The Patriot Post Digest 9-1-2016

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 9-1-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

Sep. 1, 2016

THE FOUNDATION

“But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.” —James Madison (1788.)

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Pollaganda in Full Swing1

Reuters recently announced a change to its polling method, and it has affected its measurement of the presidential race. In the previous five years that Reuters has been conducting polls it has included an option of “neither/other” among the available candidate choices. It decided to drop the “neither” option, offering the rational that it was skewing the data. With most other election polling showing Hillary Clinton with a comfortable lead over Donald Trump, Reuters may have been inclined to question why its polling was an outlier. This method change initially favored Clinton, but it has more recently shown the candidates in a virtual tie.

Irrespective of Reuters' specific reasoning, it has been well known that one of the tactics employed by Leftmedia outlets seeking to swing public opinion toward Democrats is what we have long called pollaganda2. When poll numbers favor a leftist candidate or cause, the Leftmedia is quick to trumpet the results with a very positive message claiming that the country is moving in the “right” direction. When polls favor a conservative candidate or cause, the results are often either ignored by the Leftmedia or lamented as vestiges of a backwardness within the public that needs to be challenged and changed.

While polling numbers can be either encouraging or discouraging for conservatives, it does little good to either exuberantly celebrate them as justification for a candidate or cause when favorable or to decry them as fraudulent when unfavorable. The 2012 election is a testament to that folly — the polls were pretty accurate that year, and too many conservatives dismissed them. To principally stand for what is true and good irrespective of what the polls may say is historically where conservatives have staked their claim. Anything else is merely dancing to the tune of passing fancies.

Facebook Continues Its Leftist Ways3

Over the last few months Facebook has been in the news often, and for reasons other than its latest stock value. This past May, Fox News reported on 10 instances where conservatives were singled out for censorship, and this after Facebook’s own internal investigation in which it claimed to have found no evidence of overt anti-conservative bias. However, after several more revelations of censoring conservative content, Facebook admitted that there had been some censoring of conservative content4 — but only by a few workers. The problem is, Facebook’s anti-conservative bias hasn’t changed.

A recent example is that of middle school teacher Stephan Neidenbach, who founded a Facebook page entitled “We Love GMOs and Vaccines.” To his surprise he later found the page had been removed by Facebook censors, because it offended some anti-GMO and anti-vaccine activists. National Review recounts5, “Despite the fact that no polices were violated, [Facebook] acquiesced to [the activists'] demands and deactivated the page. … Neidenbach was subsequently banned from the platform for 30 days.”

This is yet another example of Facebook’s bias against conservative pages, whether they be pro-Second Amendment, conservative news or opposed to a variety of liberal issues. Facebook clearly seeks to tilt the public’s views on cultural and political issues away from a conservative perspective and toward leftist and socialist ones. No matter how much it may deny its bias, Facebook is a powerful platform that aims to promote and normalize a leftist worldview.

Obama Cuts Military Pay Raises6

Just back from his resort vacation with the rich and famous7 on Martha’s Vineyard, Barack Obama announced that he is capping military pay raises at 1.6% next year, well below private sector increases. “I am strongly committed to supporting our uniformed service members,” Obama claimed, “but our country continues to recover from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare. … This effort requires tough choices, especially in light of budget constraints.” (Oh, so now he admits we are still in a recovery and face budget constraints!)

This marks the seventh year Obama has undercut military pay raises, all of which have been under 2%.

As Mark Alexander noted in “The Most Costly Military Waste: Morale8” yesterday, “While our Armed Forces personnel are the best in the world, their effectiveness is being undermined by wasteful and absurd political mandates. At the same time their CINC is asking them to do much more with far less, his statist domestic spending for special interest constituencies grows unabated. The net effect of Obama’s mandates and spending priorities is destroying our military’s most valuable asset, the morale of our warriors. And the decline in morale undercuts, in Washington’s timeless words, ‘the most effectual means of preserving peace.’”

Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column

Read The Most Costly Military Waste: Morale8. Our armed forces personnel are the best in the world, but their effectiveness is being undermined by wasteful and absurd political mandates.

If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here9.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Jeff Jacoby: Campaigns So Long They Make Children Cry10
George Will: A ‘Slush Fund’ by Any Other Name11
Victor Davis Hanson: The More Things Change, the More They Actually Don’t12

For more, visit Right Opinion13.

TOP HEADLINES

Legislators File Contempt Motion Against McAuliffe14
U.S. Agreed to ‘Secret’ Exemptions for Iran After Nuclear Deal15
No Guns for Medical Marijuana Users16
Brazil Impeaches President Dilma Rousseff17

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report18.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Trump Aims to Set the Immigration Record Straight19

By Nate Jackson

As we noted back in August, Donald Trump’s immigration plan was exactly why he was so appealing20 to Republican primary voters. Here was an outsider who promised to do what the establishment21 wouldn’t — secure the border and deport millions of illegal aliens. Then came the general election, and Trump appeared to soften his stance22. On Wednesday, however, he worked to set things straight with a significant speech23 on the subject. The question, then, is which Trump would take office and set policy?

Trump began the day with a huge gamble — making a visit to Mexico to meet with its president, Enrique Pena Nieto. We say gamble because it could have gone very badly for Trump if Nieto publicly repudiated him or if Trump failed to appear “presidential.” But it paid off. The meeting was cordial, and Trump both appeared presidential and elevated a sense of cooperation with our southern neighbor. Such cooperation is essential to solving the immigration problem for both countries.

