The Patriot Post Digest 6-27-2016

[nChrist]

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 6-27-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

Jun. 27, 2016

THE FOUNDATION

“The Army (considering the irritable state it is in, its suffering and composition) is a dangerous instrument to play with.” —George Washington (1783)

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Military Readiness and Obama’s Transgender Decree1

The battle over what accommodations to make for the transgendered2 has been raging for the last couple of years. Barack Obama’s social engineering of the military has been ongoing since Jan. 20, 2009. By the end of this week, the two fronts will converge, as Obama will lift the ban on transgendered service members.

In December 2010, Barack Obama signed the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the Pentagon policy (signed by Bill Clinton) prohibiting open homosexuals from serving in the military. After a year of contrived review, transgendered individuals will likewise be able to serve openly as of July 1, 2016 — and announcement made during “LGBT Pride Month” and just in time for Independence Day. Coincidence, we’re sure.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced3 last year that the ban would be lifted unless a review revealed doing so would have “adverse impact on military effectiveness and readiness.” It will have adverse consequences, but Obama had no intention of ever admitting it, stubbornly going full speed ahead with his “fundamental transformation” of our nation.

We face threats from the Islamic State, as well as Russia and China on the rise, and Obama’s focused on socially engineering the military. Maybe those three geopolitical threats are shaking in their boots knowing that Bradley can become “Chelsea” and still wear the uniform, but we seriously doubt it.

All humans have inherent, God-given dignity and should be treated with respect, but that doesn’t mean undermining national security for the celebration of mental illness. And make no mistake: Obama’s objective isn’t about dignity, and it’s most certainly not about what makes our military a more effective fighting force. It’s about making the normalization of homosexuality4 a matter of law in regard to Defense Department personnel, practices and policy — all in an effort to pander to female Democrat voters5 in an election year.

TransCanada Sues Over Keystone Politics6

Barack Obama’s November Keystone rejection7 was a decision marred with corruption, deceit and outright lies. Economically — and, yes, even environmentally — there simply was no good reason to bury the project. Lo and behold, just as Keystone advocates predicted, the oil pipeline that could be helping to propel the U.S. economy is now closer to heading overseas8.

But TransCanada isn’t going to let the Obama administration off the hook for its gerrymandering that cost the company considerable monetary losses. On Friday, the company launched a $15 billion lawsuit in which the U.S. is charged with violating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). TransCanada alleges, “None of [the] technical analysis or legal wrangling was material to the administration’s final decision. Instead, the rejection was symbolic and based merely on the desire to make the U.S. appear strong on climate change, even though the State Department had itself concluded that denial would have no significant impact on the environment.”

The company is absolutely right, and the trial should be cut and dry. As Bloomberg reported9, TransCanada contends it “had every reason to believe it would win approval to build Keystone XL.” Unfortunately, politics — namely, the Paris Climate Accord that passed in December — got in the way.

Meanwhile, the Democrat Party is restructuring its platform to include a formal provision that facilitates the Obama administration’s witch hunt against skeptics of man-made “climate change.” Also on Friday, a committee agreed to language that states10, “Democrats … respectfully request the Department of Justice investigate allegations of corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies accused of misleading shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change.” They may want to rethink that position11.

Imagine how much progress America could make if Democrats spent time debating things that actually matter (like how to systematically dismantle Islamic militants). Good for TransCanada for taking them to task.

GOP to Taxpayers: Send Us a Postcard12

Filing taxes for Income Redistribution Day13 is a dreaded annual event for most Americans. Even if you get a refund, you still spend hours gathering records and wading through the 74,608-page tax code to file your return. House Republicans have a plan to reform the system so that you can file your taxes much easier — on a postcard. Republicans aim to lower taxes for every income bracket and reduce the number of brackets to three. The top individual rate would drop from nearly 40% to 33%. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, says, “It will take less from taxpayers at every income level because Washington takes too much of your hard earned dollars.” Amen to that.

