|
Patriot Headlines | Grassroots Commentary Daily Digest
March 4, 2016
THE FOUNDATION"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." —Thomas Paine (1776)FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS'Don't Worry About It'
There were, as always, numerous phrases that Trump repeated over and over and over again. But one stood out to us as representative of his entire presidential bid: "Don't worry about it." Implication being, "I've got this, and I'll work out the details later." Oh, and, "Believe me." The other moment was when, for what surely was the first time in American history, a presidential candidate on a nationally televised debate stage told us there was "no problem" with the size of his, er, manhood. How utterly appalling that this boorish and crude man may in fact be the next president. The two things Trump hates most are questioning his wealth and questioning his hands. And no jab, no matter how silly or inconsequential, goes un-parried by the thin-skinned narcissist frontrunner. Last week, Marco Rubio quipped, "You know what they say about men with small hands? You can't trust them." Last night Trump fired back, "He hit my hands. Nobody has ever hit my hands." In fact, Trump has been defending his small hands since 1988, when a New York satire magazine panned his book, "Art of the Deal," calling him a "short-fingered vulgarian." That running dispute was highlighted last year in Vanity Fair. Though Rubio was pushing a well-known button when mentioning Trump's small hands, Trump's rebuttal is just more obfuscation. And by the way, we guarantee Rubio regrets making the joke because it's not who he is, but Trump has been in the gutter for the entire campaign. Sometimes you have to fight where your opponent is. Back to the first phrase — "don't worry about it" — because it's (arguably) more defining. With few exceptions, Trump offers no substantive answer to any question. To be sure, the 60-second-answer "debate" format lends itself to precisely his kind of vacuous rhetoric. But from a man trying to convince us that he can lead our nation out of the Obama malaise, is any answer more revealing than his dismissive, "Don't worry about it"? No policy. No thought. No workable prescription for making America great again. Only The Donald's mere presence and sizable, well, you know. His answer on H-1B visas for higher-skilled workers may typify this attitude more than anything else. "I'm changing," Trump said of his position. "I'm changing it and I'm softening the position because we have to have talented people in this country." Mark Krikorian, an immigration hawk's immigration hawk, was astounded: "True enough, except that we already have twice as many technical degree holders as there are tech jobs. What made Trump's 'I'm changing' comment even more shameless than usual for him is that just on Sunday he held a rally featuring former Disney employees who were replaced by the very foreign worker program he's now praising." Wonder what Sen. Jeff Sessions thinks about his endorsement of Trump now. There were also shades of Hillary Clinton being asked to release transcripts of her high-dollar speeches on Wall Street, as Trump was challenged to release a transcript of his recent "off the record" conversation with the The New York Times' editorial board. In that discussion, Trump has been accused of contradicting key positions he has taken on immigration, the border wall, etc. Trump insisted, "I did have ... a very nice meeting. Many of those things were off the record. ... I have too much respect for that process to say, just release everything. I would not do that." Certainly, Trump's immigration position is completely malleable, like everything else about him. Moderator Chris Wallace asked about Trump's claims he will balance the budget — and Trump trapped himself, responding with claims about hundreds of billions in savings in Medicare drug costs if we "bid properly," insisting "they have hundreds of billions of dollars in waste. ... Take a look — excuse me. You are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars." Unfortunately for Trump, Wallace had taken a look, and responded, "You say that Medicare could save $300 billion a year negotiating lower drug prices. But Medicare total only spends $78 billion a year on drugs. Sir, that's the facts." Trump stared at Wallace like a deer in the headlights of an oncoming semi. Wallace (and Rubio and Cruz) further trapped Trump on the fact that his name-brand line of clothing is made in China and Mexico, and Trump stumbled over trying to justify that. Another observation: Trump's rebuttal every time he was pressed to respond with substance rather than fragrance was to invoke "polls," the now-trademark operating procedure of the media poll master. "Donald lives by the polls every day," Ted Cruz said. Trump could only bluster, "No, I don't. No, I don't." Yes, he does. But by far the most troubling response of the night was Trump's reply to moderator Bret Baier when asked about issuing illegal orders to military personnel: "So what would you do, as commander in chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?" Trump responded, "They won't refuse. They're not going to refuse me. Believe me. ... If I say, 'Do it,' they're going to do it. That's what leadership is all about. ... When I say they'll do as I tell them, they'll do as I tell them. And that's very — it's very simple. It's very simple." Well, no, it's not. And his response to Baier betrays his confusion