The Patriot Post Digest 7-7-2016

[nChrist]

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 7-7-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

Jul. 7, 2016

THE FOUNDATION

“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors?” —Thomas Jefferson (1781)

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Lynch and Comey Have Some Explaining to Do1

Attorney General Loretta Lynch officially closed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and mishandling of classified information Wednesday. Lynch said in a statement, “I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation … [and] I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”

To be clear, she both hand-selected these “career prosecutors” at the Justice Department and likely knew the verdict before announcing last week that she would merely accept the recommendation. As Mark Alexander wrote2 yesterday, “Of course she could remove herself. She knew the fix was already in.” Also, the clean sweep absolving everyone is simply because they couldn’t prosecute the little guy without prosecuting the big girl.

Both Lynch and FBI Director James Comey are testifying before Congress today over the decision not to pursue charges against Clinton. “The FBI’s recommendation is surprising and confusing,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), chairman of the Oversight Committee. “The fact pattern presented by Director Comey makes clear Secretary Clinton violated the law. Congress and the American people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the FBI’s investigation.”

Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) noted that the FBI’s decision “raises serious concerns” and is “uniquely troubling in light of Attorney General Lynch’s secret meeting3 with former President Bill Clinton.”

Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, wrote a letter to Comey, saying, “You determined that Secretary Clinton’s ‘handling of very sensitive, highly classified information’ was ‘extremely careless.’ However, you found that the actions of Secretary Clinton did not lead to a recommendation to pursue criminal charges, including charges under the ‘gross negligence’ standard. … What is the difference, in the FBI’s view, between extreme carelessness and gross negligence?” That’s a good question. We expect both Lynch and Comey to stand firmly behind their stone wall — neither is going to admit the system is rigged. But that’s the clear message, and we hope voters act accordingly.

Perspective on Police Shootings4

Two white Baton Rouge police officers shot and killed a black man, and the predictable outrage ensued. Video of the Tuesday incident emerged, showing Alton Sterling being wrestled to the ground and then shot multiple times in the chest while pinned by police. But as we have said before in such cases, the video doesn’t tell the whole story.

Here are some additional useful considerations. The altercation took place at a convenience store where Sterling frequently runs a table from which he sells bootleg CDs. Police were called after Sterling allegedly ordered another person away from the property at gunpoint. Sterling was indeed armed — police retrieved a handgun from his right pocket, and the video shows them wrestling his right arm during the struggle. One officer yells, “He’s got a gun!” Store owner Abdullah Muflahi said police “were really aggressive with him from the start.” But Sterling also has a long rap sheet, which includes drug, theft, domestic battery and weapons charges.

Were the responding officers aware of Sterling’s record? What exchange happened before the video? Were officers excessively aggressive? We don’t yet know these answers, making jumping to conclusions because of a “Black Lives Matter” social media hashtag the wrong thing to do. In any case, Barack “racist cops5” Obama’s Social Justice™ Department has launched a civil rights investigation.

Meanwhile, in Minnesota, an Asian officer shot and killed another black man, Philando Castile, Wednesday during what should have been a routine traffic stop for a busted tail light. Castile’s girlfriend, whose four-year-old daughter was in the car at the time, live streamed the aftermath of the shooting on Facebook. She explained, “He let the officer know that he had a firearm and he was reaching for his wallet and the officer just shot him in his arm.” Castile was legally licensed to carry and he was exercising that right at the time. He also worked for a local school and, unlike Sterling, had no prior record — though they had “weed in the car,” the girlfriend admitted. This case seems more clearly a wrongful death, but again, all the facts are not known.

By and large, the 900,000 police officers who patrol America’s streets do their jobs with dignity and honor. But there are undoubtedly bad apples in the mix, and there are unjustified police shootings. Each case should be viewed on its own merits and not pre-judged by activists with an axe to grind. And we might note to the Black Lives Matter crowd that 2,000 people have been shot in Chicago this year; 319 of them have died, and the vast majority are black. Those lives matter every bit as much as Sterling’s or Castile’s.

Pandering Clinton Steals From Sanders' Playbook6

It was inevitable; the only question was when Hillary Clinton’s new and “improved” tuition overhaul would be revealed. In an obvious pander to Bernie Sanders supporters — which is to say, in a worthwhile attempt to rally the young adults who nearly derailed her 2016 presidential campaign — “Clinton has announced a plan to make debt-free college available to everyone,” according to a Wednesday announcement7.

