Digest: The President's 'Really Bad Idea'

View online at: http://patriotpost.us/editions/16783 Friday Digest The President's 'Really Bad Idea' February 15, 2013       "The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife." --Thomas Jefferson Proposed by Barack Obama and signed into law by Barack Obama, the sequester -- automatic spending "cuts" of $85 billion that will kick in March 1 -- is now the only thing standing between us and a prosperous future. So says Barack Obama. In his State of the Union address, Obama complained, "These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize our military readiness, they'd devastate priorities like education and energy and medical research. They would certainly slow our recovery and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. And that's why Democrats, Republicans, business leaders and economists have already said that these cuts -- known here in Washington as 'the sequester' -- are a really bad idea." His really bad idea. In fact, last year he even threatened a veto of any attempt to undo it. In truth, these supposedly devastating "cuts" are merely reductions in budgetary spending increases that are called "cuts" by the Democrats and the Leftmedia. They're designed to convince Republicans to cave on tax hikes, but many Republicans have simply resigned themselves to sequestration as the only hope for slowing the growth of government during Obama's presidency. House Republicans did pass a bill last year to replace most of the defense cuts with cuts to food stamps and other redistribution programs, and Senate Democrats aim to replace it with a 50/50 proposal of $120 billion in spending cuts and tax hikes. The "cuts" would come from agriculture subsidies and defense, while the tax revenue would come from implementing the "Buffett Rule" -- ensuring that millionaires pay at least 30 percent in taxes. But neither plan is likely to go anywhere. Fortunately, Democrats tell us, we don't have a spending problem. As House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) explained, "[I]t isn't as much of a spending problem as it is a priorities, and that's what a budget is, setting priorities." No immediate reply from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), whose chamber hasn't bothered to pass a budget in four years. Pelosi continued, "[I]t is almost a false argument to say that we have a spending problem. We have a budget deficit problem." She didn't elaborate on how those are different things. Her right-hand man, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), added his voice to the chorus, saying, "Does the country have a spending problem? The country has a paying for problem. We haven't paid for what we bought, we haven't paid for our tax cuts, we haven't paid for war." Um, that's called a spending problem. No matter, Hoyer blames Bush: "[W]e spent a lot of money when George Bush was president of the United States and the House and Senate were controlled by Republicans. We spent a lot of money." Indeed we did -- far too much -- but Democrats "solved" that problem by doubling, tripling and quadrupling spending. Well, what about revenue? The Congressional Budget Office predicted this week that federal revenue will reach $2.7 trillion in 2013, returning to pre-recession levels and setting an all-time record for revenue collection. Revenue dipped to $2.1 trillion at the low point of the recession in 2009, but it has risen steadily since. It's important to recognize that the CBO estimate is based on a simple static calculation that assumes the recent tax hikes will produce a specific dollar amount in tax revenue. But this tit-for-tat theory never seems to work as anticipated. Proven time and again, the higher tax rates go, the less revenue is actually brought in. That's because higher tax rates adversely affect investments, business growth, hiring and consumer spending. Taxes are punitive measures that restrict economic behavior, forcing individuals and businesses to curb their activity. In the long run, excessive taxes lead to less capital in circulation from which the government can skim off the top. The CBO's assertion that federal revenue could reach an all-time high in 2013 runs counter to the leftist claim that Washington has a revenue problem. If the government collects more money than it ever has in history and it still doesn't have enough cash to cover the budget, we're back where we started: The problem is one of spending. Yet leftists continue to call for more money, exhibiting not one bit of shame for their spendthrift ways. Taxing the rich won't bridge the gap; it won't even come close. Indeed, the unquenchable NeoCom appetite for other people's money has already materialized into more taxes on the middle class. Republicans pledge to not raise taxes once again to avoid the March 1 sequester, and together with Democrats' refusal to discuss real spending cuts, any chance of making a replacement deal is slim. There's a lot of talk about closing tax loopholes and drafting last-minute legislation to postpone sequestration, but this is nothing more than spending junkies living in denial. Like an alcoholic who thinks it's okay to take one last drink before quitting, Washington has deluded itself into thinking that it can go on avoiding cuts indefinitely. Keen Sense of the Obvious "At some point you run out of money." --Barack Obama Post Your Opinion Government and Politics The Right That Guarantees