The Patriot Post Digest 1-20-2016

________________________________________
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.

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 1-20-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

If there are any other questions as to whether Cruz is indeed the outsider candidate, just take a look at Iowa Republican Governor Terry Branstad’s words on the subject: “Because as Iowans learn about his anti-renewable fuel stand, and that it will cost us jobs, and will further reduce farm income, I think people will realize that it’s not in our interest. I don’t think that Ted Cruz is the right one for Iowans to support in the caucus.”

Traditionally, Iowa governors, regardless of party affiliation, have steered clear of offering opinions of the caucus. But Branstad’s son runs a group that’s part of the ethanol lobby, so he couldn’t remain silent.

The establishment’s rejection of Cruz is due to his solid conservatism and his combativeness with his fellow Republicans in Washington. In fact, there are reports that the establishment is beginning to coalesce around Trump — not because he represents the establishment GOP, but because he is the leading Not-Cruz. The establishment would rather have a dealmaker who boasts of having bought politicians and, more importantly, a moderate-to-liberal candidate, than a principled conservative.

Republican donors and consultants now don’t seem so quick to write off a Trump nomination. Is it because his momentum now makes him more viable than originally perceived? Is it because of the staunch support of his base? Yes, on both counts.

Trump’s supporters are an important asset that cannot be underestimated if Republicans want to win the White House this year. They are motivated because they are fed up with the establishment in Washington. But if that is truly the case, then who would better serve those voters' interests: Trump or Cruz?

Sarah Palin chose Trump, endorsing him Tuesday. The former vice presidential candidate has been a standard-bearer for the Tea Party movement since she emerged on the national stage in 2008, so her endorsement of Trump is important.

At first glance, it’s also a puzzling move, though it shouldn’t be. On April 15, 2009, a big day in the early life of the Tea Party, Trump said, “I don’t march with the Tea Party.” He also said Obama “really has made a great impact on people,” and, “I think he’s doing a really good job.”

But Palin says, “Enough is enough. These issues that Donald Trump talks about had to be debated. And he brought them to the forefront. And that’s why we are where we are today. … We are mad and we’ve been had.”

Given Palin’s supposed conservative bona fides, she should have endorsed Cruz, particularly when one takes into account Trump’s previous progressive stances on some issues. And Cruz rightly credits Palin with helping secure his Senate seat. Yet Palin went with The Donald, signifying that she has been more populist than conservative from the beginning. Nevertheless, perception is everything, and her endorsement will only help Trump and hurt Cruz, especially in Iowa.

Republicans are highly motivated to win the White House this year. After eight years of Obama, and a potential four years of Hillary Clinton, the GOP needs to be prepared to do whatever it takes to win. However, the party needs to guard against leaving the bedrock principles of conservatism to be trumped by nationalistic populism. Otherwise a White House win will be a pyrrhic victory.

MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE

ANALYSIS: NYT Laments America Doesn’t Love Obama Enough20
State Dept. Shares Blame for Clinton’s Secrets21
Federal Deficit Resumes Upward Climb22
Christians Experiencing More Persecution Worldwide23
The Oscars' Political Agenda Problem24
The Wall Street Question Plagues Candidates25
What a Failed Libya Means26

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Star Parker: Republicans Need Their Own Bernie Sanders in 201627
Gary Bauer: American Hostages Freed28
Walter Williams: Blacks and the Confederacy29

For more, visit Right Opinion30.

TOP HEADLINES

Rifle Found at ‘El Chapo’ Hideout Purchased Through Fast and Furious31
Obama’s Gun Orders Hit With First Lawsuit32
500,000 Overstayed Their U.S. Visas in 201533

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report34

OPINION IN BRIEF

Star Parker: “American voters are looking for honesty today. ‘Stop playing games with us,’ voters are telling politicians. ‘Tell us who you are; give us the facts, and let us choose. Don’t tell us how much you love freedom and then deliver more government.’ For this reason, Bernie Sanders is having surprising success challenging the Clinton machine. Sanders is a socialist, and he’s not afraid to say it. The advantage that Sanders has is he is going with the flow. He is pointing in the direction in which the country is already moving. He is not looking to unwind or turn back against anything. He wants to do more of what we are already doing and is up front about defining ourselves as socialists. Republicans need to be as clear with the country as Sanders with an alternative. … The job for Republicans who want to lead America toward freedom is much harder because it means real change from the status quo. It means telling the truth about abortion and the central importance of sanctity of life; and real reform in Social Security and Medicare, our tax system and our school systems. Throwing hand grenades at the ‘establishment’ doesn’t do this. We need substance. We need real ideas and proposals to change our fiscal and social realities.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” —H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Upright: “In truth, we should never be comfortable with our politicians. We should never trust them. Star worship of Ronald Reagan on the right leads establishment Republicans to idolize even his worst failures, like amnesty; star worship of Bill Clinton on the left leads Democrats to pooh-pooh his brutal treatment of women, and his wife’s enabling of that behavior. Our celebrities have become royals, and our politicians have become celebrities. That means we crown ourselves a king or queen every four years. And America needs no kings and queens. We need unimportant, decent people who focus on how to make themselves unimportant in our lives.” —Ben Shapiro

Bad fortune-telling: “[Republicans are] dusting off their three-point plans for $2 gas. I’ll save you the suspense: Step one is drill, step two is drill, and step three is keep drilling. … You know that’s not a plan. … It’s a bumper sticker. It’s not a strategy to solve our energy challenge. … You know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices.” —Barack Obama in 2012 (Now, of course, gas is well below $2 in many parts of the country — no thanks to him35.)

Race bait: “[Hollywood is] an industry that’s so white and so male. … Literally I can go to L.A. for two or three days. … And three days later, i’ve [sic] not encountered a single African-American in any position of any decision making power or authority. It is stunning how segregated the town is, how the industry is.” —Michael Moore

Cognitive dissonance: “I talked to a senior DNC person today. They tell me [there’s a] tremendous amount of regret in the high ranks of the DNC that there aren’t more debates at better times.” —Mother Jones' David Corn

Getting it right: “It seems to be that there is a kind of creeping totalitarianism in terms of what kind of ideas are acceptable and are debatable on college campuses. And I think that’s hugely unfortunate. I think the answer to bad speech is different speech. The answer to bad speech is not shutting down speech.” —former Harvard president (and ardent liberal) Lawrence Summers

And last… “It’s starting to sound like Hillary should have used a much more abrasive cloth when she wiped that server.” —Jonah Goldberg

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.