The Patriot Post Digest 2-7-2017

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 2-7-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

Feb. 7, 2017

IN TODAY’S EDITION

Comparing America to Russia is beyond the pale, even for Trump.
Similarly, equating leftist temper tantrums with the Tea Party is so wrong it’s foolish.
Trump’s executive order is perfectly legal. The judge’s restraining order is not.
And more news, policy and opinion.

THE FOUNDATION

“Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of their ancestors.” —Joseph Story (1833)

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Stop Saying Stupid Sh-t … Please1

By Mark Alexander

In an off-the-record remark to his adoring media on an Air Force One junket two years ago, Barack Obama summarized his foreign policy2: “Don’t do stupid sh-t.” This past weekend, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump’s mind-numbing response to a foreign policy question took the bar for careless and stupid remarks to a new low.

Referencing questions about Trump’s relationship with Vladimir Putin, O'Reilly remarked that Putin is a “killer.” Trump responded, “There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers. Well, you think our country is so innocent?” Giving Trump a chance to think about what he was saying, O'Reilly said, “I don’t know of any government leaders that are killers.” But it wasn’t long enough. Trump shot back, “Well, take a look at what we’ve done, too. We made a lot of mistakes. I’ve been against the war in Iraq from the beginning.” O'Reilly again tried to intervene: “Yes, mistakes are different than…” But Trump interjected, “We made a lot of mistakes, OK, but a lot of people were killed. So, a lot of killers around, believe me.”

According to fellow Tennessean David French, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom3 and an astute foreign policy analyst, “[Trump] is not only obscuring the truth, he’s injecting nonsensical moral relativism into American foreign policy — a relativism that can undermine national resolve in the face of an increasing Russian threat.”

Yes, Trump is new to the office and doesn’t have an ounce of political polish, which can be one of his more attractive attributes. And his administration nominees rival the pedigrees4 of those nominated by even Ronald Reagan5. But Trump is most assuredly not the “great communicator” President Reagan was, and he no longer controls the script like he did with his successful reality TV show. You can’t do retakes in live interviews.

As conservative columnist Salena Zito advised last year6 regarding some of Trump’s remarks and social media posts, “take him seriously, but not literally.” But some of his remarks are so literally absurd that it is too much to ask that even his most ardent supporters take him seriously. Trump’s foreign policy is going to be more effective than that of Barack Obama, but he does not help his case by saying “stupid sh-t.”

An Oxymoron: ‘The Left’s Tea Party’7

With the all of the protesting and rioting across the country since Donald Trump’s election, some in the mainstream media suggest that this is evidence of a leftist grassroots political movement akin to a “progressive tea party.” While there is little question these protests and riots attract a lot of media attention, is this really an organized grassroots cohesive movement? Not exactly.

There is a profound and fundamental difference between the Tea Party8 movement and the current leftist “resistance” temper tantrum. The Tea Party is truly a grassroots movement born out of serious individual concerns over the ballooning national debt, government regulations and the need to lower taxes — the very ideas of Liberty that lit the fires of the American Revolution. It is a melting pot of traditional socially minded conservatives and libertarians — both concerned about the loss of individual liberty and the growing creep of socialism. It was the passage of ObamaCare that saw the Tea Party come into its own as a truly potent political force that helped lead to GOP majorities in both the House and Senate. These Republicans took office with the goal of being reformers, not revolutionaries.

Leftist malcontents currently protesting and rioting9 aren’t interested in connecting with traditional American values, though they like to throw around terms like “un-American10.” Quite the contrary; they see traditional American values as simply codes for racism, bigotry and sexism. To this leftist grievance class everything is about “equality” or the lack thereof — an inequity of outcome, not opportunity. In reality, what the Left is after is neo-Marxism. When they talk of a grassroots movement, they are speaking of the rise of a new proletariat. They seek a complete re-ordering of society around their leftist concepts of “social justice.” In reality, these protesters are hoping to birth a red revolution, not a reformation.

It’s individual freedom versus collectivism. American history has shown time and again that Americans prefer individual Liberty with its Rule of Law11 over and against collectivist tyranny and its rule of men12. It seems to us there is no comparison between these movements, only contrast.

