|
Patriot Headlines | Grassroots Commentary Daily Digest
April 8, 2015
THE FOUNDATION"At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a nation; and if their citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own." --George Washington, Letter to the Governors, 1783WE NEED YOUR HELP"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." --Thomas PaineOur 2015 Patriots' Day Campaign is underway. The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization. Nor do we accept any online or email advertising. Instead, our operations and mission are funded by -- and depend entirely upon -- the voluntary financial support of American Patriots like you! Please help us meet our Spring funding goal by making a donation today. Thank you! --Nate Jackson, Managing Editor
TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKSIran Is Too Radical to Recognize Israel, Says ... Obama?"The notion that we could condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons ... on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won't sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms," Barack Obama explained in an interview with NPR. "And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment. ... We want Iran not to have nuclear weapons precisely because we can't bank on the nature of the regime changing." Believe it or not, Obama is right in a sense. The Iranians are entirely too radical to recognize Israel and, in fact, regularly promise to annihilate the Jewish state. But isn't "fundamental transformation" Obama's specialty?Comment | Share Obama Admits Iran Won't Be Far From NukesBarack Obama may like to insist that his deal ensures Iran will never obtain nuclear weapons, but even he admitted the opposite in an interview with NPR. "Most of [Iran's] enriched uranium is supposed to be set off to the side and diluted; it may, however, remain inside Iran," Obama said. "Eventually, the deal expires. Perhaps the uranium is still there, which is why ... where the regime changes is a significant question." He then said, "[T]hey're not going to have been able to horde a bunch of uranium that somehow they then convert to weapons-grade uranium. What is a more relevant fear would be that in year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero." Not to worry, though. He said, "[C]urrently, the breakout times are only about two to three months by our intelligence estimates. So essentially, we're purchasing for 13, 14, 15 years assurances that the breakout is at least a year ... that -- that if they decided to break the deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we'd have over a year to respond. And we have those assurances for at least well over a decade." Everything is awesome. But he just put his seal of approval on a future Iranian nuke.Comment | Share Schumer Agrees Congress Must Approve Iran DealWe didn't have high hopes for soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, but he's proven himself sane on at least one count: joining several other Democrats in pushing for Congress to vote on Barack Obama's deal with Iran. "This is a very serious issue that deserves careful consideration," Schumer said, "and I expect to have a classified briefing in the near future. I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement and I support the Corker bill which would allow that to occur." He's referring to Sen. Bob Corker's Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which requires a two-month review period for Congress and a final vote before sanctions on Iran can be lifted. "[B]efore [the Obama administration] starts unraveling the [sanctions on Iran] that Congress put in place, we want to make sure that they show us the deal," Corker said in a statement prior to Congress' recess. Schumer's support will help. Then again, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest assured, "The sales pitch has only just begun." And Nancy Pelosi may just save Obama in the House.Comment | Share Obama Attacks Walker's Foreign Policy Bona FidesWisconsin Governor Scott Walker had decisive words for Barack Obama's deal with Iran: If the Republican were elected president, he would throw out the deal on the first day of office. Barack Obama's reply was haughty, dismissive and forgetful of where he was seven years ago. In an interview with NPR, Obama said of Walker's declaration, "I am confident that any president who gets elected will be knowledgeable enough about foreign policy and knowledgeable enough about the traditions and precedents of presidential power that they won't start calling to question the capacity of the executive branch of the United States to enter into agreements with other countries. … It would be a foolish approach to take, and, you know, perhaps Mr. Walker, after he's taken some time to bone up on foreign policy, will feel the same way." If Walker does reach the White House, he'll have executive experience developed as governor of Wisconsin -- something Obama never gained when he was the freshman senator in Illinois or a community organizer in Chicago. And the fruits of that show in his administration's dealings with Iraq, Ukraine, Yemen, China, etc. Because of that, Obama can only resort to narcissistic counter attacks that label everyone else stupid. More...Comment | Share Obama Slams Christians -- AgainBarack Obama, who claims to be a Christian, used Tuesday's Easter Prayer Breakfast at the White House as an opportunity to criticize the faithful. Obama declared, "On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that, as a Christian, I'm supposed to love, and I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned." He is "concerned" about "less-than-loving expressions by Christians," in reference to those who do not comport lockstep with his view on same-sex marriage, while offering not a word on the plight of Christians targeted by Muslims worldwide. Just last week, after nearly 150 students were slaughtered in Kenya, commenting on the massacre, Obama neglected to mention that the killers were Muslim and all the victims Christian. Recall that in February, Obama used the National Prayer Breakfast to defend Islam and criticize Christianity, claiming, "Lest we get on our high horse and think [terrorism] is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ." At both events, Obama's comments were not only inappropriate, they were inaccurate. More...Comment | Share For more, visit Right Hooks.
