"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president." Author Unknown
Scroll down for articles for past week.
Thursday’s Daily Digest
Sep. 3, 2015
“There is not a more important and fundamental principle in legislation, than that the ways and means ought always to face the public engagements; that our appropriations should ever go hand in hand with our promises. To say that the United States should be answerable for twenty-five millions of dollars without knowing whether the ways and means can be provided, and without knowing whether those who are to succeed us will think with us on the subject, would be rash and unjustifiable.” —James Madison, Speech in Congress, 1790
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Congress was never going to be stop Barack Obama’s deal with Iran. Not when he deliberately negotiated a treaty and didn’t call it a treaty specifically so as to avoid Congress. And certainly not when Sen. Bob Corker crafted a deal to guarantee congressional review but with a huge caveat — Obama didn’t need a two-thirds majority to ratify a treaty, but rather only one-third to sustain a veto. A couple of Democrats — Chuck Schumer2 and Robert Menendez3 — made a show of bucking Obama, but in the end it was only a matter of Minority Leader Harry Reid granting a few no votes to Democrats whose electoral fortunes depended on it. The rest would fall into line with Obama. That wagon circle was completed Wednesday when Sen. Barbara Mikulski became the 34th senator to announce her support for the deal, virtually guaranteeing its passage. Now Obama just needs 41 Democrats to sustain a filibuster so he doesn’t even have to bother vetoing. The predetermined outcome is why Obama felt so free to slander Republicans as making “common cause4” with Iranian hardliners. Well, that and his narcissistic personality disorder.
There are a couple of important points here. First, Obama’s vote count charade has never been about national security or Iran; it has been about cutting back room deals for votes. His “defining legacy” was always secure. Second, and to that point, Democrats now own Iran5. Rep. Patrick Murphy had the complete lack of historical awareness to unwittingly quote Neville Chamberlain in declaring the deal would bring “peace in our time.” But when — not if — Iran obtains nuclear weapons, Democrats have now affixed their names to that Obama legacy. Obama admitted as much, saying “it’s my name on this” for an Iranian bomb. Giving Iran $100 to $150 billion in sanctions relief with which the ayatollahs will continue funding terrorism is also Obama’s legacy. And Congress won’t do anything about it.
About three times as many veterans died while trying to enroll for care at the Department of Veterans Affairs than died while fighting World War I, a new report7 by the VA’s inspector general shows. While 116,516 Americans lost their lives in The Great War, when the inspector general looked at the pending enrollment system records in September 2014, it discovered that 35% of the applications, or 307,000 veterans, belonged to people who died. Part of the problem, it seems, is how the VA manages its information. “[D]ue to data limitations, we could not determine specifically how many pending [enrollment system] records represent veterans who applied for health care benefits,” the VA’s Deputy IG, Linda Halliday, wrote. “These conditions occurred because the enrollment program did not effectively define, collect, and manage enrollment data.” As program specialist at the VA Health Eligibility Center Scott Davis told8 CNN, the VA’s inability to process applications cost more than one combat veteran from the War on Terror his ability to receive VA care because it took more than five years for the VA to get the soldier enrolled. If this is how the government treats those that risked life and limb for it, we can’t wait for when ObamaCare reaches its zenith.
Chick-fil-A, the fast-food chain that soars in customer satisfaction surveys10, recently bid to open a restaurant in the Denver International Airport, but it was initially denied due to “concerns” that a local franchise could generate “corporate profits used to fund and fuel discrimination.” The unforgivable sin, of course, was Chick-fil-A founder Dan Cathy’s 2012 defense of biblical marriage11. The Denver City Council’s opposition was completely absurd, but, fortunately, sanity prevailed. Well, perhaps we should rephrase: Fear of losing a lawsuit prevailed. National Review’s John Fund writes12, “[C]ity-council members sat through a closed-door briefing from Denver’s city attorneys, where they were warned that barring a business on the basis of political prejudice would be a one-way ticket to a successful First Amendment lawsuit. Minority groups spoke up against the council, noting that Chick-fil-A’s local partner was a minority-owned business named Delarosa Restaurant Concepts.” And eventually they caved, though none walked back their original reasons for opposing the lease. In other words, it’s good news of a sort, but leftists will simply wait for a more opportune time to browbeat anyone who doesn’t fall in line with “tolerance.”
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
By Allyne Caan
The power to tax may be the power to destroy, but the power to regulate is equally dangerous. This week, Barack Obama stood in front of a receding glacier in Alaska to once again raise the specter of catastrophic climate change. His real agenda, of course, is to push for more environmental regulations that are already killing jobs, crushing industry and hurting hardworking families.
Speaking in Alaska to the Conference on Global Leadership in the Arctic, Obama warned, “If [current] trend lines continue the way they are, there’s not going to be a nation on this earth that’s not going to be impacted negatively. … More drought, more floods, rising sea levels, greater migration, more refuges, more scarcity, more conflict.”
This, of course, according to indisputably settled science. Or not.
For example, The New York Times editorialized on Obama’s trip to Alaska this week in a piece titled “Mr. Obama’s Urgent Arctic Message16.” It was accompanied by a photo of Margerie Glacier, ostensibly to demonstrate the magnitude of the state’s receding ice. One small problem: That particular glacier isn’t receding at all. Writing for the National Park Service, Dr. Daniel E. Lawson says17 Margerie Glacier “has been advancing about 30 feet per year for the past couple of decades.” To be clear, other glaciers are melting. But for a newspaper that prides itself in supposed journalistic integrity, you’d think it would research basic information.
But never mind all that. After renaming America’s tallest mountain18, Obama staged photo ops with glaciers to herald imminent global demise and sophomorically ridiculed19 those who disagree with him for being “on their own shrinking island.”
In truth, “very substantial disagreement about climate change” exists, according to Judith Curry20, professor at Georgia Institute for Technology and a participant in the International Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences. In fact, data from both the UN and the U.S. fails to show21 higher frequency of extreme weather including floods, tornadoes and drought. People just think these things happen more because of the 24-hour news cycle.
Nevertheless, Obama cries endangered wolf, and here comes his EPA, ready with a slew of new regulations to save the planet. Just what will his plans accomplish? Well, aside from regulating the coal industry towards extinction, upping the ranks of the unemployed, and reducing overall income levels, not much20.
But we all know this was never about global warming; it’s always been about control. Obama doesn’t want to grow glaciers so much as he wants to put the federal government in every backyard in America.
And he’s doing just that, the law be melted. This past weekend, the EPA implemented new regulations related to the Clean Water Act that pretty much give the federal government control over every pool of water in the country. Astoundingly (or not, given this administration), the EPA went ahead with these rules even though a federal judge had already suspended them24 in 13 states. But in Obama’s fundamentally transformed America, who cares what the law says?
We’re already seeing what happens when the EPA is truly unleashed. One farmer in Wyoming is facing $16 million in federal fines for building a small dam across a tiny creek on his property — despite the fact that he obtained all necessary state permits. As Hot Air’s Jazz Shaw so eloquently notes25, “Because the creek feeds into the Green River the EPA seems to feel that they hold jurisdiction over it, though calling that stream ‘navigable waters’ would require expanding the definition of ‘boats’ to include ‘galoshes.’ Also, the ‘dam’ in question was composed of sand, gravel, clay and concrete blocks, which the agency decided met the criteria for ‘pollutants.’ (Aside from the cinder blocks, those materials are also locally known as ‘the ground.’)”
