The Patriot Post Digest 7-1-2016

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 7-1-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

Jul. 1, 2016

THE FOUNDATION

“The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all citizens.” —Thomas Jefferson (1816)

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

The Lynch Mobsters1

The blowback over Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s private meeting with Bill Clinton2 was instant, and it came even from Democrats. To be sure, though, when leftists like former Barack Obama adviser David Axelrod complain about the “optics” — by which he means political appearances — they are completely misdirecting about the root problem. The problem isn’t just that people might get the wrong idea. It’s that Hillary Clinton is under FBI investigation for breaking federal law, and Lynch could decide whether she’s indicted. In fact, Bill Clinton himself is under investigation for Clinton Foundation pay-for-play corruption while Hillary was at State. And as David Harsanyi notes3, Bill “has already been impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice.” The believability of the parties involved is effectively zero.

By the way, the only reason anyone knows about the off-the-books, supposedly impromptu “social” meeting is that a local Phoenix news crew happened to see the pair on the airport tarmac. According to one of those reporters, “The FBI there on the tarmac instruct[ed] everybody around, ‘No photos, no pictures, no cell phones.’” Wonder why that might be.

Lynch will reportedly announce today that she is going to remove herself from decision making in the case and, according to The New York Times water-carrying exclusive4, “accept whatever recommendation career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director make.” But all she has to do is let it be known — perhaps in another “social” off-the-books conversation with one of those “career prosecutors” at the Justice Department — that Clinton is not to be indicted. Then not only do Democrats get their “cleared” nominee, but Lynch and the whole Justice Department can claim to have gone beyond the call of duty to ensure a legitimate outcome. It’s smoke and mirrors designed to cost Republicans even more political capital. So ironically, the clear appearance of corruption may help Clinton. In a case essential in determining the next president of the United States, that bodes terribly ill for Rule of Law.

Who Will Watch the Watch List?5

“I have an idea,” proposes Jonah Goldberg6. “The federal government needs to compile a list of women who shouldn’t be allowed to get abortions. The criteria for getting on the list must be flexible. If an official at, say, the NIH or FBI think that a woman should be a mother for some reason or other, he or she can block an abortion. Maybe the woman has great genes or a high IQ or the sorts of financial resources we need in parents. Let’s leave that decision where it belongs: in the hands of the government. Heck, there’s really no reason even to tell women if they’re on the ‘no abort’ list. Let them find out at the clinic. And if they go in for an abortion only to discover they are among the million or more people on the list, there will be no clear process for getting off it, even if it was a bureaucratic error or case of mistaken identity.”

So, he concludes, “Sound like a good idea?”

Now with that in mind, Speaker Paul Ryan announced that the House will vote next week on “no fly, no buy” gun legislation, prohibiting anyone on a terrorist watch list from (legally) purchasing a firearm. This is a far different thing than promising to pass such legislation, but Ryan offered the concession a week after Democrats staged their sit-in to deny civil rights7. Ryan also said the measure is part of a larger antiterrorism package, and it’s likely that the one on tap is an NRA-backed Republican measure that guards due process rights. If that’s the case, look for Democrats to try staging another throw-a-fit-in.

Meanwhile, in California, the legislature just passed sweeping new gun control. Democrats aimed to exploit the Islamist attack in San Bernardino8, but the effort gained steam after the Islamist attack in Orlando9. (You might detect a theme here, and it’s not guns.) Nevertheless, Democrats prefer to blame the tool and then infringe constitutional rights. The package includes new restrictions on homemade firearms, background checks and a database for buyers of ammunition, a ban on possessing standard-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and a ban on the sale of semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines. And until there’s a Supreme Court justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia, these laws will stand in defiance of the Second Amendment.

Transgender Trumps Terrorism10

As promised11, Barack Obama’s Pentagon lifted the ban on transgender individuals openly serving. “This is the right thing to do for our people and for the force,” Defense Secretary Ash Carter said. “We’re talking about talented Americans who are serving with distinction or who want the opportunity to serve. We can’t allow barriers unrelated to a person’s qualifications prevent us from recruiting and retaining those who can best accomplish the mission.” Fair enough as far as that goes, but in the military, one isn’t, in fact, an “Army of one.” Unit cohesion and effectiveness are critical in completing missions and achieving objectives, and it’s clear that the Left’s unbridled social engineering will hurt much more than help. From women serving in combat roles to this latest experiment, the one true mission for Carter and his boss is the “fundamental transformation” of our nation’s military — social engineering for a handful of people all while totally failing to deal with serious national security threats. Politics trumps everything else. Going forward, however, we fully expect the fine men and women of the American Armed Forces will make the best of this and every situation and treat their fellow service members with their God-given dignity.

Finally, a reminder12 from Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins Medical School: “Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.’ In that lies their problematic future.” Furthermore he writes, “Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.” Leftists think they’re removing the influences that cause that suicide rate, but they’re only enabling and normalizing a destructive pathology. And now they’re combining it with the stress of military service, and taxpayers will foot the bill.

EDITOR’S NOTE

We will not publish on Monday as our staff and their families celebrate Independence Day. We’ll be back on Tuesday, July 5. Have a safe and blessed holiday, and may God continue to bless our great nation!

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

David Harsanyi: Clinton and Lynch — Corruption, Not ‘Optics’3
Tony Perkins: Military Readiness: Lost in Trans Elation13
Jonah Goldberg: The Left’s Different Approach to Rights That It Opposes6

For more, visit Right Opinion14.

