View online at: http://patriotpost.us/digests/29153 Right Analysis | Right Hooks | Right Opinion Patriot Headlines | Grassroots Commentary Daily Digest for Tuesday September 16, 2014    THE FOUNDATION "Liberty is not to be enjoyed, indeed it cannot exist, without the habits of just subordination; it consists, not so much in removing all restraint from the orderly, as in imposing it on the violent." --Fisher Ames, Essay on Equality, 1801 TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS Clinton May Have Tampered With Benghazi Documents The State Department and Hillary Clinton's staff may have vetted the documents detailing the response to the Benghazi attack on Sept. 11, 2012 that went to the Accountability Review Board as it investigated the attack. Raymond Maxwell, former deputy assistant secretary, heard the state department would comb through the documents on a Sunday afternoon. Curious, he walked into the State Department basement to discover Clinton's aides pouring through boxes of documents. According to The Daily Signal, an office director told Maxwell, "'Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that might put anybody in the [Near Eastern Affairs] front office or the seventh floor in a bad light,'" says Maxwell. He says 'seventh floor' was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisers." Maxwell was later singled out for discipline and placed on administrative leave. Unlike Richard Nixon, who hired outside people to do his dirty work, Clinton's aides just rolled up their sleeves and got dirty. Comment | Share ObamaCare Funding Goes Towards Abortions Barack Obama misled members of his own party to ram through the Affordable Care Act. Shop for health care insurance free of elective abortion funding, and you'll be hard pressed. If you live in Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island or Vermont, any plan you buy from the exchange comes with abortion coverage, the Washington Examiner notes. The Government Accountability Office released a report Sept. 15 finding that, out of 18 insurance providers, only one itemized abortion coverage on the bill. In 2009, Obama told Congress, "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place." Obama said this to appease members of his own party who actually have a conscience and to gather their critical support before passing ObamaCare. Yet today, each health insurance policyholder pays anywhere from 10 cents to $1 a month on ObamaCare abortions, making the BIG Lie even bigger. More... Comment | Share Democrats Wage War on Women, Blame Republicans Republicans are waging a "war on women," and part of their strategy is to deny basic reproductive health care. At least that's what Democrats want women voters to believe. So when Republicans like Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal propose expanding access to birth control by making more of it available over the counter, Democrats are thankful, right? Wrong. Democrats need women to think Republicans are evil, which in this case means preserving the access myth about birth control. Another big factor in the opposition is Planned Parenthood, for which a significant portion of business revolves around birth control. More demented still, however, is that Planned Parenthood is the nation's single largest abortion provider, and if women use more contraceptives, it means fewer babies to abort. Planned Parenthood is denouncing expansion proposals because women have to pay for all their birth control. All $9 per month. The horror! Comment | Share Corporations Prepare for Carbon Tax After Democrats' failed attempt at cap-and-trade legislation, the EPA stepped in to do their bidding by inflicting harsh regulations on large carbon polluters such as coal-fired plants. However, some energy corporations, sensing that an eventual cap-and-trade system is inevitable, are prepping for carbon taxes now. "At least 150 major companies worldwide -- including ExxonMobil, Google, Microsoft and 26 others in the United States -- are already making business plans that assume they will be taxed on their carbon pollution," writes USA Today, citing a report by international non-profit CDP, a Britain-based environmental disclosure company. Furthermore, "The report comes one week before leaders of 100-plus countries convene Sept. 23 in New York City for the United Nations' Climate Summit, at which leaders of many nations and corporations are expected to announce their plans to reduce carbon emissions. The World Bank is calling for carbon pricing as a key strategy." It's unfortunate the leadership of some of the world's most prominent companies have accepted cap-and-trade as fait accompli, especially when consumers bear the brunt of the ramifications. More... Comment | Share Clinton Says Republicans Want Voters to 'Check Your Brain at the Door' Bill Clinton always has been able to foist his own sins on his political opponents. He perfected the politics of personal destruction, only to complain about Republicans doing it. His rhetoric campaigning for Democrats this year follows that template. Clinton says much about political life has improved in America, but there's still a glaring problem: "We don't want to be around anyone that disagrees with us." Of course, the Left's response to any attempted dialogue is "Shut up." Clinton also hammered Republicans for spending "all their time dissing the president and dumping on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid." Does he remember the Bush years? "Half the time they're not even running against their opponents," he complained. "They're trying to get you to check your brain at the door, start foaming at the mouth. The last thing they want you to do is think." Once again, Democrats want you to feel, not think, but they're accusing the GOP of the sin. Comment | Share For more, visit Right Hooks. Don't Miss Patriot Humor Here's yesterday's edition, Shoelaces. If you'd like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here. Share RIGHT ANALYSIS The Non-War Against ISIL and