|
Title: The Patriot Post Digest 10-25-2016 Post by: nChrist on October 25, 2016, 03:32:51 PM ________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 10-25-2016 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription (http://patriotpost.us/subscription/new) ________________________________________ Mid-Day Digest Oct. 25, 2016 IN TODAY’S EDITION Clinton bag man McAuliffe is in deep with the FBI. More Clinton hypocrisy on campaign finance and coordination. ObamaCare premiums to go up 25%, just in time for the election. The dissent of the media into leftist super PAC status is disgraceful and a disservice to the nation. And more news, policy and opinion. THE FOUNDATION “Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.” —James Madison (1788.) TOP RIGHT HOOKS Collusion Between McAuliffe, Clinton and the FBI?1 Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe is a longtime henchman of the Clintons who has a history of, among a myriad of other things, arranging nefarious campaign finance deals. He is currently under investigation by FBI and Justice Department officials for accepting campaign funds from Chinese businessman Wang Wenliang — a possible breach of finance rules. Incidentally, a new report implicates McAuliffe in the recently concluded investigation of Hillary Clinton and her use of an unsecure server that was led by … the FBI. According to2 The Wall Street Journal, “The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use.” The report continues: “Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI. The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support to Dr. McCabe’s campaign in the form of mailers, according to the records. That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe’s control or strongly influenced by him.” The McAuliffe administration claims, “Any insinuation that his support was tied to anything other than his desire to elect candidates who would help pass his agenda is ridiculous.” But is it really? As National Review’s Jim Geraghty observes, “Andrew McCabe might be the straightest arrow in the entire quiver of the Bureau, and Mrs. McCabe might have never even discussed the Clinton prosecution with him. But if your spouse is going to be involved in politics, you should not oversee criminal investigations of political figures. It will always present the appearance of a conflict of interest.” Indeed. As we noted3 back in May, when news of the FBI and DOJ investigation into campaign finance fraud broke, “The connection McAuliffe has with the Clinton machine cannot be overstated. Before he was governor, the man worked as the director for the Clinton Foundation for free.” In other words, his murky dealings with Wenliang may only be part of the story. Did McAuliffe’s illegal actions include colluding with FBI officials like Director James Comey and Andrew McCabe in a backroom deal that led to Hillary’s escaping prosecution? Perhaps not coincidentally, that’s for the FBI and DOJ to determine. And if the answer is yes, the question becomes whether McAuliffe gets to walk too. Talk about coming full circle. On the other hand, there is a revolt4 brewing at the FBI and DOJ among career officials who were left flabbergasted at Hillary’s Great Escape. They will be even more livid to know that collusion possibly extends to every level of government. In the end, Comey, McCabe and McAuliffe may have painted themselves into a corner. At least we can hope. Hillary’s Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds5 Project Veritas Action released a third undercover video6 exposing the fact that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC colluded with the leftist non-profit organization Americans United for Change to disrupt Donald Trump’s campaign rallies with someone dressed up as Donald Duck. Beyond the purely obnoxious nature of these fomented protests, these videos directly implicate Clinton in FEC violations, revealing yet another instance not only of Hillary’s willful lawlessness but of her hypocrisy. Clinton has campaigned often and hard against the Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United, which lifted some unconstitutional restrictions on First Amendment rights in the political realm, promising that she would nominate justices who would overturn that ruling. Yet here she is flouting campaign finance law to coordinate with allies. Like every Democrat for decades, Clinton has enjoyed the Leftmedia’s support7 through what amount to in-kind campaign contributions — hardly distinguishable from the large amounts of cash and political campaigning from unions. The reason Democrats like Hillary hate the Citizens United ruling is for the simple fact that it levels the political playing field. One of the most discouraging things this current election cycle has revealed more so than any other in recent memory is the level of compromise and downright corruption in the federal government. Even with the release of these videos, it seems unlikely that there will be any serious investigation or consequences. It is this unjust double standard that frustrates so many Americans. Those in government take it upon themselves to continually create new increasingly burdensome laws, taxes and regulations that are forced upon the American citizenry but to which these same corruptocrats excuse themselves from having the obligation to follow. Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of this governing hypocrisy. Election Day ObamaCare Premiums Hikes on Sale Now8 Democrats have dreamed of single-payer health care for the better part of the last century. No matter how many times voters have rejected the idea, Democrat supermajorities in Congress forced ObamaCare down the nation’s throat in 2010. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and crew told countless lies9 in the process, backed up by bogus Leftmedia “fact checks.” Passing ObamaCare cost Democrats their congressional majorities, but they successfully set up a system designed to fail … so they could come running to the rescue some day with a single-payer “fix.” Obama just promised last week10 to “fix” the “starter home” of ObamaCare with, among other things, a “public option” — the precursor to single-payer. Cue this week’s news that the “Affordable” Care Act’s benchmark insurance plans will see a 25% hike in premiums for 2017. That hike is for “silver” plans, which understates the problem. There are also going to be insurers nationwide with huge increases. The Wall Street Journal notes but a few11: “Our condolences for … young people in Arizona, where their premiums will climb by 116%. Likewise for Oklahoma (69%), Tennessee (63%) and Minnesota (59%).” But not to worry; there will be lavish taxpayer subsidies for millions of consumers. Meanwhile, the Obama administration also extended the deadline for enrollment, this time for the hundreds of thousands of people dumped from their plans thanks to those skyrocketing costs. The timing of Friday’s speech about affordability and fixes just before Monday’s premium-hike announcement would be humorous if it weren’t so serious for American families trying to make ends meet. Among the many deceitful things Obama has said, however, there is one declaration that’s absolutely true. “I will not be on the ballot, but everything we’ve done is going to be on the ballot,” he told voters last week. Hillary Clinton will be on the ballot, and voters shouldn’t forget that she’s the godmother of ObamaCare — it’s basically HillaryCare warmed over. BEST OF RIGHT OPINION Michael Barone: The Politics These Two Unpopular Nominees Hath Wrought12 Cal Thomas: Dirty Tricks: Then and Now13 Thomas Sowell: Immigration Controversies14 For more, visit Right Opinion15. TOP HEADLINES Hillary’s Top State Dept. Techie Pleads the Fifth 90 Times16 AT&T Is Spying on Americans for Profit17 Insurance Will Pay for Woman’s Suicide, but Not for Chemo18 For more, visit Patriot Headline Report19. FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS The Real Problem With Leftmedia Bias7 By James Shott The news media has been referred to as the “Fourth Estate” for a long time. Thomas Carlyle, in his book “On Heroes and Hero Worship,” attributes the origin of the term to 18th century English statesman Sir Edmund Burke: “Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.” Burke believed the Fourth Estate to be far more important than the others because its job was informing the public of what Parliament was up to. The high regard for the Fourth Estate carried over to the colonies. When the United States was formed, the work of what we now commonly refer to as the news media warranted protections in the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Title: The Patriot Post Digest 10-25-2016 Post by: nChrist on October 25, 2016, 03:33:54 PM ________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 10-25-2016 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription (http://patriotpost.us/subscription/new) ________________________________________ After all, the press’s function was viewed as essential to the Republic. It protected the purveyors of important information from those who prefer their activities to not receive wide dissemination, and who might use the courts or other means to keep important information from being made public. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.” However, while the Constitution can protect the media from those who dislike it by guaranteeing its freedom to tell all it knows, it does not have the ability to enforce integrity, honesty and fairness on the media. Those qualities are expected to be organizational and personal, ingrained in news providers and students of journalism, who should be taught and adopt the ethics of journalism and practice them always. It was also Jefferson who said, “ Newspapers … serve as chimnies to carry off noxious vapors and smoke.” People in certain positions in our society have the job and the duty to play it straight down the middle, without allowing whatever personal feelings they may have to enter into the performance of their job. Among these are referees and other sports officials; judges in legal proceedings and other adjudicatory activities; and the news media — the people who provide the public with the critical information necessary to make informed decisions. The mechanisms for defending news reporting remain intact, but sadly the same cannot be said for the ethical imperatives of news reporting, as is demonstrated daily in the national media. The most glaring example of this lack of ethics and integrity is the coverage of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump vs. that of Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton. One of many examples arose during the final presidential debate. When asked by debate moderator Chris Wallace if he would pledge to accept the results of the election, Trump’s answer20 was influenced by his oft-stated belief that the election system has many flaws, and he said, “I will look at it at the time.” Clinton feigned dismay, declaring that Trump is “undermining the pillar of our democracy,” the peaceful transfer of power. Well, no, he was not. Given the free pass Clinton got from the FBI, voter fraud across the country and a compliant Clinton Media Machine, who can blame him for wanting to wait until the election is over before deciding whether it was handled fairly? But Clinton’s position on that issue is much more highly favored by the media than Trump’s, so guess what the major news outlets told the world? Things like this bolster Trump’s claims that the news media are biased against him, and a new Quinnipiac University poll21 finds agreement among a majority of those polled. Some 55% of likely voters agree the press is biased against Trump. Just one small example. Earlier this month, Trump said some American soldiers “can’t handle” the horrors of war, which causes their PTSD (Post-traumatic stress disorder). This statement was then distorted to suggest Trump disdains those who suffer PTSD. This farcical misinterpretation was identified by Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, no great friend of Trump, who said: “The bias that is in the media. What he is saying is that some people, for whatever reason, and we really don’t understand why, suffer from PTSD, and others don’t.” The news media’s reaction to Trump’s PTSD comment appears to be the reaction of someone with an IQ south of 70, but we know that most media types are not stupid: Lack of intelligence is not the problem; bias is the problem. The media’s yearlong thinly disguised disdain for Trump has erupted into open contempt, and the collapse and disgracing of a critical component of our society is now inarguable. Attempting to justify this flagrant abandonment of professional ethics, New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg wrote in August22 that journalists have a responsibility to abandon all pretense of objectivity. “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that,” he declared. “That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.” Some reporters, editors and producers regard Trump as so bad and Clinton as so good that normal standards no longer apply, and journalistic ethics that once were sacrosanct and provided a substantial measure of balance and fairness in news reporting have become obstacles to a media agenda. One of the worst possible situations is when the source of critical public information abandons neutrality and takes sides. Like widespread corruption in government, widespread corruption in the information system is deadly to Liberty. MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST Obama’s Foreign Policy Disaster With the Philippines23 — President Rodrigo Duterte is cozying up to Red China and dissing the U.S. DOJ Ignores Violent Pipeline Protests24 — Ecofascists unite, with “Justice” looking the other way. Don’t Miss Patriot Humor Check out Uneven Wear25. If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here26. OPINION IN BRIEF Michael Barone: “The choice of these nominees may result in two significant shifts. One is a recoloring of the familiar political map. When Trump was running close to even, he was threatening to win previously safe Democratic states. Clinton is now threatening to win previously safe Republican states. The static polarized partisan lines may be shifting. The other is the opening of new fissures in both parties. Trump enthusiasts and ‘never Trump’ critics are already embarked on a civil war. Bernie Sanders enthusiasts are understandably furious about what WikiLeaks has revealed that Clinton and top aides have said in emails and speeches. A Bloomberg poll asked Republicans and Democrats which of several figures should be the face of their party nationally if their nominee loses. A plurality of Democrats, 32 percent, said Hillary Clinton, and 6 percent said Tim Kaine. But 31 percent said Bernie Sanders, and 23 percent said Elizabeth Warren. Among Republicans, 24 percent said Donald Trump, far below the percentage supporting him against Clinton. But a total of 71 percent picked the more conventional conservative alternatives Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan and John Kasich. That’s a crude measure, but it provides an interesting hint of the politics that are just a couple of weeks ahead.” SHORT CUTS Insight: “There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.” —Ayn Rand (1905-1982) Upright: “[Conservatives] are obligated not to despair. Now, about our country, yeah things may not look good. But we are obligated not to despair. Do I know what the outcome is going to be? No. Do I know that we’re going to be vindicated? No. But that’s not why you [fight]. You don’t do it to necessarily persuade, to feel that you’re going to persuade other people. You do it because it’s right.” —Justice Clarence Thomas Since when is overstepping executive authority worthy of respect? “President Obama put in place a national climate action program — a plan for America — and I think history is going to be very respectful of the way in which he has been able to circumvent Congress, who didn’t want to do anything.” —John Kerry Demo-gogues: “I ran against McCain, against Romney. I thought I could do a better job, but they’re both honorable men. And if they won, I wouldn’t worry about generally the course of the country. But what we haven’t seen before is somebody questioning integrity of elections and the will of the people.” —Barack Obama, who knows a thing or two about rejecting the will of the people Braying Jenny: “Get this, Donald. Nasty women are tough. Nasty women are smart. And nasty women vote.” —Elizabeth Warren Village Idiots: “There is a great term the Soviets used to use: ‘somebody being a useful idiot.’ I think that Trump falls into that category of people that are manipulated also by the Russians and the Russians are trying to interfere in our democracy because they don’t have one themselves.” —former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (“When Romney warned about Russia in 2012, Albright mocked him and said his views on Russia were ‘truly out of date.’” —Sean Davis) And last… “The silver lining of this election is that no matter what happens, someone who very much deserves to lose is going to.” —Frank Fleming 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. |