Latest Entries »
A Clinton-Warren Ticket?
Or Maybe a Biden-Warren Ticket.
By Mark Alexander
Jul. 23, 2014
“Be not intimidated … nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.” –John Adams (1765)
The most despised political constituents in America are rich liberals, the self-anointed “intelligentsia” who lord over the Leftist proletariat, and are tolerated only for the graft they dispense to all manner of liberal causes and campaigns1.
Though they imagine themselves held in high esteem by the recipients of their largess, they are utterly loathed by the populist 99 Percenter2 Demo-Party base. Of course, they are equally reviled by conservatives3, who object to their smugness and their abject hypocrisy among other traits.
If there is one generalization that approaches a universal truth about the Left Elite4, it is that they are chronic hypocrites5. And there is no better example of this than B. Obama6, who constantly rebukes “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “millionaires,” “fat cats,” ad infinitum, all in the name of “redistributive change,” while he basks in the profligate lifestyle of the most rich and famous7.
For example, recall if you will Obama’s incessant vilification of “fat cats in their corporate jets8.” Despite a slew of policy meltdowns, both domestic and foreign, Obama spends most of his waking hours jet-setting around the countryside for political stump speeches and fundraisers. Indeed, even the liberal Washington Post has taken notice, criticizing Obama for attending more than 400 fundraisers since taking office – nearly double the amount attended by George W. Bush at this stage of his presidency.
Thus, Obama is racking up hours on the most expensive luxury jet on the planet in order to hang with his Left Elite benefactors – all at taxpayers expense. And when he’s not flying off to hobnob with one percenters in places like the Hamptons last week, he’s off on vacations at wealthy playgrounds like Martha’s Vineyard, or taking his entourage on $100 million “family” trips to Africa.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, “Suppose you were a liberal, and suppose you were a hypocrite. But I repeat myself.”
Fact is, most rich liberals are “upstairs people” – the Dukes, Earls and Barons of Downton Abbey, Lords pretending to identify with Commoners, but washing their hands twice after contact with any of them. They only drop down from their exclusive clubs and gated communities to toss larded pork at the masses in order to ensure that the commissars who do their bidding will protect their estates.
Of course, the 99 percenters suspend their deeply held prejudicial classist convictions9 when rich liberals are on ballots. They tolerate them in order to form Faustian bargains necessary to advance their statist “dependency” agenda.
Thus, while the nation languishes through the sixth year of economic stagnation10, the fulfillment of Obama’s promise of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America11,” and as the population numbers of his urban poverty plantations12 set new records, there is also another record set under his watch.
There are now 268 millionaires in Congress, and as you might have surmised the net worth of Democrats exceeds the net worth of Republicans…
But I digress.
Like most rich liberals, those with presidential aspirations make every effort to cast their identity as card-carrying proletariats, who are thoroughly in touch with the “struggling middle classes.”
The most ridiculous example of this charade was Hillary Clinton’s13 recent effort to portray herself as “dead broke14,” when in fact she and her serial sex-offender husband converted their White House tenure into wealth that now ranks them among the tiniest fraction of the richest One-Percenters.
Now, it appears Hillary has an equally disingenuous contender for the 2016 Democrat presidential nomination who Clinton may well tap for the bottom of her ticket: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
So, just who is Elizabeth Warren?
Well, for starters, she’s another limo-liberal hypocrite. Like Clinton, she recently attempted to deceive her supporters into believing what she isn’t: “I realize there are some wealthy individuals,” she said. “I’m not one of them…”
But according to her Personal Financial Disclosures filed in advance of her 2012 Senate campaign, she has something in excess of $14.5 million in accumulated wealth, had income in excess of $700,000 in her last year before being elected, and lives in a house valued at more than $5 million. But as for the wealthy, she’s “not one of them.”
Recently, lamenting the plight of the poor, Warren noted, “My brother lives on his Social Security. That’s about $1,100 a month. $13,200 a year.” Well, perhaps she should split her income with her brother, and donate the rest of her assets to charity.
In another fine example of deceptive rhetoric, Warren regurgitated her own version of Obama’s “You didn’t build that15” insult to entrepreneurs across the nation. According to Warren, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there – good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea – God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
Of course Warren, like Clinton and Obama, has never built anything but her investment portfolio, and refuses to acknowledge that successful entrepreneurs already pay 80% of federal and state taxes – a violation of “the underlying social contract” which should imply flat taxation. Additionally, America’s corporations pay the highest tax rates among the 33 industrialized nations. But Democrats never let facts get in the way of their classist political agenda, because their only real power is the ability to redistribute wealth to their constituents. And look what their so-called “Great Society16” has gotten them.
So, why does it matter that Warren is as hypocritical about her wealth as Clinton?
Because she is a far smarter and more articulate Leftist than Clinton, or Obama for that matter, and her policy positions17 mirror those of Obama, falling well to the left of Clinton.
She is the ideological heir apparent to Obama’s “Imperial Presidency18,” and like Obama, she is a certifiable socialist – a rising star among the New Democratic Party19 statists, who have infested the once-noble Democrat Party20. Obama ran to the left of Clinton in the 2008 Democrat presidential primary, and Warren could do the same in the 2016 primary.
This doesn’t mean Warren would be a presidential shoo-in. Indeed, she has said that she’s not running at all in 2016. But her performance at the “Nutroots Nation” convention last week certainly resembled the launch of a presidential bid, as she laid out her 11 Commandments of Progressivism21.
If Warren runs, she would be a more formidable general election opponent than Clinton. Of course, she may get to the convention floor by default. There is that ominous “Clinton indictment22” wildcard – if Clinton faces felony charges in connection with her deliberate use of private email servers23 to keep her official communications offline, including her coordination of the Benghazi coverup24 to protect Obama’s 2012 re-election, then she would have to step aside. That would open the door for Warren or Biden, or perhaps a Biden-Warren ticket.
Warren would also do a better job of rallying female voters25 – and female voters have elected every Democrat president since Kennedy. If Clinton is the Demo nominee and Republicans run a younger more vibrant candidate against her, that match up would, ironically, mirror the 1996 campaigns between a young and charismatic Bill Clinton versus an old and boring establishment type, Bob Dole – and with a similar outcome. However, if Clinton puts Warren on the ticket, all bets are off.
In 1797, John Adams wrote, “If an election is to be determined by a majority … procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good.” And that describes the Democratic Party19 today.
P.S. Despite Warren’s reassertion in an upcoming book that she has “native American ancestry,” that lie is still just that. Honest Injun.
Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis
The Biden-Warren Warning
The Demos’ 2016 Default Ticket
By Mark Alexander
May 4, 2016
“If an election is to be determined by a majority … procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good.” —John Adams (1797)
There has been some chatter in recent weeks that Hillary Clinton isn’t actually the Democratic Party’s1 intended 2016 nominee. That chatter was amplified last week when the ever-inebriated former House Speaker John Boehner2, the quintessential “establishment Republican,” endorsed Donald Trump while maligning Trump’s conservative opponent3, Ted Cruz. (No small irony that Boehner’s abject failure as speaker has largely fueled Trump’s populist appeal.)
Amid the fratricidal mayhem4, you may have missed this Boehner prediction: “Don’t be shocked if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen.”
For the record, I don’t think Biden is the intended nominee, but I do believe he — not Sanders — is the default candidate in the event that Clinton is indicted on felony charges. The calculus that this indictment is coming may mean that she is already presumed to be a mere placeholder for Biden — unless, of course, Bernie Sanders continues to flank that strategy. Let’s hope he does!
