The Patriot Post Digest 6-25-2015

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 6-25-2015
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Daily Digest

Jun. 25, 2015

THE FOUNDATION

“We must take human nature as we find it, perfection falls not to the share of mortals.” —George Washington, letter to John Jay, 1786

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Slain SC Pastor Teaches One Last Lesson1

The murderer in Charleston almost didn’t commit his crime because the people of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church were so kind to him when he entered the building. And even after his grisly act, family members of the slain extended grace to him2. Unfortunately, that’s not true of out-of-town rabble rousers who came Tuesday night to disturb the memorial. Protesters with bullhorns shouted, “Arm yourself or harm yourself,” and “Never forget, never forgive.” That, of course, is the antithesis of the Christian message. Church members and other locals discouraged the protesters, who eventually left. Meanwhile, the Left exploited the tragedy to take on the Confederate flag3, demanding the one flying on the state capitol grounds be removed (never mind it was put there by Democrat Gov. Ernest “Fritz” Hollings in defiance of federal civil rights legislation). Many Republicans even joined in calling for the flag’s removal. But here’s an interesting fact you won’t see on the nightly news: Pastor Clementa Pinckney, who was killed in the attack, voted in 2000 as a South Carolina state senator in favor of the compromise that kept the flag on capitol grounds. That sends a pretty powerful message that he didn’t seem to think the Confederate flag was a symbol worth censoring.

And don’t miss the fact that Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane Finally Got Those Duke Boys4 — no more “General Lee” Charger toys.

New Yorkers Say ‘No’ to SAFE Act5

The New York State Police initially shot down inquiries into how many “assault weapons6” have been registered with the state after its legislature enacted the SAFE Act in 2013, and we now have a pretty good idea why — because compliance is abysmal. On April 30, New York Supreme Court Judge Thomas McNamara ordered the State Police to disclose registration statistics. According to the figures, which were made public this week, just 23,847 gun owners have registered a total of 44,485 military-looking weapons. For perspective, that’s less than the 50,000 firearms registered under a similar law in Connecticut. Keep in mind, Connecticut has a population of 3.6 million, according to the Census Bureau. New York’s is 19.8 million. Just a small disparity. Keep in mind also that New Yorkers own somewhere around 1,000,000 of these so-called assault rifles, which would mean just 4% of eligible firearms have been registered. Leah Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, tried to put a positive spin on the numbers, responding, “Tens of thousands of people have complied with the law. That’s important. It shouldn’t be overlooked.” What shouldn’t be overlooked either is that the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers are exercising civil disobedience by rejecting a blatantly unconstitutional law. And they aren’t afraid to be jailed for it, either.

Pope’s Science Adviser’s Political Agenda Exposed7

An old adage from the Gospel of Matthew warns, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (7:15). Unfortunately, Pope Francis did just the opposite when writing the environmental portion of his encyclical8. Microbiologist Hans Schellnhuber is a science adviser to the Vatican, and also a fraud. Schellnhuber is in fact a strong believer in the Gaia hypothesis — in a nutshell, the worship of Mother Earth. “When Francis' encyclical was leaked last week, we wondered if his position on the man-made global warming question was ‘a misuse of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and the church at large,’” writes9 the Investor’s Business Daily editorial board. “Our conclusion has only been solidified by the revelation that the pope was in league with Schellnhuber. … From atheists to strong-arm redistributionists, this pope is unequally yoked with those who don’t share the tenets of his faith — but who are happy to use that faith to achieve their political aims. Yes, there’s truly something wrong here.”

Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column

Read Clinton’s Benghazi Cover Up 3.010, on what you need to know about the three iterations of Clinton’s BIG Lie cover-up on Benghazi.

If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here11.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
ObamaCare: SCOTUS Overrules Rule of Law12

By Nate Jackson

Once again, politics trumps Rule of Law13. The Supreme Court issued its ObamaCare14 subsidies ruling this morning, upholding the Obama administration’s lawless execution by a vote of 6-3.

We’ve noted the background on the subsidy issue numerous times15, but the summary is this: The language of the law restricted subsidies to people purchasing health insurance on state exchanges. When 34 states declined to serve as vassals of the federal government, Barack Obama decided to issue subsidies on the federal exchange as well. Some 27 states challenged that “interpretation” of the law.

Unfortunately, six black-robed despots agreed that lawlessness should stand.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying, “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

To do so, the Court decided that the law meant for the federal and state exchanges to be “equivalent” (even though it says no such thing) and, therefore, subsidies for both are intended by the law.

In fact, however, Democrats fully intended to limit the subsidies precisely in order to coerce states into setting up exchanges. ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber admitted as much16 in one of his infamous “speak-o’s.”

So this is yet another case in which SCOTUS made a decision based on what it deemed was “best for society” rather than rendering a ruling based on the law. Six million poor souls might have been kicked off the insurance rolls without a pleasing alternative to keep the taxpayer money flowing, you see, so the justices had to act. So they interpreted the law’s language to mean something it doesn’t mean and was never intended to mean. That kind of lawlessness is what got our country into its current mess in the first place.

And to think — then-Sen. Barack Obama voted against confirming John Roberts to the Court in 2005. Where would ObamaCare be without Roberts?

As National Review’s Quin Hillyer sums up, “With today’s Obamacare decision, John Roberts confirms that he has completely jettisoned all pretense of textualism. He is a results-oriented judge, period, ruling on big cases based on what he thinks the policy result should be or what the political stakes are for the court itself. He is a disgrace. That is all.”

We could almost — almost — understand Roberts' reasoning in the 2012 decision upholding the constitutional justification17 for ObamaCare itself, though his own rewrite of the law in order to do so was an appalling miscarriage of justice.

In that ruling, Roberts wrote, “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”