|
Title: The Patriot Post Digest 11-17-2016 Post by: nChrist on November 17, 2016, 05:27:00 PM ________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 11-17-2016 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription (http://patriotpost.us/subscription/new) ________________________________________ Mid-Day Digest Nov. 17, 2016 IN TODAY’S EDITION Republicans bicker over earmarks and the meaning of “draining the Swamp.” Why aren’t there more veterans in elected office? The military needs money, not social engineering and political standoffs. Democrats define insanity by doing the same thing and expecting different results. And more news, policy and opinion. THE FOUNDATION “The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808.) TOP RIGHT HOOKS GOP Punts on Earmarks1 The issue of lifting the ban on earmarks2 brought forth by several House Republicans was gaining momentum until Speaker Paul Ryan stepped in. He put the brakes on a vote because reinstituting earmarks would have been perceived by the public as yet another instance of government cronyism. As one source in the room put it, Ryan “said we just had a ‘drain the swamp’ election and cannot turn right around and bring back earmarks behind closed doors.” Ryan postponed the vote until early 2017 and pledged to study the issue further. It’s alarming to conservatives that so many Republicans favor lifting, at least in part, the ban on earmarks — a ban that many have credited for giving Republicans the House majority in 2010. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), who supports lifting the ban, argued that Barack Obama’s “administration took the money for water projects and decided who would be the winner and who would be the loser, not based upon the feedback of the Corps of Engineers or members of Congress.” He believes that Republicans in Congress “overplayed their hand” by enacting the earmark ban in 2011, “so we’re trying to balance that out.” Proponents of reinstatement argue it’s a separation of powers issue related to the power of the purse. While frustration over how Obama directed spending is well founded, the solution is not through re-enabling greater cronyism and corruption. As former Sen. Tom Coburn stated, “Washington, DC, is broken and no one is interested in fixing it. The arrogance of power is just as dangerous in the hands of Republicans as it is in [the hands of] Democrats.” Finally, the mere fact that outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called himself the “king of earmarks” and boasted about them to his constituents should give every Republican pause in contemplating lifting the ban. Vets Storm American Governance3 Veterans once filled the overwhelming majority of congressional seats. In fact, according to the American Enterprise Institute’s Gary Schmitt and Rebecca Burgess4, “In 1971, veterans made up 72 percent of the House of Representatives and 78 percent of the Senate. In 1991, the Congress that approved the use of force against Iraq in Operation Desert Storm had only slightly more veterans than non-veterans.” Fast forward to now, however, and the statistics are reversed: “In today’s Congress, veterans hold 20 percent of Senate seats, while 18 percent of House members are veterans.” Schmitt and Burgess contend that today’s proportional number of veterans to general population doesn’t provide an adequate reason for the drop. “The decline of veterans in public office has been sharper than the decline of veterans within the general population,” they write. “Why? Perhaps the most significant reason is the current cost of running for Congress. The price tag for a Senate campaign stands near $10.5 million, the House near $1.6 million.” Which makes the relatively recent electoral wins by veterans Joni Ernst, Tom Cotton and even Democrat Tammy Duckworth all the more remarkable, if not inspiring. Last week, another veteran was added to American governance — Republican and decorated ex-Navy SEAL Eric Greitens, who will succeed Jay Nixon as governor of Missouri. Do these gains portend even broader wins for veterans down the road? There’s at least reason for optimism. “Any reversal of the declining trend in veterans in the halls of Congress,” write Schmitt and Burgess, “will probably begin with the one tried-and-true way to gain legislative experience, build name recognition, and increase access to a fundraising network — election to a state legislature. State legislative office is a traditional steppingstone to federal office, with 50 percent of the 114th Congress, for example, composed of former state legislators. From this perspective, the good news is that no fewer than 1,039 out of 7,383 state legislators have military experience — 14 percent.” The authors note that, because of military evolution and other circumstances, “veterans in American legislatures will not reach again the high levels of the 1970s.” In any case, a growing number of Patriots are taking up an important new endeavor — taking the fight from the battlefields to legislatures locally and on Capitol Hill. Military Needs Funding, Not Political Standoffs5 The Heritage Foundation’s recently released 2017 Index of U.S. Military Strength6 confirms what we have previously written7 — that the U.S. military is in need of better funding in order to be more able to meet current and future challenges. The index highlighted the present strength of U.S. military power as “marginal” for all branches but the Army, which was marked as “weak.” The index also listed all threats to U.S. “vital interests” as “high.” Clearly, properly funding the military should be a top priority for our elected leaders, but Barack Obama has consistently shunned military spending. Speaking of readiness, in yet another display of Obama placing his ideology above the needs of the nation, he recently threatened to veto an upcoming military budget bill. Why? Because he’s concerned that various religious groups that don’t endorse the homosexual agenda would be allowed to continue their work within the military. Yes, Obama’s social engineering is guiding his defense policy. Then last Thursday, Obama requested an additional $11.6 billion to fund military operations overseas, bringing the total Pentagon and State Department budget request for 2017 up to $85.3 billion. However, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, argues that the current budget request still doesn’t provide enough money to fully fund the Department of Defense. Americans are fed up with the constant politicizing of every budgetary issue, especially when it comes to our national defense. It will be none too soon to see Obama leave office with his social engineering agenda in tow. Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column Read President-Elect Trump — The Week in Review8. Obama has launched his “Denial Tour” while Trump’s incoming team takes shape. If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here9. BEST OF RIGHT OPINION Victor Davis Hanson: Trump’s Bizarre Winning Formula10 Larry Elder: Just Because ‘Our Guy’ Won11 Veronique de Rugy: Will New Bosses Be the Same as the Old Bosses?12 Hans von Spakovsky: Head of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division Is Violating Federal Law13 For more, visit Right Opinion14. TOP HEADLINES No Surge in Early ObamaCare Sign-Ups15 Official Ousted After Shutting Down Baker Over Same-Sex Marriage16 Guinness Refuses to Acknowledge NRA World Record17 For more, visit Patriot Headline Report18. FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS Democrat Insanity19 By Allyne Caan On the campaign trail, Barack Obama repeatedly emphasized that the November 8 election would be a referendum on his legacy. Yes, yes it was. If ever there were a final smack down to end a disastrous eight-year presidential tenure, last week was it. But it should hardly come as a surprise. Since Obama’s ascension to office in 2009 amid the gospel of Hope ‘n’ Change™, he has been an albatross to Democrats not only in the halls of Congress but also in governors' mansions and state legislatures across the country. Since Obama took office, Democrats have lost20 a net total of 10 U.S. Senate seats, 63 House seats and 12 governorships, but also roughly 900 state legislative seats. Title: The Patriot Post Digest 11-17-2016 Post by: nChrist on November 17, 2016, 05:28:09 PM ________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 11-17-2016 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription (http://patriotpost.us/subscription/new) ________________________________________ This is hardly a short-term setback from which Democrats can simply bounce back. As The Wall Street Journal notes21, “One result of Mr. Obama’s tenure is that Democrats lack a deep bench of younger candidates for federal office, including the Presidency in 2020. A third of all House Democrats will now come from a mere three states — California, New York, and Massachusetts.” That’s astounding. When you consider that, as of 2014, 44 U.S. senators and more than 200 House members were former state legislators22, this reality becomes a painful indicator to Democrats that their immediate congressional future looks bleak. Ironically, what’s not yet clear to Democrats is the reason for their stunning and repeated losses. Indeed, at a press conference earlier this week, Obama claimed8, “I believe that we have better ideas, but I also believe that good ideas don’t matter if people don’t hear them and one of the issues that Democrats have to be clear on is that, given population distribution across the country, we have to compete everywhere.” That’s right, it’s not bad policies; it’s bad PR. As if Democrats don’t have a massive super PAC in the form of the Leftmedia23. And as one Democrat strategist put it, “We have to take the time to figure out what happened. It’s obviously much more than cyclical.” You don’t say. While they take time to discover the obvious, Democrats are still blaming everyone and everything but themselves, including FBI director James Comey. Meanwhile, the Leftmedia pinned Hillary Clinton’s loss on a “white-lash.” Because not voting for a white woman is racist — perhaps, we suppose, because her husband was the first black president24. The alternative explanation — that Americans may actually be rebelling against the Democrats' increasingly radical left-wing policies — is simply unimaginable. But rebelling they are. ObamaCare, the pinnacle of Obama’s achievements, is crumbling, executive overreach has extended farther than ever, and Americans are generally fed up with the government. But Democrats aren’t willing to swallow that pill. And instead of thinking that perhaps they’ve veered too far left, Democrats are now debating among themselves whether to head even further left — as evidenced by the fact that Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, a radical black Muslim member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, has launched a credible campaign25 to be the next DNC chair. Ellison launched his career as a member of the anti-Semitic Nation of Islam, and he’s a man who likened 9/11 to the Nazis' Reichstag fire — in other words, an inside job meant to create a pretext for going after Muslims. And Democrats are considering putting him in charge of the party. Reason’s Scott Shackford writes26, “As the Democratic Party struggles to figure out what it’s going to stand for now, we’re going to see a lot of ‘progressive vs. centrists’ framing.” But as progressives aim to drive the party even further left, tomorrow’s centrists will likely be today’s leftists. Only in a party that’s already pivoted sharply left could socialist Bernie Sanders gain a credible foothold, only to be bested by an establishment candidate who holds some positions even more radical than Sanders'. Shackford explains, “What made Sanders remarkable as a candidate was not that he was a democratic socialists getting open popular support from Americans … [but] that there were parts of his ideology — his foreign policy and support for privacy — that were less interventionist than Clinton.” You’d think that after repeated and crushing defeats under the Obama banner (and now Clinton’s), Democrats would begin to tie the defeats to that banner. Instead, they’re waving it even higher, because naturally, if we as Americans disagree with them, the error is not theirs, but ours. Perpetuating the attitude that cost them this election is unlikely to win them the next one. So by all means, Democrats, keep up the good work. MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST Upending the Leftist-Dominated Educational Status Quo27 — The Left’s cultural power all begins with education. ‘Tolerant’ Academia Seeks to Purge Jefferson28 — If moral superiority is their only goal, they’re in for a rude awakening. OPINION IN BRIEF Victor Davis Hanson: “For many non-whites, Trump’s message was more about class than race. Inner-city dwellers share many of the same worries as the poor whites of the Ohio Valley and southern Michigan. Some blacks have more in common with poor whites than with Colin Kaepernick or Van Jones. And many whites have more in common with less affluent blacks and Latinos than with Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush. These populist economic interests had been ignored by Democrats and Republicans, as coastal-corridor economies made 30-somethings in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street multimillionaires — with only crumbs left for those who work with their hands. In other words, Trump miraculously won the Electoral College despite adversarial media and hostile Democratic and Republican establishments. He ran with relatively little campaign spending, virtually no ground game, few political handlers, little celebrity backing and few establishment endorsements. And he won because he rewrote the traditional rules of red/blue presidential politics.” SHORT CUTS Upright: “Just because ‘our guy’ won, Economics 101 hasn’t been repealed. Donald Trump is still a populist, not a fiscal conservative or a states' rights federalist. … The best of Trump is quite good — corporate tax cuts, moratorium on EPA regulations, securing the borders — but these can be offset, if not undone, by the bad. It’s not enough to win. Trump must succeed. Populism is good politics, but bad economics.” —Larry Elder Alpha Jackass: “A man who lost the election by two million votes or more is now the president-elect. His election sparked a wave of hate crimes across America. This is a simple statement of fact.” —Harry Reid (It’s also a simple statement of fact that many of those “hate crimes” are against Trump supporters.) Blind rhetoric: “I know over the past week a lot of people have asked themselves whether America is the country we thought it was. The divisions laid bare by this election run deep, but please listen to me when I say this: America is worth it, our children are worth it. Believe in our country, fight for our values, and never, ever give up.” —Hillary Clinton, who did more to create those divisions than just about anyone Hope ‘n Change: “Don’t mope. And don’t get complacent. The majority of the American people believe in a diverse, tolerant, optimistic, dynamic, inclusive vision. … I promise you that next year Michelle and I are going to be right there with you, and the clouds are going to start parting and the sun is going to come back out, and we’re going to be busy, involved in the amazing stuff that we’ve been doing all these years before.” —Barack Obama Proud loser: “We have a constitutional obligation to do congressionally directed spending. I’ve never apologized to anybody. I go home and I boast about earmarks. And that’s what everyone should do.” —Harry Reid And last… “The same media that didn’t ask BHO about his plans to be 'flexible’ with Putin is upset that Trump didn’t inform them of his dinner plans.” —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. |