about his authoritarian lording over a private company with totalitarian control of a country. Active-duty military personnel, and those of us who have family members serving our nation in uniform, take this presidential contest more seriously than most. What Trump fails to understand is that our military personnel are obligated, first and foremost, to uphold their oath "to Support and Defend" our Constitution, not their commander in chief. Our frontline fighters are not kitchen workers in a Trump casino. Finally, when questioned by Megyn Kelly about "a class-action of over 5,000 plaintiffs" now suing Trump over his fraudulent "Trump University," he claimed, "We have an 'A' from the Better Business Bureau." Kelly corrected the record: "The rating from the Better Business Bureau was a 'D-'." Caught in yet another outright lie, Trump flailed. But it was these words Kelly read from the court's judgment against Trump that best summed up his entire presidential campaign: "The victims of con artists often sing the praises of their victimizers until they realize that they have been fleeced." Trump's supporters are being fleeced by a con artist, and the most pressing question is, will they realize it before it is too late? And a footnote: In a moment of supreme hypocrisy, Trump complained to Bill O'Reilly after the debate, "I think you get a little carried away with yourself." Comment | Share
When a Loser Must Denounce a WinnerBy Nate Jackson
I understand the anger Americans feel today. In the past, our presidents have channeled that anger, and forged it into resolve, into endurance and high purpose, and into the will to defeat the enemies of freedom. Our anger was transformed into energy directed for good.The thing is, Romney is absolutely right about everything you just read, as well as his further and more detailed points about Trump's terrible business record, misguided and ignorant foreign policy prescriptions, and unstable temperament. On the latter, Romney declared: I am far from the first to conclude that Donald Trump lacks the temperament to be president. After all, this is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter's questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his extramarital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity.Again, Romney is right all the way down the line. But the most important takeaway is that the messenger is deeply flawed, which will only reinforce in the minds of Trump supporters that they should stand by their man. That said, Romney's speech isn't for Trump supporters. It's for rational but undecided voters, and it's also to stem the tide of elected Republicans conceding the nomination to Trump without continuing to fight. Romney lost in 2012 because he implemented ObamaCare in Massachusetts before there was ObamaCare. He was a moderate technocrat who spoke conservatism as a second language. That doesn't mean he would've been a bad president; on the contrary, his generally non-ideological philosophy and his history of turning around both companies and the Salt Lake City Olympics perhaps uniquely qualified him to serve at that moment in American history. But he lost an election in which, as Trump said, he "should have beaten Barack Obama easily." Even Trump's endorsement couldn't save Romney in 2012 — an endorsement, by the way, that Romney actively sought. Then again, if Romney had been this assertive in denouncing Obama four years ago, we'd be talking about his re-election campaign right now. 2008 nominee John McCain also released a statement, saying, "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described in his speech today." Romney mentioned McCain in his speech, indicating coordination of the message: "There is dark irony in [Trump's] boasts of his sexual exploits during the Vietnam War while John McCain, whom he has mocked, was imprisoned and tortured." Going forward, Romney's advice is simple: "[T]he rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign. If the other candidates can find common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism. Given the current delegate selection process, this means that I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state." Translation: Aim for a brokered convention. If Trump loses in such a way, however, it would surely drive away Trump supporters, and Trump himself would no doubt launch a third-party run after not having been "treated fairly." So we have many in the establishment signaling they would be just fine with a Washington dealmaker like Trump — Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee and others come to mind, but also conservatives like Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions. And we have conservatives like Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse and a growing list of others who vow not to support Trump. Many among the conservative intelligentsia (for lack of a better word) also have declared Trump unacceptable. Meanwhile, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and John Kasich show no signs of exiting the race, even amidst growing calls on the Right for a Cruz/Rubio unity ticket. Now we have the two previous Republican nominees denouncing the current Republican frontrunner. Are we witnessing the collapse of the Grand Old Party? And is there any way to win a gimme election this year with such a fractured party? Comment | Share
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
TOP RIGHT HOOKSAre American Workers Afraid to Look for New Jobs?
