THE FOUNDATION
“As neither reason requires, nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society, has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.” –Samuel Adams, A State of the Rights of the Colonists, 1772
TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
Senate Republicans are starting to concede on the efforts to authorize Department of Homeland Security funding and stop Barack Obama’s executive overreach on immigration. Given the judicial off-ramp, why should they try? A Texas judge issued an injunction, and if DHS loses its funding the executive branch would make it a political nightmare. Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced a bill that opposes Obama’s executive actions but does not strip those diktats of funding. It’s an effort to gain votes from sympathetic Democrats to override a certain veto. On the Senate floor, McConnell said, “Some Democrats give the impression they want Congress to address the overreach. But when they vote, they always seem to have an excuse for supporting actions they once criticized. So I’m going to begin proceedings on targeted legislation that would only address the most recent overreach from November. It isn’t tied to DHS' funding. It removes their excuse.” It used to be that the greatest power against an out-of-control president Congress had was its control of the purse. Clearly, however, Republicans are struggling to stop a presidential action a court already said is unconstitutional. McConnell’s answer may be their only way out. More…
An African terrorist group, the al-Qaida-affiliated al Shabab, called for attacks on U.S. shopping malls, including the Mall of America in Minnesota. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson addressed the issue, saying, “We’ve seen this a number of times now where a group will call for an attack on a country, on a specific location. So, we’ve got to be vigilant. … I am not telling people to not go to the mall. I think there needs to be an awareness. There needs to be vigilance. We’re in a new phase right now, and that involves public participation in our efforts.” So why is this news? Terrorists are known for calling for one attack or another against the West (anyone remember when al-Qaida called for jihadis to start forest fires?) and DHS has operated the See Something, Say Something campaign for years. Johnson only talks about the threat on national television because, at the end of the week, the funding for his department will dry up unless lawmakers pass a funding bill with or without monies for Barack Obama’s immigration actions. Nothing like a good crisis, eh? More…
The Washington Post’s Ed Rogers is a “sufficiently intimidated, mostly tame Republican,” and he “won’t say” he shares Rudy Giuliani’s opinion of Barack Obama’s love of country. But Rogers also says there are “plenty of reasons that suggest Obama might not love America.” For example, he writes, “It’s easy to imagine Bill Clinton and either President Bush getting teary-eyed at the proverbial Fourth of July parade, as the veterans wave and flatbeds filled with 4-H kids roll by. It’s hard to imagine Obama in a similar situation.” Far more important than simple imagery, however, Rogers points to Obama’s “willingness to accommodate America’s traditional enemies and at times, disregard old friends, [which] has been a nagging and persistent pattern” in his presidency. Of Obama’s lecture about the Crusades, Rogers says, “It was just another example of how the president appears willing to try to understand — if not justify — the actions of those who hate America. When the president is slow to condemn our enemies, it raises doubts about what he really thinks of their case against America.” In other words, if Obama loves America, he’s not exactly offering a lot of proof. More…
Women don’t get equal pay in America, says actress Patricia Arquette, and she blames the Founders. “To every woman who gave birth, to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else’s equal rights,” Arquette said in her Oscar acceptance speech. “It’s time to have wage equality once and for all. And equal rights for women in the United States of America.” The supposed pay gap has been largely discredited, but never confuse a liberal (especially one from Hollywood) with facts. Worse, Arquette went on to blame the men who fought to secure Liberty and who authored our Constitution. “It’s inexcusable that we go around the world and we talk about equal rights for women in other countries when we don’t have equal rights for women in America,” Arquette lectured. “And we don’t because when they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t intend it for women.” In the Heritage Foundation’s Guide to the Constitution, Tiffany Jones Miller explains, “Contrary to popular belief, the United States Constitution of 1787 is a gender-neutral document. Throughout the original text, the Framers refer to ‘persons’ – as opposed to ‘male persons’ – and use the pronoun ‘he’ only in the generic sense. The word ‘male’ did not even appear in the Constitution until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.” In other words, Arquette suffers from something common to men and women on the Left: ignorance.
For years, race-baiter Al Sharpton has made bank by telling companies to pay him to avoid being accused of racism. Now, Sharpton himself is named in a $20 billion lawsuit accusing him of facilitating racism at Comcast in order to “whitewash Comcast’s discriminatory business practices.” The National Association of African-American Owned Media sued over the merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable, alleging such a merger would discriminate against black-produced media. “Despite the notoriously low ratings that Sharpton’s show generates,” the suit said, “Comcast has allowed Sharpton to maintain his hosting position for more than three years in exchange for Sharpton’s continued public support for Comcast on issues of diversity.” Ouch. While Comcast calls this suit frivolous, Sharpton may not fare well in the near future. There are rumors swirling at MSNBC that the company is struggling because leftist opinion isn’t making the money it used to. Sharpton may lose his 6 p.m. weekday slot for a less desirable time on the weekend. We know what Sharpton would say of the change: It’s discrimination! More…
For more, visit Right Hooks.
