The Patriot Post Digest 6-28-2016

[nChrist]

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 6-28-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

Jun. 28, 2016

THE FOUNDATION

“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body … working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.” —Thomas Jefferson (1821)

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Democrats Circle the Wagons on Benghazi1

House Democrats released their own 339-page Benghazi prebuttal ahead of the forthcoming final bipartisan report from the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which was released Tuesday2. Naturally, Democrats absolved Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of all responsibility and declared that Republicans are on a partisan witch-hunt. “We have been hampered in our work by the ongoing Republican obsession with conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality,” they write. “Rather than reject these conspiracy theories in the absence of evidence — or in the face of hard facts — Select Committee Republicans embraced them and turned them into a political crusade.”

There’s plenty of blame to go around for security failures before and during the attack. But as readers of these pages recall all too well3, the most important point regarding this fiasco is the Obama-Clinton political narrative. It’s about what decisions were based on the political implications.

Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed by al-Qaida jihadis in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012 — a rather key date. They were abandoned by their superiors in a chaotic state created by foreign policy failure in Libya. Yet Obama and Clinton publicly insisted the attack was a spontaneous protest caused by a YouTube video — even though Clinton admitted privately it was al-Qaida. They told this political fable because Obama was running for re-election on the narrative of having killed Osama bin Laden and having decimated al-Qaida. Those shenanigans are the hard facts of the Obama-Clinton political crusade. And indeed, Clinton is still lying4 as she too seeks the White House.

In the Democrats' report about Benghazi, the word “Republican” is mentioned 200 times. Even more bafflingly, “Trump” is in there 23 times. “Clinton” is named the most at 334, but that’s almost entirely defensive. The bottom line is that Democrats are circling the wagons for their presumptive nominee. And no one — not the terrorists and not the administration that failed, lied and obstructed — has been held to account.

Permanent Ban on Abusers' Gun Rights Is the Wrong Prescription5

Monday’s crucial day at the Supreme Court included an interesting case, Voisine v. United States, regarding the Second Amendment rights of domestic abusers. Guns in the hands of abusers is a legitimate and necessary concern, but like many issues the solution is a bit complicated. Yesterday, in a 6-2 ruling, the majority opinion decreed that the gun rights of individuals sanctioned for misdemeanor-level recklessness can be permanently revoked by the courts.

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said, “In sum, Congress’s definition of a ‘misdemeanor crime of violence’ contains no exclusion for convictions based on reckless behavior. A person who assaults another recklessly ‘uses’ force, no less than one who carries out that same action knowingly or intentionally.”

However, the always astute Justice Clarence Thomas argued otherwise. He wrote in his dissent6, “The majority fails to explain why mere recklessness in creating force — as opposed to recklessness in causing harm with intentional force — is sufficient.”

The ruling, Thomas goes on to explain, “imposes a lifetime ban on possessing a gun for all non-felony domestic offenses, including so-called infractions or summary offenses. … These infractions, like traffic tickets, are so minor that individuals do not have a right to trial by jury. … This decision leaves the right to keep and bear arms up to the discretion of federal, state, and local prosecutors. We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly.”

Prior to the Clinton administration, the standard for losing the right to possess firearms was a felony conviction. This case is similar to the arguments against the “no-fly” list ban on firearms possession. There are too many people who would be added to this list without sufficient justification because of the vast difference between a misdemeanor charge and a felony charge. Nobody wants a dangerous abuser to possess firearms. But justice Thomas has it right and his dissent regarding a lifetime firearms ban for a misdemeanor conviction.

Oddly enough, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe recently reinstated the voting rights of hundreds of thousands of ex-convicts, whose crimes are far more egregious than those whose gun rights were just unreasonably annulled by the Supreme Court. Talk about a double standard.

