The Patriot Post Digest 3-16-2017

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 3-16-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

Mar. 16, 2017

IN TODAY’S EDITION

Another judge takes issue with Trump’s second travel ban for the wrong reasons.
So it turns out that study about how “racist” voter ID laws are is complete bunk.
When it comes to Trump’s tax returns, Democrats are awfully deceptive.
Daily Features: Top Headlines, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.

THE FOUNDATION

“One single object … [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.” —Thomas Jefferson (1825)

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Banning the Travel Ban, Redux1

By Allyne Caan

Just one day before President Donald Trump’s revised immigration executive order was slated to take effect, a federal judge in Hawaii has blocked it. Surprise!

In a 43-page order2, Judge Derrick K. Watson issued a preliminary injunction against the order, claiming the challenge against it had a “likelihood of success” based on the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. To his credit, at least Judge Watson cited the Constitution, even if incorrectly — especially since the state of Hawaii, as one of the plaintiffs in the case, argued against the order based on the impact it would have on the state’s university system and tourism industry. Because nothing is more important than national security except, well, lots of happy tourists from the six countries on Trump’s ban list.

Instead, Judge Watson bought the Establishment Clause argument of plaintiff Dr. Ismail Elshikh, which basically says he feels the executive order is a condemnation by the government of his Muslim religion that would make him and his family feel like second class citizens. Watson agreed, writing that “a reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”

Clearly, Watson is more concerned with a couple of Trump’s statements on the campaign trail than the actual law at hand.

More to the point, has anyone told the good doctor and judge that jihadi terrorists are Muslim3? Or that the six nations on the ban list are pretty much the most dangerous and least vetted places in the world?

Although Watson concedes this order “does not facially discriminate for or against any particular religion” and that the government defends it “principally because of its religious neutral text” in that it applies to individuals of all religions in six countries linked to terrorism, yet he blisteringly claims, “The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable.”

Of course, as Hans von Spakovsky notes4, there actually was some logic in selecting the six countries named in the order: “Three of the countries — Iran, Syria, and Sudan — are listed by the State Department as official sponsors of terrorism, while the other three — Libya, Somalia, and Yemen — were listed as ‘countries of concern’ because of their terrorism problems by Jeh Johnson, Homeland Security secretary under Obama.”

Undoubtedly, had Watson or anyone else scoured the world to find predominantly Christian or Hindu countries that are official sponsors of terrorism, he would have come up empty handed. But facts aside (as they often are when it comes to judicial rulings), for now at least, the order is on hold.

Trump blasted the “terrible” ruling that was “done by a judge for political reasons.” In fact, he said, “The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear.”

Meanwhile, the First Amendment isn’t the only one getting attention when it comes to immigration. The Tenth is getting in on the action, too. On Monday, Tennessee became the first state to use the “reserved powers” clause to sue the federal government — not for keeping immigrants out but for forcing refugee resettlement within state borders.

The Tennessean reports5, “The lawsuit … alleges that the federal government has violated the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government possesses only the powers delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution and that all other powers are reserved for the states.” It argues that the feds have “unduly forced states to pay for the refugee resettlement program” and “asks the court to force the federal government to stop resettling refugees in Tennessee until all costs associated with the settlement are incurred by the federal government.” The Tennessean reports that in fiscal year 2016, more than 2,000 refugees were resettled in the state.

Of course, Barack Obama, not Donald Trump, ordered the forced resettlement, though as of yet, Trump hasn’t vacated that order. Hence, although filed against the Trump administration, the lawsuit is targeting an Obama-era policy.

It remains to be seen how the court will rule, but if Tennessee wins, perhaps Hawaii will volunteer to take Tennessee’s allotment of refugees. After all, opposition to Trump’s executive order aside, of the nearly 85,000 refugees the U.S. admitted in fiscal year 2016, guess how many the Aloha State took in? Exactly zero6.

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Anti-Voter ID Study Debunked7

Last month the Leftmedia heralded a study8 from the universities of San Diego and Bucknell purporting to show that voter ID laws suppress the minority vote. The Washington Post helped the cause by injecting a racist angle, running a story titled, “New evidence that voter ID laws ‘skew democracy’ in favor of white Republicans.” The trouble is, the study turns out to be bunk. Professors from Stanford, Yale and the University of Pennsylvania released their review9 of the voter ID study and, well, you could say the professors gave it an “F.”

David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner sums it up10: The original study’s authors “used the wrong data, they misinterpreted that data, they failed to take into account other pre-existing factors that explain differences between states with and without voter ID, and when tested, their model demonstrably assumes what it is trying to prove.”

The Left’s opposition to common sense voter ID laws has been a long-running effort to promote the false narrative that such laws are inherently racist and are a tool of Republicans designed to suppress the minority vote. On this flawed basis, leftists summarily dismiss legitimate concerns over the integrity of the vote as being merely Republican political pandering and the problem of voter fraud as practically nonexistent.

The review of the study flatly contradicts what its authors originally claimed. The reviewing professors found no varying voting numbers between those states with voter ID laws and those without. The review states, “In no specification do we find that primary or general turnout significantly declined between 2010 and 2014 in states that implemented a strict voter ID law in the interim.” And why would it? Various other ID laws11 abound across the nation and in every state, and those laws are not deemed racist or suppressive. They are understood to be common sense tools necessary for the proper functioning of a modern society. Certainly for any representative government to function with integrity, it must protect its citizens' vote.

What is clear is that the progenitors of the faulty study manipulated the data in order to support their political agenda. Logan Churchwell, a spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, states, “For a perfect example of the term ‘alternate facts’ look no further [than this faulty study]. For years, activists and academics have been searching for the silver bullet to prove voter ID is harmful to minorities, despite broad support for the laws across every demographic.” Too often what is passed off as “scientific fact” is more accurately categorized as unsubstantiated opinion.

The Dems' Tax Deception Problem12

Democrats like chiding Republicans on the tax issue, particularly when it comes to “the wealthy” who “don’t pay their fair share.” It’s a convenient talking point geared toward constituents because it conjures up feelings of anger, jealousy and resentment. And the Democrat Party has exploited it to the fullest extent possible in an effort to sway elections.