The Patriot Post Digest 2-17-2016

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 2-17-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Daily Digest

Feb. 17, 2016

THE FOUNDATION

“He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court.” —Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Man Who Tramples Constitution Now Pleads Its Case1

By playing political games with the pick for the next Supreme Court justice to replace the late Antonin Scalia2, Democrat leaders are demonstrating their blatant hypocrisy. In response to the advice from Republican senators to let the next president make the pick, Barack Obama insisted he would still nominate a candidate. He’s merely trolling with fake concern over the Constitution. “There’s no unwritten law that says it can only be done on off years,” Obama said Tuesday. “That’s not in the constitutional text. I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there.” The Constitution is also pretty clear about the president’s enumerated powers in other areas too, and that hasn’t stopped Obama from trampling it. Yes, Obama has an enumerated power to nominate Supreme Court judges, and Republican senators aren’t saying he doesn’t — they’re saying he should wait. But Obama is setting up a straw-man argument. He’s misrepresenting the senators, saying they are forbidding him from even nominating a candidate.

In order to embarrass Republican lawmakers further, Obama hinted that he would pick a “moderate” judge3 that Republican senators might reconsider approving — one who will be impartial, and look to precedent yet employ their “own ethics and moral bearings” in decisions. If that isn’t a dog-whistle for legislating from the bench, we don’t know what is.

Talking about misrepresenting comments, Sen. Chuck Schumer is backpedaling on comments made in 2007 during the approval process for justices nominated by President George W. Bush. Now that the tables have turned, the Democrat is saying his comments are being mischaracterized. But they’re pretty clear:

“The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance,” Schumer said at the time4. “We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances.”

Senators all took oaths to support and defend5 the Constitution. This is why they need to reject the nominee from a president whose executive actions and favored laws have again and again been unconstitutional. Obama cannot judge when someone holds constitutional values when he himself can’t judge his own actions.

Oh, You Mean That Article II?6

One of Justice Antonin Scalia’s final rulings from the bench was to block implementation7 of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan pending the outcome of a lawsuit filed by more than two dozen states. That irony notwithstanding, the Obama administration is pledging to trudge forward with the Paris climate treaty (more on that below) with or without the power plant emissions overhaul. Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, said yesterday, “It is entirely premature, really premature to assume the Clean Power Plan will be struck down but, even if it were, come what may, we are sticking to our plan to sign, to join [the UN accord]. We’re going to go ahead and sign the agreement this year.”

Stern’s remarks are all the more intriguing given the timing of the rhetorical fight over Scalia’s successor. Barack Obama is barking8 at Republicans for daring to block any Supreme Court nominee, which is not only their right but their prerogative. Meanwhile, in a new op-ed, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid warned, “We are entering uncharted waters in the history of the U.S. system of checks and balances, with potentially momentous consequences.”

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution says that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Wait — isn’t the Paris agreement a treaty? Well, yes. So why isn’t the Senate voting on it? Because Obama, just like Reid did as majority leader, changed the rules. Knowing the agreement would never pass a Republican-majority Senate, the administration scripted the agreement as not legally binding to avoid a congressional smackdown. Obama and Reid have a lot of chutzpah accusing Republicans of contorting the Constitution when circumventing its checks and balances is all they do.

China Saber Rattles in South China Sea9

While the U.S. military may say it doesn’t know exactly what kind of message the Chinese government is trying to communicate by placing missiles in the South China Sea, it’s not one that promotes peace. According to satellite imagery10, China placed 16 surface-to-air missile launchers on an island along the Paracel Island chain called Woody Island. For months, China has been developing the shallow islands that lie within disputed territory between China, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Taiwan. They’ve dredged the area, built artificial runways and while the country said it wouldn’t militarize the area, there sit the missiles that can strike targets 125 miles out. Commander of the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin, told reporters11, “We are unsure where they are taking us. So we are going to sail, fly, operate throughout these waters … like we have been doing for so long.” So while the U.S. Navy continues to sail its “freedom of navigation patrols” and fly missions over the region, the cause of China’s aggression is a power vacuum created by the Obama administration. It was not a coincidence that the missiles appeared just as Barack Obama wrapped up a California-based summit with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations where one of the topics of discussions was the South China Sea. Obama is perceived as a weak leader, thus China — like Russia — is doing whatever it pleases.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Trump Lies, History Dies12

By Arnold Ahlert

Donald Trump has become the latest politician eager to rewrite13 the history of the Iraq war — a “Republican” who failed to get Iraq right14. So let’s look at what actually happened.

