THE FOUNDATION

“In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend.” —Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 31, 1788

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Congress Cuts the Line on NSA Data Collection

The Senate passed the USA Freedom Act Tuesday without amendment, and Barack Obama signed it, curbing the NSA’s mass collection of every American’s phone records. While it’s a victory for privacy advocates, work remains in ensuring that the U.S. government respects the Fourth Amendment. Instead of scraping up records on every call in the U.S., the act dictates that private phone companies will keep the records and the government can request the information. The Senate’s 67-32 vote split the Republican Party between its leadership and the more libertarian-leaning lawmakers. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell complained, “There are a number of us who feel very strongly that this is a significant weakening of the tools that were put in place in the wake of 9/11 to protect the country.” But Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the author of the Patriot Act, said some of those “tools” (i.e., mass data collection) were never meant to be given. Notably, Sen. Rand Paul, perhaps the most prominent advocate for NSA reform, voted against the USA Freedom Act, saying it didn’t go far enough. With Sen. Ron Wyden, Paul proposed nine amendments that would have required the government to offer greater justification before it spied on a citizen. For over a decade, the country has been in a constant state of war, allowing an erosion of Fourth Amendment rights because it feared a “lone-wolf terrorist” attack or another 9/11. But a state of fear is not a mark of a free people.

Comment | Share

The TSA Is Groping for Relevancy

In a recent internal investigation into the TSA’s airport screening process, “red teams” working for the Department of Homeland Security were able to sneak bombs and other weapons through the TSA’s line 95% of the time. In other words, of the 70 times DHS tested the system, the TSA caught only three attempts. For an agency with “security” as its middle name, that’s a dismal and dangerous track record. In a statement, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson tried to downplay the findings. “The numbers in these reports never look good out of context,” he said, “but they are a critical element in the continual evolution of our aviation security. … The Inspector General’s preliminary test results are classified, and it is not appropriate or prudent to publicly describe these results.” But the findings were serious enough for Johnson to order a special briefing on the report. Then the axe fell swiftly, as the acting head of the TSA was reassigned Monday. Acting Deputy Director Mark Hatfield Jr. will take over. As Reason’s J.D. Tuccille notes, the vulnerabilities in TSA’s security net have been “revealed, complained about, and baked in for years.” The Heritage Foundation’s David Inserra argues that perhaps it’s time for the TSA to step aside and let private security firms do the job cheaper, friendlier and better. Clearly, bureaucrats groping grandma didn’t make us more secure.

Comment | Share

Warren Won’t Run, Nobody Hardest Hit

Say it ain’t so! Time magazine reports on the demise of the movement to draft Elizabeth Warren to run for president: “Six months after launching ‘Run Warren Run,’ a quixotic campaign to draft Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 presidential race, the two progressive organizations behind it will call it quits and focus more broadly on a populist agenda in the 2016 presidential race, according to a spokesman.” Warren has long been the great “Native American” hope for leftists who can’t stomach Hillary Clinton, but she’s been pretty consistent in saying she won’t run. Ironically, Warren is more powerful in the Senate and among Democrats in general because of her decision not to run. Had she challenged Hillary and failed, she would’ve quickly been relegated to backbencher status. But now she can benefit from the unquenched thirst of her acolytes. And she didn’t even have to build that.

Comment | Share

Share

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS

Et Tu, Bruce?

By Nate Jackson

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.’” This isn’t a treatise on faith, but, for Christians, those words are where any discussions of gender and marriage begin. For those who don’t share our faith, we’d simply point to the Declaration of Independence, in which the Founders acknowledged that Liberty comes from our Creator. And family is the third pillar of Liberty.

But Bruce Jenner didn’t start with objective truth. He started with Bruce Jenner.

Before the aptly named Vanity Fair’s upcoming cover story on the former Olympic Decathlon champion’s transition from Bruce to Caitlyn, Jenner described his view of how God created him: “God’s looking down, making little Bruce. … He says, ‘Okay, what are we gonna do with this one? Make him a smart kid, very determined.’ … And then when he’s just finishing he says, ‘Let’s wait a second.’ God looks down and chuckles a little bit and says, ‘Hey, let’s give him the soul of a female.’”

Jenner insists he’s only coming to terms with who God really made him to be: “If I was lying on my deathbed and I had kept this secret and never ever did anything about it, I would be lying there saying, ‘You just blew your entire life. You never dealt with yourself,’ and I don’t want that to happen.”

God’s Word actually has a lot to say about the subject, and the voices in Bruce’s head are completely at odds with all of it.

So how does 21st century American pop culture respond to his very public and self-congratulatory — yet still physically incomplete — sexual transition?