In a profile on Warren5 two years ago, I noted that a Clinton indictment “would open the door for Warren or Biden, or perhaps a Biden-Warren ticket.” Indeed, Joe Biden6 is an affable candidate who has none of Clinton’s negatives, and Warren is the ideological heir apparent for Obama’s “Imperial Presidency7.” Like Obama, she is a certifiable socialist — a rising star among the statists who have infested the once-noble Democrat Party8.
In August 2015, I framed the Biden-Warren default strategy in “Hillary’s Email Subterfuge9.”
At that time, the best evidence that felony charges were a distinct possibility was Obama’s endorsement of Biden10, by way of his spokesman Josh Earnest, a day after Biden held a powwow with Warren.
According to Earnest, “The president has indicated that [adding] Joe Biden to the ticket as his running mate was the smartest decision that he has ever made in politics. And I think that should give you some sense into the president’s view into the vice president’s aptitude for the top job.” Earnest added, “The vice president is somebody who has already run for president twice. So I think you could probably make the case that there is no one in American politics today [emphasis added] who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to mount a successful national presidential campaign.”
While Earnest also expressed Obama’s “appreciation, respect and admiration” for Hillary Clinton, his statements on Biden, in light of Hillary’s mounting indictment prospects, are clear in their intent.
Recall that the Obamas hate the Clintons. If Obama can ensure a Democrat successor in November, it will lend legitimacy to his legacy. If he can do so while destroying Hillary Clinton, it would be a double dip.
No doubt Biden’s meeting with Warren last year was to reach an accord that he would serve one term with her as his Veep — if she stayed out of the 2016 primary. Clearly a Biden-Warren “parachute in” ticket would be far more competitive than either Clinton or Sanders at the top of the Demo punchcard.
In February 2015, Biden advocated11 for an Obama third term: “I call it sticking with what works!” By “what works,” he must have meant duping voters in presidential campaigns, because in both the 2010 and 2012 midterm elections12, Obama’s Democratic Party policies1 have suffered resounding defeat. That notwithstanding, in July, Obama himself asserted: “I can not run again. I actually think I’m a pretty good president — I think if I ran I could win. But I can’t.”
However, a Biden-Warren ticket is a defacto third Obama term.
While many polls have indicated that Clinton will thump Trump13 in the general election, a couple of recent polls have shown a much tighter race. One of those polls, from Rasmussen, actually has Trump ahead of Clinton — which says far more about her unfavorable ratings than his favorability.
A Biden-Warren ticket, however, would likely slice and dice Trump. Hillary Clinton is a well-known and thoroughly unlikeable candidate, while Biden and Warren have been free from the campaign mudslinging that invariably drives a candidate’s numbers down. Clearing the path for that ticket at the eleventh hour while sending Hillary to the hoosegow would be both brilliant and diabolical on Obama’s part.
But a caveat emptor: Reports on Trump’s imminent demise may be greatly exaggerated! Few Republicans or Democrats took Donald Trump’s presidential run seriously a year ago. Every seasoned political analyst has underestimated Trump’s appeal14, failing to recognize what I coined in February as “The Obama effect15.” The combination of broad spectrum grassroots anger16 across party lines, exhaustion after two terms of the Obama regime, earned disdain for ineffectual GOP leadership (primarily the aforementioned John Boehner), a large field of fratricidal GOP primary contenders, and Trump’s media/pollaganda propulsion17 have created a “perfect storm” for Trump’s rhetorical sound-bite campaign. A Trump/Kasich ticket will be formidable.
The question remains, will anything stick to Clinton, who appears to be as adept at evading political liabilities as her political benefactor, “Teflon Bill18”? Her record of deceptions, obfuscations and subterfuges19 is impressive, and she has, thus far, escaped prosecution.
However, the looming “Clinton indictment20” wildcard may stick. If felony charges are brought in connection with her deliberate use of private email servers21 to conceal her official communications, including the receipt and transmission of top secret documents and those detailing her role in the Benghazi murders cover-up22 to protect Obama’s 2012 re-election, then she will be sidelined.
As Charles Krauthammer asserted back in January, “The person who will decide the nomination on the Democratic side is the FBI Director, [James] Comey.”
Now that Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee, Democrats have a serious problem — how can Clinton take on Trump23? How’s she going to hit him? His marital history? His ethics? His honesty? His wealth? His Wall Street connections? His politically incorrect ways? On every one of those issues, one of two things applies: Her record is either as bad as or worse than his, or he’s managed to turn each “weakness” into a strength.
A Clinton indictment would play right into the Demos 2016 presidential aspirations, as it would deliver a political deathblow to the Clinton Crime Family while clearing the way for a much more formidable Democrat ticket.
A Biden-Warren ticket will do the trick.
Biden can hold his own with Trump on all those populist issues that Clinton can’t touch. And Warren, as I noted in 2014, is a far smarter and more articulate Leftist than Clinton — or Obama for that matter — and she’ll attract a lot of the Sanders Socialists24 who are utterly repelled by Clinton’s candidacy.
On Biden’s ticket, Warren would also do a better job of rallying female voters25 — and female voter majorities have elected every Democrat president since Kennedy. Though Trump recently blustered that all Clinton has is “the woman card,” that is largely responsible for every successful Democrat ticket since 1960.
In the next few months, expect more high-profile appearances from Joe Biden, like his “surprise visit to Iraq26” last week. And expect to hear more from Elizabeth Warren too.
(Footnote: As I have noted previously, I do NOT fall into the “never Trump” crowd, any more than I do the “only Trump” crowd. I will vote early and often for Trump against any Democrat ticket, because better to have a president who will support (however inadvertently) Rule of Law27 some of the time than a statist Democrat who stands diametrically opposed to our Constitution.)
Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
May 3, 2016
“He that goes a borrowing goes a sorrowing. ” —Benjamin Franklin (1758)
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
In Midst of Puerto Rico’s Debt Crisis, Left Angles for Votes1
On Monday, the Puerto Rican government defaulted on a $422 million debt payment. Altogether, the U.S. territory is sitting in a $72 billion hole. In the past, retirees2 placed their hard-earned dollars in Puerto Rican bonds because they were tax-free. But last year, the island’s governor declared that creditors should “share the sacrifices” with the struggling government. The Republican Congress moved to head off the problem by trying to establish oversight to restructure the debt. Naturally, however, Democrats only see an opportunity to score political points before Election Day.
Young Puerto Ricans are fleeing the island, The Wall Street Journal writes3. If Democrats somehow get this demographic on the government dole — maybe if the island defaulted on the whole $72 billion — they could tip presidential elections in states like Florida, where many Puerto Ricans end up. Of course, it wasn’t too long ago that Democrats were toying with the idea of making Puerto Rico the 51st state.
House Speaker Paul Ryan faces opposition from the conservative Freedom Caucus because it considers proposed legislation a “bailout” for Puerto Rico. But the bill doesn’t have any federal funds flowing to the island, The Hill reports4. In the midst of the discord, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sees an opportunity to attack the GOP for dysfunctional leadership.
