|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: March 08, 2016, 03:51:10 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 3-8-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
Mid-Day Digest
Mar. 8, 2016
THE FOUNDATION
“No compact among men … can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other.” —George Washington (1789)
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Another Bloomberg Deal on Guns?1
In an editorial2 posted to the website of his media company, Michael Bloomberg announced that he would not run as a third-party candidate in the 2016 election. “If I entered the race,” he conceded, “I could not win.” Keen sense of the obvious, right there.
Six weeks ago, the New York City billionaire (sound familiar?) and former mayor known for his crusades against large soda cups, salt and the right to bear arms, floated the idea3 of a third-party run if he didn’t like the candidates who were eventually chosen by Republicans and Democrats. But after studying the issue, Bloomberg decided that the chances of him — a turncoat Republican — giving the election to a Republican were too high. If the majority of the Electoral College doesn’t agree on a candidate, the fate of the 2016 presidential election would be handed to the House, where it would vote the next president into office. This has happened only twice in the history of American politics, once in 1800 and again in 1824.
“As the race stands now,” Bloomberg wrote, “with Republicans in charge of both Houses, there is a good chance that my candidacy could lead to the election of Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz. That is not a risk I can take in good conscience.” Thus ends the blip of a third-party candidacy for a man who is decidedly anti-Liberty.
As Mark Alexander wrote in January regarding Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address4, “Although Obama only referenced ‘gun violence’ once in his opening remarks, he has cut a deal with billionaire Michael Bloomberg, a quid pro quo to make gun control the centerpiece of his last year in office in return for Bloomberg’s support of Obama’s presidential library.” A similar deal — or at least an understanding — likely exists with Hillary Clinton, who, as far as Bloomberg is concerned, is preferable to Bernie Sanders on guns. That may be why Clinton came out swinging against guns so strongly in Sunday’s Democrat debate.
Iranian Nukes: Coming to a Neighborhood Near You?5
It is irony indeed when the agreement with Iran6 that was supposed to ensure more transparency and more security from nuclear arms leads to the exact opposite result. On Monday, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, told reporters that the agency tasked with ensuring the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons was hamstrung7 from reporting Iran’s potential violations of the deal … by the deal itself.
In the past, the IAEA monitored Iran’s nuclear program under the direction of resolutions passed by the UN Security Council and Board of Governors, but the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration and other world leaders wrote over the IAEA’s mission. When the deal was first announced, the Obama administration said it let Iran keep its nuclear program in exchange for increased transparency. The deal was supposed to ensure Iran wouldn’t weaponize its uranium for at least a decade or two. But now, the IAEA cannot disclose the amount of uranium and number of nuclear centrifuges in the country’s possession, even though Iran was supposed to reduce both as part of the agreement.
“Now Amano has revealed that the nuclear deal gutted the ability of journalists and the public to have insight into Iran’s nuclear activities,” The Israel Project’s Omri Ceren wrote. “In critical areas, it’s not even clear that the IAEA has been granted the promised access.” Let’s put this in context: There is nothing preventing a terrorist sponsoring state from developing a weapon of mass destruction, and realizing their mantra, “death to America.”
Virginia’s Economic Bludgeon8
As a governor, if your state was given the chance to defer millions, possibly billions, of dollars in burdensome and unnecessary energy mandates, would you accept it? Even some liberal governors would likely answer in the affirmative, and happily at that. Unfortunately, in states like Virginia, the opposite is true. Last month the Supreme Court stayed implementation9 of the EPA’s power-grabbing Clean Power Plan (CPP). But while the ruling was applauded by more than two dozen states, Democrat Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe decided to ignore the warning signals and overhaul his state’s energy sector anyway.
Writing in the Washington Examiner, attorney Terry M. Jarrett says10, “Virginia, for some reason, has chosen to move forward with the task of rebuilding its entire power generation sector. This means the state will still undertake the construction of new grid infrastructure, including the many new transmission lines and towers needed to carry electricity from planned wind and solar assemblies.” It’s a curious decision — one, because CPP’s legal requirements were nullified (albeit temporarily but hopefully permanently at a later date), and two, renewable technology is nowhere near prime time. And keep in mind, nearly 30% of the state’s electricity comes from coal. “The question,” Jarrett posits, “is why Virginia would bear this cost when it is currently under no legal obligation to do so.” Is it ostensibly to address “climate change”? If so, consider that by the EPA’s own estimates the regulations would slow global warming by just 0.02 degrees Celsius.
A court will eventually decide whether or not to strike down the Clean Power Plan, but Gov. McAuliffe is looking beyond that. And he’s willing to extract a hefty amount of tax dollars from Virginians to enact a flawed energy policy. Since Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, voters have ousted11 11 Democrat governors. If McAuliffe isn’t careful, he could become the 12th.
Don’t Miss Patriot Humor
Check out Net Neutrality a Year Later12.
If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here13.
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
Thomas Sowell: Desperate Tactics14
Rebecca Hagelin: The Rubio Rally That Wasn’t15
Michael Barone: Will a Republican Majority Rally to Defeat Trump?16
For more, visit Right Opinion17.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Fuel Standard Belong in the Junkyard18
By Paul Albaugh
Far too often, government regulations are proven to be costly, ineffective and of no benefit to economic growth — worse, they hamper it. Yet bureaucrats in Washington wield their power to influence markets and industries and for the most part, they get away with it because either too many Americans don’t care or they just don’t know how much these regulations cost.
Take fuel standards for instance. Government regulations on the auto industry and on those who supply the fuel to run those cars have not helped but hurt our nation’s economy. Furthermore, many in Washington have used the agenda of combatting climate change as cause for continuing or implementing more regulations — without any concern for the economic ramifications of doing so.
Of the many regulations foisted upon our economy, one of the most costly is the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. In a detailed report19, The Heritage Foundation offers some keen insight into the government’s involvement with regulating the fuel standards by which auto manufacturers must abide or pay hefty fines. |
