The Patriot Post Digest 3-28-2018

[nChrist]

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 3-28-2018
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

The Patriot Post® · Mid-Day Digest
Mar. 28, 2018 · https://patriotpost.us/digests/55024-mid-day-digest

IN TODAY’S EDITION

Trump’s chess moves are affecting China and North Korea.
Yes, leftists want to repeal the Second Amendment, led by a former SCOTUS justice.
The new citizenship question on the census has leftists in an uproar.
John Bolton brings a lot to the table. But there’s also reason for caution.
Hilarious video from the LA March for Our Lives.
Plus our Daily Features: Top Headlines, Memes, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.

THE FOUNDATION

“Another not unimportant consideration is, that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers, and foreign commerce.” —Joseph Story (1833)

IN BRIEF

NoKo Puppet Summoned to Beijing1

By Thomas Gallatin

News broke Tuesday confirming a rumor that North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un had met with Chinese President Xi Jingping over the weekend in Beijing. Reporting on the meeting, the Chinese state-run media claimed Kim is committed to denuclearization. “It is our consistent stand to be committed to denuclearization on the [Korean] peninsula,” said Kim. “The issue of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula can be resolved if South Korea and the United States respond to our efforts with goodwill, and create an atmosphere of peace and stability while taking progressive and synchronous measures for the realization of peace.” Xi also offered his support for a peaceful resolution, stating that it’s a “strategic choice and the only right choice both sides have made based on history and reality, the international and regional structure and the general situation of China-DPRK ties.”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders called the meeting “evidence” that President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against North Korea is producing results. Sander’s asserted, “The Chinese government contacted the White House earlier on Tuesday to brief us on Kim Jong-un’s visit to Beijing. The briefing included a personal message from President Xi to President Trump, which has been conveyed to President Trump.”

This news follows closely on the heels of China’s desire to negotiate2 after Trump signed off on tariffs last week. And while the mainstream media has focused on the Kim regime’s willingness to seek a denuclearization deal, the real story here is that Trump didn’t fall for China’s bluff.

As we have noted in the past3, North Korea is a puppet of Beijing, as its existence is sustained by economic support from China. In the past, China has been able to leverage the provocations of the Kim regime to gain favorable trade concessions from the U.S. in exchange for reining in its unruly ally. But this time when Kim began his saber rattling by engaging in forbidden missile launches and nuclear tests, Trump simply upped the ante. Trump first pressured China to deal with North Korea via standing by increased sanctions4 supported by the UN. Then, last week, Trump called out China for its unfair trade imbalance with the U.S., demanded a “reciprocal” deal and signed off on a $60 billion tariffs package5.

While the Chinese government is firmly communist, its economy is successful because of its free-enterprise elements. The last thing Xi wants is anything that would seriously jeopardize the communist regime’s grip on power, and a severe contraction of China’s economy would certainly deal a serious blow to his control. Trump’s actions on both North Korea and China have proven successful thus far, causing Beijing and Pyongyang to pause and recalculate their next move. However, this geopolitical chess match is far from over, as both China and North Korea have been playing this game for a long time. For Trump, the endgame must be at the very least a fully denuclearized North Korea. Anything less would be a win for China and the Kim regime.

Dems Spuriously Claim Census Citizenship Question Is ‘Illegal’6

By Jordan Candler

After a 70-year hiatus, the census — a constitutionally mandated national survey commissioned by the federal government every 10 years — is officially set to renew a query of U.S. residents’ citizenship status. In a Monday letter7, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross “determined that reinstatement of a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census is necessary to provide complete and accurate data.” He reasoned that “for the approximately 90 percent of the population who are citizens, this question is no additional imposition. And for the approximately 70 percent of non-citizens who already answer this question accurately on the [American Community Survey], the question is no additional imposition since census responses by law may only be used anonymously and for statistical purposes.”

His last point especially underscores the foolishness of the leftist-infused vitriol that quickly emerged. California’s Democrat Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Secretary of State Alex Padilla penned an op-ed8 in which they scorned the question as “not just a bad idea” but as “illegal.”

It’s remarkable they can even say this with a straight face considering their state perpetually breaks federal law9 by harboring illegal immigrants. To them, what’s down is up and what’s up is down. Further case in point: Following the Commerce Department’s citizenship announcement, Becerra predictably tweeted: “Filing suit against [the Trump] Administration over decision to add #citizenship question on #2020Census.” California will be joined by at least 11 other states in this legal challenge.

