The Patriot Post Digest 5-20-2016

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 5-20-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

May 20, 2016

THE FOUNDATION

“A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.” —Thomas Jefferson (1820)

ARMED FORCES DAY

Tomorrow is Armed Forces Day. We remain the land of the free because these Patriots — American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coastguardsmen — have stood bravely in harm’s way and remain on post today. For this, we, the American people, offer our heartfelt thanks and prayers for our nation’s warriors and their families.

The Patriot Post is proud to be one of the nation’s leading advocates for our Armed Forces and their mission. We do this by providing countless Americans with the right perspective on that mission and the demanding tasks our military personnel have carried out with unfailing courage and professionalism. In addition, we support our warriors through efforts such as Operation Shield of Strength — through which we have now distributed more than one million dog tags — our Support and Defend pages, and The Patriot Shop, which carries an extensive collection of products bearing official military insignia, the proceeds of which support our mission of service to our Armed Forces.

We also invite you to read Mark Alexander’s latest column, Honoring Our Armed Forces? regarding the Left’s endless assault on patriots in uniform.

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Lying Justice Lawyers Need Ethics Training

The Texas judge who originally issued the temporary injunction halting the implementation of Barack Obama’s de-facto amnesty has sanctioned lawyers for the Justice Department. It’s yet another rebuke of Obama’s modus operandi. In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security established Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) — which allowed illegal immigrants to apply for work and permits. Texas and 25 other states sued over the action and federal district Judge Andrew Hanen favored the states' petition. The government fought the injunction all the way to the Supreme Court, which has yet to issue a ruling.

During the first court fight, it came out that DOJ lawyers mislead Judge Hanen, telling him the Obama administration wasn’t implementing the action when in reality it had already informed about 100,000 illegal immigrants they could stay. Hanen’s sanction requires DOJ judges to take five years of ethics classes, the department to provide a list of the illegals affected by the premature implementation, and assurances such an action wouldn’t happen again. The judge wrote: “Such conduct is certainly not worthy of any department whose name includes the word ‘Justice.’ Suffice it to say, the citizens of all fifty states, their counsel, the affected aliens and the judiciary all deserve better.”

Whenever the courts find that Obama has once again overreached his authority (think recent rulings on ObamaCare and the Clean Power Plan), the lame-duck president pushes the limits of the office in a new way. The administration has taken a program designed to get young Americans summer jobs — a good first step up in a career of gainful employment — and reallocated the program to give jobs to refugees. He’ll never stop until he leaves office.

Call a Man a Woman, or Pay a Fine in NYC

The regulation that sets the full brunt of New York City government against someone who doesn’t use the preferred pronoun of the person to whom they are speaking to is now “legal enforcement guidance.” We originally wrote about this little number in January, when it was just a proposal. Back then, the New York City Commission on Human Rights thought NYC businesses should address transgendered people by their preferred pronoun, even if that person wanted to be called “ze” or “hir.” Back then, the guidelines were so ridiculous that the liberal Internet hoax police at Snopes needed to investigate and report that, yes, New York City is giving itself the power to levy fines as high as $250,000 for “violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.”

Is that a New York value or what?

But the Big Apple’s new “enlightened” guidelines don’t abide by what the Supreme Court decided in 1977 when it ruled that New Hampshire could not compel its citizens to display the state’s motto, “Live Free or Die,” on their license plates if they disagreed with the message, according to the Washington Post’s Eugene Volokh. The professor of free speech law wrote of NYC’s guidelines: “So people can basically force us — on pain of massive legal liability — to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it’s a lie.” That’s the antithesis of the First Amendment. The rule is so absurd, it’s hard to see how it stands a challenge in court — but anything is possible in the Age of Obama.

The Oklahoma Abortion Gambit

Oklahoma is working on arguably the most direct challenge to Roe v. Wade since the 1973 ruling. The state legislature passed a bill (by a nearly 3-1 margin) making it a felony to perform an abortion in the state, and any doctor who does could be imprisoned for three years and permanently stripped of his or her medical license. “Since I believe life begins at conception, it should be protected,” said Republican Sen. Nathan Dahm, who authored the bill. “I believe it’s a core function of state government to defend that life from the beginning of conception.” Dahm also stated that he’s hopeful the law will lead to overturning Roe v. Wade. First, it needs the signature of Republican Gov. Mary Fallin, who hasn’t indicated one way or the other.

