THE FOUNDATION

“[A]ll speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moral philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow that the form of government which communicates ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness, to the greatest numbers of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best.” —John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Cleveland Settles With DOJ Over Policing Investigation

It’s become a trend in cases involving police shootings: While the individual officer is let off the hook for using lethal force and sparking protests in the community, the Department of Justice usually finds something wrong with the larger department. Cleveland has reached a settlementwith the DOJ after the agency accused the city’s finest of engaging in patterns of “unreasonable and unnecessary use of force,” including tasing and punching handcuffed suspects. The investigation was launched after a 2012 car chase involving 100 police officers ended with officer Michael Brelo standing on the roof of the Chevy Malibu used to flee from the police and firing 15 times into the vehicle. On Saturday, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge John O'Donnell found Brelo not guilty of killing the two suspects because it was not clear if it was Brelo’s rounds that killed them. When issuing his verdict, O'Donnell said, “Guilty or not guilty, the verdict should be no cause for a civilized society to celebrate or riot.” Still, on Saturday night, some protestors grew violent and 71 were arrested. It just goes to show that improvements still need to be made before we can have a civilized society. More…

Comment | Share

House Considers Fast-Tracking Obama’s Pacific Trade Deal

In the coming days, members of the House will decide whether Congress should fast-track approving Obama’s trade deal with Pacific countries, or whether to defend its constitutional role of advisor when the U.S. enters into treaties. Already, 48 Republicans and 14 Democrats in the Senate approved fast-track legislation Friday, a move that would only give the legislative body the ability to approve the treaty with a yes-no vote. While everyone from Obama to the GOP leadership agrees that a trade deal is needed and beneficial (especially because of China’s growing aggression in the South China Sea), lawmakers question the way it’s coming about. Rep. Jim Jordan said, “I’m concerned about giving this president the authority” to be the sole person negotiating deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Furthermore, the House is the young blood of the lawmaking body, as only 55 members were around when Congress deliberated over the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993. Members in office because of the 2014 Republican wave should remember they are in office because voters wanted change, not Obama’s status quo.

Comment | Share

Another Holiday Regulatory Dump

Friday was the dawn of a holiday weekend, which could mean only one thing: Time for another big regulatory release from the Obama administration. It wasn’t exactly a Friday news dump, as it came out Thursday, but, as The Hill points out, “The White House is notorious for releasing its Unified Agenda on the cusp of a holiday when most people are headed out of town to celebrate the long weekend. The release of the spring 2015 edition was no exception, coming one day before the long Memorial Day weekend.” According to The Daily Signal, there are 136 significant rules in this release: “These include an Environmental Protection Agency rule tightening already-tight carbon emission regulations for power plants, Food and Drug Administration regulations for all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and cigars, and new Consumer Product Safety Commission safety standards for off-road vehicles.” The cost of Barack Obama’s enormous regulatory burden is a serious drag on the economy. In fact, compliance costs nearly $15,000 per American household, but it’s a cost that’s more easily hidden than taxes. Still, it’s no wonder Obama likes to bury regulation releases just before a holiday.

Comment | Share

Share

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS

Emails Cast More Guilt on Clinton and Obama

By Lewis Morris

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton attend the Transfer of Remains ceremony for the four Americans who died in the Benghazi attack Sept. 14, 2012.

On Friday, the State Department made public some 300 messages from Hillary Clinton’s email collection pertaining to Libya and the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attack that left Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead. The Friday afternoon document dump was no doubt timed with the long weekend in hopes that the information contained in these emails would be downplayed in the holiday shuffle.

Fortunately, no such luck. The Benghazi attack and the cover-ups and stonewalling by the Obama administration and presidential candidate Clinton have made this particular embarrassment hard to bury. Despite the best efforts of the administration and its minions in the media, the hunger for more information at this point seems insatiable.

The batch of emails released last week shed a little bit of light on questions that the House Select Committee on Benghazi has been asking since it was formed in May 2014. A number of emails released from Clinton’s once-private collection include information about growing concerns over the deteriorating security situation in Libya going back to April 2011. In fact, Stevens, who at the time was an envoy, voiced concerns about safety.