“The Speaker has an overriding, shall we say, principle, which is the committees shall do the work,” Pelosi said. “But at some point, there’s going to have to be a moment where there’s got to be a leadership decision — that this is as good as it gets and this is what we’re going to take to the floor. Hopefully, that will be very soon.” She wants to demonstrate what a Democrat-controlled House would look like ahead of the election. Meanwhile, she is one of the lawmakers primarily responsible for consistently and dramatically increasing the national debt. The big takeaway from this Puerto Rican debt fiasco is that debt actually is crushing — it’s not some sort of theoretical exercise to talk about the trillions of dollars the federal government owes. The time to pay the piper eventually comes.
Clinton Faux-Apologizes for Threatening Coal Jobs5
Hillary Clinton has a knack for lying to the faces of the people who have been hurt by her policies. She did it with the families of the men killed in Benghazi, and she lied to a man laid off because he worked in the coal industry, an industry the Left considers not only expendable but condemnable. On Monday, the former coal miner accosted Clinton at a West Virginia campaign stop, asking Clinton about her comments in March6 when she warned, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” The man wanted to know: How could she say something like that and then tell voters in places like West Virginia that she’s their friend?
“What I said was [taken] totally out of context from what I meant,” Clinton backpedaled. “It was a misstatement, because what I was saying is that the way things are going now, we will continue to lose jobs.” But moments after she told the audience in March that coal jobs would be destroyed, she continued, “Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels.” So her threat was neither out of context nor a misstatement.
Clinton did apologize to the coal miner — for the way conservatives interpreted her comments. “I do feel a little bit sad and sorry that I gave folks the reason or the excuse to be so upset with me,” Clinton said, “because that is not what I intended at all.”
The day before this confrontation, Clinton told the attendees at an NAACP dinner in Detroit, “We cannot let Barack Obama’s legacy fall into Donald Trump’s hands. We can’t let all the hard work and progress we have achieved over the last seven and a half years be torn away.”
What is that legacy? In 2009, Obama promised the price of electricity “would necessarily skyrocket” thanks to his policies of pursuing “green” energy at the expense of fossil fuels. What followed next was the systematic destruction of the coal industry through regulation. Why do we want four more years of that? Why give Clinton the chance to make good on Obama’s promise to hamstring the energy sector of our nation?
Is Smart Gun Tech the Next Gun Control Ruse?7
Barack Obama recently took to social media to announce “some important progress we’ve made to protect our communities from gun violence,” including “jumpstart[ing] the development of smart gun technology.” The details were unveiled in a new 17-page “Report to the President Outlining a Strategy to Expedite Deployment of Gun Safety Technology8” by the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Defense. According to the report, “Over the next six months, the Administration will partner with state, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies to establish the specific conditions under which they would consider purchasing firearms with advanced gun safety technology. This partnership will result in the drafting of voluntary ‘baseline specifications’ that will outline — for the first time — a clear description of what law enforcement expects from smart gun technology, particularly with regards to reliability, durability, and accuracy.”
Smart gun technology is, of course, a hotly debated topic. Intriguing though it is, because the technology is relatively new it raises concerns over foreseeable issues like software malfunctioning. John Sexton over at Hot Air speculates9 that Obama’s “goal is to use the buying power of law enforcement agencies to make the production of smart guns appealing to manufacturers.” He furthermore observes that “it’s not going to prevent street criminals from getting their hands on one of the millions of cheaper, regular guns already out there,” meaning “the impact this will have on violent crime would likely be minimal unless the government takes the next step and mandates the technology.” (And even then, making one more thing illegal isn’t suddenly going to stop crime.) Democrats scoff at such an assertion — that is until they “evolve” a few years down the road. Their contempt for the Second Amendment takes precedence over anything and everything, so it’s inevitable that one day they will use smart gun technology as a means of gun control in the name of “national security” and “public health.” And if Hillary Clinton enters the Oval Office in January 2017, you know she’ll pursue Obama’s anti-gun crusade.
Don’t Miss Patriot Humor
Check out Forrest Gump10.
If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here11.
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
Joe Bastardi: A Real Bet for the Tough Guy in a Bow Tie12
Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore: Growth Anemia: Blame a Collapse in Business Investment13
Michael Barone: Republicans Should Have Adopted Democrats’ Rules — and Vice Versa14
For more, visit Right Opinion15.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Trouble Looming With ObamaCare16
By Paul Albaugh
If somehow you still like your health insurance plan, then get ready to dislike it this coming November. If you don’t like your health insurance plan, well, then be prepared to go from bad to worse. Regardless of what Barack Obama says over the coming months about his crowning “achievement” of ObamaCare, there’s trouble looming and it isn’t going to bode well for most Americans. Or Democrats come Election Day.
As we remember all too well, Obama and his party lied about “affordable health care” from the very beginning. More than six years ago, Obama said17, “This legislation will … lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades. It is paid for. It is fiscally responsible. And it will help lift a decades-long drag on our economy.” Yet every year ObamaCare has been in place, health insurance — in terms of cost and coverage — has gotten worse. And the deficit is only beginning.
Perhaps the statement that Obama made more than any other during his tenure — “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” — has proved to be one of the more epic lies in American history. Millions of Americans lost the plans they had before ObamaCare, and virtually no one is paying less as Obama also promised. After ObamaCare was signed into law, those plans changed or the cost went up and in most cases both happened simultaneously.
In fact, most health care plans now have higher premiums, higher deductibles and less coverage — including our own18. To be blunt, the health care options that most people can afford flat out stink. As with any government mandate, it is never about quality, it’s about quantity and control.
ObamaCare has been so bad that forecasts for people enrolling in the marketplace have been off target19 by millions of people every year since the government mandate for health insurance was implemented. And this coming year’s numbers will no doubt continue the downward spiral.
ObamaCare has not just been bad for Americans wanting or needing health insurance, it has also been bad for insurance companies who were or are part of the market exchange. Insurance companies have been losing millions of dollars since ObamaCare was put in place, though don’t cry for them — they lobbied for it, imagining a flood of new customers forced to buy their product. When it didn’t quite work out as they hoped, UnitedHealth recently announced20 that it was going to “distance itself from ObamaCare” and that it would be leaving several state exchanges by 2017.
This coming fall, Americans will undergo another round of sticker shock. That’s right, when ObamaCare’s next open enrollment period begins on November 1, customers will most likely be faced with double digit rate hikes on their health insurance plans. Again. We suspect that this won’t work out well for Democrats on November 8.
As Mark Alexander noted21 several years ago, “With increasing frequency, Americans of every political stripe who have any issue with health care, whether a hangnail or heart transplant, a delay in a doctor’s office or in critical care for a loved one, will tie blame for their discontent like a noose around the necks of Obama and his Democrats, who are solely responsible for forcing this abomination upon the American people.”
Democrats will claim that Republicans have no alternative to ObamaCare, though there are several GOP alternatives22, and conservative candidates running for office need to emphasize the concept of free markets for health insurance. Democrats in the same breath will push to save the government program by expanding it further. Indeed, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and a host of others will join in chorus to sell us another bag of lies in the name of saving ObamaCare from itself, perhaps by heading toward a single-payer system.
Sadly, many people will buy the lies. But there are real-life examples of the failure of single-payer systems. Take, for instance, the United Kingdom.
Six months ago, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ran a report on the National Health Service in the UK and announced23 that its health care system was one of the worst in the world.
In its report, the OECD highlighted that hospitals were underequipped and understaffed and that people were needlessly dying due to “chronic lack of investment.” Furthermore, the report mentioned that while access to care is “generally good” the quality of care in the UK is “poor to mediocre” across several key health areas. The NHS also struggles simply to get the “basics” right. Sounds eerily familiar to all of our government programs, does it not?
