|
Title: The Patriot Post Digest 6-21-2016 Post by: nChrist on June 23, 2016, 02:36:36 AM ________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 6-21-2016 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription (http://patriotpost.us/subscription/new) ________________________________________ Mid-Day Digest Jun. 21, 2016 THE FOUNDATION “Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?” —Patrick Henry (1775) TOP RIGHT HOOKS Obama Reverses Course on Orlando 911 Transcripts1 On Monday, the FBI released the full transcripts of the 911 call Orlando jihadi Omar Mateen made during his deadly rampage. The FBI says the release was “in order to provide the highest level of transparency possible under the circumstances.” But this transparency came only after the outcry concerning the administration’s transparent propaganda effort2 in redacting those same transcripts. What did the full transcript reveal? For one thing, Barack Obama’s first transcript changed the word “Allah” to “God.” But more to the point, Mateen told the dispatcher, “My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.” That has been known since the day after the shooting, so why the redaction? Attorney General Loretta Lynch explained Sunday, “What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups and further his propaganda.” She later said she wanted to “avoid revictimizing those who went through this horror.” Wrong. This doctoring served only to further Obama’s bogus political narrative that this wasn’t Islamist terrorism committed by the so-called JV team he’s so thoroughly decimated. He killed Osama bin Laden! Islamist terrorism is a thing of the past. Right? Last week, Obama scolded those who see the threat clearly, insisting, “There’s no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ It’s a political talking point; it’s not a strategy.” Again, denying the obvious while lobbing a few bombs and repeatedly boasting victory isn’t a strategy, either. At least one administration official had some guts, though. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Monday that the attack in Orlando “reminds us that ISIL not only tyrannizes the population where it rose in Syria and Iraq, but it also wants to spread its evil ideology and to plot or inspire attacks on Americans, including here at home.” He then advocated a familiar strategy: Defeat Islamist terrorists over there so we don’t face them here at home. How long before he’s summoned to the Oval Office for a rebuke? Air Force Challenged for Ejecting Vet From Ceremony3 First Liberty Institute, a legal organization, gave Air Force leaders one week4 to issue a written apology to retired Senior MSGT Oscar Rodriguez Jr. before it would pursue legal action over a flag retirement ceremony at which Rodriguez was forcibly removed for mentioning God. As Mark Alexander first wrote5 in April, “There has been yet another example of Barack Obama’s top-down effort to eradicate any reference to faith by military personnel.” Rodriguez was invited to speak at the retirement ceremony of MSGT Chuck Roberson April 3. The U.S. military had stripped6 any mention of God in the retirement ceremony in 2005. But Roberson wanted the traditional ceremony — faith and all — just like he saw Rodriguez perform it a month before. This time, when Rodriguez mentioned the name of God, a group of maintenance personnel (not security) forcibly removed the veteran from the ceremony. “The Air Force had no right to assault a citizen, much less a 33-year military veteran, because they didn’t want him to mention ‘God,’” said7 Mike Berry, military affairs director at First Liberty Institute. “Mr. Rodriguez has a constitutional right to free speech and religious expression, even on a military base. The military broke the law and abused its power. We expect the Air Force to hold those responsible accountable, and allow Mr. Rodriguez to continue honoring the flag and other veterans who have sacrificed for our country.” It’ll be quite a fight, for the policies that seek to scrub the faith that sustains many a man and woman in uniform comes straight from the commander in chief. Real Fight for Gun Rights Will Be After the Election8 Senate Republicans actually outmaneuvered Democrats Monday, putting them on the record opposing not only the Second Amendment but the Fifth as well. Last night, the Senate voted on four measures9 that would have amended the nation’s gun policies. The Left proposed bills that would close the practically nonexistent10 “gun show loophole” and ban anyone on a terror watch list from purchasing firearms. Republicans answered with bills that would have increased funding for the National Instant Background Check and instituted a wait period for anyone on the watch list seeking to buy a firearm. This would give the government time to investigate the individual and file a court order to stymie the purchase, but without eviscerating due process. In other words, Democrats wanted to give nameless bureaucrats the ability to take away someone’s Second Amendments rights by trampling Fifth Amendment protections. Naturally, all four measures failed. Republicans opposed Democrats' excessive gun control policies that would not have prevented the Orlando jihadist from getting his hands on weapons. And Democrats, wanting only to score political points during an election year, opposed Republican plans because they didn’t go as far as