Top Headlines13

Administration argues in federal appeal that U.S. security is at risk. (The Wall Street Journal14)

Senate is set for a high-noon vote to confirm Betsy DeVos as education secretary. (The Hill15)

Right-to-work movement claims victory in Missouri, eyes New Hampshire next. (Fox News16)

NOAA agrees to review scientist’s claim that data was manipulated to discredit the warming “pause.” (The Washington Times17)

Women’s march organizers want ladies to go on strike. (The Federalist18.)

Mainstream media scream: CNN reporter hails “White Lies Matter.” (Washington Examiner19)

Now that Trump is president, the Leftmedia frowns on White House Correspondents Dinner. (The Washington Post20)

Navy’s depleted aircraft will take years to rebuild after Obama-era defense cuts. (Washington Free Beacon21)

Wing commander’s prayer breakfast invite sparks complaint from the usual anti-Christian suspects22. (Air Force Times23)

Flight attendant saves passenger from human trafficking. (NBC Cleveland24)

Satire: Ken Ham to star in “Night at the Creation Museum.” (The Babylon Bee25)

Policy: Paid family leave: Developing a national policy. (American Enterprise Institute26)

Policy: It’s time to abolish the Antiquities Act of 1906. (Independent Women’s Forum27)

Don’t Miss Patriot Humor

Check out They Blew It28.

If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here29.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
A Lawful Order and a Lawless Judiciary30

By Paul Albaugh

It hasn’t even been three weeks since Donald Trump was sworn in as president, but the executive orders he has issued have caused quite a stir. Leftmedia talkingheads, still unable to come to grips with the reality that Trump is president, have replaced their desks with fainting couches. Trump’s order on refugees naturally has leftists outraged, but that only serves to highlight their hypocrisy because there have been Democrat presidents who have issued similar orders with little or no outcry.

The controversy over Trump’s order on refugees reached a whole new level on Friday, when U.S. District Court Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order31 to stop it from taking effect. Robart’s decision has in effect halted all of the states, not just plaintiffs Washington and Minnesota, from complying with Trump’s order.

Robart reached his decision because he believes that the states of Washington and Minnesota had legal standing to challenge Trump’s order. His argument is based on the legal concept that the state can sue as if it is essentially the guardian of its citizens — or, in this case, merely residents or would-be residents. Robart allowed the states to sue on behalf of groups of refugees, residents who currently hold visas or green cards, businesses who might want to employ refugees, and possibly the refugees themselves.

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 2-7-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

His decision temporarily blocks the Trump administration from enforcing Sections 3(c) and 5(a)-(c) of the order, which puts a 90 day halt on immigration from seven specific countries, a 120 day suspension on the refugee admission program and an indefinite suspension of refugees from Syria, who are particularly difficult to vet.

It also temporarily enjoins Section 5(e) of the order “to the extent section 5(e) purports to prioritize refugee claims of certain religious minorities.” This is the only part of Trump’s order that makes any reference to religion and it specifically allows for the secretaries of State and Homeland Security to jointly agree to admit refugees on a case by case basis if it is in the national interest.

On what grounds does Robart make such a decision? None. He simply declared that the two states were right and that Trump’s order is both illegal and unconstitutional. Except that it’s not. Not at all, as a matter of fact, and here’s why: Writing for the Washington Examiner, Byron York notes how the Justice Department has completely demolished32 Robart’s case against Trump’s order.

York writes, “Robart’s restraining order violates the separation of powers, encroaches on the president’s constitutional and legal authority in the areas of foreign affairs, national security, and immigration, and ‘second-guesses the president’s national security judgment’ about risks faced by the United States.”

Michelle Bennett, a lawyer with the Justice Department, was quick and correct to point out that in matters of foreign affairs and national security, “Congress has delegated authority to the president to make these determinations.” As a U.S. District Court judge, Bennett argues, Robart “doesn’t have authority to look behind those determinations.”

Or as National Review’s editorial board puts it33, “In our system, border security is a plenary power of the political branches; the judiciary has almost no authority over it." 

