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.
PAY-PER-VIEW PRESIDENTIAL RACE
By Donna Wasson
November 19, 2015
The race for the presidency is taking on a hilarious, side-show quality worthy of a theatrical pay-per-view professional wrestling match! I’m surprised the networks aren’t charging the general public $29.50 a household to watch the debates. Politics hasn’t been this much fun in years! And it’s all due to Mr. Donald Trump.
I’ve written about the shadow government for years, pointing out that our supposed two-party system of Republicans vs. Democrats is a complete and utter sham. They are simply two sides of the same Globalist elite controlled coin. There is NO difference between them whatsoever, and this has never been more apparent than it is right this very moment.
Let me make it clear that I do not endorse any particular candidate. But I can’t help but make some observations here.
The White House administration and mainstream media, as well as the Republican and Democratic candidates for president are so beside themselves, incredulous and disbelieving of The Donald’s rising poll numbers, that some of them are likely to develop stress related physical manifestations such as eye-twitching, occasional barking or foaming-at-the-mouth.
The establishment players don’t know what to make of this guy. They can’t control him! There’s obviously nothing in his background with which they can blackmail him into silence, or we’d have heard about it by now.
He isn’t beholden to any Super PAC or mysterious foreign campaign donations, as is usually the custom. He doesn’t need their money, which has probably caused some in the political establishment to develop a serious case of chafing due to chronic knicker twisting.
He speaks his mind, and to heck with the consequences. And every time he opens his mouth, he seems to say the very thing the average American on Main Street is feeling and thinking, resulting in a soul crushing rise in his poll numbers. I’m actually beginning to feel slightly sorry for his opponents. It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck. It’s fascinating!
Trump sort of presents the same conundrum as your average jihadist; the same way they’re unafraid to die in the quest to spread their religion, Donald Trump has no fear of the political consequences of what he blurts out. He really doesn’t care what the establishment in Washington thinks! It’s like he goes verbal commando every day.
In the early days of Trump’s candidacy, the political players and media thought the whole concept of his running was a farce. No one took him seriously until his poll numbers started defying their expectations. As the talking heads continued to mock him, the dogs were unleashed and directed to find dirt on him. They came up empty. Even his ex-wives stand solidly behind him, stating he would make an excellent president.
His children are all exceptionally well educated, productive young men and women who have a loving, devoted, close relationship with their father. Those in the business world have great respect for him, as his creativity and negotiating skills are legendary. Apparently, he must play fair because NO ONE in the business world has stepped forward to accuse him of ripping them off or betraying a deal. It’s remarkable, really.
Despite the increasingly desperate attempt by his political enemies to spin one of his statements in order to turn the public against him, he takes a lickin’ and keeps on tickin’. The latest unforgiveable sin was his statement that the United States should temporarily suspend all muslim immigration until the government figures out how to properly vet those who worship allah, and want to enter this country.
By the volume of feigned outrage from the beltway pundits and his fellow presidential candidates, you’d think he suggested Homeland Security set all muslim immigrants on fire! What exactly did he say to engender a response of such hysteria?
On 12/7/15, he released a statement that called for a “total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the United States.” He cited polling data that he says shows “there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the muslim population. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense or reason or respect for human life.”
Allow me to pause for a moment to give you a quote from one of our Founding Fathers. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” -John Adams.
The FACT is folks, islam IS at war with the West. The ideology of islam is diametrically opposed to our way of life and the Judeo/Christian values upon which this nation was founded.
It might not be politically correct to point that out and call for a halt in allowing even more muslims into the country, but we’re down to a matter of life and death now. Quite frankly, screw political correctness!
Let’s look at some of the GOP reactions to Trump’s suggestion. My comments follow in italics.
“Donald Trump always plays on everyone’s worst instincts and fears and saying we’re not going to let a single muslim into this country is a dangerous overreaction.” Carly Fiorina—Hey Carly, our open borders have allowed thousands of muslims to enter, many of which undoubtedly plan to do us harm. It ain’t islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill us!
