Help American Vets, VF/CFL Meeting.
THE DONALD: GERAGHTY – Against Trump; FREEMAN – One credential; LABASH – Nine tales; ERICKSON – Donald more than Ted.
LEADS: MUKASEY – Criminal Hillary; vonSPAKOVSKY – SCOTUS & Executive Amnesty; HENNINGER – 13 Hours Political.
PA: YURCHAK – Keystone moratorium; KNEPPER – GOP & higher taxes; SNYDER – 1/22/16.
END NOTES: Mark Levin (01/21/16)
Help for Veterans
Valley Forge Park has 5.4 empty miles and money to build huts for guys who suffered 200+ years ago. Room for vets??????
VALLEY FORGE PATRIOTS & CITIZENS FOR LIBERTY
REACHING OUT TO HELP HOMELESS VETERANS
In the winter of 1777-78, George Washington’s battered Revolutionary Army endured bitter cold and snow, sickness, exhaustion and hunger in their camp at Valley Forge, PA.
In Bucks County today, not far from Valley Forge, scores of desperate American veterans endure similar hardships. In small patches of woods, out of sight and out of mind of most county residents, homeless former soldiers have banded together to help one another in the daily struggle for food, water and shelter.
We at Valley Forge Patriots & Citizens for Liberty are trying to help. We are asking for donations of food, gently used warm clothing and blankets.
If you have anything you would like to donate and you are going to our Feb. 3 event at King Of Prussia Vol. Fire House , please bring it with you.
If unable to attend that event (but, you really, really should!), feel free to contact Janet Warnsdorfer at email@example.com or (610) 469-3268.
February 3rd, VFTP, CFL:WHEN: Wednesday, February 3, 2016, 7-9 PM. WHERE: King of Prussia Volunteer Fire Company, 170 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA, 19406. Mark your calendars and plan on joining us for this informative session on a very important and timely subject! SPREAD THE WORD – ALL ARE WELCOME – FREE! We will also have a free potluck dinner buffet (Feel free to bring something to share or just enjoy!)
CITIZENS FOR LIBERTY/VALLEY FORGE PATRIOTS IS PROUD TO PRESENT
David P. Ward is a Director with the National Association of Former Border Patrol Agents, an organization of former Border Patrol Supervisors and Managers, which advocates secure borders and interior immigration enforcement. David has over 33 years field experience with the US Department of Homeland Security and US Border Patrol, as an agent and field manager of enforcement operations. His experience is unique in that it covers both Border Security issues and Interior Enforcement.
David is considered a Subject Matter Expert and has been featured on local and national media broadcasts, in addition to live audience conferences and seminars regarding Border Security and Immigration Enforcement.
THE DONALD . . .
“Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.” National Review http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jolt01222015&utm_term=Jolt
“. . .after seven years of a president who sees constitutional stricture not as a bright red or green light to be heeded without cavil but as a flashing yellow light to be run without caution — what we need is a yellow light–runner of our own. We need a man who, as they say with the repetition of incantation, knows how to get things done. (And hence the tea-party support for building the Trump Wall on our southern border, quite possibly the biggest public-works boondoggle ever conceived, at least since the Pyramids.) And for NR-reading elitists, they toss in WFB’s salty rumination that he would rather be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard University. (The tea partiers ignore my rejoinder that, well sure, wouldn’t we all. But, happily, those aren’t the options. Our preference is to be governed by a patriotic, principled, and well-informed citizenry. That is still our preference, isn’t it?)”
Jim Geraghty, NRO: “AGAINST TRUMP”
“Well, here you go.
“If you wanted to know what kind of conservative could possibly stand against Donald Trump as the Republican nominee, the editors of National Review gathered a couple of names you might know to offer their thoughts . . .
