|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: August 20, 2015, 06:18:38 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 8-20-2015
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
Daily Digest
Aug. 20, 2015
THE FOUNDATION
“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” —Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Trust Obama and Let Iran Verify1
“Trust, but verify.” That was Ronald Reagan’s adage when dealing with the Soviet Union, and we have oft remembered it when it comes to Barack Obama’s foolish nuclear deal with Iran. That isn’t to say Obama’s never heard those words. But he missed the memo that you don’t let the other guy do the verifying. We’ve previously reported2 that Iran will be allowed to control any sampling at the Parchin Weapons Complex rather than the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) collecting the samples. The deal’s 24-day waiting period for IAEA access to nuclear sites is bad enough, but it defies belief that Iran would be allowed to control sampling at Parchin, where past military-related testing had been one of the major sticking points until Obama and John Kerry waved their hands and said it no longer mattered. It matters enormously, and allowing the suspect to control what evidence is presented for review is incomprehensible. (See the wonders it’s done for Hillary Clinton.)
But wait — it gets worse. Now we learn that a newly disclosed side agreement allows Iran to use its own inspectors, too. According to the Associated Press, which broke the story3, “The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons.” To put that in perspective, the AP reports, “Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, said he could think of no similar concession with any other country.” It’s no wonder Obama wanted to keep details secret and resorted to rhetorically bludgeoning his critics4. We just hope it’s enough to rally the growing opposition to the deal in Congress.
What Really Constitutes Human Life?5
“Human Capital — Episode 3: Planned Parenthood’s Custom Abortions for Superior Product” is the latest video6 from the Center for Medical Progress revealing the grisly underworld of harvesting and trafficking baby parts. Of the seven videos to go public so far, this is the worst. The video centers on an interview with former StemExpress “procurement technician” Holly O'Donnell, who recounts her experiences doing unspeakable things. (StemExpress last week severed ties7 with Planned Parenthood in the wake of the video series.) In fact, O'Donnell struggles to keep her composure and find the right words. “‘I want you to see something kinda cool,’” O'Donnell says her supervisor told her. After looking, however, O'Donnell said she thought, “This is the most gestated fetus and the closest thing to a baby I’ve seen.” She continued, “And [my supervisor] just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.” She adds, “I don’t know if that constitutes it’s technically dead, or it’s alive.” CMP notes in its press release, “State and federal law require that the same treatment be given to an infant born-alive after an abortion as to a normally delivered baby (1 U.S.C. 8, CA Health and Safety Code 123435).” Clearly, that didn’t happen in the instance O'Donnell described.
In fact, it got much worse. As the video shows the most horribly disconcerting scene so far — a mid-gestational baby boy in a stainless steel pan, still moving his legs — O'Donnell says her supervisor instructed her to procure an intact brain from the baby: “She gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. And I can’t even describe what that feels like.”
“I remember holding that fetus in my hands … and I started crying,” O'Donnell says. And as her voice breaks she says, “It’s just really hard knowing you’re the only person who’s ever going to hold that baby.”
We hope the result of these videos is to change hearts and minds. It’s a matter of when life begins and how we take care of that life. Aside from the political ramifications, this is a defining moment for our culture.
(Footnote: The Leftmedia have been virtually silent8 on the story.)
For Soros, Coal Stocks Are Suddenly a Hot Commodity9
Every time environmental blowhards like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio embark on climate apocalyptic speech tours, they are rightly called out by critics for amassing needless carbon footprints. They call religiously for the world to abolish its addiction to fossil fuels, yet they live in lavish homes and travel on luxurious jets powered by so-called “dirty energy.” Why? Because they’re in it for another kind of green in the form of dollar bills. The same hypocritical mindset applies to George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund manager who provides financial backing to slews of left-wing advocacy groups. But like fellow leftists Gore and DiCaprio, Soros' disdain for fossil fuels is dwarfed by his love for money. Fox News reports, “Soros, whose Climate Policy Initiative think tank recently urged the world to stop using fossil fuels in general and coal in particular, snapped up 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and half a million shares of Arch Coal, giving him significant stakes in what’s left of the U.S. coal industry.” Peabody was trading at roughly $90 a share when Obama first entered the Oval Office. Today, trading is an abysmal $1 a share. As Heartland Institute’s Sterling Burnett points out, Soros may have an ulterior motive in mind. “If he buys enough stock to have controlling interests in these coal businesses, closes them down and leaves the coal in the ground,” says Burnett, “we might accept that he is a true believer, that his investment was all about stopping climate change and saving the environment. But my suspicion is that he helped to drive stocks down, bought as many shares as he can, and, when stocks rebound, he can sell his shares and make a huge profit.” Considering the numerous groups he bankrolls, we’d put our money on the latter scenario.
Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column
Read Another Teflon Clinton?10, on how questions about “private emails” are not what is threatening Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.
If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here11.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
What About Birthright Citizenship?12
By Allyne Caan
Who thought five little words — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — could spark a national debate of presidential, not to mention constitutional, proportions? As 16 Republican contenders try to one-up each other on immigration platforms while striving to be as popular as the 17th, Donald Trump, this lexical quintet from the 14th Amendment is taking center stage.
At issue is so-called “birthright citizenship” for babies born on U.S. soil to illegal aliens. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states13, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
In the land of constitutional make believe, this amendment has been misinterpreted through practice and even court precedent to mean if a pregnant woman manages to sneak across the border just in time to deliver stateside, her child lucks out and wins U.S. citizenship, all rights and privileges thereof accompanying.
While such birthright citizenship has stirred debate before, Trump’s recent declaration14, coming as part of his immigration plan, that he would end birthright citizenship, has brought this melting pot to a boil.
His position should not cause shock, however, as birthright citizenship for illegal aliens is nowhere conferred in the Constitution. If anything, the 14th Amendment and surrounding context provide compelling evidence that the Constitution actually denies such citizenship.
As we’ve noted before15, the 14th Amendment emerged from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was designed to guarantee equal rights to former slaves. To ensure this Act wouldn’t be upended by a future Congress, legislators proposed adding its provisions to the Constitution. Central to the Amendment is the provision that citizenship is limited to those not simply born or naturalized in the U.S. but also “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
What does this clause mean? According to legal scholar Lino Graglia16 of the University of Texas Law School, Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, one of the principal authors of the Amendment’s citizenship clause, clarified this phrase as meaning “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” And fellow author Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio concurred that jurisdiction was all-encompassing, the same “in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” |
