|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: August 17, 2016, 06:19:57 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 8-12-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
Mid-Day Digest
Aug. 12, 2016
THE FOUNDATION
“To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and that to model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquillity would be to calculate on the weaker springs of human character.” —Alexander Hamilton (1788.)
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Obama’s Islamic State1
Barack Obama is “the founder of ISIS,” says Donald Trump. “I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton.” Thus began yet another opportunity for the Leftmedia to jump to Obama’s and Clinton’s defense, hollering, “That’s not true! Obama and Clinton didn’t found the Islamic State — they’re trying to defeat them!”
Conservative radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt gave Trump the opportunity to hone his message, saying, “You meant that he created the vacuum — he lost the peace.”
“No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS,” Trump insisted. “He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give [it to] her, too, by the way — Hillary Clinton.”
Could Trump have said this (or a thousand other things) better? Definitely. He’s making it way too easy for Democrats and their media allies. Besides, his own history of various positions on the Iraq war makes him a compromised messenger, too.
But, like his point about Hillary’s contempt for the Second Amendment2, Trump’s core criticism is sound. Hewitt’s framing is the correct one: By cravenly abandoning Iraq to fulfill an ill-conceived campaign promise, Obama created the vacuum that allowed the rise of the Islamic State3. Conservatives have been arguing this for years. Trump’s framing, however, puts that in far stronger terms. Obama is not showing “Inherent Resolve” in fighting the Islamic State. On the contrary, he seems perfectly content to largely ignore the threat to prove he’s not Islamophobic. Technically, of course, Obama didn’t “found” the Islamic State, but he sure did everything he could to clear the way for it to flourish.
And he had blinders on while he did it. The House released a bombshell report Thursday confirming what we reported a year ago4: Obama was using cooked intelligence to paint a rosier picture of the Islamic State’s condition. Central Command was, almost surely to comport with his political narrative, giving reports that were “inconsistent with the judgments of many senior, career analysts.” Further, the House report found, “these products also consistently described U.S. actions in a more positive light than other assessments from the [intelligence community] and were typically more optimistic than actual events warranted.”
Obviously, Obama had a political narrative to tell — the Islamic State was the “JV team” and he had al-Qaida “on the run” because he killed Osama bin Laden. He needed the intelligence to undergird that story. Trump is merely highlighting in the most visceral terms that this is one of Obama’s biggest lies.
Hillary’s Economic Plan: Obama 2.05
Hillary Clinton delivered a highly touted speech Thursday in Michigan outlining her economic plan. And Hillary, like Donald Trump in his economic speech6 on Monday, highlighted Michigan and Detroit in particular. Clearly, however, Clinton set out to make a sharp contrast between the economic outlook of Trump’s speech and her own. For Clinton, Detroit isn’t the model of failed Democrat policies and leadership, it’s a great comeback story. “The auto industry just had its best year ever,” she crowed.
The trouble is, everyone knows that the economy has not been good over these past eight years. Clinton’s explanation for the slowness of the recovery is that there remains “too much inequality.” But why was this inequality not addressed during eight years of Barack Obama’s “leadership”? Political gridlock, she says — that’s right, Republicans are to blame.
Clinton then went on to paint herself as the champion of the American middle class. She would be the candidate to listen to both sides and then forge ahead with a fair plan. She chastised Trump for his plan to cut taxes, claiming that it would only benefit the wealthy and lead to another recession.
Hillary then proceeded to outline her vision for America’s economic recovery, which consisted of the usual call for increasing taxes on the rich, increasing taxes on capital gains, a corporate exit tax and new taxes on financial transactions. This was followed by yet more commitments to increase a smorgasbord of government programs, such as free college, paid leave, higher minimum wage and the Paycheck Fairness Act to name a few. Of course, let’s not forget about the unions. Hillary said there is a need to “restore collective bargaining rights,” by which she likely means an assault on right-to-work laws.
Clinton is standing on the same economic platform as Obama eight years ago. She’s touting that same old failed socialist ideological pipe dream that bigger government leads to less inequality and greater economic growth. But who wants four more years of Obama’s economic malaise, where the only things that will increase are government regulations and the national debt?
Vindication for Voter ID7
This week featured mostly good news on the voter ID front. We begin with Texas, where last month the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals criticized the state’s voter ID requirements8 — which they viewed as prejudice against minorities — and ordered a lower court to revise and remedy the law. On Wednesday, a compromise was reached. The words “soften” and “weaken” were almost universally reported in newspaper headlines — an accurate description, to be sure. But it’s equally important to note, as Heritage Foundation fellow Hans von Spakovsky does9, that this “is probably about the best deal Texas could expect to get given the circumstances and personalities in the case.” He explains:
“The parties have agreed that Texas voters who don’t have one of the acceptable photo IDs under the statute will still be able to vote if they: ‘present a valid voter registration certificate, a certified birth certificate, a current utility bill, a bank statement, a government check, a paycheck, or any other government document that displays the voter’s name and an address and complete and sign a reasonable impediment declaration.’ … Texas actually managed to get better terms than either North or South Carolina since, in addition to completing a ‘reasonable impediment’ declaration, the voter will have to show some kind of document such as a utility bill or bank statement with his name and address.”
Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a ruling by District Court Judge Lynn Adelman, who objected to and subsequently nullified that state’s voter ID mandate. The appeals court declared: “We conclude both that the district court’s decision is likely to be reversed on appeal and that disruption of the state’s electoral system in the interim will cause irreparable injury.” This case is independent of a similar one involving District Court Judge James Peterson10, but let’s hope Peterson is similarly berated.
Finally, for those wondering why we need voting laws, consider the case of Olivia Lee Reynolds of Dothan, Alabama, who along with two other people conspired to rig a municipal election11 by falsely tallying votes. A jury found Reynolds culpable last year and she was ultimately sentenced to probation. Despite pleading guilty, Reynolds went through the appeals court seeking to have her sentencing overturned. Last week, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals denied her request.
Keep in mind, it’s almost impossible to convict of voter fraud. Prosecutors just happened to find one needle in a haystack. Last August, Barack Obama asserted, “Almost nobody wakes up saying, ‘I’m going to go vote in somebody else’s name.’ Doesn’t happen. So the only reason to pass [voter ID] laws, despite the reasonableness of how it sounds, is to make it harder for folks to vote.” Actually, it’s to prevent folks like Reynolds from rigging elections.
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
Gary Bauer: Hillary’s Latest Scandal12
Erick Erickson: The Never Ending Politics of Truth13
Mona Charen: The Moral of the Simone Biles Story14
For more, visit Right Opinion15.
TOP HEADLINES
Ukraine Puts Army on Alert as Conflict With Russia Heats Up16
Congress Was Briefed Last Year on DNC Hacking17
College Offers Segregation for ‘Historically Marginalized’ Students18
For more, visit Patriot Headline Report19. |