The $108 Million Science Swindle7

The House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations shed light on more government-sanctioned junk science. Among the things covered in Thursday’s oversight hearing8 is a startling revelation concerning the Department of the Interior that gets to the crux of climate skeptics' dissent over the supposed effects of anthropogenic warming. According to the hearing memorandum9:

    “[Office of Inspector General] found10 that the operator of a mass spectrometer device at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Energy Resources Programs Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood, Colorado manipulated scientific results and data between 2008 and 2014. Committee staff later learned from the OIG that the individual was the second employee to do so, and that data manipulation in the lab began in the late 1990’s. Test results from the lab are used in the Energy Resource Program’s coal and water quality assessments. The OIG noted in its report transmittal letter that the full extent of the impacts of this manipulated data are not yet known, but that they will be serious and far ranging. According to the OIG audit, projects potentially affected by the falsified data between FY08 and FY16 had received $108 million in funding. USGS permanently closed the lab in February 2016 and the scientist in question resigned in the course of the investigation.”

On Thursday, Rep. Bruce Westerman said, “It’s astounding that we spend $108 million on manipulated research and then the far-reaching effects that that would have. We know how research multiplies and affects different parts of our society and our economy and … if you’re working off of flawed data it definitely could be in a bad way.”

What is it ecofascists are constantly crowing? Something about how the science of “climate change” is settled? It’s especially easy to make that argument — which is scientifically flawed in any case — when the evidence is rigged. And climate alarmists have been caught again doing just that11. Last week’s hearing only affirms an inconvenient truth: In government, science is far likelier to be manipulated than it is truthful.

Don’t Miss Patriot Humor

Check out Bedrooms and Bathrooms12.

If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here13.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

    Dennis Prager: Why the Left Hates Referendums14
    Tony Perkins: SCOTUS Chooses Riskier Business on Abortion15
    Thomas Sowell: The Fraud Goes On16

For more, visit Right Opinion17.

TOP HEADLINES

    More ‘Deleted’ Clinton Emails Released18
    Volkswagen Settles Emissions Scandal Case for $14.7 Billion19
    CIA Weapons for Syrian ‘Rebels’ Hit Black Markets20

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report21

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
SCOTUS: Some Rights Are More Equal Than Others22

By Paul Albaugh

What happens when the rule of men supplants Rule of Law? In the case of Whole Woman’s Health vs. Cole, you end up with a Court decision that strikes a severe blow to those who seek to protect the lives of the unborn. The most significant abortion decision in a quarter century is also yet another reminder of the Court’s importance this November.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 to strike down a Texas law in its entirety over two particular requirements. First, abortionists had to have admitting privileges to a local hospital. Second, clinics had to meet surgical standards. Both provisions in Texas law were enacted to protect mothers and the lives of unborn children.

Justice Alito noted, “The law was one of many enacted by states in the wake of the Kermit Gosnell scandal, in which a physician who ran an abortion clinic in Philadelphia was convicted for the first degree murder of three infants who were born alive and for the manslaughter of a patient.”

And National Review adds23, “Whole Women’s Health, which operates facilities in four Texas cities, was disciplined repeatedly by the state for offenses ranging from failing to have licensed nursing staff at the facility (2007) to illegally dumping medical waste (2011) to using rusty equipment (2014). In 2013, it was cited on 13 different safety-code violations.”

[nChrist]

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 6-28-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

In addition to ensuring that qualified doctors were the only doctors allowed to perform abortion procedures, the Texas abortion law would also have reduced the number of clinics from 42 to 10. The state government had essentially decided that the other 32 locations were unsuitable for medical procedures. Again, Texas was trying to protect mothers and unborn children.

But SCOTUS decided that the restrictions in Texas posed an “undue burden” on a woman’s supposed constitutional right to have unrestricted access an abortion. Aren’t abortion supporters supposed to be worried about “safe” abortions?

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer delivered the majority opinion, while Samuel Alito, John Roberts and Clarence Thomas dissented. Even a living Antonin Scalia wouldn’t have saved this one.

“We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,” argued Breyer’s majority opinion. “Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution.”

Following the decision, Obama crowed, “I am pleased to see the Supreme Court protect women’s rights and health today. These restrictions harm women’s health and place an unconstitutional obstacle in the path of a woman’s reproductive freedom.”

And of course Hillary Clinton chimed in, “This fight isn’t over: The next president has to protect women’s health. Women won’t be ‘punished’ for exercising their basic rights.”

Did you catch all of this nonsense? The Texas law violates the Federal Constitution it imposed an unconstitutional obstacle and women’s basic rights won’t be punished.

Exactly which Constitution are these people reading? To be abundantly clear, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that secures or provides a woman’s ability to take the life of her unborn child. Period.

