THE FOUNDATION
“Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?” –George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
Josh Earnest ran damage control after Iran Ayatollah Ali Khomeini responded to hecklers by saying, “Of course, death to America,” during a public speech over the weekend. This prompted the Leftmedia to start asking hard questions about Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta asked Obama’s spokesman, “Do those comments give this White House any pause about moving forward with a nuclear deal with that country?” Earnest replied, “Those kinds of comments only underscore why it is so critically important that the United States and the international community succeed in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” He continued, saying the only way to prevent an Iranian bomb is through negotiation. But Earnest fumbled when he said the Ayatollah’s comment was only “intended for a domestic political audience.” (What are some things Obama said only for the ears of people back home?) While the Obama administration flirts with a U.S. enemy, Israel’s intelligence has beenspying on the proceedings and leaking information to Congress. It’s an act of self-preservation, which also gives to Congress information that Obama should have been providing all along.
Despite pulling the last U.S. Special Forces from the country, the Obama administration stands behind its comments touting its foreign policy strategy in Yemen. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest defended his boss' strategy, even in the face of growing unrest and the potential growth of ISIL in the nation. “The case that we have made is that Yemen did serve as a sort of template for the kind of strategy that we would employ to mitigate the threat from extremists around the world,” Earnest insisted. “In Yemen, the U.S. did on occasion take steps to remove some extremists from the battlefield. Those were steps that were carried out using U.S. capabilities, done in conjunction with the Yemeni central government and with national security forces inside that country. Ultimately our goal here is to build up the capacity of local countries so they can assume responsibility for their own security situation. That has the effect of stabilizing the country so extremists can’t use it to plot against the West.” Great idea on paper, but it hasn’t worked out too well in application. Yet Obama is sticking with the same strategy. More…
CBS reported on the plight of Assyrian Christians during Sunday night’s “60 Minutes.” Correspondent Lara Logan interviewed Archbishop Bashar Warda, who said Christians in Iraq were safer under Saddam Hussein than they are under either the current Iraqi government or, obviously, the Islamic State. “I think American support was needed – needed forcefully” to maintain stability, Warda said. “You cannot leave the country like this and tell them, ‘Well, we’ve liberated you. We cannot do the job for you and we are walking away. This is your country, rule it.’” Furthermore, he added as if speaking directly to Americans, “This is not what you came for in 2003. The 4,000 sacrifices of the American soldiers was not meant to come to this day.” No, indeed, we didn’t spend enormous blood and treasure just for Barack Obama to throw up his hands and walk away to prove a political point. But that’s exactly what he did, and more than just U.S. national security suffered – real people with Christian roots that go back to the time of the apostles are threatened with extinction.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is cracking down on Republican governors who don’t agree on the supposed impacts of man-made global warming: Embrace the alarm and draft precautionary plans to combat “the challenges posed by climate change, such as more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding, and higher sea levels,” or prepare to have emergency funding withheld. Michael Bastasch of The Daily Caller says the sanctioning will begin in 2016, when FEMA “will start denying disaster funding to states that don’t incorporate global warming into their emergency preparedness plans.” Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Becky Hammer praised the policy amendment, asserting, “If a state has a climate denier governor that doesn’t want to accept a plan, that would risk mitigation work not getting done because of politics. The governor would be increasing the risk to citizens in that state.” The federal government is willing to block potentially life-saving disaster relief because of a politician’s personal views, yet leftists want to accuse Republicans of bringing politics into the debate? This is typical Orwellian guile: Adopt a viewpoint advocated by a fraudulent “scientific consensus,” or suffer the consequences. Also known as totalitarianism. More…
Is it really too hard to ask Hillary Clinton and the government for the whole cannon of email relating to communication about Libya during her time as secretary of state? House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Congress only wants her emails dealing with the Benghazi incident. “We’re not interested in her private emails,” McCarthy said. “We’re not even interested in her emails regarding Russia and the ‘reset’ or Syria and Assad and the chemical weapons, only those pertaining to Benghazi.” The committee investigating the Benghazi attack know Hillary is hiding emails from them. “There are huge gaps” in the email record, according to Rep. Trey Gowdy. But the Department of Justice has taken up the cause of defending Hillary from the investigations. In a brief written by two DOJ lawyers, the department argues it has no duty to unearth the records – even when private citizens (in this case Freedom Watch) request the information. The DOJ opined about a request for the rest of Hillary’s email, “Plaintiff provides no basis, beyond sheer speculation, to believe that former Secretary Clinton withheld any work-related emails from those provided to the Department of State.” And again, the Obama administration once again tries to undermine transparency laws. How will the public learn if Hillary hid emails if there is no proof? See the vicious cycle? More…
For more, visit Right Hooks.