California’s attempt at judicial retaliation is entirely meritless. As Secretary Ross stated, “Responses by law may only be used anonymously and for statistical purposes.” Furthermore, the question has significant precedence. Ross also noted in his letter that “prior decennial census surveys of the entire United States population consistently asked citizenship questions up until 1950, and Census Bureau surveys of sample populations continue to ask citizenship questions to this day.” He elucidated: “In 2000, the decennial census ‘long form’ survey, which was distributed to one in six people in the U.S., included a question on citizenship. Following the 2000 decennial census, the ‘long form’ sample was replaced by the American Community Survey (‘ACS’), which has included a citizenship question since 2005. Therefore, the citizenship question has been well tested.” And not exactly unprecedented.

In February, former Justice Department official and Heritage Foundation fellow Hans von Spakovsky wrote10, “Citizenship information collected in the 2000 census was vital to our efforts to enforce the Voting Rights Act when I worked at the U.S. Department of Justice. When reviewing claims of whether the voting strength of minority voters was being diluted in redistricting, it was essential to know the size of the citizen voting age population.” He added: “Without knowing citizenship, for example, it is not possible to know what percentage of Hispanic voters are needed in a particular congressional district to elect their candidate of choice, which is the key test under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.” His takeaway? “Of course” the citizenship question is necessary.

[nChrist]

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 3-28-2018
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

The only reason it’s up for debate today is because the Left has engineered a political crusade, doing everything in its power to cultivate faithful Democrat voters. That includes conjuring up unfounded fear and expecting the courts to intervene. Who knew a basic, traditional, commonsense question over citizenship would become a rallying cry through which Democrats undermine America?

Top Headlines11

Good news: U.S. economic growth in the fourth quarter slowed less than expected, helped by the biggest gain in consumer spending in three years (CNBC12)

More good news: U.S. energy exports hit record in 2017; petroleum and natural gas both hit all-time highs (CNS News13)

Orange County supervisors vote to join Trump’s fight9 against California “sanctuary” laws (Los Angeles Times14)

Trump administration strikes trade deal with South Korea (NPR15)

States brace for ObamaCare sticker shock (The Washington Times16)

Supreme Court takes new look at partisan gerrymandering (NBC News17)

NRA PAC donations more than tripled in February (The Washington Free Beacon18.)

Air Force risks losing third of F-35s if upkeep costs aren’t cut (Bloomberg19)

From the annals of “settled science”: Scientists discover “new organ” hiding in plain sight (New York Post20)

Backlash after Planned Parenthood branch tweets: “We need a Disney princess who’s had an abortion” (Fox News21)

Policy: Facebook privacy scandal: why regulation is not the answer (Investor’s Business Daily22)

Policy: A quiet win at the Department of Education (National Review23)

For more of today’s news, visit Patriot Headline Report24.

FEATURED ANALYSIS
Yes, Leftists Want to Repeal the Second Amendment25

By Louis DeBroux

The recent mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida, high school renewed the debate on gun control and the Second Amendment itself. The stakes were raised this week.

The principle of the debate is simple; namely, the right to self-defense is a God-given right that predates government itself. The Declaration of Independence proclaims we are each endowed by our Creator with certain “unalienable rights” and that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.” Get that? Rights are secured, NOT granted, by government.

Not according to former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who this week declared in a New York Times op-ed that it is time to repeal the Second Amendment26. He argued that the Court erred in 2008 when it ruled the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms (District of Columbia v. Heller27). Bizarrely, by arguing the amendment pertains only to the right of the government to form a well-regulated militia, Stevens claims it to be the only right listed in the Bill of Rights that protects government rather than the individual. (The Tenth Amendment, of course, applies to powers of the states, not rights.)

Stevens’ assertion is utterly false and historically inaccurate28. The Bill of Rights was demanded by the Anti-Federalists as their price for adopting the Constitution. They demanded this clear and unambiguous limitation on the powers of the federal government.

Indeed, the entire reason for the adoption of the Second Amendment was not to protect sport shooting, or hunting, or even for defense against criminals. It was to provide a bulwark against the potential infringements on Liberty by a tyrannical government.

Leftists mock those who still consider government tyranny a danger, but why? Dictators like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong disarmed the populace before slaughtering nearly 100 million innocent people.

“But this is America! It couldn’t happen here!” they say. Oh really? As noted by Justice Clarence Thomas in McDonald v. Chicago29, the first gun control laws prohibited blacks from owning firearms in order to prevent them from defending themselves against KKK mobs. And don’t forget the masses of Japanese-Americans who were rounded up and forced into internment camps during World War II by Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Gun control advocates scoff at those who worry about the slippery slope where “commonsense” gun control30 leads to gun confiscation, but Justice Stevens has exposed their duplicity. Gun confiscation is indeed their ultimate goal. Look no further than articles in popular leftist publications like The New York Times31, NPR32, Vanity Fair33 and Rolling Stone34, all calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

And gun confiscation has already happened35. In 1989, California passed some of these “commonsense” gun laws, banning more than 50 types of semiautomatic firearms and “high-capacity” magazines, but grandfathering in those who already owned them. California gun owners were assured that gun registration was not a precursor to confiscation. Yet in 1999, California banned magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and used that gun registry list to coerce citizens to hand over their firearms. Those who refused to comply had their homes invaded by police wielding — you guessed it — the same guns banned for civilian use.