Yet a single-payer system is what many Democrats want for America. In fact, one might conclude they designed ObamaCare to fail for just that end. It’s another terrible idea that simply doesn’t work, but there’s something even more important at stake. Errant Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding, the federal government has no constitutional authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, and it definitely has no business establishing a single-payer system.
MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE
ANALYSIS: U.S. Economic Freedom Ain’t What It Used to Be24
U.S. Not Guilty of War Crimes in Afghanistan; Taliban Is25
Months Later and Congress Doesn’t Have a Budget26
CIA Head Hints at Truth About Islamic State27
American Soldier Killed by ISIL in Iraq28
Cruz Stumbles Toward the Finish Line With Trump Knockout Looming29
ESPN Erases Curt Schilling From Baseball History30
For more, visit Patriot Headline Report31
OPINION IN BRIEF
Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore: “For the entire 32-quarter economic recovery, business fixed investment has averaged just 1.1 percent at an annual rate. Since 1960, however, business fixed investment has averaged 4.4 percent at an annual rate. So the present expansion in business investment is roughly one-quarter of the 55-year average. … Study after study shows that corporate tax reform is a middle-class tax cut, not a tax cut for the rich. You see, corporations don’t really pay taxes. They simply collect them and pass the cost along in the form of lower wages and benefits, higher consumer prices and reduced shareholder value. The overarching theme of this election is an angry revolt by the middle class over the fact that jobs and wages have barely increased in the past decade. They blame Washington, China, immigration, power elites and almost everything else. So be it. There is a lot of work to be done on all these fronts. But without radical tax, regulatory and currency reform, business investment will never fully recover. And neither will the economy.”
Insight: “Of all contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper money.” —Daniel Webster (1782-1852)
Upright: “People who want to redistribute wealth often misunderstand the nature and causes of wealth. Tangible wealth can be confiscated, but you cannot confiscate the knowledge which produced that wealth. Countries that confiscated the wealth of some groups and expelled them, destitute, have often seen the economy collapse, while the expelled people became prosperous again elsewhere.” —Thomas Sowell
A broken clock is right twice a day: “[T]he fact that some university boards and administrations now bow to pressure groups and shield students from … ideas through safe spaces, code words and trigger warnings is in my view a terrible mistake. … [O]ne of the most dangerous places on a college campus is a so-called safe space because it creates a false impression that we can isolate ourselves from those who hold different views. We can’t and we shouldn’t try.” —Michael Bloomberg
Understatement of the millennium: “I think it was a legitimate criticism of CNN that it was a little too liberal.” —CNN president Jeff Zucker
Interesting question: “The question isn’t who [Trump or Clinton] has higher unfavorability, but which one is more capable of getting a vote from a person who is disgusted by both of them. … One is exciting, risky, and entertaining. The other is dreary, predictable, and medicinal.” —Ann Althouse
For the record: “This week in Indiana, Mike Tyson — a convicted rapist — endorsed Donald Trump. Donald Trump called him a ‘tough guy.’ That’s not how I would describe a rapist.” —Carly Fiornia
Late-night humor: “You could tell Bernie Sanders was a guest at the [The White House Correspondents’ Dinner] when they had to schedule it at 3 p.m. Bernie was like, ‘I’m going to start a revolution — at the dessert table!’” —Jimmy Fallon
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.
The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us/digests/41193
Mar. 9, 2016
“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” —Thomas Jefferson (1800)
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
‘I Do Solemnly Swear…’ to What?1
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Several presidential candidates are still campaigning to be the one to take that solemn oath of office2 next January, as prescribed by our Constitution3. Yet Donald Trump is on the stump demanding oaths from his supporters.
Indeed, Trump had people at a rally raise their right hands and repeat, “I do solemnly swear that I, no matter how I feel, no matter what the conditions — if there’s hurricanes or whatever — will vote on or before the 12th for Donald J. Trump for president.” And then he immediately reminded them, “Don’t forget you all raised your hands. You swore. Bad things happen if you don’t live up to what you just did.”
Now, surely this is all in good fun, right? In a telephone interview with the “Today” show, Trump said innocently, “[U]ntil this phone call, I didn’t realize it was a problem,” but “I’ll certainly look into it because I don’t want to offend anybody. It’s been amazingly received.” (Doesn’t want to offend anybody? Please. That’s what he lives for.)
We’re not here to draw any comparisons with any other right-hand-raising regimes, but stop and think for a minute: Isn’t this worrisome? There’s no doubt Trump has some devoted followers — we’ve heard hateful, profanity-laced tirades from plenty of them in response to our well-reasoned opposition to Trump. Nevertheless, we’re going to stand for principle, as we have for 20 years. Even if that means having the audacity to say it’s not the man we owe allegiance to; it’s the Constitution.
The Populists Win Michigan4
The big news from Michigan’s Tuesday primary was that socialist Bernie Sanders blew away expectations. Clinton led by 20 points in the polls, and she still lost. She was supposed to have the black vote shored up, what with her political gift giving5 in Flint. Instead, Sanders squeaked into first place with 50% of the vote to Clinton’s 48%. Sanders won on the strength of votes from whites and Millennials, but exit polls also showed6 30% of blacks supported the man. The Michigan result raises questions7 about the accuracy of polling in other Rust Belt states, most notably Ohio. In the grand scheme of things, the “inevitable” Clinton still has more delegates, but the win brings more validation to a Sanders campaign that was likely supposed to be merely political theater.
Meanwhile, as predicted, Donald Trump appealed to Rust Belt Republicans, picking up 36.5% in Michigan. In the other primaries held yesterday, the real estate mogul also won Mississippi and Hawaii, and he’s doing it with broad appeal to several seemingly disparate demographics. Ted Cruz picked up a modest win in Idaho. As we wrote yesterday8, if Cruz finished with strong seconds in Mississippi and Michigan, and possibly a win in Hawaii, it could have been a sign that the Trump Train is running out of steam. Instead, the results show Trump’s populist appeal isn’t losing ground. Then again, 35% of the vote across the board doesn’t entitle him to the nomination, either.
Blogger Rod Dreher9 notes that the Republicans’ response to Trump’s rise is akin to the eve of World War II, when the French military brass thought the trenches of The Great War were here to stay. Trump is shattering the assumptions the old Republican politicos held about its base — they’re still fighting the previous war. With the rise of Sanders, its something that could be said of the Democrat Party, too.
Next week, the races move to Florida and Ohio. If Marco Rubio and John Kasich do poorly in their home states, it will be the end of the road for the two. And by then, it may be too late for a consolidated Cruz surge.
Record Warm Winter: What Alarmists Overlook10
Meteorological winter is now in the books, and if you live anywhere in the U.S. you won’t be surprised to learn it was a warm one. Virtually every region experienced warmer, and in many cases much warmer, than normal conditions. In fact, persistent intrusions of mild air, promulgated by a super El Niño, pushed Winter ‘15-16 temperatures to their seasonal warmest in at least 121 years. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says the mean temperature for December, January and February was an impressive 4.6 degrees Fahrenheit higher than average, and satellite measurements confirm that February’s warmth dwarfed all previous records. However, that’s not to say it was “America’s year without a winter11,” as stipulated in a Washington Post headline.
