|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: April 26, 2016, 06:49:42 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 4-26-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
Mid-Day Digest
Apr. 26, 2016
THE FOUNDATION
“Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” —James Madison, 1792
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
How to Impose Personal Beliefs on Others1
The Colorado State Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from a baker who was found guilty of discrimination for declining to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony in 2012. By not picking up the case, the highest court in the state let stand an August 2015 ruling2 from the Colorado Court of Appeals that declared baker Jack Phillips did not have a right to free speech or the free exercise of religion whenever he picked up his piping bag.
“We all have a right to our personal beliefs, but we do not have a right to impose those beliefs on others and discriminate against them,” said ACLU attorney Ria Tabacco Mar, who dragged the cake baker to court. “We hope today’s win will serve as a lesson for others that equality and fairness should be our guiding principles and that discrimination has no place at the table, or the bakery as the case may be.”
Once again, a leftist displays a stunning lack of self-awareness. Imposing beliefs on others is exactly what the ACLU and the rest of the Rainbow Mafia are doing. In this case, they used the courts and the government of Colorado to strip Phillips of his rights and conscript his services for a cause to which he has conscientious objection. Not only that, but Phillips and his staff must submit to re-education, quarterly compliance reports and demands that he create cakes to celebrate other same-sex unions. The Rainbow Mafia is indeed “imposing its beliefs on others.”
In a statement3 after the ruling, Phillips' legal counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom, said it is “evaluating all legal options” in order to protect Phillips' First Amendment right to use his creativity how he chooses, and by extension everyone else who objects to state-endorsed same-sex marriage. One of those options might be the United States Supreme Court.
Not Drug Money, Just Christian Cash for Orphans4
We’ve previously noted how the practice of civil asset forfeiture needs serious reform5 because it’s little more than an unconstitutional windfall for law enforcement6. Jason Snead of the Heritage Foundation defines7 forfeiture as “a policy that enables law enforcement authorities to seize property or currency if they suspect it is involved in, or is the result of, a crime.” With that, we now offer the latest entry in the annals of “justice.”
A 40-year-old Texas man was pulled over in Oklahoma for driving with a busted tail light. Police dogs alerted deputies to a stash of cash (which often bears trace amounts of drugs), so law enforcement escorted the man to the station for further questioning. The man, a refugee from Burma who became a U.S. citizen more than a decade ago, speaks English as a second language, so communication with the deputies wasn’t always clear, but officers found no evidence of any crime — except the mere possession of $53,249 in cash. So they took all of it, marking the receipt “Possession of drug proceeds.” They then let him go, busted tail light and all, though five weeks later, he was finally charged with a felony: “acquir[ing] proceeds from drug activity.”
The worst part is that the cash was earned by a Christian band, of which the Texas man was a part, and the majority of it was earmarked for a religious college in Burma and an orphanage in Thailand. No drugs, just music and charity.
Fortunately, after the story blew wide open Monday, the district attorney decided to drop charges and dismiss the civil case, allowing for the money to be returned. But it never should have gotten this far, and without the media spotlight, it might have continued.
Oklahoma’s forfeiture laws are among the worst in the nation — as in, the most permissive for law enforcement. And guilty-until-proven-innocent is the name of the game, which turns the Constitution on its head. Instead, Oklahoma should follow Nebraska’s lead. The Cornhusker state just abolished the practice8.
Judge Okays North Carolina Voter ID9
If Democrats can gain an advantage at the ballot box by supporting a certain voting policy, they will, whether it be illegal, unconstitutional or ethically shady. On Monday, a federal judge on Monday dealt a blow to proponents of voter fraud by declaring the changes to the voting law that North Carolina enacted in 2013 did not violate the civil rights of minority citizens in the state.
The Left had argued that minority voters would be disproportionately disadvantaged by a law requiring voters to show one of eight acceptable kinds of ID before filling out a ballot, eliminating same-day voter registration and reducing early voting periods. But these are simply common-sense verifications that preserve the integrity of elections. North Carolina is a contested state10, with the state leaning Democrat by the thinnest of margins, so they need all the help from illegitimate voters they can get. But Judge Thomas Schroeder wrote that North Carolina’s law was not unusual compared to other states' voting laws and “North Carolina has provided legitimate state interests for its voter ID requirement and electoral system.”
Because it’s a presidential election year and because of North Carolina’s contested nature, this case is almost certain to head to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which is based in Richmond, Virginia. Speaking of Virginia, the commonwealth’s Democrat governor unilaterally granted voting rights11 to 200,000 former felons through an executive order. Again, whatever it takes for votes, Democrats will do it.
Don’t Miss Patriot Humor
Check out Some Like It Hot12.
If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here13.
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
Jeff Jacoby: Let Patients Pay the Piper, and the Price of Health Care Will Fall14
Cal Thomas: The Felon Vote15
Dennis Prager: Why the Left Loathes Western Civilization16
For more, visit Right Opinion17.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Broken Promises and Feckless Policy in Syria18
By Paul Albaugh
On Monday, Barack Obama announced a change of plans for the U.S. military concerning operations in war torn Syria. With the quagmire of chaos and brutality that has ravaged Syria, Iraq and much of the Middle East, it seems as though Obama has come to the realization that airstrikes alone against Islamic State militants are just not working out as well as he expected. “Inherent Resolve,” notwithstanding.
Following visits to Britain and Saudi Arabia where “talks” were conducted about the Islamic State and terrorism, Obama wrapped up his trip in Germany where he announced19 that the United States will put an additional 250 special operations forces on the ground in Syria, bringing the total number to 300. It was the least he could do. Really.
Obama stated, “Given the success [of those 50 special operations troops already there], I’ve approved the deployment of up to 250 additional U.S. personnel … to keep up this momentum.” He emphasized that these additional forces will not be on the front lines, but that they will be acting in advisory roles and assisting Arab fighters and Kurdish militia on a plan to eventually take back the city of Raqqa, which is currently the “Islamic State’s de facto capital in Syria.”
Whatever happened to Obama’s repeated promise not to put boots on the ground in Syria? You know, the promise he made 16 times20. There are already as many as 5,000 pairs of boots on the ground in Iraq21, and he promised that wouldn’t happen either. Was there another crossing of Obama’s phony red line or is it just better late than never? What gives? |