“The situation in [the Libyan town of] Ajdabiyah has worsened to the point where Stevens is considering departure from Benghazi,” states an April 10, 2011, message. “The envoy’s delegation is currently doing a phased checkout.”

Stevens ultimately stayed in Libya, but his concerns and the concerns of CIA analysts ultimately fell on deaf ears.

Other information drawn from the emails include communications between Clinton and her team in the days following the attack, speech preparation, updates on press coverage, even coverage of how then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney was speaking on the issue.

The emails released by the State Department that used to live on Clinton’s private server raise more questions than they answer, which helps ensure this issue will not go away soon. Several gaps in the timeline are evident, which leave open questions about Clinton’s role and input in shaping Libyan policy post-Qaddafi, how State was dealing with growing instability in the country, and the thought process that went into extending the Benghazi mission in early 2012.

Administration stonewalling on Benghazi is bad enough, but the fact the whole matter is tied in to how Clinton mismanaged her emails makes the issue that much worse.

Clinton’s now-famous private email server was politically motivated because she wanted to keep her work from the prying eyes of the “vast Right wing conspiracy.” Instead, she invested in a private server that was hacked at least once and was not nearly as secure as the government server that she was lawfully required to use for classified materials. Apparently, protecting data from the GOP was more important than protecting it from the Russians or the Chinese.

Clinton claimed two months ago that she never broke the law in maintaining her own private server. In Clinton-speak that is true — kind of. Documents related to Benghazi that have recently been reclassified as secret were not secret when they existed on her server. But they were certainly sensitive; otherwise there would be no need for the reclassification. Yet, there is no hard and fast rule that bars Clinton from storing sensitive documents on her server.

There are also different email addresses that Clinton herself used on her server, possibly to help categorize which topic or issue she was addressing. This is just a theory so far. Not enough emails have been released to detect such a pattern. Yet, it is clear that not only was the server itself politically motivated, but how she dealt with the information on that server was politically motivated as well.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chairman of the Benghazi committee, put some perspective on Friday’s email release. “More than six months after the Select Committee first discovered Secretary Clinton’s unusual email arrangement with herself … State Department transferred 300 messages exclusively reviewed and released by her own lawyers. To assume a self-selected public record is complete, when no one with a duty or responsibility to the public had the ability to take part in the selection … strains credulity.”

Of course, the partisan wheels continue to turn despite Gowdy’s logical skepticism. Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) issued his own statement praising Clinton for being so forthcoming. “The American people can now read all of these emails and see for themselves that they contain no evidence to back up claims that … Republicans have made for years.”

So, according to Cummings, now that we have access to the slightest fraction of 50,000 emails that have been thus-far out of reach from the public record, we can plainly see that there is no smoking gun — therefore we should leave Hillary Clinton alone and elect her emperor president already.

Comment | Share

TODAY AT PATRIOTPOST.US

• Dear GOP Candidates: Solve Rising College Debt
• Former IPCC Researcher Questions Fossil Fuel Claims
• Grand Jury Indicts All Six Baltimore Police Officers
• Cruz Hammers Local Reporter’s Stupid Question
• WSJ: ‘Hillary’s Supreme Court Litmus Test’
• Students Blame Boehner for Deflategate
• Telling a Story of Feminine Heroism

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

For more, visit Right Opinion.

• Ed Feulner: ‘The Last Full Measure of Devotion’
• Linda Chavez: Better Policing — Not Less
• Arnold Ahlert: Will America Abide a Nuclear Wakeup Call?
• Dennis Prager: Differences Between Left and Right: Part I
• Jeff Jacoby: Millionaire Ex-Presidents Can Pay Their Own Way
• Tony Perkins: Pomp and Circuit Stance

OPINION IN BRIEF

Linda Chavez: “Yes, [Freddie] Gray’s life mattered. Black lives matter, as protesters remind us following every such incident involving the death of a black man at the hands of police. But so, too, should the 87 black lives (and 13 others) lost on the streets of Baltimore this year. By focusing almost all of our national attention on the horrific death of one black victim while in police custody, we avoid the larger problem of violence within the black community. Worse, by making the police out to be the greatest threat to the black community, we risk allowing criminals to go unchallenged within those communities. Justice for Freddie Gray would best be served by better policing in the neighborhood where he lived — not by less policing.”

