|
Title: The Patriot Post Digest 6-27-2017 Post by: nChrist on June 30, 2017, 05:13:42 PM ________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 6-27-2017 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription (http://patriotpost.us/subscription/new) ________________________________________ Mid-Day Digest Jun. 27, 2017 IN TODAY’S EDITION The Supreme Court’s Trinity Lutheran decision is an important win for religious liberty. But SCOTUS also denied a hearing on a critical Second Amendment case. Meanwhile, CNN is struggling to avoid fake news in the age of Trump. Daily Features: Top Headlines, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts. THE FOUNDATION “Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect.” —James Madison (1820) TOP RIGHT HOOKS A Win for Religious Liberty — SCOTUS and Trinity Lutheran1 The Supreme Court had a busy day Monday, issuing one important ruling after another. One of the more satisfying decisions was in the case of Trinity Lutheran, a religious school in Missouri that was denied state funds for a playground solely because it’s a church. In April, our Allyne Caan noted2 that the issue was whether Missouri can discriminate against religious institutions in public aid programs. Caan gave the background: “In 2012, the Missouri church, which also runs a daycare center and preschool program, applied for a grant through a state program that helps non-profits install rubber playground surfaces. The church’s application ranked fifth out of 44 submissions, yet Trinity was disqualified from receiving one of the 14 grants. The reason? The state claimed giving the church funds would violate the state constitutional provision against providing public funding for religious organizations.” If funding is going to be public, it should be available to everyone. Yet more than 30 states have what are known as Blaine Amendments that prohibit state funding of religious organizations, including schools. Those laws are now on shaky ground. In reversing a lower court ruling in Missouri’s favor, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Trinity Lutheran is not claiming any entitlement to a subsidy. It instead asserts a right to participate in a government benefit program without having to disavow its religious character. The ‘imposition of such a condition upon even a gratuitous benefit inevitably deters or discourages the exercise of First Amendment rights.’ Sherbert, 374 U. S., at 405. The express discrimination against religious exercise here is not the denial of a grant, but rather the refusal to allow the Church — solely because it is a church — to compete with secular organizations for a grant. … In this case, there is no dispute that Trinity Lutheran is put to the choice between being a church and receiving a government benefit. The rule is simple: No churches need apply.” Roberts concluded, “The exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution … and cannot stand.” It’s worth noting that only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. Religious liberty wins are great and important. Winning them 7-2 is even better. CNN’s Credibility Crisis3 CNN, in an effort to restore some semblance of journalistic integrity, accepted resignations from three veteran reporters after it had to retract their latest Trump/Putin collusion fake news report. The report alleged a nefarious meeting between the Russians and an associate of Donald Trump — quite a leap — claiming a single anonymous source. Not only was the story retracted but CNN also issued an apology to Anthony Scaramucci, the target of the story. The three who resigned are reporter Thomas Frank, editor Eric Lichtblau and executive editor Lex Haris. CNN didn’t admit that the story was bogus, but only that it “did not meet CNN’s editorial standards and has been retracted” and that “an internal investigation by CNN management found that some standard editorial processes were not followed…” “Some standard editorial processes?” After CNN retracted the article, it circulated an internal email explicitly warning reporters to gain approval before publishing anything “involving Russia.” CNNMoney executive director Rich Barbieri warned, “No one should publish any content involving Russia without coming to me and Jason [Farkas].” He continued “This applies to social, video, editorial and MoneyStream. No exceptions.” In an unusually candid admission, CNN producer John Bonifield says the Trump/Putin collusion reporting is “mostly bullsh-t right now.” Actually, it has been nothing more than that since the first report. Of course, the real “collusion” posing the greatest threat to Liberty4 is between the Democrat Party5 and its mainstream media outlets (the DemoMSM propaganda machine6) in their thinly veiled effort to derail Trump’s agenda7. And CNN is leading that charge — as you recall, a recent Harvard study on media bias8 found that 93% of CNN’s coverage of Donald Trump9 was negative. So what’s going on here? Apparently, CNN is facing an escalating credibility crisis10, and that may eat into its advertising