The Patriot Post Digest 1-15-2016

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 1-15-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Daily Digest

Jan. 15, 2016

THE FOUNDATION

“In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate — look to his character.” —Noah Webster, 1789

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
It’s a Three-Man Race1

By Nate Jackson

Donald Trump may just win the Republican presidential nomination. Thursday night’s debate made clear that this is at most a three-man race between the real-estate mogul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. And Trump pretty clearly came away stronger than anyone, not because he had the best or most well-thought-out answers, but because he keeps proving his very presence can dominate the stage. His supporters are now itching for the chance for him to take on Hillary Clinton.

Chris Christie had his moments, and Jeb Bush and John Kasich weren’t bad. Ben Carson once again, unfortunately, seemed entirely out of his depth. It’s tough to see a way up for any of these four.

So we’ll highlight three exchanges between the trio we view as the strongest contenders.

First, the “birther” controversy over Cruz’s eligibility to run for president2. Cruz addressed it head-on:

“Back in September, my friend Donald said that he had had his lawyers look at this from every which way, and there was no issue there. … Now, since September, the Constitution hasn’t changed. But the poll numbers have. And I recognize that Donald is dismayed that his poll numbers are falling in Iowa. But the facts and the law here are really quite clear. Under longstanding U.S. law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen.

"If a soldier has a child abroad, that child is a natural-born citizen. That’s why John McCain, even though he was born in Panama, was eligible to run for president. If an American missionary has a child abroad, that child is a natural-born citizen. That’s why George Romney, Mitt’s dad, was eligible to run for president, even though he was born in Mexico.

"At the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward, but I would note that the birther theories that Donald has been relying on — some of the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil. Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified and, interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified — because Donald’s mother was born in Scotland. She was naturalized.”

After some cross-talk, Cruz redirected the focus, saying, “You’re an American, as is everybody else on this stage, and I would suggest we focus on who’s best prepared to be commander in chief, because that’s the most important question facing the country.”

Trump didn’t concede anything and neither will his supporters or those who insist Cruz isn’t eligible, but in our estimation Cruz won the debate exchange handily.

He did not, however, come out so well on the question of “New York values.” Having previously hit Trump with that phrase, Cruz was asked to define his terms.

“I think most people know exactly what ‘New York values’ are,” he replied. Prompted for more, he answered, “There are many wonderful, wonderful working men and women in the state of New York, but everyone understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal, are pro-abortion, are pro-gay-marriage, focused around money and the media. … Not too many years ago, Donald did a long interview with Tim Russert3. And in that interview, he explained his views on a whole host of issues that were very, very different from the views he’s describing now. In his explanation, he said, ‘Look, I’m from New York. That’s what we believe in New York. Those aren’t Iowa values.’”

For the record, in that 1999 interview Trump said he was “very pro-choice,” which he conceded was probably “a little bit of a New York background.” And in his 2000 book, “America We Deserve,” Trump wrote, “I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.”

Cruz is right that the values of the leftist elite don’t jive with conservative ones, but he whiffed on the formulation, as Trump’s rebuttal clearly illustrated.

“He insulted a lot of people,” Trump said of Cruz. “When the World Trade Center came down, I saw something that no place on earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely than New York,” Trump recalled. “You had two 110-story buildings come crashing down. Thousands of people killed. And the cleanup started the next day, and it was the most horrific cleanup. … And the people in New York fought, fought and fought. … We rebuilt downtown Manhattan, and everybody in the world watched and everybody in the world loved New York and loved New Yorkers.”

Trump clearly won this round with his heart-felt appeal, and it left even Cruz applauding.

Finally, on immigration, an issue many conservatives view as “make-or-break” for their votes, Rubio came away still looking weak and untrustworthy. Asked to explain his work to expand legal immigration, Rubio argued that the issue has changed: “First and foremost, this issue has to be more than anything else about keeping America safe. And here’s why: There’s a radical jihadist group that is manipulating our immigration system, and not just green cards. They’re recruiting people that enter as doctors, and engineers, and even fiancées. They understand the vulnerabilities we have on the southern border. They’re looking to manipulate the visa waiver countries to get people into the United States. So our number one priority must now become ensuring that ISIS cannot get killers into the United States.”

He added, “The issue is a dramatically different issue than it was 24 months ago. Twenty-four months ago, 36 months ago, you did you not have a group of radical crazies named ISIS burning people in cages and recruiting people to enter our country legally.”

He’s right that it’s a national security issue, but it always has been. And Cruz hit back hard: “Radical Islamic terrorism was not invented 24 months ago. Twenty-four months ago, we had al-Qaida, we had Boko Haram, we had Hezbollah, we had Iran putting operatives in Central America, South America. It’s the reason why I stood with Jeff Sessions and Steve King and led the fight to stop the Gang of Eight amnesty bill. It was clear then like it’s clear now that border security is national security.”

