The Patriot Post Brief 11-26-2012

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Brief 11-26-2012
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Who Needs God When You Have the State?

November 26, 2012

The Foundation

"The hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations." --George Washington

Faith and Family

"Yet again, President Obama's Thanksgiving message eschewed any direct reference to thanking God, making this the fourth straight year in which the President of the United States has ignored the central message of the holiday in favor of political grandstanding. This year, Obama's central message was that now that he's been re-elected, Americans should agree with all of his policies. His unity routine sounds strangely empty after a campaign in which he focused on dividing Americans. ... No mention of thanking God. None. But, of course, we're used to this. In 2011, there was no mention of God at all. In 2010, Obama was closer, but still missed the mark ('we'll spend some time taking stock of what we're thankful for: the God-given bounty of America, and the blessings of one another'). In 2009, Obama didn't thank God, either. Compare that to Obama's Thanksgiving Day proclamations, which he does not read or speak. Those are filled with God -- at least for the last three years. In his first year, filled with the vim and vigor of his original election, Obama preferred to eschew any direct thanking of God even in his proclamation. Of course, nobody sees these proclamations, so Obama doesn't have to be embarrassed about them. It's no wonder that this President's Democratic National Committee platform tried to remove God. He's not a big fan of the Big Guy. Even on Thanksgiving. After all, what need do you have for God when you've got the state?" --columnist Ben Shapiro1

Opinion in Brief

"Why doesn't the Republican-controlled House of Representatives give both voters and President Obama what they wished for? ... Obamacare will be imposed on all Americans by 2014. But so far the Obama administration has granted more than 1,200 exemptions to favored corporations and unions, covering about 4 million Americans. Shouldn't Republicans seek to end all exemptions rather than tackle the improbable task of overturning Obamacare itself? Their motto should be: 'Equality for all; special treatment for no one!' One of the brilliant themes of the 2012 Obama campaign was forcing Republicans, on principle, to systematically oppose most of the things that the administration wanted them to oppose -- thereby shielding itself from the unwelcome consequences of its own ideology while winning political points. Now, in defeat, Republicans should agree to let the chips lie where they fall: Tax only the truly rich; reward only the truly deserving illegal immigrants; and exempt no one from Obamacare. Nothing could be fairer or more equal than that." --historian Victor Davis Hanson2

Re: The Left

"In the past four years, this administration has been embroiled in at least three significant scandals: Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and high-level leaks of top-secret intel. All three remain 'under investigation,' yet none of those investigations could be completed before the Americans voted, despite hundreds of people being murdered, and national security being compromised. Such a demonstrable lack of urgency is only possible when the public isn't demanding answers. Yet it becomes next to impossible for the public to demand answers, when most of the mainstream media steadfastly refuses to ask relevant questions. Americans old enough to remember Watergate know it was a hotel burglary followed by a cover-up. What drove President Richard Nixon from office was a relentless media, determined to keep the story front and center until they could ferret out the truth, even when the Nixon administration engaged in similar efforts to keep the public mis-informed. That the same media remains sanguine with regard to murdered Americans in Benghazi, indifferent regarding a dead Border Patrol agent and hundreds of dead Mexicans in a botched gunrunning operation, and unconcerned regarding the compromise of national security intel, reveals an unprecedented level of corruption. And whether Americans realize it or not, the stamp of approval they gave this administration on November 6 extends to that mainstream media." --columnist Arnold Ahlert3

Insight

"Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it." --ancient Roman poet Virgil (70-19 BC)

Essential Liberty

"In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III. Our founders intended for us to have a republican form of limited government where political decision-making is kept to the minimum. Alert to the dangers of majoritarian tyranny, our Constitution's framers inserted several anti-majority rules. One such rule is that election of the president is not decided by a majority vote but instead by the Electoral College. Nine states have more than 50 percent of the U.S. population. If a simple majority were the rule, conceivably these nine states could determine the presidency. Fortunately, they can't because they have only 225 Electoral College votes when 270 of the 538 total are needed. Were it not for the Electoral College, presidential candidates could safely ignore less populous states. Two houses of Congress pose another obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the designs of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto that weakens the power of 535 members of both houses of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto. To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both Houses to propose an amendment, and to be enacted requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. Today's Americans think Congress has the constitutional authority to do anything upon which they can get a majority vote. We think whether a measure is a good idea or a bad idea should determine its passage as opposed to whether that measure lies within the enumerated powers granted Congress by the Constitution. Unfortunately, for the future of our nation, Congress has successfully exploited American constitutional ignorance or contempt." --economist Walter E. Williams6