nChrist
|
 |
« on: June 26, 2017, 01:23:36 PM » |
|
________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 6-26-2017 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription ________________________________________
Mid-Day Digest
Jun. 26, 2017
IN TODAY’S EDITION
A charity rating group backs off its decidedly uncharitable rating system. Michael Brown’s death ignited Black Lives Matter. Ferguson decide what his was worth. With Mueller’s investigation becoming more politicized, Trump can fight back. Daily Features: Top Headlines, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.
THE FOUNDATION
“There are certain social principles in human nature, from which we may draw the most solid conclusions with respect to the conduct of individuals and of communities. We love our families more than our neighbors; we love our neighbors more than our countrymen in general. The human affections, like solar heat, lose their intensity as they depart from the centre.” —Alexander Hamilton (1788.)
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
GuideStar’s Slanderous ‘Hate Group’ Designation1
The nation’s leading and supposedly “neutral” informational source on U.S. charitable groups, GuideStar, has found itself in hot water for adopting the leftist organization Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) label of “hate group” into its own designation delimiters. Not surprisingly, several conservative nonprofits objected and sent a letter to GuideStar pointing out the biased nature of the SPLC’s slanderous designation. The letter, addressed to GuideStar CEO Jacob Harold and signed by 41 conservative leaders, states in part:
We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, write to express our strong disagreement with GuideStar’s newly implemented policy that labels 46 American organizations as “hate groups.” Your designations are based on determinations made by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a hard-left activist organization. As such, SPLC’s aggressive political agenda pervades the construction of its “hate group” listing.
Among the conservative charitable organizations listed by GuideStar as “hate groups” is the Family Research Council (FRC). (As a side note, a leftist wacko attacked FRC headquarters in 2012 intending “to kill as many people as possible” because the SPLC designated FRC as a “hate group.”) FRC President Tony Perkins, whose columns2 are a regular feature on our site, points to what was likely the motivating factor behind GuideStar’s recent controversial decision — politics. It turns out that the CEO of GuideStar is quite the leftist activist himself. Perkins notes that Harold has worked for both Greenpeace and the Rainforest Action Network. He has also written for the Huffington Post and he hosted an NARAL Pro-Choice DC men’s event in 2014. His wife is a pro-abortion advocate and he marched in the “Women’s March” this past January, where he held a sign protesting Donald Trump. And he has donated to Democrats. Needless to say, Harold is hardly the poster boy for objectivity.
Fortunately, GuideStar saw the light. Sort of. GuideStar released a statement3 on its website declaring that it is backing off its controversial use of the SPLC’s ‘hate group’ designation, at least for the immediate future. The statement reads in part, “We have decided to remove the SPLC annotations from these 46 organizations for the time being. This change will be implemented during the week of June 26, 2017. In the meantime, we will make this information available to any user on request.” Apparently, the negative media attention and the thought of losing its credibility created a little needed introspection.
Brown, Castile Families Win Race Bait Lotto4
In an effort to put the whole debacle in the past, the City of Ferguson, Missouri, settled a civil suit brought over the death of Michael Brown5. The $1.5 million settlement will be paid out by the city’s insurance company and split between Brown’s parents. Recall that the grand jury found no legitimate reason to indict Officer Darren Wilson on any charges, and even Barack Obama’s Justice Department found nothing wrong with Wilson’s actions. But just like that, Brown’s parents won the latest round of the legal lotto. The same thing happened Monday morning in the Minneapolis suburb where Philando Castile was killed by Officer Jeronimo Yanez during a traffic stop last summer. Castile’s mother was awarded $3 million.
Like the payouts for the deaths of Freddie Gray6 and Eric Garner7, the settlements in these cases of alleged police brutality have never been about justice.
These are now the third and fourth settlements of lawsuits for a death in which a city caved to the mob, even though no injustice was ever proven. (We’ll grant that Castile’s case is different and easily the most sympathetic, but a jury acquitted Yanez last week.) In each of these incidents law enforcement was found to have acted legally, yet by agreeing to these settlements these cities willingly perpetuate the fabrication that a culture of institutional racism exists within law enforcement. It’s important to note that Ferguson birthed the Black Lives Matter movement, which is allegedly in support of blacks. However, it’s a movement based on a lie, and its proponents have led destructive protests and riots costing millions in property damage around the country, often to the very communities they claim to represent. Baltimore, New York City and now Ferguson and St. Anthony are helping to set a precedent where if violent, rioting mobs drum up enough frenzy, then money will flow soon after to make the issue go away.
Top Headlines8
Trump signs VA reform bill. (The Hill9)
Trump appoints 19 ambassadors. (The Washington Times10)
Military chiefs seek delay in allowing transgender enlistment. (CBS News11)
CNN imposing new rules after posting fake Trump/Russia stories. (The Hill12)
Data shows media covered Gabby Giffords shooting twice as much as Steve Scalise shooting. (The Federalist13)
California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon shelves single-payer health care bill, calling it “woefully incomplete.” (Los Angeles Times14)
41% of counties could have only one insurer participating on ObamaCare exchanges. (The Washington Free Beacon15)
SCOTUS News:
Supreme Court revives Trump travel ban, further hearing scheduled for October. (The Washington Times16)
Court will hear case on religious rights of business owners when it comes to same-sex weddings. (Fox News17)
Court sides with Missouri church in major church-state decision over use of public funds. (The Washington Post18.)
Court won’t rule on carrying guns in public. (USA Today19)
Policy: Understanding the Senate health care bill. (Health Affairs20)
Policy: Germany is learning the cost of Merkel’s big heart. (The Washington Times21)
For more, visit Patriot Headline Report22.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS Time to Appoint a Second Special Counsel23
By Arnold Ahlert
John C. Eastman, Founding Director24 of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and a man who has represented 17 parties before the Supreme Court, has some advice for President Donald Trump: fight fire with fire.
“Perhaps it is time to make good on that old pledge to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the Clinton ‘matters’ after all,” he writes25. “And while you’re at it, add in referrals to the grand jury for the contempt of Congress committed by the IRS’s Lois Lerner and former Attorney General Eric Holder, an FBI investigation of the destruction of government documents and servers in the midst of the IRS scandal, an investigation into alleged perjury committed by IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in testimony about those matters given under oath to Congress, an ‘obstruction of justice’ investigation against former Attorney General Eric Holder and others (and related perjury charges against Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez) for allegedly ordering that an egregious voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party be dropped shortly before a default judgment was about to be entered in the government’s favor, etc., etc., etc.”
Eastman’s ire is driven by the appointment of Robert Mueller and the broad latitude he has been given to conduct his investigation. Latitude Eastman likens to a “writ of assistance” and the power to exercise a “general warrant” against Trump, his family, his business associates and his campaign and transition teams, “to see if any crime can be found (or worse, manufactured by luring someone into making a conflicting statement at some point),” he explains.
“That is the very kind of thing our Fourth Amendment was adopted to prevent,” he adds. “Indeed, the issuance of general warrants and writs of assistance is quite arguably the spark that ignited America’s war for independence.”
|