The Patriot Post® · Daily Digest
“The greatest good we can do our country is to heal its party divisions and make them one people.” —Thomas Jefferson, 1801
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Once the frontrunner of the GOP presidential race, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has called it quits. When he launched his campaign, Walker’s conservative record in Wisconsin and his tough-as-nails approach to leftist opposition had many conservatives excited about his candidacy. But it wasn’t to be. Good governance didn’t translate into good preparation for the national stage or a good campaign. Numerous self-inflicted wounds — including obviously pandering flip-flops on immigration and the ethanol mandate, as well as lackluster debate performances — and the entry of a certain celebrity apprentice sapped Walker’s lead. In fact, polling after last week’s Reagan Library debate had Walker’s support not even registering on the scale. He thus concluded he no longer had a path to the nomination. He wasn’t going to win back conservatives disillusioned with the establishment, and he wasn’t going to assure the establishment it could settle on him. Donors were heading for other candidates. Coming on the heels of Rick Perry’s departure last week, we find it notable that the first two candidates to exit the field are two governors with established records of reform. Isn’t that what the GOP base is supposed to want this year? Nevertheless, Badger State residents will benefit from his full and unencumbered return to the governor’s chair, and that’s no small thing.
On a final note, Walker encouraged other low-polling candidates to drop out so conservatives could coalesce and beat Trump. “I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider [leaving the race] so the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive conservative alternative to the current frontrunner. This is fundamentally important to the future of the party and — ultimately — to the future of our country.”
In a rare instance when someone comes to the U.S. from Cuba not floating on a homemade raft, Pope Francis will arrive at Joint Base Andrews at 4 p.m. today for his six-day visit to the United States. In his first visit to the U.S., Francis will address the UN, visit a correctional facility in Philadelphia and meet with Barack Obama. Francis is controversial, not necessarily because of his doctrine — which does raise questions — but because of how the media, which does a dismal job covering religion, has portrayed him. For example: In July 2013, the media breathlessly reported that Francis, when asked about homosexuality, responded, “Who am I to judge?” But the larger context was that Francis started his statement saying, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and he has good will…” See, morality and faith are still in play, and the pope opposes same-sex marriage. Still, many people reject the nuance of Francis’ statements, one of them being Obama. When the executive greets the pope, by his side will be LGBT advocates, openly homosexual Episcopal priest Vicky Imogene Robinson and a group of nuns that helped lobby for ObamaCare. While the pope speaks of liberation theology, a similar philosophy embraced by Obama’s former pastor Jeremiah Wright, the Holy See objected to these guests, saying images from the event could imply that the pope endorses those practices. But everything is political for Obama. Nuance or no, he will use Francis’ visit as a way to further his ideology.
On Sept. 1, twenty professors and climate scientists wrote a letter to Barack Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and science czar John Holdren praising their regulatory assault on fossil fuels. That wasn’t the point of the letter, however. The disgruntled authors encouraged a more crushing strategy the White House should use to speed up compliance to Obama’s climate change agenda. The group stated, “We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.” But… “One additional tool — recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse — is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.” In other words, why not just prosecute and imprison those darn skeptics getting in the way?
Specifically, the authors cite RICO’s success in taking on the tobacco industry, adding, “[I]t is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.” As climate blogger Steve Goddard retorted, “They might want to consult with the Pope about this. The Vatican has considerable experience arresting heretics.” Investor’s Business Daily’s Kerry Jackson put it best: “[W]e could be wrong about global warming. It might all be as the alarmists claim. We acknowledge this. Science is not static but always moving. Let’s see what it tells us. Yet has any true believer ever renounced his global warming faith or conceded that there is even the slightest chance that he might be just a bit wrong?” Who exactly are acting like cultish fanatics?
Oh, and by the way, George Mason University Professor Jagadish Shukla, a leader of the letter writers, reportedly profited from government climate grants to the tune of $1.5 million.
Don’t Miss Patriot Humor
Check out Escape.
If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
By Paul Albaugh
Over the last several days, the Leftmedia have worked themselves into a tizzy over two particular presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Ben Carson, following comments that were made — and not made — about Muslims. It’s one of those “gotcha” moments when a candidate must choose between speaking what he believes, dodging the question or simply not saying anything. Regardless of how the candidate answers, they will catch heat for it, primarily because they are Republicans.
During a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a questioner accused Barack Obama of being a Muslim, of not being American and stated, “We have [Muslim] training camps growing where they want to kill us, that’s my question. When can we get rid of them?”
Trump didn’t respond the way many in the Leftmedia thought that he should have. He didn’t rebut the questioner’s accusations about Obama’s religion or citizenship. (After all, Trump himself once questioned Obama’s citizenship.) Instead, Trump answered the question vaguely, stating, “We’re going to be looking at a lot of different things, and a lot of people are saying that and saying that bad things are happening out there. We’re going to be looking at that and plenty of other things.”
To be sure, Trump could have answered the question better, and he could have taken the bait to address the man’s accusations. But he didn’t — or rather, deliberately chose to ignore the accusations from the man because he foresaw the media onslaught that would surely follow. In his own words, Trump told ABC News, “If I would have challenged the man … to put it mildly, the media would have accused me of interfering with that man’s right of free speech. … A no-win situation, do we agree?”
Perhaps Trump could have responded to the man’s accusation by recalling Hillary Clinton’s own veiled Obama-is-a-Muslim claim in 2008, or reminding voters of Obama’s interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in which Obama mentions “my Muslim faith.” But Trump didn’t address it, and the media are having a field day.
None of this is to say that Obama is a Muslim. But his claim that he is a Christian is just as far-fetched. Obama spent 20 years attending the “church” of the Marxist black liberation theology-spouting Jeremiah Wright. It’s far more likely, based on his actions, rhetoric and narcissism, that he worships himself, and will say or do whatever is politically expedient.
As columnist David Limbaugh writes, “It’s true we can’t know for sure what’s in a person’s heart, but we can observe his statements and behavior. … This is not a man with a track record of authenticity.”
“You will recognize them by their fruits,” Jesus said.
Meanwhile, Dr. Ben Carson stirred up controversy following an interview because of what he did say.
Keeping this question in context with Trump not correcting a questioner, when asked if a president’s faith should matter, Carson responded, “It depends on what that faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter.” He added that he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”
He answered the question, but it clearly wasn’t what “tolerant” leftists wanted to hear. The Leftmedia have tried for more than a decade to convince Americans that Islam is the Religion of Peace™, so how could Carson say such a thing? Is he an Islamophobe? No, he just happens to understand that Sharia law, which is part of Islam, is inconsistent with the values and principles enshrined in the Constitution.
National Review’s Andrew McCarthy offers an outstanding explanation:
“Islam’s sharia is a code premised on the principles that Allah has prescribed the ideal way for human life to be lived; that people are required to submit to that prescription; and that Islamic governments exist to enforce that requirement. Our Constitution, to the contrary, is premised on the principles that we are free to choose how we will live; the laws we make are not required to comply with the principles of any religion; and that government is our servant, not our master.”
McCarthy further notes that Islam should be understood by public figures as both a religion and an all-encompassing political-social ideology. And that’s the very reason why Carson answered the question the way he did. Sharia law is the antithesis of the Constitution. It’s also why when Carson was asked if he would consider voting for a Muslim for Congress he replied that it would “depend on who that Muslim is and what their policies are.”
For Carson, if a practicing Muslim’s political ideology reflects that of the Constitution, rather than Sharia law, then that person is eligible for office. If not, then there is no place in American politics for them.
Of course, there is no Muslim running for president. But Americans should welcome this debate as we consider what it takes to sit in the executive seat of constitutional government. Remember what that is?
MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE
- ANALYSIS: Looking for Law in All the Wrong Places
- Navy Secretary Widens Divide Over Social Engineering
- Trump’s Second Amendment Stand Sounds Good, But…
- Another Court Rules Against DC Gun Laws
- VW Faces $18 Billion in Fines for Evading EPA Regs
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
- Thomas Sowell: The Left Has Its Pope
- Stephen Moore: What Pope Francis Should Tell America
- Arnold Ahlert: The Character of a Nation
For more, visit Right Opinion.
- Obama Rewrites Immigration Law Again
- Volkswagen Admits Its Emissions Scandal Is Global
- FBI Refuses to Cooperate in Clinton Email Probe
For more, visit Patriot Headline Report
OPINION IN BRIEF
Thomas Sowell: “Any serious look at the history of human beings over the millennia shows that the species began in poverty. It is not poverty, but prosperity, that needs explaining. Poverty is automatic, but prosperity requires many things — none of which is equally distributed around the world or even within a given society. … In 1900, only 3 percent of American homes had electric lights but more than 99 percent had them before the end of the century. Infant mortality rates were 165 per thousand in 1900 and 7 per thousand by 1997. By 2001, most Americans living below the official poverty line had central air conditioning, a motor vehicle, cable television with multiple TV sets, and other amenities. A scholar specializing in the study of Latin America said that the official poverty level in the United States is the upper middle class in Mexico. The much criticized market economy of the United States has done far more for the poor than the ideology of the left. Pope Francis’ own native Argentina was once among the leading economies of the world, before it was ruined by the kind of ideological notions he is now promoting around the world.”
Insight: “Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is a merger of state and corporate power.” —Italian dictator Benito Mussolini (1883-1945)
For the record: “The pope’s alliance with radical environmentalists is unsettling, to say the least. The green movement has a satanic track record when it comes to promoting human life and dignity. These are the people whose radical ‘Earth first’ theology gave us the barbaric one-child policy in China and such population-control measures as forced abortions and mass sterilizations in India and Africa. It would be helpful for the pope to distance Christians from pagan values. God gave man dominion over this planet, and the pope is right to caution that we have a moral obligation to be good custodians for future generations. But the primacy of every single human life must come before saving polar bears and trees. Free-market capitalism promotes environmental improvement.” —Stephen Moore
Upright: “Half of U.S. Muslims believe that Sharia law trumps the Constitution, and they would prefer to be governed by Sharia law. That is inconsistent with the Constitution. I wish Dr. [Ben] Carson had told host Chuck Todd, ‘Instead of trying to create a controversy with that question, what you should be asking is whether it is conceivable that any Muslim nation would elect a Christian as president.’ If the liberal media is looking for intolerance, it should look at the Muslim world. Six of the top 10 worst violators of human rights are Islamic nations.” —Gary Bauer
Confessions: “Democrats are ready to sit down and negotiate with Republicans right now. But it should be over legitimate issues like how much do we invest in education, job training, and infrastructure — not unrelated ideological issues like Planned Parenthood.” —Barack Obama, seemingly admitting that funding PP is entirely ideological
Pro-abortion, not pro-choice: “I think that the kind of late-term abortions that take place are because of medical necessity. And, therefore, I would hate to see the government interfering with that decision. I think that, again, this gets back to whether you respect a woman’s right to choose or not.” —Hillary Clinton, who declined to cite any abortion restrictions she might support
Forward! “I’m not going to let [Republicans] tear up [ObamaCare], kick 16 million people off their health coverage and force the country to start the health care debate all over again. Not on my watch. I want to build on the progress we’ve made.” —Hillary Clinton
And last… “New city population rankings puts Houston above Chicago. Chicago angrily disputes the rankings, pointing out the survey only counts those who are living.” —Fred Thompson
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.