Mostly with fawning accolades. Media stories erupted everywhere, giving deference to Bruce’s chosen gender instead of his God-given biological one. His Wikipedia entry has been altered to reflect that “she” won Olympic medals — 40 years before this transition. ESPN will award him the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at the July ESPYs. Even Barack Obama found time between rounds of golf to tweet, “It takes courage to share your story.” Jenner quickly set a Twitter record for reaching one million followers — beating Obama’s record.

And, hey, he’s a Republican!

In short, our world includes an ever-increasing population of broken people who celebrate brokenness, while attacking the broken people (like us) who say there’s a better way and a higher truth.

Which prompts the question: What’s courageous about basking in the glory of the media spotlight?

Based on Jenner’s revelations, he is clearly a troubled soul. Compassion, prayer and treatment are appropriate responses. But affirmation? Few things could be less compassionate or helpful.

The comparisons to other mental illnesses and destructive behaviors are numerous and illustrative, albeit imprecise.

RedState’s Erick Erickson focused on behavior, arguing, “[I]f an alcoholic told you that his authentic self was to drink, you would not encourage that. If a person told you his authentic self was to be attracted to small boys, you would not encourage that. If a person told you that his authentic self was to mutilate his body, you would not encourage that.”

Columnist Ben Shapiro recounted a personal story regarding the mental illness aspect, writing, “My grandfather was deeply mentally ill. He spent nearly a year in a psychiatric institution after being diagnosed with bipolar disorder; he heard the radio talking to him. He became suicidal. He spent years battling the condition, until he was prescribed lithium. For the next several decades, the medication brought his mental illness under control. Nothing would have been crueler to my grandfather than had society told him that his delusions were correct — that the radio was, in fact, talking to him; that the curtains were indeed threatening him; that he was normal, and that it was the stereotypes of the world inducing his paranoia. … It’s cruel to allow a mentally ill person to exploit himself in public, but the political left is happy to do so in order to perpetuate the pseudo-scientific nonsense that a man can magically turn into a woman.”

Also, Canada’s National Post had a story this week about people who become disabled by choice, cutting off limbs they don’t want. These supposed “transabled” people are mentally ill.

These comparisons illustrate a painful truth: Leftists don’t care about Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner; they care about an agenda to remake our culture without good or bad, right or wrong, up or down — and most certainly without God. To them, Jenner is merely a tool who normalizes aberration. Leftists are tired of feeling guilty, so, instead of turning to their Creator, they glory in their brokenness. Dysfunction becomes virtue.

Meanwhile, the Left has duped more than half the American public into thinking homosexuals make up a far bigger part of the population than is true. Therefore, Americans are left to conclude as they checkout at the supermarket next to all those tabloids that Jenner is perfectly normal.

Ironically, while the culture celebrates Jenner’s transition, conversion therapy (which can actually help homosexuals who want to go straight) is illegal in some states. Ponder that one.

Next comes more of the inevitable punishment for those who aren’t sufficiently “tolerant.” Consider Brendan Eich, the creator of JavaScript, the cofounder and CEO of Mozilla (which develops the Firefox web browser), who was forced to resign as CEO of the company he founded for contributing to a lawful ballot initiative that opposed same-sex marriage. Or think of the Christian bakers who were forced to bake the cake for same-sex weddings.

Indeed, The Washington Times reports, “The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued guidelines Monday suggesting that employers allow transgender employees access to the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity.” Just wait until this is no longer a suggestion.

Jenner’s story is about far more than celebration and tolerance. It’s about coerced compliance and mandated approval. Jenner is merely a pawn in the Left’s ongoing “coexist” game.

In conclusion, let’s consider another passage of Scripture: “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” We shouldn’t worship Jenner. We should pray for him, for he needs his Creator’s healing redemption.

Comment | Share

TODAY AT PATRIOTPOST.US

• ANALYSIS: Beware Revising American History Education
• Iran’s Latest Violation Is Hardly Surprising
• CT Governor Eroding Home Rule Over Rail Line
• SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Hijab-Wearing Job Applicant

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

• Ben Shapiro: Left Exploits Mental Illness to Push PC Agenda
• Michelle Malkin: The College Board’s Sabotage of American History
• Tony Perkins: On the Magistrate and Narrow…
• John Stossel: Socialist ‘Justice’
• Walter Williams: Intellectual Dishonesty
• Joe Bastardi: Disaster Du Jour, Part II

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Tony Perkins: “When the courts struck down the Tar Heels' 2012 marriage amendment, North Carolina’s Administrative Office of the Court decided to chuck the First Amendment along with it, issuing a decree that officials would either perform same-sex ‘marriages’ or clean out their offices. … [Gov.] Pat McCrory ® vetoed a perfectly reasonable opt-out for the state’s officials. Under the measure passed by the House and Senate, magistrates could exempt themselves from same-sex ‘weddings’ if they agreed to recuse themselves from all weddings for at least six months. If a judge declined to officiate, another one would be brought in to perform the service — meaning that no harm would be done to the state or the couples by this law. … Unfortunately for America, the Left isn’t satisfied with compromise, even genuinely sensible ones like North Carolina’s. Their goal is to tyrannize and terrorize until the country fully submits. As a result, 2.3% of the population gets 100% of the protection. Once again, liberals want ‘tolerance’ but refuse to give it. It’s like driving around with a ‘coexist’ bumper sticker while you run over people with different beliefs.”

