The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
This Is What Democracy Looks Like
by Salena Zito
by Salena Zito
.
Peggy Noonan, Pulitzer Prize Winner
Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, whom The Patriot Post has carried in our Right Opinion section since 2008, won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize for commentary. Normally, we're not inclined to celebrate Pulitzer Prizes, as they're typically just the Leftmedia's way of self-congratulation, but this win by a conservative is different.
Noonan is one of the Journal's and our most popular columnists. As a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, she crafted such memorable speeches as the "Boys of Pointe du Hoc" marking the 40th anniversary of D-Day, and the remarks he gave after the Challenger explosion in 1986. Indeed, Noonan has a way with words that those of us who write for a living aspire to capture.
The Journal describes why Noonan was honored this year: "Ms. Noonan won for a variety of her columns during 2016, in particular for her prescient pieces on Donald Trump and the political uprising his candidacy represented. Ahead of most others, she foresaw Trump's rise and his appeal to Americans who were frustrated by the leaders of both major political parties. Ms. Noonan didn't shrink from addressing Trump's many flaws as a candidate, but she always showed great respect for the intelligence of voters and explained the currents of American life and politics that catapulted Trump to the White House."
Ironically, it's Noonan's depth of understanding and empathy that earned her great scorn among some grassroots conservatives for her writing not just on Trump but on Barack liar-nObama. She wrote insightfully about why liar-nObama appealed to millions and why he won twice. Likewise, early on she saw how and why an outsider and former Democrat like Trump managed to win the Republican nomination in spite of — or in some case, because of — his deep flaws. She fully understood what ultimately undid liar-Hillary Clinton and foresaw that Trump would pull off the upset.
Noonan's Pulitzer win is, in our estimation, well deserved.
~The Patriot Post
.
.
China Sanctions North Korean Coal.
Coming Around to Trump's Point of View?
by Kerry Lear
{punchingbagpost.com} ~ It looks as though China is taking president Donald Trump’s advice by taking a tougher stance on North Korea... China ordered North Korean cargo ships carrying coal to return home, reported Reuters Monday evening. “China suspended all imports of coal from North Korea on Feb. 26 to abide with a United Nations Security Council resolution meant to punish the country and its authoritarian leader, Kim Jong Un, for testing nuclear weapons and launching ballistic missiles. The resolution, passed in December, prohibits member states from importing more than $400 million of North Korean coal in 2017, an amount set so as to not have “adverse humanitarian consequences for the country’s civilian population,” writes The Huffington Post... http://punchingbagpost.com/china-sanctions-north-korean-coal-coming-around-to-trump-point-of-view
.Now Enforce Laws Against Employers –
Fines, Jail = Jobs For Americans
by Rick Wells
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EnIdku1F2I
.
Freedom Caucus chair: Deal 'close'
on liar-nObamaCare repeal
by Jessie Hellmann
{thehill.com} ~ The leader of the House Freedom Caucus says Republicans are "close" to agreement on a plan to repeal liar-nObamaCare, indicating that discussions are still continuing while Congress is in a two-week recess... Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) on Tuesday told a local radio station that he expects to hear back from Speaker Paul Ryan. Why are Ryan and McConnell more concerned about making clown-Schumer happy than Trump? CNN’s Jeffrey Lord: Think of Trump as ‘Martin Luther King of healthcare’ NBA playoffs and the art of Facebook LiveMORE (R-Wis.) by noon about "two options" on the table. He did not elaborate. "We're very close. The biggest thing for all of us is we want to make sure we don't just have repeal, but we have a replacement that drives down insurance premiums," he said... http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/328269-freedom-caucus-chair-deal-close-on-obamacare-repeal
.Trump Is Resettling Syrian Refugees At A
Much Quicker Pace Than liar-nObama
by Alex Pfeiffer
{dailycaller.com} ~ President Donald Trump called Syrian refugees a “great Trojan horse” during the 2016 campaign, but his administration has resettled them in a quicker pace than President Barack liar-nObama did... Since Trump was inaugurated, 1,401 Syrian refugees have been resettled, State Department figures as of Wednesday reveal. This is more than double the 625 Syrian refugees resettled under President liar-nObama in the same time frame last year. The president has admitted about a third fewer refugees from all nations than liar-nObama’s State Department did in this time span, as he has resettled 10,565 refugees so far and liar-nObama resettled 14,841. Syrian refugees, however, were a particular focus of President Trump’s when he was running for office...http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/12/trump-is-resettling-syrian-refugees-at-a-much-quicker-pace-than-obama/
.
