The Patriot Post Digest 3-11-2016

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 3-11-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

Mar. 11, 2016

THE FOUNDATION

“Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason.” —Benjamin Franklin (1735)

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Which One of These Is Not Like the Others?1

One thing was abundantly clear in Thursday night’s 12th GOP presidential debate: In one of the best and most substantive debates so far, everybody on stage was thoroughly knowledgeable and correct about the issues — except for Donald Trump. And if that doesn’t typify the debates in this election cycle, we don’t know what does.

The frontrunner announced ahead of the debate that he was seeking to be more “presidential.” But he once again exhibited no mastery whatsoever of any of the issues that a president will face on a daily basis. When pressed for details or specifics on his vacuous non-answers, he offered nothing but more of the same.

By contrast — and we do mean a yuge contrast — Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich are always able to fluently discuss the actual substance of every answer. They know this stuff like the back of their hands.

A couple of exchanges jumped out.

First, Trump was asked about his pre-debate “Islam hates us” comment. He stood by it, and was generally correct to note that “there is tremendous hate” among “large portions of a group of people — Islam.” But after Rubio explained that we have to understand the difference between Muslims who, say, serve in the U.S. military and radicals who really do hate us, Trump criticized Rubio and others generally for being “politically correct.”

“I’m not interested in being politically correct,” Rubio responded. “I’m interested in being correct.” And he was exactly correct in saying this: “I know that a lot of people find appeal in the things Donald says because he says what people wish they could say. The problem is, presidents can’t just say anything they want. It has consequences, here and around the world.”

Meanwhile, for all his rhetoric on Muslims, Trump equivocates on the Palestinians.

Second, there was a key point Trump made in more than one answer — his insider bona fides uniquely qualify him for the job. For example, on political action committees and campaign finance, Trump said, “I know the system far better than anybody else. … And I’m the one, because I know it so well because I was on both sides of it — I was on the other side all my life and I’ve always made large contributions. And frankly, I know the system better than anybody else and I’m the only one up here that’s going to be able to fix that system because that system is wrong.”

In other words, because he’s been the ultimate Washington insider his entire life, he’s the one we should trust to fix it. How does that jive with his appeal as an outsider?

A similar answer came up with H-1B visas for foreign workers: “I know the H-1B very well. And it’s something that I frankly use and I shouldn’t be allowed to use it. We shouldn’t have it. Very, very bad for workers. … Well, I’m a businessman and I have to do what I have to do. When it’s sitting there waiting for you, but it’s very bad. It’s very bad for business in terms of — and it’s very bad for our workers and it’s unfair for our workers. And we should end it.”

But until we do, he’s going to keep right on using it.

Again, the overarching point is that Trump is the quintessential establishment2 candidate.

Justice Admits: Climate Skeptics Could Be Punished3

As you may recall, last September4 the White House received an alarming recommendation from a group of ecofascists. The authors asked the federal government to utilize the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in order to hold climate skeptics legally liable for the effects of man-made global warming. The letter, which prompted a congressional investigation5, specifically credits Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse for having publicly advocated the idea. While the outcome of the congressional investigation is unclear, the growing chorus demanding action against climate skeptics appears to have paid off. We learned this week that the Justice Department has, at the very least, entertained the idea.

On Wednesday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch took questions at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. One of her inquisitors — who else? Sen. Whitehouse — remarked: “Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice brought and won a civil RICO action against the tobacco industry for its fraud. Under President Obama, the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme. A request for action by the Department of Justice has been referred by you to the FBI. My question to you is other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?” According to Lynch, “This matter has been discussed.” She says Justice has “received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on.”

Who knows if it was Sen. Whitehouse or the letter that finally set Justice into motion, but it’s hard to imagine both weren’t influential. Obviously, such a move would result in myriad lawsuits, as it is a blatant attack on the First Amendment. But it’s not just the chilling effect on free speech that’s concerning here — the DOJ is playing politics with Rule of Law. During the same hearing Wednesday, “Lynch indicated … that the law doesn’t require the Justice Department to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email system, even if the FBI recommends criminal charges,” the Washington Examiner reported. What’s the point of even having a Justice Department if Rule of Law is tossed aside in favor of political advocacy?

Sanders' Case for Socialism6

Undemocratic Democrat “superdelegates” are giving Hillary Clinton a huge lead in the party’s presidential race, despite Bernie Sanders' competitive performances. This was true after New Hampshire, in which Sanders clobbered Hillary 60-38 only to split the delegate count7 at 15 apiece. And it was repeated in Michigan, where Sanders won narrowly but will likely lose the delegate count in the same manner.