Comment | Share

SHORT CUTS

The Gipper: “In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what democracy is all about.”

Demo-gogues: “This may be the first Memorial Day since the end of our war in Afghanistan. But we are acutely aware, as we speak, our men and women in uniform still stand watch and still serve, and still sacrifice around the world. Several years ago, we had more than 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. Today, fewer than 10,000 troops remain on a mission to train and assist Afghan forces. We’ll continue to bring them home and reduce our forces further, down to an embassy presence by the end of next year.” —Barack Obama

The BIG Lie: “I can say that no U.S. President, no administration has done more to ensure that Israel can protect itself than this one.” —Barack Obama

The annals of the absurd: “[Stopping ISIL’s momentum is] an enormous challenge. And we have to fight it on every front, including the front of social media. That’s a place where they have really made more advances than you would have suspected. And that is where we have to fight them, as well.” —Nancy Pelosi

Non Compos Mentis: “When you have people denying [science], and how we all got here, it’s offensive to me intellectually. And I happen to think it’s unpatriotic. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says the government shall ‘promote the progress of science and useful arts.’ So if you’re a politician looking to derail the progress of science, I think you’re not doing your job.” —Bill Nye (Context means everything, right? Importantly, the rest of the quote from Article I, Section 8 reads, “…by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” No wonder Nye left that part out.)

Comment | Share

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 FOUNDATION

“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone.” —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, 1820

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

The Odd Millions: Clintons Disclose More Clandestine Cash

It seems like Hillary Clinton’s campaign is trying to get all the bad news out early (though there isn’t much good news). That way, the toxic waste might reach half-life before the primary election. The Clinton Foundation released more details into how the Clintons went from “dead broke” to One Percenters, and it shows the family’s overpriced speaking fees raked in $12 to $26.4 million more than previously disclosed. The money came from colleges, Wall Street companies like Goldman Sachs and foreign governments like Qatar. The Clintons didn’t disclose these payments because they counted them as revenue for a service, not donations. But in effect, this allowed groups to hand the Clintons a pile of undisclosed cash. Members of Congresssent a letter to the IRS asking it to reconsider the Clinton Foundation’s tax-exempt status. While asking the government to investigate the Clintons is valid, the letter may galvanize Democrats to rally around Clinton. Instead, Republicans should let Clinton twist in the wind. Either progressives realize Clinton doesn’t represent their idealism and challenge her majesty’s claim to the Oval Office, or they wear her like an albatross. More…

Comment | Share

Sid Blumenthal Changed His Benghazi Story

On Wednesday, we noted that longtime Clinton friend and adviser Sidney Blumenthal told Hillary on Sept. 12, 2012, that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was sparked by a YouTube video. But after beginning to comb over some of Clinton’s released emails, The New York Times reportsthis gem: “The next day [September 13], Mr. Blumenthal sent Mrs. Clinton a more thorough account of what had occurred. Citing ‘sensitive sources’ in Libya, the memo provided extensive detail about the episode, saying that the siege had been set off by members of Ansar al-Shariah, the Libyan terrorist group. Those militants had ties to Al Qaeda, had planned the attacks for a month and had used a nearby protest as cover for the siege, the memo said. ‘We should get this around asap’ Mrs. Clinton said in an email to [her then-deputy chief of staff] Mr. Sullivan. ‘Will do,’ he responded. That information contradicted the Obama administration’s narrative at the time about what had spawned the attacks. Republicans have said the administration misled the country about the attacks because it did not want to undermine the notion that President Obama, who was up for re-election, was winning the war on terrorism.”

So Hillary knew with certainty two days after the attack that it wasn’t the spontaneous protest against an obscure Internet video that Barack Obama, Susan Rice and others in his administration would continue to claim for weeks afterward. And she knew this truth before she looked the father of slain former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods in the eye and promised, “We’re going to have the person responsible for that video arrested.” It may turn out Hillary wishes she had released these emails before they became such a big story.

