What to Watch For on Election Day + More – Daily Digest

Posted on Tue 11/04/2014 by

3


The Patriot Post ~

THE FOUNDATION

“Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual – or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.” –Samuel Adams, in the Boston Gazette, 1781

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS

What to Watch For on Election Day

It’s Election Day, and Republicans are optimistic – with good reason. Time will tell, of course, but things are looking up for the GOP’s prospects of taking the U.S. Senate. Republicans need six seats to take a 51-seat majority in the chamber, and nine are within reach. Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia are likely GOP pickups, while Alaska and Iowa look very possible. North Carolina is less likely, though Democrat Sen. Kay Hagin should by all rights be sent packing. Kansas, Kentucky and Georgia are currently Republican-held seats that are tighter races than they should be, but we expect the GOP to hold at least two out of those three. Republicans could also gain seats in the House. Meanwhile, three governors’ races bear close watching – Kansas, where Sam Brownback’s fiscal conservatism has angered the GOP’s establishment, leaving him vulnerable; Florida, where Republican-turned-Democrat Charlie Crist is trying to regain his old post against Rick Scott; and Wisconsin, where Scott Walker is running for the third time in four years, thanks to a recall in 2012. No matter where you are, remember the words of Samuel Adams: “Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is … executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.”

Holder Monitors the Polls

This Election Day is the first major election since Shelby County v. Holder, a Supreme Court decision finding that some provisions in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were no longer applicable. It gave states more control of their own voting laws – and the feds are fighting back. Attorney General Eric Holder announced he sent poll monitors to 18 states. This move comes on the heels of Holder’s infamous suits against Texas and North Carolina, challenging the constitutionality of voter ID laws in those states. Last year, even Obama played a part in the federal government’s attempt to regain power when he created the Presidential Commission on Election Administration. “One of the Justice Department’s most sacred responsibilities is ensuring access to the ballot box for every eligible American,” Holder said in a video message. “Over the last six years, my colleagues and I have taken robust action to safeguard this fundamental right, challenging unnecessarily restrictive proposals like certain voter ID laws.” While pursuing so-called equality, Holder forgets the justice of preserving the integrity of the votes already cast by preventing actual fraud. More…

They Know When You Aren’t Voting

New York Democrats took a page from Santa Claus’ manual with a get-out-the-vote letter to some one million registered Democrats. “Who you vote for is your secret,” the letter says, adding ominously, “But whether or not you vote is public record.” Furthermore, the letter scolds, “Many organizations monitor turnout in your neighborhood and are disappointed by the inconsistent voting of many of your neighbors.” In fact, they’re so disappointed by naughty non-voters, they “will be reviewing the … official voting records after the upcoming election to determine whether you joined your neighbors who voted in 2014. If you do not vote this year, [they] will be interested to hear why not.” Not only can you expect a knock from Big Brother Democrat, you can expect a lump of coal in your stocking.

Clyburn Claims to Read Republicans’ Racist Minds

“I don’t care what [Obama] does, he is not going to be acceptable because of his skin color.” That’s what Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) wants blacks to believe Republicans are thinking. Clyburn made the supposedly mind-reading comments by way of defending embattled Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who said, “The South has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans.” Democrats are clearly desperate to be deploying so many race-baiting attacks in the days leading up to the midterm elections. It’s craven demagoguery at its worst.

This Election Brings More Diversity for Republicans

In addition to a possible GOP takeover of Congress, this election could bring more diversity to the Republican Party – something that will help the party retain its gains. The Los Angeles Times reports, “Republicans in the House will probably add their first African American representative in recent years, if front-runner Mia Love picks up the south Salt Lake City-area open seat. Another black Republican, former CIA undercover officer Will Hurd, is in a tight race with a Democratic incumbent in west Texas. In addition, House Republicans could see two openly gay congressmen in a conference that currently has none. Republicans Richard Tisei in Massachusetts and Carl DeMaio in San Diego are both in tough races against Democrats.” Furthermore, Elise Stefanik is expected to become the youngest woman ever elected to the House. She’s 30 years old and, oh yeah, a Republican. Who says the Democrat Party is the only party for women, homosexuals, blacks and the young?

For more, visit Right Hooks.

Don’t Miss Patriot Humor

Check out What to Ask Yourself When Voting.