“Under her plan,” Clinton’s campaign website explains, “every student will have the opportunity to graduate from an in-state four-year public college or university without taking on any student debt. Families with incomes up to $125,000 will pay no tuition at in-state public colleges and universities, which covers more than 80 percent of families. The plan will be phased in over five years, but families earning $85,000 or less will immediately be able to attend an in-state college or university without paying any tuition. As president, Hillary will also take executive action to give borrowers a 3-month moratorium on their federal student loan payments.”

Bernie Sanders pledged8 on his own website to “fight to make sure that every American who studies hard in school can go to college regardless of how much money their parents make and without going deeply into debt.” And while The Hill notes9 “the new Clinton plan does not go as far as one proposed by Sanders,” it’s clearly intended to procure the votes of college-aged snowflakes. The proposal quickly garnered Sanders' blessing: “I want to take this opportunity to applaud Secretary Clinton for the very bold initiative she has just brought forth today for the financing of higher education. … The final product is a result of the work of both campaigns.”

Obama unveiled his own “free” community college plan10 in January 2015, the cost of which is a lowball estimate of $60 billion over 10 years. That’s chump change compared to the estimated cost of Sanders' proposal — $75 billion annually. Predictably, Clinton’s grandiose rollout did not include a price tag, but it’s assuredly more than Obama’s and probably not too far from Sanders'. When it comes to government programs, “free” and “taxpayer-funded” are interchangeable terms. The bottom line is that middle class Americans are the hardest hit. Clinton’s plan also proves that her and Sanders really aren’t all that different. Socialism and liberalism go hand in hand.

Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column

Read Slick Hillie — The Slick Willie Sequel2, on why Hillary Clinton dodging an indictment is good news for Republicans!

If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here11.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

    Veronique de Rugy: Neither Snow nor Rain nor Billion-Dollar Losses12
    George Will: The Sobering Evidence of Social Science13
    Gary Bauer: Ramadan Ends With Hundreds Dead14

For more, visit Right Opinion15.

TOP HEADLINES

    Obama Slows Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal16
    Ryan Formally Urges Clapper to Block Clinton From Classified Briefings17
    Obama, Putin Confer Over Syrian War18

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report19.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Government Has Earned Distrust20

By Allyne Caan

“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” At one time, people may have believed this statement, though by the time of Ronald Reagan, it was the punchline of a joke. Indeed, any government worker silly enough to utter it would find uproarious laughter in his wake.

Certainly, a large swath of Americans still look to Uncle Sam to solve their problems, pay for their college, give them free health care, find them a job, and guarantee a safe space where they’ll never be offended. But these self-made serfs can’t cover the fact that trust in government is falling — and fast — not just here in America but around the world.

[nChrist]

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 7-7-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Edelman, one of the leading global communications and public relations companies, has been tracking trust for 16 years21, surveying the faith individuals around the world place in businesses, the media, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and government. Not surprisingly, as company head Richard Edelman explains22, people today are much more likely to trust a friend or peer — including a Facebook friend — than they are to trust a government leader. “We have a reversal of traditional influence,” he says. “It is going not top-down, but sideways.”

Frankly, that’s as it should be. But it rarely seems to result in voters voting for smaller government.

The Edelman study distinguishes between the “informed public” and “general population,” the former being college degree holders who are regular media consumers and in the top 25% of household income for their age demographic. Perhaps ironically, among this group, trust in government is generally higher than among the “general population.” Then again, elites trusting elites isn’t surprising at all.

The Pew Research Center confirms23 the plunging trust, noting that while trust in Washington topped 75% in the 1960s, by late 2015 it had fallen to about 20%. (We might note that the high trust in the ‘60s led to massive government expansion under the “Great Society24,” so perhaps distrust will lead to better things.)

Meanwhile, the 2008 financial crisis, which Barack Obama and Democrats blamed on everything but government, may actually be responsible for falling trust in government among the general public.

As The Atlantic explains22, “The 2008 financial crisis, [Edelman] argued, produced widespread suspicion that elites only act in their own interests … and that elites don’t necessarily have access to better information than the rest of the population does. The sluggish, unequal recovery from that crisis — the wealthy bouncing back while many others struggle with stagnant incomes — has only increased the skepticism.”

The Atlantic blames this global distrust of government for everything from Brexit25 to the rise of Donald Trump26.