Comment | Share

Fox, CNN to Determine Who’s a Presidential Candidate

Fox News announced Wednesday that only (ahem, only) 10 GOP candidates — the leaders in the polls — will be permitted to participate in the first presidential debate on Aug. 6 in Cleveland. Likewise, CNN will limit the first part of its Sept. 16 debate to the top 10 polling candidates, while allowing any who exceed 1% to come on stage for the second half. Certainly, we understand not wanting to have 27 people on stage competing for a few seconds of airtime. The GOP field is crowded this year, nearly to the point of being silly. But the decision to limit this to poll numbers is asinine, especially for the first debate. Voters don’t know the candidates very well yet, so why limit the stage to polling on people who are as-yet unknown quantities? It amounts to making early name recognition the bar of entry, which then — ta da — limits name recognition for those who haven’t got it yet. This is a good example of what we like to call pollaganda, a propagandistic disinformation technique where political polling masquerades as “objective journalism” and instead advances a particular bias. The networks can thus use the restricted GOP field to drivepublic opinion rather than reflect or inform it. Our solution: If candidates have done the necessary paperwork and are qualified, put ‘em on stage one way or another, even if it takes multiple debates in varying arrangements.

Comment | Share

EDITOR’S NOTE

We will not publish our Daily Digest or Humor editions Monday in observance of Memorial Day. We’ll return to providing you the web’s best news analysis Tuesday.

Share

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS

Gates Says Boy Scouts Must Preemptively Surrender

By Nate Jackson

Robert Gates, president of the Boy Scouts of America, told the organization Thursday at its annual national meeting that the time has come to end the ban on homosexual adult leaders in the organization. Citing the wave of cultural changes taking place under threat from homosexual activists, including same-sex marriage edicts in the courts and anti-discrimination laws in several states, Gates insisted, “The status quo in our movement’s membership standards cannot be sustained.”

“The one thing we cannot do is put our heads in the sand and pretend this challenge will go away or abate,” Gates added. “Quite the opposite is happening.”

Translation: Abandon traditional values in the face of pressure from the Rainbow Mafia.

Far from putting “our heads in the sand,” however, defending both traditional Judeo-Christian values and religious liberty itself is called standing on principle.

Gates did not call upon BSA leaders to make a decision on the matter forthwith, but he did caution that if the organization doesn’t change on its own the homosexual lobby and its allies in the courts are likely to force the issue. “If we wait for the courts to act,” he warned, “we could end up with a broad ruling that could forbid any kind of membership standard,” including belief in duty to God and specifically serving the needs of boys.

So he argued for change, leaving it up to individual troops and councils and the churches who sponsor them … for now. However, such a change would only leave troops and councils across the nation susceptible to legal assaults by the Tolerance Brigade.

Gates, a former secretary of defense and CIA director, has a track record of knuckling under to homosexual activists. He was at the helm of the Pentagon for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”in 2010, justifying his actions at the time as an end to discrimination rather than calling the change what it was: an attempt by gays and lesbians to remake yet another institution to suit the needs of a small but vocal fraction of the population.

(On that note, homosexuals and their allies have managed to erroneously convince more than half of Americans that gays make up at least 20% of the population. The true number is more like 3%, but it helps the agenda if it appears there are far more of them.)

When Gates took the job as president of the BSA in 2014, he said he had no intention of allowing openly homosexual scout leaders. The BSA was already reeling from a 2013 decision thatsummarily dropped the ban on openly homosexual youths. The vote was passed by 60% of the 1,400 delegates in attendance, which may seem like a landslide but is hardly a representative cross-section of the national organization.

Scout membership nationally is already down more than 10% since the last encroachment of gay activists — but the prospect of homosexual leaders overseeing troops will most assuredly lead to a much more significant decline.

Next thing you know, the BSA will be banning water guns. Oh, wait…

Gates is correct that the homosexual lobby isn’t done reshaping the 103-year-old organization to suit its agenda. Scouts for Equality and Human Rights Campaign issued statements after Gates’ speech Thursday saying they were heartened by his words, but wanted to see more action.

HRC President Chad Griffin said, “It’s time for BSA leaders to show true leadership and embrace a full national policy of inclusion that does not discriminate against anyone because of who they are.” Unless of course you want to discriminate against someone for their religious beliefs — that’s perfectly acceptable to HRC and other members of the homosexual lobby.

