|
Patriot Headlines | Grassroots Commentary Daily Digest
March 1, 2016
THE FOUNDATION"The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust." —James Madison (1788)TOP RIGHT HOOKSTime for Us to Vote
None of the states today are winner-take-all, which means strong second- or third-place finishes for Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio will still net them some of the 595 delegates up for grabs. (Trump currently leads 82, 17, 16, respectively, needing 1,237 to win.) Regardless, Cruz and Rubio face incredibly long odds as things stand. John Kasich and Ben Carson will also be on the ballot. "We're getting people into the party that they've never had before," Trump boasted Tuesday. "I can tell you the one person Hillary Clinton doesn't want to run against is me." The first claim is probably true; the second ... perhaps, perhaps not. Mark Alexander speculated yesterday that "it's likely that some of Trump's primary voter support is coming not from Republicans but from Clinton crossovers, who want to ensure Trump is her opponent." There's evidence of the switch, if not the motive, at least in Massachusetts, where 20,000 Democrats quit the party to vote GOP. On the Democrat side, Hillary Clinton is likely to win big almost everywhere, but that may not mean Bernie Sanders packs up and goes home. He's what National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru calls "a cause candidate" whose motivation isn't winning but sending a message. It's likely the only thing standing in Clinton's way now is an indictment over her email. Comment | Share Final Batch of Clinton Email Released
In this last batch of 3,900 emails, 261 were redacted by State. Those redacted emails described meetings Clinton had with world leaders, including Mid-East leaders after the Egyptian Revolution in 2011 — sensitive information that should have been protected from foreign spies. Most importantly, these emails show Barack Obama knew of Clinton's private email and Clinton was well aware that she handled classified information through it. One email was classified because it was because it was an exchange between the chief executive and his cabinet member. On April 22, 2012, Clinton emailed her staffer Jacob Sullivan about a document that was emailed her: "If it's not classified or otherwise inappropriate can you send to the NYTimes reporters who interviewed me today?" She had to ask, implying that she never fostered a culture where sensitive information was automatically forbidden from the technology. At the beginning of this email debacle, Clinton admitted that her team deleted an additional 30,000 emails, saying they were personal. But if the vetted emails have 2,000 classified emails, what do the 30,000, which were recovered by the FBI and are being reviewed, reveal about the woman who wants to run this country? Comment | Share Justice Clarence Thomas Speaks
The court was hearing the oral arguments to Voisine v. United States, a challenge to the law forbidding anyone convicted of domestic violence from owning a firearm. Assistant Solicitor General Ilana Eisenstein was presenting the state's defense, about to wrap up, when Thomas piped up. "This is a misdemeanor violation," Thomas said. "It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?" Thomas long has been a quiet supporter of the Second Amendment. For years, government has argued it could curtail the right to bear arms for the sake of public safety. A domestic violence incident might not have anything to do with firearms. A felony might not have anything to do with violence. Yet a conviction in either results in the loss of Second Amendment rights. As Reason's Jacob Sullum notes, Thomas is implying legislators have been too quick to strip self-defense rights from citizens. For the record, Eisentein couldn't think of another example where a misdemeanor resulted in the permanent loss of a constitutional right. Comment | Share Don't Miss Alexander's ColumnRead Trump's Most Taxing Questions — it's not "What is he worth?," but "Who and what has he supported?"If you'd like to receive Alexander's Column by email, update your subscription here. BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSISTrump University: A Model for Making America Great?By Paul Albaugh
Thankfully, during the last Republican presidential debate, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz finally started going after the frontrunner instead of each other. Rubio landed a good punch, sarcastically conceding that he didn't "know anything about starting a fake university." Naturally, Trump defended his creation of Trump University. During an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," he insisted he would do it all over again because, he boasted, "98% of the people who took the courses approved the courses" and "said they were great." As usual Trump left out many, many details. What exactly was Trump University? David Marcus notes, "To understand what Trump University was, it is important to understand what it wasn't — namely, a university." In fact, a lawsuit filed by the New York attorney general in 2013 forced Trump University to change its name to Trump Entrepreneur Initiative. It turns out that Trump U was operating illegally as a non-accredited university and did not offer any degrees or well-rounded curriculum. Trump ignored warnings dating to 2005. What did it offer? It offered educational products, some with a price tag of $35,000, which were designed to teach students how to make big profits in real estate. At the lower levels, seminars were offered to teach students how to flip properties but they were designed to upsell the student to the next higher level course. Indeed, upselling was the name of the game, and many students were coaxed into paying a hefty price for useless information. It was a classic bait-and-switch scam — a lie, a fraud. People paid generous sums of money to attend these courses that benefitted not the students but the businessman Donald Trump. And his outfit is now the defendant in three lawsuits. In Trump's introductory video for Trump University, he states, "We are going to have professors and adjunct professors that are absolutely terrific — terrific brains, successful. We are going to have the best of the best. Honestly, if you don't learn from them, if you don't learn from me, if you don't learn from the people that we will be putting forward — and these are all people who are going to be handpicked by me — then you are just not going to make it in terms of the world of success." Fact-check time. First, according to Michael Sexton, the top executive for Trump University, "None of the instructors at the live events were handpicked by Donald Trump." That's right — none. Second, as mentioned before, Trump boasted of the 98% approval rating from those who took the courses. In an interview with