Another win for Cruz. Frankly, immigration is possibly a deal-breaker for conservatives and Rubio, despite his conservative record on almost every other issue. Neither Rubio nor Cruz is always forthright about his position — past or present — but there’s one thing voters will remember: Rubio helped write the Gang of Eight bill; Cruz opposed it. End of story.

To sum up, the “establishment” is coalescing around Rubio (which is rather ironic given that he was part of the first Tea Party wave elected to Congress, and defeated a liberal Republican in a primary to win his seat.) Mainstream conservatives are rallying around Cruz’s banner. And those who simply wish a pox on both houses believe Trump is their man. One thing’s for sure, this race is as interesting as any in recent memory.

Note: We compiled a few other notable quotes on the web1:

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Clinton Campaign Flounders Ahead of Iowa Caucus4

Getting Hillary Clinton elected is a family (crime) business, but one that’s facing a bear market. Her lead in the polls5 has shrunk to only 8.6 percentage points ahead of Bernie Sanders — the narrowest gap in the campaign so far. Clinton is running an uneven racetrack. Of course an avowed socialist named Sanders is making headway, because a socialist named Barack Obama has paved the way and the party can’t tell the difference6 between Democrat and socialist.

This is terrible news for the Clinton campaign 15 days ahead of the Iowa caucus, as Clinton’s lead is shrinking faster7 than it did in 2008. In what appeared to be a last ditch effort to reach out to younger voters, the Clinton campaign sent Chelsea Clinton to attack Sanders' health care policy in New Hampshire Tuesday, saying it would destroy ObamaCare, and thus take away health insurance from millions. (She didn’t mention he would replace it with a single-payer system.) Chelsea is the figure Clinton has used to soften her image, to highlight her maternal side, to mitigate the fact that she fought for her husband’s reputation after women accused him of sexual assault — a fact that has come back to hurt Hillary8 because today’s society is more likely to believe women who speak up.

But this race isn’t for Sanders or Clinton — with the baggage of the email scandal and dealings through her nonprofit — to decide. “The person who will decide the nomination on the democratic side is FBI Director James Comey,” said9 commentator Charles Krauthammer. “If he decides to do a criminal referral [on Clinton], I think she can collapse — either it’s quashed and then there’s a huge scandal, or there’s an indictment, in which case, [Joe] Biden steps forward and he offers himself, self-sacrificially.” Don’t count out Elizabeth Warren, either. While many of the deadlines have passed to get Biden’s or Warren’s name on the primary ballots in key states, Democrats could make the unusual move of running a brokered convention months later, replacing their inevitable candidate with a savior.

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 1-15-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Archbishops Rebuke Episcopal Church10

The Archbishops of the World Anglican Communion convened in Canterbury, England, this week, and in a grave decision regarding the future of the Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA), directed Archbishop Justin Welby to relegate of the American church to “observer” status. The move, which prevents Episcopal leaders from any role regarding “issues of doctrine or polity,” has been anticipated for some years. The Episcopal Church was organized after the American Revolution and George Washington11 was an early communicant. But, as with the erosion of many other bedrock institutions by America’s elite, ECUSA’s current leaders have discarded the Church’s biblical foundation.

In 2003, the “enlightened” U.S. bishops rebuffed the 85-million member World Anglican Communion, and codified their rejection of scriptural authority by ordaining Vicky Imogene Robinson12, a divorced father of two, as the first openly homosexual Bishop of New Hampshire. Since then, ECUSA’s Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori (the first female archbishop in apostolic Christian history), has embraced a broad slate of statist positions in opposition to the basic tenets of the church. She has decreed that “gay marriage” has equal in standing with biblical marriage, in clear opposition to Jesus’s teaching on marriage, and the tradition and reason pillars of the church. She has further offended Christians by affirming a “nuanced approach” on killing unborn children — a “do as you please” approach. As a result, there are now fewer than 650,000 church attendees in the U.S. — and that number continues to decline. ECUSA leaders have done with the Bible what their fellow leftists have done with our Constitution. The ECUSA suspension is, in effect, one step short of expulsion, isolating the apostate U.S. Church so that its wealth and corrupting influence can’t further diminish the biblical foundations of the World Church.

For further reading, see Mark Alexander’s essay “Gender Identity, The Homosexual Agenda and The Christian Response13.”

Fleecing Taxpayers for Sport14

An overwhelming vote by NFL owners Tuesday means the St. Louis Rams will return to Los Angeles for the 2016 season after having spent 21 years by the Mighty Mississippi. St. Louis sportswriter Bernie Miklasz summed up the situation well, saying the “NFL is guilty of a personal foul15.” Miklasz’s recap of the sordid details is well worth reading, even for those uninterested in the Rams themselves or football in general. Focused as we are on promoting Liberty and free enterprise, we consider the fleecing of taxpayers to be the essence of this story.