Don’t Miss Patriot Humor
Check out #RaceTogether.
If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here.
RIGHT ANALYSIS
Sen. Ted Cruz announced his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination early Monday morning, followed by a major speech at Liberty University. Cruz can lay claim to being first to take the primary field, and his challenge will be to show how a first-term senator with little in the way of legislative accomplishments can win in what will surely be a crowded GOP field. Will his inspiring message of Liberty be enough?
Using short videos, he sketched several of his agenda points and recited a brief biography. One video in Spanish appeals to Hispanic voters, many of whom are less than enthusiastic about his stand on illegal immigration. But this is a good strategy for Cruz, as the GOP certainly mustappeal to Hispanics.
Many conservatives, particularly of the Tea Party strain, are thrilled about Cruz’s candidacy and avidly support his ideas. The videos relate his belief in hope, freedom and faith in God. His agenda includes repealing ObamaCare, dealing seriously with the national debt, stopping Barack Obama’s amnesty, ending IRS political harassment, instituting a flat tax, restoring the Constitution, confronting ISIL and Iran and repealing Common Core. Needless to say, it’s a solidly conservative platform.
Cruz’s key constituencies are the Tea Party, social conservatives and libertarians, pretty much in that order. Over the course of the primaries, he aims to raise $40-$50 million to build a coalition of these groups, and, along with other conservatives, challenge and defeat the presumed establishment candidate, Jeb Bush.
Yet The New York Times speculates that, even if Cruz were to have a spectacular run through the primaries, the chance of his ever gaining the establishment’s support would be slight. In fact, the establishment would pull out all the stops and outspend him heavily to torpedo his candidacy.
But Cruz has much to commend him. A graduate of Harvard Law School, liberal professor Alan Dershowitz described Cruz as “off-the-charts brilliant.” Cruz taught constitutional law at the University of Texas, where he cultivated his firm belief in the separation of powers. He argued in his thesis that the Framers included the Ninth and Tenth Amendments “as an explicit stop against an all-powerful state.”
Cruz has held several public offices, including ones at the Federal Trade Commission, at the Department of Justice and with the George W. Bush administration. After serving as solicitor general of Texas, Cruz ran for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison in 2012. In that primary, he aligned with the Tea Party and pummeled establishment favorite David Dewhurst, earning the enmity of many of Dewhurst’s supporters. He also won the general election in a landslide.
A man of strong convictions, Cruz is not a typical politician. While in Iowa recently, he had the “gall” to criticize the ethanol mandate that is popular among far too many Iowa Republicans, and, thus, other presidential hopefuls. But that’s just one example of his firebrand approach.
Sometimes, however, his all-or-nothing approach is ill-advised. Case in point: He led the GOP into an avoidable box canyon on the fight over ObamaCare funding. His principles were admirable; his strategy was not. The episode won him the enmity of many in the Senate, including fellow Republicans. In fact, in April 2013, Foreign Policy magazine identified him as “The Most Hated Man in the Senate,” describing him as “the human equivalent of one of those flower-squirters that clowns wear on their lapels.” Of course, that title would win him even greater support among those who are fed up with Congress, and last time we checked that was a lot of people.
Running for president is a daunting task. Besides Cruz, seven other likely candidates are expected to formally announce their campaigns. For Cruz, that crowd along with carrying the ill will of many party elites make his candidacy an uphill battle. Never the shrinking violet, however, Cruz says, “If you want more of the same, there’ll be plenty to choose from, but if you want real conservative change and a proven record, I hope I can win your support.” We’ll have to wait and see if he can win it.
After Rolling Stone's damage was done, that isNew details from the alleged University of Virginia rape case emerged Monday, and the results weren’t exactly what many mainstream journalistic outlets were hoping for.
Last November, Rolling Stone magazine featured an article on the supposed UVA rape case concerning a college student named “Jackie,” the alleged victim, and members of campus fraternity Phi Kappa Psi, the alleged gang of rapists. Shortly after Rolling Stone published the article, it retracted several of the claims reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely put forth.
We noted at the time that Rolling Stone, in an attempt to support the narrative of a widespread “rape culture” on campuses around the county, was guilty of shoddy and reckless journalism. We hold fast to this assertion, and the Charlottesville Police Department agrees.
Speaking at a press conference on Monday, Police Chief Timothy Longo told reporters the Charlottesville Police Department was “not able to conclude, to any substantive degree, that an incident which is consistent with the facts contained [in] that article occurred at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house, or any other house for that matter.”