First, the vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Iraq. On Oct. 10, 2002, the House voted15 296-133 with three abstentions in favor of H.J.Res. 114. Eighty-one Democrats supported the measure. A day later, the Senate followed suit16 with a 77-23 margin of approval and 29 Democrats on board, including Sens. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden and John Edwards. Former Obama Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel also voted in favor of the resolution.

Those votes were amplified by the unanimous passage17 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 on Nov. 8, 2002. It gave Saddam Hussein’s Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” that had been set out in 10 previous resolutions. On March 23, 2003, four days after the war began, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll revealed18 a whopping 72% of the American public favored the war.

In June 2003, just three months after the war began, the Democrat National Committee launched its first ad accusing George W. Bush of lying about Hussein’s determination to build WMDs. The ad focused on 16 words Bush included in his State of the Union address in reference to the accurate British report that Hussein had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium in Niger. The allegations of lies came courtesy of Joe Wilson IV, former U.S. ambassador to Gabon, whose wife was CIA case officer Valerie Plame19. Unsurprisingly, Democrats demanded a hearing into those allegations, as well as the allegations the Bush administration had “cherry-picked” intel to justify the invasion.

Democrats got two hearings: In 2004, the Robb-Silberman Commission concluded20 that no one in the Bush administration had sought to pressure the intelligence community into its findings. Moreover, as report co-author Laurence H. Silberman explained20 last year, “presidential daily briefs from the CIA dating back to the Clinton administration were, if anything, more alarmist about Iraq’s WMD than the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate” of Saddam’s capabilities. In 2005, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously concluded Wilson lied when he said Vice President Dick Cheney had sent him on the mission to Niger in 2002 to determine if Saddam had tried to buy uranium there, lied when he denied his wife had recommended him for the job, and lied when he said he’d found no evidence Saddam had tried to buy uranium from Niger.

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 2-17-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

To this day, most Americans remain unaware that 550 metric tons of yellowcake was discovered21 in Iraq, or the reality that the Islamic State controls the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex, which the CIA characterized22 as “a wasteland full of destroyed chemical munitions, razed structures, and unusable war-ravaged facilities.” (By the way, ISIL used those weapons — the weapons “Iraq didn’t have” — just last year.)

Americans also remain largely unaware of why Democrats worked so feverishly to turn the nation against the war. It was “because an anti-war activist named Howard Dean was poised to win the Democrat presidential primary — which happened to coincide with the invasion — by a wide margin,” explains23 author David Horowitz. “It was Dean’s surge in the polls that caused John Kerry and John Edwards who eventually became the Democratic standard bearers to do an about face, repudiate their previous support of the war, and turn on the president as the chief culprit in the conflict rather than the sadistic tyrant Saddam Hussein.”

In short, Democrats put party before country even as American soldiers remained in harm’s way. And when Bush decided to pursue the 2007 surge that turned the tide of the war in America’s favor, the despicable Harry Reid declared the conflict “lost” — before the surge was fully realized.

Make no mistake: It wasn’t the removal of Saddam Hussein that precipitated the rise of the Islamic State, the resurgence of al-Qaida and the ascendance of Iran in that war-torn nation. It was the feckless political machinations24 of Barack Obama, who decided to completely remove American troops from Iraq in 2011, ignoring the advice of his military experts. It was Obama who told the nation he left behind “an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant,” and Joe Biden who characterized that withdrawal as “one of the great achievements of this administration.” It was Obama who thoroughly underestimated ISIL, labeling them a “JV team.” It was Obama who threw away the sacrifices of American troops, even as he has been forced to put at least 3,500 of them back in country, despite 16 separate pronouncements assuring Americans there would be no more “boots on the ground” in that nation.

As for those who insist the attempt to build a democracy in that nation was a fatal mistake, maybe it was. On the other hand, some of the brightest minds the world has ever produced took from 1776 until 1789 to establish the United States of America. We will never know if 13 years of shepherding a far more fractious populace in Iraq would have succeeded, much as did Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s seven-year democratic reformation25 of Japan — backed26 by 430,000 American troops.