“Names like economist Thomas Sowell, Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III, TheBlaze founder Glenn Beck, former U.S. attorneys general Edwin Meese III and Michael B. Mukasey, syndicated radio hosts Dana Loesch and Michael Medved, syndicated columnists Cal Thomas and Mona Charen, The Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, First Things editor R. R. Reno, Commentary editor John Podhoretz, National Affairs editor Yuval Levin, novelist Mark Helprin, National Review contributing editor Andrew C. McCarthy, The Resurgent founder Erick Erickson, Club for Growth president David M. McIntosh, author and presidential scholar Steven F. Hayward, The Federalist publisher Ben Domenech, Cato Institute executive vice president David Boaz, Townhall.com editor Katie Pavlich, and Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention.
“You’ll want to read all their arguments.”
Also – Caitlin Huey Burns, RCP: “Cruz Sees Opportunity in GOP Opposition to His Bid”
“. . . With the Iowa caucus just days away, establishment-aligned Republicans have ramped up criticisms of Cruz, fearing he would be a worse standard bearer for their party in the general election than Donald Trump. The signs of party figures warming to Trump, even if within a lesser-of-two-evils scenario, mark a notable transformation from the days of handwringing over how to take down the GOP frontrunner. It doesn’t exactly exude confidence that their favorite candidates will break out of the pack any time soon, either.
And that’s precisely why Cruz views comments this week by 1996 GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, and many others as a badge of honor.
What’s more, conservative leaders are banding together against Trump. The National Review magazine published an entire issue Friday dedicated to opposing the GOP frontrunner. Against Trump, as it is titled, includes editorials, articles, and commentary from a host of prominent conservatives.
“‘Right now, the Republican establishment is abandoning Marco Rubio,’ Cruz said during a campaign stop in New Hampshire. ‘They’ve made the assessment that Marco Rubio can’t win this race. And the Washington establishment is rushing over to support Donald Trump.’ . . . ”
Neal Freeman, NRO: Trump’s One Credential
“. . . When young Donald came of age and entered the family business, he learned quickly, and well. He glowed in the reflection of the family’s sterling reputation. He plugged into Fred’s citywide network of contractors, politicians, lobbyists, and bankers. The striving son seemed to be on track to succeed the founding father. But after a few squabbles it became apparent that a durable partnership between the two strong-willed men was not meant to be. The basic problem was that Donald was not an outer-borough kind of guy. He wanted to take Manhattan, but not the Bronx and Staten Island, too. He grew antsy in Fred’s boxy little office in Coney Island. For his part, Fred could never bring himself to stamp his buildings with a giant, gold-leaf T. He was an outer-borough kind of guy. So Fred staked Donald, opened some important doors, and, with mixed feelings, sent his son across the East River to seek his own fortune.
Matt Labash, Weekly Standard: “Nine Tales of Trump at His Trumpiest”
A side splitter . . . “. . . As reporters breathlessly cover his every speech, tweet, and fart (often indistinguishable), Trump has correctly calculated that if he’s outrageous all-day-every-day, his abnormality becomes the new normal. It is no longer resented but expected. The man who was once accused by Vanity Fair of reading Hitler speeches in bed for propagandistic inspiration truly could title his own memoir — aside from the five or ten he’s already written — Triumph of the Will. . .”
Erick Erickson, The Resurgent: “Washington Loves Donald Trump More Than Ted Cruz”
“For months, Donald Trump’s core supporters have told the nation that they do not care if Donald Trump offends anyone. Everyone is so fixated on being liked, they’ve become politically correct unwilling and unable to offend anyone.
“Suddenly, however, the Washington political class is attacking Ted Cruz for being unlikable and the very Trump supporters who love that Trump offends the politically correct now think it is a reason to vote against Ted Cruz that Washington hates him.
“Are you people not paying attention?
“Former Senator Bob Dole, who ran against Ronald Reagan declaring Reagan would be the death of the GOP, has declared he would rather have Donald Trump than Ted Cruz while endorsing Jeb Bush.
“Former Senator Trent Lott, who has regularly attacked the tea party and conservative activists, has declared that Trump is preferable to Ted Cruz.
“Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, whose son is an ethanol lobbyist, has declared Cruz must be defeated at all costs.
“Lobbyists on K Street are savaging Cruz and declaring Trump to be preferable.
“The Republican opinion class declares Ted Cruz satanic while suggesting Trump would be malleable enough on principles to win.
“The Washington political establishment would prefer Donald Trump to Ted Cruz because they see Donald Trump is more likely to preserve their access to power and status quo.
LEADS . . .
Michael Mukasey, WSJ: “Clinton’s Emails: A Criminal Charge Is Justified”
“Hillary’s explanations look increasingly contrived as evidence of malfeasance mounts day by day.
“While the State Department and intelligence agencies finish picking through messages recovered from the private email server Hillary Clinton used to conduct public business as secretary of state, the contents of the periodic document dumps have become increasingly sensitive. State has been referring any email that appears to contain sensitive information for further consideration by the agency with jurisdiction over the relevant data. Thus the most problematic emails are dribbling out last.
“As the number of disclosed classified messages from Mrs. Clinton’s server has climbed above 1,300, her explanations have come to look increasingly improvisational and contrived. Recall that last summer—even after abandoning the claim that she maintained a private email account for convenience and because she was too busy solving the world’s problems to navigate the intricacies of a government account—she insisted that, “I did not send classified information and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified, which is the way you know that something is.”
When asked whether she had her server ‘wiped,’ she assumed an air of grandmotherly befuddlement: ‘What, like with a cloth or something?’ she said. ‘I don’t know how it works digitally at all.’
“The current news, reported in the Journal and elsewhere, is that her server contained information at the highest level of classification, known as SAP, or Special Access Program. This is a level so high that even the inspector general for the intelligence community who reported the discovery did not initially have clearance to examine it.
“The server also contained messages showing her contempt for classification procedures. This was bred at least in part by obvious familiarity with exactly “how it works”—such as when, an email shows, she directed a staff member simply to erase the heading on a classified document, converting it into “unpaper,” and send it on a “nonsecure” device.
“Information disclosed by the State Department also reflects that in August 2011, when the State Department’s executive secretary suggested that he could provide Mrs. Clinton with a BlackBerry that would keep her identity secret but might generate communications that would be discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act, Huma Abedin, Mrs. Clinton’s closest aide, intervened and said the idea ‘doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.’ . . .”
Hans von Spakovsky & Andrew Kloster, PJM: “Supreme Court to Review Suit Blocking Obama’s Executive Amnesty: What You Need to Know”
“. . . The Court on Tuesday granted certiorari, and rather than limiting the issue the way the federal government requested, the Court took up the states’ suggestion and requested briefing on: “whether the [DHS action] violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, §3.”
“This is hugely important. This question was fully briefed at the district court level, but it was not a part of the preliminary injunction order that is on appeal. The Supreme Court now has two major issues it could decide this term on the president’s administrative immigration amnesty program.
“First, the APA questions all revolve around the notion of prosecutorial discretion. We know that the president has a constitutional duty — and right — to enforce the laws. This involves inevitable decisions about how to expend scarce resources. The Department of Justice routinely settles cases and declines to prosecute where they think the interests of the public are served by doing so, even where there might be adequate evidence to secure a conviction. But what if DOJ announces in advance that there is an entire class of persons exempt from the law?
“Doesn’t this go too far? Does prosecutorial discretion give the president a general license not to enforce a particular law? At the very least, if this changes the rights and obligations of individuals, isn’t this the type of decision that, according to DAPA, must be published in the Federal Register before becoming final, allowing for public comments and revision prior to appearing in its final form?
“This is an important and unsettled question in administrative law, and it does raise separation of powers issues. Nevertheless, invalidating the DHS action on this basis merely would require DHS to go through a few more hoops before reissuing a decision and going forward exactly as planned.
