Right Analysis | Right Hooks | Right Opinion
Patriot Headlines | Grassroots Commentary

Daily Digest

January 26, 2016

THE FOUNDATION

"Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters." —Samuel Adams, 1775

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Who Is the True Heir to Obama?

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton continued to draw differences with each other Monday night at a forum in Des Moines — a last attempt to sway voters in Iowa days before the caucuses. Sanders said in order to make this nation a social democracy that wages war against the rich, he wants to bring back "the era of big government," and cause government spending to increase about 10 times the amount the government planned to spend on ObamaCare. Meanwhile, Clinton painted herself as a "proven fighter" (though she would be more honest to describe herself as a morally ambiguous anti-hero) who will, somehow, do what Barack Obama didn't and work with Republicans. A fighter who wants to bury the hatchet. Ironic.
As for Obama, it's pretty clear his choice for an heir is his former secretary of state. "[The] one thing everybody understands is that this job right here — you don't have the luxury of just focusing on one thing," he told Politico in an interview about the Democrat primaries. But Obama's pick is a pragmatic one. Clinton will preserve what Obama created. Sanders wants what Obama originally envisioned. Commentator Charles Krauthammer said, "Sanders is the one who wants to achieve the ultimate dreams of Obama over the ones he couldn't. He was the one who openly said he would prefer a single-payer system like the Canadian system, he obviously wasn't able to achieve it. Sanders is the one you would expect to be his ideological heir." And thus, Democrats continue their slow, incremental push toward ever more socialism.
Comment | Share

Clash of Billionaires: Donald vs. Michael

Hey ho! Welcome to the 2016 elections, where everything is a clamorous tumult and past conventions don't matter. For at least 100 years, third-party runs for the White House ended up splitting votes so the candidate with the minority views gained power. But former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is testing the water for a third-party run. And it's not the craziest thing to say that the man who launched a regulatory crusade against salt and big soda cups while mayor of the Big Apple just might do well. "Mr. Bloomberg is a serious man who wouldn't waste his money or time if he didn't sense an opportunity," wrote The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. "If we've learned anything so far in this tumultuous election season, it's that the electorate is volatile enough that anything can happen."
Bloomberg is a lifelong liberal Democrat who claimed "Republican" status for his first NYC mayoral run, but is now back in his Demo comfort zone. (Shades of Donald Trump...) He is most loathed by conservatives for his persistent assault on the Second Amendment via his Everytown for Gun Safety organization. He also is an abortion and homosexual marriage advocate, along with a long slate of other leftist social agendas, and, as you recall, was the most outspoken supporter of the "ground zero mosque." Bloomberg is flush with potential campaigning cash, as he has about nine times the wealth of Trump and has strong Wall Street connections. "He'd be able to tap into the anti-establishment fervor roiling both parties," blogger Ed Morrissey wrote, "and add in his extensive executive experience in both the private and public sectors, something which none of the current top contenders offer at the moment." The prospects of Clinton, Sanders, Trump and Bloomberg candidacies all pose a perilous threat to Liberty.
Trump has described Bloomberg as "a friend of mine over the years," saying Bloomberg "called me to help him out." Last fall, Bloomberg joked, "I've always said that the country is not ready for a divorced, Jewish billionaire from New York City. But after watching a divorced, Christian billionaire from New York City shoot to the top of the polls ... I've decided to become a candidate." Maybe he wasn't joking. For the record, if Bloomberg runs and none of the candidates secure an outright electoral college victory, then the election would be decided by the Republican majority in the House.
Comment | Share

With Budget Problems Looming, Fewer Americans Care

The Congressional Budget Office released a report on the future of the federal government's budget and the projections aren't good. In 10 years, the federal government could hold a $30 trillion pile of debt, the Washington Times reports. That means any meager gains in fiscal responsibility made under the Republican Congress tugging on the purse strings to reduce the deficit will vanish. During the Obama administration, the amount of money the government spent while exceeding its budget declined, though it helps that he quadrupled the deficit before lowering it. In the 2015 fiscal year, we had a deficit of "only" $439 billion. But in the 2016 fiscal year, that number is supposed to climb to $544 billion, and the CBO sees more fiscal irresponsibility in the future. The solution includes searching for candidates with the fiscal chops to tackle the problem. However: "Voters care more about the economy and terrorism, and there's good sense to that," The Wall Street Journal editorial board opined. "The deficit will never vanish without faster economic growth, and the various tax reform plans that Republicans are offering would spur growth. By all means let's debate growth." But that might not be enough. For a dramatic shift in deficit reduction, the nation needs to take a difficult look at programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the programs contributing most to the national debt, according to The Heritage Foundation's Romina Boccia. Tax hikes and budget cuts are only temporary fixes; what this nation needs is reform.
Comment | Share