Far from an indictment of the general population, however, this falling trust is an indictment of the government. As John Davidson logically concludes27, it’s little wonder Americans don’t trust the government given the decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton2. Davidson writes, “The populist wave that elevated Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders … has been pushed along by a growing sense that our elites do what they want and our institutions are unable or unwilling to check them. Institutional failure has perhaps played a greater role in this than the behavior of the elites themselves.”

Indeed, one need not look far to find examples. There’s the IRS targeting of conservatives28, the VA scandal29, the DOJ spying on reporters30, Supreme Court Justice John Robert’s rewriting ObamaCare to find it constitutional31 and, most recently, the FBI announcing Hillary Clinton is above the law — all while FBI Director James Comey admitted32 that other little people “who engaged in this activity” would face consequences.

Yet while the Republic crumbles — and let’s not sugar-coat it, it is crumbling — Obama is busy dictating bathroom policies in schools33 and the military34. This is exactly what he meant when he threatened to fundamentally transform America35.

It’s not too late to save our Ship of State, but to do so, we must admit it is sinking — not in danger of sinking, actually sinking.

Thomas Jefferson warned, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

James Madison likewise cautioned, “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

Thus for good reason our Founders established a constitutionally limited government, and for good reason they pledged to uphold our independence with “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” They weren’t fooled into believing Liberty could be preserved at any other price.

As we continue the fight today, let us not be fooled into thinking the price for us will be any less.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

    Anatomy of a Smear36
    Too Little to Fail?37

OPINION IN BRIEF

Veronique de Rugy: “Some centrist scholars have called for partial privatization under which a government Postal Service would continue delivering to all homes but that mail collection and transportation and other parts of the industry would be opened to private competition. But numerous European countries — including Britain, Germany and the Netherlands — have fully privatized their systems and opened them to competition. The dominant postal companies in those countries continue to deliver to every address. Full privatization works. One bad idea that 'reform’ Postal Service supporters are pushing is to allow the government service to compete with private firms in other industries, such as banking. That would be hugely unfair to taxpaying private businesses, and do we really believe that such a bureaucratic agency as the U.S. Postal Service could out-compete private businesses in other areas if there were a level playing field? Both liberal and conservative economists think that monopolies are bad because they’re inefficient and harmful to consumers. The government enforces antitrust laws to prevent monopolies in other industries. So why does the government itself enforce a giant mail monopoly? It’s time to put an end to this gift to special interests, privatize our postal industry and open it to competition.”

SHORT CUTS

You’re no “civil rights hero”: “There is a time-honored tradition of people who strongly disagree with a message and take it out on the messenger, and opponents of integration had a personal animus for Jackie Robinson. Opponents of all the great social movements would take out after the advocates that were most effective in asking people to change. As a result, I don’t take it personally when the criticism comes at me.” —Al Gore

Braying Jackass: “You guys [confiscated guns] here [in Australia] in one fell swoop and I wish that could happen in my country, but it’s such a personal issue for people that we cannot talk about it sensibly. We just can’t. People get so emotional that even when you make a suggestion about not selling AK-47s to people on terror watch lists, that’s a non-starter. I don’t know what needs to happen.” —actor Matt Damon praising Australia’s gun control

Death threats: “Look, there’s only one solution. A bunch of us anti-gun types are going to have to arm ourselves, storm the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, VA, and make sure there are no survivors. This action might also require coordinated hits at remote sites, like Washington lobbyists. Then and only then will we see some legislative action on assault weapons. Have a nice day.” —Southern State Community College professor James Pearce

For the record: “To say that Hillary Clinton is unfit to be commander-in-chief is to give her too much credit. It implies that she might be fit for other positions of responsibility. She’s not fit to be POTUS, and she’s not fit to be a private [in the Army]. It’s time for her to slink back to her foundation, make her speeches, and retire to private life. Instead, she’s still the odds-on favorite to stride into the Oval Office. Our nation is in the very worst of hands.” —David French

Belly laugh of the week: “We have gone to great lengths to avoid the appearance of interfering with [the Clinton email probe]. Director Comey himself noted that there was no outside influence brought to bear on this investigation. That certainly is consistent with the effort that we have made to protect the independence of the investigation.” —Josh Earnest

And last… “Hillary showed no ‘intent.’ She accidentally installed a server in her home, then accidentally wiped it clean during an investigation.” —Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest

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.