All Others Those claiming that the Obamateurs in the administration have done nothing good for the economy obviously haven't looked at gun sales recently. More firearms were sold during the Lyin' King's tenure than at any point in U.S. history. Of course, this fact speaks volumes about the average citizen's confidence in maintaining any semblance of individual rights and freedoms under the current regime, but at least one part of the economy is booming. It's been said that the Second Amendment was crafted to "guarantee all the others." Apparently, the radical left agrees and so targets with a vengeance the Second Amendment, the ultimate failsafe of all individual rights. That's certainly the story in New Jersey, California, Colorado and Missouri. New Jersey, no stranger to arbitrary laws, enacted one law, recently upheld by the Third U.S. District Court, that limits handgun purchases to one per month despite the Second Amendment's complete silence regarding any "purchase frequency" permissible for firearms. No, the important thing is that the Court established a precedent for other courts to follow, even if it violates both the spirit and letter of the law outlined in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, the clearly worded phrase "shall not be infringed." Meanwhile, not to be outdone by New Jersey, California's clownish legislature -- completely dominated, of course, by Democrats -- is set to enact a host of anti-Second Amendment measures. They include: making possession of hollow-point bullets a felony; mandating registration, reporting and background checks for ammo purchases, with the maximum single purchase being 500 rounds; prohibiting magazines holding greater than 10 rounds unless the magazines themselves are fixed to the gun and requiring a special tool to remove them -- possession of larger-capacity magazines would be a felony; licensing of all gun owners; and redefining shotgun rules so that only single-shot shotguns will remain legal. Colorado's state assembly -- again, a legislative body totally dominated by Democrats -- is also set to pass a host of bills along the lines of their federal brethren. These include mandatory background checks for gun transfers in private sales, along with increased and unnecessary fees associated with those background checks, as well as prohibitions on magazines with greater than 10-round capacities. Magpul, maker of the coveted PMAG, would be forced to either relocate from Colorado or cease making the magazines. Finally, Missouri Democrats introduced legislation to confiscate defensive weapons from citizens. Using the Dianne Feinstein definition of what constitutes an "assault weapon," the bill would give gun owners 90 days to remove their weapon out of state, render it permanently inoperable or surrender it to authorities. Good luck with that in the Show Me State. To say gun sales increased since the Chosen One assumed office in 2009 is to grossly understate the case: Over 65 million background checks were completed since the No-Hope regime rolled into DC, almost double the number that occurred during President George W. Bush's first-term (a little over 34 million). Through their actions more and more Americans are affirming what we at The Patriot Post also understand: Our Liberty is threatened a little more each day. The first priority of despotic regimes is to disarm the populace to prevent it from stopping the onslaught of tyranny. The Second Amendment is the Constitution's bulwark against such an onslaught. Let's make sure our elected officials understand this. Post Your Opinion This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award "The president and I are going to continue to travel the country, so that [the gun control] we're proposing can't be misrepresented. To be very blunt with you, we're counting on you -- the legitimate news media -- to cover these discussions because the truth is that times have changed." --Joe Biden From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File "One issue that always boggles my mind is that -- the idea that a gun is a defensive weapon. That is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon. A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and used to show power." --Emeryville (SanFran Bay Area), California Police Chief Ken James Forget "to serve and protect," the motto of many police departments. It's now "to intimidate and show power." Hope 'n' Change: Mississippi Exchange Refused The Department of Health and Human Services denied Mississippi the right to run its own health insurance exchange. Republican Governor Phil Bryant originally refused to take part in the Obama-Doesn't-Care exchange because of the harm it would cause his state's finances. He joined a long list of states that exercised their right to opt out of the exchange network. However, Mississippi's insurance commissioner Mike Chaney, also a Republican, countermanded Bryant's decision and set about creating an exchange anyway. He claimed authority to do so and was supported by the state's Democrat attorney general. HHS ultimately rejected the request to start a state-run exchange in Mississippi, citing the infighting and lack of coordination within the state government. The White House plan has been to demand state-run exchanges up till now, so this refusal is unique. Gov. Bryant is to be commended for standing by his principles and looking out for the best interests of his