“This is the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don’t know what they’re talking about. That’s a ridiculous position.” Chris Christie—Yes Chris, I’m sure you have a plethora of experience dealing with homicidal muslims there at the Jersey shore.
“Every candidate for president needs to do the right thing and condemn Trump’s comments.” -Lindsey Graham—If they do so, their poll numbers are gonna tank!
“Everyone visiting our country should register and be monitored during their stay as is done in many countries. We do not and would not advocate being selective on one’s religion.” Ben Carson—Why the heck not? Besides, it isn’t a ‘religion.’ It’s a political ideology with a religious component.
Ted Cruz simply stated “that is not my policy.”—A rather classy way of disagreeing.
On the Democratic side White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, stated “It’s entirely inconsistent with the kinds of values that were central to the founding of this country.”—Shut up, Josh. You’re a putz. Nobody asked your opinion.
“This is reprehensible, prejudiced and divisive. @ReadDonaldTrump, you don’t get it. This makes us less safe.” The Hildabeast—YOU, Madam, are partially responsible for this islamic mess with your lame Secretary of State policies! Why aren’t you in prison yet??
“Demagogues throughout our history have attempted to divide us based on race, gender, sexual orientation or country of origin. Now Donald Trump and others want us to hate all muslims.” Bernie Sanders—Uh no Bernie, you’re confused. We’re not talking about Obama here.
All of these people, with the exception of Cruz, are giving the American people a load of worthless sentimentality which will do little except set us up for more attacks. Many are saying what Trump is proposing is “unconstitutional.” Oh really? Are we now exempt from following the rule of law? Oh yeah…OObamadinajad is still president.
However, one of the most frightening aspects of this whole, manufactured debate is that these people who want to hold the most powerful office on earth; those reputed to be the smartest, best and brightest, don’t even know what our own law and history holds.
Introducing The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, otherwise known as 8 U.S. Code 1182, Inadmissible Aliens, passed by a Democrat controlled House and Senate, and signed into law by a Democrat president. This law states:
“Suspension of entry of imposition or restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Well now. Isn’t THAT special! Read it again if you need to. This is the law of the land, people. Given to us by the Democratic Party back in 1952. All immigration into the United States was shut down from 1924-1965. So why did the government pass such a law?
Because of illegal immigrants sneaking into this country! It was written to allow the president to not only bar but remove undesirables from American soil.
Interestingly, Jimmy Carter, the 2nd most deplorable excuse for a president this country has ever known, invoked and used this law back in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States.
Remember the Iranian hostage nightmare? In November 1979, the U. S. Attorney General gave all Iranian students one month to report to their local immigration office. Seven thousand were found to be in violation of their visas and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States.
Yes, Jimmy Carter proudly stood before the TV cameras and publically announced his plan to ban Iranian immigration into America.
Fast forward 36 years, when the Marxist tool of political correctness has brought this country to her knees in supplication to a wide assortment of the most asinine policies imaginable, and Donald Trump dares suggest the very plan the elder wuss-extraordinaire, Jimmy Carter applied, the hounds of hell are loosed on him.
I’m not sure what bothers me more…The blatant hypocrisy of the political playerss and media, or the fact that those running for the most powerful position on the planet are so ignorant of the laws of the nation they want to rule! God help us.
Once again, I have to hand it to you straight up. If you’re trusting this next presidential election will restore America to what she was before the Bush, Clinton and Obama cartels darkened the doors of the White House then you’re in for a VERY big disappointment! I highly doubt there will even be another election.
The ONLY hope we have at this point is Jesus Christ. If you haven’t asked Him to forgive your sins and surrendered your heart to Him, I strongly suggest you not waste another second. What are you waiting for anyway? The evil and violence on this earth will only grow stronger each day. You can’t change it and you can’t fight it, politically, militarily, or otherwise.
Today is the day of salvation, so don’t put it off any longer. Like those unfortunate souls in San Bernardino found out, you never know when your number will be up.