Sanders is confident he’ll win them anyway, saying, “A lot of these superdelegates were pledged to Hillary Clinton way back when, probably before I even got into the race or just shortly afterwards. … I think you’re going to see some of them rethinking their commitment to Secretary Clinton if we can show that we’re winning states around this country. We have now won … nine states and a lot more are yet to come.”

Now, some folks might think Bernie is experiencing the ill effects of socialism. After all, Hillary’s just getting some of what he won; it’s her “fair share.” But we think it actually illustrates the opposite point. Clinton is the 1%, and the system is rigged in her favor. She’s the multimillionaire who’s leaving nothing but crumbs for Sanders. So here we are, watching as the Democrat primary itself has become a pretty effective Bernie Sanders ad.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Davis Harsanyi: A Vote for Trump Is a Vote Against American Consumers8
Mona Charen: For the Establishment9
Jonah Goldberg: Anti-Trump Conservatives Might Need to Swallow Pride, Support Cruz10

For more, visit Right Opinion11.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
What a Brokered Convention Could Mean12

By Nate Jackson

As the Republican presidential primary race rolls on, many are speculating about its conclusion. One possibility is a brokered convention, which will happen if no candidate wins a majority of delegates in the primaries. That’s 1,237 delegates out of 2,472 total, for those keeping score.

A quick recap as it stands today: Donald Trump leads the field with 459 (44%) and Ted Cruz is close behind with 364 (35%). Marco Rubio at 153 (15%) and John Kasich at 54 (5%) trail badly, and both can only hope for a brokered convention, though how they’d win one is hard to imagine without a major change in momentum. But 1,442 delegates remain up for grabs, so maybe anything can happen.

The immediate question for Rubio and Kasich is whether they can even win their home states — Florida and Ohio, respectively — on Tuesday. If they can’t, there’s almost no justification for remaining in the race. And with Rubio in particular, his precipitous and arguably deserved slide13 has some arguing that he’s just hurting Cruz in other states by sticking around. Cruz can’t win winner-take-all Florida, and it’s increasingly likely that Rubio won’t either, which means those 99 delegates will go to Trump. And Rubio will detract from Cruz in the proportional states of Missouri, Illinois and North Carolina.

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 3-11-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

If we had our druthers, both Rubio and Kasich would bow out now and let the chips fall where they may in a Trump-Cruz race.

So back to the brokered convention. Let’s say that no matter who remains in the race, no one reaches the required majority of 1,237 delegates for a clear victory and the nomination. What then?

Well, Trump and his supporters are arguing that if he’s leading at the end and doesn’t get the nomination, it will have been “stolen” from him, thereby “disenfranchising” millions of voters. It’s certainly understandable that they would think so, especially given that Trump always talks about “winning” and leading all the polls (though for some reason he neglects to mention the polls against Hillary Clinton, which all show him losing to her). But rules are rules.

As The Wall Street Journal summed up14, “The Republican Party’s rules say a candidate needs the votes of 1,237 of the 2,472 delegates at the July convention in Cleveland to win the nomination. They don’t say all one needs is a plurality, or to have won the most primaries. There is no moral right to the nomination because a candidate wins 40%, or even 49%, of the delegates. He needs a majority, and the 1,237 number is no secret.”

Political writer Mona Charen adds15, “Preventing a candidate from amassing a majority of delegates by suggesting they vote for others is not illegitimate. And if the strategy works and Trump arrives at the convention with less than a majority, by what logic can it be called stealing if he then fails to get the nomination? It hasn’t happened that way in a very long time, but those are the rules.”

The modern primary system didn’t really become established until after World War II, but it has rarely yielded a convention fight for the nomination. The last such fight for Republicans was in 1976, when Ronald Reagan challenged and lost to incumbent President Gerald Ford, who came into the convention with the lead. But Reagan didn’t take his voters and run third-party; he supported Ford — who lost the election to Jimmy Carter. Draw from that whatever lessons you will.

In any case, Trump could win a contested convention. On the first ballot, 1,700 delegates are bound to vote for the candidate to whom they’re pledged. After that, 80% become free to vote their own choice, and it increases on the third ballot and following. If Trump has 1,200 delegates coming in, it’s not at all a stretch to say the prevailing sentiment won’t be exactly that propounded by the Trump campaign: “Our guy won the most states and delegates, so he should get the nomination.” And maybe Trump will negotiate one of those great deals he’s always telling us about.

