|
Patriot Headlines | Grassroots Commentary Daily Digest
September 9, 2015
THE FOUNDATION"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary." —Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776TOP RIGHT HOOKSKim Davis Out of Jail, but the Saga Continues
Comment | Share Baltimore Settles in Freddie Gray Civil SuitIn an effort to put the whole debacle in the past, the City of Baltimore settled a civil suit brought about by the death of Freddie Gray. The $6.4 million settlement is separate from the criminal trial (or trials, depending on how that legal drama plays out) of the six police officers associated with Gray's death. Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said in a statement, "The proposed settlement agreement going before the Board of Estimates should not be interpreted as a judgment on the guilt or innocence of the officers facing trial. This settlement is being proposed solely because it is in the best interest of the city, and avoids costly and protracted litigation that would only make it more difficult for our city to heal and potentially cost taxpayers many millions more in damages." And just like that, Gray's family won this round of the legal lotto. To be clear, the settlements in these cases of alleged police brutality have never been about justice. New York City agreed to pay out $5.9 million for the death of Eric Garner. But where is the settlement for the death of Walter Scott? In the video of that incident, it was clear the police officer leveled his gun against the fleeing Scott, aimed and killed him. Baltimore is helping to set a precedent where if enough frenzy is drummed up over the death of someone in police custody — and in Gray's instance, he might have been trying to intentionally harm himself — the money will flow soon after to make the issue go away.Comment | Share Only 36 Miles of Up-to-Date Fence on the BorderThe Department of Homeland Security recently informed the Senate that the border between Mexico and the United States is only properly fenced for 36.3 miles, or 0.02% of its entire length. Two-thirds of the border has no fencing at all, and there are no current plans to build a barrier. "A Senate official said that the 2006 Secure Fence Act required 700 miles of double-layer fencing because Border Patrol members said double layer works best," the Washington Examiner wrote. "Reports indicated that illegal immigrants can easily scale single fences." Currently, some sections of the border are simply fenced with metal sheets once used as helicopter landing pads during the Vietnam War. This is not a failure solely of the Obama administration. The DHS Office of Inspector General issued a report in 2009, which said the Border Patrol did not fully staff the project and faced difficulty in getting the land needed to erect the fence — even though it got a waiver to ignore environmental requirements. But the chance that the Border Patrol can restart the construction and bring an increase of law enforcement to the border is fraught with political barriers, thanks to this current administration.Comment | Share FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSISHillary 'Apologizes,' Offers Desperate RedirectBy Nate Jackson
But first, her remarks about her email. In a twist few expected from a Clinton, she finally decided to apologize — sort of. “What I had done was allowed, it was above board," she first insisted. "But in retrospect, as I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. One for personal, one for work-related emails. That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility.” She left out a couple of words, though. We'll add them: "That was a mistake [to not better cover my tracks]. I'm sorry about [getting caught]." Indeed, just last week, she said, "I certainly wish that I had made a different choice," adding that she was "sorry that this has been confusing to people." She's spent months either dodging questions entirely or stubbornly refusing to admit any error. In a Labor Day interview with the Associated Press, Hillary argued, "What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that." Uh, wasn't she running the State Department at the time? What a relief to know she gave herself permission to run a private email server. Then she went on more than once to deny wrongly handling classified information: "I did not send or receive any information marked classified. I take the responsibilities of handling classified materials very seriously and did so." Also, "I'm so careful about classified information. I take classified material very, very seriously." Virtually everything she has said about the ordeal, however, is a lie that we've recounted extensively. The latest is that a second intelligence review of two particular emails found that both contained "Top Secret" information when they were sent to Hillary in 2009 and 2011, respectively. One email had information regarding North Korea's nuclear program from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. For intelligence agencies to agree on the classification undermines Clinton's regular rebuttal that it's just an inter-agency dispute over the meaning of "classified." And not only did she receive information classified by other originating agencies (the only classification that matters is that of the originating agency), but we learned last week that Hillary originated classified emails. So for her to continue her denial is, well, very Clintonesque. But it's the "drip, drip, drip" of the release of information that might help her most, as Americans tune out and quit caring that she violated multiple laws