|
Title: The Patriot Post Digest 3-17-2016 Post by: nChrist on March 17, 2016, 06:45:56 PM ________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 3-17-2016 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription (http://patriotpost.us/subscription/new) ________________________________________ Mid-Day Digest Mar. 17, 2016 THE FOUNDATION “The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people, and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, and both should be checks upon that.” —John Adams (1776) TOP RIGHT HOOKS Supreme Court Calculus1 The political implications are “yuge.” On Wednesday, Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia. Bill Clinton nominated Garland to the DC Circuit Court in 1995, and Obama insists he’s “uniquely qualified.” (It may be politically incorrect to say so, but we’re somewhat surprised Obama nominated an old white guy.) “This is precisely the time when we should play it straight,” Obama said, claiming Garland should be acceptable to Republicans in the Senate — in part because seven of them voted to confirm him (two years after his nomination) in 1997. Then again, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley opposed Garland 20 years ago. Garland certainly isn’t as far left as Obama could have gone with his pick, but is he anything like the originalist Constitution-defender that Scalia was. (Too few are.) While he didn’t take part in the ruling that eventually brought us the Supreme Court’s Heller decision on guns, he did vote for a full-court rehearing of the case — implying he thought both the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court were wrong to acknowledge the Second Amendment’s individual right to keep and bear arms. McConnell issued a statement holding his ground: “The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the court’s direction. The Senate will continue to observe the ‘Biden Rule’ so the American people have a voice in this momentous decision. The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate somebody very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in filling this vacancy.” That brings us to an enormous political calculation for both sides, but primarily Senate Republicans. So far, they’ve rhetorically held the line, saying, “No Obama nominees will receive a hearing.” But that’s different from actually holding the line. And right now Republicans must be asking themselves this question: “Do we take Obama’s bait — a.k.a. the "moderate” white guy nominee — while we control the Senate, or do we risk Hillary Clinton fast-tracking a leftist through a Democrat Senate if Donald Trump loses2?“ In our estimation, they should hold the line, and then fight like hell to ensure the second scenario doesn’t happen. It’s about time the legislative branch stood up to executive overreach. How Can Hillary Take on Trump?3 We’ve written on more than one occasion that Donald Trump is the weakest GOP contender in a head-to-head match-up with Hillary Clinton. The reasons are simple: Trump has deep and faithful support, but it’s not wide, and his opposition is just as deep and faithful. Voters view him more negatively than any other presidential contender since such things were tracked. He’s going to lose blacks and Hispanics — the latter maybe worse than Mitt Romney did. But there’s a wild card: disaffected white Democrats. We’ve also noted that many Democrats are crossing the aisle to vote for Trump. It’s possible that some number of them are doing so because they want to help choose a beatable opponent for their own incredibly weak frontrunner. Yet there have to be a large number of blue-collar Democrats who don’t want Clinton’s job-destroying policies4, and who just plain don’t trust her. More important, though, is this essential question: How can Clinton successfully attack Trump? What’s she going to hit him with? His marital history? His ethics? His honesty? His wealth? His Wall Street connections? His politically incorrect ways? On every one of those issues, one of two things applies: Her record is either as bad as or worse than his, or he’s managed to turn a "weakness” into a strength. Nothing may typify the latter better than his politically incorrect demeanor. Surely vast swaths of working class Democrats are tired of bowing to Clinton-style “progressive” thought control, and they find Trump’s unfiltered presentation a breath of fresh air. We have to admit — a Trump-Clinton debate would be reality TV worth watching. On a final note, we guarantee Democrats aren’t going to underestimate Trump the way establishment5 Republicans did. Why Is Kasich Still Running?6 While Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz attacked each other and Donald Trump rose on a wave of populism, Ohio Gov. John Kasich slipped up to third place in the Republican presidential primary. When he first announced his campaign in July 2015, we expected it would be short-lived. “He’s a long shot, and deservedly so,” we wrote7. That “long shot” estimation is as true now as it was then, even if his campaign wasn’t actually short-lived. Kasich survived despite tepid standing in the polls and obscurity on the debate stage. He stretched his resources by only focusing on key states, like New Hampshire and Ohio, where his moderate stances could gain traction. Now he’s the last candidate in the race with legislative and executive experience — governor of the swing state of Ohio, and former congressman who headed the House Budget Committee and reformed federal spending in the ‘90s. And he’s the establishment’s last