The Patriot Post Digest 3-22-2016

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 3-22-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

Mar. 22, 2016

THE FOUNDATION

“The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men.” —Alexander Hamilton (1787)

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Bill Clinton ‘Feels the Pain’ of Obama’s Dismal Record1

Speaking on the campaign stump in Spokane Monday, Bill Clinton perhaps unwittingly joined a handful of other Democrats lambasting “the awful legacy of the last eight years.” Although Clinton’s staffers quickly spun the comments as being intended for Republicans, the former president effectively criticized an administration in which his wife played a critical role. “If you believe we can rise together,” Bill Clinton said, “if you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that where we were practicing trickle-down economics, then you should vote for her.”

Clinton joined such voices as Joe Biden, who lamented2 last year, “The middle class is being killed. The middle class has been slammed.” And by the way, just who was dictating economic policy for the last few years? During this election cycle, both Democrat candidates have been running on platforms speaking to economic discontent. All the while, Obama keeps insisting3 the economy has never been better.

As Obama’s former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton helped forge his failed foreign policy legacy, too. And as the “moderate” candidate in the Democrat primary, she has promised to protect such Obama-esque edifices as the “Affordable” Care Act. But never fear — according to Bill Clinton, “She always finds a way to make something good happen, to make people feel empowered, to buy people into the process.” Maybe he means “buy people into the process” via the Clinton Foundation and its pay-to-play access to the Clinton machine. Either way, Bill wasn’t exactly making the best case for his wife to occupy the Oval Office.

SCOTUS Unanimously Backs Second Amendment4

Citizens have the Second Amendment right to keep and bear stun guns according to the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling. This is significant because in this post-DC v. Heller and post-Antonin Scalia age, the Court has enough sense to know that self-defense is a universal right, one that doesn’t require someone carrying a .45 S&W. Less lethal measures can do. The case5 revolved around the plight of Jamie Caetano, a small-statured woman who was going through a rough patch. She was living in a motel room and the father of her two children was abusive — so much so that she once needed medical attention after he beat her. As protection, one of Caetano’s friends gave her a stun gun to protect herself. Despite restraining orders, the abusive ex showed up waiting for her to get off work one night. Caetano merely brandished the stun gun and scared him off. When the police came and sorted everything out, however, they arrested her for possessing an unlawful weapon.

As Massachusetts reasoned to the high court, the Second Amendment doesn’t protect stun guns because when it was written Ben Franklin was still flying kites in thunderstorms and stun gun technology was unheard of. Furthermore, Massachusetts (incorrectly) noted that stun guns are not used by the military.

But at a time when the court is evenly split along partisan lines, The Wall Street Journal notes6 that SCOTUS is enforcing the landmark decision of Heller, not seeking to undermine its broad scope — at least not yet.

As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in an opinion accompanying the per curiam decision, “Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amendment’s protections, simply because they were unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment.”

The Frontrunner’s Foreign Policy7

Just last week, Donald Trump mused about his national security team of one8, saying of his foreign policy advisers, “My primary consultant is myself.” So it was helpful on two occasions Monday to see him delve deeper into what a Trump administration’s foreign policy would look like.

First, in a prepared speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, he declared one key aspect: “[My] number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran. I’m a deal-maker, and let me tell you this deal is catastrophic for America, for Israel, and for the whole of the Middle East. Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism around the world and we will work to dismantle that reach, believe me. Believe me.” Why should we believe him? “I’ve studied this issue in great detail,” he said. “I would say far greater than anyone.”

Second (though before the speech), Trump met with The Washington Post’s editorial board. Unlike his off-the-record meeting with The New York Times on immigration, this meeting is public record9. A few cuts:

“I don’t think we should be nation-building anymore. I think it’s proven not to work. … You know we have $19 trillion in debt. … I watched as we built schools in Iraq and they’d be blown up. And we’d build another one and it would get blown up. And we would rebuild it three times and yet we can’t build a school in Brooklyn. We have no money for education because we can’t build in our own country. At what point do you say, ‘Hey, we have to take care of ourselves’? … NATO was set up when we were a richer country. … NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money. … I think NATO as a concept is good, but it’s not as good as it was when it first evolved. … I would knock the hell out of ISIS in some form. I’d rather not do it with our troops.”