None of this is surprising in the least. From day one, Obama has disregarded law, ignored facts and ridiculed the American people to push his agenda. And his overreach is making Americans crave a return to Rule of Law.
Indeed, in an op-ed26 this week in National Review, Senator and Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio laid out where every presidential contender should stand on this and every issue: “The Constitution grants very specific powers to the federal government, and if something isn’t on that list, it falls under the purview of the states. So when I take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, I am going to take that oath very seriously — and that will include allowing the states to control their own energy futures.”
Well said, but watch out, Senator. Pretty soon your speech will be dubbed carbon emissions — ripe for EPA regulation.
OPINION IN BRIEF
Victor Davis Hanson: “[Hillary Clinton’s] imbroglios raise more issues. Was Sen. Barack Obama, largely a political unknown at the time, really all that unstoppable in 2008? Or did Hillary simply blow a 30-point lead in the polls because then as now she proved a lousy candidate? … Hillary’s latest troubles reflect a quarter-century of Clinton habits that transcend time and space. Both Bill and Hillary seem to have always believed they should be exempt from the law. Both seem needlessly tawdry in their avarice. Their cover-ups often prove even more damaging than their indiscretions. Bill was always the far better speaker and political schmoozer than Hillary. And now Hillary is proving — again — that she prefers slandering accusers rather than refuting accusations. Are Hillary’s first four and a half months of campaigning a glimpse of the next 14? If so, the Democratic Party — and the country — are going to be utterly exhausted.”
Insight: “Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.” —Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King (1874-1950)
Upright: “[V]iolence is a tool. It’s not a good tool — in the moral sense — nor is it a bad tool. Surgery to save a life is laudable. Surgery to inflict pain is torture. A hammer can smash in someone’s skull, or it can build a house. To say that all kinds of violence are equally bad isn’t high-minded morality; it is amoral nihilism wrapped in a kind of gauzy, brain dead sanctimony.” —Jonah Goldberg
Nothing more than a vast right-wing conspiracy. Move along: “I think that the Clintons basically are better people than their enemies. … Trey Gowdy, who is a tool of the Koch Brothers, just feeds the New York Times stuff and they put it in the paper… You would think that at some point people who are supposed to know better would learn their lesson. But they never do, and so, therefore, I have to keep coming out of retirement to point this kind of stuff out.” —Clintonista James Carville
Birds of a feather?: “[Kanye West] has said very good things about me. Extremely positive things. … He’s actually a different kind of a person than people think. He’s a nice guy. I hope to run against him someday.” —Donald Trump
Stumbling into the truth: “I don’t think that we should expect that anything that we’re going to enact in Washington is going to stop shootings.” —Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) during a lengthy rant about — what else? — why we need more gun control
Late-night humor: “NBC just announced that President Obama will appear on an episode of ‘Running Wild With Bear Grylls’ later this year. Yeah, I guess the episode features Obama roughing it on a golf course that hasn’t been mowed for a couple of days.” —Jimmy Fallon
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.
How To Write A New York Times Op-Ed In Three Easy Steps
9/2/2015 5:21:00 PM - Ann Coulter
Today we'll talk about how to write a New York Times op-ed in 45 minutes or less. We all like labor-saving tips!
The main point to keep in mind is that your op-ed is not intended to elucidate, educate or amuse. These are status pieces meant to strike a pose, signaling that you are a good person.
After reading your op-ed, readers should feel the warm sensation of being superior to other people -- those who don't agree with you. The idea is to be in fashion. It's all about attitude, heavy on eye-rolling.
Psychoanalyze conservatives as paranoid and insecure. Liberals -- who, to a man, have been in psychoanalysis -- enjoy putting people they disagree with on the operating table and performing a vivisection, as if conservatives are some lower life form.
Thus, for example, an op-ed in this week's Times by Arthur Goldwag was titled "Putting Donald Trump on the Couch."
This should not be confused with Justin A. Frank's 2004 book, "Bush on the Couch," offering a detailed diagnosis of Bush's alleged mental disorders.
Nor should it be confused with a column that went up on Daily Kos the day after I wrote this column, psychoanalyzing me. (I'm just glad I snubbed the guy in high school.)
Goldwag explained: "Mr. Trump's angry certainty ..."
Let's pause right here. I am obsessed with Donald Trump. I wish I could cancel my book tour and just lie in bed watching his speeches all day long. I'm like a lovesick teenager studying Justin Bieber videos. And I've never seen Trump look angry.
(Goldwag continued) " ... that immigrants and other losers are destroying the country while the cultural elites that look down on him stand by and do nothing resonates strongly with the less-educated, lower-income whites who appear to be his base."
Yes, Trump's base are "less-educated." This is as opposed to Democratic voters, who couldn't figure out how to fill in a Florida ballot in 2000.
True, writing like this will expose your own gigantic paranoia at being excluded from historic WASP America. If you start obsessing over the Augusta National Golf Club (as the Times did for one solid decade), people will naturally begin to suspect that you're resentful toward traditional American culture.
But I am not giving lessons in self-esteem here. I'm trying to help you dash off an op-ed in record time. Psychoanalysis has been liberals' go-to move forever.
Following the 1964 presidential election, the American Psychiatric Association was forced to issue "the Goldwater rule," prohibiting shrinks from psychoanalyzing people they'd never met, after a few thousand of them had issued their professional opinion that Barry Goldwater was nuts. (A "frightened person," "paranoid," "grossly psychotic" and a "megalomaniac.")
Some Times writer probably produced an op-ed calling Calvin Coolidge "paranoid."
It's not very interesting, but, again, the sole purpose of your op-ed is to assure the status-anxious that they are better than other people.
The perfect hack phrase is to say conservatives are "frightened of the country changing around them."
-- "The Tea Party, to be most benign about it, is primarily white, it is witnessing a country changing around it. It feels angry, feels -- the diversity." -- Katrina Vanden Heuvel, MSNBC, May 24, 2012
(You want angry? Go to an Al Sharpton rally.)
-- "Old white guys (are) caught in a demographic vice, right? (They) are frankly a little nervous, right? The country is changing around them. ... The country is becoming more brown, and more -- younger. And the values are changing. Gay rights, women are working. I mean all of these things are happening and they are not quite sure what to do." -- Jamal Simmons, MSNBC, June 15, 2013
-- "I don't think these are organized hate groups. These are, by and large, more or less everyday citizens who are very fearful of the way the world is changing around them." -- Mark Potok, (spokesman for the country's leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center) in "Changing World Draws Racist Backlash," The Philadelphia Tribune, June 28, 2010
I thought it was a nice gesture that Mark admitted that conservatives are not "organized hate groups." We owe you one, Mark! You're a super guy.
Call conservatives "aggrieved" as often as possible. Yes, this from the party of reparations, #BlackLivesMatter, comparable worth, "Lean In," the DREAM Act and so on. If the Democratic Party were a reality TV show, it would be called "America's Got Grievances!"
-- "'We don't have victories anymore,' Mr. Trump told those deeply aggrieved Americans in June." -- Arthur Goldwag, op-ed: "Putting Donald Trump on the Couch," The New York Times, Sept. 1, 2015
-- "Mr. Bush has to win over a fair chunk of the aggrieved, frightened Trump voters." -- New York Times editorial, Aug. 26, 2015
-- "You have this aggrieved conservative industry that makes their money by being aggrieved." -- John Feehery, Republican spokesman for former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, quoted in New York Times, Jan. 15, 2015
You're doing this not just for the $75 you'll make for writing a Times op-ed. Dreadful hacks meet a need.