Ever after the great recession, the nation's gross domestic product has grown slowly — less than 3% growth for a record 10 years running. And this jobs report is another indication that the economy just ain't what it used to be. The Wall Street Journal predicted the U.S. economy would add 200,000 jobs in February. The economists have low expectations and when the numbers exceed them, it's considered good news. The numbers in the jobs report suggest Americans feel apprehension about the economy, that they are trapped in whatever job they have. The average workweek declined to 34.4 hours, and the average worker made $25.35 an hour — a decline of three cents. Still, more jobs were added. It's not a worker's market, and who knows when it will become one. Comment | Share Roberts Undermines Last Year's Rebuke of EPA
The states reasoned that the EPA should be blocked from enforcing regulations on power plants because the Supreme Court ruled last June in Michigan v. EPA that the rule was illegal. In that original ruling, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, "[The] EPA strayed well beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation in concluding that cost is not a factor relevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants." But despite those strong words issued less than a year ago, Roberts denied the states' petition. The EPA had argued its rule — though declared illegal by the high court — was being revised, and the states wouldn't be harmed by enforcement in the meantime. "He never even turned it over to the rest of the court for a decision," wrote Hot Air's Jazz Shaw. "Roberts just flatly and unilaterally rejected the case on his own. ... I don't see this decision going down in Supreme Court history on the same level as Roberts' botched Obamacare ruling, but it's certainly one more straw piled on the camel's back when it comes to his conservative bona fides." In response to Roberts' action, the EPA said its now-protected standards will help protect "millions of American children" from pollution. Even though it lost last year, thanks to Justice Roberts, the EPA won and is encouraged in its hyper regulation of America. Comment | Share MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE
TOP HEADLINES
 OPINION IN BRIEFCharles Krauthammer: "This time around, evangelicals are not looking for someone like them. They're looking for someone who will protect them. ... They have no illusions about Trump. They have no expectations of religious uplift. What he offers them is not spirit but 'muscle' (to borrow a word from the notorious former Professor Melissa Click of the University of Missouri). ... What Trump promises is to stand outside the churchyard gates and protect the faithful inside. He's the Roman centurion standing between them and both barbarians abroad and aggressive secularists at home. The message is clear: I may not be one of you. I can't recite or even correctly cite Scripture. But I will patrol the borders of Christendom on your behalf. After all, who do you want out there — a choir boy or a tough guy with a loaded gun and a kick-ass demeanor? Evangelicals answered resoundingly. They went for Trump in a rout. The essence of Trump's appeal everywhere, far beyond evangelicals, is precisely the same: 'I'm tough, I will protect you.' That's why he remains so bulletproof. ... [T]he only possible way to stop Trump is a full-scale, open-the-bomb-bay-doors attack on the very core of his appeal: his persona of the tough guy you can trust to protect you. It may be too late. But everything else will simply bounce off the Teflon."Comment | Share SHORT CUTSUpright: "[The American people] are interested in solutions, not slogans. It's easy to say, make things better, make things great. You can even print it and put it on a baseball cap. But the question is, do you understand the principles that made America great in the first place?" —Ted CruzFor the record: "Those who say it's hopeless to launch ads against Trump at this stage of the process overestimate how much voters know about his history. A recent poll found that 55 percent of adults had never heard about Trump University, Trump Mortgage and other disqualifying aspects of the con man's past. ... Too late? Hardly. It's still two weeks until the critical winner-take-all primaries in Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Missouri and North Carolina. Consider what happened between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney in 2012." —Mona Charen Reality check: "If opposing Trump is now the definition of the establishment, then roughly 66 percent of GOP primary voters are members of the establishment. The 'silent majority' isn't a majority and most certainly isn't silent. ... Trump is stoppable, according to the rules. And if he is stopped and that makes you sad, don't hate the players, hate the game." —Jonah Goldberg Observations: "Thursday's debate showed important signs of a shift. None of the other candidates on stage took even passing shots at one another. Every attack was aimed at Trump. You can call it the start of the Romney Plan. ... Romney said that as a voter he would choose whichever candidate in his state had the best chance of defeating Trump." —Chris Stirewalt of Fox News Braying Jenny: "[The Republican primary] all sounds kind of like children in a school yard calling each other names. We have examples of the kind of discussion that is in the gutter, and it's really embarrassing." —Madeline Albright (You mean like saying supporters of another candidate are going to hell?) With friends like these... "I support politicians. In 2008, I supported Hillary Clinton. I supported many other people, by the way. And that was because of the fact that I'm in business." —Donald Trump 21st century politics: "I can't believe I'm gonna ask you this question, but do you realize you're probably the first person in American history, maybe world history, to make a joke about your you-know-what on a debate stage?" —CNN's Dana Bash to Donald Trump Late-night humor: "Hillary Clinton had a big night [on Super Tuesday], picking up victories in seven states. While speaking in Miami ... Hillary said, 'I believe what we need in America today is more love and kindness.' Then she added, 'And I will crush anyone who won't let me do it.'" —Jimmy Fallon 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. |
Friday, March 4, 2016
THE PATRIOT POST 03/04/2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment