|
Title: The Patriot Post Digest 5-12-2016 Post by: nChrist on May 12, 2016, 05:50:32 PM ________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 5-12-2016 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription (http://patriotpost.us/subscription/new) ________________________________________ Mid-Day Digest May 12, 2016 THE FOUNDATION “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 (1770) TOP RIGHT HOOKS Loretta Lynch Redefines Reality1 During her explanation for why Barack Obama’s Social Justice™ Department filed a counter suit2 against North Carolina over the state’s bathroom law, Attorney General Loretta Lynch pontificated that the government is in no position to “impose” a definition of gender upon America. In other words, the Department of “Justice” is bringing the full weight of bureaucratic fiat against a state it accuses of discriminating. But that alleged discrimination was against a class of people who have no legal definition, so the DOJ must rely on self-reporting bathroom-switchers to be honest. “This is a time to summon our national virtues of inclusivity, diversity, compassion and open-mindedness,” Lynch lectured. “What we must not do — what we must never do — is turn on our neighbors, our family members, our fellow Americans, for something they cannot control, and deny what makes them human. This is why none of us can stand by when a state enters the business of legislating identity and insists that a person pretend to be something they are not, or invents a problem that doesn’t exist as a pretext for discrimination and harassment.” [emphasis added] If there is no measure of who is transgender and who is not outside of self-described feeling, Rule of Law is flung out the window. Would the Justice Department accept a definition of exactly what it means to be transgender? Or is it discrimination to even ask for an answer? Until answered, the privacy most people assume when they enter a bathroom is nonexistent, all because the Obama administration is imposing an altered reality on 99.7% of us — inventing a problem that didn’t previously exist, if you will. Clinton’s Latest Nanny State Plans3 As we noted yesterday4, one reason Bernie Sanders has lost momentum (despite winning states) is because Hillary Clinton has gone on the counterattack by insisting his math doesn’t add up. Clinton markets herself as the more moderate and realistic alternative who can build on Barack Obama’s legacy. In a way, she’s right. Her policies are less radical than Sanders', but rest assured — much of what she wants to accomplish in the White House is based on the same deep-rooted fallacies. And that’s a reality many of her supporters refuse to accept. Clinton’s recent pivot is to Nanny State initiatives. Her most recent idea revolves around child care. According to a Wall Street Journal editorial5, “Her solution is for the feds to cap the share of a family’s income that goes toward care at 10%, with the rest of the tab covered by various tax benefits, direct cash payments and scholarships.” Yet there are myriad programs already in place. The Journal says, “The auditors at the Government Accountability Office report that there are currently 45 federal programs dedicated to supporting care ‘from birth through age five,’ spread across multiple agencies. The Agriculture Department runs a nursery division, for some reason.” Moreover, “Mrs. Clinton’s new dispensations for the kids are especially notable because she has already pledged to double spending on early education, create universal pre-school and mandate 12 weeks of paid family leave. She won the ‘pro-family’ bidding war with Bernie Sanders but won’t let it end. In any case, her campaign has now published no fewer than 31 white papers so far, even one last week dedicated to ‘protecting animals and wildlife.’ Instead of pivoting to the middle for the general election, Mrs. Clinton’s progressive ambitions are rising with her odds of returning to the White House.” Last July, a befuddled Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the DNC, couldn’t explain the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist6. That’s because, as Clinton’s agenda makes clear, at the core there really is no difference. The end result is the same. It’s merely a matter of how quickly we implode. What Is Trump Trying to Hide in His Tax Returns?7 Donald Trump declared8 this week that he would not release his tax returns for several months — perhaps after the November election, maybe never at all. The presumptive Republican nominee said (as he has before) that he wouldn’t release his returns until after the IRS is done auditing him, adding that he thinks the public isn’t interested in the documents. “There’s nothing to learn from them,” Trump argued. On the contrary, Mark Alexander wrote9 in February. For one, Trump built his platform on the fact that he’s “really rich,” a claim that is possibly not as true as he’d like us to believe10. Releasing his tax returns will clear up the question once and for all whether the TV personality is worth billions or only a few hundred million. “But while the speculation about his wealth may seem trivial to some,” Alexander writes, “what cannot be seen as trivial are the questions of who and what Donald Trump has supported with all that wealth over the last decade.” In other words, seeing where Trump has spent his wealth — how often he donated to Democrat causes and how little he’s given to veterans groups — will show where his true loyalty lies. Trump’s refusal to release his returns is “a ticking time bomb for the GOP,” warns11 National Review’s John Fund. In the last election cycle, the IRS illegally leaked some of Mitt Romney’s tax information. What happens if the GOP officially makes Trump its nominee in July and then it turns out his financial dealings cast even more serious doubt on his viability as an effective leader? At this point, Hillary Clinton, who used a secret email server to skirt the Freedom of Information Act, seems more transparent. After all, she vowed to release12 the government’s files on UFOs and extraterrestrial life — and that’s a strategic move on her part. Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column Read Trump, Now What?13, on how we should put ALL our energy behind defeating Clinton. One doesn’t have to be “for Trump” in order to seek every vote we can muster “against Clinton.” If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here14. BEST OF RIGHT OPINION Victor Davis Hanson: Elites Can Afford to Support Looser Immigration Policies15 George Will: Amtrak Helps Government Ride Off the Rails16 Paul Kengor: When the Left Liked Conscientious Objection17 For more, visit Right Opinion18. FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS Facebook Is Only a Symptom of Leftist Intolerance19 By Allyne Caan Despite creating all those new “reaction” buttons, Facebook hasn’t found the perfect emoji to describe the latest news surrounding the social media giant’s political suppression tactics. As we wrote20 earlier this week, former Facebook employees have claimed the company rigs its “trending” section to downplay news from conservative sources. In short, while Facebook users think they’re seeing trending news, they’re really seeing the news Facebook wants them to see. Leftists would always rather suppress conservative thought than debate it. Making this web of intrigue even stickier is the recent revelation that the person responsible for managing Facebook’s Trending Topics section, Tom Stocky, has given21 the maximum $2,700 to Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign. His wife also maxed out at $2,700. Of course, both are free to support their candidate of choice. But it certainly does add credence to questions over whether Facebook’s trending topics are really trending or simply “Stocky-approved.” Title: The Patriot Post Digest 5-12-2016 Post by: nChrist on May 12, 2016, 05:51:33 PM ________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 5-12-2016 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription (http://patriotpost.us/subscription/new) ________________________________________ That’s not to say Facebook doesn’t have the freedom to govern its technology or ideology. As a private (publicly traded) company, it most certainly does — which makes the recently launched Senate investigation not only an outrage but a serious embarrassment to the GOP-led chamber. This week, the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee sent a letter to Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg asking22 the company to explain its process for picking trending stories and to hand over its internal guidelines to the government. As David Harsanyi notes23, “Does Facebook even have to link to any conservative news stories? And do we really want the Senate defining what constitutes ‘conservative’ news, anyway?” We echo Harsanyi in saying when it comes to the Senate’s demands, the proper answer is “none of your business.” (Just like any number of issues Congress has investigated — steroids in baseball, concussions in football, etc.) And for those who may not like Facebook’s ideology, they can simply hit “deactivate.” Besides, the real issue isn’t Facebook as a private company delivering selective news. What’s really trending — and has been for some time — is the Left’s effort to silence and even criminalize any thoughts not in lock-step with its own — and leftists' determination to use the government as a weapon to do it. Don’t believe us? Just think about U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s admission24 that her office has considered taking civil action against those who dare question man-made climate change. “The matter has been discussed,” she said. “We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on.” That’s right, if you put any credence in the science that questions climate change, you may end up on an FBI hit-list. Welcome to the Left’s America. Then there’s the battle of lawsuits over transgender bathrooms. The Left demands not only that you don’t question adults with gender disorientation pathology25 sharing bathroom space with children but that you actively endorse it. Perhaps someone should go into a “Employees Only” area of Target, claim they self-identify as a Target employee, and then refuse to leave. Or better yet, as the Department