|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: January 20, 2016, 05:57:57 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 1-20-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
Daily Digest
Jan. 20, 2016
THE FOUNDATION
“The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all citizens.” —Thomas Jefferson, 1816
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
More Petraeus Punishment Looms as Hillary Evades Scrutiny1
Defense Secretary Ash Carter is weighing whether to add to retired General David Petraeus’s punishment for the latter’s confessed mishandling of classified information2. The Pentagon could demote Petraeus, stripping him of one of his four stars — a move that could cost Petraeus not only hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost pension money but deal yet another blow to his once-sterling reputation as one of the most brilliant military men of this generation. His “surge” saved Iraq — until Barack Obama abandoned it. According to The Daily Beast’s initial report3, Carter is seeking to “to send a message that even men of Petraeus’s fame and esteemed reputation are not immune to punishment.” But it’s more likely the Obama administration leveling retribution for a commander who has criticized Obama’s strategy4. As Investor’s Business Daily put it5, “The real goal is a Chicago-style warning flare to any retiring military to keep your mouth shut. And don’t testify before the Benghazi committee, as Petraeus just did.”
Equal application of justice is a welcome idea, but will the same level of punishment and scrutiny apply to another famous person who happens to be running for president? A newly disclosed letter from intelligence Inspector General Charles McCullough reveals that Hillary Clinton had “several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the [intelligence community] element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels.” SAP stands for “special access programs, and that information is even more sensitive than "top secret.” Some 1,300 classified emails have so far been discovered. There’s no way Clinton didn’t know exactly what she was doing, and her actions did far more damage to national security than Petraeus’s. She’s the one who might best preserve Obama’s legacy, but we still think it’s possible she’ll be indicted by the FBI, and that her candidacy is serving as a placeholder for Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren at the Democrat convention.
SCOTUS to Review Obama’s Unilateral Amnesty6
Finally, after a year of legal hurdles in the lower courts, the Supreme Court will determine the constitutionality of Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty7. On Tuesday, the justices agreed to hear United States v. Texas, the subject of two executive actions. “One, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), would halt deportations and offer work permits to the parents of U.S. citizens and permanent legal residents,” The Hill explains8. “The other would expand Obama’s 2012 program — the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative — which provides the same protections to some high-achieving illegal immigrants brought to the country before age 16. The expanded program would simply extend DACA eligibility to a greater number of people.”
Twenty-six states sued to stop Obama’s amnesty shortly after it went into effect. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen issued a temporary injunction9 last February, correctly accusing Obama of exceeding his executive authority. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed10 in November and upheld the injunction. But the Supreme Court will ultimately have the final say. The timing is interesting to say the least. The Hill notes, “If the justices had declined to [take up Obama’s amnesty] in the next round of cases, it would have solidified the Fifth Circuit’s injunction through the end of Obama’s White House tenure.” Since a Republican president could undo these actions as early as next January, the justices' decision to take up the case leaves open the possibility that they have enough support to uphold Obama’s amnesty. The administration’s track record in cases regarding executive overreach, however, suggests otherwise. We’ll find out by June.
Iran Embarrasses U.S. in Prisoner Swap11
In a twist of statecraft, the United States waited until the five Iranian-Americans held prisoner by Iran were safely on an airplane out of Iran before slapping sanctions12 against the country for test-firing ballistic missiles — sanctions that prevent 11 organizations and individuals associated with the tests from using U.S. banks. But it sure wasn’t the diplomatic victory Obama wants us to believe. Iran still gets its $150 billion in unfrozen money thanks to the nuclear deal. And the administration left a man behind: Former FBI agent Robert Levinson still remains in Iranian custody. Furthermore, the administration claims it learned about Levinson’s fate the same way Obama learns about so many other major news events: through the news.
State Department spokesman John Kirby said13, “Unfortunately, so many other people found out about it through press reports because the Iranians leaked the information early, too early for us to have made the phone calls and notifications that we wanted to make. Believe me, nobody is happy about the way that went down. That’s not the way that we wanted it to happen.” In the same way Iran humiliated Obama when it broadcasted the images of detained U.S. sailors14 when their boats drifted into Iranian waters last week, the country is trying to embarrass the United States by broadcasting news of Levinson so that the U.S. couldn’t notify Levinson’s family in a respectful way. The missile tests and failed swap of Levinson could be another sign that Iran’s hard-line leaders are marginalizing moderates15. Iran will hold parliamentary elections soon, and of the 12,000 candidates, nearly two-thirds of the candidates, the majority of them moderate, were disqualified by Iran’s Guardian Council. Even Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s grandson was disqualified because the candidate advocating for reform missed a test into his knowledge of Islamic law.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Of Course the Establishment Backs Trump16
By Lewis Morris
In the days leading up to the Feb. 1 Iowa Caucus, the Republican presidential field has undergone some significant shifts. After last Thursday’s debate17, the consensus seemed to favor a three-man race — Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. But some would go even further to say it’s really down to Trump and Cruz. Establishment versus Outsider. But who is who?
As for the rest of the field, Rubio’s path to the nomination seems to be getting more, not less, difficult. His battles with Cruz and Chris Christie have exposed the problems his record poses for both conservatives and the rest of the base, particularly on immigration. And without a win in the early states, as seems likely, many wonder if Rubio can stay strong long enough to turn the tide.
And what of establishment darling Jeb Bush? Well, Jeb! has spent much of this contest polling in the single digits, and despite (or rather because of) his attacks on Trump and his numerous and uninspiring policy speeches, he just isn’t gaining traction with an electorate looking to throw the bums out. An almost sure loss in New Hampshire could mark the end for Bush.
As for Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Rand Paul and the rest? We can expect to see them all to be picked off in the early primaries as their predictably meager showings lead to a bleeding of cash and supporters and the inevitable campaign suspension announcements.
How did it come down to Trump vs. Cruz? And what about the framing of Establishment versus Outsider? Trump has never held elective office, so he is perceived as an outsider. But he has long been a backer of Democrat politicians and has held a number of progressive views (New York values, one might say) that don’t match the conservative base of the party. So does that make him Establishment?
Cruz is a senator in Washington, so by comparison to Trump, is he Establishment? Hardly, considering that Cruz has made his name by tweaking the nose of the GOP establishment (including calling Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a liar on the Senate floor) and generally taking on what he calls the “Washington cartel.” He is arguably the most resolutely conservative of all the Republican candidates, and his voting record and his public stance on the issues bears that out.
Take Cruz’s stance against ethanol subsidies18. He refused to pander to Iowa power brokers, while other candidates dutifully bowed to King Corn and the mandates and subsidies19 that undermine the free market and exceed the government’s constitutional role. Trump on Tuesday called for increasing the ethanol blended into gasoline. |