Don’t Miss Patriot Humor
Check out Translation Error.
If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here.
RIGHT ANALYSIS
Ever since Bill and Hillary Clinton first stepped into public life, the American people have been subjected to their never-ending series of shady political dealings and legal and ethical problems. Hillary’s upcoming presidential run will be no exception. In fact, her latest adventure could top them all.
A recent report by The Wall Street Journal’s James Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus reveals that Hillary’s involvement with the Clinton Foundation is the focal point of a number of questions about possible influence peddling and selling access to the federal government to foreign entities.
The organization, recently renamed the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, was founded after Bill left office in order to advance humanitarian causes around the world. Well, that’s the foundation’s stated mission. In reality, it was designed to keep Bill’s political muscles flexed and open up new avenues of opportunity for Hillary, whose own run for the presidency was as inevitable as the sunrise when the organization was founded 14 years ago.
In that time, the Foundation has taken in millions of dollars in donations from corporations and individuals from around the world to fund its programs. It has hosted major events in the U.S., in Davos, Switzerland at the World Economic Forum, and other locales to show the world just how busy the Clintons are in trying to save it. And it keeps the Clinton family on the move. They racked up $8.5 million in travel expenses in 2013 alone. Is the Foundation really a busy hive of humanitarian activity, or is it, as Kimberly Strassel suggests, the most powerful campaign Super PAC ever devised? Judge for yourself.
Despite Barack Obama’s personal request for Bill to quit raising money from foreign governments while Hillary was Obama’s secretary of state, the Foundation proved to be quite adept at hauling in corporate cash during her tenure.
Some considered Hillary to be a champion for American business during her time at the State Department. It’s nothing new for secretaries of state or other international representatives of the U.S. government to work for favorable conditions for American companies overseas. But the perception of a quid pro quo is undeniable, and it’s alarming.
The Wall Street Journal’s analysis of public and foundation disclosures reveals that at least 60 companies which lobbied the State Department during Hillary’s term as secretary of state donated more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation. At least 44 of those companies took part in philanthropic endeavors coordinated by the Clinton Global Initiative worth some $3.2 billion. Hillary also created 15 public-private partnerships managed by the State Department that involved at least 25 of the aforementioned 60 companies.
Corporate donations to politically connected organizations like the Clinton Foundation are not illegal so long as they are not in exchange for favors. There is no direct evidence of that here, but, after years of watching Bill and Hillary operate, that doesn’t mean much.
The paper trail is vast and complex – no doubt deliberately so. The timeline of donations from companies that dealt with Secretary Clinton shows no distinct pattern that would raise a red flag at first glance. Some donations came to the Foundation after dealings with Hillary’s State Department; sometimes the donations came before. Were the Foundation an actual political PAC, it would be obligated by law to disclose in great detail the level and origination of contributions, what they were for, and how they were distributed. But the Foundation is not a PAC, which helps it disguise some of this.
Access to money and the support of powerful friends both foreign and domestic is what could put Hillary in the White House, and she and Bill know it. It sure won’t be her charm. And, since it’s illegal for foreigners to contribute to U.S. elections, the Foundation offers a clever way to circumvent election law and presents an opportunity for unfettered access to the White House should Hillary win in 2016.
What kind of damage can the Clinton Foundation’s web of donations from and connections to companies and foreign governments do to Hillary’s campaign? That’s difficult to say because Bill and Hillary have set this one up quite nicely. And they are, as always, unfettered by the perception some will have over the arrangement. As George Will notes, “One of the great strengths of the Clintons all along … was a complete inability to be embarrassed.”
Will is correct in assuming that the Clintons don’t care what the Foundation looks like. They will use its humanitarian mission as a shield against any accusations of wrongdoing. But former Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs admits, “I think there is no doubt that the appearances are awkward at best. They’re going to have to do something in the very short term to deal with this in a way that puts it off the table.”
Gibbs' words speak volumes. It won’t be a matter of ending the practice of taking in money from questionable sources that strain the integrity of the Clinton presidential campaign. It will be a matter of getting it “off the table.” The Leftmedia will come in handy there. Leftist news outlets are already working their magic. The Wall Street Journal story that opened this can of worms last week could have been the top political story. Instead we watched as numerous talking heads got a case of the vapors over what Rudy Giuliani said about Obama’s lack of love for this country.
Duck, dive, twist and pivot. And then blame someone else. And lie about everything. That’s the Clinton playbook for winning a presidential election. And the game is in progress.
