Mid-Day Digest

May 15, 2018

IN TODAY’S EDITION

  • Iran threatens to unmask bribes that secured nuclear deal.
  • Dear Democrats: Stop attacking the Electoral College.
  • The Left just can’t quite playing sexism games.
  • If Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, why shouldn’t Donald Trump?
  • Plus our Daily Features: Top Headlines, Memes, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.

THE FOUNDATION

“Even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf.” —Thomas Paine (1776)

IN BRIEF

European Officials Bribed Into Accepting Iran Nuke Deal?

Thomas Gallatin

After President Donald Trump’s decision last Tuesday to pull out of Barack Obama’s dubious Iran nuclear deal, which was followed by threats to reimpose economic sanctions against the number-one state sponsor of terrorism, Iran’s foreign affairs minister issued his own threat via a bombshell revelation. H.J. Ansari Zarif stated, “If Europeans stop trading with Iran and don’t put pressure on the U.S. then we will reveal which western politicians and how much money they had received during nuclear negotiations to make #IranDeal happen.”

Now, the Iranians aren’t exactly the most trustworthy bunch. That’s a huge part of the problem with the deal. But Zarif’s charge that several European leaders were essentially bribed into accepting the Iran deal is entirely plausible.

Recall that after Obama completed the Iran deal back in 2015, Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer wondered, “The most astonishing thing [about the deal] is that in return, they [the Iranians] are not closing a single nuclear facility. Their entire nuclear infrastructure is intact. They are going to have the entire infrastructure in place either for a breakout after the agreement expires or when they have enough sanctions relief and they want to cheat and to break out on their own.”

Krauthammer’s observation was accurate. So what exactly did the rest of the world get from the Iran deal? Why did so many of Europe’s leaders sign on to such a bad deal? The answer is twofold: As far as reining in a rogue regime’s efforts to gain nuclear weapons, the West got nothing; as for opportunities for lucrative business deals, that was most definitely in the cards, as Zarif may have just alluded to. And this revelation might also explain why European leaders are scrambling to salvage the deal. French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire argued, “Do we want to be vassals who obey decisions taken by the United States while clinging to the hem of their trousers? Or do we want to say we have our economic interests, [and that] we will continue to do trade with Iran?”

Memo to Le Maire: U.S. GDP ranks first in the world and accounts for 23% of the world’s GDP. Iran is 29th, accounting for less than 0.5%. What was that about economic interests again?

Comment | Share

Democrats Love Playing Sexism Games

Hillary Clinton’s blame-everything-but-me tour is continuing in Australia, where she called a large part of America a bunch of sexists. Again. In an interview Down Under, Clinton pontificated, “There is still a very large proportion of the population that is uneasy with women in positions of leadership, so the easiest way to kind of avoid having to look at someone on her merits is to dismiss her on her looks.” Clinton further opined, “There is this fear, there is this anger, even rage about women seeking power, women exercising power, and people fall back on these attacks like you’re a witch or you should go to prison.” She added, “It’s not a majority, thank goodness, it’s not, but it’s a very vocal minority, at least in my country. And sometimes these tropes are very much part of the press coverage.”

This latest Clinton excuse comes straight out of the Democrats’ gender warfare playbook. You see, the real reason Hillary lost was not because of her record of dishonesty and leftist politics, but because conservatives — a.k.a. the “vocal minority” — just didn’t want a woman to become president, full stop. It’s pure sexism at play, they say; nothing else could possibly explain it.

The trouble is the excuse is simply not true. There are numerous examples proving that the charge of sexism is fraudulent as well as that the reason for conservatives not voting for Hillary and Democrats in general is primarily due to character issues (especially when it comes to Hillary) and policy reasons. How else does one explain, for example, the popularity of Nikki Haley? A recent Quinnipiac University Poll showed that a whopping 63% of American voters approve of Haley and her handling of the job of U.S. ambassador to the UN.

Secondly, two can play this “blame everything on sexism” game. Are the vast majority of Senate Democrats opposed to confirming Gina Haspel because they don’t want a woman heading the CIA? Clearly, they must be uncomfortable with a woman leading an agency that has only always been directed by a man.

The truth is, Democrats seek to elevate the lowest and least significant factors of an individual, such as their sex or ethnicity, as the issue of primary significance, while lowering and degrading those uniquely meritorious aspects of an individual that should be the basis upon which they are judged. That mindset and political strategy explains why Hillary is so keen to direct attention away from her many glaring faults to focus on non-factors.

Comment | Share

Top Headlines

For more of today’s news, visit Patriot Headline Report.

Comment | Share

FEATURED ANALYSIS

Dear Dems: Stop Attacking the Electoral College

Lewis Morris

Connecticut became the latest state to break with the Constitution last week by joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The state Senate approved and Democrat Gov. Dannel Malloy vowed to sign a bill that would pledge the state’s electoral votes to the national popular vote winner in presidential elections.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a scheme developed by opponents of the Electoral College — generally leftists who would rather see the president of the United States elected by popular vote than via the Electoral College system the Founders established in the Constitution.

The Electoral College was designed to make the presidential election a truly national contest. It forces candidates to recognize all regions and not ignore small states and rural areas in favor of large states and major metropolitan areas. The process, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68, “affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.”

Democrats are not happy with the Electoral College, however. Hillary Clinton, as we are repeatedly reminded, won the national popular vote by roughly three million votes. If it weren’t for the Electoral College (and men, and women, and whites, and James Comey, and the Russia, and… and…), she would be president right now. Therefore, in the eyes of Democrats, the Electoral College is no longer relevant.