The Washington Free Beacon reports14 that the plan also “would lower the corporate tax rate from the highest in the world to 20 percent.” Furthermore, “the plan would repeal the death tax, eliminate the alternative minimum tax, cut taxes on small businesses to 25 percent, and cut taxes on saving and investment, just to name a few of the reforms included in the proposal.”

The tax reform proposal is the last of six such policy plans released by House Speaker Paul Ryan to demonstrate Republicans' intended governing agenda. Ryan has taken a very proactive approach in campaigning to keep congressional majorities this fall through attractive and needed policy proposals. Those majorities will be critical (for different reasons) no matter who wins the White House.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

    George Will: Britain’s Welcome Revival of Nationhood15
    Peggy Noonan: Donald Trump Is No Ronald Reagan16
    Burt Prelutsky: A Nation of Narcissists17

For more, visit Right Opinion18.

TOP HEADLINES

    Texas Abortion Limits Nullified19
    Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Gun Rights20
    Ex-Gov. McDonnell Corruption Conviction Overturned21

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report22

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Clinton’s Court Picks Will Eviscerate the Constitution23

By Arnold Ahlert

The Supreme Court’s supposed rebuke24 of Barack Obama’s attempt to unilaterally implement de facto amnesty was, unfortunately, barely a rebuke at all. The 4-4 tie vote in United States v. Texas did nothing more than allow an injunction25 originally issued by District Judge Andrew S. Hanen and affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to remain in place. While that is laudable, it doesn’t obscure the fact that four reliably leftist Supreme Court justices made the appalling determination the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine26 is nothing more than an impediment standing in the way of the progressive agenda. And no justice is more ideologically compromised than Sonia Sotomayor.

The warning signs were transparent prior to her confirmation in 2009. “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences … our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging,” Sotomayor stated in a 2001 speech at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. Thus she hoped “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

In other words, Sotomayor believes the Constitution is not the nation’s ultimate jurisprudential document, but rather a stepping off point for legal “interpretations” filtered through the prism of gender and ethnicity.

And if that message wasn’t made sufficiently clear by the above quotes, there can be no doubt about Sotomayor’s worldview as revealed by her dissent following a 5-3 decision27 in Utah v. Strieff last week. The case concerns Edward Strieff, who was detained by police as he exited a building following a tip that drug-dealing was taking place there. After the discovery of an outstanding arrest warrant, police searched Strieff and found methamphetamines and drug paraphernalia.

[nChrist]

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 6-27-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Strieff insisted his Fourth Amendment28 protection against unreasonable search and seizure had been violated. The Court disagreed, explaining there are exceptions to the exclusionary rule, despite police errors of procedure in gathering evidence. One of those exceptions is the “attenuation” doctrine, where evidence of a crime discovered at some degree of distance from the illegal police conduct is still admissible. Justice Clarence Thomas stated the discovery of the warrant “broke the causal chain between the unconstitutional stop and the discovery of evidence,” and further noted “there is no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct.”

Despite leftist hysteria over the ruling, it should be noted that liberal Justice Stephen Breyer sided with the Court’s constitutional originalists. Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent29, in which she was joined30 by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, focused on the scope of the attenuation doctrine.

Sotomayor’s dissent? A political polemic31 about police misconduct and racial profiling — despite the reality that Streiff is Caucasian. “The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated in this manner,” she wrote. “But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. For generations, black and brown parents have given their children ‘the talk’ — instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger — all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them.”

Perhaps it’s indelicate to notice, but if one views this assertion stripped of its racialist underpinning, one might be tempted to conclude “the talk” comes down to showing respect for the police — something people of every ethnicity should do. Blue lives matter, too32.

Sotomayor’s mini-movie doesn’t end there. “Even if you are innocent, you will now join the 65 million Americans with an arrest record and experience the ‘civil death’ of discrimination by employers, landlords, and whoever else conducts a background check. And, of course, if you fail to pay bail or appear for court, a judge will issue a warrant to render you ‘arrestable on sight’ in the future.”

“The civil death of discrimination?” Mindless hysteria. Being “arrestable on sight” if you fail to pay bail or appear in court? As opposed to what, Ms. Sotomayor?