TOP HEADLINES

Mississippi Religious Liberty Law Blocked15
Feds Seek 27-Month Delay in Release of Clinton Staff Emails16
1.6 Million Bolt ObamaCare This Year17

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report18

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 7-1-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Which Immigration Laws Do They Want to Enforce?19

By Michael Swartz

There’s no question illegal immigration is a thorn in the side of those Americans who are interested in fairness and Rule of Law. Many millions are offended at the thought of people circumventing the system while those who go about it the right way are played for suckers by a government that has made the legal process more time-consuming and expensive. And that’s not to mention the cost and other crime involved.

Discussions of building a wall for border security and ending “birthright” citizenship for non-citizens20, though, have much less meaning when it’s clear that those currently in charge of law enforcement have little interest in stemming the flow of illegal immigrants, particularly the tide that flows across our southern border. (As many as half21 of illegal immigrants are illegal because they have overstayed their legal permission to be here, but we have at least some idea of who they are since they have paperwork on file — not that anyone is rushing to address this issue, either.)

Yet while we have a president who would rather wield a pen and a phone than wait on Congress to hash out common-sense immigration policy, his approach was given a default rebuke by a split Supreme Court last week, as the justices chose not to overturn a lower court decision22 which said that Barack Obama’s approach was not a constitutional one.

Picking and choosing which laws to enforce or ignore is of course no way to maintain Rule of Law, but it’s Obama’s preferred style.

Meanwhile, as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson defiantly told the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, illegal immigrants are “here and they’re not going anywhere.” And as long as the issue remains alive it can be used to score political points, as Mark Alexander wrote23 in the wake of the 2014 election.

But there’s an argument, proffered by Andrew McCarthy at National Review24 and seconded25 by Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, that the most effective way to deal with illegal immigration is simple: “attrition through enforcement.” We have the laws on the books already — after all, they’re not called “illegal aliens” for nothing — so the impediment to success is a lack of willingness to uphold the law. It may create a lot of headaches for certain businesses and the pro-amnesty national Chamber of Commerce, but McCarthy and Krikorian argue that limiting the opportunities for undocumented workers would likely convince them to return home.

Further, McCarthy makes the case that the matter is not one of national security, but law enforcement. “The distinction is important because, while national security threats must be defeated, law enforcement problems are managed,” writes McCarthy. “We don’t expect to wipe them out. We figure out how many offenders there are and what resources we have to address them, and we deploy the resources in a manner that gives us the biggest bang for the buck.”

Yet the most immediate issue for law enforcement is the danger of being overmatched at the border by organized crime26, which has exploited our lax border security and enforcement and found a willing market for their illicit activities. Is that “here and not going anywhere,” too?

We can argue whether the damage from amnesty 30 years ago is too great, as two more generations of illegal immigrants have impatiently waited for their own “permiso.” But letting them know that there won’t be a second round of amnesty, that the law is the law, and that it will be enforced appropriately would do as much to solve the problem as any wall would.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

Holding Back Our Troops27
Navy Reports on Failure in Iran Incident28
The Democrats' Zika Gambit29

OPINION IN BRIEF

David Harsanyi: “As stated in the U.S. Attorneys' Manual, ‘The requirement of recusal does not arise in every instance, but only where a conflict of interest exists or there is an appearance of a conflict of interest or loss of impartiality.’ … Lynch might be Mother Teresa for all we know, but we still have ethical codes for a reason. Any truly impartial attorney general would have said to the former president, ‘Why don’t we table this meeting until after the high-profile, politically charged criminal investigation of your wife is over.’ … The appearance of a conflict of interest or loss of impartiality is clearly present. But given the way this administration treats the law, we can safely assume Lynch will never recuse herself. And that refusal to recuse will give millions of Americans who already assume the Department of Justice will let Hillary slide no matter where the evidence leads quite a bit of evidence of corruption in the Obama DOJ. And if you’re Hillary Clinton — and you are truly innocent — Bill’s little get-together creates even more questions about your shady conduct. Mostly, though, if you want to know why Americans don’t trust their government, this meeting is a pristine example.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.” —Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

Friendly fire, part I: “I am impressed with Attorney General Loretta Lynch. … I’m convinced that she is an independent attorney general. But I do think that this meeting [with Bill Clinton] sends the wrong signal… I think she should have steered clear, even of a brief, casual, social meeting with the former president.” —Sen. Chris Coons

Friendly fire, part II: “I take @LorettaLynch & @billclinton at their word that their convo in Phoenix didn’t touch on probe. But foolish to create such optics.” —David Axelrod

The BIG lie: “Loretta Lynch is one of the most outstanding human beings I’ve ever known. Her ethics is above reproach. No one could ever question her strong feelings about the rule of law.” —Harry Reid

Non Compos Mentis: “I am sympathetic to a lot of the people attracted by Trump’s message who are feeling really left out and left behind. They have lost faith in their government, in the economy, certainly in politics, and most other institutions. And they don’t know how they are going to create … a better future for themselves. So I am not only sympathetic, I am looking for solutions.” —Hillary Clinton

“[Clinton] has no right to tell me it’s time to ‘move on.’” —Dorothy Woods, the widow of fallen Benghazi hero Tyrone Woods (“No, Mrs. Clinton, it is not time to move on from your callous and cavalier behavior. It is time you were indicted for your email felonies, and it is time for all Americans to understand just how abominable your actions were on Benghazi and to vote against you in November.” —David Limbaugh)

And last… “Hillary says her leadership is steady and calm. During the Benghazi attack she fell asleep. You can’t get more steady and calm than that.” —Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest

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.