Fox News Sunday, he went on to claim that Trump University had an A rating from the Better Business Bureau. Yet the Better Business Bureau rated Trump University a D- in 2010. In addition, Trump University closed its seminars in Texas in January 2010, following a "civil investigative demand" mailed to Trump's corporate offices after Texas assistant Attorney General Rick Berlin began a probe of whether Trump's operation was in violation of Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act. Instead of responding and returning the requested documents, Trump University ceased doing business in Texas. Third, Trump claims he has helped so many people but in recent TV ads courtesy of the American Future Fund, the people giving testimony present a far different picture. In the first ad, one single mom says she "made a huge mistake trusting him." She thought that she would get the best — the best experts, advice and contacts. But she ended up paying more than $35,000 for what amounted to "just a fake" and "got hurt badly" by Trump. In the second ad, a man tells how he was "duped by The Donald" into believing he was attending a legitimate university because of its name. He explains that at the $1,495 seminar the professors pressed for students to increase their credit lines so they could afford the higher priced courses and become part of a group who would receive access to some of Trump's condos, which could be flipped quickly for a profit. In addition, there were promises of access to "hard money lenders" but no contacts were ever provided. Finally, in the third ad, another man states that he fell for Trump University because he thought he could use the information to earn extra money to pay off debts. After the first two seminars, he was convinced by the presenter to increase his credit card limit so he could afford the $25,000 Gold Elite program. But again the hard money lenders did not exist. He found himself unable to get financing unless he had a deal with a seller and he couldn't make a deal unless the financing was in place. He asked for help but was told to work harder. In the end he had to sublet his house and move into a studio apartment due to accumulation of debt and because the billionaire huckster refused to refund any of his money. "Trump is just a fraud, a misrepresentation, a BS artist," the man says. In line with Trump's usual desire to silence dissent, he is demanding the ads be pulled. Is Trump University a model for greatness or a model for failure? People who hoped for a brighter future were told they could gain valuable information and the tools for success from Trump University. But they were lied to and essentially robbed. The man they thought they could trust betrayed them. And this is just one example of Trump's misdoings and deceitfulness in business. Check out the debacle of Trump Mortgage for another, or ask the questions of his unreleased tax returns for still one more. So as voters head to the polls for Super Tuesday and beyond, the question is simple: Is Trump the kind of man who will help make America great again? Comment | Share
MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE
TOP HEADLINES
 OPINION IN BRIEFThomas Sowell: "Trump's acting like a bull in a china shop may appeal to some voters but, in the world as it is, he may well cost us our last chance to recover from the great dangers into which the Obama administration has gotten this nation. We already have an ego-driven, know-it-all president who will not listen to military or intelligence agency experts. Do we need to tempt fate by having two in a row? Despite Donald Trump's string of primary vote victories, he has not yet gotten a majority of the Republican votes anywhere. But although most Republican votes are being cast against him, the scattering of that vote among so many other candidates leaves Trump with a good chance to get the nomination. Everyone understands that the best chance for stopping Trump is for that fractured majority vote to consolidate behind one candidate opposed to him. But who will step aside for the good of the country? When we think of American military heroes who have fallen on enemy hand grenades to save those around them, at the cost of their own lives, is it really too much to ask candidates — especially those who present themselves as patriots — to give up their one political chance in a zillion this year for the sake of the country? Voters have a responsibility too. They might well ask themselves: Do I plan to use my vote to vent my emotions or to try to help save this country?"Comment | Share SHORT CUTSUpright: "What continues to amaze is the strong backing of Trump by so many evangelicals. If their church members behaved as Trump does, they would receive a serious talking to by the deacons or pastor and if they didn't repent and change their ways they might face expulsion. With Trump, most evangelical leaders have remained largely silent, offering neither criticism nor praise. This is what can happen when some pastors who are called to a different kingdom and a different King settle for an earthly kingdom and lesser king." —Cal ThomasGood question: "Donald Trump's popularity among voters has mainly to do with his tough stance on immigration. Or so I'm told, daily. And yet the populist Right (to use a term of convenience) will stand for his 'jobs Americans won't do' act? Here's a candidate who says, I have no choice but to hire illegals because there are jobs that Americans just won't do. That's okay with the Trump army?" —Jay Nordlinger The authoritarian: "Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That's my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand. ... When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak ... as being spit on by the rest of the world." —Donald Trump in 1990 For the record: "Trump's campaign slogan may be about making America great again, but his speeches are always about how we're losing all the time — and to whom we're losing. Pessimism goes hand-in-hand with a zero-sum view of the world, in which every person's gain is somebody else's loss. So it's no wonder that Trump's world-view is fundamentally adversarial: we're going to win again by throwing out those other SOBs who are beating us, and we're going to make them pay." —Robert Tracinski Almost an endorsement: "I don't think people have any idea what Trump would do. He might wind up being the most magnanimous, inviting and generous person you could imagine. Who knows?" —former GOP Senate leader Trent Lott, now a lobbyist, proving the establishment is going to be just fine with Trump And last... "I wish everyone would stop falling in love with candidates. These guys are contractors. We hire them for a four-year gig and if they're good, we renew 'em for another four years." —Jim Geraghty 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