A lot of people are followers by nature. They just want to be told: Here are the politicians you admire, and here are the ones you disdain; here are the people you worship, and here are the ones you disparage; here are the TV shows you like, and here are the ones you despise.
Times writers are like personal shoppers for people too lazy to form their own opinions. Just don't imagine that this is good writing, comedy or art. But it's not bad for something you can dash off in about 45 minutes!
The Exhausting Ms. Clinton
Victor Davis Hanson
9/3/2015 12:01:00 AM - Victor Davis Hanson
Hillary Clinton's second race for the presidency is only about a quarter through, but she already seems to be causing general fatigue.
The lurid revelations about the Clinton Foundation proved that it was not so much a charity as a huge laundering operation. Quid pro quo donations from the global rich and powerful fueled the Clintons' jet-setting networking.
In between political campaigns, the foundation provided sinecures for out-of-work Clinton politicos. This is hardly proof of Hillary's grass-roots progressivism.
Then came Clinton's email fiasco. No one knows how the current investigation of her alleged misuse of email accounts, servers and classified information will end up. But most people accept that it was an unnecessary and self-induced scandal, brought on both by her paranoia and habitual expectation of being exempt from the law.
ABC News just disclosed that ex-president Bill Clinton sought huge speaking fees from foreign governments (well over a half-million dollars per talk), while Hillary was secretary of state. Unfortunately, some of his proposed speaking deals involved odious regimes like those of Congo and North Korea. This year, Hillary herself routinely charged universities $200,000 to $300,000 for brief talks -- after decrying the cash-strapped status of indebted students. What will the Clintons not do to make money?
All these imbroglios raise more issues. Was Sen. Barack Obama, largely a political unknown at the time, really all that unstoppable in 2008? Or did Hillary simply blow a 30-point lead in the polls because then as now she proved a lousy candidate?
Can't Hillary Clinton turn voters' attention to her recent stewardship of American foreign policy?
Most of what happened on her watch as secretary of state is better forgotten: the destruction of a self-reliant Iraq, the rise of the Islamic State, chaos in Libya, failed reset with Russia's Vladimir Putin, disaster in Benghazi, the alienation of Israel and moderate Arab nations, and Iran's ascendant.
Instead of hailing her foreign policy tenure, Clinton is now attacking her critics.
Clinton just blasted her Republican opposition, some of whom want various federal agencies to cite undocumented immigrants who broke federal law, and then process them for deportation before hearing their applications for amnesty. She misleadingly equated that position with wanting to "literally pull people out of their homes and their workplaces, round them up and, I don't know, put them in buses or boxcars, in order to take them across the border."
Is it wise to tar critics with the infamous imagery of the Holocaust, in which Jews were rounded up, put in boxcars and sent to death camps?
After all, Clinton's own prior positions on immigration were akin to those of many of the Republicans she now attacks. Here is what then Sen. Clinton asserted in a 2003: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants." Note her use of the personal "immigrants," rather than the abstract "immigration."
Last week, Clinton compared Republican opponents of abortion to "terrorist groups" who "don't want to live in the modern world."
But such ad hominem attacks on free expression are exactly what Clinton once denounced. "I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic," she said in 2003, ironically during the George W. Bush presidency.
Clinton's serial meltdowns may bring Vice President Joe Biden into the race. The only other serious Democratic alternative to Clinton at the moment is 73-year-old socialist Bernie Sanders. He is not registered in the party whose nomination he seeks.
Clinton's derailment has given breathing space to Republicans. Otherwise, they would be panicking that erratic showman Donald Trump has hijacked their party and might lead it to a meltdown in 2016.
Both parties face crises -- though there are more viable Republican alternatives to Trump than there are strong Democratic choices, at least for now. And whereas the upbeat Trump would probably agree with -- or even welcome -- charges that he is an egomaniac, Clinton would hardly accept the equally common impression that she cannot tell the truth.
Hillary's latest troubles reflect a quarter-century of Clinton habits that transcend time and space.
Both Bill and Hillary seem to have always believed they should be exempt from the law. Both seem needlessly tawdry in their avarice. Their cover-ups often prove even more damaging than their indiscretions.
Bill was always the far better speaker and political schmoozer than Hillary. And now Hillary is proving -- again -- that she prefers slandering accusers rather than refuting accusations.
Are Hillary's first four and a half months of campaigning a glimpse of the next 14?
If so, the Democratic Party -- and the country -- are going to be utterly exhausted.
Of Course They Are
Jackie Gingrich Cushman
9/3/2015 12:01:00 AM - Jackie Gingrich Cushman
If you believe your emails, texts, Facebook postings and Internet activity are secure, then you live in Never Never Land, a world where boys never grow up and fairies fly through the air. Should commercial Internet transactions be secure, as they promise to be when you sign up? Yes. But "should be" does not security make.
My assumption is that anything that is transmitted via the Internet is accessible to someone other than the intended recipient. I understand that my emails could wind up as fodder for New York Times articles and my Facebook photos could wind up gracing the front page of USA Today.
My warning to our children is this: "Assume that, if you post it, everyone will see." Even texts or Snapchats sent to their friends' smartphones could find new life one day on billboards. Maybe the recipient doesn't have his or her device in hand, but its screen is visible to others on a table; possibly someone will take a screenshot today and decide at a later time to share it with the world. In any situation, the assumption should be this: If it is on the Internet, it is -- or soon could be -- available for all to see.
The next logical step is to understand that others might try to gather our information for their use, whether for personal reasons, political campaigns or nationalistic objectives.
Of course they are.
This week, CNN's chief national security correspondent, Jim Sciutto, posted about China and Russia amassing personal info seized in hacks for the purposes of counter-intelligence. He wrote, "Chinese and Russian intelligence services are collecting personally identifiable information on a grand scale so they can target American government workers for counter-intelligence, a U.S. official told CNN Tuesday."
Of course they are.
"The foreign spy agencies use a massive database analysis to combine and cross-reference information obtained from cyberattacks on targets ranging from the Office of Personnel Management to the cheating website Ashley Madison to identify and potentially compromise operatives."
Of course they do.
While we may live in a country where the government recognizes freedom of speech, privacy and the rule of law regarding what information can and cannot be accessed and by whom, other nations play by different rules. If we pretend that they live by our rules, we are only deluding ourselves.
Governments are hiding their compilation of private information by letting others do their dirty work, according to Sciutto. They are using "non-government entities, including hacking groups and private companies, to infiltrate U.S. systems and analyze the collected data," he wrote.
Of course they are.
Israel is leading the field of cyber security, according to Peter Suciu, a contributor to Fortune Magazine who writes frequently about technology.
"A regional power devoted to ensuring its own survival, Israel has burgeoned into a high tech epicenter built around Internet security, anti-virus software, and other cyber defense technologies," wrote Suciu this week.
"Much of this is an extension of its self-reliance, and the added fact that since the creation of modern Israel, the nation has faced enemies on its borders. 'The challenging environment Israel faces in the Middle East in the physical world has reflections also on the cyber world,' says Dudu Mimran, CTO of the Cyber Security Research Center at Ben-Gurion University, located in Beer Sheva, Israel. 'Security is a subject that can be taught theoretically, but nothing is a substitute for a real hands-on experience and we've got lots of it.'"