For example, numerous cities in the Mid Atlantic broke record snowfall during January’s epic blizzard — humorously nicknamed “Snowzilla” — and in February the Boston Globe reported, “Valentine’s Day in Boston was the coldest on record for more than 80 years, as temperatures plunged to levels that could even keep an intrepid Cupid indoors. Sunday morning, the temperature plummeted to minus 9, with a windchill of minus 36, shattering the record by 6 degrees.” That’s a remarkable feat in any winter, but even more so considering the strength of El Niño. And let’s not forget history. The Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang notes, “The warmth of this winter marked a stunning reversal from the previous year in New England, when it witnessed one of its harshest winters on record.” Extreme temperature swings are more common than we realize. Yet how quickly we forget them…
There’s no question El Niño drove much of this past winter’s warmth. The question, as always, is to what extent. Meteorologist Joe Bastardi stipulates that we’re now in a test period12. What comes up must come down, and with La Niña looming, these trends should go the opposite direction in the years ahead. But regardless of what the next few years bring, what we’ll never know conclusively is how today’s trends compare to the past thousands of years. Are we experiencing climate change? You bet. Is it something to be so concerned about that we rearrange the entire economy to combat it? Probably not.
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
Walter Williams: The Seen and Unseen13
Jonah Goldberg: Conservative Purists Are Capitulating14
Star Parker: Texas Abortion Law Meets Bill Clinton’s Standards15
Brent Bozell and Tim Graham: ISIS and Christian Genocide16
For more, visit Right Opinion17.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Clinton’s Ecofascist Fracking Play18
By Lewis Morris
People on the Left may think they see a difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as the two duke it out for the Democrat nomination, but those of us with common sense and constitutional principles only see two peas from the same pod.
Sanders has made no bones about his desire to grow the government to such an extent that it basically runs the means of production in this country. He’s a socialist19, and that’s how socialists think. Clinton has pretended to embrace a (slightly) more laissez faire view of the economy that would allow business to take more care of itself. But that’s coming from a candidate who advocates lavish corporate welfare through the Export-Import Bank. Poor Boeing can’t compete without massive taxpayers subsidies, don’t you know.
Sunday’s debate was a good example of the commonality that exists between the two leftists. Sanders was asked about hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” — the process by which American energy companies have produced a glut of oil and natural gas, thereby saving individual consumers hundreds of dollars a year. Sanders didn’t miss a beat, saying he does not support fracking and would ban the practice outright. Clinton’s answer was more nuanced on its face, but came out the same way.
Take a gander at this tripe from candidate Clinton: “You know, I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, number one. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it — number three — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using. So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated.”
In short, after a bizarre and half-hearted paean to federalism, Clinton went on to conclude she intends to regulate fracking out of existence just like Barack Obama has done with the coal industry. But that is an utterly foolish move.
The low gas prices that Obama has taken credit for are largely a result of fracking. Again, the practice makes natural gas and oil cheaper to extract and energy more affordable. The Wall Street Journal reports20 that the average price of natural gas dropped close to 60% between 2008 and 2012. Furthermore, consumers have saved between $63 and $248 billion in 2013 alone, according to21 the Institute for Energy Research, and the savings continue to add up. The IER reported that without fracking, crude oil would cost $12 to $40 per barrel more. Not to mention that we’d be paying foreign countries for more oil.
These savings have been most beneficial to the poorest families in the country because they spend a larger part of their income on energy and transportation than wealthier families do. At a time when energy prices, like health care costs, are rising so fast they threaten the financial well-being of millions of families, any relief is welcome. And that’s particularly true of the relief at the gas pump coming from fracking.
Even the EPA, the ungodly monster that has become the principal tool for the Left’s forcible conversion of the American economy, has obliquely supported fracking22. A draft report the agency published in June last year states, “We did not find evidence that [fracking] mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water sources in the United States.”
Clinton is having none of it. She has decided to go after the ecofascist vote and drive yet another clean, economical energy source into oblivion. Her proposals will drive up energy costs, but she doesn’t care. After all, it suits her politically, and she’s not exactly dead broke either. When was the last time she drove herself anywhere or filled up her gas tank? Or worried about whether she could pay her heating bill?
She remains shockingly unconcerned about the impact her policies would have on one of the constituencies she is supposedly looking out for. But, then again, it’s not about how Clinton can help. It’s about what her supporters can do to help her.
MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE
ANALYSIS: Assessing the Damage After Hillary’s Last Email Batch23
In Flint, Clinton’s Cash Trumps Sanders’ Ideas5
Republican-Led Congress Fails to Block Climate Funding24
After Scalia’s Death, SCOTUS Declines to Hear Another Case25
The Heritage Foundation’s ‘Blueprint for Balance’26
Minimum Wage Hikes Hose Canadians, Too, Eh?27
Is Maryland Making Officer Porter Commit Perjury?28
Number of Ex-Gitmo Prisoners Rejoining Militants Doubles29
Apple to FBI: Weakening iPhone Security Could Make the Power Grid More Hackable30
W. Virginia Senate Overrides Governor’s Veto on Conceal Carry Bill31
For more, visit Patriot Headline Report32
OPINION IN BRIEF
Walter Williams: “[Claude Frederic] Bastiat argued that when making laws or economic decisions, it is imperative that we examine not only what is seen but what is unseen. … Americans who support tariffs on foreign goods could benefit immensely from Bastiat’s admonition. A concrete example was the Bush administration’s 8 to 30 percent tariffs in 2002 on several types of imported steel. They were levied in an effort to protect jobs in the ailing U.S. steel industry. … A study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics predicted that saving those 1,700 jobs in the steel industry would cost American consumers $800,000 per job, in the form of higher prices. … [H]ow much sense did it make for American consumers to have to pay $800,000 in higher prices, not to mention lost employment in steel-using industries, to save each job? It would have been cheaper to tax ourselves and give each of those 1,700 steelworkers a $100,000 annual check. Doing so would have been far less costly to Americans than the steel tariffs, but it would have been politically impossible. Why? The cost of protecting those steel jobs would have been apparent and hence repulsive to most Americans. Tariffs conceal such costs. When Congress creates a special privilege for some Americans, it must of necessity come at the expense of other Americans. Then Americans who are harmed, such as the steel-using auto industry, descend on Congress asking for some kind of relief for themselves. … I think Congress ought to get out of the miracle business and leave miracle-making up to God.”
Insight: “Liberty is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual liberty.” —Calvin Coolidge (1873-1933)
Observations: “Americans are tired of the pieties that prevent our leaders from addressing problems honestly. They see, for example, their president refusing to utter the words ‘Islamist terror’ even after bloody terrorist rampages that leave Americans dead. … So when Mr. Trump vows to kill not just the terrorists but their wives and children too, it doesn’t follow that this is what his supporters are in fact cheering on. More likely what they hear Mr. Trump saying is this: I am going to keep you safe, and I’m not going to let political correctness get in the way. At a time when two out of three Americans are telling pollsters that political correctness is a huge problem for our country, Mr. Trump is tapping into a powerful sentiment.” —William McGurn
Make speeches great again: “I don’t think I’ve heard such a stream of disconnected ideas since I quit psychiatry 30 years ago.” —Charles Krauthammer on Donald Trump’s victory speech
Uh, no: “I think that whoever is leading at the end should sort of get [the nomination]. That’s the way that democracy works.” —Donald Trump (First of all, GOP rules require a majority of delegates for the nomination, not just “whoever is leading.” Second, we’re not a democracy; we’re a republic.)
