The Patriot Post Wednesday Digest 12-18-2013

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Wednesday Digest 12-18-2013
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

THE FOUNDATION

“If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.” –Candidus

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS
Second Amendment: Sheriffs and the Constitution

In December 2012, a madman murdered 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. First, he murdered his mother in order to steal her guns. The Left wasted no time in calling for all manner of anti-gun legislation1 to “do something” about the problem, despite the fact that everything the murderer did that day was already illegal. Congress, fortunately, ended up doing nothing, leaving states to enact their own laws. Some, such as Colorado and New York, acted on their emotional panic by passing tyrannical and draconian laws banning standard-capacity magazines for guns and other such nonsensical and unconstitutional restrictions.

The good news is that executing the law is at least partially left to sheriffs, and quite a few are declining to enforce these horrible gun laws. In fact, reports The New York Times2, “All but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.” Even those who declined to join the suit admitted that enforcement will be a “very low priority” because enforcement would be a nightmare. Sheriff John Cooke asked a crowd to distinguish between a magazine bought before the ban and one bought after the ban. (Hint: They look exactly alike.) Politically, two Colorado Democrats were recalled3 for their votes, and a third resigned rather than face the same fate.

In New York, two sheriffs publicly opposed the state’s new laws, which Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo warned would set “a dangerous and frightening precedent.” We can understand why Democrats would find following the Constitution “dangerous and frightening,” but as for ignoring laws, the president himself set the precedent and the bar is low – political inconvenience is sufficient reason for him. At least these sheriffs have legitimate constitutional objections.

ECONOMY, REGS & TAXES
A New Export Commodity?

A legacy of the 1970s oil crunch is a restriction placed on most oil exports. Put into place by Congress through a series of bills in the wake of the first major energy crisis, the laws require would-be exporters to receive special permission from a bureau of the Commerce Department. But the dam may be ready to break, as surging supplies of domestic oil provide the opportunity for suppliers to expand the market beyond the current level of just 95,000 barrels a day, which mostly goes to Canadian refineries.

Ironically, one problem with our current system of refineries is that they are set up for the heavier, lower-quality crude imported from Mexico, Venezuela and the Middle East. American crude oil is considered to be lighter and of a higher quality, making it desirable in other markets.

The drive to open up the export market got an unexpected boost from Energy Secretary Dr. Ernest Moniz, who told reporters that the issue “deserve(s) some new analysis and examination in the context of what is now an energy world that is no longer like the 1970s.” This approach, never mind the very suggestion of helping the domestic oil industry, stands in stark contrast to the heavy emphasis – and well-documented failed subsidies – on renewable energy under Moniz’s predecessor, Dr. Steven Chu.

Obviously the export of American crude would have an effect on the oil market, but experts can’t be sure how that would affect domestic gasoline prices. Opponents of lifting the ban claim gasoline prices would rise due to shorter domestic supplies, but until American refineries are retrofitted to accommodate better-quality oil it’s probable that lower overall crude oil prices will benefit American motorists. Furthermore, making America an export player in the global oil market can provide a counterweight to the geopolitical force of OPEC.

While the Energy Department cannot change the rules enacted by the Commerce Department, Moniz expressed the willingness to provide technical analysis on the issue. Congress can also pitch in by revisiting its four-decade old legislation and repealing it to embrace the new reality of America the bountiful.

NATIONAL SECURITY
Iran’s Bid for Oil Deals

Iran continues talking nice as it moves ever more toward its goal of throwing off international sanctions while keeping its nuclear program alive and well. This week Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif claimed that Iran is “100% committed to reaching a comprehensive final agreement” over its nuclear program. We can easily imagine they are committed, but not to a deal satisfactory to anyone except themselves. Iran’s desired “final agreement” would enshrine uranium enrichment capability, leave the Arak heavy water reactor intact, leave Iran in possession of every gram of its enriched uranium inventory, and leave all 19,000 centrifuges in place. In short, it would leave Iran capable of developing nuclear weapons, with the only obstacles being technical and political. That’s exactly where they are now after the temporary agreement6 reached last month.

As expected, an Iran now free of some sanctions has been actively courting major oil companies around the globe to invest in its petroleum industry, including British Petroleum, Dutch Shell, France’s Total – even U.S. firms Exxon and ConocoPhillips. Iran has perhaps a year to get these industry giants involved in lucrative deals in order to increase economic leverage in resistance to future sanctions. European support will be critical for any sanctions. Would they be more or less likely to support future sanctions if it meant their economies would forfeit multi-billion dollar deals, along with their citizens paying higher prices at the gas pump? It’s a shrewd move by the Iranians, and it will almost certainly pay dividends – for them.

CULTURE, SCIENCE & FAITH
Judge Rules Against Contraception Mandate

In the first permanent ruling on the ObamaCare contraceptive mandate, a Brooklyn judge sided with a group of Catholic organizations, saying that they do not have to fund their employees contraceptives. In doing so, the judge reaffirmed religious freedom as one of the most important rights in this country.

Archdioceses are already exempt from the mandate; however, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services thought it could force religious schools and health care providers to comply. U.S. District Court Judge Brian Cogan disagreed, stating this would be tantamount to making them support a “repugnant belief.” Most importantly in this era of judicial activism, Cogan stated, “It’s not for this court to say otherwise.”

Now, we must wait and see if other justices rule along those lines. Several for-profit organizations, such as Hobby Lobby, are also fighting for their right to adhere to religious beliefs. How the courts find in these cases will determine the future “health” of the contraceptive mandate. We certainly don’t think it passes constitutional muster, and experts say the government would have to show that it has a “substantial interest” in forcing companies to fund contraception to their employees. Exit question: Why is it that leftists want you to stay out of their bedroom but pay for what they do in it?