Let's recap the reasons why Israel has taken a leading role in the field of cyber security: the desire to ensure its survival in a neighborhood where it is surrounded by enemies, a history of self-reliance, and hands-on experience.
Possibly, with the headlines about the Ashley Madison attack, and the understanding that none of the mountains of data transmitted daily via the Internet is safe, we will understand that, in the cyber-world, our enemies do surround us.
Gathering secrets and data is not new or news, "Hostile authorities intercepting communications is as old as written correspondence itself," Christian Whiton, former State Department senior adviser emailed me regarding cyber attacks. "Recent developments are just a modern twist, and the Chinese and Russians are particularly good at stealing communications."
We can learn from the Israelis: We must rely only on ourselves; our survival depends on how seriously we take this threat and how well we engage in this ongoing battle.
Blood On The Hands Of #BlackLivesMatter And The Media
9/3/2015 12:01:00 AM - Derek Hunter
All lives matter. That saying this is in any way controversial is a testament to just how far we’ve fallen as a nation. But we didn’t fall, per se; we were pushed.
Money is the greatest motivator humans have, and progressives have monetized misery. And they’re pumping a lot of money into it to grow the business.
The so-called “Black Lives Matter” movement has been co-opted by white progressives to drive a wedge between Americans for the benefit of the Democratic Party. The media is all too happy to play along.
If BLM and the media actually cared about lives – black or otherwise – they would put an end to the lie that “police have declared open season on young black men.” Oh, it’s open season all right, but all the “hunting” licenses have been snatched up by other young black men.
Young men of whatever color are the most deadly force against other young men of their same skin tone, but no other race comes close to the murder rate of young black men against other young black men. But those lives don’t seem to matter.
Neither do the lives of innocent children caught in the crossfire.
When one drug dealer shoots another, it is sad in the fact that it got to that point, that a human being could become so perverted by money or what they view as respect they’d murder another. But it’s not a surprise.
What is a surprise, and mostly ignored by BLM and the media, is children whose lives also don’t seem to matter. Jamyla Bolden, 9, was doing homework on her bed when she was hit by a stray bullet and killed last month. People protested (some), the media covered it (for a bit), an arrest was made and everyone moved on.
Heard of McKenzie Elliott? She was 3 years old and playing on her porch in Baltimore last August when she was hit by a stray in a drive-by shooting. There was a protest that week, and the mayor and police commissioner vowed to bring her killer to justice. A year later no one has been charged, no one has come forward, and very few people even remember.
Her life mattered. Yet the mentality fomented by BLM and magnified by the media has built up such mistrust between the community and police that no one has spoken up about who killed little McKenzie. Someone knows something, probably a lot of people do, but lips are sealed. “Snitches get stiches.”
Rather than draw attention to cases like McKenzie, BLM burns its calories characterizing criminals who shoot at police as victims. The world is better off without every thug, no matter their race, who pulls a gun on police. Because if they’re willing to do that to an armed officer, what do you think they’d do to someone unarmed?
Yet these are the “victims” BLM cheers.
Black lives don’t matter to BLM, but lives that can outrage the ignorant have value for the agenda.
The day after Deputy Darren Goforth was executed in Houston while pumping gas – for, by all accounts, being a police officer – BLM was on the defensive. Its rhetoric preaches victimhood and helplessness. That someone indoctrinated into that progressive mindset would murder in cold blood isn’t a stretch; it’s more like a goal.
What else results from absolving people of personal responsibility?
The laughable concept of “white privilege” is designed to milk funds from white liberals (and it does), but it also was created to demoralize those who know no better than to buy into it.
The concept, pushed by Democrats and currently embraced and pimped by MTV under the satirical name “White Squad,” tells minorities the system is stacked against them; no matter what they do they won’t get ahead because of their skin color. That has an impact.
Every life faces setbacks and failures – everything from a traffic ticket to a job someone wanted and didn’t get. Progressives have transferred responsibility from the internal, the individual, to the external, society. It’s not “Maybe you were speeding;” it’s “You were targeted.” It’s no longer a bad attitude or poor life choices, or even someone was more qualified than you; you’re a victim of white privilege.
With the absolution of responsibility, blame is externalized. Rather than learn and work to improve, setbacks become roadblocks. Why bother trying if, no matter what you do, you can’t get ahead? That doesn’t breed hope or a redoubling of effort, it breeds anger and resentment. It’s not a far drive from there to believing someone could execute another human being they’ve been indoctrinated into seeing as their oppressor.
The blood on the left runs long and deep, but the money and the power keeps flowing too. As long as the media elevates the lives of some over others, and as long as people like George Soros keeps cutting checks, the progressive plantation of hate and hopelessness will thrive. If you attend an event by a group that would chant, “What do we want? Dead cops,” or “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon,” you have blood on your hands too.
If you let your kids watch MTV or allow them to attend a college where these lies are enshrined in the curriculum, you’re funding and perpetuating this mentality.
There is enough blood to go around.
Black lives are not unique; all lives are special. You get one; if you want to waste it following those who’ve monetized your misery simply because the alternative appears too hard, I have no sympathy for you. The dirty little secret progressives won’t tell you is if you want to find the person most responsible for your lot in life, find a mirror. The person you see there is your only way to improvement. Be honest with yourself, confront your bad choices, and get yourself together.
At least you lived long enough to learn from your mistakes. McKenzie Elliot didn’t get that chance thanks to someone who didn’t believe her life mattered. It did, and it does. Make yours.
The Patriot Post
Wednesday’s Daily Digest
Sep. 2, 2015
“The essence of government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” —James Madison, speech in the Virginia constitutional convention, 1829
Seventy years ago today, the Japanese surrendered to Allied Forces aboard the USS Missouri, officially ending World War II. Today is therefore known as “VJ Day.” On Aug. 6 and 9, respectively, the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Doing so killed as many as 250,000 Japanese, but it also prevented a likely invasion of the Japanese main island and thus saved hundreds of thousands of American lives. U.S. forces occupied Japan for another six-and-a-half years, which established Japan as a peaceful world player. Today is a reminder that tyranny must be defeated, not appeased, if Liberty is to flourish.
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Hillary Clinton has repeatedly claimed that she never sent classified emails over her private server. Oh, she might have received some that were unintentionally unmarked, but she claims she was clean as a freshly wiped email server. But in the newest round of Hillary’s emails released Monday, the State Department, sure enough, redacted email after email from public view. The Clinton campaign responded with a memo2 claiming the emails where just a mildly interesting sideshow into the internal communications of a presidential cabinet member. The memo said of the classified portions, “This group of emails include 125 that have had portions classified after the fact, but as confirmed again by the State Department, nothing she sent or received was marked classified.” But as The Federalist’s Sean Davis reports3, the State Department will declassify material 10 or 15 years after the material is either created or after it receives an after-the-fact classification. State chose to declassify this material from the time it was created. In other words, from the moment Clinton’s fingers typed up an email and she hit send, the document should have been classified. But her material never went through the proper classification channels, making her argument now a pathetically circular one. Furthermore, she sent some of these emails to Clinton operative Sidney Blumenthal, a person outside the State Department. What’s worse? Keep in mind that these are only the emails that survived Clinton’s email purge. She knew exactly what she was doing4.
From the latest batch of Hillary Clinton’s emails, one notable communiqué is from Sidney Blumenthal in response to the 2010 midterm elections6, when Republicans retook the House. Blumenthal wrote to Clinton, “[House Speaker John] Boehner is despised by the younger, more conservative members of the House. … He is louche, alcoholic, lazy, and without any commitment to any principle. … He is not [Newt] Gingrich, the natural leader of a ‘revolution,’ riding the crest into power. He is careworn and threadbare, banal and hollow…” The unfortunate truth is that many conservatives would have agreed with Blumenthal in 2010 and many more would agree with him today. Boehner has been and remains a colossal failure as speaker of the House, despite the huge Republican victories in both the 2010 and 2014 midterms7. Though there have been significant gains in conservative House ranks, Boehner has put up a gauntlet blocking the ascension of most of those genuine conservatives to positions of power in the House.
We certainly agree with Blumenthal’s assessment about his sobriety, too. In fact, we don’t believe Boehner has been sober at a microphone for years. We’ve questioned House members close to Boehner, and they all make excuses for his slurred words and demeanor. Most suggest some variant of, “He is just exhausted.” We believe, however, that Boehner’s cadre of House confidants continue to prop him up, sober or not, because he is the House power broker and their meal ticket.
CNN has given Carly Fiorina the chance to appear on the stage at the Sept. 16 presidential primary debate after announcing9 a changed method for determining which candidates would be invited. Instead of picking the 10 candidates who performed best in the polls conducted from July 16 to Sept. 10, CNN will pick candidates who do well in polls conducted from Aug. 7 to Sept. 10. There haven’t been as may polls during the late summer as CNN predicted, and some candidates who have been gaining popularity would not have made it onto the stage if CNN kept its metric unchanged. With Fiorina’s rise after her stellar debate performance, and Ben Carson closing the gap with Donald Trump in the polls, the Republican field is currently led by three candidates who have never held elected office. It demonstrates that a sizable swath of grassroots conservatives are sick and tired of how the establishment GOP (looking at you, John Boehner5) has run Washington. And who can blame them? The GOP in Congress caved to Barack Obama’s demands at the beginning of the year when he sought funding for his executive orders on immigration. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refuses10 to consider defunding Planned Parenthood, despite the growing disgust over its baby-parts trafficking11. The primary season is the time for the party to decide its agenda and leadership style. The status quo will no longer do, and CNN has done it’s part to prevent its rules from rigging that discussion.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
By Jim Harrington
What has Donald Trump’s candidacy done for the GOP presidential race? Well, beyond creating a spectacle, he has affirmed the legitimate anger13 of many grassroots voters. And he’s creating some awkward moments for the rest of the field.
Attitude and not-of-the-establishment credibility are key to his rise, but immigration is perhaps the central issue. As if to highlight that fact, the murder of Kathryn Steinle14 by an illegal alien in the sanctuary city of San Francisco brought the issue into stark relief. Her family is now suing15 San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, the Bureau of Land Management, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Steinle’s death is among the most noted such cases, but there are hundreds of other citizens across the country assaulted and murdered by illegals. And if people start suing sanctuary cities and winning, it’s going to change policies.
Which brings us to the GOP presidential race, and Republicans eager to sound as tough as Trump.
On Sunday, The Hill16 reported, “Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is open to the idea of building a wall along America’s northern border with Canada.” That story was repeated in news outlets throughout the world.
But Walker didn’t exactly say it. The truth is that his full statement was intentionally skewed by the Leftmedia.
As the Washington Examiner17 explains, “Walker said in an interview … on ‘Meet the Press’ that he believes the northern border poses a legitimate security issue. As Walker started to elaborate on these concerns, his interviewer, Chuck Todd, asked whether he supports building a wall on the Canadian border.”
Walker’s reply was unclear due to crosstalk, but he said, “Some people have asked us about that in New Hampshire. They raised some very legitimate concerns, including some law enforcement folks. … So that is a legitimate issue for us to look at.”
The “legitimate concerns” he meant were the ones he had mentioned moments earlier about the security of our borders in general. But suddenly — the Leftmedia tells us — he wants a wall on the northern border.
No doubt Walker should have been clearer. And therein lies the problem with trying to out-Trump Donald Trump. The Leftmedia’s just waiting to pounce on any “racist” or otherwise “offensive” comment from any Republican candidate.
Still, despite the risks, other candidates do continue trying to outdo Trump. Gov. Chris Christie is another example, with his suggestion that he would track immigrants like FedEx does packages.
“I’m going to have Fred Smith, the founder of FedEx, come work for the government for three months. Just come for three months to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and show these people,” he said18 at a town hall meeting. “You go online and at any moment FedEx can tell you where that package is,” he elaborated. “Yet we let people come into this country with visas, and the minute they come in we lose track of them.”
It’s true that people with visas come into this country and just disappear. We have no idea where they are, and, in fact, they make up a large portion of the illegal population. Christie says we need to send someone to immigrants with expiring visas and say, “Time to go.”
Nearly half a million people enter the U.S. on visas annually, but short of outfitting each with an ankle bracelet, how does Christie propose to find any given one? This is a free country; people move about freely, and these people in particular want to avoid being caught.
More vexing, how can we track the hundreds of thousands who sneak into the country without visas each year? It’s true that a significant number get into legal trouble, and they can be deported. But at least for now, they can easily get right back in. FedEx can only track packages it knows exist.
After getting flack for his suggestion, Christie wanted to explain it, and Chris Wallace gave him the chance. His point is that private enterprise can do things better than government, which we all know is true.
But the lesson for Walker, Christie and every other politician in the GOP field is that, because they don’t have Trump’s attitude and style — never mind that most of them are elected politicians and he’s not — the reality-TV show “Keeping Up With Trump” is never going to play well for them.
While Hillary Clinton went off the rails with her Republicans-are-Nazis comments about shipping illegals out of the country in boxcars19, such rhetoric plays well among lefties. Rand Paul, likewise struggling to handle a Trump-induced drop in the polls, thought one good Nazi allusion deserved another, so he’s mocked his fellow candidates for supposedly one-upping each other to the point that they’re saying, “I’ll put them in camps.”
Of course, Republicans have been called Nazis so often that it’s lost its bite.
Clinton and Paul don’t see the forest for the trees, however. Investor’s Business Daily reports20 on its latest poll on illegal immigration. It asked “913 adults coast to coast if they ‘support or oppose mandatory deportation of illegal immigrants…” Some 59% support deportation — and they support it across all income and educational levels, in both urban and rural areas, and across sex and age lines (with the exception of the 18-24 range).
Assuming the poll is even reasonably accurate, its findings pose a significant challenge for the GOP — except for Trump. It’s time for the party to rethink its immigration policy. Republican candidates don’t need to beat Trump at his own game, but they can surely devise an immigration policy that’s humane, equitable and upholds Rule of Law. It’s important to get started before Trump takes all the cards.
OPINION IN BRIEF
Ryan T. Anderson: “Kim Davis, the clerk for Rowan County, has a sincere religious belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife, and says she cannot in good faith issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. As a result she stopped issuing marriage licenses to all couples… The result: no one could get a license in Rowan County. This created a problem. The citizens of Rowan County have a right to receive in a timely and efficient manner the various government provisions — including licenses — to which they are entitled. At the same time, the employees of Rowan County (including civil servants) have rights, including religious liberty rights, and they are entitled to religious accommodations. … [T]here are ways in which public policy can create a win-win situation: where all eligible couples can receive a license and where as many employees as possible can be accommodated. North Carolina provides a great example. The state legislature earlier this year passed a law that protects magistrates who object to performing solemnizing ceremonies for same-sex marriages and clerks who object to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. It also makes clear that no one can be denied a marriage license, but magistrates or clerks could recuse themselves from the process behind the scenes should they have sincere objections to same-sex marriage. … Religious objection is not a trump card, but employees’ religious objections should be accommodated when possible.”