state. Commissioner Chaney said the decision made him feel "betrayed" by the federal government. To Mr. Chaney we say, get in line, if you can find the back of it. Economy Income Redistribution: Not Enough for Federal Employees You might think that federal employees whose jobs are protected because the size and scope of the federal government never actually decreases would be grateful for a raise when many in the private sector are having hours cut or being furloughed. But leave it to government employee unions to complain that, after two years of frozen wages, Barack Obama is proposing only a 1 percent raise this year, on top of the half-point bump that was part of the fiscal cliff deal. "I don't feel like jumping and shouting for joy," sniffled one AFSCME local director. If congressional Republicans have their way, federal employees will receive no raise at all. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who heads up the House Oversight Committee, claimed a raise is "not necessary to retain talented employees and just wastes taxpayer money." Another area where taxpayer money is wasted is the Lifeline program that provides cellular phones and "free" minutes to those who supposedly can't afford regular cellular service. While the service is intended for poor people, many of the carriers who now provide what are popularly known as "Obama phones" didn't verify whether recipients were eligible until last year. Yet they pocketed $9.25 per month per Lifeline subscriber anyway. A check of carrier Virgin Mobile found that 44 percent of its 3.7 million Lifeline subscribers couldn't provide proof of eligibility, a percentage fairly close to the industry average. Paid by a monthly surcharge on most Americans' phone bills, the Lifeline redistribution program has swelled from $819 million to upwards of $2 billion annually since 2008 -- not surprising, given the allure of a "free" phone. Regulatory Commissars: A Lack of Notice The story is depressingly familiar: New regulations that restrict how business is done are dropped on an unsuspecting public without warning. And while federal law states that regulations require a public comment period, a Government Accountability Office study found that 35 percent of "major" regulations -- those considered to have $100 billion or more in annual economic impact -- enacted between 2003 and 2010 lacked that notice. Not surprisingly, the final two years of that period, under Barack Obama, saw a sharp upward trend that pushed the overall percentage up. Another Obama trend is the greater use of what are called "interim final rules," in which case the notice and comment period occurs immediately after the rules are put in place. Obviously there's a possibility that new rules can be changed, but their adverse effects are felt immediately. One set of rules upon which comment was allowed, though then ignored, is a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) edict, the latest in an Obama-patented series of Friday document dumps. It regards the race hustlers' fantasy of "disparate impact" in mortgage lending. The rules will reopen the housing market to the same problems that led to the home mortgage crisis in the first place, because lenders would fear legal action based on claims of disparate impact lending if a passed-over group sued on grounds established in the new HUD rules. It's likely the new rules will fall under judicial review before all is said and done, but in the meantime equality of opportunity will once again fall prey to the impossibility of assuring equality of outcome. In his State of the Union speech, the president spoke of how "overlapping regulations keep responsible young families from buying their first home." Well, here's one big overlap. Around the Nation: Lone Star vs. Golden California and Texas may rank first and second, respectively, when it comes to the most populous states in the Union, but there ends the commonality. In fact, the two states are case studies in the divergent consequences of more and less government interference. In the last five years alone, leftist California has ceded 150,000 residents to the Lone Star State while simultaneously losing 640,000 jobs, making the employment scene in the once-Golden State worse than it was 10 years ago. Meanwhile, Liberty-loving Texas added 400,000 jobs while luring California companies like eBay, Petco and Facebook to expand within Texas state lines. This contrast isn't lost on the states' governors. This week, Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry traveled west in an effort to recruit California companies to Texas, where the business-friendly climate not only draws major out-of-state companies but also allows small businesses to grow and invest. Fighting reality with a quip -- which seems to be the Left's fallback approach -- California Democrat Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown noted, "Everybody with half a brain is coming to California. So Texas, come on over." But turning reality on its head doesn't change reality. As Perry stated, the scenario is "a competition of ideologies" with Texas exemplifying the benefits of limited government and California showing the damages of heavy-handed government. It's federalism at its finest. Of course, it's possible that Golden State leaders will see the light. But we're not holding our breath. Post Your Opinion Security Warfront With Jihadistan: Changes in Afghanistan Dear Leader took the