|
Patriot Headlines | Grassroots Commentary Daily Digest
May 22, 2015
THE FOUNDATION"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone." —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, 1820TOP RIGHT HOOKSThe Odd Millions: Clintons Disclose More Clandestine CashIt seems like Hillary Clinton's campaign is trying to get all the bad news out early (though there isn't much good news). That way, the toxic waste might reach half-life before the primary election. The Clinton Foundation released more details into how the Clintons went from "dead broke" to One Percenters, and it shows the family's overpriced speaking fees raked in $12 to $26.4 million more than previously disclosed. The money came from colleges, Wall Street companies like Goldman Sachs and foreign governments like Qatar. The Clintons didn't disclose these payments because they counted them as revenue for a service, not donations. But in effect, this allowed groups to hand the Clintons a pile of undisclosed cash. Members of Congress sent a letter to the IRS asking it to reconsider the Clinton Foundation's tax-exempt status. While asking the government to investigate the Clintons is valid, the letter may galvanize Democrats to rally around Clinton. Instead, Republicans should let Clinton twist in the wind. Either progressives realize Clinton doesn't represent their idealism and challenge her majesty's claim to the Oval Office, or they wear her like an albatross. More...Comment | Share Sid Blumenthal Changed His Benghazi StoryOn Wednesday, we noted that longtime Clinton friend and adviser Sidney Blumenthal told Hillary on Sept. 12, 2012, that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was sparked by a YouTube video. But after beginning to comb over some of Clinton's released emails, The New York Times reports this gem: "The next day [September 13], Mr. Blumenthal sent Mrs. Clinton a more thorough account of what had occurred. Citing 'sensitive sources' in Libya, the memo provided extensive detail about the episode, saying that the siege had been set off by members of Ansar al-Shariah, the Libyan terrorist group. Those militants had ties to Al Qaeda, had planned the attacks for a month and had used a nearby protest as cover for the siege, the memo said. 'We should get this around asap' Mrs. Clinton said in an email to [her then-deputy chief of staff] Mr. Sullivan. 'Will do,' he responded. That information contradicted the Obama administration's narrative at the time about what had spawned the attacks. Republicans have said the administration misled the country about the attacks because it did not want to undermine the notion that President Obama, who was up for re-election, was winning the war on terrorism."So Hillary knew with certainty two days after the attack that it wasn't the spontaneous protest against an obscure Internet video that Barack Obama, Susan Rice and others in his administration would continue to claim for weeks afterward. And she knew this truth before she looked the father of slain former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods in the eye and promised, "We're going to have the person responsible for that video arrested." It may turn out Hillary wishes she had released these emails before they became such a big story. Comment | Share Fox, CNN to Determine Who's a Presidential CandidateFox News announced Wednesday that only (ahem, only) 10 GOP candidates — the leaders in the polls — will be permitted to participate in the first presidential debate on Aug. 6 in Cleveland. Likewise, CNN will limit the first part of its Sept. 16 debate to the top 10 polling candidates, while allowing any who exceed 1% to come on stage for the second half. Certainly, we understand not wanting to have 27 people on stage competing for a few seconds of airtime. The GOP field is crowded this year, nearly to the point of being silly. But the decision to limit this to poll numbers is asinine, especially for the first debate. Voters don't know the candidates very well yet, so why limit the stage to polling on people who are as-yet unknown quantities? It amounts to making early name recognition the bar of entry, which then — ta da — limits name recognition for those who haven't got it yet. This is a good example of what we like to call pollaganda, a propagandistic disinformation technique where political polling masquerades as "objective journalism" and instead advances a particular bias. The networks can thus use the restricted GOP field to drive public opinion rather than reflect or inform it. Our solution: If candidates have done the necessary paperwork and are qualified, put 'em on stage one way or another, even if it takes multiple debates in varying arrangements.Comment | Share EDITOR'S NOTEWe will not publish our Daily Digest or Humor editions Monday in observance of Memorial Day. We'll return to providing you the web's best news analysis Tuesday.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSISGates Says Boy Scouts Must Preemptively SurrenderBy Nate Jackson