“More fundamental is the question the Supreme Court added when it granted certiorari: is prospectively announcing an entire class of persons exempt from an otherwise applicable statute a violation of president’s duty to faithfully execute the law? A ruling on this question could have sweeping consequences for how a president does business. A ruling by the Court would have to distinguish between ordinary uses of prosecutorial discretion, and unconstitutional abdication — no easy feat.
“Failing to adequately demarcate a line here would either turn Texas v. United States into a “for this case only” decision with no future consequences, or it could mean a sweeping decision that strongly limits executive discretion in a host of areas besides immigration enforcement. . .”
Daniel Henninger, WSJ: “‘13 Hours’: It’s Political”
“Hillary Clinton was complicit in Barack Obama’s Benghazi tale.
“. . . The movie ‘13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi’ opened last week, and the cold-water machines have been hosing it. No one cares about Benghazi anymore, the conventional sniffing goes, because the box-office is tepid. At 144 minutes, ‘13 Hours’ is too long and, really, it’s just too political.
“I sat through it, and these political faces and names appear nowhere in the movie: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice. But for the last 75 minutes, I could think of only one thing: the Obama administration’s YouTube coverup, the story—or “talking points”—about how an obscure anti-Islamic video made in California caused Benghazi to happen.
“‘13 Hours’ is a graphic, reasonably accurate depiction of the events on Sept. 11, 2012: the consular assault, Chris Stevens’s death, an escape under heavy fire to the CIA annex a mile away, and the successful, nightlong defense of the annex. With apologies to the politically delicate, “13 Hours” makes the memory of the government’s tall tale, which it insisted on repeating for more than a week, hard to stomach.
“And one other, impossible-to-flinch conclusion: There ought to be a political reckoning over this with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who, her emails revealed, was complicit in a White House concoction she knew the night of the attack was untrue. She is now asking the American people to let her succeed Mr. Obama into the White House. Benghazi is toward the top of the list of reasons they should say “no.” . . .”
PA. . .
Joanne Yurchak: Keystone Exam Moratorum Passed
Many of you know by now that the PA Senate FINALLY acted and passed SB 880, the Keystone Exam Moratorium that delays making the Keystone exams (Algebra I, Literature and Biology) a graduation requirement until the class of 2019. (Until this law was passed, the graduation requirement would have applied to those graduating in 2017 and beyond.) It also requires that the PDE (PA Dept. of Education) present a new accountability plan for testing within six months. It is expected that Governor Wolf will sign this bill into law.
This is great news for students graduating in 2017 and 2018 since these Keystones will NOT be a graduation requirement for them. Students graduating in 2017 and 2018 who did not pass these Keystones will also not have to take the associated Project Based Assessments that would have interfered with high school courses that are more essential to their educational process.
Since the PDE will supposedly be coming up with another plan, we still have to monitor what they are doing, so please stay tuned.
At this point, I’d like to give a HUGE shout out to Dr. Jim Scanlon, the superintendent of the West Chester School District, who was relentless in speaking out and in contacting legislators and publicizing the problems that have resulted from this requirement and its associated PBA. He should be commended for his efforts. I’m proud that he’s my superintendent!
West Chester, PA
Leo Knepper, CAP: “Republican Majority Leader Leaves Door Open for Higher Taxes”
“In an interview with the PLS Reporter on Tuesday, Sen. Jake Corman (R-Centre) left the door wide open for increasing the personal income tax (PIT) or sales and use tax (SUT). The subject of the interview was the progress of the budget as it related to the “framework” the Governor and members of the Senate have agreed to support.
“The framework budget would require additional tax increases or finding additional revenue of more than $1 billion for the first two years. Despite strident opposition to tax increases among the majority of Republicans in the House, and possibly a majority overall, Senate leadership is still pursuing a path that would require taxpayers to dig deeper into their pockets in support of ever-growing government, earmarks, and pork barrel spending.