Taxpayers put up $280 million to largely finance the building of the Edward Jones Dome in downtown St. Louis two decades ago. Inexplicably, St. Louis included an opt-out clause so the Rams could leave if they no longer liked the stadium. Surprise — the team exercised its option. Now, without the Rams' presence and their $500,000 annual rent, the remaining $100 million bill becomes all the more difficult to pay off. Indeed, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is working on legislation to require franchises to pay back taxpayer money if they leave town “prematurely.” The problem, however, is that cities are willing to put taxpayer money on the line for these stadium boondoggles in the first place. St. Louis taxpayers are in a bad spot, but their own politicians put them in this predicament — as do politicians in cities around the country when handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to billionaire sports owners. And McCaskill sure didn’t seem to mind the city’s offer of yet another $400 million to partially finance a brand new stadium for the Rams to replace the one not even as old as the team’s youngest player. (And you thought players had short careers.)

In the end, the Rams brought one Super Bowl title to the Gateway City, but they also brought 16 years of losing (and often downright lousy) football, as well as the politically charged Michael Sam draft debacle16 and the notoriously non-factual “hands up, don’t shoot17” player protest in the wake of the Ferguson shooting. And the city is still on the hook for $100 million now that the party’s over. Maybe LA shouldn’t be so quick to celebrate the NFL’s return.

MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE

ANALYSIS: Chill Out, Obama Says Terror Ain’t No Big Thing18
Obama Went Rambo Against Islamic State19
More Than Humiliation: What Did Iran Find?20
San Francisco’s Bathroom Crusade21
No, Obama, IDs Are Not a Problem With Politics22
Wheaton College Moves to Terminate Embattled Professor23

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

David Harsanyi: Yes, Partisanship Can Be Frustrating, but It’s Better Than the Alternative24
Terence Jeffrey: Will Next Investigation Be: Who Let Islamic State In?25
Ken Blackwell: Sanctions Relief Will Only Aid Iran’s Network of Terror26

For more, visit Right Opinion27.

TOP HEADLINES

White House to Announce Moratorium on Some New Coal Leases28
Planned Parenthood Sues Maker of Undercover Videos29
Visa Waiver Reforms Were Blocked to Avoid Upsetting Iran30

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report31

OPINION IN BRIEF

David Harsanyi: “My favorite part of Tuesday’s speech was the president’s assertion that the Founding Fathers wanted us to argue about ‘the meaning of liberty.’ This was the only time Obama mentioned the word ‘liberty’ in his speech, and when he spoke about ‘freedom,’ it was never in the context of the Constitution. Now, I wouldn’t claim to know exactly what the founders desired for us, beyond mentioning that they codified many ideas of the Enlightenment and specifically wrote them down for us to follow, sometimes even numbering them so we would understand. Although they certainly debated some of these notions, it is implausible to believe that any Founding Father would be OK with forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for someone else’s birth control or forcing Americans to report to a bureaucracy such as the IRS before engaging in political speech. Progressives want to redefine freedom as a form of dependency and common good, not argue about its traditional contours. So yes, some people are suspicious of ‘change.’ … Anyone who believes [Obama] has a monopoly over the ‘future’ deserves the suspicion and rancor that come with politics. It’s not to say that blind partisanship or uniformity is productive or that Republicans have answers. But partisanship — as in prejudice toward a particular cause — allows us to avoid destructive national political ‘unity.’ So as rancorous as partisanship is, it’s far less destructive than Obama’s political ideal.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.” —Henry Steele Commager (1902-1998.)

Upright: “Can you imagine having [Obama’s] record of failure, bragging about it and promising to deliver more misery into the indefinite future? It would be like the owner of the Chicago Cubs pledging to keep winning the World Series.” —David Limbaugh

“The truth is I’ve been blessed by a lot of opportunities to do a lot of things in my life and unlike another woman in this race I actually love spending time with my husband.” —Carly Fiorina

“The person who will decide the nomination on the Democratic side is FBI Director James Comey.” —Charles Krauthammer

The BIG Lie: “I’ve been to Bahrain and looked right across the Persian Gulf to Iran. Everything is very close there.” —Nancy Pelosi (“According to Google Maps, the distance between the two countries at their closest points is over 100 miles. That’s roughly equivalent to the distance between Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia. … It appears Pelosi is capable of seeing through the Earth itself.” —Mediaite’s Alex Griswold)

Braying Jackass: “Republicans … want Latinos and Asians to disappear and be quiet. … And [to] black people, they’re like, ‘Well, I’m not sure that you should all be able to vote, let’s go back before the Voting Rights Act.’ I mean, they want to turn back the clock on women too.” —Rep. Luis Gutierrez

And last… “While he’s at it, John Kerry would also like to thank the Iranians for taking Americans hostage back in 1979.” —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.