nChrist
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2015, 08:10:19 PM » |
|
________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 10-14-2015 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription ________________________________________
Ending Life Is Great; Saving It, Not So Much14
Just days after signing assisted suicide into law15 in California, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed “Right to Try” legislation. In other words, he told his citizens to drop dead. Right to Try is the idea that terminally ill patients should be able to access medicines that are certified as safe but have not yet survived the gauntlet of approval from the bureaucrats at the Food and Drug Administration. So if you are terminally ill and suffering in California, the governor thinks it’s a great idea for you to commit suicide with the help of your doctor. If, however, you wish to try all avenues to avoid suffering and extend your life, well, tough luck. Brown argued that the FDA already has a compassionate use program to meet this need, but it’s cumbersome to apply and very few people benefit from it. Brown’s seemingly clear preference for suicide here is not terribly compatible with Catholic teaching — a faith he loves to cite when it suits him. But California’s legislature passed the bill by large enough margins to override a veto, so we’ll see what happens.
On a final note, health care economics are going to play an increasing role in end-of-life decisions, and that may explain Brown’s move. Specifically, The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto observes16, “What accounts for that inconsistency? Here’s one factor that may play a role: California is on the hook for millions of state employees' and retirees' generous medical benefits. When one of them receives a terminal diagnosis, it’s a lot cheaper to hasten his death than to attempt to prolong his life.”
Clinton ‘Transparent’ With Name of CIA Source17
During last night’s Democrat presidential debate, Hillary Clinton said18 of her emails, “I’ve been as transparent as I know to be.” She’s got that right. Her emails were so unsecure and transparent that security experts said19 a low-skilled hacker could have defeated her security measures. The server was set up so that Clinton could access its information remotely, which opened the server to prying eyes. She used software notorious for vulnerabilities and she did not use a method of communicating with the server that protected against eavesdropping. Hey, didn’t Clinton say she set up the server for “convenience”?
We know at least one hacker accessed the server, although he or she didn’t know just what they stumbled into at the time If they did, the hacker would have discovered some of the most hallowed information the U.S. government protects. On March 18, 2011, Clinton forwarded an email to her aides containing the name of a member of the CIA working in Libya. “Even inside CIA, in internal emails or cables, or even conversations you never mention, you never talk about the true name of a human source,” said20 CIA veteran John Rizzo. “You use a pseudonym. I mean, honestly, it was quite stunning.” Rizzo continued, “If this is a foreign-based source, living in Libya let’s say … you get outed as a CIA source over there, you’re a dead man. So it couldn’t be more serious.”
Meanwhile, Barack Obama backtracked on his recent comments dismissing security concerns21 over Clinton’s server. Now that he’s read the news, he’s not so sure it doesn’t pose a threat to national security as he alleged Sunday. Imagine that: The sitting president didn’t recognize a security threat who sat in his own cabinet.
MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE
ANALYSIS: Profound Ignorance Behind Calls to Repeal Second Amendment22 Clinton Lackey Held Job While Working at State Department23 Report Details How MH17 Was Shot Down24 New IPCC Chairman Has Ties to Big Oil25 Santorum’s 20/20 Flat Tax26
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
Ed Feulner: Civil Forfeiture Undermines the Justice System27 Hans von Spakovsky and Roger Clegg: Cops and Criminals Are Not Morally Equivalent28 Star Parker: Who Is a ‘Real’ Black?29
For more, visit Right Opinion30.
TOP HEADLINES
Obama Walks Back Clinton Email Comments31 DHS Wants to Revive Domestic Terrorism Alert System32 Milwaukee Gun Shop Must Pay Millions to Injured Cops33
For more, visit Patriot Headline Report34
OPINION IN BRIEF
Ed Feulner: “Not many people make a habit of carrying large amounts of cash around. After all, thieves could steal it. How ironic, then, that a growing threat to your money is the people you’d call if your money was stolen: the police. And all because of a little-known law-enforcement tool known as civil forfeiture. It allows police departments to keep the proceeds from whatever property they seize in the course of conducting an investigation or making an arrest. You might think this means the police are simply taking huge wads of cash off drug dealers who merit little sympathy. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work like that. Many victims of forfeiture abuse are not criminals at all, but ordinary people who happen to be carrying a large amount of cash at the wrong time and place. … Civil forfeiture has its place, but reform is long overdue (beyond the progress made by several states). … Innocent citizens should never be deprived unjustly of their property. It’s time to stop civil-forfeiture abuse.”
SHORT CUTS
Insight: “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” —Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)
Upright: “If you watched that debate last night it looked like something from the early ‘80s. It was basically a liberal vs. liberal debate about who was going to give away the most free stuff.” —Marco Rubio
Good questions: “Will you say anything to get elected? … Do you change your political identity based on who you’re talking to?” —Anderson Cooper to Hillary Clinton
“What really stands out about the Democratic debate is how there was no diversity of idea or diversity of ethnicity. It was a bunch of old white people on stage who all largely agreed on government policies, government spending, taking people’s guns away, and killing children. Contrast these Democrats with the Republicans running. The Republicans disagree on immigration, they disagree on taxes, they disagree on college funding, they are white, Hispanic, Indian, male, and female. Where there is diversity of skin and thought on the right, there is none on the left.” —Erick Erickson
“The fact that the biggest national security news out of the debate [last night] was Bernie Sanders emphasizing that he is not, in fact, against all military action, under all circumstances, at all times, tells you about all you need to know about the national security policy of the Democratic Party. These candidates are much more comfortable in discussing their dismay over the 2008 financial crisis, or the 2003 invasion of Iraq, or, in Sander’s case, their opposition to the war in Vietnam than they are in speaking frankly about the foreign policy legacy of the Obama administration.” —Aaron MacLean
“Having Bernie Sanders play Clinton’s chief foil may excite the left, but, as much as I hate to say it, David Brock is right: The man is unelectable. It’s not just that he’s proposing $18 trillion in new spending and trillions in new taxes. It’s his personal demeanor, which will turn off most Democrats long before it turns off swing voters in the general election.” —Matthew Continetti
“Yes, the candidates sounded like hard-Left, pie-in-the-sky, free-ice-cream-for-everyone, Socialist pander bears. But they do so because that is what the Democratic Party’s primary voters demand. Don’t blame them; blame the party rank-and-file that craves these promises, rhetoric, and worldview.” —Jim Geraghty
And last… “Socialism is the idea that violent force is an appropriate response to peaceful, voluntary exchange.” —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.
|