Chief Longo noted that a time-stamped photo of the frat house where the alleged assault occurred revealed the house was practically empty at the time Jackie said the rape occurred. There was no party that night. Furthermore, Longo said his investigators had spoken with nine of the 11 members of the fraternity who were living at the house during the time of the incident, and none of them had any knowledge of the alleged assault or even who Jackie was.
To make things even sketchier, when Jackie came to police in the spring of 2014 to report a non-sexual assault, she provided details of the supposed 2012 rape. However, the details she provided to police were much different from those depicted by the Rolling Stone article. When the article was published, Jackie agreed to meet with police investigators, but, according to Reason’s Robby Soave, she “declined to give a statement or provide documents and was generally uncooperative.”
Chief Longo emphasized to reporters that despite lack of evidence from Jackie’s rape claim “the case is not closed by any stretch of the imagination.” He and his department are hoping someone will come forward soon with information related to the case. At this point there are no charges against Jackie for false statements. But the message is clearly that her story has little or no basis in fact.
Perhaps the most profound statement Chief Longo made is this: “Having police involvement in the early stages of an investigation is extremely, extremely important.” Ouch. Actually, that’s a nice way for the police chief to tell mainstream reporters (i.e. Rolling Stone) to stop reporting facts that aren’t facts.
Investigative journalism in this case and many others is dead. Why? Because it was more important for Erdely and Rolling Stone to perpetuate a (false) narrative about sexual assault on college campuses than it was to get the facts straight. While Rolling Stone magazine did apologize for making a wrong judgment in publishing the story, young men, a fraternity and an entire university were besmirched as a result.
In both police work and good reporting, it takes time to gather evidence, receive statements and get the facts right. Erdely spent time telling a good story, but the basics fell by the wayside. Yet Leftmedia outlets purposefully glamorized a story to draw attention to a particular phenomenon with the hopes of capturing a mesmerized audience. The cliché that “sex sells” is sad but true. Even in cases of alleged rape the facts are distorted in order to make a profit off of the individual(s) involved.
In a world full of false information, people want and deserve the truth. Truth never fears a challenge; yet too often mainstream news sources aren’t willing to be honest. It’s time they start, because anything less is a disservice to the American people.
For more, visit Right Analysis.
TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS
For more, visit Right Opinion.
OPINION IN BRIEF
President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919): “Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how brilliant his capacity.”
Economist Stephen Moore: “This past summer major environmental groups gathered in Venezuela to solve leading environmental problems like global warming, concluding in the Margarita Declaration ‘The structural causes of climate change are linked to the current capitalist hegemonic system.’ In fact, the statement itself included the motto, ‘Changing the system, not the climate.’ So how is it delusional paranoia to believe that the climate change industry wants to shut down capitalism when the movement plainly states that this is their objective? And how can a movement be driven by science when its very agenda violates basic laws of economics? I am no scientist, but I am first in line in questioning the wisdom and motivation of a movement whose purpose is to steer the U.S. economy off a cliff toward financial ruin. Americans are also naturally skeptical that government can do anything to achieve the grandiose task of changing the weather of the planet – because the U.S. government can’t even do simple things like balance its budget, deliver the mail, or run a health care website. If global warming ever becomes a planetary threat, it will undoubtedly be solved by technological progress – not repressive government action – and this is dependent on the very free enterprise system the left wants to tear down.”
Columnist Ed Feulner: “Let’s say you were a financial adviser, and a family came to you with the following situation. They make the median family income in the United States – $52,000. But last year they spent $61,000. That’s right, $9,000 more than they’re making, and it all went on the family credit card. That’s bad enough, but then you find out they already have $311,000 in debt. Would you say they have a problem? I wish I could say this family was made up. Actually, this particular household isn’t real. But the ‘family’ in this scenario is the federal government, and the amounts at stake are in the billions, not the thousands. The ratio of overspending, however, is accurate. So is the fact that the money they’re being so careless with is our tax dollars. … Yet what does Congress normally do come budget time? Raises the debt ceiling. That’s government-speak for ‘get a higher credit card limit.’ Except you and I would have to go, hat in hand, to our credit card company and ask if they’ll raise it (even assuming it was a responsible thing to do). Not federal lawmakers. They just vote to raise the debt ceiling, and presto – problem solved. Well, not solved. Kicked down the road. That is what passes for ‘solved’ these days. But it shouldn’t. … So what’s your financial advice? Perhaps it’s time to let Congress know.”
Twitter satirist @hale_razor: “Barack Obama, while you were watching hoops all day, 8-seed Al Qaeda upset 1-seed America in the Yemeni regional.”
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
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.
