THE PATRIOT POST 01/08/2016

Right Analysis | Right Hooks | Right Opinion Patriot Headlines | Grassroots Commentary Daily Digest January 8, 2016    THE FOUNDATION "It is necessary for every American, with becoming energy to endeavor to stop the dissemination of principles evidently destructive of the cause for which they have bled. It must be the combined virtue of the rulers and of the people to do this, and to rescue and save their civil and religious rights from the outstretched arm of tyranny, which may appear under any mode or form of government." —Mercy Warren, 1805 TOP RIGHT HOOKS Let's Have a Town Hall to Compromise on Liberty Barack Obama held his much-ballyhooed town hall last night on guns, as a follow-up to his tear-jerking and totally ineffective gun control measures announced earlier this week. "We should politicize this," Obama said of gun control in October. In 2008, he criticized those who "bitterly cling" to guns. And yet he supposedly wanted to rise above all that last night for an open and civil discussion about why every American should agree with him on restricting gun rights. He skillfully insisted that all he wants to do is "make progress" with "modest" proposals, not "solve every crime." He tried hard to appear to be the reasonable adult in the room, only wanting to protect us from awful things. (Perhaps he should try enforcing the laws on the books then instead of writing new ones.) But his demeanor was a thin veil for the emotional appeal of his nonsensical, illogical, and, most importantly, unconstitutional approach to the issue. He couldn't completely conceal his ideological colors, either, resorting as he often does to drawing caricatures of his opponents. "The way it is described is that we are trying to take away everybody's guns," Obama said. "Our position is consistently mischaracterized. ... If you listen to the rhetoric, it is so over-the-top, it is so overheated." He dismissed as "a conspiracy" any desire he has to take guns. It's probably true that he wouldn't actually try to confiscate guns, knowing that would likely spark outright civil war, but he's the one who has repeatedly praised Australia's gun confiscation as a model we might want to look at. He's also the one hawking the ban on so-called "assault weapons," which number in the millions. Besides, no one thinks he or the Left will stop with a little "progress." It will never be enough; we'll always need more "common sense" gun control, eroding Liberty incrementally. As we note often, Justice Joseph Story once called the Second Amendment the "palladium of the liberties of the republic." In other words, owning guns isn't primarily about hunting, sport shooting, or even stopping criminals. Bearing arms secures all of the rights of a free people against tyrannical government. That's why Obama and his ilk hate guns so much, and that's why no town hall will ever find common ground between tyrants like him and the Patriots who hold Liberty so dear. Comment | Share Election-Year Economic Outlook The Bureau of Labor Statistics' jobs report for December is in: The job growth is decent, but wages remain low. Before the report, economists hoped for 200,000 jobs added to the economy, a slow, plodding increase that has become the hallmark of the Obama recovery. What we got was 292,000 jobs. The BLS also revised the job numbers up for October and November to 307,000 and 252,00 respectively, a net increase of 50,000 jobs for those two months. This is heartening news for investors after the stock market in China tumbled in the first 30 minutes of trading Thursday, affecting the U.S. stock market — and thus millions of Americans. And it seems the U.S. economy made a small recovery. After all, the headline unemployment rate is holding at a low 5%. The fuller unemployment number, the seasonally adjusted U-6 measure, held steady at 9.9%. As American Enterprise Institute's James Pethokoukis tweeted, full employment would have the U-6 skimming along at 8.9%. But the problem is these headlining numbers are not felt by most Americans going to work and putting a bit away in their retirement accounts. The downturn in the stock market shows that there is distrust in the U.S. economy. What gives? This could probably be explained by the sluggish increase in the average hourly wage, which as the BLS reports "changed little" when it edged down one cent to $25.24. With most paychecks staying the same month after month, year after year, it's no wonder Americans are dissatisfied with the economy. And that, heading into the November election, will influence votes. It's time for Republicans to make a case for how the free market can make Americans' efforts worth more. Comment | Share For Now, Green Lobby Is Dead Meat in Dietary Debate Every five years, the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services revise nutritional standards for what is considered a balanced diet. The new edition, released Thursday, contains most of what you would expect — a recommendation to drastically reduce artificial sugar intake and consume more fruits, vegetables and grains. But the guidelines retained one surprising element that was thrust to the forefront of the debate last year: Red meat. It all ties back to a controversial proposal that was weighed