|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: March 11, 2019, 04:11:29 PM » |
|
________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 3-11-2019
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
_______________________________
The Patriot Post® · Mid-Day Digest
Mar. 11, 2019
https://patriotpost.us/digests/61683-mid-day-digest
THE FOUNDATION
“We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections.” —John Adams (1797)
https://patriotpost.us/fqd/61681-founders-quote-daily
IN TODAY’S EDITION
Democrats aren’t very democratic, as revealed in the For the People Act.1
Trump’s budget reveals his priorities but stands little chance of becoming law.2
Daily Features: More Analysis3, Columnists4, Headlines5, Opinion in Brief6, Short Cuts7, Memes8, and Cartoons9.
IN BRIEF
House Demos’ Election (Fraud) Bill10
The Democrat-controlled House passed bill HR 1 Friday — the dubiously named “For the People Act11.” The purpose of the bill, according to Democrats, is to “expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants.” However, far from “expanding Americans’ access to the ballot box,” the bill instead runs roughshod12 over Americans’ constitutional rights and states’ rights, diminishing the power of citizens’ votes by failing to prohibit noncitizen voting.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) noted the irony of a bill ostensibly crafted to expand and protect the voting rights of Americans but doing the exact opposite: “It sounds like I’m making it up. What kind of government would cancel the vote of its own citizens, and replace it with noncitizens?” Crenshaw added, “Today I offered a motion to recommit #HR1 reaffirming that only US citizens should have the right to vote. Dems rejected it. Next time you go to the ballot box, keep that in mind. The future of their party is in cities like San Fran, where illegals can vote. Let that sink in.”
The bill makes an absolute mockery of federalism, as it would establish greater centralized control over elections by Washington bureaucrats. In other words, this bill is little more than a federal power grab that National Review’s editors criticize13 for “creating a chilling effect on political communications through sheer uncertainty and confusion.” NR’s editors further note, “Democrats seem to believe that political speech is just too dangerous to be unrestrained. It has to be micromanaged, regulated by technocrats until it is directed into its government-approved lanes. This is of course exactly what incumbent politicians tend to prefer. They want predictable debates, reliable funding streams, and (above all) power — including the power to punish their opponents.”
In fact, HR 1 is so bad that even the leftist American Civil Liberties Union opposes it14, writing in a 13-page letter that the bill would “unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations.” And the chairman of the Institute for Free Speech, Bradley Smith, observes15 that the Democrats’ “goal seems to be to limit discussion of candidates to the candidates and parties themselves, at the expense of the public at large. However, even candidates are likely to find their speech severely restricted were H.R. 1 to become law.”
The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky astutely argues16, “All legislation proposed by Congress should be necessary, constitutional, and good policy. H.R. 1 is none of these things. It is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and bad policy. It does nothing to protect voters or to help election officials administer a fair and secure voter registration and election process. Put bluntly, it imposes federal micromanagement on the states, reversing the local oversight of the election process that our Founders believed was essential to preserving liberty and freedom in America.”
This is nothing but a bald-face attempt by Democrats to further direct and control the outcome of America’s national elections. It is anything but constitutional or democratic for that matter. Legislation like this, coupled with the attempt by several Democrat-controlled states to subvert the Electoral College17, is yet more evidence of the extreme Left’s near-complete takeover of the Democrat Party. And for all intents and purposes, the current Democrat Party has more in common with one-party Marxism than the U.S. Constitution.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/61680-house-demos-election-fraud-bill
Deficit Spending as Far as the Eye Can See18
President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2020 budget proposal will be released today, revealing his priorities for the next decade and beyond. Frankly, that’s all a president’s budget does — Congress routinely says, “Yeah, thanks,” and then promptly ignores every president’s budget. But what does Trump prioritize? Primarily two things: the military and the border wall.
Trump will propose a big boost for the Pentagon, $8.6 billion in new funding for a border barrier, and what The Washington Post says19 are “major spending cuts across a range of domestic government programs.” Reportedly, that’s a 5% reduction in nondefense discretionary spending amounting to $2.7 trillion.
In practice, however, what are “major cuts” in Beltway Speak are actually slight reductions in the growth rate. Despite media messaging that permeates even many other conservative outlets, actual cuts — i.e. literally spending less year over year — are rare.
The Post notes, “The government now has more than $22 trillion in debt, and the deficit is projected to run between $900 billion and $1 trillion in the coming years.” Of those numbers, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) rightly complains20, “Consider that the president’s budget proposes we spend vastly more money than we take in for 15 years, bust the spending caps again, leave ourselves with about a trillion dollars in deficit spending in fiscal 2020, accumulate debt well over $30 trillion by 2030, and lead us to spending more in interest payments than we do on Social Security or defense.”
Indeed, under Trump’s plan, eliminating the deficit will now take 15 years. “Even with deep spending cuts, the president’s plan would not balance the budget until the mid-2030s,” the Post reports, “falling short of the 10-year time frame that Republicans have sought for years.” Ever notice that we never actually get closer to the end of that 10-year window? Republicans and Democrats alike have been promising to “eliminate the deficit in 10 years” since the last time the federal government had a budget surplus in fiscal 2001. Funny how future Congresses and presidents have their own agendas, including kicking the can down the road.
The media deride the tax cuts for that shift in time frame, but the reality is that Trump campaigned on not touching two of the Big Three major entitlements — Social Security and Medicare — and those programs are the primary drivers21 of deficit spending and national debt. And most Americans just don’t want the reforms needed to change that.
As for the military, it does indeed need a buildup after years of war and Barack Obama’s policies, so a boost is all well and good. And yes, the border barrier should be a priority, but we all know how well the shutdown worked out for security funding. “Chuck and Nancy” are no warmer to the idea of giving Trump what he wants now than they were in December. “Congress refused to fund his wall and he was forced to admit defeat and reopen the government,” the pair warned in a statement. “The same thing will repeat itself if he tries this again. We hope he learned his lesson.”
Few in Washington ever really learn lessons. They just keep spending the money of future generations.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/61679-deficit-spending-as-far-as-the-eye-can-see
ON OUR WEBSITE TODAY
Featured Analysis: Renewable Energy’s Inconvenient Truths22 — Wind and solar cannot compete with fossil fuels and nuclear energy for efficiency.
Many Teens Stressed, Depressed, Obsessed With Self23 — The deleterious effect social-media technology has on mental health is becoming clear.
R. Kelly: Compassion and the Constitution24 — The rush to convict and punish even distasteful individuals is contrary to Rule of Law.
Video: Americans Don’t Know Their Own History25 — Will Witt took to the National Mall in DC with some American history questions.
TOP HEADLINE SUMMARY
With friends like these… “Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar ripped former President Barack Obama in an interview published Friday, belittling his ‘pretty face’ and saying his agenda of hope and change was an illusion,” the New York Post reports27. “She cited the ‘caging of kids’ at the Mexican border and the ‘droning of countries around the world’ on Obama’s watch — and argued that he wasn’t much different from President Trump.” Fox News adds28, “The broadside delivered at Obama is highly unusual for any Democrat, especially one who has been in the House for two months and has already ticked off party elders with her outspokenness.” |