There are mitigating factors, of course. If Trump shows up with 1,100 delegates and Cruz has 1,050, it will change the calculation in a brokered convention. Or let’s say there actually is something bad in Trump’s tax returns16 or another scandal from his past comes to light. Shouldn’t that factor into the nominating process?

A final note: In a sense, a contested convention would upend the prevailing political system, which is the entire justification for Trump’s candidacy. It would be no small irony if that upending cost Trump the nomination.

MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE

ANALYSIS: Obama Seeks Peace in His Time17
Iran’s Message to the West: Nana Nana Boo Boo18
Three People Decline SCOTUS Nominations19
Decency Out the Window: Carson Endorses Trump20
No, BO, You Caused the Rise of Trump21
Shakeup at Wounded Warrior Project22
After Hurt Reporter, Breitbart Caters to Trump23

TOP HEADLINES

Cruz Gets Mike Lee Endorsement24
Internet Domain Handoff Takes Major Step Forward25
Ex-Putin Aide Died of Blunt Force Trauma in Washington26

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report27

OPINION IN BRIEF

David Harsanyi: “I do wonder … why there hasn’t been more political emphasis on Trump’s promise to make the products average Americans buy every day more expensive. That might matter to voters who are on the fence or haven’t been paying close attention. … Take Wal-Mart, for instance, which is not only America’s largest employer but also one that sells affordable goods to vast numbers of working-class people. And the majority of the merchandise Wal-Mart sells, despite its recent nationalistic sales pitch, is manufactured (in part or fully) abroad. If Trump is going to start trade wars and raise tariffs (American consumers, not the Mexican or Chinese government or its oligarchs, will pay for every cent), he should explain how his supercalifragilistic deals will both punish these countries and make goods cheaper for American consumers. … The backlash against globalization is ongoing, but in the end, it’s foot-stomping. Thankfully, nothing can really be done to stop it unless there is a sea change in politics. Do I believe that attacks on the consumer side of protectionism would make a big difference in the election? No. This isn’t a movement dictated by reason. But rather than argue abstract truths (and I’ve been guilty of this), maybe it’s time to concentrate on the pain American consumers would feel if Trump got his way.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.” —Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Observations: “The American system is slow and balky by design. It requires maturity and patience to achieve your political goals. Democrats have been remarkably strategic, returning again and again to cherished objectives, whereas Republicans have told themselves that leadership treachery rather than Madisonian architecture accounts for their frustration. Those who encouraged the ‘burn it down’ mania and who popularized the narrative that a malign Republican ‘establishment’ was responsible for the state of the nation may be many things but they are not conservative. Conservatives respect institutions and traditions.” —Mona Charen

Well then: “The Democrats are doing nothing with Social Security. They’re leaving it the way it is. … I will do everything within my power not to touch Social Security, to leave it the way it is.” —Donald Trump in the same answer at the debate

Non Compos Mentis: “First of all, there’s nobody on this stage that’s more pro-Israel than I am. OK. There’s nobody. I am pro-Israel. I was the grand marshal, not so long ago, of the Israeli Day Parade down Fifth Avenue.” —Donald Trump

Braying jackass: “It’s fair to say that the Republican political elites and many of the information outlets … have been feeding the Republican base for the last seven years a notion that everything I do is to be opposed, that cooperation or compromise somehow is a betrayal, that maximalist, absolutist positions on issues are politically advantageous, that there is a ‘them’ out there and an ‘us,’ and ‘them’ are the folks who are causing whatever the problems you’re experiencing and the tone of that politics, which I certainly have not contributed to.” —Barack Obama

Upright: “As far as a law that we can pass in Washington to change the weather, there’s no such thing. … I want this to be a safe and clean place, but these laws some people are asking us to pass will do nothing for the environment and they will hurt and devastate our economy.” —Marco Rubio

No kidding: “I have the world’s largest carbon footprint.” —Barack Obama

Demo-gogues: “Free riders aggravate me.” —Barack Obama’s jab at allies he says spend too little on defense (Strange, considering all of Obama’s supporters expect a free ride.)

For the record: “Obama is more likely to walk on water than he is to acknowledge the genocide against Christians.” —actor James Woods

And last… “If we picked presidential candidates at random, it would be statistically impossible to come up with a worse choice than Hillary vs. Trump.” —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.