by a panel of nutritional experts who appear to be covertly working to do the environmental lobby's bidding. The Hill explains: The recommendations for what Americans should and shouldn't be eating ... created unprecedented controversy in 2015 when the federally appointed panel of nutritionists that helps draft them considered environmental concerns in recommending that people should eat less meat. The USDA and HHS relented to industry outrage and promised the environment would not be considered, but congressional leaders wanted to be sure, adding language to the year-end $1.1 trillion spending bill requiring the agencies to conduct a 'comprehensive review' of the guidelines and the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee within 30 days. Groups in the meat industry were relieved to see that lean meats had ultimately been left in the description of a healthy diet." That's not to say the meat industry was given a free pass. "The guidelines note that there is strong evidence to support that eating less meat, including processed meats, reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease," The Hill adds. Nevertheless, Americans can keep chomping away at modest proportions of red meat with the government's blessing. But for how long? Writing in The Wall Street Journal in November, Julie Kelly and Jeff Stier discerned how the meat-cancer link was conveniently well-timed and may have been a clever ploy ahead of the Paris climate talks. And it's possible now that those talks are over and considered successful by most environmentalists that USDA and HHS have a little leverage to back off the pedal for a time. But rest assured, the proposals will be back. After all, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change proposes no less than a 25% reduction in global meat consumption, and maybe up to 75%, arguing that fewer livestock means less methane emissions escaping into the atmosphere — rather ironic considering livestock is nature. The war on meat is a coordinated effort that won't be easily overcome. On the bright side, the dietary guidelines also put a positive light on caffeine. Which is great news. We'll need all the coffee we can get to expose behind-the-scenes fraud like this. Comment | Share FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS Democrats Party Like It's 1999 By Michael Swartz It's been a quarter-century since Bill Clinton arrived on the scene as a hip, young, centrist Democrat from a Southern state, and with wife Hillary Rodham in tow they were the essence of a Washington-bound power couple. Those of us who've achieved a certain age, however, can recall the "bimbo eruptions" that kept the Clintons and their political hacks on defense throughout their years in DC. Indeed, it was 17 years ago yesterday that Bill faced the Senate to answer the charges of perjury relating to his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Fast-forward to the present day, and Hillary is the one running for president — yet Bill's serial sexual predation is once again dogging them. Led by Donald Trump, who called Bill Clinton "one of the great abusers of the world," a man with "a terrible record of women abuse," the narrative has shifted away from Hillary's record and back onto the former president. When we revisit the sickening stories of not just Lewinsky, but especially Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and others, we can't help but shake our heads at the Houdini act that has allowed the Clintons to expand their empire over the years. Together, they've taken in more than $160 million since Bill left the White House, and Hillary, who hasn't even a thimble-full of Bubba's political talent, has reaped the rewards of standing by her man. Broaddrick reappeared recently with a Tweet reminding people that it's been 38 years — over half her life — since she was allegedly raped in a Little Rock hotel room by the then-gubernatorial candidate. Her very credible tale of being a campaign volunteer invited to his hotel room to get away from the press went public in 1999, after details were leaked of Ken Starr's independent counsel investigation into a series of Clinton misdeeds. With Trump bringing up the general topic of Bill Clinton's serial abuse and Broaddrick speaking out again, the leftist website Vox took a refreshingly honest look at her allegations. Other media outlets likewise have questioned Bill about his alleged transgressions. For those who are under 35 or so, the news of Bill's checkered past isn't necessarily new, but the sordid details are, for many, being heard for the first time. Bringing up Bill's serial abuse of women is a tactic that's worked for Trump to "devastating" effect. It's interesting to consider that these stories were all known during Hillary's first campaign eight years ago, but Republicans didn't seem to want to make a topic out of Bill back then. For some, particularly eventual nominee John McCain, Hillary's status as a Senate colleague might have led to the kid glove treatment. In the 2016 campaign, however, it appears the gloves may be coming off. Even the most rabid liberals, woefully blind for too long, are finally conceding Bill's pattern of abuse may be an issue, so this is no vast right-wing conspiracy. Moreover, the