RIGHT ANALYSISLibertarian Paul Courts Conservatives
Dr. Paul certainly seems to be a fine man. He's a church-going Christian with a wife and three sons. He's an ophthalmologist who often extends his services free of charge to those who can’t afford them. Through the Children of the Americas Program, he provides these services to children throughout Latin America. Paul is a great asset in the Senate, to which he was elected during a swell of Tea Party enthusiasm in 2010. He'll simultaneously run for re-election in 2016 after Kentucky’s legislature made a special exception for him to seek two offices, normally not allowed by law. But Paul has virtually been a presidential candidate since he was first elected, and that has made for some unconvincing policy shifts -- especially on national security -- as he tries to position himself for electoral success. For example, he raised a few eyebrows with the rapid evolution in his foreign policy views, leaving many to wonder whether he really knows what foreign policies he would pursue as president. Recently, he called for an increase of $76 billion in defense funding, raising the Senate Budget Committee’s total to $696 billion. (Interestingly, Marco Rubio has called for the same increase.) But in 2011, his first year in the Senate, Paul proposed significant cuts in defense spending. The change is almost certainly driven by primary politics. And last year, Paul’s opinion regarding airstrikes against ISIL evolved from “very skeptical” to strongly supportive in a three-month period. Whatever the merits of the issue, any Republican candidate would be grilled about such a sudden change in opinion regarding a critical foreign policy. Needless to say, his voting to raise the defense budget won him no plaudits among libertarians. “[L]et's be clear: It ain't gonna help at all with libertarians who see in Paul their best hope for a major party politician whom they would vote for in a presidential race,” wrote Nick Gillespie, editor in chief of the libertarian Reason.com. “Paul toys with lower-case libertarians at his own peril." Still, Paul hopes he can build a coalition of fed-up conservatives and Millennials large enough to win. Paul’s social agenda includes transforming our criminal justice system, which currently imprisons people for relatively minor offenses, putting them into penitentiaries where they learn how to be hardened criminals. Instead, Paul says petty criminals could be forced to make restitution, and mandatory minimum sentencing should end. As American Spectator editor R. Emmett Tyrell explains, "The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, but it has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. According to the Charles Koch Institute, incarceration leads to 'a 40 percent decrease in annual earnings, reduced job tenure, and higher unemployment.'" In his speech Tuesday, Paul said he wants to see a new economic boom and "a return to a government restrained by the Constitution." The two are related. “Opportunity and hope are slipping away for our sons and daughters," he warned "[a]s our once-great economy collapses under mounting spending and debt.” “Congress will never balance the budget unless you force them too," he added. "I propose something extraordinary. Let’s just spend what comes in.” Furthermore, he said, “Under the watch of both parties, the poor seem to get poorer, the rich get richer. ... My plan includes economic freedom zones to allow impoverished areas to prosper ... by leaving more money in the pockets of the people who live there.” He spoke without benefit of a teleprompter, something all prospective Republican candidates do well. He offers many good ideas that could reignite both the economy and the flame of Liberty. He just has to win the primaries. At least two people present a clear challenge to Paul on that front. The first is fellow candidate Ted Cruz, who is a maverick of a somewhat similar ilk and will compete for Tea Party votes. Cruz called Paul his "good friend," but the two differ on important issues, the major one being the extent to which America should extend herself in the world militarily. The second man who could undermine Paul’s run is his father, Ron Paul. The elder Paul doesn’t share the nuanced views of his son and likes to call ‘em as he sees ‘em -- which is sometimes alarming to conservatives. It’s hardly likely that he’ll remain silent throughout the entire campaign. “Pop” could end up being the shot that ends Rand’s campaign. In short, Paul's announcement is just the second in what is sure to be a long string of candidates. Indeed, 2016 will present the most wide-open field the GOP has seen in a very long time, and we expect a spirited campaign. Comment | Share Another Gun Grab: Tax Breaks for ARs
The Connecticut native owned the AR-15 for 10 years but never used it. Suddenly, Bango saw it as a liability. "There's always a chance it can be stolen," The New Haven Register quoted him as saying. "It's an attractive nuisance. You can lock it in a safe, but people think there may be valuables in there. Why take a chance if I'm not using it?" The press and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) were at the station. In a public display, Bango gave up his rifle to a police lieutenant who wore a pistol on his hip. In that move, Bango became the impetus for the warmed over piece of gun control idiocy DeLauro re-introduced to Congress this week. The bill, Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of our Streets Act (SAFER Streets Act), would give a $2,000 tax credit over two years for anyone who, like Bango, voluntarily give up their "assault weapon" as defined by the federal government. It was a bill Bango suggested to his Nutmegger representative. Gun grabbers exploited the Sandy Hook murders in order to introduce lots of bad bills. This bill is no exception. “Let us be clear. Assault weapons are not about hunting or even