“The one thing we cannot do is put our heads in the sand and pretend this challenge will go away or abate,” Gates added. “Quite the opposite is happening.” Translation: Abandon traditional values in the face of pressure from the Rainbow Mafia. Far from putting "our heads in the sand," however, defending both traditional Judeo-Christian values and religious liberty itself is called standing on principle. Gates did not call upon BSA leaders to make a decision on the matter forthwith, but he did caution that if the organization doesn't change on its own the homosexual lobby and its allies in the courts are likely to force the issue. “If we wait for the courts to act," he warned, "we could end up with a broad ruling that could forbid any kind of membership standard,” including belief in duty to God and specifically serving the needs of boys. So he argued for change, leaving it up to individual troops and councils and the churches who sponsor them ... for now. However, such a change would only leave troops and councils across the nation susceptible to legal assaults by the Tolerance Brigade. Gates, a former secretary of defense and CIA director, has a track record of knuckling under to homosexual activists. He was at the helm of the Pentagon for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 2010, justifying his actions at the time as an end to discrimination rather than calling the change what it was: an attempt by gays and lesbians to remake yet another institution to suit the needs of a small but vocal fraction of the population. (On that note, homosexuals and their allies have managed to erroneously convince more than half of Americans that gays make up at least 20% of the population. The true number is more like 3%, but it helps the agenda if it appears there are far more of them.) When Gates took the job as president of the BSA in 2014, he said he had no intention of allowing openly homosexual scout leaders. The BSA was already reeling from a 2013 decision that summarily dropped the ban on openly homosexual youths. The vote was passed by 60% of the 1,400 delegates in attendance, which may seem like a landslide but is hardly a representative cross-section of the national organization. Scout membership nationally is already down more than 10% since the last encroachment of gay activists — but the prospect of homosexual leaders overseeing troops will most assuredly lead to a much more significant decline. Next thing you know, the BSA will be banning water guns. Oh, wait... Gates is correct that the homosexual lobby isn't done reshaping the 103-year-old organization to suit its agenda. Scouts for Equality and Human Rights Campaign issued statements after Gates’ speech Thursday saying they were heartened by his words, but wanted to see more action. HRC President Chad Griffin said, “It’s time for BSA leaders to show true leadership and embrace a full national policy of inclusion that does not discriminate against anyone because of who they are.” Unless of course you want to discriminate against someone for their religious beliefs — that’s perfectly acceptable to HRC and other members of the homosexual lobby. And never mind that the "tolerant" thing to do would be to live and let live. Set up another scouting organization to advance and promote leftist values, and leave the Boy Scouts alone. Yet proponents of the homosexual agenda have convinced the courts and the Leftmedia to go along with their plan to dismantle every institution in this country for the sake of accommodating, promoting and advancing their own lifestyle. Submit to homosexual leaders, don't oppose same-sex marriage, bake the cake — whatever the demand, you will comply. Or else. So-called tolerance is a one-way street. What takes place between consenting adults is one thing, but when did it ever become necessary to force other people to condone that behavior? “We must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be,” Gates declared. Well, the world as it is right now is being reshaped by an aggressive minority who want little more than the power to reshape the culture and its institutions in its own image. Comment | Share TODAY AT PATRIOTPOST.US
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
 OPINION IN BRIEFMona Charen: "Here's how Democrats prefer to arrange matters regarding women: They claim that nominating the first woman for president is a huge advance for all women, proving that women are just as competent as men. Yet they demand that their particular woman be insulated from the usual vigorous debate that is essential for democracy. Any criticism of Hillary Clinton is presumptive sexism, while her attacks on opponents are unrestricted. Neat trick if you can pull if off — and she can if Republicans accept the bridle. In a sense, Clinton has been using the victimized-woman angle for her whole political career. ... The best response to the charge of sexism is ridicule. Any female candidate who hides behind her own skirts to avoid robust debate is not striking a blow for equality or dignity. Rather than displaying fitness for the job of commander in chief, she's conveying her weakness and inability to compete. Any male candidate who pulls his punches is patronizing her. Anyone who takes her on (within the bounds of civility) is according her respect. ... Male Republicans ... can comb [Hillary's] State Department and Senate careers for material without fear. She's asking to be taken seriously. Oblige her."Comment | Share SHORT CUTSInsight: "It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs." —Albert Einstein (1879-1955)Non Compos Mentis: "Franklin Roosevelt, probably the best president we ever had, certainly in the 20th century, was very secretive and manipulative. And we still thought he was a good president. So if Hillary Clinton is secretive ... is that going to help us get any further here?" —MSNBC's Chris Matthews Hold him to it: "Look, 20 years from now, I'm still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it's my name on this. I think it's fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down." —Barack Obama Annals of the absurd: "I don't think we're losing." —Barack Obama on the fight against ISIL Sometimes Hollywood gets it right: "Life's not fair, it never was, it isn't now and it won't ever be. Do not fall into the trap, the entitlement trap, of feeling like you're a victim. You are not." —Academy Award-winning actor Matthew McConaughey to University of Houston graduates
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. |
No comments:
Post a Comment