Trump certainly represents a growing sentiment in the country after Afghanistan and Iraq. So two points: First, defense spending doesn’t drive that $19 trillion in debt; major entitlements do. Yet Trump says those are off the table in terms of saving money. Second, the attack in Brussels — Belgium is a NATO country — made the timing of Trump’s comments particularly unfortunate. He’s certainly not an orthodox Republican, but that’s also exactly what drives his support.

Don’t Miss Patriot Humor

Check out Obama’s Diaper Debacle10.

If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here11.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Thomas Sowell: Black and White, Left and Right12
Mona Charen: It’s the Character13
Michael Barone: Donald Trump Has 37 percent. Hard to Get to 270 Electoral Votes14

For more, visit Right Opinion15.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Obama Goes to Cuba for His Own Legacy16

By Paul Albaugh

There hasn’t been a sitting U.S. president on Cuban soil since 1928, but Barack Obama kept his promise to go to Cuba in the latest step toward normalizing relations with the island’s Communist regime. While Obama seeks primarily to build his legacy, the ramifications of this visit will contribute to it in a way he doesn’t intend.

The trip didn’t get off to a good start, either. When Obama disembarked Air Force One at Jose Marti International Airport, Cuban President Raul Castro was not there to greet him, even though the communist thug routinely greets foreign dignitaries at the airport.

The imagery likewise is terrible. Investor’s Business Daily ponders17, “As a sycophantic media rolls out the adoring photos and flattering words, it’s hard to say what will prove most embarrassing: the picture of President Obama posing in front of a communist cement wall emblazoned with a pop-art depiction of the murderous — and racist — ‘revolutionary’ Che Guevara, a man who sought to set off a nuclear bomb against the U.S. in the early 1960s? Or the photo of 84-year-old Cuban communist dictator Raul Castro diabolically leering as he lifts the limp wrist of President Obama while he giggles like an unwitting teenager?”

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 3-22-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Obama’s trip to Cuba is part of realizing his foreign policy vision, and he hopes that his visit to the brutal regime will “encourage generational evolution.” Surely, the Cuban people are hoping for the same, but as long as they live under the brutal rule of the Castro regime there will be little that the minister of hope can change. And nothing Obama has done actually weakened that regime; on the contrary, he has legitimized it.

One of the topics for conversation with Castro was freedom of speech and assembly. So it speaks volumes that just hours before Obama arrived18, the Cuban police broke up a larger than normal crowd of political dissidents known as the Ladies in White and hauled many of them off to detention facilities. That would be the same Ladies in White Obama promised in a March 10 letter to meet.

Castro effectively denied even holding political prisoners: “Give me a list and I’ll release them,” he said, adding, “If we have those political prisoners they will be released before tonight ends.”

They weren’t released, and Obama remained silent.

Worse, on Monday Obama lamely accepted Castro’s criticism of the U.S. on human rights: “I actually welcome President Castro commenting on some of the areas where he feels where we’re falling short because I think we should not be immune or afraid of criticism or discussion as well.” Does Obama mean to imply that he’s falling short on jailing dissidents here in America?

As for free speech for members of the Cuban opposition, The Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O'Grady predicted19, “The regime will turn out plenty of compliant Cubans who will tell reporters that the embargo is the source of Cuban poverty.” It’s all political theater.

O'Grady further noted, “Yet even if there is a U.S nod to the opposition, there also will be a wink, as the president poses with the dictator along with members of the Colombian terrorist group FARC — invited by Mr. Obama — at a baseball game and pushes for U.S. policies that will finance the totalitarian apparatus. The big lie will be that by legalizing commercial and banking relations with Cuba, the U.S. will empower the Cuban people. The opposite is true.”

In other words, given the backdrop of people with whom Obama will pose, who does he really side with — the Cuban people or the Cuban dictators? The question answers itself.

As for the embargo, the idea of opening up business with Cuba along with lifting the embargo on trade is a complete reversal of U.S. policy for the last 50 years. This isn’t to say the policy has been entirely effective — the Castros are, after all, still in power. Some say Obama’s move in a different direction could open the Caribbean island to Liberty via free trade, especially as the young generation learns the value of capitalism.

Then again, Europe, Latin America, Canada and Asia have been trading with Cuba for decades to no avail.

Obama claims his visit will reduce tensions between the U.S. and Cuba and bring about change in the region. Given that the Castros are ideological kindred spirits with Obama, however, it’s doubtful that the Cuban people will benefit from Obama’s display. Recall that Obama’s mentor was avowed Communist Frank Marshall Davis20, and it’s very possible that Obama’s desire to renew relations with Cuba will make things worse instead of better for those under Castro’s iron fist.

How so? Consider that if American money starts flowing into the Cuban economy, the Castro regime will undoubtedly use the funds to further solidify its power over the Cuban people. Funding dictators and coddling up to them, whether directly or indirectly, rarely works out well for the advancement of freedom.

Does anyone really think that Obama is visiting Cuba to help that nation set a path toward freedom? Given his administration’s relentless assault on Liberty in our own country, it may be delusional to think so.

MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE

ANALYSIS: Shining Sunlight on Solar Power21
Kasich: Hey, Maybe We Should Consider Garland22
Georgia Under Attack for Religious Liberty23
Rhode Island to Require Helicopter Parenting?24

TOP HEADLINES

Terrorists Strike Belgium; 30+ Killed25
FBI May Have Found Way to Crack iPhone26
Trump’s Trade Proposals Could Cost $250B Per Year27

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report28

OPINION IN BRIEF

Thomas Sowell: “Conservatives who took part in the civil rights marches, or who were otherwise for equal rights for blacks, have not made nearly as much noise about it as liberals do. The first time I saw a white professor, at a white university, with a black secretary, it was Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago in 1960 — four years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She was still his secretary when he died in 2006. But, in all those years, I never once heard Professor Friedman mention, in public or in private, that he had a black secretary. By all accounts, she was an outstanding secretary, and that was what mattered. The biggest difference between the left and right today, when it comes to racial issues, is that liberals tend to take the side of those blacks who are doing the wrong things — hoodlums the left depicts as martyrs, while the right defends those blacks more likely to be the victims of those hoodlums. Rudolph Giuliani, when he was the Republican mayor of New York, probably saved more black lives than any other human being, by promoting aggressive policing against hoodlums, which brought the murder rate down to a fraction of what it was before. A lot depends on whether you judge by ringing words or judge by actual consequences.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer.” —Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973)

Belly laugh of the week: “There’s just no shred of evidence to suggest that I’m favoring Hillary Clinton.” —DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Surrender: “Well, [Merrick Garland] received, you know, overwhelming support — I think even from Senator Hatch — so of course we’d think about it. … I don’t care about [his] peccadilloes from 30 years ago.” —John Kasich

Good question: “Poor black, brown, red people are catching so much hell on every level — education, job market, mass media, family’s weak, communities shot through with too many guns and drugs. We acted as if we could evade it and avoid it. That’s what Barack Obama did for the first six years. He held it at arm’s length. And of course what happened? You end up with a Black Lives Matter movement under a black president. What does that say?” —Cornell West

Two peas in a pod: “President Castro I think has pointed out that in his view making sure that everybody’s getting a decent education or health care, has basic security in old age, that those things are human rights as well. I personally would not disagree with him. … I actually welcome President Castro commenting on some of the areas where he feels that we’re falling short, because I think we should not be immune or afraid of criticism or discussion as well.” —Barack Obama

That’ll scare ‘em: “We stand in solidarity with [Belgium] in condemning these outrageous attacks against innocent people. This is yet another reminder that the world must unite, we must be together.” —Barack Obama

And last… “Obama posed in front of a terrorist mural yesterday, so I guess a couple lines vaguely condemning Islamic terrorism [in Belgium] is all we could expect.” —Ben Shapiro

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.