inconvenient truth that the most popular Democrat president of the past half-century is a "great abuser" of the fairer sex destroys the dubious "Republican war on women" meme. "Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported," Hillary tweeted in November. How about her husband's accusers? Yet there was Bill, at a recent Iowa campaign stop, fondly recalling how he met Hillary in law school in a class he was "embarrassed to tell you I attended infrequently." After "I just kept ogling her," Bill said, he admitted it was Hillary that made the first move (she's always worn the pantsuit). "Look, if you're going to keep staring at me and I'm going to keep staring back," Bill said Hillary told him, "we at least ought to know each other's name." These days, we certainly know their names, but it's their reputations and progressive principles that should worry us more. Women elected Clinton twice in the 1990s, in spite of his treatment of women. Let that not be true for his wife. On a parting note regarding the moral depravity of the hypocritical Left, Planned Parenthood announced the unprecedented step of endorsing during the primary, and the recipient will be — surprise — Hillary Clinton. Or, as we alternatively headlined it, Noted Eugenics Organization to Endorse Rape Apologist. Comment | Share Share MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE ANALYSIS: Too Big To Fail Vs. Too Small to Matter Another GOP Rep. Falls Into Leftmedia Gun Trap NYC Transgender Discrimination Guidelines Go Too Far TransCanada Challenges Obama's Keystone Ruling Judge Roy Moore Once Again Defies Federal Ruling BEST OF RIGHT OPINION David Harsanyi: Obama's Legacy Is Executive Abuse Jonah Goldberg: No Cindy Sheehan-Style Media Attention for Benghazi Victim's Father Charles Krauthammer: Defy America, Pay No Price For more, visit Right Opinion. TOP HEADLINES Terror Plot by Iraqi 'Refugees' Foiled U.S. Hellfire Missile Ends Up in Cuba Noted Eugenics Organization to Endorse Rape Apologist For more, visit Patriot Headline Report OPINION IN BRIEF David Harsanyi: "The truth is that Obama has attempted to govern without Congress ever since Democrats rammed the Affordable Care Act through. It was the first time any consequential reform was instituted by a single political party, poisoning any chance of building consensus on major legislation in the foreseeable future. Since then, Republicans have frustrated Democrats — and on nearly every issue that matters to Obama. Obama has gone as far as he can — and sometimes farther — to administer law through our loudest, largest, most powerful and best-funded bureaucracies. A lot of people justify this behavior for the most obvious reason: They don’t care about process; they only care about issues. It’s true that the upside of executive orders and actions is that they can be easily undone when a new president is elected. But with the intractability of both parties only becoming more pronounced, the temptation to use the Obama model of legislating through the executive branch will become increasingly attractive to politicians and their supporters." Comment | Share SHORT CUTS Insight: "It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable." —Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) Demo-gogues: "There has been a movement over the last 30, 40 years to turn people against the government. This mantra is that government is too big, we don’t need any rules to govern human conduct, let everything work itself out and the free market system will make it rain for everybody. Well, we’ve seen after 30, 40 years ... that it doesn’t work.” —Rep. Hank Johnson (As if government has even remotely done that.) Braying Jenny: "A New Year’s resolution [for Republicans] would be to quit their anti-women health obsession." —Nancy Pelosi Braying Jackass: "I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform. And if the 90 percent of Americans who do support common-sense gun reforms join me, we will elect the leadership we deserve." —Barack Obama in a NY Times op-ed Good question: "Is it fair to call [gun confiscation] a conspiracy? ... There are certainly a lot of people that have a fundamental distrust that you [referring to Obama] do not want to get — go further and further and further down this road." —CNN's Anderson Cooper Non Compos Mentis: "I'm less afraid of the criminals wielding guns in Baltimore ... than I am by those permitted gun owners. ... [H]ow about adding something immediately useful: a gun owner registry available to the public online — something like those for sex offenders. I'm not equating gun owners with predatory perverts, but the model is helpful here; I want a searchable database I can consult to find out whether my kid can have a play date at your house." —Baltimore Sun's Tricia Bishop ("As a professional home invader, car thief, and convicted felon, I would personally LOVE if I could go on the Internet to find out if the person's house I am about to rob is a gun carrier." —Bishop reader comment) Late-night humor: "The government of Iraq has offered to mediate between Saudi Arabia and Iran. You know the Middle East is in trouble when your greatest hope for peace is 'meeting up in Iraq.'" —Conan O'Brien 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.