The Patriot Post Digest 6-10-2016

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 6-10-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

Jun. 10, 2016

THE FOUNDATION

“The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.” —James Madison (1788.)

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Clinton’s Emails Devastated U.S. Intelligence1

In keeping an unsecured email server in her basement, Hillary Clinton endangered national security in more than one way. Of the 55,000 emails released by the State Department, 47 of them contained information2 about CIA personnel or information about the agency sensitive enough to mark as classified. Because the State Department had to explain why it redacted information when it publicly released Clinton’s emails, anyone that has the original emails knows who the CIA contacts are. And, for example, when the U.S. government planned a drone strike in Pakistan, the classified information would make it onto Clinton’s server to give her the opportunity to comment. Such topics should have been discussed over a secure network, but using an unsecure email was convenient for Clinton and her diplomats. Remember the fact that Clinton handled secrets in the Special Access Program3? Those beyond-Top-Secret operations will probably have to be shut down because Clinton endangered people aiding U.S. intelligence the world over.

“Secretary Clinton has been seeing this kind of thing for a long time,” an ex-military-intelligence operative told National Review4. “If she is competent to handle major decisions, if she is the highly capable person she claims to be, she would know what all this material was, without having some label stating it was secret. If, on the other hand, someone could put reports in front of her describing these various things, again and again, without the appropriate labels, and she was not smart enough to recognize that this material was from classified sources, then she isn’t competent to be the president, or a departmental secretary. Or, of course, this is all lies. There are no other options.”

Meanwhile, hackers and foreign governments probably know the identities of those members of the CIA. They know details about the Special Access Programs. They know details about America’s drone strikes. “Nobody is going to die” because of Clinton’s emails, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright dismissively insisted last week. But if members of the intelligence community died, would the government ever admit that fact? This is why everyone from the lowest analysis to the secretary of state follows protocol — to keep Americans safe. This is why the FBI’s investigation isn’t just a “security review5.”

Obama Finally Endorses Clinton6

In a video7 posted to YouTube, Barack Obama officially endorsed Hillary Clinton Thursday. What a profile in courage: Wait until after the primary is effectively over and one candidate has collected enough delegates. Gutsy call right there. “So I want those of you who’ve been with me from the beginning of this incredible journey,” he said, “to be the first to know that I’m with her.”

As if anyone didn’t already know that…

But Obama’s main concern was uniting a Democrat Party that just hasn’t gelled the way party elites wanted after Clinton became the presumptive nominee. He complimented Bernie Sanders for running “an incredible campaign,” one that brought young people into the “progressive” camp on the issues of income inequality and money in politics. “Embracing that message is going to help us win in November,” Obama said. “But more importantly, it’ll make the Democratic Party stronger, and it will make America stronger. … And if we all come together in common effort, I’m convinced we won’t just win in November, we’ll build on the progress that we’ve made and we will win a brighter future for this country that we love.” Is it any surprise that Clinton was Obama’s pick to build on his legacy?

On a more important note, Obama’s endorsement almost surely insulates Clinton from the force of law. “Now that President Obama has formally endorsed his former Secretary of State for President,” writes8 National Review’s Dan McLaughlin, “it’s no longer possible for him — or a Justice Department directly answerable to him — to rule impartially on whether she or her close associates should be indicted over her mishandling of classified emails.” Talk about a conflict of interest. Obama’s endorsement of the utterly corrupt Clinton further tarnishes his already bad legacy, as does his failure to appoint a special prosecutor with his next breath.

As for Sanders, the curmudgeon isn’t quite ready to call it quits. He met with Obama before the video dropped, and the ol' socialist said he’d work with Clinton to fight Trump — but that he’d still participate in the DC primary. Soon, he said he’d speak with Clinton about “how we can work together to defeat Donald Trump and to create a government that represents all of us and not just the 1%.” The 74-year-old candidate is dialing it back, but he won’t shut it down until he knows his ideas have pushed the party even further left.