Writing in a blistering dissent, Justice Thomas maintained that the majority’s decision “ignores compelling evidence that Texas' law imposes no unconstitutional burden.” Thomas also objected that the decision “perpetuates the Court’s habit of applying different rules to different constitutional rights — especially the putative right to abortion.”

He went further, writing, “The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not — and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate. A law either infringes a constitutional right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to invent tolerable degrees of encroachment.”

There is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and rights to free speech, due process and private property, among others. Statists go out of their way to impose restrictions and regulations on those rights. But in this case, the black-robed despots declared that Texas cannot impose regulations or restrictions on a right that previous justices created out of thin air.

The majority opinion also addressed the argument that new regulations from Texas would prevent misconduct. Breyer wrote, “There is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.”

If that is the case for abortion, then why doesn’t the Court consistently apply the same reasoning to restrictions on the right to own firearms, or due process, or religion?

Sadly, the Supreme Court’s decision is a severe blow for Texas and those across America who fight for life. And the decision will most likely open up new cases against other states that have passed similar measures. Conservatives in Texas lost this battle, but the war is far from being over. The next battle is the presidential election, which will decide who nominates the next justice(s). Don’t underestimate the importance of the future composition of the courts.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

    Ecofascists Target Differences of Opinion24
    Hillary Clinton’s ‘Accomplishments’25

OPINION IN BRIEF

Dennis Prager: “Every referendum gives people who are not yet controlled by the left the exceedingly rare opportunity to exercise power. That is what the people of California did when they voted to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The left loathed the proposal, characterizing it as ‘hate.’ And after it was passed the left did what it always does when it can: used judges to overturn the popular will. The British nation did last week what the citizens of California had done. They exercised their will independently of the left. Those British whose minds were not yet influenced by the left said that they would rather have Britain stay British and be self-governing than become an identity-free European country governed by Brussels. Thus, the left is now apoplectic. No one should be able to defy the left and get away with it. Just as almost everyone of any prominence who supported California’s Proposition 8 was ultimately punished (like the CEO of Mozilla Firefox, who despite his universally acknowledged fair treatment of gays was targeted with furious attacks solely for supporting the notion that marriage should have remain defined as it had always been, a union between the two sexes). America should have a referendum on whether or not to exit the United Nations, that moral wasteland beloved by the left. In light of Brexit, Republicans should strongly endorse the idea, even if the results aren’t binding.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.” —Alan Bullock (1914-2004)

Observations: “By arrogating to itself excessive authority to second-guess legislative efforts to regulate abortion, the Supreme Court has again taken up the role that Justice Byron White warned against in 1976: ‘the country’s ex officio medical board with powers to disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States.’ … It is now unmistakably clear that the modus operandi of the Court’s liberal majority is to first side with relatively unrestricted abortion and only then find a legal rationale for doing so. ‘Undue burden’ is now little more than an all-purpose excuse for striking down laws the majority, for ideological reasons, doesn’t like.” —National Review

Upright: “As the Court applies whatever standard it likes to any given case, nothing but empty words separates our constitutional decisions from judicial fiat.” —Justice Clarence Thomas

Alpha Jackass: “Celebrate the [Supreme Court’s pro-abortion] ruling! Go knock someone up in Texas!” —The Daily Show tweet

Belly laugh of the week: “Just look at her history. She’s been on the receiving end of one right-wing attack after another for 25 years. But she has never backed down. … Hillary has brains, she has guts, she has thick skin and steady hands, but most of all, she has a good heart. And that’s what America needs! And that’s why I’m with her.” —Sen. (soon to be VP nominee?) Elizabeth Warren

The BIG lie: “Well, Hillary Clinton has actually been the most transparent secretary of state in our history.” —Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook (Yep, just look at the emails! Oh, wait…)

“A lot of people tell pollsters they don’t trust me. Now, I don’t like hearing that. … You can’t just talk someone into trusting you. You’ve got to earn it. So, yes, I could say that the reason I sometimes sound careful with my words is not that I’m hiding something, it’s just that I’m careful with my words.” —Hillary Clinton

Late-night humor: “Obama is apparently interested in owning an NBA team after he leaves office. You’ll know it’s Obama’s team when they travel too much and never pass anything.” —Jimmy Fallon

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.