Democrats demanded. But the real fight to preserve the right to keep and bear AR-15-style arms will be decided in the courts. The Supreme Court declined11 to hear a case that would have challenged the bans Connecticut and New York placed on military style firearms and guns with high-capacity magazines. Monday’s announcement keeps the lower courts' rulings upholding the laws in place. Part of the reason is that, without a ninth judge, SCOTUS would likely split 4-4. The Fourth Circuit may rule12 Maryland’s ban unconstitutional, and that conflict in the lower courts may compel SCOTUS to act. And judges the next president nominates will determine the outcome. Don’t Miss Patriot Humor Check out Paul Revere, Social Justice Warrior13. If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here14. BEST OF RIGHT OPINION Rich Lowry: The Irrelevant Crusade15 Thomas Sowell: The Gun Control Farce16 Cal Thomas: Logic-Free Zone17 For more, visit Right Opinion18. TOP HEADLINES An Illegal Immigrant Tried to Kill Donald Trump19 Justices Reject Challenge to Connecticut ‘Assault’ Weapons Ban20 SCOTUS Orders Labor Dept. to Clarify Overtime Rules21 For more, visit Patriot Headline Report22 FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS Biden’s Bluster on Foreign Policy23 By Paul Albaugh On Tuesday, Joe Biden delivered a speech to the Center for New American Security, a defense establishment think tank located in Washington DC. Instead of talking about Barack Obama’s foreign policy — feckless and failed as it is — Biden took the occasion to bash the foreign policy of the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump. Biden never mentioned Trump by name, nor did he mention Hillary Clinton by name when he offered support for her foreign policy vision. (Perhaps that’s because he’s still waiting in the wings24, just in case.) The implications he made, however, were quite obvious — he loathes Trump’s foreign policy while he dreams of carrying on Obama’s abysmal record. Biden went into attack mode, singling out several of Trump’s more drastic positions such as implementing a temporary ban on foreign Muslims entering the U.S., attacking the families of terrorist suspects and using new forms of torture for interrogation methods. The Veep lectured, “Adopting the tactics of our enemies” would be “deeply, deeply damaging to our security.” He added, “There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. … Some of the rhetoric I’m hearing sounds designed to radicalize all 1.4 billion.” Biden also remarked that American leadership stems from “our ability to lead by example and draw partners to our side. That’s what’s always made America great,” he said, “not empty bluster. Not a sense of entitlement that fundamentally disrespects our partners. Not the attitude and insecurity of a bully.” Title: The Patriot Post Digest 6-21-2016 Post by: nChrist on June 23, 2016, 02:37:49 AM ________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 6-21-2016 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription (http://patriotpost.us/subscription/new) ________________________________________ He also went after Trump’s famous promise to build a wall on the Mexican border, arguing that doing so will bring “a return of anti-Americanism and a corrosive rift throughout our hemisphere.” Not only that, he railed, “Wielding the politics of fear and intolerance — like proposals to ban Muslims from entering the United States or slandering entire religious communities as complicit in terrorism — calls into question America’s status as the greatest democracy in the history of the world.” For Biden to go after Trump’s foreign policy position so vehemently is quite rich. He accused Trump of having “extreme” positions on foreign policy, yet never once mentioned the extreme positions of his own boss. Biden, Obama and their administration’s political correctness on terrorism is extreme. Redacting Mateen’s 911 call because it revealed that he was indeed a radical Islamist is extreme. Refusing to call Islamic terrorists for who they are is extreme. Accusing Christians, conservatives and Republicans of fueling hatred and violence toward the LGBT community is extreme. Partnering with a country such as Iran taht hates America and vows to annihilate both our own nation and Israel is extreme. Accepting hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees — infiltrated by who knows how many Islamic State jihadis — is extreme. Throwing support behind Clinton, who is without a doubt unfit for office, and who stated back in November that Muslims “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism,” is extreme. The list of extremes from Obama, Biden and Clinton could fill a book. Recall also in 2010, Biden boasted that abandoning Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of this administration.” And on the 2012 campaign trail, he promised, “You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.” Perhaps Biden should have taken a look at his past erroneous statements on foreign policy matters before hammering away at Trump. Or maybe Biden could have explained why he, Obama, Clinton and the entire Democrat Party are practically sympathetic toward radical Islamists. As National Review’s Andrew McCarthy explains25, “Obama is not really pro-jihadist; he is anti-anti-terrorist. As long as they don’t appear to be blowing up buildings, sharia supremacists are not