And never mind that the “tolerant” thing to do would be to live and let live. Set up another scouting organization to advance and promote leftist values, and leave the Boy Scouts alone.

Yet proponents of the homosexual agenda have convinced the courts and the Leftmedia to go along with their plan to dismantle every institution in this country for the sake of accommodating, promoting and advancing their own lifestyle. Submit to homosexual leaders, don’t oppose same-sex marriage, bake the cake — whatever the demand, you will comply. Or else. So-called tolerance is a one-way street.

What takes place between consenting adults is one thing, but when did it ever become necessary to force other people to condone that behavior?

“We must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be,” Gates declared. Well, the world as it is right now is being reshaped by an aggressive minority who want little more than the power to reshape the culture and its institutions in its own image.

Comment | Share

TODAY AT PATRIOTPOST.US

• ANALYSIS: Changing Climate or Changing Subject?
• Krauthammer: Obama Sounds Like Baghdad Bob
• When You’ve Lost Piers Morgan…
• Polar Ice Caps Put a Freeze on Alarmist Narrative
• Obama Administration Already Assumes Iran Deal a Success

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

• Mona Charen: Can Republican Men Criticize Hillary?
• Charles Krauthammer: You Want Hypotheticals? Here’s One
• Joe Bastardi: Disaster Du Jour
• David Harsanyi: There Is No Such Thing as Unbiased Journalism, So Let’s Stop Pretending
• Michelle Malkin: How Obama Radically Transformed America’s Patent System

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Mona Charen: “Here’s how Democrats prefer to arrange matters regarding women: They claim that nominating the first woman for president is a huge advance for all women, proving that women are just as competent as men. Yet they demand that their particular woman be insulated from the usual vigorous debate that is essential for democracy. Any criticism of Hillary Clinton is presumptive sexism, while her attacks on opponents are unrestricted. Neat trick if you can pull if off — and she can if Republicans accept the bridle. In a sense, Clinton has been using the victimized-woman angle for her whole political career. … The best response to the charge of sexism is ridicule. Any female candidate who hides behind her own skirts to avoid robust debate is not striking a blow for equality or dignity. Rather than displaying fitness for the job of commander in chief, she’s conveying her weakness and inability to compete. Any male candidate who pulls his punches is patronizing her. Anyone who takes her on (within the bounds of civility) is according her respect. … Male Republicans … can comb [Hillary’s] State Department and Senate careers for material without fear. She’s asking to be taken seriously. Oblige her.”

Comment | Share

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs.” —Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Non Compos Mentis: “Franklin Roosevelt, probably the best president we ever had, certainly in the 20th century, was very secretive and manipulative. And we still thought he was a good president. So if Hillary Clinton is secretive … is that going to help us get any further here?” —MSNBC’s Chris Matthews

Hold him to it: “Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this. I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.” —Barack Obama

Annals of the absurd: “I don’t think we’re losing.” —Barack Obama on the fight against ISIL

Sometimes Hollywood gets it right: “Life’s not fair, it never was, it isn’t now and it won’t ever be. Do not fall into the trap, the entitlement trap, of feeling like you’re a victim. You are not.” —Academy Award-winning actor Matthew McConaughey to University of Houston graduates

Comment | Share

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 FOUNDATION

“[W]hen all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another.” —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Charles Hammond, 1821

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Obama Warns the Coast Guard of Rising Seas, Not Real Threats

Barack Obama stood before the 200 graduates at the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut. They may have been sitting there, in their crisp white uniforms, but they would soon go out and enforce maritime law, command ships and lead search and rescue missions. What words could the commander in chief give these graduates that they could take to heart as they serve their country? Obama said, “I’m here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.” Instead of mentioning the growing threat of ISIL that will be around longer than his administration, instead of warning about Russia’s belligerence, Obama tried to connect his longtime environmental crusade with national security. In fact, he blamed climate change for civil war in Syria: “Understand, climate change did not cause the conflicts we see around the world. Yet … [i]t’s now believed that drought and crop failures and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East.” Obama’s address was full of lies. This speech merely diverted from his failed security policies to focus on hissocialist climate change agenda.

