|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: April 05, 2016, 07:37:47 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 4-5-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
Mid-Day Digest
Apr. 5, 2016
THE FOUNDATION
“The present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes — rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments.” —Alexander Hamilton (1802)
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Did Ginsburg Just Channel Scalia?1
Hello, gerrymandering. For years, the powers that drew up congressional district maps used prisons and non-voting populations (think illegal immigrants) as filler to give certain voting populations more clout in elections. In a ruling this week, the Supreme Court upheld that practice in an 8-0 decision, saying legislative districts must be drawn up according to how many people live there, not the number of eligible voters.
Two residents from Texas tried to persuade the courts that the power of their vote was diluted2 thanks to the practice, which they argued runs contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. But in writing the opinion for the High Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg — who’s no originalist — reached way back to the founding of the nation, quoted Alexander Hamilton, and used history to make the Court’s case.
Ginsburg wrote, “We hold, based on constitutional history, this court’s decisions, and long-standing practice, that a state may draw its legislative districts based on total population.” She added that back in 1789, the whole population was used to determine House seats, despite women not being able to vote and slaves counting as three-fifths of a person.
In his own concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas added3 that jurisprudence in the issue of one-person, one-vote is not clear-cut. “The Constitution lacks a single, comprehensive theory of representation,” Thomas wrote. “It instead leaves States significant leeway in apportioning their own districts to equalize total population, to equalize eligible voters, or to promote any other principle consistent with a republican form of government.” The ruling is somewhat of a loss for conservatives, but on perhaps the best possible grounds. So when it comes to Ginsburg, why doesn’t she apply the same originalist standard to every other case?
What the Leak of the Panama Papers Means4
To truly understand an organization or root out corruption, follow the money, the adage goes. Over the weekend, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) unleashed the largest data leak in human history. Dubbed the Panama Papers, the leak details how the rich, famous and powerful hide wealth in offshore accounts. One can hope it will allow the public to truly understand hundreds of organizations and root out corruption.
The amount of data is huge5. The diplomatic cables that were released by WikiLeaks in 2010 were 1.7 gigabytes of information. The Panama Papers, on the other hand, comprise 2.6 terabytes and it took more than 370 investigative journalists from around the world months to sift through.
To be clear: In most cases, it’s not a crime to set up a shell company in places like Panama or the Virgin Islands. But this is often just a form of tax evasion. As Investor’s Business Daily writes6, “It’s increasingly clear that the global elites in politics, business and sports have two sets of rules — one for them, and one for the rest of us.”
There are 143 politicians caught up in the data leak, including Russian President Vladimir Putin. Using people close to him, Putin has been able to stash $2 billion overseas. Another politician, Petro Poroshenko, who won Ukraine’s presidency, promised7 to divest himself from his assets in the television and chocolate industries. However, Poroshenko merely hid those assets offshore.
These are not just examples of the rich being rich. Thanks to money hidden offshore, people got hurt. People died. For example, according to a video8 produced by ICIJ, offshore money has been used to fuel Bashar al Assad’s campaign to bomb Syria’s civilian population. It has funded drug trafficking, bribery and sex trafficking of teenage girls.
As Quartz editor Bobby Ghosh tweeted9, “Can we just remind ourselves that the #PanamaPapers are from just ONE law firm, in just ONE tax haven. Tip of the proverbial iceberg.” Part of the industry operating under the cover of darkness just had a huge spotlight lit upon it. Rats will scatter.
So Much for Putin’s ‘Withdrawal’ From Syria10
A few weeks ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared mission accomplished11 in Syria, announcing the withdrawal of most military from that country. But you can never really trust what the Kremlin says. According to Fox News12, “There is more evidence that Russian forces are not pulling out of Syria, but instead, more troops are arriving there, a new video from Russian television Saturday apparently shows. The video shows a convoy of Russian troops headed to Palmyra to begin mine clearance operations after ISIS was routed from there [last] week.”
This is a familiar pattern. Fox adds, “Critics point to a similar pledge from President Putin when Russian agreed to a ceasefire and to withdrawal troops and equipment out of eastern Ukraine in 2014. The outgoing U.S. commander of NATO forces in Europe recently said Russian troops and equipment remain. Despite sending less than half of its jet fighters back to Russia, there are now more Russian attack helicopters in Syria than at any time since the air campaign to shore up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad began in late September.” As one anonymous American defense official put it, “The Russians installed underground fuel tanks in their airbase in Latakia. This was not a temporary move, but a permanent one.”
Putin’s ultimate goal in Ukraine was not revenge, but supremacy. Similarly, we shouldn’t expect him to just up and leave Syria without some sort of contingency plan. He’s got something up his sleeve, which is why he got involved in the first place. The question is: What exactly? If Barack Obama’s foolish “red line” hadn’t moved so much, we wouldn’t now be waiting to find out. As historian Michael Ledeen opines13, “Putin knows time is running out on The Wonderful Thing That Happened in Washington (aka the Obama administration). So whatever he wants to get, now is the time. Maybe he’s got plans for those bombers.” Time will tell, but one thing is clear: Obama’s weakness has invited worldwide chaos.
Don’t Miss Patriot Humor
Check out Socialism14.
If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here15.
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
Hans von Spakovsky & Cole Wintheiser: 16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’16
Stephen Moore: Why Do Liberals Hate America?17
Cal Thomas: Can’t We Do Better?18
For more, visit Right Opinion19.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Obama’s Defense Policies Jeopardize America20
By Paul Albaugh
Looking back over the course of American history, one of the reasons that our nation rose to superpower power status was because of its strong defense policy. For most American presidents and those within their administrations, having a strong military along with foreign policies that allowed our nation to reach strategic and military objectives was the key to defeating our enemies and holding at bay geopolitical foes. Pretty simple.
The world in which we live today is much more complex. Non-state actors who carry out acts of terrorism, state sponsors of terrorism, rogue nations, old enemies who have become emboldened by their ability to capitalize on vulnerabilities and many other threats are of concern to American citizens and our allies throughout the world. These realities did not have to come to pass, but they have, leaving many wondering if our nation is capable or ready for the next conflict or catastrophic event.
We have noted on numerous occasions that when Barack Obama ran for president, he stated that one of his goals was to “fundamentally transform” America. When he took office, he also promised to be a new type of commander in chief, primarily by cutting and running from military engagements. It was obvious to us that he would be a poor leader, but after more than seven years of his feckless “leadership,” it should be glaringly obvious to everyone that this is not at all what our nation or our world needs.
For starters, Obama recklessly promised to end (not win) the war in Iraq. Soon after our troops were withdrawn, the Islamic State, which is arguably one of the most brutal and relentless terrorist groups in history, rushed in to fill the vacuum Obama created21. Obama’s response to this terrorist threat was to nickname them the JV team, conduct limited airstrikes and continually promise that there would be “no boots on the ground” in Iraq. But today, there are 5,000 boots on the ground22, and Marine Staff Sergeant Louis F. Cardin became the first casualty several weeks ago. |