.
Adviser Carter Page Questioned By Herridge
About liar-nObama Regime Surveillance
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page is one of three individuals associated with the Trump campaign who has offered to testify in open public hearings before both House and Senate Intelligence committees... regarding their alleged involvement in the supposed Russia collusion, which remains a completely evidence-free assertion of guilty until proven innocent. Information has recently come to light that Page was targeted by the liar-nObama regime and the FBI under a FISA warrant in the summer of 2016. Carter addresses that revelation, saying, “I have nothing that I want to hide and the more that the truth comes out, the better.” Catherine Herridge interviews Page noting, “To get a surveillance warrant, the FBI has to have solid evidence. So how do you explain it?” He responded, “Well, we shall see. Again, there was a tremendous amount of false evidence.”... http://rickwells.us/trump-adviser-carter-page-questioned-herridge-obama-regime-surveillance/
..
by Salena Zito
{jewishworldreview.com} ~The Democratic Party's alienation of and from working-class voters might be new. But the existence of those voters and the tension between city dwellers and the heartland isn't. The election, therefore, wasn't a realignment; it was a reassertion.
Rural voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and other states have been there all along. They made themselves heard by electing Donald Trump and revealing to too many cloistered elites how much they resented being ruled from afar and ignored at the same time.
And the political class still doesn't get it, insisting on seeing President-elect Trump as a product of a historic, disturbing new tendency in American politics — regionalized factionalism — that pits backwoods rednecks against the worldly, integrated, sophisticated, educated seers of the cities.
Have they never read a history book?
News flash: The United States of America is made up of states. We've been fragmented by regionalism since before the Eastern Seaboard became the United States, and even as it was transformed into a squabbling collection of colonies unified in opposing British rule.
Remember how Massachusetts was vehemently opposed to giving a Virginia planter named George Washington command of the Continental Army? The state's residents believed that because they had fielded more troops, given more money and suffered the most physical, economic and emotional harm for the glorious cause of revolution, they should be in charge.
After the British surrendered at Yorktown, regionalism again split the colonies. New England felt little in common with the Carolinas and the frontier villages. The debate over the Constitution exposed those same rifts — and endangered the postwar project in the process.
The House of Representatives was carefully calibrated to prevent highly populated cities from controlling rural regions. And our since-abandoned selection of senators by elected state officials was shamelessly orchestrated to prevent uneducated rabble from having too much influence.
The Electoral College was a compromise to protect regional differences and various prejudices, especially the fear among small states that more populous states would control the selection of a president.
As we've grown, regionalism — both between states and within them — has always remained a divisive force.
Out here in western Pennsylvania, the Whiskey Rebellion was a frantic, poorly organized challenge meant to force the coastal elite to pay attention to the needs of frontier families who were settling the region.
Elites were unhappy because of all of the land awarded to the Revolutionary War veterans and the taxes they expected to have to pay to provide the frontier families with roads, schools and forts.
While Andrew Jackson himself was not quite the populist that history makes him out to be, his rise to become the "people's president" was very much a frontier revolt against coastal domination.
The Civil War was, of course, about slavery. But that, too, had clear regional fault lines.
By the late 1800s, such factionalism took the form of groups like the National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry. Formed in 1867, it defiantly struggled to preserve rural life against the evils of urbanization, and it still pursues that mission today.