the Diversionary Fight Against Ebola The international coalition the Obama administration is attempting to cobble together to take on ISIL is alarmingly pitiful. The reason is simple: This president has done everything possible to avoid making tough foreign policy decisions since he took office. Now, after years of downgrading America's military, downplaying America's necessary role in world affairs, and down-talking America's exceptionalism, Barack Obama wants to be taken at his word that he will destroy this threat. Mr. Lead-From-Behind may be in for a rude awakening. The strategy the administration has concocted for dealing with ISIL is clearly not well thought out. Though to be fair, Obama still had no strategy just two weeks ago. Last minute homework is bound to be filled with problems. For starters, Obama's plan centers on training and arming "moderate" Syrian rebels who have been fighting Bashar al-Assad. But there are no moderate Syrian rebels unless you're grading on a curve. These fighters have been trained and supported by the likes of the radical Muslim Brotherhood based in Egypt. Should they ever win against Assad, they would likely turn Syria into an even more dangerous nation than it is now, motivated by the subjugation and murder of its citizens and exporting terrorism across the region, often directed at American targets. (See also: Libya.) Another reason the Syrian rebels are no help is because they have reportedly signed a cease-fire agreement with the Islamic State. ISIL has been engaged in a number of battles across Syria and Iraq, looking to expand its territory. Essentially, they don't care who they fight with as long as it adds land to their caliphate. But they have struck a deal with Syrian rebels to avoid conflict for the time being. To further complicate this tragic comedy, Iran revealed a back-channel offer from the U.S. to join in the campaign against ISIL. Naturally, the world's leading terrorist state refused. Is it possible that Secretary of State John Kerry actually reached out to the mullahs? Does he not realize that Iran is often pulling the strings? Iran supports both Sunni and Shiite terrorist groups that hold the U.S. as their prime target. It supports Assad in Syria, it sows chaos in Iraq, offers aid to anti-American fighters in Afghanistan -- the list is almost without end. If Obama and Kerry want to treat Iran as a stabilizing influence in the region out of some misguided view that doing so will lead Iran into their so-called community of nations, it's not going to happen. All that will come out of such behavior is Iran gaining hegemonic power to go along with its nuclear program. Given the glaring ignorance at play, it's no wonder the president can't pull together a coalition. Kerry emphasizes this is not going to be a military invasion, but is asking countries to offer military support. Which is it? Obama steadfastly refuses to put boots on the ground (as if flying air missions over Iraq is not dangerous business), so we can't possibly expect any other country to do the same. And how serious is any campaign that declares at the outset it will not use troops? The only European ally to offer support is France. Turkey refuses to allow its bases to be used for any airstrikes. And the several Arab nations that have pledged support have yet to indicate just exactly what kind of support they will offer and under what conditions. But White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest assures us, "[T]his coalition is coming together very nicely." Consider also how the Obama White House has been twisting itself in rhetorical knots trying to decide what exactly to call its campaign against ISIL. Obama went to great pains to avoid using the word "war" in his speech last Wednesday calling for the degradation and destruction of ISIL. When pressed by CBS's Bob Schieffer about whether we are now at war, John Kerry said "war" is the wrong word to use. But as the flip-flopper is wont to do, he then offered this gem: "In terms of what we did in Iraq originally, this is not a war. ... It's not that kind of mobilization. But in terms of al-Qaida, which we have used the word war with, yeah, we're at war with al-Qaida and its affiliates. And in the same context, if you want to use it, yes, we're at war with ISIL in that sense." Got that? Would that make this part of the War on Terror? Well, according to State Department spokesman Marie Harf, that term is out of style. And National Security Advisor Susan Rice added to the linguistic gymnastics by pointing out that this "sustained counterterrorism campaign" would not be a war like Iraq and Afghanistan in that no American troops would be engaged in combat. That was a promise Obama made, and Rice, Kerry and members of the White House staff have repeated it ad nauseum. In sum, the Obama White House doesn't know who it is fighting, how to fight them, what to fight them with or even why the fight is needed. If ever a campaign was doomed from the outset, this is it. Not to worry, though. The White House is dispatching 3,000 troops and $750 million to fight the real threat -- Ebola in West Africa. While biobombers are a true threat, clearly, this Ebola announcement is merely another diversion (from both foreign and domestic policy failures) designed to boost Obama's credibility as a "humanitarian" leader. Comment | Share Dear Leftists, Marriage Really Does Matter The Left just can't seem to face the facts when it comes to marriage. They don't want to recognize that marriage is one of the fundamental aspects of our culture -- unless they're trying to redefine it. They are constantly looking for ways to undermine the sanctity of marriage, to devalue it and to make it seem unimportant. They even go so far as to suggest public policy is the best tool to assist parents, whether they are married or not. According to a recent article in The Washington Post, marriage itself isn't the reason why children who are raised in married homes tend to be more successful when they reach adulthood. Citing