opportunity of his SOTU address to announce an ever faster retreat from Afghanistan. Obama formally announced an expedited U.S. withdrawal of approximately 34,000 troops, roughly halving the contingent of U.S. forces remaining there. Then he declared, "By the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over." It's not clear what he meant by "our war," since the jihadis started the war on 9/11 and continue it today. We just pray it doesn't mean the jihadis move the fight back to our soil. On Sunday, Marine General Joseph Dunford took charge of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, succeeding Marine General John Allen, who led coalition forces for the past 19 months. Dunford faces the daunting challenge of implementing the withdrawal of almost all remaining U.S. troops as well as approximately 100,000 foreign troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. Additionally, he's expected to complete the training of Afghan forces to combat insurgent and terrorist groups that show no sign of agreeing to our deadline. Meanwhile, as the Afghan front of the war contracts, the African front continues to expand as members of the Obama regime want to add the mastermind of last month's attack on an Algerian natural-gas facility to the president's secret "kill" list. Adding the Algerian militant Mokhtar Belmokhtar to the U.S. list for targeted killing, which would require extending drone strikes and other counterterrorism operations across the region, would result in a significant expansion of U.S. military operations into northwestern Africa. It would be nice if the U.S. had strong leadership as the Long War continues to evolve, but don't look to the Obama regime for that. Obama's nominee for secretary of defense is the former RINO Senator Chuck "I Won't Be in a Policy-Making Position" Hagel. His nomination was successfully filibustered by Senate Republicans Thursday, with another vote in two weeks, and his confirmation is far from certain. In a time of war, our troops and our country deserve better than this narcissistic rubber-stamp for a smaller and weaker national defense. North Korea's Latest Nuclear Test North Korea's recent test of yet another nuclear device hasn't captured nearly as much media attention as a cruise ship adrift in the Gulf of Mexico or the manhunt for a murderous leftist ex-LAPD officer cum guttural hero. The UN maintained its near-perfect record of meeting dire threats with empty expressions of condemnation. China reflexively threw cold water on even the veiled suggestion of military action. And Secretary of State John "Big Heels to Fill" Kerry offered the usual boilerplate: "If you are going to say things, they have to mean something. And to mean something you have to be prepared to follow up, and that's exactly what we are prepared to do." The U.S. and our allies should be prepared to follow up, but alas we know differently from the past 20 years of dealing with the lunatics in Pyongyang. They followed the Miscreant's Handbook to the letter by pushing the boundaries as far as possible, and then extracting concessions merely for the promise to cease provoking. In other news of the absurd, Iran this week called for all nations to eliminate nuclear weapons while claiming yet again that its own nuclear program is strictly for peaceful nuclear energy. Why a nation with the world's second largest reserves of oil and natural gas is so hot for nuclear energy is a reasonable question. Likewise the question of why Iran needs fuel enriched to 20 percent (or higher, as it has insisted repeatedly). Most commercial nuclear power plants operate on fuel enriched only to 3-5 percent. Iran still hasn't answered questions about its previous missile warhead design work, or about its suspected nuclear weapons research facility at Parchin, and it has an unbroken 10-year streak of International Atomic Energy Agency reports describing Iran's non-compliance with its Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations. Finally, Barack Obama revealed in his State of the Union speech that he will seek further cuts to the U.S. nuclear arsenal in bilateral negotiations (read "unilateral concessions") with Russia. Apparently not satisfied with the New START treaty that lowered the U.S. arsenal to 1,500 warheads, Obama will now continue pursuing the old leftist fantasy of complete nuclear disarmament, as though such a thing is possible. When combined with his party's continued efforts to block funding and implementation of the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program, any additional reductions should be viewed with deep concern. A shrinking arsenal of increasingly doubtful reliability opens the door for China to achieve nuclear parity with us and allows Russia to retain leverage over U.S. and European freedom of action in a crisis. Profiles of Valor: U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Romesha For heroism in defending and retaking a remote outpost while outnumbered eight to one, and defending an indefensible position while receiving incoming fire from 360 degrees of higher ground, former Army Staff Sergeant Clint Romesha received the Medal of Honor at a ceremony Monday. Romesha and 52 other soldiers faced withering mortar, RPG, machine-gun and sniper fire on Oct. 3, 2009, in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. "With gunfire impacting all around him, Clint raced to one of the barracks and grabbed a machine