|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: January 22, 2016, 06:43:47 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 1-22-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
Daily Digest
Jan. 22, 2016
THE FOUNDATION
“Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.” —George Washington, 1748
DC Blizzard? These Guys Never Take a Break
Promote Liberty! Please share this image to your social media account.
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Experts Agree: Clinton Is Toast1
Hillary Clinton kept information on her home-brew server that went beyond the government’s top-secret designation. This is information dealing with Special Access Programs, a security designation on information to which only a handful of people have access. Information so secretive that when members of Congress who sit on intelligence oversight committees are briefed on it, they cannot take notes2. When that level of information was found on Clinton’s server, the inspector general of the intelligence community had to get special security clearances just to continue the investigation.
Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey believes the FBI has enough cause to prosecute Clinton. “But will it be brought?” Mukasey wrote3. “That depends in part on the recommendation of FBI Director James Comey, a man described by President Obama, at the time the president appointed him, as ‘fiercely independent.’”
Anthony DeChristopher, a former Special Forces soldier and currently an intelligence analyst, wrote4 that when his team in Afghanistan lost a thumb drive with classified information and later found it for sale on the black market, the military changed its protocol for working with classified information — for a thumb drive. And as far as what’s been found on Hillary’s home-brew server, “Special Access Programs (SAP) is a game changer,” DeChristopher wrote. “It is now undeniably clear that the results of the FBI investigation will be the end of one of two things: Hillary’s bid for the White House or the legitimacy of the FBI — at least when it comes to prosecuting cases on the mishandling of classified material.”
Finally, in an interview5 with Hugh Hewitt, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “given the fact that the Pentagon acknowledges that they get attacked about 100,000 times a day, I think the odds are pretty high” that whatever classified information is on Clinton’s server, China, Iran and Russia have it.
So given the punishment for Gen. David Petraeus6, where will Clinton find herself?
National Review Bucks the Trump Train7
The magazine whose writers developed the political philosophy embraced by Ronald Reagan, uniting a broad swath of America under a banner of Liberty, has opposed Donald Trump in its most recent edition. The editors of National Review wrote in their editorial8, “If [the Republican Party] cannot advance a compelling working-class agenda, the legitimate anxieties and discontents of blue-collar voters will be exploited by demagogues. We sympathize with many of the complaints of Trump supporters about the GOP, but that doesn’t make the mogul any less flawed a vessel for them. Some conservatives have made it their business to make excuses for Trump and duly get pats on the head from him. Count us out. Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself.”
Predictably, Trump took to his Twitter feed to rant about the criticism Thursday night. “National Review is a failing publication that has lost it’s [sic] way,” he mocked9. “It’s [sic] circulation is way down w its influence being at an all time low. Sad!” In his next quip, Trump said10, “Very few people read the National Review because it only knows how to criticize, but not how to lead.” The lack of self-awareness is astounding.
Already, the principled stand for the publication comes at a price. The Republican National Committee dropped the magazine11 from co-sponsoring debates and forums, like the forum scheduled for Feb. 25, because NR expressed a bias against one of the participants. Trump may gloat, but he and his “New York Values12” are no Reagan 2.0. Reagan stood for Liberty — something that doesn’t seem to be as popular as it used to be.
Did we mention that Trump has never once voted in a Republican primary? He’s also changed his registration four times in the last 16 years, and endorsed Barack Obama in 2008.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
What Ever Happened to the Tea Party?13
By Nate Jackson
On Dec. 16, 1773, “radicals” from Boston, members of a secret organization of American Patriots called the Sons of Liberty, boarded three East India Company ships and threw 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. This iconic event, in protest of oppressive British taxation and tyrannical rule, became known as the Boston Tea Party. So one might say those of us on the Liberty side of the aisle have always been a rowdy bunch.
Three years after that very first Tea Party, the rebellion had grown to such extent that our Founders were willing to give up their fortunes and lives, attaching their signatures to the Declaration of Independence14, which said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
The Founders didn’t take back their country; they created it and gave it to their posterity, all by overthrowing the establishment.
Fast forward to today and there has been much debate over the direction the modern Tea Party has taken. In response to the Democrats' outrageous spending spree in 2009 and 2010, the Tea Party rekindled under the banner of limiting government, particularly in the areas of taxing and spending.
As Mark Alexander put it in 201015, “Today, once again, we find ourselves subject to unjust taxation. And while we enjoy a token and technical representation in Congress, we are continually being taxed for purposes not expressly authorized by our Constitution. That tax burden is levied to satiate contemporaneous political constituencies, but at an ever-increasing cost under which free enterprise will, ultimately, collapse.”
At the time, Barack Obama disparaged Tea Party Patriots as a gang of malcontents “waving their little teabags,” belittling them as too ignorant for “a serious conversation.” After all, he was busy spending trillions of dollars on “stimulus” and other redistributive efforts to favored Democrat constituents, and he couldn’t be bothered with moderation, much less constitutional constraints. Even after the Tea Party fueled the wave elections of 2010 and 2014, Obama remained as dismissive and petulant as always.
But the Tea Party, too, held its ground. Alexander wrote, “The greatest strength of the grassroots Tea Party movement is its lack of any central organization — it is a genuine grassroots movement. Despite the best efforts of GOP establishment types, Libertarians and other special interest groups endeavoring to co-opt the Tea Party for their own political agendas, these Patriots have shown remarkable devotion to their guiding principles, rejecting any and all suitors attempting to commandeer the movement.”
That remains true for some contingent of Tea Partiers, but not all. As with all movements of any size, people of all kinds can be attracted to it and change it in various ways. This happened to the Tea Party as it expanded beyond fiscal issues to include social and national security ones. Now, it’s gotten to the point that some wonder if the Tea Party is dead16.
It’s true that there are those who identified with the movement who were always less interested in the principled, constitutional conservatism on which it was founded than on nationalist and populist anger. As Rush Limbaugh declared Wednesday, “Nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism in terms of appeal.” We too noted Wednesday that this was particularly evident with Sarah Palin’s endorsement17 of Donald Trump, his “New York values12” notwithstanding.
The difference between the two philosophies is simple: Conservatism seeks to conserve a set of principles — to support and defend our Constitution, which sets forth a limited government of enumerated powers. Conservatism advances the cause of Liberty. By contrast, populism seeks to use whatever means necessary, including big government run by “our guys,” to reach the desired outcome of returning to bygone glory days. There’s a lot of overlap, but the two are not the same. |