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

RIGHT ANALYSIS

Cancel Midterms? Not if James Madison Has Anything to Say

Election Day 2014 is finally upon us, and with it comes the opportunity for citizens to make their voices heard at the polls. While the midterm election doesn’t receive quite the hype and fanfare from the Leftmedia a presidential election does, it is nevertheless important to our constitutional form of governance and necessary for the preservation of Liberty.

Midterm elections have historically been a referendum on the president and his party. It appears this year’s midterm election will continue that trend – complete with backlash against six long years of an imperial presidency and eight years of Democrat control of the Senate. Many Americans are simply fed up with the abuse of power in Washington, and they hope for change.

Yet there are some in America who are disturbed that the outcome of the midterm election may halt or slow down Barack Obama’s agenda of fundamentally transforming (destroying) America. Take for example the recent opinion of Duke University public policy professor David Schanzer and Jay Sullivan, a junior at Duke, who propose canceling the midterm elections. That’s right – they want to eliminate midterms entirely. And their argument is essentially that a president needs to be able to carry on with his agenda. (Where was this article in 2006?)

The anti-democratic duo claim that “when Americans’ confidence in the ability of their government to address pressing concerns is at a record low, two year House terms no longer make any sense.” They suggest modern technologies like Twitter and 24-hour news (propaganda) service enable Americans to better communicate with their elected officials than the framers of the Constitution could have imagined. Thus, in their view, “[T]he two year cycle isn’t just unnecessary; it’s harmful to American politics.”

Schanzer and Sullivan complain, “The main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president.” (So what’s the problem, exactly?) They add, “[W]e spend almost two years selecting a president with a well-developed agenda, but then, less than two years after the inauguration, the midterm election cripples that same president’s ability to advance that agenda.”

The Wall Street Journal James Taranto sums up that argument: “It’s not Obama’s fault the midterms are going badly; it’s the midterms’ fault his presidency is going badly.”

Schanzer and Sullivan say the Founders just couldn’t have known what today’s political climate would be like, but we argue the system they constructed couldn’t be more relevant.

James Madison had plenty to say about the importance of checks and balances in our government, and he argued for the necessity of midterm elections as well. In Federalist No. 51, Madison highlighted the need to prevent one branch from becoming too powerful. He wrote, “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on society will admit.”

In Federalist No. 52, Madison states the reason for biennial elections to occur: “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.”

Finally, in Federalist No. 53, Madison concluded his argument for the terms and ratio of the House of Representatives with this: “[B]iennial elections will be as useful to the affairs of the public as we have seen they will be safe to the liberty of the people.”

Madison’s wisdom is still applicable today. Midterm elections are necessary to keep the government in check, to keep the other branches from abusing the power granted them by We the People. With the legislative branch (especially the House) being closest to the people, Madison understood it has the greatest chance to oppose or carry out policies another branch of government (such as the executive) seeks to impose on the nation.

The preservation of Liberty is at the heart of Madison’s argument, and to this end we have the responsibility to vote for candidates who are qualified and most likely to abide by their oaths to “support and defend” the U.S. Constitution. Certainly there may be some political races in which there seems to be little difference between the candidates. But ask yourself this question: Which candidate is more likely to fight to preserve the Constitution and the freedoms with which we are endowed by our Creator? And which candidate will better oppose the radical agenda of this president, who is determined to fundamentally transform this nation?

New Climate Report Says Resistance Is Futile

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest report on the earth’s climate Sunday, and it reaffirms what climate alarmists have been yammering for years. Chicken Little has nothing on these guys.

“Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system,” the report states, “increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts.” The report notes that governments now face the question of whether they can act to slow global warming to a pace at which humans and ecosystems can adapt, or risk “abrupt and irreversible changes” to the planet.

The report is the final piece of work in five years of assessments by thousands of scientists, and it is meant to offer a framework of data for world leaders to work with when they meet in 2015 to debate an international climate treaty. There have been a number of these five-year assessments since the 1990s, but this latest one contains the direst of predictions.

The IPCC concludes with 95% certainty that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, and the warming trend seen on land and in the oceans since the 1950s is “unequivocal.” According to IPCC research, each of the last three decades have been successively warmer, with the period from 1983 to 2012 likely being the warmest 30-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1,400 years. This would be an alarming piece of news except for the fact that the report admits this 1,400-year assessment is merely theoretical.

There have been previous theories about the sources and dangers of global warming. Rational scientists – the ones conveniently labeled “deniers” by ecofascists – have frequently questioned the methods by which the IPCC and its associated scientists collect their data. There was the famous “hockey stick” debate of 2003, when statisticians proved that the data behind the theory of steeply rising global temperatures was fundamentally flawed. And let’s not forget Climategate, the 2009 scandal in which the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit was caught fudging its climate data in an effort to prove the dire consequences of man-made global warming.