gun," recounted the president at the ceremony. "He took aim at one of the enemy machine teams and took it out. A rocket-propelled grenade exploded, sending shrapnel into his hip, his arm and his neck, but he kept fighting, disregarding his own wounds and tended to an injured comrade instead." Later in the 12-hour battle, Romesha and his team charged more than 100 yards through enemy fire to reach wounded soldiers in addition to directing fire at enemy positions and removing the threat posed by several Taliban who had breached the outpost's perimeter. Romesha is the fourth living person to receive the nation's highest military decoration for actions in Afghanistan or Iraq, and the nation's 80th living recipient according to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society. He is third-generation military: Both of his brothers joined the military after high school, their father was a Vietnam veteran, and their grandfather a World War II veteran. At the celebration dinner, Romesha talked about leaving the Army and spending more time with his wife Tammy and their three children. The family now lives in North Dakota, where Romesha works as a field safety specialist for an oil field construction firm. Immigration Front: 'No Human Being Is Illegal' Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal alien who has become an activist for amnesty, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week during immigration reform hearings. Vargas was brought to the U.S. by his parents at age 12, but he is ineligible for Barack Obama's executive ordered DREAM Act. He chided the senators about labels, saying, "When you inaccurately call me illegal, you not only dehumanize me, you're offending [my parents]. No human being is illegal." Such vapid emotional appeals do nothing but distort the issue. Ironically, Vargas (did we mention he's an illegal alien?) testified at the same table as Chris Crane, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent and president of the ICE agents' union. ICE is prohibited by the White House's new policy from arresting illegals such as Vargas, and Crane and his fellow ICE agents are livid. "I think most Americans assume that ICE agents and officers are empowered by the government to enforce the law," Crane said. "Nothing could be further from the truth. With 11 million illegal aliens in the U.S., ICE agents are now prohibited from arresting illegal aliens solely on charges of illegal entry or VISA overstay -- the two most frequently violated sections of U.S. immigration law." As a result, "ICE is crumbling from within," Crane warned. "Morale is at an all-time low as criminal aliens are released to the streets and ICE instead takes disciplinary actions against its own officers for making lawful arrests." Never mind that. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney assured us two weeks ago that "our borders now are more secure than they have ever been in history." Post Your Opinion Culture Faith and Family: The Pope Resigns On Feb. 28, Pope Benedict XVI will step down as leader of the Catholic Church, becoming the first to do so since 1415. The 85-year-old Pontiff cited his advancing age as the reason for his retirement, and while conspiracy theories inevitably sprung up, the decision is most likely indicative of Benedict's humility rather than any "scandal." By all accounts, Benedict will be missed. He is viewed as a unifying force among Christians, as well as a friend to Israel. After he leaves the papacy the College of Cardinals will convene for Conclave, the centuries-old process by which a new pope is chosen. It remains to be seen whether his replacement will continue the Church's present course, but there will certainly be more time for consideration of the matter given Benedict's manner of departure. In his statement reacting to the Pontiff's announcement, Barack Obama remarked, "On behalf of Americans everywhere, Michelle and I wish to extend our appreciation and prayers to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. ... I have appreciated our work together over these last four years." He went on to say, "The Church plays a critical role in the United States and the world, and I wish the best to those who will soon gather to choose His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI's successor." It's no surprise that Obama didn't mention the Catholic Church's newest role in America: that of litigant. Several Catholic institutions, including the Archdioceses of New York, Washington DC, Miami, and St. Louis, are suing the Obama administration for its attack on religious liberty. Specifically, the Church contends that ObamaCare mandates violate the Freedom of Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by forcing religious organizations to cover contraception, sterilization procedures and the abortion pill in their health insurance plans. Someone should tell Obama that facing each other in court doesn't constitute "working together." Dorner Wrap-up Fortunately, the murderous mission of Christopher Dorner ended this week with his suicide in California during a standoff with police. Dorner murdered four people in the last week, he claimed, to draw attention to his "unjust dismissal" from the Los Angeles PD. Among other things, Dorner's manifesto endorsed the "assault weapons ban" and its advocates, Obama, Biden, Feinstein, et al: "Whether by [Obama] executive order or thru a bi-partisan congress an assault weapons ban needs to be re-instituted. Period!!! Mr. Vice President, do your due diligence when formulating a concise and permanent national AWB plan. ... Gun control is no longer debatable, it's not a conversation, its a moral mandate. Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB. The time is now to reinstitute a ban... Give Piers Morgan an indefinite resident alien and Visa card. ... I want you to know that I agree with you 100% on enacting stricter firearm laws." Oh, and this shout out for Ms. O: "Off the record, I love your new bangs, Mrs. Obama. A woman whose professional and educational accomplishments are second to none when compared to recent First wives." If nothing else, that establishes his insanity! It was beyond disturbing to watch as leftists in the public and, worse, in the Leftmedia offered their understanding and sympathy, if not their outright support, for an unhinged and cold-blooded murderer. Some even praised him as a "modern day Django," referencing the current movie "Django Unchained" about a freed slave who becomes a bounty hunter of white people. For example, Marc Lamont Hill, co-author of a book with infamous cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, gushed, "[Dorner has] been like a real-life superhero to many people. Now, don't get me wrong, what he did was awful, killing innocent people is bad. But when you read his manifesto, you read the message that he left, he wasn't entirely crazy. He had a plan and a mission here. And many people aren't rooting for him to kill innocent people; they're rooting for someone who was wronged to get a kind of revenge against the system. It's almost like watching 'Django Unchained' in real life. It's kind of exciting." No, Marc, it's kind of sick. Finally, Dorner apparently grew up without a father. Unlike other mass murderers, the Leftmedia showed a remarkable lack of curiosity about Dorner's upbringing, but as we've noted on numerous occasions, fatherlessness is a common theme among criminal sociopaths. Post Your Opinion Climate Change This Week: Ice Age on Hold The next ice age "has now been delayed indefinitely." At least that's what the National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee wants you to think. In a new report, the committee says that -- assuming the earth was largely controlled by natural factors -- the next ice age would arrive within the next 1,500 years. But thanks to you, oh noble polluter, that time stamp is now indefinite. As usual, the report contained some irony. When discussing the "scientists'" warning of a coming ice age in the 1970s, the authors went on the defensive: "An enduring myth about climate science is that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting 'global cooling' and an 'imminent' ice age." Well, there was in fact strong agreement in the scientific community about an imminent ice age. The paper followed up by casting blame on their best advocates: "The popular press ... carried a number of articles about the cooling climate at that time." Yes, you read that right -- they're accusing the mainstream media of hyping the situation. Thank goodness we don't have that problem now! The paper predicts temperatures will warm another 3 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. As you could guess, they find a solution through population control and lower emissions. In short, this is just another report based on big lies, such as Obama's claim in his SOTU address that the "12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15." Their end game is eradication of a free market via big-government control by deception -- all to "save the planet," of course. Speaking of global warming causing problems, at 1425 EST, an enormous asteroid (2012 DA14) will be passing closer to earth than any in recorded history -- passing at 27,600 kilometers, inside the geosynchronous orbit of communication satellites. The effect on those satellites is unknown as NASA has never recorded such a close pass. It's about 50 meters in diameter and traveling at 13k/sec. Its trajectory is north to south. Unrelated, an enormous meteor lit up Russia southeast of Moscow yesterday, causing significant damage and injuries -- no deaths. And Last... The Washington Post reported this week a surprising move within the punditry: Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, formerly of Fox News, would be moving to Al Jazeera America. Well, it turns out that the Post, a card-carrying member of Joe Biden's "legitimate news media," was punked by a satirical website. The Post issued a correction -- under the revised headline "Sarah Palin tries to stay relevant." We call that projection. Fortunately, the Post did not fall for the recent story about environmentalist extraordinaire Al Gore selling his cable TV channel to the oil-soaked Al Jazeera. Now that would be ridiculous. Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis! Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team *PUBLIUS* The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the "unalienable rights" of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2013 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved. REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: "The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )" You have received this email because you are subscribed to The Patriot Post. To manage your subscription or to unsubscribe, link to http://patriotpost.us/manage/.