© 2015 Donna Wasson – All Rights Reserved
Donna, a sinner saved by grace, awaiting her Bridegroom. A married mom, Hospice RN and owner of 2 dogs, 1 obese cat and a bearded dragon. Beware! She is unabashedly politically INcorrect and unafraid to speak the truth!
14TH SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL WORLD PARLIAMENT
By Debra Rae
December 19, 2015
Global Governance: Step-by-Step, Inch-by-Inch
Step-by-step, inch-by-inch, “national identities and individual religions appear to be morphing into nondescript and indistinguishable arrangements to some unidentified whole.” In the race to global governance, the “inner voice of humanity” purportedly begs for “a pure moment of one” whereby the clear boundary between physics and metaphysics is obliterated; and scientific study of the universe defers to its worship.
Making sense of this twaddle, we’re told, “will call for a World Parliament to continually build the body of world law, modeling the way human problems are properly addressed. It also demands immediate action to establish democratic world government in accordance with the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.” But: Who’s doing this building and modeling? And: “What worldviews inform that work?” Claiming to be wise, the so-called “collective voice” of humanity is advised by cosmic humanists, illuminists, and theosophists who exchange the glory of the immortal God for mere images that resemble creation. In a word, the global mind, thusly debased, devises evil.
When cornered by ear tickling, peace-and-harmony tripe, we wisely take pause. Consider, for example, the Human Rights Council. This inter-governmental body within the United Nations was charged with strengthening and protecting human rights worldwide. However, among the foxes elected to oversee the henhouse of human rights were some of the world’s worst offenders—e.g., Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, and Iran.
Under Chinese occupation, the Tibetan people are denied most rights guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—namely, rights to self-determination, freedom of speech, assembly, movement, expression, and travel—yet China moderated complaints about foreign occupation. Incredulously, Saudi Arabia was tasked with handling complaints about women’s rights! Yes, violations of human rights warrant timely action, but not by victimizers masquerading as altruists. Unfortunately, come the end of December, we can expect more of the same—this time, in India.
14th Session of the Provisional World Parliament
This month (December 27-29, 2015), Kolkata will host the 14th Session of the Provisional World Parliament. Endorsing aims and objectives of the Provisional World Parliament, sponsors represent a plethora of faith traditions. Many serve (or have served) in key positions at the United Nations, targeted for replacement by the Earth Federation. Over the course of twenty-five years, 145 Honorary Sponsors have come alongside acts, resolutions, and memorials that the Parliament adopts.
Far from a ragtag gaggle of beatnik-hippies, its list of sponsors reads like a “Who’s Who” of distinguished scientists, politicians, justices, journalists, academics, executives, and ministers. Within their ranks are members of the Nobel Peace Committee (not to mention prize recipients), prime ministers, and clergy. To these elitists, “democratic world law” is the targeted expression of “love” envisioned for the planet’s integrated future. Accordingly, an independent governmental body known as the Provisional World Parliament creates authentic world law to prosecute “world criminals who today act as heads of warring nation-states.” (Like member-states of the defunct United Nations?)
Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) is broadly known as headquarters of the Missionaries of Charity, founded by the late Mother Teresa. But don’t let this feel-good location fool you. Not Missionaries of Charity, but the World Constitution and Parliament Association, the Institute on World Problems, and the International Society for Intercultural Study and Research will host the 14th Session of the Provisional World Parliament. Poised at the highest levels, these three legislate, research, and educate at par with the UNESCO Peace Education Model—but to what end?
• World Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA)
Founded in 1958, the World Constitution and Parliament Association serves as organizing agent for the Provisional World Parliament. Members from 120 countries work to ratify the Constitution for the Federation of Earth, first adopted at the World Constituent Assembly (1977) as a sort of “mother board” for regionalized global governance.
Having surfaced in the 1940s as a leader in the one-world movement, WCPA’s co-founder Philip Isely eventually became its secretary-general. Isely served as integrative engineer for assembling a total of five planned sessions of its Provisional World Parliament. Borrowing directly from the Club of Rome handbook, the constitution is said to read like an occult manual. It’s no wonder. WCPA’s spiritual liaison and leaders include cosmic humanists, yogis and swamis from the Far East.
• Institute on World Problems (IOWP)
The Institute on World Problems is a non-profit, educational think-tank to identify and solve global problems—i.e., environment, population, military, terrorism, and social justice. Piloted by international lawyer and teacher, Dr. Terence Amerasinghe, IOWP touts the “final solution” of democratic world government under the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.
In this effort, the IOWP offers regional seminars worldwide, especially in developing countries. Education features instruction on constitutional world law, parliamentary procedures, global citizenship, public-private partnerships, scientific developments and breakthroughs. To enhance communication among cultures, the Institute encourages multi-linguistic, second-language competency; also, literacy in the international auxiliary language of Esperanto.
The Graduate School of World Problems linked to the first Provisional World Parliament, which met in Brighton, England (1982). For years the Graduate School operated from its Sri Lanka office, but after the IOWP re-incorporated as a 501(c) 3 (2003), it worked out of the state of Virginia. Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Radford University in Virginia, Dr. Glen T. Martin was a delegate at the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Provisional World Parliaments. A prolific writer on behalf of the one-world renaissance, Martin advocates for world revolution, human liberation, and the Constitution for the Federation of Earth—accomplished by summoning humanity, peddling unity in diversity, reasoning to build trust, empathizing, and dialoguing for cooperation.
• International Society for Intercultural Study and Research
A non-profit, non-violent global forum for “universal good” (1983), the International Society for Intercultural Study and Research fingers cultural alienation as root of the global crisis. Patrons, advisors, executives, officers, coordinators, secretariat, and its executive director (Dr. Santi Nath Chattopadhyay) hold impressive credentials from diverse disciplines, and “elevated personalities from different corners of India” lecture on the society’s behalf.
Mankind, it’s believed, must rise from an inherited past to a prospective future of collaborative co-existence distinguished by a new, cultural consciousness that speaks to the “spiritual Universal Man”–that being, the “Superman.” (No joke!) To this end, ISISAR analyzes diverse socio-cultural expressions, cultivates shared values, and applies social services for repressed people in undeveloped communities. Theirs is a global vision of universality in the context of a new, intercultural world order ostensibly characterized by expanded freedom. Symposia, seminars, workshops, and conferences feature themes of integration, values, harmony, peace, and freedom—socio-politically, economically, and spiritually.
John Locke agreed with our founders that fundamental human rights are God-given. Thomas Jefferson characterized the Locke Model as “the People’s Law,” rightly balancing between tyranny, on one hand, and anarchy on the other. In contrast, a body of world law coupled with “demand for immediate action” promises no such balance. The guiding principle of socialist, government-managed development, called sustainable development, calls for revamping the very infrastructure of nations away from sovereignty, rugged individualism, private ownership and control of property to nothing short of collectivist national zoning systems under elitist rule.
In truth, man’s so-called “inner voice” speaks to his own greatness. What resists that greatness must be conquered. In the real world, “power concedes nothing without a demand,” and “we are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” Unfortunately, what naturally follows is (1) breakdown of traditional values (as defined by biblical ethic); (2) population control (managed death options as abortion; childless homosexuality; eugenics); (3) non-voluntary wealth redistribution; and (4) forced quotas. In short, complete paradigm shift away from the Western archetype informed by biblical ethic.
The Bible is clear. By nature, all are “children of wrath.” Whom the world esteems falls grievously short of the divine model. Friendship with the world is enmity with God. When left to human devices, apart from divine enablement, man naturally succumbs to sexual and spiritual uncleanness, hatred, strife, seditions, envy, and the like. Scripturally, he is said to drink iniquity like water. Try as he might, “There is no one who does good”; and that includes the “spiritual Universal Man”!