Immigration policy has always divided the country, often just as dependent on the economic needs or social difficulties faced by a particular region at a particular moment than on racial or ethnic considerations.
Small-town and rural America couldn't have cared less when heroin or opioids ravaged big cities for decades. Yet now that those drugs are destroying lives in the small towns of Ohio, West Virginia, Vermont or New Hampshire, they demand it be treated a full-blown national crisis.
The list goes on and on.
In a country as large and diverse as the United States, it should hardly surprise us that such factionalism exists. What's surprising is that elites are surprised — so much so that they portray it as rank racism or bigotry or stupidity and don't try to understand it.
Rural Americans don't want regional differences to be so divisive. By and large, they see such diversity as a strength. They want the states united. City-dwelling elites' response to Trump's victory will tell us whether they do, too.
This Is What Democracy Looks Like
by Salena Zito
Rural voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and other states have been there all along. They made themselves heard by electing Donald Trump and revealing to too many cloistered elites how much they resented being ruled from afar and ignored at the same time.
And the political class still doesn't get it, insisting on seeing President-elect Trump as a product of a historic, disturbing new tendency in American politics — regionalized factionalism — that pits backwoods rednecks against the worldly, integrated, sophisticated, educated seers of the cities.
Have they never read a history book?
News flash: The United States of America is made up of states. We've been fragmented by regionalism since before the Eastern Seaboard became the United States, and even as it was transformed into a squabbling collection of colonies unified in opposing British rule.
Remember how Massachusetts was vehemently opposed to giving a Virginia planter named George Washington command of the Continental Army? The state's residents believed that because they had fielded more troops, given more money and suffered the most physical, economic and emotional harm for the glorious cause of revolution, they should be in charge.
After the British surrendered at Yorktown, regionalism again split the colonies. New England felt little in common with the Carolinas and the frontier villages. The debate over the Constitution exposed those same rifts — and endangered the postwar project in the process.
The House of Representatives was carefully calibrated to prevent highly populated cities from controlling rural regions. And our since-abandoned selection of senators by elected state officials was shamelessly orchestrated to prevent uneducated rabble from having too much influence.
The Electoral College was a compromise to protect regional differences and various prejudices, especially the fear among small states that more populous states would control the selection of a president.
As we've grown, regionalism — both between states and within them — has always remained a divisive force.
Out here in western Pennsylvania, the Whiskey Rebellion was a frantic, poorly organized challenge meant to force the coastal elite to pay attention to the needs of frontier families who were settling the region.
Elites were unhappy because of all of the land awarded to the Revolutionary War veterans and the taxes they expected to have to pay to provide the frontier families with roads, schools and forts.
While Andrew Jackson himself was not quite the populist that history makes him out to be, his rise to become the "people's president" was very much a frontier revolt against coastal domination.
The Civil War was, of course, about slavery. But that, too, had clear regional fault lines.
By the late 1800s, such factionalism took the form of groups like the National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry. Formed in 1867, it defiantly struggled to preserve rural life against the evils of urbanization, and it still pursues that mission today.
Immigration policy has always divided the country, often just as dependent on the economic needs or social difficulties faced by a particular region at a particular moment than on racial or ethnic considerations.
Small-town and rural America couldn't have cared less when heroin or opioids ravaged big cities for decades. Yet now that those drugs are destroying lives in the small towns of Ohio, West Virginia, Vermont or New Hampshire, they demand it be treated a full-blown national crisis.
The list goes on and on.
In a country as large and diverse as the United States, it should hardly surprise us that such factionalism exists. What's surprising is that elites are surprised — so much so that they portray it as rank racism or bigotry or stupidity and don't try to understand it.
Rural Americans don't want regional differences to be so divisive. By and large, they see such diversity as a strength. They want the states united. City-dwelling elites' response to Trump's victory will tell us whether they do, too.
Comments