Definition of insanity: “I’ve always voted Democratic — always. I don’t know why. I’m trying to figure out exactly what they’ve done for us.” —former NBA star Charles Barkley
Narrative fail: “There’s no question the economy is doing better under the president of the United States. … [But] I don’t think anyone is saying the economy is great. I don’t think President Obama is saying the economy is great.” —Obama adviser Robert Wolf (“America is pretty darn great right now, and making strides right now. And small businesses and large businesses alike are hiring right now, and investing right now, and building this country…” —Barack Obama on Friday)
And last… “There is no Republican Establishment, you guys. It’s now just the term for the Republicans you don’t like.” —John Podhoretz
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.
Democrats are now in real danger of becoming extinct in the South – The Washington Post 12/31/15, 9:35 AM
Democrats are now in real danger of becoming extinct in the South
By Amber Phillips December 30 at 10:20 AM
Kentucky Democrats have a problem. They just lost the governor’s mansion last month and now there’s a very real chance that their control of the state House is slipping away. That’s significant not just in Kentucky but nationally too; if Democrats lose control of the Kentucky state House, they will control a total of zero legislative chamber in the entire south.
The latest bad news for Kentucky Democrats came this week when Democratic state Rep. Jim Gooch switched parties, the second Democrat to turn Republican since the GOP’s gains in November. Gooch follows his colleague, Rep. Denny Butler as party switchers; two Democratic state representatives have resigned to accept appointments from Kentucky’s new Republican governor, Matt Bevin.
That means when the state legislature convenes in January, there will be 50 Democrats and 46 Republicans in the House — with four vacancies to fill in special elections that could well go to Republicans.
In short, Kentucky is no longer Democrats’ last stronghold of electoral hope in the south. It’s now better described as one of the last states to realign with America’s decades-old north-south political reality: Republicans rule down South; Democrats up North.
The signs this was coming have been around for a while now, notes University of Louisville political science professor Jasmine Farrier. Even though Bill Clinton won the state twice, Mitt Romney won the state in the 2012 presidential election, and GOP candidates triumphed in the 2014 Senate election and the 2015 governor races — often by wide margins. Kentucky’s balance of power finally shifted in November’s statewide elections. Statewide offices, which until November were mostly held by Democrats, are now mostly held by Republicans. The GOP wave was led by Bevin, a businessman whose outside appeal and flare has been likened to GOP front-runner Donald Trump, came from behind to become only the second Republican to lead the state in four decades.
Kentucky’s House is now the lone holdout in a state that you could argue is no longer a holdout from the post- Civil Rights era political realignment. And it didn’t take long after November to watch Democrats’ control of the
Democrats are now in real danger of becoming extinct in the South – The Washington Post 12/31/15, 9:35 AM
House start to crumble as well.
“We used to be more of an outlier,” Farrier said. “Now we’re more normal.”
Inevitable realignment or not, there’s probably some blame for Democrats to go around. Farrier says she thinks all this should be a wake up call for the Democratic Party, which has struggled to bridge the urban-rural divide in heavily rural states like Kentucky and hasn’t really found a way to reach across the cultural divides that
separate former Southern Democrats with today’s Northern ones.
“What has the Democratic Party done for poor, conservative Evangelical white people?” Farrier said. “And the answer is not much. On God, guns and gays, poor, white Evangelical conservatives would say the Democratic Party walked away from them, and not the other way around.”
Democrats’ fading grip on Kentucky politics may be unique, but it probably didn’t help that Democrats are having trouble holding onto state offices across the country.
During President Obama’s tenure, Republicans clinched more and more control of statehouse and governor’s mansions to the point where The Fix’s Chris Cillizza writes they “an absolute stranglehold” on governor’s seats (64 percent).
After the November 2014 midterms, Republicans have control of an all-time high 68 of 98 state chambers.
Republicans say their dominance at the state level is a result of hard work. They’ve invested heavily in state legislative races this past decade as part of a strategy to control state chambers that will take on congressional redistricting in 2020. It certainly worked for them in 2010.
As a result of much of this, America is increasingly divided into two different countries that rarely touch each other, politically or geographically.
Yet another factor in Democrats’ struggles in the south: Obama’s unpopularity outside those East Coast Democratic enclaves. A Kentucky Democrat is no Massachusetts Democrat, and Obama isn’t particularly liked in some Kentucky Democratic circles.
In announcing his switch to the Republican Party, Rep. Gooch cited the president’s “radical agenda” on
Democrats are now in real danger of becoming extinct in the South – The Washington Post 12/31/15, 9:35 AM
environmental regulations and gun control as reason to leave.
Kentucky Democrats, it may have been a step too far.
major political realignment.
Amber Phillips writes about politics for The Fix. She was previously the one-woman D.C. bureau for the Las Vegas Sun and has reported from Boston and Taiwan.
What the Constitution Really Says About Race and Slavery
David Azerrad / December 28, 2015
One hundred and fifty years ago this month, the 13th Amendment officially was ratified, and with it, slavery finally was abolished in America. The New York World hailed it as “one of the most important reforms ever accomplished by voluntary human agency.”
The newspaper said the amendment “takes out of politics, and consigns to history, an institution incongruous to our political system, inconsistent with justice and repugnant to the humane sentiments fostered by Christian civilization.”
With the passage of the 13th Amendment—which states that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”—the central contradiction at the heart of the Founding was resolved.
Eighty-nine years after the Declaration of Independence had proclaimed all men to be free and equal, race-based chattel slavery would be no more in the United States.
While all today recognize this momentous accomplishment, many remain confused about the status of slavery under the original Constitution. Textbooks and history books routinely dismiss the Constitution as racist and pro-slavery. The New York Times, among others, continues to casually assert that the Constitution affirmed African-Americans to be worth only three-fifths of a human being.
Ironically, many Americans who are resolutely opposed to racism unwittingly agree with Chief Justice Roger Taney’s claim in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the Founders’ Constitution regarded blacks as “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” In this view, the worst Supreme Court case decision in American history was actually correctly decided.
Such arguments have unsettling implications for the health of our republic. They teach citizens to despise their founding charter and to be ashamed of their country’s origins. They make the Constitution an object of contempt rather than reverence. And they foster alienation and resentment among African-American citizens by excluding them from our Constitution.
The received wisdom in this case is wrong. If we turn to the actual text of the Constitution and the debates that gave rise to it, a different picture emerges. The case for a racist, pro-slavery Constitution collapses under closer scrutiny.
Race and the Constitution
The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution—or in the Declaration of Independence, for that matter—are human beings classified according to race, skin color, or ethnicity (nor, one should add, sex, religion, or any other of the left’s favored groupings). Our founding principles are colorblind (although our history, regrettably, has not been).
The Constitution speaks of people, citizens, persons, other persons (a euphemism for slaves) and Indians not taxed (in which case, it is their tax-exempt status, and not their skin color, that matters). The first references to “race” and “color” occur in the 15th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to vote, ratified in 1870.
A newly freed African American group of men and a few children posing by a canal against the ruins of Richmond, Va. Photo made after Richmond was taken by Union troops on April 3, 1865. (Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)
A newly freed group of black men and a few children pose by a canal against the ruins of Richmond, Va., after Union troops took the city on April 3, 1865. (Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)
The infamous three-fifths clause, which more nonsense has been written than any other clause, does not declare that a black person is worth 60 percent of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House (and direct taxes), the government would count only three-fifths of the slaves, and not all of them, as the Southern states, who wanted to gain more seats, had insisted. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites.
Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote. The Constitution defers to the states to determine who shall be eligible to vote (Article I, Section 2, Clause 1). It is a little known fact of American history that black citizens were voting in perhaps as many as 10 states at the time of the founding (the precise number is unclear, but only Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia explicitly restricted suffrage to whites).
Slavery and the Constitution
Not only does the Constitution not mention blacks or whites, but it also doesn’t mention slaves or slavery. Throughout the document, slaves are referred to as persons to underscore their humanity. As James Madison remarked during the constitutional convention, it was “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”
The Constitution refers to slaves using three different formulations: “other persons” (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), “such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof” (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3).
Although these circumlocutions may not have done much to improve the lot of slaves, they are important, as they denied constitutional legitimacy to the institution of slavery. The practice remained legal, but slaveholders could not invoke the supreme law of the land to defend its legitimacy. These formulations make clear that slavery is a state institution that is tolerated—but not sanctioned—by the national government and the Constitution.
Reading the original Constitution, a visitor from a foreign land would simply have no way of knowing that race-based slavery existed in America. As Abraham Lincoln would later explain:
Thus, the thing is hid away, in the Constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death.
One could go even further and argue, as Frederick Douglass did in the lead-up to the Civil War, that none of the clauses of the Constitution should be interpreted as applying to slaves. The “language of the law must be construed strictly in favor of justice and liberty,” he argued.
Because the Constitution does not explicitly recognize slavery and does not therefore admit that slaves were property, all the protections it affords to persons could be applied to slaves. “Anyone of these provisions in the hands of abolition statesmen, and backed up by a right moral sentiment, would put an end to slavery in America,” Douglass concluded.
Those who want to see what a racist and pro-slavery Constitution would look like should turn to the Confederate Constitution of 1861. Though it largely mimics the Constitution, it is replete with references to “the institution of negro slavery,” “negroes of the African race,” and “negro slaves.” It specifically forbids the Confederate Congress from passing any “law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves.”
One can readily imagine any number of clauses that could have been added to our Constitution to enshrine slavery. The manumission of slaves could have been prohibited. A national right to bring one’s slaves to any state could have been recognized. Congress could have been barred from interfering in any way with the transatlantic slave trade.
It is true that the Constitution of 1787 failed to abolish slavery. The constitutional convention was convened not to free the slaves, but to amend the Articles of Confederation. The slave-holding states would have never consented to a new Constitution that struck a blow at their peculiar institution. The Constitution did, however, empower Congress to prevent its spread and set it on a course of extinction, while leaving the states free to abolish it within their own territory at any time.
Regrettably, early Congresses did not pursue a consistent anti-slavery policy. This, however, is not an indictment of the Constitution itself. As Frederick Douglass explained: “A chart is one thing, the course of a vessel is another. The Constitution may be right, the government wrong.”
Congress and the Slave Trade
In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called the African slave trade an “execrable commerce” and an affront “against human nature itself.” Because of a concession to slave-holding interests, the Constitution stipulates that it may not be abolished “prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1).
(Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)
Before the Civil War, Frederick Douglass said that nothing in the Constitution should be interpreted as applying to slaves. The “language of the law must be construed strictly in favor of justice and liberty,” he argued. (Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)
In the meantime, Congress could discourage the importation of slaves from abroad by imposing a duty “not exceeding 10 dollars on each person” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). Although early Congresses considered such measures, they were never enacted.
Early Congresses did, however, regulate the transatlantic slave trade, pursuant to their power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). In 1794, 1800, and 1803, statutes were passed that severely restricted American participation in it. No American shipyard could be used to build ships that would engage in the slave trade, nor could any ship sailing from an American port traffic in slaves abroad. Americans were also prohibited from investing in the slave trade.
Finally, on the very first day on which it was constitutionally permissible to do so—Jan. 1, 1808—the slave trade was abolished by law.
The law, which President Thomas Jefferson signed, stipulated stiff penalties for any American convicted of participating in the slave trade: up to $10,000 in fines and five to 10 years in prison. In 1823, a new law was passed that punished slave-trading with death.
Congress and the Expansion of Slavery
Banning the importation of slaves would not by itself put an end to slavery in the United States. Slavery would grow naturally even if no new slaves were brought into the country.
Although Congress could not prevent this, it could prevent slavery from spreading geographically to the territories from which new states would eventually be created.
Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States” (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), to forbid the migration of slaves into the new territories (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and to stipulate conditions for statehood (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2).
Regrettably, early Congresses did not prevent the spread of slavery. Between 1798 and 1822, Congress enacted 10 territorial acts. Only half excluded slavery.
As a result, seven slaveholding states and five free states were admitted into the union. The seeds of what Abraham Lincoln would later call the crisis of the house divided were sown.
Slavery in the Existing States
As for the existing slaveholding states that had ratified the Constitution, what could Congress do to restrict the growth of slavery within their borders? Here Congress had more limited options. After 1808, “the migration” of slaves across state lines could have been prohibited (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). This was never done.
In principle, slavery could have been taxed out of existence. However, the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states made it impossible to exclusively target slaveholders. A capitation or head tax, for example, even though it would have been more costly for Southerners, would also impose a heavy burden on Northerners.
While one could perhaps have circumvented the apportionment requirement by calling for an indirect tax on slaves—as Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., would later do during the Civil War—such arguments were not made in the early republic.
There was one clause in the original Constitution that required cooperation with slaveholders and protected the institution of slavery. Slaves who escaped to freedom were to “be delivered up” to their masters (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3). The motion to include a fugitive slave clause at the constitutional convention passed unanimously and without debate. This would seem to indicate that all knew it would be futile to try to oppose such a measure.
The debate instead focused on the wording. Whereas the original draft had referred to a “person legally held to service or labor in one state,” the final version instead refers to a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof.” This change, Madison explains in his notes, was to comply “with the wish of some who thought the term legal equivocal,” as it gave the impression “that slavery was legal in a moral view,” rather than merely permissible under the law.
This remark by Madison captures the Constitution’s stance vis-à-vis slavery: permissible, but not moral. Legal, but not legitimate.
In no way can the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery. And it contains within it several provisions that could have been and were at times used to prevent the spread of slavery.
This may not make it an anti-slavery Constitution. But even before the 13th Amendment, it was a Constitution that, if placed in the right hands, could be made to serve the cause of freedom.
THE UNBELIEVABLE STATEMENTS BY PUPLIC OFFICIALS
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
December 28, 2015
In this century, it seems that the number of unbelievable things said by high profile people has increased. First, after American forces quickly sped from Kuwait to Baghdad in the 2003 Iraq war, President George W. Bush said “Mission Accomplished.” I could not believe he did not realize that is what Saddam Hussein wanted us to do, because only then would we change from battle formation to smaller patrols more easily hit by RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) and IEDs (improvised explosive devices). A few years later, I could not believe Congress passed Obamacare after Democratis House leader Nancy Pelosi said members of Congress should pass the legislation before seeing all that was in it!
During the current political campaign when Dr. Ben arson was rising in the polls, he spoke at radical Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network’s convention and said “Al Sharpton and I have the same goal, just different ideas on how to get there,” and in Dr. Carson’s book AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL on page 102 he said it is “the moral low road” to “deport many individuals (illegal aliens) who are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families.” Csarly Fiorina, who also temporarily rose in the polls, had touted President Obama’s “Race to the Top” education program, and last August said “I’ve been very clear I don’t support deportation (of illegal aliens).” Conservative talk show gurus Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and others have extolled the virtues of Sen. Ted Cruz, even though he has spoken positively about his Council on Foreign Relations member wife, Heidi, in her globalist book BUILDING A NORTH AMERICAN UNION.