Despite claims to the contrary, new order multilateral futurists bully, emasculate and, then, exact resources from those rightly described as the world’s “producers.” The late Henry Lamb warned, “An interdependent, one-world state under global leadership will result in the US taking on the lowest common denominator that forced equity demands.” Lamb’s point is well taken, but even more sobering is biblical prophecy: “For when they shall say, ‘peace and safety,’ then sudden destruction comes upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”
Word to the wise: Don’t drink the Kool Aid.
© 2015 Debra Rae – All Rights Reserved
1. Carl Teichrib. Forcing Change, Volume 8, Issue 12., December 2014. 20. Accessed 13 December 2015.
2. Tom DeWeese, American Policy Center, americanpolicy.org/. Accessed 13 December 2015.
3. According to NASA, the definition of cosmology is “the scientific study of the large scale properties of the universe as a whole.”
4. Cosmolatry is worship of the world (cosmos).
5. Call issued in conformance with Article 19 of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth, which recognizes the legal duty of the people of Earth to begin Provisional World Government until such time as the Earth Constitution has been fully ratified under the provisions set forth in Article 17.[Link] Accessed 13 December 2015.
6. Romans 1:22-23; 28ff—“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
7. worldparliament-gov.org. Accessed 13 December 2015.
8. Their titles are equally impressive: “Prime Minister,” “Chief Minister,” “Chancellor,” “Mr. President,” “Mr. Vice President,” “Secretary-general,” “Senator,” “Minister,” “Mr. Ambassador,” “Your Honor,” “Executive-Director,” “Founder-Director,” “Chairman,” “Mayor,” “Sir,” “Dean,” “Professor,” “Doctor,” to name but a few.
9. Called World Legislative Acts.
10. jhttp://www.radford.edu/~gmartin/PWP13.Legisl.pending..htm. Accessed 13 December 2015.
11. http://www.earthfederation.info Accessed 13 December 2015.
12. The WCPA is organizer of sessions of the Provisional World Parliament under the authority of Article 19 of the Earth Constitution and organizer of the Earth Federation Movement (EFM), a global network of organizations and persons who work for ratification of the Earth Constitution.
13. The WCPA was founded in 1958 by visionaries, including Philip & Margaret Isely, who advocated a single, democratic constitution for the Earth. During those initial years, the organization worked tirelessly to organize world citizens from around the globe to write the Constitution for the Federation of Earth. This process moved through four international Constituent Assemblies that took place in 1968, 1977, 1979, and 1991. worldparliament-gov.org/wcpa Accessed 13 December 2015.
14. Founded in 1968 by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei, the Club of Rome is an occult-driven spin-off of the Council on Foreign Relations. It has a small membership of about 100 who meet yearly. Most of the planning directives for world government come from the Club of Rome whose 1972 report, the Limits of Growth, serves as blueprint for today’s bold new economic, military, and political union in Europe.
15. Now called the World Constitutional Convention, the World Constituent Assembly revealed plans for global control of all trade, banking, and finance (1977). Authorized by the WCPA, an Earth Financial Credit Corporation oversees development of global trade and commerce on a regional basis.
16. Constitution for the Federation of Earth. Accessed 13 December 2015.
17. A number have convened on the Indian subcontinent and in West Africa.
18. http://www.radford.edu/~gmartin/. Accessed 13 December 2015.
19. http://isisar.weebly.com. Accessed 13 December 2015.
20. Society leaflets feature progressivism, religion, philosophy, and democratic trans-federalism. In addition to poems and journals, ISISAR publishes works that speak to the “spiritual Universal Man” –that being, the “Superman.”
21. Basic to American creed are inherent rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke outlined the law of nature and nature’s God—i.e., rights of “life, liberty, and estate.”
22. debra220.htm. Accessed 13 December 2015.