The courts, including Robart, do not receive classified information on threats posed by terrorists from particular nations, nor do they receive information about organizations trying to infiltrate the United States. Further, the courts do not have information about potential gaps in the vetting process for refugees. Despite Robart’s claim that no one has been arrested for being associated with terrorism, there have been 60 convictions of terror-related offenses from the seven countries mentioned in Trump’s order.

Trump’s executive order has plenty of legal ground to stand on. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: "Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Washington State also claims that Trump’s order prohibits the state from hiring migrant workers, which it asserts is a driver for the state’s economy. However, the vast majority of people affected by Trump’s order are foreign nationals who reside outside of the United States. Further, a state or a judge cannot block a president’s order involving national security simply because it’s not in the best economic interests of a state.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is set to take up this case later today. The law is certainly on Trump’s side — if only he’d make that case instead of getting embroiled in foolish and irrelevant Twitter rants34. But the Ninth Circuit is heavily skewed left, so this case may very well reach the Supreme Court, where former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy warns35 Anthony Kennedy may very well vote with the Court’s four leftists. If Robart and company prevail, it will set a dangerous precedent. And we will once again become firsthand witnesses of the “despotic branch” of government of which Thomas Jefferson warned.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

Leftist Trump Derangement Syndrome36 — Whether it’s executive orders or nominees, “unhinged” is the word.
It Pays to Be a Tax-Cheating IRS Employee37 — Ironically, the agency that cracks down on tax cheats embraces them internally.
The End of the White House Correspondents' Dinner?38 — It’s about time!
Hyundai: The Best Super Bowl Ad39 — Uniting military personnel with their families is priceless.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Hans von Spakovsky: Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration Is Both Legal and Constitutional40
Dennis Prager: Audi: The Car for the Unhappy Woman41
Cal Thomas: Be Careful What You Wish For42

For more, visit Right Opinion43.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Rich Lowry: “If the law means anything, the Trump administration will succeed in overturning the so-called court ruling against its travel ban. The nationwide stay of the ban issued by Judge James Robart, a Washington state-based federal district judge, is tissue-thin. It doesn’t bother to engage on the substance, presumably because facts, logic and the law don’t support Robart’s sweeping assertion of judicial authority in an area where judicial power is inherently quite limited. This doesn’t justify President Donald Trump tweeting that Robart is a ‘so-called judge.’ That slam earned Trump bipartisan blowback and may encourage other judges to tilt against Trump’s ban in response to a perceived threat to the independence of the judiciary. But Robart’s handiwork is shoddy and usurpatory, despite the fact that he is indeed a literal judge. … Judge Robart may not like the Trump policy, but that doesn’t mean that it is illegal or unconstitutional. His ruling is worthy of the generally unhinged opposition to President Trump. If the judge doesn’t deserve the abuse that Trump heaped on him on Twitter, he produced what should rightly be considered so-called jurisprudence.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “To say that the CIA and the KGB engage in similar practices is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around.” —William F. Buckley Jr.

Upright: “Let’s be clear: Has the U.S. ever made any mistakes? Of course. Is the U.S. at all like Putin’s regime? Not at all. … There is no moral equivalency between the United States of America, the greatest freedom-loving nation in the history of the world, and the murderous thugs that are in Putin’s defense of his cronyism. There’s no moral equivalency there.” —Sen. Ben Sasse rebutting Trump’s seeming moral equivocating

For the record: “We don’t appoint judges to our district courts to conduct foreign policy or to make decisions about the national security. Under statutory law and under the Constitution, that authority belongs to the president of the United States.” —Mike Pence

The truth hurts: “[There] are grounds for displeasure and unease in the public about the performance of this president, who has acted in a way that is strategically incoherent, that is incompetent and that is reckless. [But] that is not grounds for impeachment.” —Nancy Pelosi

Alternative facts: “Any negative polls are fake news.” —Donald Trump

And last… “The Berkeley riot fires caused groundhog Punxsutawney Phil to see his own shadow, thus predicting another 6 weeks of stupidity.” —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.