holdout. He calls himself the “prince of light and hope” and yet comes off as abrasive and unscripted as Trump. He recently told an 11-year-old boy who asked him about the Islamic State to imagine a woman he loved being beaten8 “to a living pulp.” Kasich’s experience is tempered by his social policies. He muscled an ObamaCare expansion in his state based on a misunderstanding of Christian charity, and he proposed turning Voice of America9 into a propaganda tool to promote Judeo-Christian values. These stances — possibly driven by his Anglican faith10 — make the candidate a big-government advocate, and not a true champion of limited government. Kasich’s only path to the nomination is through a contested convention. But his more likely play is to become Trump’s running mate — a way for the establishment5 to absorb Trump and save the GOP. Either way, Kasich plays a role. Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column Read On Presidential Character11 from Washington to…? — current presidential contenders considered in the context of American history. If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here12. BEST OF RIGHT OPINION Ben Shapiro: What a Trump Nomination Means for Conservatives13 Veronique de Rugy: Anticipating the Effects of Overtime, Over Time14 Victor Davis Hanson: The Buck Never Stops Here15 For more, visit Right Opinion16. FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS Restoring Our Republic17 By Arnold Ahlert Reality may be painful, but the first step toward mitigation is to confront the source. If there is anything the current election season has demonstrated beyond a doubt, it is that Americans have irreconcilable differences. The political Left and Right are worlds apart, and it appears that nothing — not even an existential threat to our way of life, be it terror, unrestrained illegal immigration, economic catastrophe or cultural disintegration — will elicit anything resembling a broad-based coalition to address the problem. Thus the nation is at a crossroad during a time when our leaders appear fundamentally incapable of bridging the ideological divide. Yet none of them ask the essential question: Why is it even necessary to do so? We begin with the source of the division. One sentence18 from Ronald Reagan’s First Inaugural Address says it all: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” No one is naive enough to advocate the complete elimination of government. Yet there is government and there is big government. The most infuriating government is the sprawling, incompetent, ever-expanding bureaucratic sinkhole that emanates from Washington, DC. The reason for this condition is simple: Americans have countenanced the evolution of an all-consuming federal leviathan, so removed from the original constraints of the Constitution that it has become unrecognizable. Title: The Patriot Post Digest 3-17-2016 Post by: nChrist on March 17, 2016, 06:47:04 PM ________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 3-17-2016 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription (http://patriotpost.us/subscription/new) ________________________________________ It wasn’t always that way in America, yet it’s no secret that a huge portion of the nation likes this pernicious evolution because, unlike Ronald Reagan, they do believe government is the solution to all of our problems. Moreover, they have become so determined to continue down this path that they now vilify and/or censor anyone who stands against it. Any diminution of the federal government’s power is utterly anathema to the American Left, because without the coercive effects of that top-down, one-size-fits-all federal bureaucracy, their power would be severely diminished. Yet there is a proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. That’s because we are the United States of America — 50 separate constituencies where the locus of most power ought to reside. The states are where people live, work and play, and there is no good reason why people in a conservative state like Utah should be forced by the federal leviathan to live their lives exactly like the people in a leftist state like New York — or vice versa. Why not return as much power as possible to the states? Certainly the Left would complain, but they have their fiefdoms where their power is virtually absolute. Imagine a nation where California could roll out the welcome mat to illegal aliens and Texas could shut down its border. Imagine abortion restrictions handled on a state-by-state basis. Imagine a 50 state experiment to determine a health care system that actually works, rather than everyone forced to live under the disaster of ObamaCare. Imagine a nation where one could far more clearly measure successes and failures of ideology without the federal government’s thumb on the scale. The mechanisms are already in place. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” states the Ninth Amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” states the Tenth Amendment. This is by no means a perfect solution to everything that ails us. There are, by necessity, critical decisions that must be made at the federal level. Yet if more of the power resided in the states, national consensus would be easier to achieve for two reasons: The people’s current sense of powerlessness would be mitigated, and ideas about what works and what doesn’t would be far more obvious. What would also be far more obvious are the genuine motivations of those who would categorically resist such a re-empowerment of the states and individual Americans. Their lust for unbridled power would be exposed when they make it clear they believe most Americans are incapable of handling Liberty without the coercive guidance that accrues far more perniciously at the federal level. And Americans themselves might re-discover an immutable reality: In the overwhelming majority of cases, effective government operates from the local level upward, not the federal level downward. We will always be a divided nation. But there are levels of division that are toxic, and levels that are healthy. In a nation of 320 million people, comprised of every ethnic, religious and racial group imaginable, one-size-fits-all is a toxic enterprise. Americans need to seek out political candidates who genuinely champion the restoration of federalism and individual rights. In short, American Liberty. MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE ANALYSIS: Why Are Voters Mad? Look at the Budget.19 Former Politician Guilty of Corruption to Support Clinton20 What the Toronto-Chattanooga Terror Attacks Have in Common21 Obama Wages an Inefficient War22 NYPD Morale Can’t Get Much Worse23 California Sheriffs Oppose State’s Proposed Gun Law24 No Room to Doubt Climate Change?25 TOP HEADLINES Kerry Finally Declares Islamic State Is Committing Genocide26 NSA Rejected Clinton’s Request for Smartphone Over Security Concerns27 DOJ Confirms: 'El Chapo’ Had Rifle From ‘Fast and Furious’ Operation28 For more, visit Patriot Headline Report29 OPINION IN BRIEF Ben Shapiro: “For years, conservatives have told themselves the pretty bedtime story that they represent a silent majority in America — that most Americans want smaller government, individual rights and personal responsibility. We’ve suggested that if only we nominated precisely the right guy who says the right words — some illegally grown Ronald Reagan clone, perhaps — we’d win. Donald Trump’s impending nomination puts all of that to bed. … In order to rebuild, conservatives must recognize that they think individually; leftists think institutionally. While the left took over the universities — now bastions of pantywaist fascism hell-bent on destroying free speech — the right slept. While the left took over the public education system wholesale, the right fled to private schools and homeschooling. While the left utilized popular culture as a weapon, conservatives supposedly withdrew and turned off their televisions. Withdrawal, it turns out, wasn’t the best option. Fighting back on all fronts is. Republicans need to worry less about the next election and significantly more about building a movement of informed Americans who actually understand American values. That movement must start with outreach to parents, and it must extend to the takeover of local institutions or defunding of government institutions outright. The left has bred a generation of Americans who do not recognize the American ideals of the Founding Fathers. Pretending otherwise means flailing uselessly as demagogues like Trump become faux-conservative standard-bearers.” SHORT CUTS Insight: “The shallow consider liberty a release from all law, from every constraint. The wise see in it, on the contrary, the potent Law of Laws.” —Walt Whitman (1819-1892) For the record: “In his remarks Wednesday, Mr. Obama praised Judge Garland for ‘building consensus’ among colleagues and showing an ability to ‘assemble unlikely coalitions, persuade colleagues with wide-ranging judicial philosophies to sign onto his opinions.’ But that’s also what President Bill Clinton said when nominating Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993. Mr. Clinton said then Judge Ginsburg was a ‘moderate’ who was ‘balanced and fair in her opinions’ and would be ‘a force for consensus-building on the Supreme Court, just as she has been on the Court of Appeals.’ Today, Justice Ginsburg is the most liberal member of the Court and uses her consensus-building skills to keep fellow liberals in lockstep.” —Wall Street Journal Upright: “President Obama claims that picking Judge Merrick Garland rises above politics. It does the exact opposite: He would have chosen someone else if he weren’t pressuring Republican senators not to wait until next year. … If Republican senators give in to the pressure and even consider Garland after pledging not to, they would be telling the world that they believe Hillary Clinton will be elected president in November, and that Garland is the best they can get. … ‘I hope they’re fair,’ Obama said of GOP senators. Fair is the position they’ve already taken: Leave this court pick to the president that Americans elect this year.” —Investor’s Business Daily Race bait: “There’s going to be a lot of concern about this choice by many people who are Obama supporters who wanted to see more diversity on the court. [Judge Garland] is a white male.” —NBC’s Ron Allen Took you long enough: “In my judgement [the Islamic State] is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control, including Yazidis, Christians and Shia Muslims. [ISIL] is genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology, and in what it says and what it believes and what it does.” —John Kerry Late-night humor: “Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg have signed on to make a new Indiana Jones sequel set for release in 2019. It will be like the other movies, but now when he cracks his whip the sound is actually coming from his knees.” —Seth Meyers Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis! Managing Editor Nate Jackson 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. |