A couple of notable strikes are hurting private businesses and their employees, as well as impacting the price of food, goods and fuel nationwide. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) arguably hasn’t been on strike so much as it merely slowed and stalled cargo loads for months now, but a tentative agreement has been reached. For now, ports will resume full operations.
Several California industries suffered from the ILWU’s slowdown. Two such industries are Honda and the North American Meat Institute – the former due to a shortage of parts and the latter due to meat sitting in freezers instead of being shipped to retailers.
Though the work slowdown, conducted by dockworkers at 29 different West Coast ports, didn’t exactly bring the economy to a grinding halt, it’s impact was felt nationwide. It hurt workers whose jobs depend upon imports and exports that have to make it through the dockworkers. In other words, the workers who are not part of the union suffered because of the union – which was probably part of the point.
Unions came about to bargain for competitive wages, and there’s nothing wrong with that in principle. In fact, unions did much good to improve working conditions throughout the 20th century. In some cases, that’s still true. But this particular dispute was a bit extravagant. Why? According to the manager of ports for the Pacific Maritime Association, “[A]n average full-time worker makes $147,000 a year, with very generous benefits on top of that.” That said, “[T]he ILWU says longshoremen aren’t always able to work as many hours as they’d like, putting a typical income at $83,000.”
Walking off a job this good probably sounds insane to the average American worker who earns far less than this, but remember: These longshoremen work in California. While it may sound like they’re getting rich, in reality, the cost of living and excessive taxation in the Golden State mean they’re merely earning a good middle-class income. Dock work is very labor intensive, and these blue-collar workers should be paid well.
But the workers were offered a pay raise of 14% over five years, which averages about 3% per year. What American in the Obama economy wouldn’t jump at that offer? Unfortunately for the longshoremen who would take it, the union wanted more. (Details of the tentative agreement have yet to be released.)
In related news, some workers in oil refineries are on strike. According to CBS News, the United Steel Workers (USW) union announced Saturday “that workers at the largest refinery in the U.S., the Motiva Enterprise refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, started their strike at midnight on Friday.” And “employees at two other refineries and a chemical plant in Louisiana started their strike at the end of Saturday.”
Naturally, whenever refineries shut down or lose productivity due to strikes, gas prices rise, specifically in those states that rely on those refineries for fuel. The American consumer ends up paying for it, which doesn’t bode well for many Americans who are still struggling to make ends meet. Just when we were enjoying low gas prices…
The main problem is unions have become far too political, complacent and corrupt. Their often lavish demands and actions affect the larger economy, negatively impacting private industries and, in turn, Americans' wallets. Americans don’t want to – and often can’t – pay more for gas, food, retail and other services. But, when unions have so much power and influence over the market, what can we expect?
For more, visit Right Analysis.
TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS
For more, visit Right Opinion.
OPINION IN BRIEF
Author Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862): “Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.”
Columnist Thomas Sowell: “If all else fails, critics of Mayor Giuliani can say that a man is entitled to be considered ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ But that principle applies in a court of law. Outside a court of law, there is no reason to presume anyone innocent until proven guilty. It is especially dangerous to presume a President of the United States – any president – innocent until proven guilty. Whoever is president has the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans, and the fate of a nation, in his hands. It is those millions of people and that nation who deserve the benefit of the doubt. We need to err on the side of safety for the people and the country. Squeamish politeness to an individual cannot outweigh that. We need to keep that in mind for the next president, and for all future presidents. We might have been better off if the question of Obama’s patriotism had been raised before he was first elected. Never should we ignore so many red flag warnings again. There is little that can be done about President Obama now, no matter what he does. Impeachment, even if it succeeded, would mean Joe Biden as president and riots across the country. It is hard to know which would be worse.”
Columnist Dennis Prager: “Normative Islam demands theocracy. Does the president not know that? Does he not know that 91 percent of Iraqis and 89 percent of Palestinians believe that Sharia should be the law of the country? That 29 percent of Egyptians believe that suicide bombings are justified? That the majority of Muslim-majority countries have blasphemy and/or apostasy laws? And if he did, would he say they are all perverting Islam? … What Christians, Jews, Buddhists or Hindus are ‘killing innocents in the name of God?’ And what religion other than Islam has scriptures that exhort its followers to slay unbelievers? … The reason Muslims gravitate toward violence is a broken moral compass, not a lack of education or jobs. … Never before in American history has an American president denied the existence of the greatest evil of his day. That should make everyone – except the Islamist terrorists he won’t name – very uneasy.”
Humorist Frank J. Fleming: “There are two things the left hates: 1. Patriotism. 2. Having their patriotism questioned.”
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.
