|
Patriot Headlines | Grassroots Commentary Daily Digest
June 4, 2015
THE FOUNDATION"But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain." —James Madison, Federalist No. 42, 1788TOP RIGHT HOOKSRick Perry Asks for a Second LookFormer Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced his second presidential bid today. Perry's claim to fame is simple: jobs. Between 2007 and 2013, Texas created 1.5 million jobs while the rest of the nation lost 400,000. (What was that about Barack Obama's recovery?) In 2014, Texas created a record 457,900 jobs. During his entire tenure, the Lone Star State was responsible for more than a third of America's jobs. Even so — and with a current downturn in the oil industry slowing Texas' growth — Perry has made a concerted effort to expand his appeal beyond the economy. His generally successful 14-year tenure as governor of a large state should push him toward the top of the field, but he'll have to overcome two things: A phony indictment that amounts to charges of governing while Republican, and first impressions from the 2012 campaign. The latter could be harder, as his infamous "oops" moment in one of the last cycle's debates may have defined him too well. Naturally, he's trying to redeem himself from a bumbling 2012 run, which he blames on ill preparation and the aftereffects of major back surgery. One person who thinks he can do it is Matt Rhoades, Mitt Romney's campaign manager. “Gov. Perry has worked hard and done the right things to reposition himself for a run in 2016,” Rhoades said. “I believe his candidacy will have a major impact on the primary and voters will give him a second chance.” America is all about second chances, right?Comment | Share Texas Campus Carry Ain't RadicalIn yet another advancement for the Second Amendment, the Texas legislature passed a bill May 30 allowing concealed handgun carry on the state's college and university campuses. The bill has compromises, though, as it allows state schools to create supposed gun-free zones, and it gives private schools the option of forbidding guns on their campuses — like most other private businesses have the right to do. Texas Gov. Greg Abbot said he would sign the bill, making Texas one of 10 states that allow firearms on college campuses. But by the way some people are talking, you'd think the Lone Star State proposed some radical idea. Baylor University professor Lynn W. Tatum said, "The perception in academia will be that Texas is a free-fire zone with yokels in the classrooms packing heat." The underlying assumption is that college students are not mature enough to strap on a gun every morning. It's part of the condescending attitude that although they are legal adults, old enough to vote and be drafted into the military (where they carry guns, by the way), college students are still not recognized as fully adult. Besides, with all the focus on campus rape, Texas did well to remember that an armed society is a polite society.Comment | Share The Farce Is Strong With This One
Comment | Share Don't Miss Alexander's ColumnRead Baltimore: A Democrat Model of 'American Exceptionalism', on a look at the decay and corruption of American urban centers under Democrat "leadership."If you'd like to receive Alexander's Column by email, update your subscription here.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSISObama's Perplexing Iran DealingsBy Allyne Caan
Despite Barack Obama’s announcement that Iran’s nuclear program has been “frozen” during the past 18 months of negotiations, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in its latest report that Iran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel has actually grown by about 20% during that time. And according to the Center for Security Policy’s Fred Fleitz, were Iran to enrich this uranium to weapons grade, it would be enough to make at least nine nuclear weapons. How comforting. The New York Times reported that two potential reasons for the growth are “technical” difficulties preventing Iran from converting some of the uranium into fuel rods for reactors and attempts to gain an “edge” in the event negotiations fail. According to Fleitz, though, it’s what the Times didn’t report that is more troublesome: namely, “serious concerns … that Tehran may be trying to get the international community to allow it to have more centrifuges in a final nuclear agreement by manipulating the output of centrifuges it is currently operating to make them appear less efficient.” Responding to the Times article, State Department spokesperson Marie Harf said the administration was “quite frankly perplexed.” Yes, you read that right. Perplexed. For an administration that has a habit of learning about everything from the "same news reports" that inform the rest of America, this is hardly surprising. Still, “perplexed” is not the adjective most Americans want to hear from the commander in chief's subordinates when it comes to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. But according to Harf, it’s “absurd” to think the State Department didn’t know about the increase in Iran’s nuclear stockpiles because those numbers go up and down, and, as long as they end up at the right spot, we’re ok. So although reports of the increase are true, they’re “totally inaccurate” Tsk. Tsk. Whatever were we thinking? Not to worry, though. There is a plan. Six world powers — the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — have supposedly figured out a way to re-impose sanctions on Iran if the state sponsor of terrorism violates the terms of any agreement, which would be shocking, really, given that Iran never breaks its promises. As Reuters reports, any suspected breaches of the agreement would be considered by these super six, as well as — wait for it — Iran, and the group would come up with a non-binding opinion. Binding or not, does anyone really believe Russia and China would call out their pal Iran on violations? It's the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse. So, as the days wind down to the June 30 deadline, Iran has amassed fissile material in its nuclear stockpile, China and Russia are set to help play police, and the administration is “perplexed.” What could top this except Obama's declaration that a military option is off the table? “I can, I think, demonstrate, not based on any hope, but on facts and evidence and analysis, that the best way to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon is a verifiable tough agreement,” Obama said. “A military solution will not fix it. Even if the United States participates, it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it will not eliminate it.” Meanwhile, back in 2013 he had pledged, “I’ve said before and I will repeat that we take no options off the table, including military options, in terms of making sure that we do not have nuclear weapons in Iran that would destabilize the region and potentially threaten the United States of America.” Apparently, sidling up to Iran has weakened Obama’s rhetorical resolve. Few actually want to invade Iran, of course, but there’s nothing like exchanging “speak softly and carry a big stick” for “here, take my stick, fill it with weapons-grade uranium and launch it back at me while I promise to do nothing but talk loudly." With Iran’s sights set on Israel and four Americans hostages still held in Iranian prisons, Obama’s JV leadership is putting America and the world at risk. Comment | Share TODAY AT PATRIOTPOST.US
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
 OPINION IN BRIEFVictor Davis Hanson: "Academics in the West may preach past U.S. sins to impressionable 18-year-old students. But refugees from Latin America assume that once they cross the border into the U.S., they will have freedoms, legal protections, compassionate social services — and respect — of the sort that is impossible at home. Millions have decided that it is far better to be immigrants of illegal status in America than native-born citizens inside Mexico. What, then, explains the magnetic attraction of the often-criticized West? Add up the right to free expression, human rights, religious tolerance, constitutional government, an independent judiciary, separation of church and state, free-market economics and the protection of private property — and everyday life becomes simply far better. There is one final irony. The richer, freer and more technologically pampering that life becomes for self-critical native Westerners, the whinier they become — as if their West is not good because it is not perfect."Comment | Share SHORT CUTS"Good government is the most dangerous government, because it deprives people of the need to look after themselves." —Gandhi (1869-1948)Demo-gogues: "[Benjamin Netanyahu's peace proposal] has so many caveats, so many conditions, that it is not realistic to think that those conditions would be met any time in the near future. And so the danger here is that Israel as a whole loses credibility. Already, the international community does not believe that Israel is serious about a two-state solution." —Barack Obama (With friends like these...) Village Idiots: "In the last year, the administration processed 647,000 FOIA requests that we received from the public. I would note that that is 647,000 more FOIA requests than were processed by the United States Congress. Those who are genuinely interested in advocating for transparency in government should advocate for Congress being subject to those transparency measures." —Obama spokesman Josh Earnest, defending the "Most Transparent Administration in History™" from its opaque record Non Compos Mentis: "[I]f the Supreme Court were to throw the health care system in this country into utter chaos, there would be no easy solution for solving that problem because it would likely require an act of Congress in order to address that situation.” —Josh Earnest (It would have been nice if this administration had thought twice about throwing the system into chaos to begin with.)
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