But consider this: Over 20% of Clinton’s 65.8 million votes came from California and New York alone. Take those two deep-blue states out of contention and she would have lost the popular vote by three million. Clinton didn’t campaign hard enough in the Rust Belt, losing states she mistakenly assumed would stay in her column. Clinton ignored these states in favor of big blue vote buckets like Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, San Francisco and other major metropolitan areas.

In fact, the 2016 election is proof positive that we do need the Electoral College and that it is still relevant.

It’s typical Democrat behavior to assume that because they can’t seem to win something, then the game must be rigged. This is why they came up with the national popular vote scheme in the first place. Recognizing that their most loyal voters tended to be in metropolitan areas, and that these areas were growing (more Americans live in cities than in rural areas), Democrats pined for a popular-vote strategy that could secure them a lasting national presence as it has in several states with large metropolitan areas. California and New York are perfect examples.

The National Popular Vote Compact began in 2007. Laws were introduced in states that would pledge that state’s Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of the outcome of that state’s vote. In other words, if a given state votes for the Republican candidate, but a Democrat wins the national popular vote, then that state’s electors must pledge to vote for the Democrat. The compact goes into effect when the total number of states on board reaches 270 electoral votes, the winning number to become president.

With the recent addition of Connecticut, there are now 11 states, plus the District of Columbia, in the compact. They are all deep blue states, of course, and they hold a total of 172 electoral votes. Given that these states are unlikely to actually vote Republican anytime in the foreseeable future, this compact is currently almost meaningless. However, according to the compact’s website, there are 12 more states in which the bill has passed at least one chamber, totaling 96 electoral votes, which would bring the compact total to a very relevant 268.

It’s ironic from a historical perspective that Connecticut joined the compact. It was Connecticut’s Roger Sherman who argued against a national popular vote for president during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He, like many Founding Fathers, feared the tyranny of the majority, noting that the people at large “will generally vote for some man in their own state, and the largest state will have the best chance for the appointment.”

Today’s Democrats believe that just the opposite is taking place — that smaller states and rural populations (i.e., Republicans) are running the country. Barack Obama complained after the 2016 election that the Electoral College works against Democrats. And Clinton has been calling for the abolition of the Electoral College since Al Gore’s loss in 2000.

The case can be made that the Electoral College does favor Republicans, but that may be because the GOP knows how to run a presidential election better than Democrats from a technical standpoint (if not always politically). It could also just be the ebb and flow of presidential politics. Coalitions come and go, states change from blue to red and from red to blue. It is the nature of politics, and it is how our federal republic works.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is not a solution to this issue because there is no problem. If Democrats want to win a presidential election, then they should front a candidate who wants to be president of all the people instead of just those she doesn’t consider “deplorable.”

Comment | Share

TODAY’S MEME

Share

For more of today’s memes, visit the Memesters Union.

TODAY’S CARTOON

Share

For more of today’s top cartoons, visit the Cartoons archive.

Don’t Miss Patriot Humor

Check out AP Traumatized by Trump.

If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

For more of today’s columns, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Tony Perkins: “For Donald Trump, yesterday’s ceremony marks another major milestone on the growing list of White House accomplishments. As Jared Kushner reminded everyone, ‘Presidents before him have backed down from their pledge to move the American embassy once they were in office. This president delivered. Because when President Trump makes a promise, he keeps it.’ As far back as the campaign, this president vowed to bring America’s physical presence in Israel in line with our stated policy: that Jerusalem is the eternal undivided capital of the Jewish people. The decision is a bold one, since it signals that America won’t be held hostage to a fractious peace process that’s frightened other administrations away from doing what this White House is. While other presidents let the threat of violence dictate American policy, Donald Trump refuses to make decisions based on what other groups think. As he’s done from the beginning, this president is sending a strong message that America is not going to be bullied or pushed around. The United States will stand with Israel in hopes that there can someday be managed peace.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “What is the fairest fruit of the English Tree of Liberty? The security of our rights and of the law, and that no man shall be brought to trial where there is a prejudice against him.” —Thomas Erskine (1750-1823)

Good questions: “On what basis has the Justice Department concealed passages and references to government officials from these significant conversations [texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page]? Are Justice and the Bureau claiming that the redactions are necessary because the information is classified — even though we’re talking about communications between highly trained intelligence officials? And if that is the claim, are they telling us that Hillary Clinton was investigated — and given a pass — for the unauthorized transmission of classified information by FBI officials who were themselves actively engaged in the unauthorized transmission of classified information? The Strzok-Page texts rate a lot more attention, and a lot more transparency.” —Andrew McCarthy

For the record: “In ordinary English usage, a protest is a collective action or gesture meant to bring pressure on a government or corporate entity. The Gaza ‘protests’ are meant to bring pressure on Israel, but they’re intended mainly to kill and maim both Israelis and the Palestinian ‘protesters’ themselves. These demonstrations would be better described as suicide-riots.” —Weekly Standard editorial

A tale of two presidents:

Exhibit A: “Gas prices are once again dominating the national debate. But despite rhetoric, high gas prices aren’t hurting as much as they used to.” —"Rising gas prices aren’t as bad as you think,“ CNN, March 21, 2012

Exhibit B: "Crude oil and gasoline prices are on the rise after President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal. Now, many consumers are seeing their extra money go to rising gas prices, potentially undercutting a key pillar of economic growth this year.” —"Higher gas prices are eating into Trump tax cut, trimming spending by Americans,“ USA Today, May 10, 2018

And last… "I think you’re always going to have tension in the Middle East when there’s people who want to kill the Jews and Jews who don’t want to be killed and neither side is willing to compromise.” —Frank J. Fleming

Comment | Share

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. We also humbly ask prayer for your Patriot team, that our mission would seed and encourage the spirit of Liberty in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

Nate Jackson, Managing Editor
Mark Alexander, Publisher