nChrist
|
 |
« on: August 01, 2019, 02:50:22 PM » |
|
________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 8-1-2019 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription _______________________________
The Patriot Post® · Mid-Day Digest
Aug. 1, 2019
https://patriotpost.us/digests/64680-mid-day-digest
THE FOUNDATION
“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” —Alexander Hamilton (1775)
https://patriotpost.us/fqd/64679-founders-quote-daily
IN TODAY’S EDITION
Biden holds his own by counterattacking rivals.1 California aims to suppress Trump voters.2 Daily Features: More Analysis3, Columnists4, Headlines5, Opinion in Brief6, Short Cuts7, Memes8, and Cartoons9.
IN BRIEF
Demo Debate 4: Biden the Frontrunner10
Joe Biden knew he was going to be attacked again at last night’s fourth Democrat presidential debate11, so the frontrunner had one job: Fend off attacks with his own offense. He did that and emerged having solidified his frontrunner status. The bad news for him and Democrats? As Barack Obama’s adviser, David Axelrod, put it, “This may be the best he could do.” And Biden may be the best “moderate” Democrats can hope for if they want to beat President Donald Trump. That’s not saying much.
Laughable as it may seem, Biden is the not-crazy one in the Democrat field. As party activists have moved ever further to the left — and are decidedly hostile to old white guys — the 76-year-old vice president to Barack “Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America” Obama is the only viable option for those who remain unwilling to jump on the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren Socialist Express, or to play the identity-politics game driving the candidacies of other Democrats.
Biden effectively parried attacks from Kamala Harris, who damaged him in their first debate and did not heed his plea before this debate to “go easy on me, kid.” The two bickered at length about health care, for one thing. Biden attempted to stake out the “reasonable” position of simply building on ObamaCare, which he insists “is working,” rather than going full-bore single-payer or what he called Harris’s “double-talk” on health care.
Harris had her own issues failing to rebut Tulsi Gabbard’s damaging attacks on her prosecutorial record on criminal justice. Harris, Gabbard alleged, “blocked evidence from being revealed that would have freed” prisoners, and thus the former California attorney general owes an apology to “the people who suffered under your reign.” For Harris, who’s hoping to be the first black female president, Gabbard’s was a painful blow.
Biden also decidedly rebuked Kirsten Gillibrand’s attempts to undermine his record “fighting” for women by noting her past praise of his record. He wondered, “I don’t know what’s happened, except that you’re now running for president.”
Then again, Biden has yet to debate Warren or Sanders, which will happen in September.
The one issue last night that best illustrated Biden’s moderation (and he’s still solidly on the Left) was immigration. Much of today’s Democrat Party has rejected the policies of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and Chuck Schumer, who a decade or more ago were at least rhetorically if not actually tough on illegal immigration. Instead, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, and others on stage last night were arguing for decriminalizing illegal border-crossing so, in Booker’s words, “you won’t need these awful detention centers” anymore.
The former vice president, having real experience enforcing federal law with the administration that actually built the “cages”12 Democrats now scream about, still advocates a modicum of the Rule of Law. Biden said, “If you cross the border illegally, you should be able to be sent back. It’s a crime.” (Caveat: IF he can win the nomination in today’s party and then, IF elected, carrying through with enforcement as president will be an entirely different matter than a debate line.) In fact, Biden practically endorsed Trump’s policy on asylum, saying, “What we should do is flood the zone to make sure we have people to make those decisions quickly.”
The irony is that Biden is running on his 50-year record in Washington, while his opponents are using that very record (criminal justice, for example) to persuade voters to reject him as yesterday’s old and ineffective white guy. Where is today’s Democrat Party? We’ll find out.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/64678-demo-debate-4-biden-the-frontrunner
California’s Voter Suppression13
California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill Tuesday that would bar President Donald Trump’s name from appearing on the state’s 2020 election ballot unless he discloses his tax returns. Newsom “justified” the bill, arguing, “These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence.” So, the party that loudly opposes any form of voter ID laws out of faux concern for potential voter suppression has now put forth one of the most draconian pieces of voter-suppression legislation since the days of Jim Crow. Even former Democrat Gov. Jerry Brown wouldn’t dare go this far, as he vetoed a similar measure over concerns that it was unconstitutional.
However, in this era of Trump Derangement Syndrome, Democrat concern for constitutionality is no longer even feigned. But they would have done well to listen to Brown, who argued, “It sets a ‘slippery slope’ precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power? A qualified candidate’s ability to appear on the ballot is fundamental to our democratic system. For that reason, I hesitate to start down a road that well might lead to an ever escalating set of differing state requirements for presidential candidates.”
Brown’s argument is a cogent one. What stops Texas, Georgia, or Florida from coming up with their own laws clearly aimed at suppressing the ability of a Democrat presidential candidate from getting his or her name on the ballot?
There appear to be two motives behind this move. The first is to once again highlight the long-running Democrat complaint that Trump has not released his long-form tax returns. That’s an action most modern presidential candidates have willingly taken, but one the Constitution does not require.
Secondly, it’s a move to rig the election, though not in a manner to prevent Trump from winning in California, as he has almost no chance of doing so. Rather, the real target of this nefarious calculation is the Electoral College. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, and in some sense that was entirely due to California. She won the national popular vote by 2.8 million, but she won California by more than 4.2 million votes, almost doubling Trump’s vote total in the state.
With this latest law, California Democrats hope that barring Trump’s name from the ballot will increase the disparity between the national popular-vote totals and the electoral-vote tally should Trump once again win the 2020 election via winning the Electoral College. Should this occur, and assuming fewer Trump voters would write his name in, they will then have more fodder against the Electoral College by pointing to an even bigger popular-vote disparity.
Clearly, however, this law is ripe for legal action. Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh stated, “The Constitution is clear on the qualifications for someone to serve as president and states cannot add additional requirements on their own. The bill also violates the 1st Amendment right of association since California can’t tell political parties which candidates their members can or cannot vote for in a primary election.” It would seem the one-party oligarchs in California disagree.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/64676-californias-voter-suppression
|