|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: April 30, 2017, 04:35:17 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 4-24-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
Mid-Day Digest
Apr. 24, 2017
IN TODAY’S EDITION
Leftists prefer to define “hate speech” as anything they don’t like.
Interesting new revelations in the case of Comey v. Clinton and Lynch.
Just how conservative is the European “right wing”? Not very.
Daily Features: Top Headlines, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.
THE FOUNDATION
“Speak seldom, but to important subjects, except such as particularly relate to your constituents, and, in the former case, make yourself perfectly master of the subject.” —George Washington (1787)
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Howard Dean Really Hates ‘Hate Speech’1
Former Vermont governor and failed presidential aspirant Howard Dean has some advice for conservative firebrands targeted by student snowflakes on college campuses. According to Dean2, “Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.” He asserted this last week after former New York Times reporter Steven Greenhouse reminded his followers (also via Twitter), “Free Speech Defenders Don’t Forget: Ann Coulter once said: My only regret w/ Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.”
But that wasn’t the end of Dean’s screed. In March, Ann Coulter, in her typically inflammatory way, facetiously said, “I would like to see a little more violence from the innocent Trump supporters set upon by violent leftist hoodlums.” This prompted another retort3 from Dean, who last night asserted, “This is NOT protected speech under the first amendment.” Add all this up, Dean contends4, and here’s the bottom line: “This does not mean she can be prosecuted for saying this but I argue this kind of stuff is grounds for barring her from a University campus.”
There’s a legitimate argument to be had regarding Coulter’s approach to confabulation. But there’s no overstating how important it is to protect free speech — one of the cornerstones of a free society. That’s why Coulter’s remarks — unnecessarily provocative though they may be — shouldn’t be, and legally aren’t, considered to be promoting violence.
If “hate speech” can be interpreted any way we want, then literally any and all dissent is fair game5. Oddly enough, an unlikely politician understands this. Another Vermont renegade, Bernie Sanders, correctly said, “Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous ― to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation.” He even offered this challenge to anti-Coulter antagonists: “Ask her the hard questions. Confront her intellectually. Booing people down, or intimidating people, or shutting down events, I don’t think that that works in any way.”
And here we have yet another strange rift among leftists. Perhaps Sanders and DNC chief Tom Perez can add this to their list of issues to hash out while on their “unity tour,” whose only achievement thus far has been highlighting just how divided the party is.
Comey Knew Lynch Couldn’t Be Trusted6
A Saturday exposé7 in The New York Times contains some interesting claims and insight on the extent to which FBI Director James Comey felt that then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch was duplicitous in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email. The article speaks of Comey’s “distrust of senior officials at the Justice Department, who he and other F.B.I. officials felt had provided Mrs. Clinton with political cover. The distrust extended to his boss, Loretta E. Lynch, the attorney general, who Mr. Comey believed had subtly helped play down the Clinton investigation.” Come now, it’s not like she secretly met with Bill Clinton8 on the airport tarmac during the investigation. Oh, right…
Two revelations in particular aptly demonstrate Comey’s dilemma. First, the Times relays the events of a 2015 meeting in which “everyone agreed that Mr. Comey should not reveal details about the Clinton investigation. But Ms. Lynch told him to be even more circumspect: Do not even call it an investigation, she said, according to three people who attended the meeting. Call it a ‘matter.’ Ms. Lynch reasoned that the word ‘investigation’ would raise other questions: What charges were being investigated? Who was the target?” Many words come to mind, but “impartiality” isn’t one of them.
Second, the Times continues, “Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention. The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document.” This document, which was intercepted by Russian hackers, appears to be yet another self-inflicted wound for the Clinton campaign.
What’s interesting is how the Times early on appears to takes a shot at Comey because, in conjunction with last fall’s pre-election lay-up for Clinton9, “He did not say … that the F.B.I. was also investigating the campaign of Donald J. Trump. Just weeks before, Mr. Comey had declined to answer a question from Congress about whether there was such an investigation. Only in March, long after the election, did Mr. Comey confirm that there was one.” There’s just one glaring issue with this line of reasoning: Evidence. The evidence is overwhelming regarding Clinton and Co.’s coverup and corruption, while nearly a year later the facts have failed to establish a grand Trump-Russia scheme.
On Saturday, the March for Science was held in Washington, DC, where demonstrators lambasted conservatives for ostensibly ignoring facts and science. Yet everywhere you look it’s increasingly obvious that leftists conjure up narratives where no proof exists and ignore overwhelming evidence when it’s an inconvenient stumbling block to their crusade. Case in point: The 2016 election. Whatever their goal is, it’s based on twisting facts and evidence.
Top Headlines10
Poll: Two-thirds of Americans think that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the country. (The Washington Post11)
Poll: Trump would beat Clinton in a rematch among 2016 voters. (The Washington Post12)
Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron head to runoff in French election — a blow to the establishment. (The Daily Signal13)
Barack Obama to give first speech since leaving office. (Chicago Tribune14)
Chicago adopts ID program for undocumented immigrants. (CBS Chicago15)
Biden used false data to smear Marine Corps over armored vehicle request from Iraq. (The Washington Free Beacon16)
We’re apparently stuck with that Australian refugee deal after all. (Hot Air17)
North Korea threatens Australia with nuclear strike over “toeing the line” with U.S. (NBC News18.)
Settled science? 107 cancer papers retracted due to peer review fraud. (Ars Technica19)
New Orleans starts tearing down Confederate monuments, sparking protest. (Associated Press20)
Policy: Shunning the shutdown. (Heritage Foundation21)
Policy: Inconvenient truths the “March for Science” protesters ignore. (Investor’s Business Daily22)
For more, visit Patriot Headline Report23.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
How Conservative Is the European ‘Right-Wing’?24
By Brian Mark Weber
Since Donald Trump emerged as a viable candidate in 2016 and went on to win the presidency, other politicians in Europe have ascended in popularity including Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and Nigel Farage in Great Britain. Typically, the media have lumped together Donald Trump with just about any non-establishment European political candidate. So, thanks in large part to Leftmedia mischaracterization, most Americans simply assume these upstarts to be in the same grain as American conservatives.
For example, in 2016 the Washington Post suggested25 that little separates Trump’s rise in the U.S. from the emergence of populists in Europe, and that one of the primary threads tying them all together is an uneducated, aging support base that fears social change.
There is certainly some truth to that — after all, Trump himself is definitely more populist and nationalist than conservative. But this narrative is a narrow oversimplification of what’s happening. Certainly, European populist candidates have latched onto Trump’s message by appealing to their own citizens' weariness over migrant populations and eroding national sovereignty within the European Union.
Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s National Front party, is headed to a May 7 runoff for the French presidency after Sunday’s vote. She’s a 20-point underdog against globalist EU proponent Emmanuel Macron. Interestingly, neither establishment party advanced to the runoff. Le Pen regularly warns about the threat posed by immigration into France, saying, for example, “Mass immigration is not an opportunity for France; it’s a tragedy for France.” She promises to protect citizens from the dangers of unfettered immigration. But one issue alone is not enough to brand Le Pen a conservative.
Trump applauded her, saying, “She’s the strongest on borders, and she’s the strongest on what’s been going on in France. Whoever is the toughest on radical Islamic terrorism, and whoever is the toughest at the borders, will do well in the election.” |