“Although Sen. Corman makes his willingness to raise taxes conditional upon pension reform, it stands in stark contrast to the more fiscally sound approach to cutting spending to match available revenue. Like many other things, government approaches budgeting backwards. Elected officials have a tendency to decide how much they want to spend and then find ways to obtain the funds to make that happen. Businesses and families take the opposite approach, we see how much money we have and budget accordingly.
“The approach of matching spending to revenues is the approach being advocated by two lawmakers Sen. Scott Wagner and Rep. Rick Saccone. . .”
Sy Snyder, PoliticsPA: “1/22 Ups & Downs”
“John Rafferty, John Brown and Otto Voit. Last weekend the PA GOP met for their annual winter meeting in Hershey. While Scott Wagner’s comments about Gov. Wolf and Lindsey Graham’s speech got most of the attention, the committee made some noteworthy decisions. Chief among them were the endorsements of John Rafferty, John Brown and Otto Voit for Attorney General, Auditor General and State Treasurer respectively. The unanimous decisions marked a sharp contrast with the Democratic Party, which is dealing with a number of contentious primaries.
“Josh Shapiro and Stephen Zappala. Speaking of which, it’s looking like we’re going to have an especially competitive Democratic primary in the Attorney General race. The news that Kathleen Kane may try to run for re-election sparked the most eventful week so far in this contest. Dave Fawcett dropped out, saying he didn’t want to split the western vote with Zappala. Then, Jack Stollsteimer stepped aside while explicitly endorsing Shapiro. Finally, Zappala indicated that some of Pittsburgh’s biggest names are lining up behind him. The race is fast becoming an east/west battle between Shapiro and Zappala with Kane and Northampton’s John Morganelli hanging around. It should be one of the more entertaining spring primaries.
“Max Baer and Kevin Dougherty. Just when you think this lewd email problem can’t get any worse…it gets worse. This week we found out that seven other Supreme Court Justices, in addition to Seamus McCaffery and Michael Eakin, received inappropriate emails. Furthermore two of them, Justices Baer and Dougherty, currently sit on the bench. It’s unclear just how damaging this revelation will be to them, given that they never sent any messages, although it has to be an unwelcome embarrassment as Baer finishes out his tenure and Dougherty starts his.
“Dwight Evans. The State Representative and Congressional hopeful released a poll on Tuesday, commissioned by PPP, that showed him sixteen points ahead of indicted Congressman Chaka Fattah. Not only that, Evans leads among both black and white voters in this minority-majority district. He also released his first ad the next day, capping off quite the week.”
“Scott Petri. Petri had a lot going for him in the PA-8 race: establishment support, plenty of cash and a contentious Democratic primary. Then, all of sudden, Brian Fitzpatrick appeared. The younger brother of the retiring incumbent, Fitzpatrick announced yesterday that he is jumping into the GOP primary. While this new Fitzpatrick has no political experience, it’s worth betting that he wouldn’t give up his job in the FBI and his life in California to come here if he thought losing was a real possibility. The State Rep. may yet have the last laugh but there’s no way to deny this is terrible news for him.”
END NOTES . . .
Mark Levin (01/21/16)
“On Thursday’s Mark Levin show, Senator’s Orrin Hatch and Richard Burr are taking a second look at Donald Trump. Why are the establishment Republicans considering him electable over Ted Cruz? The establishment is now showing its true colors by attacking Cruz and showing support for Trump. Americans should realize that this is Nixon versus Reagan. Those who say politics is about doing whatever needs to be done to get elected are the Nixon crowd. Reagan rejected this view point and used his belief system to persuade people. Trump and other candidates would do well to borrow from Reagan’s conservative beliefs and principles instead of just using his lines.
“Also, not a single thing President Obama has done shows that he supports the private sector. He is out to milk and manipulate the free market. Walmart has to close stores because of Obama’s policies and more families will suffer.
“Later, If Trump can talk about Ted Cruz’s loans, why not ask him about his past donations to Sen. Harry Reid, previous support of amnesty or support of Syrian refuges?”