The unbelievable statements of President Obama are too numerous to mention here, but the morning of the recent ISIS-inspired attack in San Bernardino, he declared: “ISIL is not going to pose an existential threat to us….Our homeland has never been more protected….” How could he say that shortly after the Russian airline was brought down by an ISIS improvised explosive device only perhaps the size of a soda can on board the plane? Can he guarantee that ISIS-inspired sleeper cells (like the couple in San Bernardino) cannot put soda cans filled with C-4 or other explosives on drones and from far away fly them into large crowds of people, perhaps during cities’ New Year’s Eve celebrations (e.g., at New York City’s Times Square)?
Perhaps the most egregious examples of unbelievable statements come from (Queen) Hillary Clinton herself. Remember when she claimed she was running from sniper fire when landing in Bosnia in 1996? This turned out to be completely false. Also remember when she repeatedly publicly said the Benghazi attack were spontaneously caused by an anti-Muslim video, even though she was privately telling others it was a previously planned terrorist attack. Well, her latest unbelievable claim is that ISIS is using a video of Donald Trump, saying he would temporarily ban Muslims from immigrating to the United States, as a recruitment tool. The problem is that when the media questioned the veracity of her claim, she could not produce any such video. Think about it. Hillary and her political twin President Obama have been claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, and that jihad is simply an individual’s pursuit of spiritual betterment. They claim ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, even though they refer to ISIS as ISIL, the first letter of which stands for “Islamic.” They say ISIL is simply a group of thugs who are misrepresenting Islam.
All right, let’s see how this works. We are supposed to believe brutal ISIS members have recruited new members by bribing or threatening them or their families, perhaps saying something like “Join us or we will behead your mother and rape your sisters.” We are then supposed to believe that these peaceful prospective recruits reject these threats regardless of what ISIL does to their mothers and sisters, but then decide to join the ISIL thugs just because Donald Trump said he temporarily wants to halt Muslim immigration to the United States! Really?
But Trump does not get a pass on unbelievable statements either. One has to be careful when making blanket statements such as he wants to ban “all” Muslim immigrants. That would even include banning a one-year-old Muslim child from joining his grandparents in the United States after his Shiite parents were killed by ISIL Sunnis in Syria.
And religious leaders are not immune from making unbelievable remarks as well. According to a NATIONAL REPORT article posted about 6 months ago, Pope Francis in an hour-long speech told Vatican guests that the Koran, and the spiritual teachings therein, are just as valid as THE HOLY BIBLE. He also told them: “We can accomplish miraculous things in the world by merging our faiths.” He has even kissed the Koran, just as Pope John Paul II did, even though in Islamic teaching, Jesus is secondary to Mohamed!
Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.
Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS’s Nightwatch.
E-Mail: Not Available
Heidi Cruz wants to build a North American Community – what does that mean, exactly?
Posted on August 21, 2015 by austrogirl
Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz, with his Spanish name, Canadian birth and US citizenship, would actually be a natural candidate to be the First President of the North American Union! (n/t The Next News Network)
In today’s video preview of tomorrow’s show, I refer to a document, Building a North American Community, written by a Council on Foreign Relations task force which included Heidi Cruz (i.e., Mrs. Ted Cruz), who expressly agreed with the recommendations in the report. What are those recommendations? Here’s a sampling, but I highly recommend you read the whole text (it’s large print and only 32 pages of actual report, the rest you can skip):
To lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America with the ultimate goal of full mobility of labor and goods across Canada, Mexico and the United States. To facilitate this, rules and regulations on labor and the environment among other things should conform across the “trinational” region. “[T]he three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence…including harmonization at the highest prevailing standard…and unilateral adoption of another country’s rules.”
“Make a North American standard the default approach to new regulation….The new trinational mechanism also should be charged with identifying joint means of ensuring consistent enforcement of new rules as they are developed.”
Increase information and intelligence-sharing at the local and national levels in both law enforcement and military organizations.
Conduct annual training exercise to develop interoperability among and between law enforcement agencies and militaries of the US, Canada & Mexico.
Create a North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers.
Establish a North American energy and emissions regime that could offer tradable voucher systems for emissions trading.
Creation of a North American Advisory Council with a complementary private body “that would meet regularly or annually to buttress North American relationships, along the lines of the Bilderberg or Wehrkunde conferences, organized to support transaltantic relations.”
Creation of a North American Inter-Parliamentary Group that will include US Congress along with Canadian and Mexican Parliamentary representation, who play key roles in policy toward each other. The newly created North American Advisory Council (likened to the Bilderberg Group) “could provide an agenda and support for these meetings.”
Why Franklin Graham Is Leaving the GOP
Angry at Republicans for failing to defund Planned Parenthood in 2015, Franklin Graham announces he’s cutting ties with the GOP. (Photo: EPA/Nell Redmond/Newscom)
Less than one week after Congress passed a massive year-end spending bill that failed to strip Planned Parenthood of its taxpayer dollars, evangelist Franklin Graham announced he is leaving the Republican Party.
“Shame on the Republicans and the Democrats for passing such a wasteful spending bill last week,” Graham wrote Monday on Facebook. “And to top it off, funding Planned Parenthood!”
Graham, CEO of Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, said Republicans’ failure to defund Planned Parenthood is an “example” of why he is declaring himself an independent.
“This is an example of why I have resigned from the Republican Party and declared myself independent,” Graham wrote. “I have no hope in the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or Tea Party to do what is best for America.”
In declaring his separation from the Republican party, Graham referenced a string of undercover videos that came out this year showing Planned Parenthood employees discussing the sale of body parts from aborted babies. Graham compared the actions in those videos—which some claim were highly manipulated—to Nazi concentration camps.
“Seeing and hearing Planned Parenthood talk nonchalantly about selling baby parts from aborted fetuses with utter disregard for human life is reminiscent of Joseph Mengele and the Nazi concentration camps!” he said.
The undercover videos, produced by the Center for Medical Progress, sparked calls by conservatives to defund Planned Parenthood of the more than $528 million it receives in taxpayer dollars. The majority of that money comes from federal reimbursements it receives through Medicaid contracts.
Planned Parenthood has denied any wrongdoing, calling the videos “heavily edited” and “secretly recorded.”
Conservatives made stripping Planned Parenthood of its taxpayer dollars a top priority this congressional year yet failed to include any defund provisions in the year-end spending bill.
>>> Read More: How Your Senators Voted on the Government Spending Bill
Democrats praised the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending as a “good compromise,” highlighting the more than 150 conservative policy riders that they were able to “nix” from the final agreement.
“In addition to nixing more than 150 GOP riders, the final agreement will secure major progressive policy successes,” wrote Adam Jentleson, Minority Leader Harry Reid’s deputy chief of staff, on Twitter.
After the spending bill passed, Planned Parenthood touted in a press release that the budget deal included “no new harmful policy riders on women’s health.”
At the end of his post declaring his separation from the Republican party, Graham called on Christians “across the country to pray about running for office where they can have an impact.”
Read Graham’s full Facebook post here:
‘If an abortion [provider] is complaining, the easiest thing to do is get the pro-life people to shut up,’ Matt Bowman, a lawyer defending carolers, says.