revenue. As a leading news network that claims its brand upholds objective journalistic standards, the exposure of a plethora of fake news reports is seriously threatening that brand. Some media observers have sarcastically referred to CNN as the “Communist News Network,” but clearly CNN has a lot of “journalists” who have proven to be effective propagators of Russia’s “dezinformatsiya” campaign against Trump’s agenda. Top Headlines11 CBO: Senate health care bill will reduce deficit by $321 billion. (The Washington Free Beacon12) Groundbreaking minimum-wage study ties higher job loss to $15/hour wages. (National Review13) U.S. to list China among worst human trafficking offenders. (Reuters14) Refugee admissions at 48,856 — nearing Trump’s FY17 ceiling. (CNS News15) Illegals fleeing from Trump to Canada not faring too well there either. (Hot Air16) Government websites in U.S. hacked to display pro-ISIS message. (The Washington Free Beacon17) Trump assassination theater gets new $100,000 federal grant. (The Washington Free Beacon18.) Fast and Furious whistleblower says he became an “enemy of the state.” (The Daily Signal19) EU hits Google with a record antitrust fine of $2.7 billion. (CNBC20) Tennessee legislature responds to California’s travel ban in stinging official fashion. (Independent Journal Review21) Black Lives Matter slams gay pride parade. (The Daily Wire22) Policy: New study proves Seattle punishes the poor. (E2123) Policy: Comparing the market reforms of the BCRA and AHCA. (American Action Forum24) For more, visit Patriot Headline Report25. Don’t Miss Patriot Humor Check out What a Gas26. If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here27. FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS A Supreme Second Amendment Disgrace28 By Paul Albaugh The appointment several months ago of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court was a huge victory for conservatives. But after SCOTUS declined to hear an important case from the Ninth Circuit regarding Second Amendment rights, it’s clear that it will take several more conservative appointments to the High Court for right decisions to be made that protect individual freedom. Yesterday, the Court declined to hear the appeal of the case Peruta v. California. The Ninth Circuit last year declared29 that for a person to lawfully conceal carry a firearm, they must show “good cause” to obtain a permit to do so. (Notably, that was a self-reversal — an en banc court reversed the ruling of a three-judge panel that had decided in favor of the Second Amendment.) Good cause? How about the natural right to defend oneself and the fact that the Second Amendment to the Constitution clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Apparently in California, that right doesn’t exist, unless of course there is “good cause.” But what exactly is defined as a good enough cause to carry? Title: The Patriot Post Digest 6-27-2017 Post by: nChrist on June 30, 2017, 05:14:43 PM ________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 6-27-2017 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription (http://patriotpost.us/subscription/new) ________________________________________ San Diego County Sheriff William Gore defended California’s egregious gun law last year and in an LA Times op-ed defined “good cause” as “a set of circumstances that distinguishes the applicant from other members of the general public and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way.” Quite a flawed definition. Who decides what circumstances distinguish one applicant from another? And what might those circumstances be? Where one lives? What profession an individual has? Would being robbed, raped, assaulted, shot at, or threatened previously be good cause to be able to apply for a conceal carry permit? Why on earth do the Ninth Circuit, Sheriff Gore and others think someone must prove that they have “good cause” to lawfully exercise a right found in the plain language of the United States Constitution? Hence why we have the Supreme Court to step in when such violations of Liberty arise. Except that the High Court declined to step in and hear the case — which means that, for now, the Ninth Circuit ruling stands, infringing on the constitutional rights of Californians and others. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch were the only two justices who voted to hear the case, and the pair blasted their fellow justices for refusing to do so. In fact, they took the unusual step of writing a dissenting opinion despite no hearing. Justice Thomas had this to say30: “The Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.” Thomas continued, “Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively.” Indeed, it has, especially since so many lower federal courts have reached different conclusions on the Second Amendment and where and to whom it applies. Thomas added to his dissent, “This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller, to ‘bear arms’ means to ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” He further