unwanted child. Just because you don’t want a child doesn’t mean you are allowed to kill it.

5.     As a man, I have just as much of a right to discuss abortion as a woman does. I said it. I don’t have to cut off my own hand to know it’s a bad idea; I don’t have to be black to stand against segregation. The human mind is capable of an understanding and an empathy that is far reaching.

This “War” is a lie. The issue of abortion and contraception is exceedingly complex, and to reduce it to sloganeering and talking points is dangerous and irresponsible. But that is what the Left wants. The Left knows that the lowest common denominator will respond to slogans. The Left also knows that if abortion were to be talked about intellectually, and in an open arena, they would lose the debate. They need slogans and chants, talking points and screaming spokespeople. Don’t allow the truth to be radically distorted. Don’t be afraid of reality. The “War on Women” is an absolute lie, and if we sit back and accept the dumbed down version of life, simply because we are too lazy to think, we are contributing to the slaughter of millions, and the further lowering of our national intelligence.

~~~~~~

Opposition To Sen. Mike Lee's Defunding Obamacare Demonstrates Republicans Have Been Castrated

What do you do when the people you vote for no longer represent you? As the days of America’s fundamental transformation carry us further and further into the abyss, more and more Americans are waking to the debacle that is Obamacare. Ironically as the list of those opposing grows among the citizens, the ones we voted for based on the promise of repeal must have been castrated or something because they have all but jumped ship on the repeal efforts. Why? Knowing the progressives that call themselves Republicans today I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to learn they are playing a radical game to keep us confused and allow the blame for the coming “train wreck” to fall on the shoulders of Republican Party. Would that really surprise anyone who is keeping their eye on the ball? The Republicans in general allow themselves to be blamed for everything because they are afraid of not being liked. To them saving the country is about as imperative as a high school popularity contest. Once again I find myself regretting my support for Tom Coburn (R-OK) and other so called “Republicans” as they take a lead role in opposing Senator Mike Lee’s (R-UT) legislation to defund the increasingly unpopular healthcare law. Many Republicans are calling these efforts foolish because they believe it will destroy the Republican Party. I have news for you Republicans:

You are destroying the Republican Party by being cowards and failing to articulate the difference between real conservatism that defends the individual, and the Marxist based liberalism that is responsible for the destruction of Detroit. Failure to realize this and take the lead in defending freedom makes you more responsible for the destruction of this nation than the liberal democrats. Why? Because we expect that from them, you are supposed to be the checks and balances against the authoritative statist position the democrats represent. You have a lot of nerve as far as I am concerned. You play the game the liberals play by allowing yourself largesse off the public treasury and then have the audacity to snub your nose at us when faced with the obvious mandate you have been given. That’s fine; you can pack your bags now because you are leaving next fall.

The biggest problem with the republicans is that they fall in to the game of “scheming” and planning, not realizing that the liberals have mastered the tactic of making everything stick to them. They actually believe that once Obamacare is fully implemented the momentum for repeal will shift and they will be able to seize the moment. The momentum for repeal is gaining now and they are not seizing any “moment;” rather, they are showing their constituencies their true colors-yellow. They are showing America that they no longer have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to a 1960′s radical who believes in socialism because he is a cry baby who thinks everything is unfair. So in a misguided effort to show they can be fair they are letting him get away with everything he wants, like crybabies usually do.

~~~~~~

Obama Suggests Only Lawyers Understand the Constitution By Elizabeth Harrington

President Obama suggested in an interview with the New York Times that was published on Saturday that you need to be a lawyer to understand the U.S. Constitution.

The president made the suggestion when talking about members of Congress who have argued he does not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally suspend enforcement of parts of the Obamacare law.

The Times asked Obama if he “consulted” with his lawyer when making the decision to suspend the employer mandate, which would require businesses with more than 50 employees to buy them health insurance, and which was supposed to take effect on Jan. 1,  2014.

“[I]f you heard me on stage today, what I said was that I will seize any opportunity I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve their prospects, improve their security,” Obama said.

“But where Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people,” he said. “And if Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re free to make that case,” Obama added.  “But there’s not an action that I take that you don't have some folks in Congress who say that I'm usurping my authority.  Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don't think that's a secret.” “But, ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions--very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers,” the president said.  Uhg!  Arrogant, aloof and so on.

~~~~~~

Too Many College Professors as Leftist Bullies   by David L. Goetsch

Frequent readers are familiar with my disdain for college professors who pontificate rather than teach, coerce rather than inspire, and indoctrinate rather than enlighten.  Professors of this ilk are a cancer on the soul of higher education.  They undermine its very purpose.  My colleague Archie Jones and I were inspired to write our book Liberal Tyranny in Higher Education (www.americanvision.com) by this very phenomenon.  My fellow author, John Rissalada, often writes of his verbal duels with leftist bullies passing themselves off as college professors.

Colleges and universities nationwide are experiencing numerous problems—many of their own making—but one thing that is alive and well on most campuses is liberal intolerance.  Readers might remember a recent example of this phenomenon: the professor at Florida Atlantic University who instructed students to write the name “Jesus” on a sheet of paper ad then throw the paper on the floor and stomp on it.  A student who refused was suspended—a clear violation of his First Amendment rights and the concept of academic freedom.  University officials quelled the controversy somewhat by claiming the professor had been removed from the classroom.  He had, but not for disciplinary reasons.  He was removed for his own protection as the result of death threats.

Not surprisingly, university officials responded to public outrage in a predictable manner: they removed the offending professor from the classroom just long enough to allow the controversy to die down.  Now that the media glare is focused elsewhere, Dr. Deandre Poole is back in the classroom purporting to “teach” his intercultural communications class.  Is he any less a leftist bully for the experience?  Don’t count on it.  One of the reasons people like Dr. Poole go into higher education is that colleges and universities allow them to espouse, advocate, indoctrinate, and pontificate without fear of repercussion.  The fact that they are paid to teach, guide, instruct, and develop has no bearing on matters.  Tenure affords them better protection than a concrete bomb shelter.

No nation pays more for its colleges and universities than America, and the price we pay is exacted in more ways than just tax dollars and tuition.  We pay an even higher price by putting our best and brightest young people under the tutelage of professors who hate everything America stands for and are determined to tear our country down one student at a time.  Unfortunately, they are succeeding. In our book Liberal Tyranny in Higher Education, we quote David Horowitz on the purposes of higher education:

“The central purposes…are the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, the study and reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and general development of students to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to society at large.  Free inquiry and free speech within the academic community are indispensable to the achievement of these goals.”

This is about as good a summary of the purposes of higher education as you will find anywhere.  It does not say that liberal professors with nefarious agendas cannot state their misguided views on the issues of the day, but it does say that students should also get ample opportunities to state their views without fear of retribution of any kind.  In fact, it goes even further.  Students should be encouraged to think critically, disagree openly, and state views that are irretrievably at odds with those of the professor.  Free speech and free inquiry are part of a concept known as academic freedom.  This concept is the cornerstone of higher education. Professors who violate the First Amendment and academic freedom or who apply the concept as if it were a one-way street should be more properly referred to as “suppressors” rather than professors.  They should be stripped of their tenure and shown the door.

~~~~~~

Top of Form

† † † † † † † † † † †