The IPCC remains undeterred in its mission, and inconvenient truths won’t get in its way. For instance, 18 years in which we have seen no warming accompanied by yet another record extent in Antarctic sea ice is considered temporary and due to “natural variability.” The IPCC report calls this trend merely a pause: “Trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.”

So an 18-year block within the time period from 1950 to 2014 is a short record without scientific meaning, but the IPCC bases its “settled science” on a 64-year block (1950-2014) within a 1,400-year period – that is admittedly theoretical – and we’re just supposed to accept that as fact.

The IPCC points out that it does not have the power to make policy, but it’s surely going to do everything it can to help shape whatever policy governments will make when they gather in Paris next year. The report claims a global temperature rise greater than 2°C would be catastrophic. If that threshold is crossed, the damage caused by global warming would be irreversible – even if all fossil-fuel use were to end tomorrow. By the way, that 2°C threshold was developed in 2009 and is relative to the 1861-1880 baseline for global temperature. There seems to be no explanation why this statistically short record is now gospel as opposed to any other 20-year span prior to the mass production of the automobile.

In any event, if this seemingly arbitrary 2°C threshold is to be maintained, carbon emissions need to be brought to near zero by 2100. “It’s not too late,” says Gary Yohe, a professor from Wesleyan University who contributed to the report. “But the longer you wait, the more expensive it gets.” It’s never too late for these folks.

Just how expensive will it be? The report is evasive: “These impact estimates are incomplete and depend on a large number of assumptions, many of which are disputable. … As a result, mitigation cost and climate damage estimates at any given temperature level cannot be compared to evaluate the costs and benefits of mitigation.” That’s a convenient way to avoid the hot seat for something that would drastically reduce global GDP over the next 85 years.

Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine boils it down: “One way to think of this is that people today making an average global per capita income of just under $10,000 per year are being asked to sacrifice economic growth and development for people whose incomes will likely be over $61,000 per year in 2100.”

While the IPCC admits there are disputable elements and that it cannot determine just what the economic impact of its proposals would be, it argues we should unquestioningly accept its final conclusion.

The IPCC and its climate alarmist cohorts are asking the world to put the brakes on economic development based on information that is still very much up for debate. But never mind that, they say, the “Science™ is settled.”

For more, visit Right Analysis.

TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

President Harry S. Truman (1884-1972): “It’s not the hand that signs the laws that holds the destiny of America. It’s the hand that casts the ballot.”

Columnist Cal Thomas: “[W]hy do more than 90 percent [of blacks] remain loyal to a political party that has robbed them of hope? The answer must be in the voices they listen to, including the voices of teachers in failing public schools that Democrats won’t let them escape from, students in those schools who bad-mouth successful students for ‘acting white,’ preachers who preach of a political salvation that never seems to arrive, instead of genuine salvation that can transform a life by changing the way one thinks, and politicians who pretend to be the friends of African-Americans on Election Day, only to abandon them the very next day. When the last votes are counted in this election, many African-Americans who vote for Democrats will likely not find their lives improved by the crafty politicians who used racial scare tactics to court them and get them to the polls. On Nov. 5, the race deck will still be stacked against them. Maybe they should try the other party just to shake things up.”

Columnist Mona Charen: “Speaking to a Rhode Island College group last week, the president uttered a gaffe that opened a window to his stale, doctrinaire thinking. He was decrying the lack of ‘affordable, quality childcare’ in America. ‘Too often,’ he said, ‘parents have no choice but to put their kids in cheaper daycare that maybe doesn’t have the kinds of programming that makes a big difference in a child’s development … or the best programs may be too far away. And sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make.’ … It’s odd, isn’t it, that the left, always hostile to business and money, elevates marketplace participation above family life so consistently? Nancy Pelosi thinks Obamacare is wonderful because it will supposedly free people from work so that they can be artists, but God forbid that women voluntarily take time off to nurture children. … Barack Obama – every idea he has is wrong.”

Humorist Frank J. Fleming: “Ordering a roll of ‘I Voted’ stickers so later I can pretend to have voted in elections you were just too uninformed to know about. The whole ‘I Voted’ sticker thing does seem like a Democrat ploy. ‘Know how we can get more dummies to the polls? Hand out free stickers.’”

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.

Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post

Advertisements