The whole argument made by anti-gun leftists is hysterical and contradictory. On the one hand, they claim President Donald Trump is a reincarnation of Hitler, a tyrant engaged in the systemic oppression of women, minorities and others. They claim the police are murdering unarmed black men in the streets en masse and cannot be trusted. On the other hand, they demand that Trump’s government take away all privately held firearms and leave us completely dependent on the police for our protection.

But what happens when the police are not close enough to protect you? Or they are close enough but refuse to protect you, as happened at Parkland36? How many realize that the Supreme Court ruled the police have no obligation to protect you37 from harm (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 2005)?

That is one reason why our Founding Fathers demanded the inclusion of the Second Amendment38 in the Bill of Rights — to ensure the right to self-defense, whether that be against foreign armies, violent criminals, or a tyrannical domestic government.

As for what constitutes the “well-regulated militia,” that would be average citizens with guns. Founding Father George Mason proclaimed, “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”

In his Commentaries on the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, the “Father of American Jurisprudence,” made it clear and unambiguous, declaring, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

Disarming law-abiding citizens will not protect innocent people; it will only leave them defenseless against those with homicidal intentions — not to mention at the mercy of tyrannical government. It is beyond foolish to think otherwise.

[nChrist]

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 3-28-2018
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

After Trump’s Tariffs, China Wants to Deal2 — Rather than igniting a trade war, it looks like Beijing is motivated to negotiate. Art of the deal?
What John Bolton Brings to the Table41 — He has the right skillset to flourish in the job, but he must be given the opportunity to succeed.
Video: Will Witt at the March for Our Lives42 — On location at the March for Our Lives Los Angeles to find out what exactly is being protested.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Star Parker: Gun Control Movement Polar Opposite of Civil Rights Movement43
Rich Lowry: The Teenage Demagogues44
Marc A. Thiessen: It’s Not the Job of Cabinet Officials to Be a ‘Check’ on the President45
Ken Blackwell: The Climate Change Trial: A Case Pitting Reason Against Extremism46
John Stossel: The Red Pill47
For more of today’s columns, visit Right Opinion48.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Star Parker: “Covering the pro-gun control March for Our Lives in Washington, CNN ran a headline that read, ‘They’re marching through the same streets as Martin Luther King Jr. did — hoping for similar change.’ … It is critical to understand that this current movement to limit the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment right to own a firearm is at total philosophical odds with what the civil rights movement aimed to accomplish. The civil rights movement was about fixing what was broken in America regarding the ideals of individual freedom and dignity. When King spoke his famous words at the National Mall in August 1963, his appeal was to perfect the American ideal. He called the ‘magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence’ a ‘promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men … would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ King’s movement shone light on the fact that there was pain and suffering in the country because there were still Americans who were not free. That is what needed to be fixed. Today’s movement against guns and the Second Amendment aims in the opposite direction. The claim of this movement is that we have pain and suffering in our nation because we are too free. The marchers and others are telling us we can make a better nation by using the force of government to scale back our freedoms.”

SHORT CUTS

Upright: “THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED! As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite the words … of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, NO WAY. We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!” —Donald Trump

Dystopian lecture25: “These [anti-gun] demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society. … But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment. … Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.” —former Justice John Paul Stevens

Village Idiots: “Assault weapons aren’t the problem. Handguns are the problem. By all means, ban AR-15s and the like, but handguns kill far more people. The solution is to repeal and replace the Second Amendment. Make gun ownership a privilege, not a right. … Gun ownership could be viewed as slavery by another name.” —actor Michael Ian Black

Non Compos Mentis: “We need a disney princess who’s had an abortion. We need a disney princess who’s pro-choice. We need a disney princess who’s an undocumented immigrant. We need a disney princess who’s actually a union worker. We need a disney princess who’s trans.” —Planned Parenthood Keystone in a tweet that’s been deleted

The BIG Lie: “[The census citizenship question] is a craven attack on our democracy and a transparent attempt to intimidate immigrant communities.” —DNC Chairman Tom Perez

And last… “Before Trump was president, [Stormy] Daniels could demand six figures in return for her silence. After his election, she realized she could make fortunes more breaking that silence.” —L. Brent Bozell & Tim Graham

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. We also humbly ask prayer for your Patriot team, that our mission would seed and encourage the spirit of Liberty in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

Nate Jackson, Managing Editor
Mark Alexander, Publisher