Comment | Share

Rice Boasts of Ending Two Wars ‘Responsibly’

National Security Advisor Susan Rice doesn’t have a swell history when it comes to accurately describing things. She faithfully started the YouTube video talking points lie regarding Benghazi, and, perhaps less infamously, she declared deserter and likely traitor Bowe Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.” So it’s little surprise that she stuck her foot in her mouth once again, this time at a German Embassy photography exhibit of wounded soldiers. With U.S. vets in attendance angry over the recent fall of Ramadi, Rice had the audacity to claim, “Now that we have ended two wars responsibly, and brought home hundreds of American troops, we salute this new generation of veterans.” Neither the war in Iraq nor the war in Afghanistan is over. Barack Obama simply abandoned Iraq, leaving it to the Islamic State, though U.S. forces continue to conduct airstrikes there. American soldiers will remain in Afghanistan for the time being, but the future is uncertain. Either way, “ended” and “responsibly” are not words to describe the actions of this woeful commander in chief.

Finally, a question for Hillary Clinton: Knowing what you know now, would you go along with Obama’s plan to retreat from Iraq?

Comment | Share

More Governments Fudging Climate Data

Satellite data has found that the mean global temperature has been sitting on a plateau for more than 18 years now, which is in stark contrast to official government numbers. Just this week, NOAA reported that, at 1.33°F (0.74°C) above average, last month was the fourth warmest April recorded globally, and 2015 so far is the hottest on record. But as we’ve documented, the agency is currently mired in allegations of misconduct after it was discovered that historical data was manipulated to make post 1970s/1980s warming appear more alarming. And more and more foreign government agencies are engaging in the practice. Last year, “The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM) was … forced to admit it alters the temperatures recorded at almost all the official weather stations in Australia,” H. Sterling Burnett with The Heartland Institute wrote in September. Now, “Switzerland joins a growing list of countries whose temperature measurements have been adjusted to show greater warming than actually measured by its temperature instrument,” Burnett revealed this week. Interestingly, he notes, “Even with fudged data, governments have been unable to hide the fact winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have become colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists.” Ironically, even data tampering can’t hide one inconvenient fact: Temperature trends are defying the science community’s predictions.

Comment | Share

Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column

Read Wounded Warrior Warning, on the Wounded Warrior Project and other veteran support groups..

If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here.

Share

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS

The Export-Import Bank Means Picking Winners and Losers

By Allyne Caan

The massive defense contractor Boeing has produced a lot of things, but this may be the first time its been accused of delivering a “bit of bluster.” Yet, that’s exactly what Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) called Boeing’s threat to leave the country if Congress doesn’t reauthorize the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), a little-known federal agency that gives loans to foreign customers to buy U.S. goods — including those produced by Boeing.

Created in 1934 by executive order (that should have been the first warning), Ex-Im faces extinction if its charter is allowed to expire June 30.

But here’s the thing. Increasingly, conservatives are catching on to the fact that, just like the “too-big-to-fail” bailouts meant the government picked winners and losers, Ex-Im means the government picks winners and losers. Basically, the bank decides what companies, or countries, receive taxpayer-backed financing to purchase U.S. products. And it’s for good reason Ex-Im has been nicknamed the “Bank of Boeing,” given that Boeing receives 30% of the bank’s financing, or, as Veronique de Rugy points out, more than $66 billion between 2007 and 2014.

Those opposed to letting the bank close its doors next month include, not surprisingly, Barack Obama, progressive darling Elizabeth Warren, and House Speaker John Boehner, who claimed that “there are thousands of jobs on the line that would disappear pretty quickly if the Ex-Im Bank were to disappear.”

Only, there aren’t. First, as de Rugy notes, Ex-Im subsidies don’t “create” jobs but merely “redistribute” them from non-subsidized ones to subsidized ones. Hmm, if you like your job you can keep your job? Second, tales of thousands of jobs lost may be greatly exaggerated, as evidenced by criticism from the Government Accountability Office and others of the job numbers provided by the bank.

Furthermore, even if Ex-Im went dark, the life of current loans and loan guarantees wouldn’t be cut short. For Boeing, this would mean, as Hensarling notes, an additional 18 years of financing. Plus, the primary recipients of Ex-Im subsidies have work backorders that would sustain their business for years — Boeing’s threat notwithstanding.