a recent study by the Left-leaning Brookings Institution, the analysis admits that, while marriage may be a small factor in the success of children, factors other than marriage are more likely the cause of this phenomenon. From the study, higher incomes from two parents and parenting skills were highlighted as the two factors that resulted in children being better off -- not marriage itself. The study suggests that children are likely to be better off when both parents (whether married or not) make money that can be used to pay for private education, a tutoring program, better food and health care. Further, parenting skills are noted as the second factor in children being better off. Parents who spend time reading with their children and eating meals together are shown to lead to a better life for children when they grow up. Both factors are of course good for parents who have children. From the Brookings Institution analysis, one could conclude that perhaps marriage itself doesn't cause children to be more successful later in life after all. Yet The Washington Post misses a critical point on marriage. The marriage between a man and a woman is the main contributing factor that creates the conditions for children to be ripe for success. While higher income levels and good parenting skills are good qualities to have, these factors can't replace the fact that marriage has numerous other benefits for the success of children later in life. A different analysis on marriage reveals children who are raised by married parents have fewer behavioral problems, better physical and emotional health, better education and "are more likely to experience economic well-being." With marriage, children are afforded the opportunity to observe the special bond between a man and a woman committed to each other. With marriage, children have a greater sense of security -- when children are raised by married parents they experience companionship and love from their committed mother and father. Research also shows that single-parent households have a negative impact on a child's social mobility and, according to The Daily Signal, "[C]hildren who live in single-parent households are more than five times more likely to experience poverty than children in married-parent families." Certainly there are legitimate and sometimes tragic circumstances that lead to children being raised by a single mother or father, and there are instances where children are forced to live with one parent over the other because of serious problems between the married couple. There are no doubt cases where children raised under these circumstances can grow up to be just as successful as their peers who are raised in a married home. Statistics only go so far. But the Left, via its relentless campaign to undermine marriage and the family, would have everyone believe that "family income and parenting skills are more realistically addressed through public policy" (i.e., more welfare) than marriage. Higher income for unmarried parents doesn't guarantee happiness or success for their children. A married couple, however, has a greater chance to show and teach their children how to be successful. With parenting skills, the Left would no doubt push for courses that tell parents to teach their children to live with greater dependency on them, and of course the nanny state. A married couple has the opportunity to teach their children to be self-sufficient. Marriage has worked for thousands of years and marriage itself is essential to our cultural well-being. Public policy cannot replace the benefits of marriage. But the benefits of marriage can influence future generations much more effectively and efficiently than government policies ever will. Comment | Share For more, visit Right Analysis. TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS Ed Feulner: Isolating the Islamic State William Murchison: What? We Don't Expect to Win?! Mona Charen: Prickly Narcissist Dennis Prager: Ted Cruz's Speech to Arab Christians John C. Goodman: Why Are Doctors So Unhappy? For more, visit Right Opinion. OPINION IN BRIEF German statesman Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832): "Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do." Columnist Ed Feulner: "According to Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow James Phillips ... the Islamic State's 'slickly packaged jihadist propaganda seeks to stimulate and galvanize members of the movement, spur potential recruits to join in the carnage and incite additional terrorist attacks against the United States.' Action on our part won't create that. Inaction will. We have to remember that ritual killing is also meant to inspire fear and dread. The intended targets -- the United States and its allies -- are supposed to be cowed. It's important to show that such ruthless tactics will fail. 'When people see a strong horse and a weak horse,' Osama bin Laden once said, 'by nature they will like the strong horse.' Wise words from a man whose reign of terror was cut short when he was gunned down by U.S. Special Forces." Comment | Share William Murchison: "Countries are like ball clubs or rock groups. They develop reputations: in the case of countries, a reputation for firmness in the face of challenge, or a reputation for climbing out of windows, ahead of the cops, to avoid unpleasantness; a reputation for promise-keeping, a reputation for reducing the firmest pledges to mere theories. Guess which reputation Americans see as operative presently in White House affairs." Comedian Jimmy Fallon: "Obama gave a big speech from the White House where he outlined his plan to quote 'degrade and ultimately destroy' the terror group ISIS. When asked how, he said, 'I'll build their website.'" Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis! Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team 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. *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 © 2014 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/.