Don't Miss Patriot Humor

Check out Scale.
If you'd like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS

Hillary's Continuing Saga of Malfeasance

By Paul Albaugh

Anyone who works in the intelligence community, defense industry or any other capacity that requires a secret clearance or higher knows that there is information that must be safeguarded at all costs. A breach of security, mishandling of classified information and failure to follow policies results in termination, fines and/or imprisonment. For the average worker, these penalties are enforced rather quickly. Yet in the case of Hillary Clinton, this is not the case — at least not yet.
The FBI's investigation into Hillary's malfeasance has most recently revealed that her private server contained not just classified material, but also information that an intelligence agency has identified as being extremely sensitive and "HCS-O." According to two sources who were not authorized to speak on the record, this is the code used for reporting on human intelligence sources in ongoing operations.
This new evidence, along with the Special Access Programs (SAP) that were identified by the FBI last week, is very damaging for our national security. Dan Maguire, former Special Operations strategic planner for Africom, states, "There are people's lives at stake. Certainly in an intel SAP, if you're talking about sources and methods, there may be one person in the world that would have access to the type of information contained in that SAP."
Despite the mounting evidence against her, Clinton continues to lie about her deliberate (more on this in a minute) mishandling of classified information. In fact, during a recent interview on "Meet the Press," she insisted again, "I never sent or received any material marked 'classified.' I cannot control what the Republicans leak and what they are contending." So it's the Republicans' fault (vast right-wing conspiracy, anyone?), it's all made up and they are only doing it to derail her campaign for the presidency.
In the Democrats' town hall Monday night, she repeated her claim of innocence: "[N]othing I did was wrong. It was not in any way prohibited."
Both of her claims are outright lies.
She aims to deflect the attention off of herself and onto an entire political party. But the party at fault is her and most likely several staffers who worked for her at the State Department.
Col. Kurt Schlichter (USA, retired) explains how Clinton had classified material sent to her server. Classified information is stored on machines that are not connected to unclassified machines. Further these classified machines are stored in a secure facility often referred to as a SCIF, the doors are always locked and only personnel with authorized clearances can even access the secured room. No one can bring in any electronic devices to include cell phones, laptops, thumb drives or anything that could potentially store information. These rules are in place to prevent spillage — classified material leaving the secure facility.
So the fact that the FBI has discovered classified material, SAP, and now human intelligence on Clinton's homebrew server indicates that either she or someone on her staff deliberately removed extremely sensitive material, which violated numerous security protocols. Despite her protests of innocence, she knew about it all along, the implications for our national security be damned.
With all of these security measures put in place, how did she or her minions get the classified material out of the secure facility and onto the unsecured server? Schlichter speculates that it is very possible someone printed off classified documents, scanned them onto an unsecured operating system and removed the heading "classified" from the newly created PDF file.
The text of a classified document is what matters, of course, not just the heading. As Schlichter put it, "[C]lassified material does not somehow become unclassified simply because it is no longer marked due to minions cutting and pasting the text out from between the classification markings."
But therein lies the key to parsing Clinton's lie: She didn't have information marked classified. What a Clintonesque description.
Raymond Fournier, a veteran Diplomatic Security Service special agent, states, "It takes a very conscious effort to move a classified email or cable from the classified systems over to the unsecured open system and then send it to Hillary Clinton's personal email account. ... That's no less than a two-conscious-step process."
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy adds, "[A]ll indications are that Mrs. Clinton was not grossly negligent. This was a thought-out, quite intentional violation of law. It now looks as if her scheme involved erasing the markings from some documents because she (a) knew what she was doing was a serious violation of law, (b) anticipated the possibility of being called on it, and (c) hoped to set up a fraudulent defense that she lacked knowledge that the documents were classified. That would be willful criminality, not just criminal recklessness."
It's worth repeating that any regular government employee caught doing anything remotely similar to this would be fired. General David Petraeus, as we've noted, committed less serious crimes mishandling classified material and yet Defense Secretary Ash Carter is pursuing additional punishment for his actions.
What then, is taking so long for charges to be brought against Hillary?
The simple answer is Barack Obama's Justice Department, run by his patsy, Loretta Lynch. The FBI is doing its part by investigating and digging through all of Clinton's illegal activity. But as McCarthy also writes, "The FBI routinely conducts major investigations in collaboration with Justice Department prosecutors — usually from the U.S. attorney's office in the district where potential crimes occurred. That is because the FBI needs the assistance of a grand jury. The FBI does not have authority even to issue subpoenas, let alone to charge someone with a crime. Only federal prosecutors may issue subpoenas, on the lawful authority of the grand jury. Only prosecutors are empowered to present evidence or propose charges to the grand jury. And the Constitution vests only the grand jury with authority to indict — the formal accusation of a crime. In our system, the FBI can do none of these things. No Justice Department, no grand jury. No grand jury, no case — period."
And so we wait. Why? Because we have a president with less than a year in office who we're guessing doesn't want his former secretary of state charged with a crime, thus further tarnishing his failed presidency. Besides, if she's taken down before the election, Democrats are left with Bernie Sanders. But it also leaves the possibility of Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren to save the day at the convention. So stay tuned; things are just getting interesting.
Comment | Share

