|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: March 15, 2016, 07:11:08 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 3-15-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
Mid-Day Digest
Mar. 15, 2016
THE FOUNDATION
“Industry is increased, commodities are multiplied, agriculture and manufacturers flourish: and herein consists the true wealth and prosperity of a state.” —Alexander Hamilton (1790)
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Clinton Admits Her Energy Plan Will Destroy Jobs1
Hillary Clinton is now on record admitting her “green” energy policies will “put a lot of coal miners” out of their jobs. The politician who benefits from playing divisive politics went too far: she told the truth. What a gaffe!
“I’m the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country,” Clinton said2. “Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”
But never fear, coal-stained workers in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Kentucky (all contested states3 in the coming general election). While Clinton wants to destroy your jobs, she might offer you new ones in the heavily subsidized fields of green energy. We’re sure your skills of working decades underground translate well into working on a solar panel field or wind farm. Remember: Clinton cares.
“Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health [and] often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories,” Clinton continued. “Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don’t want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.”
Who does the Democrat Party serve? Not the blue-collar workers that used to be the backbone of the party. Under Barack Obama, the government waged a war on coal, and Clinton vows to continue to pick the winners and losers of the nation’s energy economy, courting the ecofascist vote. Clinton betrays a disregard for how her environmental policies4 harm ordinary Americans.
If you think that gaffe was bad, check out what she said about not losing “a single person5” in Libya.
Putin Declares Mission Accomplished in Syria6
In a move that was unexpected to the Untied States, Russia started withdrawing most of its military forces from the Syrian civil war Tuesday. The orders came after Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad talked by phone and just as some of the major players in the civil war come to the table for peace talks.
The question that remains is: What is Putin trying to do?
Syrian rebels wonder if Putin somehow came around to their side, pushing for a cessation of hostilities after a falling out with Assad. A spokesman for the groups fighting Assad, Salem al-Meslet, cautiously told The Wall Street Journal7, “It will be important if this decision is taken. It will be more important if Putin decides to stand beside the Syrian people, not beside the dictator.” This is a position Putin’s spokesman denies, however.
When Putin’s army first touched ground in Syria8 in September, some naïvely hoped that it was there to better beat up the Islamic State, to do the job the Obama administration didn’t want to do. As should have been apparent to everyone all along, however, Putin wanted his man Assad to enter peace talks with a position of strength. In the month’s Russia’s military has been in the country, it has beaten back Syrian rebels while Islamic State forces remain relatively untouched. Assad can come to the table with the upper hand, and Putin too arrives in a position of strength. He left the fight, so the West is pressured to make concessions, to keep Assad in power.
Putin’s goal all along was to gain diplomatic leverage in the Middle East, shutting out U.S. involvement. Thanks to the Obama administration’s foolish approach to international policy, Putin is well on his way to accomplishing his true goal.
Last Call for Rubio, Kasich9
Voters in five states — Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio — head to the polls today, with 358 Republican delegates on the line. Obviously, Marco Rubio and John Kasich hope to win their respective home states of Florida and Ohio, both of which are winner-take-all. But even if that happens, neither has a viable path to the nomination. In fact, Kasich would have to win more delegates than there are remaining. And Rubio is almost sure to lose Florida — he might not even finish second. So when you wake up tomorrow morning, this will be a two-man race, whether Rubio and Kasich admit it or not.
Donald Trump is already planning on a one-man race. “If we win Ohio and if we win Florida, then everybody agrees, every one of these guys, that it’s pretty much over,” he said. “Then I can focus on Hillary, because that’s what I really want to focus on. The Republican Party has to come together.”
Ted Cruz will have something to say about that. Trump could win the nomination while only receiving a plurality of votes, and even then Rubio and Kasich have each hedged on their pledges to support the nominee if that nominee is Trump. Cruz, playing on Trump’s boast about his loyal supporters, said, “If for example, he were to go out on Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, I would not be willing to support Donald Trump.”
In short, the Republican Party has hardly “come together.” It’s quite divided, and a lot of that has to do with a complete misunderstand of the word “establishment10.” And today’s vote won’t even begin to settle that.
Don’t Miss Patriot Humor
Check out Hillary’s Job Application11.
If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here12.
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
Thomas Sowell: Voting at a Crossroads13
Michael Barone: Will the Politics of Nostalgia Trump the Politics of the Future?14
Dennis Prager: The Left May Well Get Trump Nominated15
For more, visit Right Opinion16.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Who Politicized the Courts?17
By James Shott
The raging controversy over filling the Supreme Court vacancy of Justice Antonin Scalia, whose tragic death unleashed a political firestorm over whether Barack Obama should nominate his successor18, or whether the next president should make the nomination, must be looked at in perspective. It’s a true waste of time giving more than a bemused passing notice to the ranting of Democrats, who accuse the Republican-led Congress of all manner of wrongdoing in opposing a nomination by Obama, all the while hypocritically ignoring their own precedent-setting actions over the last 20-30 years, when they wrote the book on how to oppose Supreme Court nominations. This process is and has long been a political exercise.
And at least one high-ranking judge proclaims that the High Court itself is politicized. Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, explains19 this in a commentary published by The Washington Post. He wrote, “The significance of the Senate’s action lies in reminding us that the Supreme Court is not an ordinary court but a political court, or more precisely a politicized court, which is to say a court strongly influenced in making its decisions by the political beliefs of the judges.”
We expect Congress to be heavily political, and the president belongs to a political party and is chosen through a political process, so while it would be great if administrative agencies applied regulations and laws in a fair, neutral, non-political manner, bureaucracies are also often used as political tools.
Judges at all levels are expected and presumed to be impartial in applying the law and are sworn to follow the precepts of the U.S. Constitution. They must resist allowing their personal ideals or political leanings to affect the rulings or opinions they produce. The Constitution created three co-equal branches of the government; therefore all branches must employ restraint in order to remain within their constitutional boundaries. |