So what’s Congress to do? Well, several members, including several presidential candidates or potential candidates, say the bank needs to go — whether quickly or over time. Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, all with eyes set on 2016, have come out against the bank, as have Governors Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal, as well as former CEO Carly Fiorina. Senator Lindsay Graham, not surprisingly, has come out in favor of the bank.

Texas Governor Rick Perry, who was for the bank before he was against it, recently announced his opposition to Ex-Im, not on philosophical grounds, but given “recent revelations of corruption and bribery at the institution.” Indeed, Ex-Im has been called out for noncompliance with congressionally mandated reforms and is the subject of 31 open fraud investigations. We’re shocked that any executive agency could have even a smidgeon of corruption.

At issue is whether the federal government has a constitutional reason to redirect taxpayer dollars to foreign countries and customers. Subsidizing the purchase of U.S. exports picks winners and losers at great expense and it’s probably contrary to what the market would dictate.

For the party in congressional power — which supposedly stands for free markets — letting Ex-Im’s charter expire should be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen all too often, even no-brainers can sometimes prove a stretch for Republican congressional leadership.

Comment | Share

TODAY AT PATRIOTPOST.US

• ANALYSIS: Making Hay Out of the Haystack
• Secretive Hillary Can’t Be Trusted
• Ready for Hillary’s Hilarious Fake Interview
• Los Angeles Starts Its Minimum Wage Experiment
• ISIL Ignores Community Organizing in Syria
• NYC Mulls Stepping Back From Broken Window Policing

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

• Victor Davis Hanson: Think Like a Liberal — or Else
• Jim DeMint & Ed Feulner: Congress Trying to Push Through a Program Shown to Hurt Workers
• Ann Coulter: Knowing What We Know Now, Would You Say Jeb Bush Is Retarded?
• Tony Perkins: A Fourth to Be Reckoned With

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Victor Davis Hanson: “If Clinton is really worried about the role of big money in politics, she would have done better to have insisted that the Clinton Foundation did not solicit donations from foreign governments while she was the secretary of state. She might have ensured that her family’s foundation distributed 90 percent of its expenditures — instead of a reported 10 percent — directly to the charities it claimed to help, especially given that it has raised close to $2 billion. Clinton might also have blasted former presidents seeking hefty lecture fees and family foundation donations from wealthy entrepreneurs who hope to buy access and influence from either a sitting secretary of state, a former president of the United States — or a future president. Or, Clinton herself might have cut back on lucrative speaking fees, often paid by wealthy corporations seeking influence. Bill and Hillary Clinton have pulled in $30 million in lecture cash in just the last 16 months. Mysteriously, the closer Hillary Clinton got to announcing her bid for the presidency, the more frequent and the more lucrative the Clinton duo’s lecturing became. When news organizations, judges or Americans in general do not think or speak in the correct fashion, then elite progressives believe they must do whatever is necessary to silence them — while making themselves exempt from their own agendas.”

Comment | Share

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “The shaft of the arrow had been feathered with one of the eagle’s own plumes. We often give our enemies the means of our own destruction.” —legendary Greek fabulist Aesop (c. 620–564 BC)

Friendly fire: “[Obama administration officials] go around to ABC and CNN and say, ‘We’re not going to listen to [Fox News], and neither should you.’ To me, it’s so unprecedented. They can’t handle any dissent. It’s got to be completely 100% behind what they want — they don’t want to debate, they won’t send anybody on Fox News. … It goes without saying that if George Bush had done this, he would have been Hitler.” —Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers, who calls herself a “proud liberal”

Non Compos Mentis: “Americans do not seem to be able to handle gun ownership in a way that permits maintenance of a civil society. … In an era of extreme concern about national security, Americans need to recognize that one of the greatest threats to national security is their own heavily armed population. … Unfortunately, our proven inability to handle widespread gun ownership suggests strongly that the way to do this is to deeply restrict access to and ownership of most types of guns.” —University of Texas at Austin professor John Traphagan

Alpha Jackass: “ISIS’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, sounds like a Republican candidate for president.” —Slate’s William Saletan

Comment | Share

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.