The final paragraph of Sotomayor’s dissent echoes the Black Lives Matter narrative. “We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are ‘isolated,’” she declares. “They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.”

As long as thoroughly misguided Americans — including Supreme Court Justices themselves — buy into the contemptible notion that SCOTUS should consist of activists in pursuit of personal agendas, rather than nine constitutionally grounded, impartial referees, we have no genuine system of justice at all.

And who is Sotomayor kidding? Despite her six-year stint as a member33 of the hard-left, pro-amnesty National Council of La Raza (National Council of The Race, in English), she refused to recuse herself from United States v. Texas. Apparently being a “wise Latina” transcends a blatant conflict of interest.

Make no mistake: SCOTUS was literally one vote away from eviscerating Rule of Law and giving an already constitutionally contemptuous president the unprecedented power to kick his fundamental transformation of the nation into high gear.

Ominously, it’s not over. A President Hillary Clinton would be able to fill not only Antonin Scalia’s seat, but perhaps two or three more. And there is no question she’ll nominate leftist justices who hold views like those of Sonia Sotomayor. Those are the ultimate stakes in play next November.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

    Brexit Issues Parallel America 201634
    Strike Three for Disgraced Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby35
    Horror and Hush-Up in Twin Falls, Idaho36

OPINION IN BRIEF

George Will: “By breaking the leftward-clicking ratchet that moves steadily, and only, toward more ‘pooled’ sovereignty and centralization of power, Brexit refutes the progressive narrative that history has an inexorable trajectory that ‘experts’ discern and before which all must bow. The EU’s contribution to this fable is its vow to pursue ‘ever-closer union.’ Yes, ever. … Euroskepticism is rising dramatically in many EU nations. There might be other referendums. Or the EU might seek to extinguish this escape mechanism. A poll in Sweden indicated that it might follow Britain out. In France, there could be a campaign for Frexit. Such was the Remain side’s intellectual sloth, it wielded the threadbare aspersion that advocating withdrawal amounted to embracing ‘isolationism.’ Actually, Brexit was the choice for Britain’s international engagement as a nation. The revival of nationhood is a prerequisite for the reinvigoration of self-government through reclaimed national sovereignty. Hence June 23, 2016, is now among the most important dates in post-war European history.”

SHORT CUTS

The Gipper: “Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don’t interfere.”

For the record: “When people refer to inflation, they generally have the price of cars, homes and groceries in mind, but I think there are other types of inflation that are even more telling. For instance, during the 1940s, when FDR was waging World War II, his White House staff numbered 100. Today, when Barack Obama is waging war on the U.S. Constitution, his staff numbers 4,000.” —Burt Prelutsky

Upright: “You kind of wonder what kind of glasses some of the Democrats are wearing as they look at that horrible tragedy. … The notion that somehow gun control would have eliminated [the Orland attack] is just an absolute disconnect.” —former DHS secretary Tom Ridge

Braying Jenny: “This fight isn’t over: The next president has to protect women’s health. Women won’t be ‘punished’ for exercising their basic rights.” —Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court striking down Texas abortion regulations (She doesn’t hold the same standard for ​actual​ rights enumerated in, say, the Second Amendment.)

Warning shot: “I’m going to be introducing comprehensive immigration reform in those first 100 days and I’m going to be doing everything I can using whatever tools I have as president to remove the fear from families and to stop the raids and the roundups. We’re gonna get to comprehensive immigration reform when I am president.” —Hillary Clinton

Demo-gogues: “I have voted for [an ‘assault’ weapons ban]. But I think there’s a better way to go at the problem and that is limitations on the size of magazines and ammunition clips."—Sen. Tim Kaine

Race bait: "Harsh anti-immigrant sentiment has become normalized and routinized by the Brexit debate, making it simply a fact of British life. And now Leave has won — proving that xenophobia not only is powerful in modern Britain but actually has the ability to shape the course of the country’s entire future.” —Vox’s Zack Beauchamp

And last… “The sad truth is that most of what we call the right and left in this country are reactionaries with no coherent political philosophy.” —Frank Fleming

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.