23. Russian entrepreneur Dmitry Itskov founded the 2045 Initiative (February 2011) along with leading Russian specialists in fields of neural interfaces, robotics, artificial organs and systems in order to develop humanity under optimal conditions for spiritual enlightenment based on 5 principles: high spirituality, high culture, high ethics, high science and high technologies. To create a more productive, fulfilling, and satisfying future, the main science mega-project of the 2045 Initiative aims to create technologies enabling the transfer of an individual’s personality to a more advanced non-biological carrier, and extending life, including to the point of immortality.
24. Frederick Douglass. Accessed 2 March 2013.
25, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in the CFR journal, Foreign Affairs, August 1975.
26, Ephesians 2:3—“Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”
27, Jonathan Edwards, The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Volume I, pp. 143–233; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, chapter 24, “Sin.”
28, James 4:4—“Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.”
29, Galatians 5:19-21—“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envying, murders, drunkenness, reveling, and such like.”
30, Job 15:15-16—“Behold, he puts no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinks iniquity like water?”
31, Psalm 14:2-3—“The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”
32, Publisher Eco-Logic, truth-teller, and freedom fighter, Henry Lamb died May 23, 2012.
33, 1 Thessalonians 5:3—”For when they shall say, ‘Peace and safety’; then sudden destruction comes upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”
View online at: http://patriotpost.us/digests/36410
The Patriot Post: Voice of Essential Liberty
“In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature.” —James Madison, Federalist No. 51, 1788
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Planned Parenthood Sells Baby Parts After Partial-Birth Abortions
Alternate Leftmedia headline: “Planned Parenthood targeted by undercover video.” That’s courtesy of CBS, which has a serious problem confusing the victims here. Just when you thought depravity couldn’t get any worse, along comes another surreptitious video of someone at Planned Parenthood discussing appallingly evil things. It will be the first of several videos taken and released by The Center for Medical Progress. In this one, Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical research, discusses with “buyers” the practice of essentially performing a partial-birth abortion followed by selling harvested organs. While sipping wine and eating salad, Nucatola boasts, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver … so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.” What kind of depraved and despicable person talks like this about a baby? Note also the sick irony that, to Planned Parenthood, unborn babies aren’t human unless their organs are useful.
The video is all too clear, but that didn’t stop Planned Parenthood from complaining about being victimized by a “heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research.” They’re just trying to help, right? But considering Planned Parenthood gets half a billion dollars in taxpayer money every year, this deserves some serious investigation followed by defunding the abortion mill. Louisiana governor and presidential candidate Bobby Jindal has already ordered an investigation in his state. We’re with Michelle Malkin, who wonders, “When you’ve recovered from your nausea, ask yourselves this: What kind of country do we live in where law-abiding businesses are fined, threatened and demonized for refusing to bake gay wedding cakes, but barbaric baby butchers are hailed by feminists, Hollywood and a president who asked God to ‘bless’ them?”
God have mercy on this nation.
Big Brother Trumps Little Sisters
Little Sisters of the Poor, a missions-based Catholic organization strongly opposed to ObamaCare’s contraception requirement, suffered a legal setback on Tuesday after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit refused to grant it an exemption. The court ruled, “Although we recognize and respect the sincerity of Plaintiff’s beliefs and arguments, we conclude the accommodation scheme relieves Plaintiffs of their obligations under the Mandate and does not substantially burden their religious exercise under RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] or infringe upon their First Amendment rights.” What’s baffling is how badly the opinion clashes with the Supreme Court’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling last year. In that case, the Court found that “HHS and the principal dissent [are] in effect tell[ing] the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed. For good reason, we have repeatedly refused to take such a step.”
Here’s the problem, as explained by University of Tennessee professor Glenn Reynolds: “The court seems to have no recognition of the fact that the Obama Administration’s regulatory ‘accommodation’ is a sleight of hand, allowing the insurer/third party administrator to move the contraceptive coverage ‘off the books’ and ‘pay’ for it themselves. But of course burdening the insurer/administrator in this fashion is merely a shell game, and the cost of contraceptive coverage is ultimately borne by the employer and individual beneficiaries. The coverage is not magically free, no matter how hard the Obama Administration tries to make it ‘look’ free via regulation.” This case may end up in the Supreme Court — something it could have prevented had its ruling in Hobby Lobby not been so limited.