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Dennis Prager: National Review, Donald Trump and Moral Bank Accounts
Cal Thomas: No Trump!
Thomas Sowell: The Demand for Villains

For more, visit Right Opinion.

TOP HEADLINES

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report

OPINION IN BRIEF

Dennis Prager: "There is no way to do good in this world without risking making enemies. That National Review was prepared to do that — among its own readers, no less — in this day of great financial challenges to newspapers, magazines, and news and opinion websites, was an act of courage. In opposing Donald Trump for president — which, it happens, I did in a column I wrote four years ago — I face the same issue among some in my radio audience. I receive emails from listeners who say they can longer listen my show because of my opposition to Trump (though I do regularly distinguish between Trump and his supporters). ... If a person in our lives — a spouse, a friend, a family member — does something that angers or disappoints us, and we don't take the person's whole moral bank account into consideration, we will lose every important relationship in our lives. I have explained this to listeners on a number of occasions during my more than 30 years as a radio talk show host. The vast majority simply understand that at some point on some issue, I will disappoint them and they therefore continue to both respect me and to listen to the show. But others don't. ... In their view, National Review, that magnificent defender of conservative values for all of their lives, made a withdrawal. But so what? Should that deplete National Review's moral bank account with them? In fact, conservatives who support Trump should do something else — ask themselves why nearly every conservative they have admired for so long is opposed to Trump."
Comment | Share

SHORT CUTS

Upright: "Those who worship Trump have an obligation to say why he is worthy of their faith. Given his liberal background and poor explanations of why he now believes differently, how do his supporters know he will govern conservatively should he win the White House? He once said his sister, who is pro-abortion, would be an excellent nominee to the Supreme Court. His story of how he supposedly became a pro-life convert lacks credibility. Electing a president, especially in a dangerous world, is important work. Anger and emotion should not govern the choice." —Cal Thomas
For the record: "I think Trump's a fake conservative because he spent most of his life as a progressive Democrat." —Rand Paul
Good question: "I'm watching all of this talk about banning the Oscars. And all these Hollywood liberals and Hollywood actors and actresses are running around saying, 'We can't go to the Oscars, there aren't any black nominees. It's a racist bunch, it's racism, and we're not gonna go support it.' If that's the case, then why aren't all good liberals boycotting the Democrat presidential primaries?" —Rush Limbaugh
Demo-gogues: "No, I wouldn't [run for a third term]. ... Although I think I am as good of a president as I've ever been right now, I also think that there comes a point where you don't have fresh legs, and that's when you start making mistakes or that's when you start thinking that you are what's important as opposed to the mission being more important." —Barack Obama
Braying Jenny: "You know, look, I've been around a long time. People have thrown all kinds of things at me. And you know, I can't keep up with it. I just keep going forward. They fall by the wayside. They come up with these outlandish things. They make these charges. I just keep going forward because there's nothing to it. They throw all this stuff at me, and I'm still standing. ... [Y]ou have to say to yourself, why are they throwing all of that? Well, I'll tell you why. Because I've been on the front lines of change and progress." —Hillary Clinton
Late-night humor: "Samsung has a new washing machine that can connect to your smartphone and send you updates about your laundry. They say it's perfect for people who are either extremely busy or have nothing else going on." —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.