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 9-1-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

On the subject of deportations, Trump said yesterday, “According to federal data, there are at least two million criminal aliens now inside the country. We will begin moving them out day one, in joint operations with local, state and federal law enforcement. Beyond the two million, there are a vast number of additional criminal illegal immigrants who have fled or evaded justice. But their days on the run will soon be over. They go out, and they go out fast. Moving forward, we will issue detainers for all illegal immigrants who are arrested for any crime whatsoever, and they will be placed into immediate removal proceedings. We will terminate the Obama administration’s deadly non-enforcement policies that allow thousands of criminal aliens to freely roam our streets.”

He thus definitely softened his previous pledge to deport all (estimated) 11 million illegals as quickly as possible.

First deporting illegals guilty of other crimes is to us the common-sense position. But it also happens to be the position held by most of Trump’s rivals for the nomination, including Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, whom Trump and his supporters derided as “globalists” supporting “amnesty.” Trump also scoffed at Mitt Romney’s 2012 plan to enforce employment law in such a way as to encourage self-deportation. Now that’s also part of Trump’s plan, as is waiting until enforcement works before deciding what to do with “those who remain.” It’s good to see him come around.

Trump very effectively made his case for deporting criminals by telling the stories of five people killed by illegals. “Countless Americans who have died in recent years would be alive today if not for the open border policies of this administration.”

He also clearly set the terms of the debate, while rejecting the premise of the Left. “The central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants,” he said. “Only out of touch media elites think the biggest problem facing American society today is that there are 11 million illegal immigrants who don’t have legal status. To all the politicians, donors and special interests, hear these words from me today. There is only one core issue in the immigration debate and it is this: the well-being of the American people.”

In short, his position as stated yesterday is essentially the — or at least an — orthodox Republican position. So back to our opening question: Which Trump would take office? By that, we mean to ask why he let the debate over his shifting stance simmer for the last two weeks, when the overall effect of this speech was to reiterate that he’d be the toughest president on immigration in a long time. That’s what matters to voters. Trusting Trump (or any politician, for that matter) to follow through is another story.

And a parting thought from Trump, just this morning, after the speech: “Oh, there’s softening. … I think you’re going to see there’s really quite a bit of softening.”

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

Birds of a Feather: Russian and Democrat Election Hacks24 — Dems object to voter ID laws while decrying Moscow’s interference.
Venezuela’s Fast Descent Into Tyranny25 — Maduro taking more aggressive measures to maintain power.
10,000 ‘Refugees’ Threaten America26 — Almost all of them are Muslim.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Jeff Jacoby: “Political ambition and a taste for power exist in every society and era. But the insanity of marathons for the White House that last nearly two years is uniquely, humiliatingly American. I’m as ardent an American exceptionalist as they come, but not everything we do is an improvement on the way others do it. … Canada’s recent election campaign … lasted a grand total of 78 days — the longest in Canadian history, but a blink compared with what Americans must endure. In Mexico, an election season lasts 150 days, start to finish. Britons are accustomed to election campaigns that consume five or six weeks. The preposterous duration of U.S. campaigns might be justifiable if it generated off-the-charts enthusiasm and voter participation. But it does just the opposite. Long before election day, Americans tell pollsters that they are sick and tired of the whole thing. And when the time to cast a ballot finally arrives, U.S. voter turnout is among the lowest in the world. Pretty much everything that’s rotten with presidential campaigns … is a function of their interminable length. Presidential campaigns weren’t this endlessly exhausting in the past, and they don’t have to be in the future.”

SHORT CUTS

For the record: “I have a rule or two about the topic of race. … The first rule is that in a dialogue about politics, current events, horticulture, haute cuisine, you name it, the first person to introduce the question of race is probably a racist. If that person belabors the point, he is definitely a racist intent on exploiting the issue for personal gain. Finally, if he is obsessive on the matter, his racism has become pathological. … By this standard, Hillary Clinton is definitely, at least by contemporary standards, a racist.” —R. Emmett Tyrell

Race bait: “Colin Kaepernick’s sin wasn’t his questioning of America’s greatness or his expression of shame and disappointment in the country. His only sin was that he did those things while sticking up for other minorities.” —columnist Josh Moon in a piece republished in USA Today, “Civil dissent is only for white people”

Upright: “One might think that an athlete like Kaepernick, not long ago fined for calling an opposing player the N-word, would be a tad reluctant to blast America for its alleged racism and oppression. But this is about America’s racism, not his own. The recent Will Smith movie ‘Concussion’ argues that football causes brain damage. As for Kaepernick, it might well be a case of early onset.” —Larry Elder

Non Compos Mentis: “[The right term is] ‘undocumented,’ by the way. If you use the term ‘illegal immigrants,’ that is very incendiary to our Hispanic population here in this country.” —Gary Johnson

The BIG lie: “I will never, ever disrespect Gold Star families who made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation.” —Hillary Clinton (Like the way you “honored” Patricia Smith, mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith?)

Slamming Obama unbeknownst: “Our power comes with a responsibility to lead humbly, thoughtfully and with a fierce commitment to our values. When America fails to lead, we leave a vacuum.” —Hillary Clinton

And last… “I guess the Mexican President didn’t want to pay the $250,000 speaking fee to talk with Hillary?” —Amy Mek

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.