Comment | Share
More Carry Permits, Fewer Murders
It’s long been a truism that more guns means less crime. That may seem like a paradox, but when criminals have to wonder if potential victims are armed, it decreases the likelihood they’ll commit a crime. Now, according to a new report set to be released by the Crime Prevention Research Center, we learn that murder rates have fallen at the same time concealed carry permits have skyrocketed. We don’t think that’s a coincidence. Since 2007, the number of people with concealed carry permits has nearly tripled — from 4.6 million to 12.8 million. And 2014 enjoyed a 15.4% increase over 2013 in permit applications, while seven states don’t even require a permit. According to The Washington Times, we can thank Barack Obama, in a manner of speaking: “Between 1999 to 2007, the number of permits increased by about 240,000 per year. But in the next four years, during Mr. Obama’s first term in the White House, the number of new permits issued jumped to 850,000 per year. From 2011 to 2013, the number increased by 1.5 million, rising to 1.7 million last year.” Meanwhile, both the murder rate and violent crime rate dropped 25%. That doesn’t in any way belittle the tragic loss of life caused by bad guys with guns, but the solution isn’t to take guns away from the law-abiding.
Comment | Share
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
By Nate Jackson
In December 2010, Barack Obama signed the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the Pentagon policy (signed by Bill Clinton) prohibiting open homosexuals from serving in the military. Stay tuned, because the next victory for the Rainbow Mafia will be the end of the ban on transsexuals among the ranks of America’s Armed Forces.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter released a statement on the policy Monday, saying, “The Defense Department’s current regulations regarding transgender service members are outdated and are causing uncertainty that distracts commanders from our core missions. At a time when our troops have learned from experience that the most important qualification for service members should be whether they’re able and willing to do their job, our officers and enlisted personnel are faced with certain rules that tell them the opposite. Moreover, we have transgender soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines — real, patriotic Americans — who I know are being hurt by an outdated, confusing, inconsistent approach that’s contrary to our value of service and individual merit.”
Not to paint with too broad a brush, but is that how Carter explains the traitorous actions of Pfc. Bradley Manning? He was convicted of espionage and is serving a 35-year sentence — as a “woman.”
According to UCLA’s Williams Institute, the military is full of transsexuals. Color us skeptical. Carter has ordered a review of the ban with the almost sure aim of eliminating it after six months, because, as he said, “[W]e must ensure that everyone who’s able and willing to serve has the full and equal opportunity to do so, and we must treat all our people with the dignity and respect they deserve.”
We certainly agree that all humans have inherent, God-given dignity and should be treated with respect, but that doesn’t mean celebration of such mental illness and sin. And make no mistake: This debate isn’t about dignity, and it’s most certainly not about what makes our military a more effective fighting force. It’s about making the normalization of homosexuality a matter of law in regard to Defense Department personnel, practices and policy.
Leftists are pushing hard to normalize dysfunction, not just in the military but all over.
Consider the case of Bruce Jenner, the former decathlon champion who decided he was really a woman trapped in a man’s body. Worse is the growing number of children whose parents enable rather than treat gender dysphoria — they help their children live the lie.
One of the primary jobs of parents is to mold their children into responsible members of society and to help them through personal struggles, not to encourage them to turn every fantasy into reality. Yet here we are, about to witness a “reality” show on TLC about Jazz Jennings, a 14-year-old Florida boy who has been “living as a female” since he wore a rainbow swimming suit at his five-year-old birthday party. Jennings was named one of Time magazine’s 25 most influential teenagers last year.
“Jazz may be known as an author and activist,” cooed TLC general manager Nancy Daniels, “but she’s first and foremost a teenage girl with a big, brave heart, living a remarkable life.” Does “she” have biological girl parts? No, but he plans to disfigure his body at age 18 and has been taking hormone blockers since age 11 to prevent nature from taking its course. Is TLC — not to mention his parents — aiding and abetting a serious mental disorder? Yes.
