THE FOUNDATION
“Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.” —Benjamin Rush, letter to John Armstrong, 1783
TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
The Islamic State franchise in Libya released a 30-minute video over the weekend showing two separate group executions of Ethiopian Christians. If you dive into the madness and try to follow ISIL’s “logic,” it seems these jihadis murdered 30 people for evading the tax on nonbelievers. ISIL filmed a man who says he is a Christian and enjoys living in ISIL territory — he has not yet been killed. But that was offset by images of ISIL destroying churches, desecrating graves and the narrator of the video announcing, “Our battle is a battle between faith and blasphemy, between truth and falsehood.” The Obama administration released a statement admitting that, yes, the Ethiopian Christians were killed because of their beliefs. The office of Obama’s press secretary said, “That these terrorists killed these men solely because of their faith lays bare the terrorists' vicious, senseless brutality. This atrocity once again underscores the urgent need for a political resolution to the conflict in Libya to empower a unified Libyan rejection of terrorist groups.” Now, if the Obama administration would only admit ISIL committed these murders because of its extreme, Islamic faith. Maybe then it wouldn’t put its hope in more “political resolutions.” More…
Ever wondered what “Obama’s Gift to Hillary Clinton” might be? Well, with that headline, Slate reporter Jamelle Bouie explains, “No modern-day president has left his potential successor a less scandal-plagued legacy than Barack Obama.” Is he kidding? No, he’s not, as he goes on to recount Fast and Furious, Benghazi and the IRS … only to dismiss them entirely as not having anything to do with Obama himself. Never mind that Fast and Furious had a body count in the hundreds; “[U]nlike Iran-Contra or Clinton’s impeachment,” Bouie says, “none of these were consequential for Obama’s presidency.” If nothing else, that’s a tribute to Slate and other Leftmedia rags, which have circled the wagons for Obama to a degree not seen before. Just as belittling scandals doesn’t absolve Obama, ignoring other scandals doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. Bouie fails to mention the wait lists at VA hospitals, Obama’s swap of five jihadis for deserter Bowe Bergdahl, the political favoritism in the GM and Chrysler bailout, giving billions in un-repaid loans to “green” energy companies, or letting the Black Panthers off the hook for voter intimidation. And what about leaving Libya and Yemen in anarchy, and Iraq to the Islamic State? Bouie has no use for any of that because he’s too busy criticizing George W. Bush’s foreign policy. As for Hillary Clinton, well, she has enough unclaimed baggage to start a retail chain, so even if Obama were clean it hardly makes her so.
The Environmental Protection Agency is putting the final touches on a rule requiring a 30% reduction of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-burning power plants by 2030. An independent analysis by The Heritage Foundation predicts “[a]n average employment shortfall of nearly 300,000 jobs,” adding the U.S. may lose half a million jobs in the manufacturing sector and 45% of the jobs in the coal mining industry. As for the EPA, it says collateral damage could cost up to 80,000 jobs. But a new American Action Forum report, whose findings mirror that of Heritage, says the EPA isn’t taking secondary impacts into consideration. All told, nearly 100 power plants may be taken offline, which will have major economic ramifications. “Based on American Action Forum (AAF) research … more than 90 coal-fired power plants could be retired across the country,” write Catrina Rorke and Sam Batkins. “Secondary employment impacts suggest that EPA’s power plant regulation could eliminate 296,000 jobs, about the population of Cincinnati, Ohio, and more than the total number of jobs the economy created in February 2015.” The writers conclude, “EPA might tout the benefits of its proposal, but the significant job losses are just as noteworthy.” Indeed. Unfortunately, all that’s important in the minds of this administration is, as EPA administrator Gina McCarthy explained, “We have a moral obligation to act.” A very contorted moral obligation.