‘Control’ of the Internet?9

As we’ve said before, we believe the Internet is perhaps the greatest vehicle for disseminating the ideas of Liberty ever made available to mankind. Perhaps we’re biased, being an Internet publication, but we don’t think we’re overstating things. That’s why Internet governance and regulation is so critical. Indeed, that’s why conservatives view with alarm any headlines about the U.S. “relinquishing control” of the Internet. No conservative wants to trust other nations — or the UN — to control something so fundamental, and any time Barack Obama is part of the discussion, it’s bound to be a bad idea.

But what’s really happening?

A Los Angeles-based private nonprofit group called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, is a U.S.-government-chartered nonprofit corporation established in 1998, and it manages the Internet’s domain name system (DNS). DNS is what causes typing “patriotpost.us” into your browser to bring up our website.

ICANN has been moving toward a “multi-stakeholder community” since its founding in 1998 — it was never intended to stay under U.S. government oversight forever. The Obama administration has now officially backed the plan after signaling for two years that it would. George W. Bush’s administration worked toward the same goal. But congressional Republicans want to know how it serves U.S. interests to cede “control,” or whether control could be regained once given away. Several in Congress are working to stop this transition.

Maintaining a free and open Internet is important, but Russia and China already don’t need to have any say in regards to ICANN in order to create Great Firewalls and digital Iron Curtains. The Internet cannot be centrally controlled — that’s the point. The question is whether it will remain generally free and open if ICANN isn’t under U.S. government oversight. There are reasons to think it will, and reasons it might not. Internet inventors like Vinton Cerf still think the Internet is too centralized, and he, for one, thinks this ICANN move is a good one.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Jonah Goldberg: Going to Extremes to Start a Conversation10
Mona Charen: What the Stanford Rape Case Reveals11
Michael Barone: Bernie Sanders Wins, Even While Losing12

For more, visit Right Opinion13.

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 6-10-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Another Second Amendment Clown Act by the Ninth Circus14

By John J. Bastiat

“The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is ingulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.” —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821

A little over two years ago, we wrote about a surprisingly rational decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a.k.a. the “Ninth Circus” — so named for its consistently asinine decisions, especially those dealing with the U.S. Constitution and its interpretation. The title of our missive was “The Ninth Circus Gets One Right15.” Except not so fast. The wheels of injustice are slow but steady over at the Ninth, and after wending its way through the system as a 2-1 Ninth Circuit panel “win” for the Second Amendment, the surprisingly rational decision was reversed by the en banc court (i.e., the full court). In revisiting Peruta v. City of San Diego, the Ninth ruled that “there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

It’s a Supreme Court layup, if at this point a very dangerous one.

Under the court’s twisted line of reasoning, though a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does exist — as Supreme Court decisions District of Columbia v. Heller (2008.) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) definitively ruled — under California law, applicants for concealed-carry licenses must show “good cause” to state law enforcement officials to actually exercise that right by carrying a concealed firearm.

The court then issued one of the most mealy-mouthed sentences in the history of jurisprudence: “The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public.” What? “May or may not”? “Some degree”? “Member of the general public”? “In public”?

Along those lines, let us just say that we may or may not, to some degree, understand anything the Ninth is trying to say. So let’s recap: 1) A right to keep and bear arms exists under the U.S. Constitution; but 2) That right doesn’t really exist in California. If it did, an utterly subjective “good cause” would not be necessary to exercise it.

As to the question of open-carriage of firearms, it should go without saying — at least in our minds — that if the Ninth is going to deny concealed carry (after all, who can meet the ever-exacting “good cause” standard?), despite SCOTUS having ruled a right to “keep and bear arms” indeed exists, then open-carry should be a-ok. Maybe, maybe not. To some degree. For some in the “general public.” Sure. Whatever.

Dissenting Judge Consuelo María Callahan noted, “The defendant counties' limited licensing of the right to carry concealed firearms is tantamount to a total ban on the right of an ordinary citizen to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. Thus, plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights have been violated.” And that is exactly the effect this ruling would have if upheld by the Supreme Court.

Indeed, this sad tale of judicial wrongheadedness once again reminds us of how great the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia16 was, and how critical will be the election of the next president of the United States. A solid, centered Supreme Court is required to maintain constant vigilance against the stupidity of decisions like this one from the Ninth, which tends to have more than its fair share of such decisions. In any case, one thing is certain: If Hillary Clinton wins, she’ll appoint progressives to replace Justice Scalia and two or three more justices. And with that, we can all say goodbye to the Second Amendment as we know it.

MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE

ANALYSIS: The UN Is Creating Strife by Keeping Peace17
McConnell to Conservatives: You Ask Too Much18
Anti-Conservative Study Given Wrong Diagnosis19

TOP HEADLINES

Obama Expands U.S. Role in Afghanistan20
Three Phoenix VA Execs Fired — Two Years Too Late21
Prosecutors Withheld Evidence in Freddie Gray Officer Trial22

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report23

OPINION IN BRIEF

Jonah Goldberg: “The other day, former CBS News darling Katie Couric was speaking at an event organized by something called ‘TheWrap.’ … She was asked about … the fact that she deceptively edited a gun rights group’s response to a question to make the members seem like dangerous idiots. … ‘I can understand the objection of people who did have an issue about it,’ Couric said. … ‘Having said that, I think we have to focus on the big issue of gun violence. It was my hope that, when I approached this topic, that this would be a conversation starter.’ … A Central Michigan University professor claimed last year that she was punched in the face at a Toby Keith concert for being a lesbian. She later admitted that she actually punched herself, but said it was worth it because she wanted to start a dialogue. … I don’t think people appreciate how pernicious and widespread this crowdsourced totalitarianism really is. Routine lies in the service of left-wing narratives are justified in the name of ‘larger truths,’ while actual truth-telling in the other direction is denounced as hate speech or ‘triggering.’ … The last thing progressives want is to start an honest conversation. They want to have their conversations — and only their conversations.”

SHORT CUTS

For the record: “In endorsing Mrs. Clinton this past week, President Obama declared her the most qualified person to ever seek the office. … Mrs. Clinton got to where she is in life by marrying a man who would become president. She then used his fame to build her own. This and a female reproductive system are apparently greater qualifications for office than leading a revolutionary war against Great Britain (Washington), serving as Governor of Virginia and writing the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson), or writing the American constitution and most of the Federalist Papers (Madison).” —Erick Erickson

Good question: “Seeing as liberals now maintain that gender and race are matters of individual choice and personal identification instead of biology, isn’t it hypocritical of them to make such a fuss over the possible election of a person to the presidency just because she was born a female?” —David Limbaugh

Braying Jenny: “We had absolutely overwhelming disclosure. Were there one or two instances that slipped through the cracks? Yes. But was the overwhelming amount of anything that anybody gave the [Clinton] Foundation disclosed? Absolutely. And I’m proud of the Foundation.” —Hillary Clinton with an absolutely overwhelming lie

Non Compos Mentis: “I am thankful that — as a nation — we have put [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] behind us… Here in the IC [Intelligence Community], we have the chance to lead by example… In IC facilities … you can use whatever restroom you feel comfortable and safe in.” —Director of National Intelligence James Clapper

You didn’t build that! “Anybody here have a smartphone? In this smartphone, almost everything came from federal investments in research. … They say Steve Jobs did a good idea designing it and putting it together. Federal research invented it.” —Nancy Pelosi

Late-night humor: “Despite Hillary Clinton clinching the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders vowed to stay in the race and told supporters in Los Angeles that the struggle continues. The struggle to understand math?” —Seth Meyers (Well, math IS every Socialist’s biggest struggle.)

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.