But he’s not alone in being a child victim. In June, NBC ran an exclusive interview with Liam, a 10-year-old boy who lives as a girl. His parents have already legally changed his name to Lia, and he will soon begin taking hormone blockers as Jazz does.
Also in June, The New York Times profiled Caden Boone, who underwent reassignment surgery in April and now goes by Kat, or Katherine, all because he was troubled and found “answers” on the Internet. The Times informs us that his “new vagina needs constant care or it will close off like a wound.” A wound indeed. How tragic.
In fact, tragic might undersell the trouble transgendered people face. In the same article, the Times also reports, “A large-scale Swedish study at the Karolinska Institute found that starting about a decade after gender reassignment surgery, transgender people were still more than 19 times as likely to die by suicide as the general population.”
If such statistics applied to guns, the Left would be pushing even harder for an outright ban. Instead, Oregon is allowing children as young as 15 to receive taxpayer-subsidized sex-change operations — without parental notification.
As we asked recently, how many children will end up making the worst decision of their entire lives because they have been marinated in a toxic environment at an age when they are utterly incapable of defending themselves against their progressive indoctrinators?
“At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered,” writes Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital. “‘Sex change’ is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is a civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”
McHugh also says Bruce Jenner is one thing, but in these other cases “we’re talking about children with a future ahead of them.” One might call it child abuse.
This is the generation being raised to perhaps one day serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, which the Left has decided must be a reflection of our dysfunctional culture, not a capable protector of our Liberty. Indeed, no institution is safe from the Left’s social engineering.
OPINION IN BRIEF
Walter Williams: “The victors of war write its history in order to cast themselves in the most favorable light. That explains the considerable historical ignorance about our war of 1861 and panic over the Confederate flag. To create better understanding, we have to start a bit before the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. … During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it… The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede. On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, ‘No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.’ Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional? On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. … The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, the federal government can run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution’s limitations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. States have little or no response.”
Comment | Share
Insight: “Weak eyes are fondest of glittering objects.” —Scottish author Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)
Alpha Jackass: “The fact is that [Benjamin Netanyahu has] practically been making comments that are way over the top. … [The nuclear deal] is under attack by people who really don’t know the terms of the agreement, and they don’t offer an alternative. Their alternative is what, perpetual state of sanctions? Not going to happen.” —John Kerry
Village Idiots: “I don’t understand [economics] very well.” —Pope Francis (Which is exactly why he shouldn’t be dictating environmental policy.)
Hot air: “As secretary of state, I logged tens of thousands of miles and twisted a lot of arms to build a global coalition to impose the most crippling sanctions in history [on Iran]. That unprecedented pressure delivered a blow to Iran’s economy and gave us leverage at the negotiating table, starting in Oman in 2012. I know from experience what it took to build a global effort to get this done; I know what it will take to rally our partners to enforce it.” —Hillary Clinton
And last… “Obama won’t be satisfied until our inspectors are told by Iran that there’s not a smidgen of enriched uranium around. The nuke deal is based on trusting untrustworthy leaders. And that goes for the Iranians too.” —Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest
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.
Center for Security Policy
Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad
Press Releases | June 23, 2015 | The Muslim Brotherhood in America, Understanding the Shariah Threat Doctrine
According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.
The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities.
Overall, the survey, which was conducted by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), suggests that a substantial number of Muslims living in the United States see the country very differently than does the population overall. The sentiments of the latter were sampled in late May in another CSP-commissioned Polling Company nationwide survey.
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.
These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey. It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”
Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.
Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
The findings of the Center for Security Policy’s survey of Muslims in America suggests that we have a serious problem. The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year. If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today. That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”
It is incumbent on the many American Muslims who want neither to live under the brutal repression of shariah nor to impose it on anybody else to work with the rest of us who revere and uphold the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in protecting our nation against the Islamic supremacists and their jihad.