noted, “I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.” Worse, Thomas argued, is that the Court has declined numerous Second Amendment cases in recent years. “The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right,” Thomas wrote. “The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years — since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” Gun grabbers of all stripes are ecstatic that SCOTUS did not hear this case. However, yesterday’s decision should be a stark reminder that Liberty is still under attack by those who wish to control every aspect of citizens’ lives. This battle in California has been lost, at least for now. But there are numerous victories being won for gun rights around the country, and it could be that the Court revisits this case or another like it at some point. Keep your powder dry. MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST SCOTUS Upholds Trump’s Ban, So What of California’s?31 — A helpful comparison of a ban for the purposes of national security and one for the purposes of discrimination. SCOTUS to Rule on First Amendment Cake Baker’s Case32 — After years of putting it off the Supreme Court will finally rule on the legality of anti-discrimination laws vs. religious liberty. On National Security, Is America Its Own Worst Enemy?33 — Leakers are becoming an increasingly problematic “feature” of the U.S. intelligence community. BEST OF RIGHT OPINION Ryan Anderson: Supreme Court to Review Case of Christian Baker34 Stephen Moore: The Banana Republic of Illinois35 Cal Thomas: Unhealthy Acts36 For more, visit Right Opinion37. OPINION IN BRIEF Stephen Moore: “According to the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, Illinois’ pension payments are the major contributor to spending growth. Following the recent credit downgrade, Moody’s Investors Service cited the state’s overwhelming pension debt level as a contributor to the poor credit rating and negative outlook. In November, the state reported having $130 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, but Moody’s calculates that level of pension debt as twice as high, or $251 billion. A recent Hoover Institution analysis estimates Illinois’ pension funding ratio to be 29 percent, the lowest level in the United States. According to Donna Arduin, a former budget advisor to Gov. Rauner, if the pensions aren’t curtailed, as much as one in four tax dollars in the state will soon not go to schools, roads, health care, or police and fire but to pension payments to retired employees — many of whom no longer live in the state. … So what is the lesson for the rest of America? Soak-the-rich economics almost never works. As tax receipts keep sinking in Illinois, the safety net is tattered; the roads are in disrepair; crime is out of control in Chicago; and the state is home to some of the worst schools in the nation. When you try to soak the rich, they leave; the state goes bankrupt; and it’s the middle class that gets all wet. How’s that for tax fairness?” SHORT CUTS Insight: “There is no such thing as an achieved liberty: like electricity, there can be no substantial storage and it must be generated as it is enjoyed, or the lights go out.” —Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954) Upright: “Acting on the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife does not in itself entail ‘discriminating’ on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, part of the problem is that liberals are simply calling anything they disagree with ‘discrimination.’ This overbroad definition of ‘discrimination’ is part of what creates the problems for the free exercise of religion and free speech.” —Ryan T. Anderson For the record: “The essence of obstruction is to frustrate the search for truth. Its antithesis is to demand the exposure of fraud. Donald Trump’s political enemies are trying to build an obstruction case on the antithesis of obstruction: the president’s insistence that the collusion fraud be exposed.” —Andrew McCarthy Non Compos Mentis: “This [Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act] is supported, I am sure, by ISIS.” —Manhattan DA Cy Vance The BIG Lie: “We do know that many more people, hundreds of thousands of people, will die if this [GOP health care] bill passes.” —Nancy Pelosi Demo-gogues: “The Affordable Care Act has problems — deductibles are too high, copayments are too high — we have to address that. But I also want to say, that there’s something wrong when we remain the only country not to guarantee health care to all people as a right. I am going to go forward with a Medicare-for-all single payer program, and I think that’s the direction, long term, that we should be going.” —Bernie Sanders Wrong prescription: “I think [single-payer] probably is the best system. Because it is a system — we are such a rich country, in a sense we can afford to do it.” —Warren Buffett And last… “Sometimes the policy that makes you feel good doesn’t actually do good for those you’re trying to help.” —Mary Katharine Ham 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. |