The decision by the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation to stop accepting donations from foreign governments last week came too late to protect the front-running Democrat candidate from a serious accusation of impropriety. Not that it would have helped. The Clinton Foundation only stopped taking the money from governments — not individuals. And Victor Pinchuk, owner of a pipe manufacturing company, is just the kind person who will cause headaches for the Hillary Clinton campaign. In 2011 and 2012, Pinchuk’s company made business deals with Iran, once shipping $1.7 million worth of pipe to the country. Normally, a business deal over $1 million with Iran would trigger sanctions against the company by the State Department. But Hillary Clinton was head of the department, and Pinchuk poured millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation. It was so much money that Newsweek reports he is the “largest individual contributor to the Clinton Foundation.” Furthermore, Pinchuk and Bill Clinton are supposedly good friends, attending each other’s birthdays. To this day, there are no sanctions against Pinchuk’s Interpipe Group, even though former representative Steve Stockman called for an investigation into the company’s business dealings. Pinchuk may have spent the most money, but he certainly isn’t the only one to give money to the Clintons for more reasons than simple charity. More…
So-called income inequality has been and will continue to be a “war on women” theme for Democrats, who know little else but pitting one bitter constituency against a better off one. This time, Barack Obama is complaining that his wife isn’t paid well enough. “Let me tell you, now, Michelle would point out first ladies get paid nothing,” he said. “So there’s clearly not equal pay in the White House when it comes to her and me. But before we were in the White House, I wanted to make sure Michelle got paid as much as she could. I want a big paycheck for Michelle. That wasn’t a women’s issue. If she had a bigger paycheck, that made us able to pay the bills. Why would I want my spouse or my daughter discriminated against? That doesn’t make any sense.” There are perfectly legitimate reasons for most of the slight income inequality that does exist, but it’s also not nearly the problem Democrats want you to believe. Not to mention “first lady” isn’t a paid or elected position. More to the point, Obama’s bill-paying sob story must be a reference to Michelle’s stint as vice president of the University of Chicago Medical Center, where she earned a salary of more than $300,000 in 2005 alone and nearly $900,000 between 2004 and 2008. We’d say that falls outside the experience of most middle-class Americans. But next thing you know they’ll be telling us they, too, left the White House “dead broke.”
EDITOR’S NOTE
Our annual Patriots' Day Campaign has just concluded, but we’re still a bit short of our goal. This campaign is critical if we are to be fully funded into the summer. The Patriot Post staff depends on you to make that happen. Help us continue putting the Right perspective into your inbox every week — please support our 2015 Patriots' Day Campaign today. We have approximately $12,704left to raise. Thank you for your support. —Nate Jackson, Managing Editor
RIGHT ANALYSIS
By Arnold Ahlert
Apparently, the brownshirts who masquerade as government officials in Maryland believe doing something utterly outrageous once is worth doing it twice. For the second time in five months, two children, ages 10 and 6, were picked up by police for the “crime” of walking home unsupervised within a mile of their home.
The first incident occurred Dec. 20, when the children attempted to make the trek home from Silver Spring park. Police picked them up and brought them home to parents Danielle and Alexander Meitiv, from whom they demanded identification and warned about the dangers of the world. Montgomery County Child Protective Services (CPS) showed up two hours later and demanded that Alexander sign a safety plan promising he would not leave his children unsupervised until the following Monday, when CPS would follow up. He initially refused, saying he wanted to talk to a lawyer, but ultimately complied — because CPS threatened to remove his children from the home. After the holidays, CPS called and said they needed to come to the home and make further inquiries. Danielle resisted, but a worker showed up anyway. She refused to let him in. Later she was stunned when told by her children’s principal that CPS had interviewed her children at school.
Ultimately, the Meitivs were found responsible for “unsubstantiated child neglect,” meaning CPS would maintain a file on the family for at least five years, leaving open the question of what would occur if the children were allowed to walk home alone again. “We don’t feel it was appropriate for an investigation to start, much less conclude that we are responsible for some form of child neglect,” said Danielle Meitiv after the first incident, even as she wondered if her family would get caught in a “Kafkaesque loop” if her children were stopped walking by themselves again.
Flash forward to Sunday, April 12. Once again, the kids were on their way home from Ellsworth Park at 5 p.m. when they were stopped by officers — in three separate squad cars — three blocks from their house. This time, the kids were kept in a squad car for nearly three hours and away from their frantic parents who expected them home at 6 p.m. Adding insult to injury, the CPS didn’t notify the Meitivs they had their kids in custody until 8 p.m. and wouldn’t let the parents see them until 10:30 p.m. They were allowed to take the children home, but once again had to sign an agreement saying they would not be left unattended until CPS followed up on the case.
During the entire time the kids were held they were not fed, and Danielle told The Washington Post her son said the children were misled into believing the police would take them home. Police also had the parents' contact info and did not call them or allow their children to do so. Apparently the quaint notion that one is entitled to a phone call didn’t apply here.
What’s really going on? The Meitivs believe in a concept known as “free-range parenting,” as in the effort to raise independent, self-reliant children by incrementally testing limits and allowing them a certain amount of freedom away from overly protective parents. The reason such a seemingly basic parenting approach must be formally conceptualized is due in large part to the explosion of its polar opposite, more familiarly known as “helicopter parenting.” Helicopter parents are those who “hover” over their children. Licensed psychologist Ann Dunnewold aptly describes the phenomenon: “It means being involved in a child’s life in a way that is overcontrolling, overprotecting, and overperfecting, in a way that is in excess of responsible parenting.”