Comment | Share

SHORT CUTS

Upright, Part I: “I wonder how one goes about determining whether a person is privileged. White privilege can’t be based on median income. Why? It turns out that Asian-American households had the highest median income ($68,636) in 2012. Median income for white households was $57,000. Maybe our academic elite should condemn Asian privilege instead of white privilege. But there’s another problem. My income puts me in America’s top 5 percent. If those who condemn white privilege could not see my dark brown skin color, they would also condemn me for white privilege. The bottom line to this campus nonsense is that ‘privilege’ has become the new word for ‘personal achievement.’” —Walter Williams

Upright, Part II: “A ‘liberal paradise’ would be a place where everybody has guaranteed employment, free comprehensive health care, free education, free food, free housing, free clothing, free utilities and only law enforcement personnel have guns. And, believe it or not, such a liberal utopia does indeed exist. It’s called prison.” —Maricopa County AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio

The BIG Lie: “One of my core principles is that I will never engage in politics in which I’m trying to divide people.” —Barack Obama

Advice from a narcissist: “[W]hen I look at other political careers that I admire, I think the most important thing is to have a sense of principle and why you’re in public service. I think sometimes people want to be in public service just because they like seeing their name up in lights; they like being important. And that’s a bad reason to go into politics.” —Barack Obama

Demo-gogues: “Fossil fuel companies and their allies are funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution. … The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking.” —Sheldon Whitehouse

And last… “What is it about trains that makes them objects of endless fascination to small children and Democrats?” —Frank Fleming

Comment | Share

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.

THE FOUNDATION

“It should be your care, therefore, and mine, to elevate the minds of our children and exalt their courage; to accelerate and animate their industry and activity; to excite in them an habitual contempt of meanness, abhorrence of injustice and inhumanity, and an ambition to excel in every capacity, faculty, and virtue. If we suffer their minds to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives.” —John Adams, Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1756

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Actor Supports Guns in Schools, Hollywood Goes Hysterical

It takes courage to come out conservative in Hollywood. And actor Vince Vaughn, known for his roles in “assembly-line comedies,” has stepped into the political crosshairs. “You think the politicians that run my country and your country don’t have guns in the schools their kids go to? They do,” Vaughn told UK-based Sky News. “And we should be allowed the same rights. Banning guns is like banning forks in an attempt to stop making people fat. Taking away guns, taking away drugs, the booze, it won’t rid the world of criminality. … In all of our schools it is illegal to have guns on campus, so again and again these guys go and shoot up these … schools because they know there are no guns there. They are monsters killing six-year-olds.” Hollywood and UK media quickly labeled Vaughn an idiot. But Charles C. W. Cooke notes that Vaughn’s thinking is correct, if a bit underdeveloped, as Vaughn never specifies how he envisions guns in schools. But Vaughn gets the concept of self-defense: “It’s well known that the greatest defense against an intruder is the sound of a gun hammer being pulled back.” Given that Hollywood hypocrites make so much money from gratuitous violence, it’s refreshing to hear an actor support the Second Amendment.

Comment | Share

May Concludes With 43 Homicides in Baltimore

In recent years, Chicago has been the focal point of attention regarding violence among minorities in large cities, but Baltimore has rocketed up the chain after a record-setting number of homicides in May. Criminal activity jumped following the death of Freddie Gray, and the spree continued on Sunday with three additional felonious deaths. The month ended with a staggering 43 murders, the most of any May and “the deadliest month since the early 1970s, when 44 people were killed in December 1971 and 45 people in August 1972,” USA Today reported. Unsurprisingly, the upward swing in homicides is commensurate with a precipitous drop in the number of suspects being apprehended (32% by one estimate). The city has registered 116 homicides year-to-date. And while that may not sound impressive compared to areas like Chicago, on a per-capita-basis Baltimore in its current climate is actually far more dangerous. As Daily Caller contributor Derek Hunter writes, “The 48 murders in Chicago [in May] are disturbing, but the city has a population of 2.7 million people. In the month of May, there was one murder for every 56,250 Chicagoans. Meanwhile in Baltimore, a city with a population of only 622,000, their 43 murders puts them at a rate of one murder for every 14,465 residents.” In other words, “Residents of Baltimore were 3.8 times more likely to be murdered than residents of Chicago in the month of May,” Hunter concludes. Most alarmingly, imagine the homicide figures in a city like Chicago if it were to experience a Freddie Gray-type incident.

