The Patriot Post Daily Digest 1-9-2014

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Daily Digest 1-9-2014
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Daily Digest

Jan. 9, 2014

THE FOUNDATION

“The most perfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason, and submitting to natural law. When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he becomes the slave of base passions and vile lusts; he introduces confusion and disorder into society, and brings misery and destruction upon himself. This, therefore, cannot be called a state of freedom, but a state of the vilest slavery and the most dreadful bondage.” –Samuel West (1776)

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
A Poor Record on Poverty

Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty” has cost more than $20 trillion over 50 years while the percentage of Americans living below the federal poverty line fell only slightly. It’s also no surprise that the poor have become poorer under Barack Obama’s redistribution policies. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of the population living in short-term poverty (two months to three years) between 2005 and 2007 was 27%. Between 2009 and 2011, however, that number increased to 31.6%. The number of Americans receiving food stamps has ballooned to 47 million, which is 13 million more than in 2009. Obama’s solution to this malaise is to harp on class warfare. Extending unemployment benefits and welfare while raising the minimum wage won’t cut it – unless poverty is the goal.

Semantics of Welfare

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) says that maybe the problem with welfare is calling it welfare. “Maybe the word welfare should be changed to something of, ‘a transitional living fund,’” she said. “For that is what it is – for people to be able to live.” If the war on poverty has become one of semantics, it’s a bad indication of the status of that war.

Obama’s Budget Backlog

Another year, another missed budget deadline. For the fifth time in six years, Barack Obama will not have a budget ready to send to Congress by the legal deadline of Feb. 1. The White House says it’s at least a month behind schedule, which would be a slight improvement over last year – that one was two months late. There’s no consequence for Obama being late and plenty to gain politically, which is the only reason he brushes his teeth in the morning. Delaying his budget means appropriators can’t really begin their own budget work, and it means less time for pre-election battles over spending. Then again, a budget implies spending within one’s means. It would be more fitting for the administration to simply abandon the pretense.

Penalty Flag for Redskins

The name of a football team is still leaving leftists red-faced. The Washington Redskins have been the target of a renewed effort1 to purge the politically incorrect term from our midst. The latest development in this ridiculous kerfuffle is that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) rejected a pork rind company’s bid to trademark the name “Redskins Hog Rinds” because the name is “derogatory slang.” Though the NFL team isn’t affiliated with the pork rinds maker, the determination could spell trouble for the Redskins as the PTO is presently considering its trademark. If the trademark is revoked, the team may have no choice but to succumb to political pressure from the professionally aggrieved.

Biden’s Gloomy Outlook

Joe Biden was in New York Tuesday discussing ways government investments in infrastructural projects have helped propel the state after Hurricane Sandy swept through the Northeast. And despite the bitter, record shattering Arctic airmass that gripped most of the nation early this week, the vice president just had to throw the topic of man-made global warming into the mix. “If we don’t build smart, if we don’t build resiliency in the communities,” he warned,“ we’re not going to be able to in the next two, five, 10, 20 years, live along the coast.” He followed up with his own foolproof outlook: “Now, I know there’s global warming deniers,” he said. “I’m not going to get into that today, but the reality is, [storms like Sandy are] going to continue to happen.” Well, yeah. Mr. Biden should catch up on some history2.

For more, visit Right Hooks3.

RIGHT ANALYSIS
Little Sisters and Big Brother

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Both pieces of this statement – the so-called “Establishment Clause” and the “Free Exercise Clause” – were originally crafted as two sides of the same coin. The idea was that the federal government could not establish a “national religion,” nor could a federal law bar a citizen from worshipping in a manner he/she deemed fit.

Though the idea behind the “Religion Clauses” is simple enough – keeping government out of the religion business, as opposed to the Left’s preference of keeping religious citizens out of the government’s business – over the past 65 years the Free Exercise clause has slowly but steadily taken a back seat to the Establishment Clause. The upshot has been that if anything smacks of Christianity, it can have no part of a governmental rule, even if the result is to trample a person’s free exercise of religion.

Enter the Little Sisters of the Poor, a charitable organization of nuns who exercise their Catholic faith by caring for the elderly and terminally ill in nursing homes and hospices around the country. Under ObamaCare rules taking effect in 2014, all employer health plans must provide contraception coverage or else pay a hefty tax fine. For the Little Sisters, that penalty amounts to an eye-popping $2.5 million. To qualify for an exemption to these rules – a so-called “accommodation” – religious organizations must sign a statement certifying that, “on account of religious objections, the organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services that would otherwise be required to be covered.” This charade allegedly lets the organization off the hook for providing such coverage but only by shifting that responsibility to a third party. The Little Sisters rightfully claim that such an “accommodation” simply puts them in the worse position of forcing someone else to pay for something Little Sisters objects to on religious grounds.

Attacking this claim, the Obama Justice Department sought to block a temporary injunction to enforcement of the rule. The injunction was nonetheless granted by none other than Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The Justice Department’s counter is that the third-party organization that would have borne the responsibility of paying for contraceptives and abortifacients itself qualifies for an accommodation, too, since Little Sisters is insured under a church plan, also run by a Christian order. As Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued, since everyone is effectively “off the hook,” Little Sisters has no basis for its claim. Of course, the Obama administration has already promised to close this particular loophole in future rulemaking, but we digress.

However, Little Sisters' argument is that independent of whether the insurer is itself exempt, by signing the accommodation statement Little Sisters effectively endorses the insurer to fund things that are repugnant to Little Sisters and its members. That the insurer chooses not to fund these activities is a far cry from the Constitution’s guarantee that the Little Sisters can freely exercise their religious beliefs. But the real issue here is whether the state’s interest in enforcing a law that violates an individual’s – or, as here, an assembly of individuals' – deeply held religious convictions is sufficient to abridge a constitutional guarantee. The Constitution is abundantly clear on this answer: “No.” Unfortunately, however, for the current statist regime the answer is, “Yes, absolutely.”