of Justice targets North Carolina for the radical idea that children should not be put at risk to cater to those suffering from gender dysphoria, why don’t we self-identify as Congress and defund the DOJ? Of course, that would never fly. That’s because none of this is about reality — it’s all about ideological control that demands conformity, or else. We’ve seen it in bakers being excoriated for suggesting marriage is between one man and one woman, a black police chief being fired26 for his same belief, and a grandmother at risk of losing her livelihood27 because she refuses to let the government dictate her beliefs. And we’ve seen it in a Harvard professors call28 to treat conservatives as the vanquished Axis Powers of World War II. Perhaps he’s unaware of the irony that this thought suppression is nothing new. It’s been true of leftist movements from Bolshevik/Soviet Russia to Nazi Germany to modern Cuba. But it’s become increasingly true in America as well. Facebook is but a symptom of this greater disease. Make no mistake. The Left wants neither freedom nor tolerance. They want absolute ideological domination. And in that world, no one is safe. MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE ANALYSIS: Sacrificing Reality for Unassailable Power28 Surviving ObamaCare Co-Ops Are Money Holes29 A Life of Crime and Welfare30 Students Reject American Exceptionalism31 TOP HEADLINES Brazil’s Senate Impeaches President Dilma Rousseff32 FBI Director Rebuffs Clinton’s ‘Security Inquiry’ Narrative33 Obama’s Speechwriters Laugh at ‘If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep It’ Lie34 For more, visit Patriot Headline Report35 OPINION IN BRIEF Victor Davis Hanson: “Elites have ways of navigating around the downsides of illegal immigration. They can avoid crowded schools and low-income neighborhoods, and they can easily pay the higher taxes that can result from illegal immigration. Support for lax immigration policies also offers psychological penance for essentially living a life of apartheid. An elite can avoid living in integrated neighborhoods or sending his children to diverse schools, but he can square that circle by voicing theoretical support for immigrant amnesty and sanctuary cities. … Who does not benefit from mass illegal immigration? Mostly the poor, minorities and the lower-middle class. They are not employers, but rather compete with undocumented immigrants for low-wage jobs. They usually clean their own houses and do their own yardwork. They cannot afford to send their children to a different school when theirs becomes overcrowded. They cannot afford the increased taxes needed for social support of millions of new arrivals. Donald Trump tried to demagogue illegal immigration along ethnic lines. But the issue is not where illegal immigrants come from or who they are, but rather their effect on the struggling working classes already here, comprising all ethnic and racial backgrounds. Prune away the rhetoric and the issue becomes simple: Elites profit from high-volume illegal immigration, while most other U.S. citizens only support immigration when it is legal, measured and diverse.” SHORT CUTS Insight: “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it.” —Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968.) Good question: “One of the few things Hillary Clinton has going for her is that she’s inevitable. But for how long? She will win the Democratic presidential nomination barring the unlikely event that we still live in a country governed by the rule of law. But will she inevitably win in November?” —James Taranto GOP unity? “I signed a pledge, put my name on it, and said I would support the Republican nominee and that’s what I intend to do. … [Donald Trump] has earned the right to make his case to the American people. He earned it at the ballot box, and I’ll respect that. … I’m even more scared about [Hillary Clinton] being in control of the U.S. government.” —Marco Rubio The BIG lie: “My understanding is that this is a security review. It’s certainly not a criminal investigation. It’s an inquiry into whether or not anyone intentionally put classified information where it shouldn’t be. And my understanding is that they will conclude and the Department of Justice will issue a statement at the end that that was not the case. And then all those who were involved in this kind of political hysteria will have to unravel it.” —Clinton minion Sidney Blumenthal (“I’m not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry.’ We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do.” —FBI Director James Comey) Boasting Jackass: “I think I would have been the best president.” —Joe Biden Non Compos Mentis: “More severe weather. More suffering. More expense. Let’s all take climate change seriously.” —Bill Nye, who doesn’t seem to know May is the peak month for tornadoes Late-night humor: “Donald Trump has been married three times. Attacking Hillary Clinton for having marital problems is like the pot calling the kettle black, or in Trump’s case, calling the kettles ‘the blacks.’ By the way, the kettles love him.” —Stephen Colbert 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. |