To be fair, there are excesses and extremes in both parenting camps. But the germane question is this: Which style is preferred by the increasing number of big-government, busybody bureaucrats and their seemingly insatiable desire to insert themselves in as many facets of peoples' lives as they possibly can?
If one knows the answer to that question, it becomes simple to understand why the heavy hand of government has been laid upon the shoulders of Danielle and Alexander Meitiv.
Fortunately, the Meitivs have legal precedent on their side. Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters were two landmark cases from the 1920s in which the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause allows parents and guardians “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.” In Troxel v. Granville, a case adjudicated in 2000, the Court reaffirmed the “fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children,” further characterizing those decisions as “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” None of these rulings mean parental rights are absolute. The state can intervene to protect children from health and safety hazards and to ensure they receive an education. But they must havecompelling evidence to do so.
Picking up two elementary school-aged kids walking home by themselves — just as millions of American children used to do before the professional hand-wringers and their government enablers turned life itself into an all-encompassing hazard — doesn’t pass the sniff test. As George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin so rightly explains, if the CPS can force parents to stop children from walking home alone, “it can similarly target every other comparably risky activity, including numerous sports, and even driving the children in a car.”
The DC-based law firm of Wiley Rein apparently agrees. They will pursue “all legal remedies” to protect the Meitivs' rights, further noting the parents were “rightfully outraged by the irresponsible actions” of the Maryland CPS. “We must ask ourselves how we reached the point where a parent’s biggest fear is that government officials will literally seize our children off the streets as they walk in our neighborhoods,” said attorney Matthew Dowd in a written statement. In a telling indication of their commitment, Wiley Rein will be representing the Meitivs pro bono.
Here’s hoping the “helicopter government” in Montgomery County, Maryland, gets it wings seriously clipped.
By Robin Smith
Barring some act of God, 2008 GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee will join the field in early May. Can this other candidate from Hope, Arkansas, win over conservatives?
Read the rest here.
TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS
For more, visit Right Opinion.
OPINION IN BRIEF
The Gipper: “The glistening hope of that lamp is still ours. Every promise every opportunity is still golden in this land. And through that golden door our children can walk into tomorrow with the knowledge that no one can be denied the promise that is America.”
Columnist Star Parker: “[T]he central question moving forward is whether the American public is happy with the socialism they’ve gotten thus far. If they are, most likely they will choose the white female socialist to replace the black male. Republicans will be tempted to make this campaign about Mrs. Clinton’s very dubious character. An alleged feminist who built her career by staying married to a life-long adulterer because he was successful. The storming of our embassy and murder of our ambassador in Benghazi, Libya, under her watch as Secretary of State. Her use of a private email account for official State Department business and then erasing it all. But as politically juicy as all this might be, it would be unfortunate if Mrs. Clinton’s questionable self defined this campaign. This election should be about what kind of America Americans want. When I began my work in public policy over twenty years ago, my goal was to move black America off Uncle Sam’s Plantation to join the rest of America living freely, creatively and prosperously. Never did I dream … [that,] rather than blacks moving off the government plantation, the rest of America would move onto it. … Hopefully Republicans will give voters a real choice in 2016 — a candidate of any race or gender who wants to push back on government, increase personal freedom, and promote traditional family values.”
Economist Stephen Moore: “Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren recently appeared on one of the late night talk shows, beating the class warfare drum and arguing for billions of dollars in new social programs paid for with higher taxes on millionaires and billionaires. In recent years, though, blue states such as California, Illinois, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland and Minnesota adopted this very strategy, and they raised taxes on their wealthy residents. How did it work out? Almost all of these states lag behind the national average in growth of jobs and incomes. … States are supposed to be laboratories of democracy, right? These laboratories are providing us with concrete evidence that Robin Hood policies don’t help make the poor richer, they make most people poorer. In other words, the blue states have tried the Elizabeth Warren "progressive” agenda and people are voting with their feet by fleeing in droves. The kinds of income redistribution policies that Warren and others endorse can only work by building a Berlin Wall so no one can leave — though I hope I’m not giving them any ideas.“
Comedian Conan O'Brien: "Hillary Clinton is making income inequality a central theme in her campaign. For example, today she pointed out that her husband makes $300 million a year and she has to get by on $200 million a year.”
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.