Insight: “Wars in old times were made to get slaves. The modern implement of imposing slavery is debt.” —American poet Ezra Pound (1885-1972)
Observations: “In 2014, [Jeb Bush] told people he would only run for president if he could do so ‘joyfully.’ The problem is that he’s good at telling but pretty bad at showing. To date, he’s displayed all the joy of a man waiting to get called for his colonoscopy.” —Jonah Goldberg
Village Idiots: “[Dan Rather] did get sabotaged. I always had trouble with [George W.] Bush being the president. I thought he was limited and unqualified.” —Robert Redford
Party of Science™: “If I Knew My Daughter Had Down Syndrome, I Would Have Aborted Her — All Women Should Have That Right” —a Yahoo! Parenting article by Hallie Levine
For the record: “In the first year of his administration (December 29, 2009, to be exact), President Obama issued Executive Order 13526, entitled ‘Classified National Security Information.’ … [T]he order makes clear that there is one category of information that is automatically deemed classified: information from foreign governments. … [T]he emails [Hillary] Clinton sent, received and stored via her private server system were rife with information from foreign governments. This information was born classified. It makes no difference that these emails were not stamped ‘top secret’; all national security officials with security clearances know that foreign government information is deemed classified and must be handled as such. Period.” —Andrew McCarthy
Late-night humor: “According to a new poll, Hillary Clinton has lost a third of her supporters in Iowa since May. There’s still debate as to whether she lost them or just deleted them from her database.” —Jimmy Fallon
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.
The Bible and Immigration
Susan Stamper Brown
9/2/2015 2:08:00 PM - Susan Stamper Brown
People are tempted to blur moral lines when it comes to feel-good things like immigration. Last year, President Obama wanted us to support his views so desperately he pulled the Christianity card out of his back pocket, attempting to tie a moral equivalent to his immigration policies and the Mary and Joseph story. Obama's version included a made-up scripture: "The good book says don't throw stones in glass houses" and a couple other choice misquotes.
It would be swell to allow every Tom, Dick or Harry into the U.S., or any Mohamud, Osman, and Abil -- in the case of the recent brutal murder of a Portland, Maine man named Freddy Akoa, who was allegedly beaten to death by three Muslim immigrants. While the Portland police did not divulge a motive, as of this writing, the Portland Press Herald reports a bloodstained Bible was found next to the victims' head.
Meanwhile in other news, in mid-August an Uzbek refugee was convicted of three terrorism-related charges in Idaho for supporting a terrorist organization and gathering explosives to carry out an attack in the U.S. from his Boise apartment. In May, television station WUSA-9 reported a West African refugee was sentenced to ten years in prison for attempted rape of a woman -- just nine days after his feet touched American soil.
Currently, President Obama's nonsensical United Nations Refugee Resettlement Program grants permanent legal residency to almost 70,000 immigrants each year. You'd think after injecting Christianity into the immigration issue Obama's program would grant refuge to persecuted minorities running for their lives, like the 27 Chaldean Christians who've been locked up in an ICE detention center in California for six months now. But, oh no.
The administration seems a wee bit biased these days. WND.com reports at least 90 percent of immigrant refuges thus far are Muslim. Muslims from jihad nations. With no vetting. Expecting a positive outcome from dropping massive amounts of mostly Muslim, non-English speaking, non-vetted refugees into any town the administration pleases is a fool's errand at best and a national security threat of epic proportion.
President Obama's ignoring his biggest priority - protecting us. Before you go all "Jesus-y" on me to shame me for my views, I wonder how many of you lock your doors at night to protect your family from intruders and look through the peephole before you open the door. It's no different. The Bible says the "strangers and aliens" we are to care for should be legal, obeying the laws of the land. And they should graciously assimilate into the communities which welcome them.
We've had almost 50 cases where Muslim immigrants exited the U.S. to join terrorist groups like ISIS in Syria and al-Shabab in Somalia. Back in February, an FBI counter-terrorism top official, Michael Steinback, testified before a House Homeland Security committee admitting the U.S. is unable to vet Syrian refugees for terrorism connections.
The Obama administration approved 5,000 to 8,000 more Syrian refugees to immigrate here in 2016 despite the fact that back in June, Norwegian officials discovered several of the refuges seeking asylum in Norway under the same UN program were linked to terrorist groups. Fact is, ISIS promised to smuggle fighters into Europe and elsewhere disguised as refugees. During that Homeland Security hearing, Steinback said he's "concerned" that bringing Syrian refugees poses a clear and present danger to Americans admitting, "We don't have it under control."
So what might Jesus do, you ask? I don't know. I can tell you what I'd do. I'd probably kick around a few tables for twisting scriptures out of context and maybe call a few government officials "vipers" for betraying their oath to protect Americans. Or maybe I'd offer a trade like President Obama did for Bowe Bergdahl. Five anti-American progressives for one vetted immigrant.
Or, maybe I'd vote for Donald Trump... if he'd prove he's a conservative. But that might be a stretch.
The Unions’ War on Parental Choice
9/2/2015 8:04:00 AM - Jeb Bush
As a decades-long advocate for school choice, I’ve met countless families who have unlocked opportunity for their children through quality education options. That’s why, during my time as Governor, we made expanding parental choice a key part of our overhaul of Florida’s education system.
The results speak for themselves: Today, more than 300,000 kids in Florida are in school choice programs. Florida leads the nation in reading for low-income and minority fourth graders. Graduation rates have increased by almost 50 percent in the state. The number of ‘D' and ‘F' schools in Florida decreased from 28 percent to 5 percent, and the number of ‘A’ and ‘B' schools in Florida increased from 21 percent to 74 percent. Finally, Florida is one of the only states in the nation to make real progress in closing the achievement gap.
The statistics capture one half of the picture; the many individual success stories the other.
Take Florida 10th grader Valentin Mendez, who has experienced the results firsthand. He was struggling in school, being bullied, not able to learn. His mother found a school — La Progresiva Presbyterian — that he could qualify for using Florida’s Corporate Tax Credit Scholarship program, which we created in 2001. Here’s what his mom says today: “Suddenly it was Valentin doing his homework…Valentin playing sports…Valentin doing everything.” Each life transformed like Valentin’s is proof of the value of hard work by students, insistence on high standards by parents and teachers and a determination to give students more opportunities to do better and try new things.
There are many more students like Valentin out there—living in poverty, facing hardships most of us can’t imagine.
Unfortunately, the very educational opportunities that are giving so many students a better shot in life are under assault by Hillary Clinton’s staunchest supporters, the teachers unions. Last August, a group organized by the state teachers union in Tallahassee sued the state of Florida to end the tax credit scholarship program. Even though they rightfully lost the case, the union last week appealed the decision, proving the war on parental choice in Florida continues.
School choice is under assault in other areas across the nation as well. In New York City, Clinton ally Bill De Blasio has succeeded in transforming the city into a downright hostile environment for charter schools, where more than 43,000 students now remain on waiting lists for them. And last week, the American Civil Liberties Union – another liberal interest group – sued the State of Nevada over its innovative new Education Savings Accounts program.