only shielded from scrutiny; our president welcomes the [Muslim] Brotherhood into our national-security apparatus in order to reverse what progressives see as the dangerous excesses of real counterterrorism.” And so is everyone he has appointed to surround him. Very few in Obama’s administration will use the term “Islam” in any statement about terrorism. Why not? Maybe it’s because Obama’s worldview includes such statements as the one he made to the UN just after the Benghazi attack in 2012: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” We imagine that the perpetrators of the several Islamist terrorist attacks on U.S. soil under his watch would heartily agree. Instead of focusing on national security for America, Obama has tried to appease Muslims all over the world. He does nothing to go after the perpetrators of Islamic jihad, and instead blames everything but their ideology. Despite the reality that the world is a far more dangerous place under this commander in chief, his VP still had the audacity to go after Trump simply because Trump’s foreign policy would be a 180 degree turn from the past seven and a half years. The response to Biden’s speech can be summed up in three words: What a joke. MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST Pay Attention to Reality, Not Politics26 Restaurant Owner Bans ‘Assault’ Rifle Owners27 Anti-Gun Charlatan Shoots Himself in the Foot28 Conservatives Can Support Gun Control for IRS29 Sen. Collins' Gun Control ‘Compromise’ Falls Short30 Studies Suggest Abstinence Programs Are Working31 OPINION IN BRIEF Rich Lowry: “It’s hard to think of any other area where a political party is so thunderously self-righteous while not caring whether its proposals would materially change anything or not. … What the Democrats really want is symbolic victories against gun ownership and the gun culture, which they loathe. Their instinct was to make Orlando as much about the NRA, and as little about ISIS, as possible. It is telling that one of the more sweeping gun-control measures of the past 30 years, the since-lapsed assault-weapons ban, had to do less with the functionality of the prohibited guns than their cosmetic features. It was a victory for show (and had little or no effect on gun violence). Since their current gun-control agenda isn’t going to make a practical difference, Democrats might as well try to shift the terrain of the debate by working to make proposals for a wide-ranging gun ban and confiscation more mainstream. The politics would be (deservedly) treacherous, and any such measures would run afoul of the Second Amendment, but at least the stakes would match the Democrats' passionate intensity. The risk, though, is too much for them. Which means they will almost certainly continue their irrelevant crusade." SHORT CUTS Observations: "Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) recently disclosed that a congressional investigation has found at least 72 employees of the Department of Homeland Security listed on the U.S. terrorist watch list. In other news, President Obama used a memorial service for the victims of the Orlando massacre to advocate for more gun control laws. Anyone else see a contradiction in these two items? … Truth is often a casualty in politics, but in a presidential election year it has become a mass casualty.” —Cal Thomas For the record: “The administration’s purpose … is not to frustrate terrorist propaganda but to further its own propaganda. As with Benghazi, a terror attack on President Obama’s watch could imperil Democratic prospects in November. Thus the administration has been at pains to pin the Orlando attack on armed Americans, not Islamic terrorism.” —James Taranto Non Compos Mentis: “The assault rifle traces back to Nazi Germany. … Tuck that somewhere in the back of your mind. The first people to really utilize this weapon were Nazis. Not our forefathers. Not Thomas Jefferson. Not George Washington. No matter where we stand on the volatile gun control issue, we might think twice about that before boldly embracing assault rifles as part of our American heritage.” —Detroit Free Press columnist Mitch Albom (It’s actually true that the Nazis invented the first assault rifle. They also invented the first jets, the first ICBMs and the first cruise missile. Perhaps the U.S. should stop using all these things, considering their origins.) Braying Jenny: “The @SenateGOP have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.” —tweet from Sen. Elizabeth Warren following Monday’s failed gun control votes Alpha Jackass: “Despite the media’s framing of [the Orlando massacre] as a terrorist attack, we are very clear that this terror is completely homegrown, born from the anti-Black white supremacy, patriarchy and homophobia of the conservative right and of those who would use religious extremism as a weapon to gain power for the few and take power from the rest. … The enemy is now and has always been the four threats of white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, and militarism. These forces and not Islam create terrorism.” —Black Lives Matter statement And last… “While President Obama is on a rant about gun control, please don’t interrupt him by asking why he’s allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons.” —Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest 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. |