regarding classified information and obstruction of justice. Perhaps her apology came because of her plummeting poll numbers. She brings universal name recognition, a sizable war chest, inevitability and first-female president potential ... and she's still struggling. That speaks volumes about just how bad a candidate she really is — all the Clinton baggage with none of Bill's appeal. In a pitiful attempt to redirect the conversation to policy — not to mention shore up her left flank against Bernie Sanders — she announced this week a proposal to further limit political campaign donations. Recall that the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, universally despised by Democrats, stemmed from an anti-Hillary video during the 2008 election cycle. The Court struck down some donation restrictions implemented in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" law. The Wall Street Journal explains, "[S]he would have the government provide matching funds for campaign donations below a certain dollar amount, lower the cap on the amount individuals can contribute to candidates, and force independent groups to disclose their donors. She would also try to rewrite the First Amendment to allow more regulation of political speech." Hillary railed against "unaccountable money that is distorting our elections," though she has no problem putting current law to full use through her Priorities USA Action super PAC, which brought in $15 million in July. Does that super PAC disclose its donors? Please. You see, her campaign says, she couldn't possibly "unilaterally disarm." There's also that little side venture called the Clinton Foundation, which no doubt will be exempt from any of Hillary's reform proposals. She's more than happy to divert a sizable portion of her and Bill's massive income to her foundation's slush fund to avoid taxes and questions of influence. As secretary of state, she worked on behalf of people, companies and governments that, lo and behold, had given millions and millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. The Constitution protects free speech, and part of that speech is through making campaign donations. So until the day when people and companies are free to give to candidates rather than super PACs — and Hillary fully discloses her own operations with the Foundation and email servers — she can spare us the lecture about "transparency." Comment | Share
MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
TOP HEADLINES
OPINION IN BRIEFGary Bauer: "When the law was the Defense of Marriage Act, the president and attorney general of the United States refused to enforce it. President Obama has routinely refused to enforce various immigration laws or parts of Obamacare. Why were Obama and Holder not held to the same standard as [Kim] Davis? Commentators insist that Davis is violating the law. What law? Congress has not passed a law recognizing same-sex marriage. Neither has Kentucky. In fact, 75% of Kentucky voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Supreme Court’s decision redefining marriage was a narrow five-to-four vote that upended hundreds of years of accepted law, defied the values of the American people and invalidated the votes of millions of citizens. And the court has been wrong before. When it ruled that Dred Scott was the property of his slave master, was the proper response for Christians to promote slavery? When the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that separate but equal was constitutional, was complying with segregation the proper Christian thing to do?"Comment | Share SHORT CUTSInsight: "The necessity of every one paying in his own labor for what he consumes, affords the only legitimate and effectual check to excessive luxury, which has so often ruined individuals, states and empires; and which has now brought almost universal bankruptcy upon us." —Josiah Warren (1798-1874)Upright: "[T]he left has no interest in discussing ghetto pathology. Summer movies like 'Straight Outta Compton' are too busy glorifying it, and summer books like Ta-Nehisi Coates’s 'Between the World and Me' are too busy intellectualizing it. The Black Lives Matter crowd has become an appendage of the civil-rights industry, which uses the black underclass to push an agenda that invariably leaves the supposed beneficiaries worse off." —Jason Riley For the record: "So Hillary Clinton mumbled some kind of apology yesterday: ... This raises the question: Who gives a rat’s ass? Were you demanding an apology from Hillary Clinton? I wasn’t. I wanted the facts." —Jonah Goldberg Birds of a feather... "Donald Trump and I both agree that there ought to be more taxation of the billionaires, the people who are making their money on Wall Street." —Elizabeth Warren Non Compos Mentis: "I felt that I was in the military in the true sense because I dealt with those people." —Donald Trump on his time in military boarding school Actually, that's exactly what he's doing: "I don't think Barack Obama has bad motives. I just think he's wrong on a lot of issues." —Jeb Bush Friendly fire: "There is something profoundly wrong when ... the average American is working longer hours for lower wages and we have shamefully the highest rate of child poverty of any major country on earth." —Bernie Sanders on the Obama economy And last... "In his weekly address, President Obama said he'd 'push our economy and the world to ultimately transition off of fossil fuels.' Uh huh. Still waiting for him to start flying around in that solar-powered Air Force One." —Fred Thompson Comment | Share 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