These are the same special interests backing Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency. And, there is no evidence that Secretary Clinton would buck her friends on the critical issue of education reform if she were elected President.
We need a President who will stand up for students. Restoring the right to rise in America begins with providing every child access to a quality education. Education shouldn’t be a federal initiative, but it can be a national priority. I know we can increase opportunity for every American if we take on the special interests and entrenched establishment that are holding too many children back. I know we can do it because I saw what happened when we took on the teachers union in Tallahassee and won, putting students first.
Eric Cantor: Poster Boy of the Beltway GOP Crapweasels
9/2/2015 12:01:00 AM - Michelle Malkin
Ooouuuch. My sides are still aching after last week's comical announcement by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush that he had snagged the coveted endorsement of notorious electoral reject Eric Cantor, the former House majority leader kicked to the curb by disgusted voters in Virginia's 2014 primary election.
Newsflash to GOP elites: Getting Cantor's support is not like landing a prized marlin. It's like hooking one of those hideous bottom-feeding blobfish named the world's ugliest creature.
Inside the Beltway, The Washington Post reported, "Cantor remains well-liked and respected in the Virginia business community and among the Republican donor class in the commonwealth."
But outside the Beltway, the failed Republican revolutionary-turned-Wall Street influence-peddler is a snortle-inducing spectacle on both sides of the political aisle.
In Cantor's endorsement statement Thursday, he praised Bush as a "true conservative leader" who "can re-energize our nation and recapture our greatness." That's empty babble coming from the epitome of an out-of-touch, self-aggrandizing, revolving-door ruling class.
BushCantor share the same smug condescension toward Americans who believe in strict immigration enforcement and putting American workers first. Cantor fecklessly lied to voters during the campaign season about his position(s). He showered his district with anti-illegal immigration flyers that fraudulently portrayed him as standing up to President Obama on amnesty. But on Capitol Hill, he championed the DREAM Act for illegal alien students, huge H-1B visa increases to quench Big Tech's appetite for cheap foreign tech workers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce/AFL-CIO's collaboration on massive immigration expansions.
While Cantor lip-synced to the limited-government tea party message, he boogied in backrooms with his pork-barrel pals. He assailed Obama's bloated stimulus and then celebrated the high-speed rail boondoggles in his state funded by it. As a celebrated "young gun" on the right, Cantor preached fiscal responsibility, while blowing nearly $170,000 on fancy steakhouse dinners across the country in his last year in office.
Like Bush (and Gang of Eight cheerleader Sen. Marco Rubio), Cantor was the beneficiary of -- and water carrier for -- generous Silicon Valley and Big Business contributors. Cantor's biggest donors included New York financial conglomerates the Blackstone Group ($65,500) and Goldman Sachs ($26,000), and California tech company Oracle ($25,000).
By contrast, the biggest donors to Cantor's successful challenger, libertarian economics professor Dave Brat, were Virginia couple Gerry and Karen Baugh of Baugh Auto Body ($5,400), Michigan writer and artist Louis McAlpin ($5,200), and retired Virginia couple Martha and Kenneth Schwenzer ($5,200).
One outside group, the American Chemistry Council, spent a whopping $300,000 on soft-money ads to protect Cantor -- an amount that exceeded Brat's entire campaign funding.
Likewise, while Bush fashions himself a champion of the American worker, he pompously pushes the Gang of Eight amnesty as the only "adult" plan in the room. While he poses as a champion of American parents, students and "school choice," he trashes activist moms and zealously crusades for failed Fed Ed rackets and data-mining schemes masquerading as "higher standards." And while he stumps for the ordinary American's "right to rise" through conservative principles, he has parlayed his political career into a multimillion-dollar collection basket from liberal special interests and corporate cronies who fund his Common Core advocacy -- including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the GE Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Intel and Pearson Education.
BushCantor seem to think everyone else will suffer from Sudden Election Amnesia Syndrome and grant big-spending, open-borders Republicans blanket amnesty for their betrayals. But what Brat told voters in Virginia about Cantor goes for voters nationwide as Bush flounders. "Eric Cantor doesn't represent you," Brat bluntly warned. "He represents large corporations seeking a never-ending supply of cheap foreign labor. He doesn't care about how this will affect your livelihood, your schools, your tax bills or your kids' chances of finding a job."
The disgraced seven-term representative from Virginia's affluent 7th district, who turned his back on grassroots constituents in favor of cashing in on power, now promises to work closely with Bush "as they chart a course to the White House."
Here's to Cantor's success in helping Jeb navigate his same path to loserdom. Bon voyage!
Why Home Schooling?
Walter E. Williams
9/2/2015 12:01:00 AM - Walter E. Williams
Many public primary and secondary schools are dangerous places. The Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics show that in 2012, there were about 749,200 violent assaults on students. In the 2011-12 academic year, there were a record 209,800 primary- and secondary-school teachers who reported being physically attacked by a student. Nationally, an average of 1,175 teachers and staff were physically attacked, including being knocked out, each day of that school year. In Baltimore, each school day in 2010, an average of four teachers and staff were assaulted. Each year, roughly 10 percent of primary- and secondary-school teachers are threatened with bodily harm.
Many public schools not only are dangerous but produce poor educational results. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress for 2013, sometimes called the Nation's Report Card (http://tinyurl.com/mn6snpf), only 33 percent of white 12th-graders tested proficient in math, and 47 percent tested proficient in reading. For black 12th-graders, it was a true tragedy, with only 7 percent testing proficient in math and 16 percent in reading. These grossly disappointing educational results exist despite massive increases in public education spending.
Many parents want a better education and safer schools for their children. The best way to deliver on that desire is to offer parents alternatives to poorly performing and unsafe public schools. Expansion of charter schools is one way to provide choice. The problem is that charter school waiting lists number in the tens of thousands. Another way is giving educational vouchers or tuition tax credits for better-performing and safer schools. But the education establishment fights tooth and nail against any form of school choice.
Another viable alternative increasingly chosen is home schooling. In 1970, there were only 10,000 home-schooled children. In 2012, according to recently released data from the National Center for Education Statistics, there were about 1.77 million children who were being home-schooled (http://tinyurl.com/ooodba7). Parents give a number of reasons for home schooling. Many want a safer environment for their children -- away from violence, alcohol and other drugs, psychological abuse, and improper and unhealthy sexual indoctrination found in public schools. Some want to teach and impart a particular set of values and beliefs to their children.
In terms of academic achievement, home-schoolers beat out their public school counterparts. In reading, language, math, science and social studies, the average home-schooler scores somewhere near the 80th percentile. The average public school student taking these standardized tests scores at the 50th percentile in each subject area. Home-schoolers also tend to score higher than their public school counterparts on college admittance tests, such as the ACT and SAT.
Home schooling is not without its critics. Some of it is ludicrous, as shown in an excellent article in City Journal titled "Homeschooling in the City," by Matthew Hennessey. Stanford University political scientist Rob Reich has called for tighter regulation of home schooling to ensure that "children are exposed to and engaged with ideas, values, and beliefs that are different from those of the parents." My question to Reich is: Whose ideas and values should children be exposed to? Georgetown University law professor Robin L. West worries that home-schooled children grow up to become right-wing political "soldiers" eager to "undermine, limit, or destroy state functions." West would like to see home schooling more highly regulated and home-schoolers subjected to mandatory testing and periodic home visits in order "to give the state a window into the quality of home life, and a way to monitor signs of abuse."