What we do know is this: No one with an ounce of integrity can assert that, even if we had killed bin Laden during our initial foray into the “good” war in Afghanistan (or if Bill Clinton had done the job when he had the chances27), the war on terror would have been over. Thus the real argument about prosecuting a war on terror in the Middle East — as opposed to Lower Manhattan or Washington, DC again — is about location. If not Iraq, where? If not at all, how does one prevent the procurement of nuclear bombs or other WMDs by terrorists with no qualms whatsoever about sacrificing a few jihadist lives in exchange for millions of innocent Western ones?

Democrats knew the answer to those questions once. Here is a damning list of quotes28 by leading members of that party about the pressing need to remove Saddam Hussein from power that only underscore their subsequent hypocrisy with regard to the war. If Donald Trump wishes to embrace the political viewpoints of Code Pink and the despicable Democrat disinformation campaign aimed at undermining a wartime president for political gain, he is free to do so. Republican voters should also be free to support someone else.

MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE

ANALYSIS: Conservatism Has Not Failed29
Donald vs. Trump, Iraq Edition30
George W. Returns to Politics to Lobby for Jeb!31
Thirty-Two Percent of Americans Wonder: Who’s Antonin Scalia?32
Who’s Up for a Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East?33

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Jim DeMint: Next President, Not Obama, Should Pick Scalia’s Successor34
Michelle Malkin: Border Surge Solution: Send ‘Em to Camp David!35
Thomas Sowell: The Lure of Socialism36

For more, visit Right Opinion37.

TOP HEADLINES

GOP Unity Cracks in Supreme Court Fight38
Apple Rejects Order to Hack San Bernardino Terrorist’s iPhone39
Law Enforcement Community Rips Obama’s Silence on Cop Deaths40

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report41

OPINION IN BRIEF

Jim DeMint: “Anyone nominated by President Barack Obama will represent an administration on its way out the door. He or she will be put in a lifetime job, possibly for decades, by a president with only a few months left to govern. It would be far better to wait until the Americans elect a new president to consider such an important replacement. Less than two years ago, Americans upended control of the Senate as a rejection of Obama’s policies. It is unthinkable that this same Senate would use that mandate to give a lifetime appointment to another Obama justice. The voters have pushed back in the courts and in state legislatures across the country. They don’t need a judge who represents this old order: They need a judge who represents their future. … The American people deserve a Supreme Court justice who reflects their convictions, and not those of a lame duck president whose administration has so flagrantly disregarded our Constitution and disappointed many millions of Americans. The Senate can and should withhold its consent — as it has every right to do — until the people have chosen a new leader for our country.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “Socialism is the fantastic younger brother of despotism, which it wants to inherit. Socialism wants to have the fullness of state force which before only existed in despotism.” —Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

For the record: “He’s a smart guy that knows what’s going on really big league. … I think pretty strongly that he’ll end up being a good mayor, maybe a very good mayor. … I think he is going to want to make New York great.” —Donald Trump two years ago endorsing Socialist Bill de Blasio for New York mayor

The BIG lie: “Keep in mind, the people that perpetrated that travesty in San Bernardino had never been to the Middle East. They were converted over the social media.” —Bill Clinton (Says the guy who refused to take out Osama bin Laden27.)

The truth hurts: “There is … a double standard with Hillary Clinton, and we have to be honest about it. She’s being judged by a double standard, I will admit. And it’s this: If Hillary Clinton were a man, with her identical record, she would not even be running for president. She would have been laughed out of it.” —Rush Limbaugh

Speaking of double standards… “We are entering uncharted waters in the history of the U.S. system of checks and balances, with potentially momentous consequences. Having gridlocked the Senate for years, Republicans now want to gridlock the Supreme Court with a campaign of partisan sabotage aimed at denying the president’s constitutional duty to pick nominees. Republicans should not insult the American people’s intelligence by pretending there is historical precedent for what they are about to do. There is not.” —Harry Reid

Alpha Jackass: “In a nation built on slavery, white men propose denying the first black president his constitutional right to name Supreme Court nominee.” —New York Times editorialist Brent Staples (“Never mind that this would be Obama’s third such appointment; Staples’ tweet is but a drop in the river of poison to come.” —Jonah Goldberg)

And last… “Hillary suggests that lie-detecting dogs be used at all political speeches. The remainder of her speech was drowned-out by barking.” —Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest

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.