|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: November 23, 2013, 12:02:18 AM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Friday Digest 11-22-2013
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
THE FOUNDATION
“A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired.” –Alexander Hamilton
GOVERNMENT & POLITICS
‘If You Like the Rules, You Can Keep the Rules’
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) dropped a bomb on the Senate this week by “going nuclear” and changing the rules for filibustering Barack Obama’s nominees. Appellate court and executive nominees now can be confirmed with an up or down majority vote. The surprise move is just another in a long line of Obama’s rule-changing, cheating and lying to pass his agenda.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) got it right: “[Reid] might just as well have said, ‘If you like the rules of the Senate, you can keep them!’” Maybe he’s just regretting that Republicans didn’t do this 10 years ago.
The Senate’s nuclear option is the latest of Obama’s autocratic power grabs – this time to stack the courts with far-Left judges before the 2014 election. He is principally concerned with packing the DC Circuit Court, which will hear most challenges to ObamaCare. While some suggest this rule change was done to distract from the ObamaCare mess, we think ObamaCare’s ubiquitous failure will actually serve as cover for this maneuver. In two days, Senate rules will be off the radar.
Now for some history. The filibuster was rarely used to block nominations until Democrats lost the Senate in 2002 and decided to torpedo as many of George W. Bush’s nominations as they could. When Republicans considered ways to do something about that, Democrats threw a hissy fit about the “tradition of the Senate.” In 2005, then-Sen. Barack Obama argued, “The talk of the ‘nuclear option’ is more about power than about fairness.” Then-Sen. Joe Biden declared, “The nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power.” Harry Reid warned that changing the rules was “un-American” and “illegal,” and in 2008 promised never to bring it up for a vote.
This week, however, Reid finally pulled the trigger and changed the rules. Obama also changed his tune: “Today’s pattern of obstruction, it just isn’t normal. It’s not what our founders envisioned. A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to refight the results of an election, is not normal. … So I support the step a majority of senators today took to change the way that Washington is doing business.”
For Obama to invoke “what our Founders envisioned” is laughable. Actually, our Founders set forth clear protections to keep majority rule in line with our Constitution – protections which were clearly explained in Federalist Papers No. 64-661.
Meanwhile, file this disgraceful episode with Obama’s other lying, cheating and stealing. We now know that ahead of the 2012 election, in order to ensure his re-election, Obama repeatedly lied about ObamaCare2, lied about Benghazi3 so as not to detract from his “al-Qaida conquerer image,” his administration surrogates used the IRS to disable political opponents4, and manipulated critical jobs numbers5 so as not to undermine the facade that his economic policies were succeeding. If the leftist agenda is so great, why the dishonest tactics?
CULTURE, SCIENCE & FAITH
Military Oath Alteration Update
Barack Obama’s administrators are constantly endeavoring to drive wedges between Liberty and its inherent foundational endowment8. Most notably, he has done this in those spheres where he can exercise autocratic regulatory power without legislative and judicial interference – such as in the Department of Defense.
As commander in chief, Obama has certainly succeeded in suppressing religious expression by uniformed Patriots in our military service branches. However, his subversion of their freedom to express faith is not going without objection.
Last year, The Patriot Post uncovered what appeared to be a legal setup by Obama’s DoD civilian administrators and their surrogates – a setup that has the potential to force the removal of “so help me God” from all military oaths9. That strategic ploy starts with the 2011 removal of those words from the officer, enlisted and cadet oaths in the Air Force Academy’s official handbook. Three weeks ago, we published a detailed followup of that strategy10 after one of Obama’s surrogates issued a formal challenge to remove “so help me God” from the Cadet Honor Oath. This week, in response to that column, 28 members of Congress issued an official letter of inquiry to the Superintendent11 of the Air Force Academy asking for “a detailed explanation as to why [they omitted] ‘so help me God’ from these oaths, despite the fact that the phrase is used in the very statutory language of the United States Code, and was part of the military oath drafted by the Founders themselves.”
A Fox News report12 notes the AFA’s Public Affairs Office claims that the alterations were “an editorial oversight.” That is possible, but given the Obama administration’s aggressive faith suppression agenda in our military ranks, an “oversight” is questionable – especially since the omission was perpetuated in the 2012 and 2013 AFA handbooks. Moreover, when Mark Alexander first inquired about the oath alterations in 2012, the Air Force Public Affairs Office refused to comment and said any further information about this issue would require a Freedom of Information Act request. Now that the congressional inquiry is underway, an FOIA request is being filed today in an effort to determine if anyone outside the AFA had a hand in the oath alterations.
NATIONAL SECURITY
Warfront With Jihadistan: Troops in Afghanistan
The U.S. and the Afghan government appear close to agreement on a joint security pact that will keep American troops in Afghanistan for the next decade. The deal is still subject to approval by the Afghan Loya Jirga, the large governing body made up of tribal leaders. However, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told that body he won’t sign the deal until after elections next April. The White House insists on a year-end deadline.
The agreement, which has been evolving through negotiations since 2013, sets a framework for the presence of American troops and their continued role in conjunction with Afghan security forces. Details are still fluid, but what is known is that approximately 15,000 American soldiers will remain in the country to train and assist in the continued fight against al-Qaida and Taliban forces.
The White House has kept the agreement quiet, most likely because it’s an about-face from Barack Obama’s previous desire to wash his hands of Afghanistan by the end of 2014. He perhaps was compelled to change his mind, however, after watching Iraq fall apart following the unilateral U.S. withdrawal in 2010. Al-Qaida has surged once again and spread to Syria and elsewhere. If we hope to have any chance of holding on to gains made in Afghanistan, we have no choice but to maintain a strong presence there. The real concern at this point is if 15,000 troops will be enough, and whether the Afghanistan National Security Force will develop its intelligence and equipment capabilities to a point where it will be able to handle the country’s defense on its own. The history of the conflict to this point doesn’t offer much to be confident about in either case.
ECONOMY, REGS & TAXES
House Votes on Energy Bills
The House passed three bills this week, largely along party lines, to ease restrictions on oil and gas drilling. The first bill aimed to streamline the permitting process by setting a 60-day deadline for drilling applications on federal lands. It passed 228-192 with 10 Democrats supporting the measure. The second, which passed 235-187 with a similar number of Democrats, would block the Interior Department from enforcing rules on hydraulic fracturing in states that already have their own regulations in place. The third bill, which passed with the help of 26 Democrats, would tighten the deadlines for rulings on natural gas pipeline projects.
These bills collectively seek to encourage an oil and gas boom that would boost the economy. As we noted Wednesday13, the International Energy Agency (IEA) recently announced that by 2015, the U.S. will top Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world’s leading oil producer and, in the next 20 years, will near energy independence.
But that all makes it a primary candidate for Barack Obama to oppose. Indeed, the White House issued a veto threat and the legislation stands little chance of reaching a Senate vote. Obama continues to hold fast to his claim that the federal government is helping the energy industry even though regulations continue to stymie any opportunities for effective development of America’s natural resources. |