Naturally, pro-abortion groups immediately cried foul, declaring the bill “a new low,” as well as “cruel and unconstitutional.” We don’t recall those groups objecting all that vehemently to the actually cruel practices of Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia, and they jumped to the defense of Planned Parenthood’s practice of selling aborted baby parts.

But let’s consider for a moment what the Constitution says about abortion “rights.” ___. Yep, nothing. Nada. It ain’t in there. Yet somehow, nearly 200 years after the Constitution was written, the Supreme Court discovered an emanation from a penumbra resulting in a “right” to a practice that has since then claimed nearly 60 million lives.

To be clear, overturning Roe would not outlaw the practice, either. Far from it. The issue would return to the states, where it belongs. In any case, even were Justice Antonin Scalia still living, it’s unlikely the Court would overturn Roe. It’s had the opportunity to do so before (Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992), and instead reaffirmed it. Moreover, the law is unlikely to make it that far in the courts, which have already struck down far less restrictive Oklahoma laws. With that in mind, all eyes are on Gov. Fallin.

PUBLISHER’S NOTE

On Wednesday, we noted the story of retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin’s firing from Hamden-Sydney College for a social media post objecting to transgender bathroom policies. On Thursday, the college rehired him, though they maintained, “it is inaccurate to suggest that General Boykin was fired.” Either way, we’re glad to see they did the right thing.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Erick Erickson: The Surrender of Principle
Jonah Goldberg: Who Are the Real Deniers of Science?
David Harsanyi: Beyoncé’s ‘Sweatshops’ Help the Poor

For more, visit Right Opinion.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
If Anybody Can Lose, Hillary Can

By Allyne Caan

Hillary Clinton seems set to officially become the Democrat presidential nominee when the party faithful gather at the convention this summer. “I will be the nominee,” she declared Thursday. But despite talks for the last, oh, 20 years of the possibility of another Clinton presidency, it’s within the realm of possibility that Hillary may actually get trounced — by Donald Trump.

Even though she’s been priming for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for decades, Mrs. Bill is hardly a prize candidate for the Left. She’s the supposed champion of women’s rights who stood by her man and against a certain White House intern and other “bimbo eruptions” — Hillary’s term for Bill’s other sexual predation victims. And the secretary of state who lied to the families of the Benghazi victims. Then there are those pesky State Department emails, and Whitewater, the Clinton Foundation money trail, and so on and so forth. Hillary’s scandals make Watergate look like kids' play. It’s little wonder that the Left’s exuberance in heralding her candidacy is hardly, well, exuberant.

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 5-20-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Furthermore, her ideological moorings are not mainstream among Democrats any more. As Peggy Noonan writes, “Clinton’s struggles this year are connected in part to her ideological unreliability, to the sense that she’s a generation behind ideologically, that she’s got the wrong attitude toward Wall Street and the use of military power. She’s old school; we’re entering something new.”

Add to this the fact that Mrs. Clinton isn’t particularly likable (which was why Barack Obama’s “likeable enough” jab was so painful in 2008.), and the result is a candidate that, in many ways, is the opposition’s dream. Indeed, The Washington Post reports that Clinton’s advisers are “working to soften her stiff public image” and that one longtime supporter flat out said, “We can’t give her an injection to make her an energetic candidate.”

This is why her every point, smile and laugh on the stump is exaggerated to the point of being obnoxious. She’s overcompensating.

Ironically, the very Leftmedia that has gone to great lengths to advance Hillary’s career hasn’t done her the favor imagined. As Ben Shapiro recently argued, the media has unintentionally destroyed Clinton “by shielding her from the sort of character attacks Donald Trump has weathered for decades.” When news guests brought up Bill’s sex addiction, media “pulled the plug.” When people criticized Hillary’s Benghazi mendacity, media cried “sexism,” and so forth. “To protect the ruler,” Shapiro writes, “the Roman Praetorian Guard had to form a phalanx. The media did so for Clinton for decades.” But with Trump now the attacker, the media can no longer stand guard. Meanwhile, Trump has had no such perimeter. His warts-and-all history has been publicized for years, and his is actually an advantage.

Then there’s the Bernie factor. Who’d have thought a 74-year-old socialist would gain such a following? Apparently not the Democrat party, which we suspect let Sanders run only as a token opposition candidate. But something funny happened on the way to Hillary’s coronation — he actually proved to be a lot more popular than anticipated (and he’s gunning for California to prove it). The irony is, this is less a reflection of Bernie’s appeal and more an indication of Hillary’s lack of appeal.

According to a new Fox News poll, just 31% of voters believe Clinton is honest and trustworthy. A whopping 66% think she is not. (And it’s no wonder.) Even within her own party, Hillary is struggling to secure support. Of the last 20 primaries, Clinton has won just eight, while Sanders has tallied 12.

Investor’s Business Daily notes, “To make matters worse, 150 ‘superdelegates’ — who can pick their candidate independent of any primary — could put Clinton over the top right now by announcing their support for her but … they are still refusing to do so.”

What’s more, the woman who’s been on the path to this moment for decades is actually trailing Trump in some national polls. This week, the Fox News and Rasmussen polls placed Trump ahead of Clinton by three and five points, respectively. Clinton bested Trump by six points in a CBS News/NY Times poll, and she still leads the average by almost four points. Yet, in a Sanders-Trump matchup, Fox News and CBS News/NY Times polls ranked Sanders on top by four and 13 points, respectively. In other words, Clinton is so unappealing that the septuagenarian socialist is polling as the more formidable Trump opponent.

Hillary’s long history in the political spotlight isn’t helping her, either. As Trump’s ascension proves, voters want an outsider. And while Trump, and even Sanders to some degree, can claim this description, Hillary Clinton most certainly cannot.

Of course, the Electoral College map may still be in Clinton’s favor, but if this election season has proven anything, it’s that nothing is a sure bet.

MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE

ANALYSIS: Native Americans Give Redskins Name Collective Yawn
McCarthy: ‘Climate Deniers’ Just Want to Take Advantage
U.S. Troops Headed for Libya?
Where’s the Academic Rigor in Higher Education?

TOP HEADLINES

Judge Upholds Virginia’s Voter ID Law
California High-Speed Rail Gets a Four-Year Delay
New Evidence Shows UVA Rape Hoaxer ‘Jackie’ Created Her ‘Rapist’

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report

OPINION IN BRIEF

Erick Erickson: “This past week, a group of conservatives were invited to meet Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in California. … One conservative organization invited to the meeting refused to go because, among other reasons, Facebook had refused to give money for an event held by that group. Still, other conservatives who did go to the meeting insisted Facebook should hire conservatives. They insisted Facebook should steer money toward conservative causes and candidates and join conservative fights. All those things may sound well and good, but when did the conservative movement decide to behave like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Both those men are portrayed by the right as shakedown artists, and here comes a group of conservatives shaking down Facebook. It seems a growing number of conservatives decided they must embrace the same tactics of the left and turn into professional grievance mongers and shakedown artists. Just as Republicans fail to win elections by being Democrat-lite, conservatives are never going to beat liberals at their own game. But here they are, trying to do just that. Conservatives should be appalled at conservative leaders essentially demanding affirmative action policies for conservatives while otherwise opposing affirmative action. Facebook is only one recent example. The presidential election provides an even more outrageous example of conservatives abandoning their principles. … Conservatives who act like liberals will not beat liberalism and conservatives who surrender their principles in the name of team sport will soon lose everything.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “The state tends to expand in proportion to its means of existence and to live beyond its means, and these are, in the last analysis, nothing but the substance of the people. Woe to the people that cannot limit the sphere of action of the state!” —Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

Clearly: “We have no tolerance for points of view that aren’t inclusive.” —ESPN President John Skipper (We find his lack of self-awareness disturbing.)

The BIG Lie: “Donald Trump [used the] word [rape] unprompted during an interview … bringing up a discredited and long denied accusation against former President Bill Clinton dating back to 1978 when he was Arkansas attorney general.” —NBC’s Andrea Mitchell (The allegation has indeed long been denied, but never discredited.)

Braying Jenny: “I have concluded [Donald Trump] is not qualified to be president.” —Hillary Clinton, who should be disqualified

Non Compos Mentis: “Climate deniers are not about a lack of data. They’re … deniers as to whether or not the solutions, once you recognize the problem, are going to be to their advantage or not.” —EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy (This coming from the woman who admitted in March 2015, “I do not know what the models actually are predicting,” and further conceded in July, “What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? I don’t have that calculation.”)

Upright: “Even if the existence of global warming is ‘settled,’ the policies for how to best respond to it are not. But in the political debates about climate change, activists say that their climatological claims are irrefutable and so are their preferred remedies. If climate change is the threat they claim, I’d rather spend billions on geoengineering to fix it than trillions on impoverishing economic policies that at best slightly delay it.” —Jonah Goldberg

Late-night humor: “In Kentucky, Hillary Clinton declared victory after winning by less than 1 percent. So there’s another 1 percent for Bernie to be mad at.” —Stephen Colbert

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.