|
Patriot Headlines | Grassroots Commentary Daily Digest
March 8, 2016
THE FOUNDATION"No compact among men ... can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." —George Washington (1789)TOP RIGHT HOOKSAnother Bloomberg Deal on Guns?
Six weeks ago, the New York City billionaire (sound familiar?) and former mayor known for his crusades against large soda cups, salt and the right to bear arms, floated the idea of a third-party run if he didn't like the candidates who were eventually chosen by Republicans and Democrats. But after studying the issue, Bloomberg decided that the chances of him — a turncoat Republican — giving the election to a Republican were too high. If the majority of the Electoral College doesn't agree on a candidate, the fate of the 2016 presidential election would be handed to the House, where it would vote the next president into office. This has happened only twice in the history of American politics, once in 1800 and again in 1824. "As the race stands now," Bloomberg wrote, "with Republicans in charge of both Houses, there is a good chance that my candidacy could lead to the election of Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz. That is not a risk I can take in good conscience." Thus ends the blip of a third-party candidacy for a man who is decidedly anti-Liberty. As Mark Alexander wrote in January regarding Barack Obama's State of the Union Address, "Although Obama only referenced 'gun violence' once in his opening remarks, he has cut a deal with billionaire Michael Bloomberg, a quid pro quo to make gun control the centerpiece of his last year in office in return for Bloomberg's support of Obama's presidential library." A similar deal — or at least an understanding — likely exists with Hillary Clinton, who, as far as Bloomberg is concerned, is preferable to Bernie Sanders on guns. That may be why Clinton came out swinging against guns so strongly in Sunday's Democrat debate. Comment | Share Iranian Nukes: Coming to a Neighborhood Near You?
In the past, the IAEA monitored Iran's nuclear program under the direction of resolutions passed by the UN Security Council and Board of Governors, but the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration and other world leaders wrote over the IAEA's mission. When the deal was first announced, the Obama administration said it let Iran keep its nuclear program in exchange for increased transparency. The deal was supposed to ensure Iran wouldn't weaponize its uranium for at least a decade or two. But now, the IAEA cannot disclose the amount of uranium and number of nuclear centrifuges in the country's possession, even though Iran was supposed to reduce both as part of the agreement. "Now Amano has revealed that the nuclear deal gutted the ability of journalists and the public to have insight into Iran's nuclear activities," The Israel Project's Omri Ceren wrote. "In critical areas, it's not even clear that the IAEA has been granted the promised access." Let's put this in context: There is nothing preventing a terrorist sponsoring state from developing a weapon of mass destruction, and realizing their mantra, "death to America." Comment | Share Virginia's Economic Bludgeon
Writing in the Washington Examiner, attorney Terry M. Jarrett says, "Virginia, for some reason, has chosen to move forward with the task of rebuilding its entire power generation sector. This means the state will still undertake the construction of new grid infrastructure, including the many new transmission lines and towers needed to carry electricity from planned wind and solar assemblies." It's a curious decision — one, because CPP's legal requirements were nullified (albeit temporarily but hopefully permanently at a later date), and two, renewable technology is nowhere near prime time. And keep in mind, nearly 30% of the state's electricity comes from coal. "The question," Jarrett posits, "is why Virginia would bear this cost when it is currently under no legal obligation to do so." Is it ostensibly to address "climate change"? If so, consider that by the EPA's own estimates the regulations would slow global warming by just 0.02 degrees Celsius. A court will eventually decide whether or not to strike down the Clean Power Plan, but Gov. McAuliffe is looking beyond that. And he's willing to extract a hefty amount of tax dollars from Virginians to enact a flawed energy policy. Since Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, voters have ousted 11 Democrat governors. If McAuliffe isn't careful, he could become the 12th. Comment | Share Don't Miss Patriot HumorCheck out Net Neutrality a Year Later.If you'd like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here. BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSISFuel Standard Belong in the JunkyardBy Paul Albaugh
Take fuel standards for instance. Government regulations on the auto industry and on those who supply the fuel to run those cars have not helped but hurt our nation's economy. Furthermore, many in Washington have used the agenda of combatting climate change as cause for continuing or implementing more regulations — without any concern for the economic ramifications of doing so. Of the many regulations foisted upon our economy, one of the most costly is the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. In a detailed report, The Heritage Foundation offers some keen insight into the government's involvement with regulating the fuel standards by which auto manufacturers must abide or pay hefty fines. For starters, the intent of the federal government regulating fuel standards was to decrease America's dependence on foreign oil. Good intentions, but the consequences have been staggering. The cost-to-benefit ratio is unreasonable and even if the sole purpose of the CAFE standards were to fight climate change there are miniscule results. (And it's worth noting we've reduced our dependence on foreign oils by something leftists hate — drilling for our own oil.) In 2009, the Obama administration implemented regulations required by Congress and as a result raised the CAFE standards by approximately nine miles per gallon through model year 2016. Many economists warned of the costs of regulating fuel standards. Yet despite their warnings, the government opted for regulations. The pervasive argument seems to be if you can't tax it, regulate it. But regulation is just another form of taxation. The fact that it's