self-defense and they should be off the streets,” DeLauro said in a statement introducing the original bill. “There is no reason on Earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in a very short period of time, that anyone needs a gun designed for military purposes." Did DeLauro even try? She barely tweaked that statement when she reissued it this week. It's hard to take her bill seriously -- because she seemingly didn't. And it will go nowhere in the Republican Congress. There are unsubstantiated facts, such as her claim that assault weapons "have been disproportionately used to kill law enforcement officers in the line of duty." What baloney. The Executive Director for the Fraternal Order of Police, in countering Obama's attempted administrative move against popular AR-15 ammunition, said M855 “green tip” ammunition "has not historically posed a threat to law enforcement." In terms of reducing crime, that's already done. The Department of Justice's own numbers show that violent crime dropped 75% since 1993, and the murder rate has been halved. As National Review's Charles C.W. Cooke writes, "[S]o-called 'assault rifles' are used so infrequently that the FBI doesn’t even keep statistics." And the whole plan of using the IRS as a carrot to entice people to give up their guns? That's rich. Reason Magazine's J.D. Tuccille argues it could be good for the gun industry: "If Rep. DeLauro wants to hand out tax credits to people willing trade in a qualifying hunk of junk so they can score sweet new guns, it would be churlish to say 'no.'" Hey! April will be stimulus month at Bushmaster, Stag Arms and DPMS! Furthermore, this could be a boon for the developing market for 80% AR-15 receivers. What used to be a high-end project for gun nuts with access to a milling machine could become an easy way to get a tax credit, thanks to DeLauro. The thing you hand in to the government just has to be defined as an "assault weapon." Does it have to work? We read the bill. Nope. This episode illustrates two strategies of gun control advocates. First, DeLauro's bill is incremental. The Right blogosphere is rife with jokes about how a Democrat wants to give gun owners heaps of cash for guns. But really, it's a subtle change that will set a government precedent of discouraging gun ownership. Make no mistake: DeLauro wants all the scary-looking guns banned. "She supports a comprehensive ban on assault weapons as well as high-capacity ammunition feeding devices," her press release reads. She won't be content with just giving a tax credit for her favorite people. Second, her bill is full of the rhetoric of gun control crusaders: that it's a safety issue, or a public health risk. DeLauro introduced this bill to commemorate Public Health Week. If Joe Bango doesn't want his gun anymore, that's his right -- just like it's every American's right not to speak his or her mind, or not practice any religion. But if somehow Congress were to pass this law, it would be a clear infringement of the Second Amendment, as the government would actively encourage people to disarm. Bango and DeLauro should not confuse personal decisions with policy. Comment | Share For more, visit Right Analysis.
TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS
 OPINION IN BRIEFAmerican statesman John C. Calhoun (1782-1850): "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail."Columnist Jonah Goldberg: "The field of journalistic ethics can get ridiculously Talmudic. But it’s all based on a very simple rule: Tell the truth. If the truth is unclear, tell what you know and give both sides (or as many credible sides to a story as might exist) an opportunity to make their case. (For opinion journalists, like yours truly, the rule is even easier: Don’t say anything you don’t believe.) Rolling Stone ignored this basic rule. At every stage, editors and reporters knew what they should do: Talk to the accused rapists, confirm the identities and testimony of alleged witnesses, give the University of Virginia and the leadership of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity, where the rape allegedly occurred, a fair opportunity to rebut the charges, nail down corroborating details, etc. And, at almost every turn, they collectively went another way, caving to Jackie’s refusal to help confirm her story. ... [T]he real culprit here is ideological groupthink in service to a political agenda. ... [I]n their hearts they’re sure they were right, and that’s all that matters." Comment | Share Columnist Walter Williams: "People with limited understanding make the mistake of making a link between economic freedom and democracy. There is no such necessary link. India, for example, politically is a democracy. Economically, it is mostly unfree and poor, ranking 128th on the 2015 Index of Economic Freedom. There are countries much higher on the economic freedom index that do not have much of a history of democracy, such as Chile, now ranking seventh, and Taiwan, 14th, yet these countries are far wealthier than some of their more democratic counterparts. Why? It’s because their economic systems are free or mostly free, something that is not guaranteed by a democratic political system. The bottom line for why some countries are rich while others are poor is best-explained by the amount of economic freedom." Comment | Share Comedian Seth Meyers: "According to The New York Times, Jeb Bush identified himself as Hispanic on his 2009 voter registration form. While Hillary Clinton identified herself as 'President.'" Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis! Managing Editor Nate Jackson Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform -- Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen -- standing in harm's way in defense of Liberty, and for their families. |
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
THE PATRIOT POST 04/08/2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment