The Patriot Post Digest 6-15-2016

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 6-15-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

Jun. 15, 2016

THE FOUNDATION

“In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend.” —Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 31

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

What Makes Obama Angry?1

Donald Trump had a point. Barack Obama, he said, “was more angry at me than he was at the shooter” in Orlando. When Obama took to the podium Sunday to reflect on the horrific atrocity perpetrated by a Muslim terrorist, he stubbornly avoided any mention of “Muslim” or “radical Islam.” He did, however, find plenty of time to blame guns and anti-homosexual bias.

In his remarks Tuesday, however, Obama was finally mad. At Trump. Obama angrily insisted that he would not associate Islam with these acts of terrorism worldwide. “What exactly would using [the term ‘radical Islam’] accomplish?” Obama huffed. “What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”

The correct answer is all of the above. Failing to identify a threat by name ensures it does not go away. In fact, the number of attacks perpetrated by Islamist jihadis both at home and abroad has dramatically increased on Obama’s politically correct watch.

Obama brayed, “Not once has an adviser of mine said, ‘Man, if we use that phrase, we are going to turn this whole thing around.’ Not once.” No one said that was all Obama needed to do. But, then again, as Mona Charen quipped, “He never tires of slaying straw men.” The larger point is that refusing to call a spade a spade is symptomatic of Obama’s larger policy failure.

DC Court Bows to Obama’s ‘Net Regulations2

On Tuesday, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled3 that since Internet providers aren’t the ones flexing First Amendment rights — content creators are — Barack Obama’s net neutrality regulatory scheme is allowed to stand. Last year, the supposedly independent Federal Communications Commission announced that it was going to regulate the Internet as a telecommunications service rather than an information service — exactly as Obama wanted it to. The result is that the Internet is now subject to regulations developed during the age of the rotary phone. For example, services that deal in a lot of data (just think of all the information Netflix uses to send shows to your laptop) can’t pay more to have faster service. Innovation in Internet infrastructure is stifled4 as monopolies are created, and there’s an opportunity for the feds to tax the service5.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, a Democrat, said of the ruling, “It ensures the Internet remains a platform for unparalleled innovation, free expression and economic growth. After a decade of debate and legal battles, today’s ruling affirms the Commission’s ability to enforce the strongest possible Internet protections — both on fixed and mobile networks — that will ensure the Internet remains open, now and in the future.” But that’s the big-government view. The government is here to help by “ensuring” the right to free speech through mounds of red tape. What could go wrong?

Again, to get to this point, the FCC gave up its independence to take orders6 from Obama and the court that made this decision ignored legal precedent to solidify the powers the FCC took for itself. As The Wall Street Journal pointed out7, Congress made itself clear when it said Americans’ Internet will stay “unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled last year when it came to ObamaCare that federal agencies can’t simply create regulations that cause significant disruptions politically and economically and expect them to be followed. Congress makes the law. The executive branch enforces the law. This is Civics 101. But this overreach will be checked — if it will be checked — only if the Supreme Court picks up the matter or if Congress wakes up and worries about its loss of say in the governing of America.

Gov’t Bureaucrats Rate Themselves Awesome8

It defies statistical probability: The Government Accountability Office issued a report that found 99% of high-level government employees were rated good at their job in 2013. The government employees are rated on a five-tier performance scale. Three years ago, nearly two-thirds of government employees were declared either “outstanding” or “exceeds fully successful.”

But if everything is awesome, who’s to blame for all that dysfunction in government, all those employees that waste taxpayer’s money, put veterans on secret waiting lists and watch porn at work9? The performance of only 0.1% of government employees was rated “Unacceptable” and 0.3% “Minimally successful.”

“Apparently the federal bureaucrats grading one another think virtually everyone who works for the government is doing a fantastic job,” Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL) marveled. “But given the dysfunction we’ve seen throughout the federal government over the last several years, that can’t possibly be true. While most federal employees are dedicated and competent, everyone knows the government’s personnel system is rigged to protect those who can’t or won’t do their jobs.”

Indeed, to be sure, there are many government workers who do their jobs quite well. This isn’t to impugn them all. But what this GAO report shows is that incompetency isn’t just at the grunt level. Rather, there are levels upon levels of government employees who don’t know the kind of hard work found in the private sector, and yet they’re all slapping themselves on the back for a job well done.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Michelle Malkin: Florida: America’s Jihad Playground10
Jonah Goldberg: Orlando Shooting Reaction Has the Feel of Eternal Recurrence11
Walter E. Williams: Money Going to Washington12

For more, visit Right Opinion13.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
‘Weapons of War’ and Other Leftist Fairy Tales14

By Louis DeBroux

In the wake of the mass murder15 at a homosexual nightclub in Orlando this past weekend, the anti-gun Left quite predictably renewed the clamor for more gun control laws generally, and specifically an outright ban on “military-style assault weapons.” They of course have largely worn out this grossly inaccurate term, so they’re beginning to move on in their demagoguery to “weapons of war.” (Conservatives who concede these terms do the cause a disservice.) This is all part of the agenda to scare the public into ceding rights and submitting to centralized control.

Speaking of inaccurate terms, The Washington Post wrote a lengthy article about the evil AR-15 used in Orlando, before having to admit it did not identify the gun in question correctly16. Of course, the WaPo is hardly the only media outlet to get it wrong17. The jihadi used a Sig Sauer MCX carbine18, which is an entirely different gun.

There is a profound amount of ignorance and demagoguery19 surrounding these weapons, so let’s start by establishing what an “assault weapon” is and is not. According to the U.S. Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book “Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide,” “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.” Selective fire means you can choose between semi- (one round fired per trigger pull), and full-auto (continuous fire as long as the trigger is depressed).