|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: May 12, 2016, 05:50:32 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 5-12-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
Mid-Day Digest
May 12, 2016
THE FOUNDATION
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” —John Adams (1770)
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Loretta Lynch Redefines Reality1
During her explanation for why Barack Obama’s Social Justice™ Department filed a counter suit2 against North Carolina over the state’s bathroom law, Attorney General Loretta Lynch pontificated that the government is in no position to “impose” a definition of gender upon America. In other words, the Department of “Justice” is bringing the full weight of bureaucratic fiat against a state it accuses of discriminating. But that alleged discrimination was against a class of people who have no legal definition, so the DOJ must rely on self-reporting bathroom-switchers to be honest.
“This is a time to summon our national virtues of inclusivity, diversity, compassion and open-mindedness,” Lynch lectured. “What we must not do — what we must never do — is turn on our neighbors, our family members, our fellow Americans, for something they cannot control, and deny what makes them human. This is why none of us can stand by when a state enters the business of legislating identity and insists that a person pretend to be something they are not, or invents a problem that doesn’t exist as a pretext for discrimination and harassment.” [emphasis added]
If there is no measure of who is transgender and who is not outside of self-described feeling, Rule of Law is flung out the window. Would the Justice Department accept a definition of exactly what it means to be transgender? Or is it discrimination to even ask for an answer? Until answered, the privacy most people assume when they enter a bathroom is nonexistent, all because the Obama administration is imposing an altered reality on 99.7% of us — inventing a problem that didn’t previously exist, if you will.
Clinton’s Latest Nanny State Plans3
As we noted yesterday4, one reason Bernie Sanders has lost momentum (despite winning states) is because Hillary Clinton has gone on the counterattack by insisting his math doesn’t add up. Clinton markets herself as the more moderate and realistic alternative who can build on Barack Obama’s legacy. In a way, she’s right. Her policies are less radical than Sanders', but rest assured — much of what she wants to accomplish in the White House is based on the same deep-rooted fallacies. And that’s a reality many of her supporters refuse to accept.
Clinton’s recent pivot is to Nanny State initiatives. Her most recent idea revolves around child care. According to a Wall Street Journal editorial5, “Her solution is for the feds to cap the share of a family’s income that goes toward care at 10%, with the rest of the tab covered by various tax benefits, direct cash payments and scholarships.” Yet there are myriad programs already in place. The Journal says, “The auditors at the Government Accountability Office report that there are currently 45 federal programs dedicated to supporting care ‘from birth through age five,’ spread across multiple agencies. The Agriculture Department runs a nursery division, for some reason.”
Moreover, “Mrs. Clinton’s new dispensations for the kids are especially notable because she has already pledged to double spending on early education, create universal pre-school and mandate 12 weeks of paid family leave. She won the ‘pro-family’ bidding war with Bernie Sanders but won’t let it end. In any case, her campaign has now published no fewer than 31 white papers so far, even one last week dedicated to ‘protecting animals and wildlife.’ Instead of pivoting to the middle for the general election, Mrs. Clinton’s progressive ambitions are rising with her odds of returning to the White House.”
Last July, a befuddled Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the DNC, couldn’t explain the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist6. That’s because, as Clinton’s agenda makes clear, at the core there really is no difference. The end result is the same. It’s merely a matter of how quickly we implode.
What Is Trump Trying to Hide in His Tax Returns?7
Donald Trump declared8 this week that he would not release his tax returns for several months — perhaps after the November election, maybe never at all. The presumptive Republican nominee said (as he has before) that he wouldn’t release his returns until after the IRS is done auditing him, adding that he thinks the public isn’t interested in the documents. “There’s nothing to learn from them,” Trump argued.
On the contrary, Mark Alexander wrote9 in February. For one, Trump built his platform on the fact that he’s “really rich,” a claim that is possibly not as true as he’d like us to believe10. Releasing his tax returns will clear up the question once and for all whether the TV personality is worth billions or only a few hundred million. “But while the speculation about his wealth may seem trivial to some,” Alexander writes, “what cannot be seen as trivial are the questions of who and what Donald Trump has supported with all that wealth over the last decade.” In other words, seeing where Trump has spent his wealth — how often he donated to Democrat causes and how little he’s given to veterans groups — will show where his true loyalty lies.
Trump’s refusal to release his returns is “a ticking time bomb for the GOP,” warns11 National Review’s John Fund. In the last election cycle, the IRS illegally leaked some of Mitt Romney’s tax information. What happens if the GOP officially makes Trump its nominee in July and then it turns out his financial dealings cast even more serious doubt on his viability as an effective leader? At this point, Hillary Clinton, who used a secret email server to skirt the Freedom of Information Act, seems more transparent. After all, she vowed to release12 the government’s files on UFOs and extraterrestrial life — and that’s a strategic move on her part.
Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column
Read Trump, Now What?13, on how we should put ALL our energy behind defeating Clinton. One doesn’t have to be “for Trump” in order to seek every vote we can muster “against Clinton.”
If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here14.
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
Victor Davis Hanson: Elites Can Afford to Support Looser Immigration Policies15
George Will: Amtrak Helps Government Ride Off the Rails16
Paul Kengor: When the Left Liked Conscientious Objection17
For more, visit Right Opinion18.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Facebook Is Only a Symptom of Leftist Intolerance19
By Allyne Caan
Despite creating all those new “reaction” buttons, Facebook hasn’t found the perfect emoji to describe the latest news surrounding the social media giant’s political suppression tactics. As we wrote20 earlier this week, former Facebook employees have claimed the company rigs its “trending” section to downplay news from conservative sources. In short, while Facebook users think they’re seeing trending news, they’re really seeing the news Facebook wants them to see. Leftists would always rather suppress conservative thought than debate it.
Making this web of intrigue even stickier is the recent revelation that the person responsible for managing Facebook’s Trending Topics section, Tom Stocky, has given21 the maximum $2,700 to Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign. His wife also maxed out at $2,700. Of course, both are free to support their candidate of choice. But it certainly does add credence to questions over whether Facebook’s trending topics are really trending or simply “Stocky-approved.” |
