nChrist
|
 |
« on: March 20, 2018, 05:17:26 PM » |
|
________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 3-20-2018 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription ________________________________________
The Patriot Post® · Mid-Day Digest Mar. 20, 2018 · https://patriotpost.us/digests/54850-mid-day-digest
IN TODAY’S EDITION
An armed school resource officer stopped a would-be mass killer today. Trump outlines a three-pronged approach to fighting the opioid epidemic. Louis Farrakhan continues to be embraced by Democrats. No, abortion is not “safe.” Here’s why. Are there Fourth Amendment protections at the border? Plus our Daily Features: Top Headlines, Memes, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.
THE FOUNDATION
“The Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution.” —Alexander Hamilton (1788.)
IN BRIEF
An Officer With a Gun Saved Students’ Lives Today1
A student opened fire this morning at Great Mills High School in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. (Caveat — details on these things are always sketchy this early.) Fortunately, before he did more than wound two fellow students, including the female he was specifically targeting, the school resource officer fired back and stopped the threat, killing the assailant. Obviously, having an armed officer on campus saved lives today — but only because he was willing to respond, unlike the Parkland, Florida, deputy2.
Following the adolescent Second Amendment puppet protests3 last week, and ahead of this weekend’s March for Our Lives, it’s worth noting that the demands4 of these students/leftist political props include two policies they oppose. One of them is this: “Any legislation that would aim to fortify our schools with more guns.” Again, many students are alive today because the Maryland school was fortified with a gun. Food for thought for any teens honest about saving lives instead of serving as pawns for the Left.
Trump Touts Plan to Combat Opioid Epidemic5
By Thomas Gallatin
President Donald Trump on Monday announced his plan for fighting the nation’s growing opioid epidemic6. Speaking in Manchester, New Hampshire, a state plagued with the second highest rate of opioid overdose deaths, Trump declared, “This scourge of drug addiction in America will stop. It will stop. Every day, 116 Americans die from an opioid-related overdose. Failure is not an option. Addiction is not our future. … I want to win this battle. I don’t want to leave at the end of seven years and still have this problem.”
Trump’s plan entails a three-pronged approach that seeks to address the illegal selling and distribution of opioids, further expand addiction recovery programs and focus on safer medical prescription practices along with the development of newer pain-relief drugs that don’t hold the same addictive potential as opioids. The plan would also work for prison reform, focusing on rehab programs for individuals whose drug addiction led to their imprisonment, while at the same time punishing more severely those responsible for dealing drugs.
Hudson Institute Senior Fellow David Murray welcomed the plan, saying, “In many respects, the plan is not novel. It’s a restoration. This used to be the boundaries and pillars of standard American drug policy, what they’ve brought back together in this statement and plan.” Murray criticized Barack Obama’s federal drug policy as unbalanced. But he said that Trump’s plan is a return to a policy that “was a balanced strategy, that wove together the strengths of prevention, treatment, supply reduction, organizational attacks with the criminal justice system, and international partnerships.”
Regardless of the merits of Trump’s policy plan, the mainstream media fixated on what amounts to a typical Trumpian hyperbolic comment. In touting the part of his policy that seeks to get tough on drug trafficking, Trump said that he was in favor of the “death penalty for drug dealers.” While much of the MSM is wringing their hands over this, the actually policy plan does not call for any changes to the nation’s current legal system. This is another classic example of Trump identifying the problem and letting Americans know that he is serious about dealing with it. His rhetorical tool connects with people quickly on an emotive basis, and it effectively calls attention to a pressing issue. Now if we can all get serious about the actual problem…
Dems Defend Rather Than Denounce Farrakhan7
By Nate Jackson
Louis Farrakhan, leader of the famously anti-Semitic Nation of Islam, is a repulsive figure on the fringes of American politics. But he’s not as much on the fringes as he should be. Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) introduced a resolution in the House formally condemning Farrakhan for “promoting ideas that create animosity and anger” aimed at Jewish Americans and Judaism, and condemning “all manifestations of expressions of racism, anti-Semitism, and ethnic or religious intolerance.” It was a politically shrewd move, because so many Democrats just can’t bring themselves to denounce Farrakhan. Indeed, as our Arnold Ahlert wrote last week, the entire Democrat Party is slouching towards anti-Semitism8.
That became even more clear Monday when Black Lives Matter, the New Black Panther Party and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network led a lobbying effort on Capitol Hill not about denouncing Farrakhan’s racism but to block Rokita’s resolution condemning it. Instead, these rabble-rousers want a resolution condemning President Donald Trump for his perceived racism.
Gary Bauer noted the sad truth in the form of some questions9: “Did they lobby for criminal justice reform? Better school safety measures in the inner cities? Expanding enterprise zones to boost economic opportunity in black communities? Sadly, their presence on Capitol Hill had nothing to do with any of those causes.” Instead, they’re defending a reprehensible man.
Several Democrats have met with Farrakhan, including perhaps most prominently DNC Deputy Chair Rep. Keith Ellison, but also Representatives Maxine Waters (CA), Barbara Lee (CA), Danny Davis (IL), Andre Carson (IN), Gregory Meeks (NY) and and Al Green (TX). Ellison in particular has sought to dismiss those connections10, but he’s been caught in the lie. Even The Washington Post gave him “Four Pinocchios.” In a blog post this past Sunday, Ellison continued to protest too much11, and Davis recently defended Farrakhan as “an outstanding human being.”
Also recently, a 2005 photo surfaced of an up-and-coming Barack Obama smiling next to Farrakhan12. If only he had been vetted sooner.
To sum it up, the fundamental problem is that elected Democrats are either unconvincingly distancing themselves from a racist reprobate or they’re utterly embracing him and calling him good. And they want us to trust them with governing.
|