Home-schoolers have a defense against this sort of meddling. The Home School Legal Defense Association is a nonprofit organization established to defend and advance the constitutional right of parents to direct the education of their children. The National Home Education Research Institute provides educational resources and research for home-schooling parents. Its founder, Dr. Brian D. Ray, recently published "African American Homeschool Parents' Motivations for Homeschooling and Their Black Children's Academic Achievement." His findings are proof that home schooling is effective for not only white youngsters but black youngsters, as well.
A Cowardly, un-American Deal With Iran
9/2/2015 12:01:00 AM - Star Parker
Many Americans rightly watch in disbelief as leaders of our country push to conclude a dangerous and ill-conceived nuclear agreement with an incorrigible and evil nation, a leading sponsor of terrorism.
Since when does the United States negotiate out of fear, out of weakness? But this is what is happening. How else to explain moving forward with a deal this complicated and dangerous with people no rational person would trust?
Abrogation of American leadership, meaning America acting in an unprincipled and cowardly way, leads inevitably to a world more dangerous and less free. We should be ashamed.
Many have already written about the technical problems of this so-called deal. Huge time lags in follow-up inspections, allowing Iran to re-build its conventional arms arsenal, and that this will accelerate rather than decelerate the nuclear arms race in the Middle East and lead inevitably to a nuclear-armed Iran.
Administration officials don't even try to deny that the hundreds of billions that will be released to Iran as result of lifting sanctions will provide funding for terror.
According to President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, "We should expect that some portion of that money would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region up until now."
Per testimony of Adam Szubin, acting undersecretary of the treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence: "I expect we'll continue to see that..." regarding Iranian terrorism support.
And Wendy Sherman, undersecretary of state for political affairs, said, "As for Iran's behavior, the United States is under no illusions."
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a statement saying they will continue to support rogue activities. "Whether or not this drafted (nuclear agreement) text is approved through legal process in the country, the Iranian nation will not stop supporting the oppressed nation of Palestine, Yemen, Bahrain as well as the nations and governments of Syria, Iraq and the honest combatants in Lebanon and Palestine."
The Wall Street Journal's Mary O'Grady has written extensively about Iranian activities in Latin America.
"Iran has targeted Latin America since the mid-1980s," O'Grady reports, "by establishing mosques and cultural centers to spread the revolution. An arm of Hezbollah, Iran's Islamic fundamentalist proxy, took responsibility for the 1992 terrorist attack on the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires. Argentine prosecutors named Iran as the mastermind behind the 1994 terrorist attack on the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) in the same city."
O'Grady continues, "In 2013 Alberto Nisman, the Argentine prosecutor who was investigating the AMIA case, released a 500-page report about the extensive Iranian terrorism network in the hemisphere. One of his more chilling findings was that the foiled 2007 plot to blow up New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport was an Iranian operation, run by a Guyanese recruit. In January Nisman was found in his Buenos Aires apartment with a bullet through his head."
Iran is already violating sanctions. Senator Ted Cruz noted in the recent Republican debate that Iranian General Qasem Soleimani is "head of the al Quds forces ... responsible for the murder of over 500 American servicemen in Iraq" and recently travelled to Russia against travel restrictions.
Freedom House, based in Washington, D.C, rates Iran, on a scale of 1-7 (1 being "most free") a 6 on political rights and 6 on civil liberties.
It's not just the American people and the Israeli people that need American leadership now. It is the Iranian people and the vast populations of people living in un-free Muslim nations.
Who will be the voice for freedom and civility in the world if not America?
No sane, responsible person does business with rogues that cannot be trusted. Not even a simple deal.
Our national anthem says that America is the "land of the free and the home of the brave."
Free and brave people don't do deals like this.
Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Contact her at www.urbancure.org. To find out more about Star Parker and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2015 STAR PARKER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
What the Other GOP Candidates Can Learn from Trump
9/2/2015 6:28:00 AM - Jonah Goldberg
According to polls, the No. 1 thing Donald Trump's fans like about him is that he "tells it like it is." I think his fans are wrong about this. But that's a column -- actually a lot of columns -- for another time.
It is true, however, that there is something refreshing about the way Trump talks. It's not actually candor, though lots of people mistake it for that. Rather, he's unfiltered. The one thing you can be sure of is that he hasn't consulted with a political consultant about how to talk. He doesn't worry what the liberal editors at The New York Times or The Washington Post -- or, for that matter, the conservative editors at National Review -- think of him.
I'd be willing to bet that if there's a single newspaper in the country that Trump cares about, it's The New York Post. The Big Apple narcissus has spent his entire career looking for his reflection on Page Six of New York's true paper of record.
And that's because the Post actually cares about not only informing its readers but entertaining them as well. Its no-holds-barred, New York tabloid style comes closest to Trump's own way of talking. His recent rant about former Rep. Anthony Weiner being a "sleazeball" and a "perv" was not only accurate, but it reflects the way normal people talk. That's refreshing.
I wish more Republicans would take the hint. Every couple of years I write a column on the infuriating habit Republican politicians have of reading their own stage direction. I don't revisit the topic for lack of other issues to write about; I keep coming back to it because Republicans just can't help themselves.
The worst offender was George H.W. Bush, a thoroughly decent and committed public servant who was always uncomfortable with the demands of the TV age. He was better suited to the 19th century style of politics, where you didn't have to connect emotionally with millions of people in their living rooms. Out of frustration, he'd often cut to the chase and tell people how he wanted to be perceived.
When he ran against Bill Clinton -- a man capable of crying on cue if you just told him which camera to look at -- Bush was hopelessly outmatched. So he simply proclaimed, "Message: I care."
Bob Dole, another old-school politician, had the same problem. He once said at a meeting of the Republican National Committee, "If that's what you want, I'll be another Ronald Reagan." His aides told the press that his strategy was to "act presidential."
Jeb Bush has the same tendency. In 2014, he told people he would only run for president if he could do so "joyfully." The problem is that he's good at telling but pretty bad at showing. To date, he's displayed all the joy of a man waiting to get called for his colonoscopy.
But all of the professional politicians have this problem to one extent or another. Chris Christie talks about how he "tells it like it is" as often as he actually tells it like it is.
Christie recently told "Tonight Show" host Jimmy Fallon about his plans for the next GOP debate: "Stay tuned on Sept. 16th. We may be changing tactics." If the moderators ask 15 questions in a row without asking Christie any, the New Jersey governor explained, "you're going to go, 'Uh oh, he's going to go nuclear now.'"
If you have to tell people that "going nuclear" is just a tactic, it makes going nuclear seem a hell of a lot less authentic.
John Kasich has a policy of not attacking Hillary Clinton. That's weird enough. But he also feels compelled to explain that his refusal is a tactic. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker et al. can't resist telling audiences about the importance of being optimistic. Why not just try being optimistic? Voters will notice. I promise.
There are many reasons the non-politicians -- Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina -- are doing so well, but near the top is the fact that they haven't internalized the language of political consultants and pundits. They understand something the politicians have forgotten: Politics is about sales. Good salesmen don't say, "I need to sell you this car today because I need to make my quota." They also don't say, "I need to convince you that you need this car even though it's more than you think you can afford." That may be their motivation, but they concentrate on the actual convincing.