harder for consumers to see is precisely why government likes it so much. With the increase in CAFE standards, there is a higher cost for consumers. According to several economic scholars, the standards will cost consumers an estimated $3,800 more per new vehicle. On top of that, the average price of a vehicle in the U.S. is about $6,200 above trends in new vehicle purchases in other parts of the world. The rise in costs alone should arguably be enough to scrap the CAFE standards, but the Environmental Protection Agency has stepped in and is now using the fuel standards as a tool to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in an effort to fight climate change. Obama recently boasted that the change in fuel standards, which mandates that the average fleet of new vehicles meets the 49.6 miles per gallon mark by model year 2025, will reduce global temperatures by a whopping .007 degrees Celsius by the end of 2016. By the year 2100, our great grandchildren should see a decrease in temperature of .018 degrees Celsius. In other words, like nearly every other climate change regulation, the fuel standards won't make a dent in the overall temperature of our planet. Just ignore the mounting costs and move right along. There are several unintended consequences of the CAFE standards as well, which essentially counters any reason for making them permanent to fight climate change. First, there is what is called the "rebound effect." According to The Heritage Foundation, "When consumers are forced to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, the cost per mile falls (since their cars use less gas) and they drive more. This offsets part of the fuel economy gain and adds congestion and road repair costs. Similarly, the rising price of new vehicles causes consumers to delay upgrades, leaving older vehicles on the road longer." Second, there is a high probability that millions of consumers will be forced out of the new car market altogether simply because people will not be able to afford the higher priced cars due to the fuel standards. Finally, there is also the probability that the American Big Three automakers — Ford, GM and Chrysler, the latter two of which taxpayers bailed out a few years back — will see their corporate profits decline, while foreign auto manufacturers' corporate profits increase. Keep in mind that these CAFE standards are not the only hindrance to American consumers. Requiring consumers to pump more ethanol into their fuel tanks is another federal regulation on our transportation that is both hurting consumers and harming the environment. It's past time that the government scrapped the fuel standard mandates (among a host of other damaging regulations), but until we have a new administration that values constitutionally limited government, little will be done to change anything for the better. So consider this issue when casting your vote. Comment | Share
MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE
TOP HEADLINES
 OPINION IN BRIEFThomas Sowell: "The most obvious way to stop Trump, if that was the sole objective, would be for the other candidates to drop out of the race, leaving it a Trump versus Cruz contest. But the Republican establishment has chosen the opposite strategy, wanting all the candidates to stay in the race. That way, if Senator Rubio can win his home state of Florida and Governor Kasich can win his home state of Ohio, that can deny Trump two important, winner-take-all states. This may keep him from reaching the number of delegates required to win the Republican nomination. At that point, it becomes anybody's game at the convention. ... [T]he most obvious person to have the best chance of beating Trump one-on-one is Ted Cruz, especially after his primary victories over the past weekend. The Republican establishment is not about to go down that road, even if that would increase their chances of stopping Trump from becoming the Republican nominee. This is because they don't want Cruz to become the Republican candidate either. Senator Cruz has been fighting against the Republican establishment for years before Trump decided to become a candidate. Nor does he have Trump's new-found 'flexibility.' But, whatever his merits or demerits, Ted Cruz is not the Republican establishment's idea of the kind of candidate needed to win. Neither was Ronald Reagan."Comment | Share SHORT CUTSInsight: "To tax the community for the advantage of a class is not protection, it is plunder." —Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)For the record: "[I]f a majority of Republican primary voters don't want Trump and would settle for any of the alternatives on offer, [a brokered convention] could just work. There's nothing wrong with refusing to nominate a candidate opposed by a majority." —Michael Barone Non Compos Mentis: "I employ many people in Hawaii at my great hotel in Honolulu. I'll be there very soon. Vote for me, Hawaii!" —Donald Trump ("There's one problem here: Trump does not own the Trump International Hotel Waikiki Beach Walk. The Trump company is not involved in any way in selling or developing the property." —CBS News) Gun grabbers: "We have to try everything that works to ... limit the numbers of people and the kinds of people who are given access to firearms." —Hillary Clinton A rare moment of truth: "Flint has voted for Dems for 84 straight yrs. What did it get us? For 18 months Dems remained silent & ignored pleas while Flint was poisoned. Dems in Flint today handing out bottles of water. Bottles? 100,000 people need 20 MILLION 16oz bottles of water EACH DAY! You're not helping." —tweets by Michael Moore The BIG lie: "[W]hile the Constitution doesn't mandate that [the Senate] give advice and consent — as they did not in the Bork and Ginsburg cases — it clearly gives the United States Senate the responsibility to ensure that the court is made whole and can act in a decisive manner so that the law can be settled." —Rep. Steny Hoyer ("[The president] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." —Article 2, Section 2) And last... "There's no problem Democrats can't solve by throwing more money at it, including government over-spending." —Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest 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. |
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
THE PATRIOT POST 03/08/2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment