|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: October 08, 2015, 08:20:50 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 10-7-2015
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
Daily Digest
Oct. 7, 2015
THE FOUNDATION
“It is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government…. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever persuasion, religious or political.” —Thomas Jefferson, 1801
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Reforming Sentencing by Releasing Prisoners?1
The Justice Department announced it will grant early release to about 6,000 prisoners serving time for drug offenses between Oct. 30 and Nov. 2. In the words of The Washington Post2, it’s “the largest one-time release of federal prisoners.” The 6,000 prisoners are part of the U.S. prison population who had time on their sentences reduced because of action by then-Attorney General Eric Holder. About a third of the prisoners, who are not U.S. citizens, will be deported. While the move certainly grabs headlines, the real prison reform will come from Congress, and not the Obama administration. Currently, the land of the free has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and 6,000 prisoners is only a drop in the bucket towards solving this problem. Obama may visit a federal prison3, call for more reform and grant clemency to a few politically favored prisoners, but there is only so much he can do. Currently, Congress is considering a prison reform bill backed by the likes of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Koch brothers. Only Congress can reform the practice of mandatory minimum sentencing — a perversion of justice that let bureaucrats determine a prisoner’s punishment years before the crime was committed and needlessly increased the number of Americans jailed. On the other hand, while we agree sentencing should be reformed, one of the reasons crime continues to decline is that many of the people who are incarcerated are the most likely to commit crimes. Releasing a bunch of prisoners could come back and bite Obama just like Willie Horton did for Michael Dukakis.
Iran and Russia Planned Syrian Involvement Months Ago4
In July, the “international community” grew mildly suspicious when Iranian general Qassem Soleimani flew to Moscow for a weekend, as Hot Air’s Allahpundit noted5. Whatever did it mean? The United States was wrapping up marathon talks to secure a nuclear future for Iran. Vladimir Putin was, well, being Putin. The purpose for the July meeting became clear last week, as Russia sent bombs raining down from the sky in Syria. Reuters reports6, “At a meeting in Moscow in July, a top Iranian general unfurled a map of Syria to explain to his Russian hosts how a series of defeats for President Bashar al-Assad could be turned into victory — with Russia’s help.” Soleimani is no rank-and-file commander in the Iranian army. He commands the Quds Force, answers only to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and is sanctioned7 from international travel because he branded as a terrorist. In other words, the ramp up of the Syrian Civil War is not because of Putin’s violent statesmanship alone. It is also Iran’s strategy to cut out the United States from the Middle East. Why didn’t the Obama administration see this? Doctored intelligence only goes so far. Barack Obama suffers from a distorted view of how the world works. But you can trust him to know if Iran is cheating on the nuclear deal.
Assisted Cultural Suicide8
“First do no harm” is widely thought to be a part of the Hippocratic Oath taken by medical professionals. It is not, but it derives from this part of the oath: “I will, according to my ability and judgment, prescribe a regimen for the health of the sick; but I will utterly reject harm and mischief.” California became the fifth state to turn that oath on its head with a new law9 permitting physician-assisted suicide. Montana, Oregon, Vermont and Washington are the others. It’s considered compassionate these days to allow a terminally ill patient to end his or her own life, but it’s also a predictable descent down the slippery slope of a culture that devalues life. Americans kill over a million children a year for the convenience of the mother, so is it any surprise that end-of-life care becomes something of an economics matter? We don’t argue that there’s an easy answer for those facing terminal illness. Many people suffer for years with no real hope, while others prolong death rather than life with modern medicine. But the sanctity of life means something for all people, and we believe the deliberate taking of life is wrong, excepting war or the service of justice for a crime. Unfortunately, we won’t be surprised to see a terrible union brought about by government health care and assisted suicide. Once it becomes cheaper to kill someone than to care for them, insurers and providers may begin pressuring individuals to consider the easy way out — if they’re given the option at all.
Meanwhile, more than 21,000 suicides are committed each year using firearms. But leftists never separate those deaths from other murders for the obvious reason of pushing gun control, of which California’s is some of the strictest. Perhaps, though, they’d like to explain why those suicides are less valid than the ones California just legalized. Or, given that the California legislature passed the measure during Suicide Prevention Week10, we expect they’ll pass on any logical explanation.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
With Trans-Pacific Partnership, Obama’s a Victim of His Own Lies11
By Louis DeBroux
Though the Leftmedia talkingheads are focused on the GOP’s intra-party leadership fight following the unexpected and sudden resignation12 announcement of House Speaker John Boehner, Democrats are mired in an internal battle of their own.
On Monday, the United States and Japan, along with 10 other North American and Pacific Rim nations (Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Peru, Chile and Vietnam — which together comprise 36% of global domestic product), concluded negotiations13 on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a major agreement that seeks to facilitate greater trade among these nations by reducing tariffs and other barriers to trade.
The negotiations, ongoing for the last decade (i.e., it wasn’t just Barack Obama’s idea), produced an agreement with mixed results for American interests. For example, U.S. negotiators claim the pact will strengthen intellectual property rights (which will benefit American pharmaceutical and technology companies) and open up foreign markets to American agricultural and dairy products. However, it would also reduce the duration that companies have market exclusivity for their products before they compete with generics.
The greatest argument in favor of the trade pact, however, might be as a tool to counter the rise of China as a regional and global player. China has long manipulated its currency to gain trade advantages, and it’s no secret that China has often been guilty of the theft of intellectual property, but in the last few years China has overseen a significant increase in the size and capability of its military, and especially its navy, which could be used to threaten sea lanes as leverage in other negotiations.
But back to the internal Democrat disputes.
Obama has spent the last eight years vilifying Republicans and treating them as America’s greatest enemy (consider how he describes Republicans' positions and motives14 compared to the far more accommodating language he uses regarding Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism). However, now he finds himself in a position of needing Republicans in order to pass a trade agreement that he sees as crucial to his legacy.
Democrats are heavily opposed to the deal primarily because labor unions are against it, and labor unions are against it because it increases competition, which they loathe. Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, warned on Twitter, “Now that negotiators have rushed to reach a final deal, the world will see how bad #TPP really is.”
Environmentalists also rabidly oppose the trade agreement because it increases the production of goods and services, which will lead to increased industrialization. Such opposition is to be expected from ecofascists, who are reflexively against the free market anyway, which they eagerly declare by tweeting on their iPhones while sipping lattes at Starbucks. |