Comment | Share

About MSU’s Study on ‘Far Right’ Groups

This is the key question: How do the National Institute of Justice and Michigan State University define “far right” groups? Through the NIJ, the Department of Justice awarded a $585,719 grantto MSU to study how “extremist groups use web forums, social media, and technology to enculturate and radicalize individuals to violence.” It’s a question worth studying, as the U.S. government currently worries about supposed “lone-wolf” terrorism. While the study aims to analyze extremists' social networks to “identify the hidden networks of individuals who engage in extremist movements based on geographic location and ideological similarities” (which is a good descriptor of Jihadistan), the study will look at three jihadist forums — but four from the “far Right.” There are questions about what the Obama administration considers to be dangerous right-wing groups. MSU could be studying the sovereign citizen movement. But in 2009, Mark Alexander warned that Obama’s government was warily eyeing the Tea Party movement. In that same year, the Department of Homeland Security thought veterans returning from combat could be dangerous. If MSU wants to remain objective, it should also study the communications of far-Left groups. But then again is objectivity the point? More…

Comment | Share

Don’t Miss Patriot Humor

Check out Kerry’s Broken Leg.

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

Share

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS

EPA Proposes More Corn for Fuel, Not Food

By Paul Albaugh

Compared to this time last year, Americans are paying much less at the gas pump. Enjoy it while you can, though, because gas prices are about to rise. The expected price increase isn’t due to chaos in the Middle East or a shortage of fossil fuels. No, it’s due to the Environmental Protection Agency and its newly released proposal to increase ethanol production. By the way, do you like your food bill? Get ready, because that’s about to increase too.

The EPA’s proposed three-year ethanol mandate will increase the amount of biofuel mixed into the gasoline supply. This may sound great to supporters of so-called renewable energy, but it’s actually doubling down on a terrible idea.

Why? Well, there are several problems with requiring more ethanol in America’s fuel.

First, several gasoline refiners have warned that the proposal “moves more quickly than the market can support.” In 2007, when Congress expanded the Renewable Fuel Standard, only half of all gasoline contained 10% ethanol. Right now, nearly all of the gasoline produced and used in the U.S. contains 10% ethanol. However, the decrease in demand for gasoline due to more fuel-efficient vehicles means a corresponding decrease in demand for ethanol. The EPA would rather ignore reality and aims to increase ethanol production anyway.

According to The Hill, the EPA “set its overdue 2014 requirements at the actual level of production — 15.93 billion gallons of biofuel — increasing the total to 16.3 billion gallons this year and 17.4 billion gallons in 2016. The statutory requirement for 2016 is 22.25 billion gallons.” Under the EPA’s new proposal, about 4.7 billion gallons of renewable fuel are expected to come from advanced forms of biofuel such as cellulosic ethanol derived from plant mass material, despite its slower-than-expected development. The remainder will be corn-based ethanol, which brings us to problem number two: increased food costs.

The mandate drives up food prices because corn is a staple food and is also used by livestock for feed. Has anyone noticed the skyrocketing price of beef over the last several years? Furthermore, if more corn is used for ethanol, then there is less food for people in the world who are starving. Quite the double standard for progressives and environmentalists who rage about the human population dying from climate change. No doubt hungry people would love to have some corn to eat, but, nah, let’s burn it for fuel so we can save mankind in the future.

Last year, Mark Alexander noted some staggering statistics that are worth repeating: More than 90% of our nation’s corn crop went toward feeding people and livestock in the year 2000, with less than 5% of the crop going toward ethanol. In 2013, however, a whopping 40% went toward ethanol. To illustrate this grossly inefficient use of our natural resources, the amount of grain required to fill a 25-gallon automotive fuel tank with ethanol is enough grain to feed one person for an entire year.

The third problem with the EPA proposal is that ethanol itself is more costly for drivers and consumers. Despite auto engines being built to better handle ethanol’s corrosive effects, ethanol gasoline causes significant and costly mechanical problems for small boat engines and yard equipment. But auto engines are about to be impacted in the near future, too. How so? It turns out that Barack Obama is set to pledge $100 million to expand the use of ethanol blender pumps to allow drivers to mix more ethanol into their gasoline. Sure, it may work for new flex fuel vehicles, but not so well for older cars. Some people won’t discover that until it’s too late.

This is a pathetic pledge and ultimately pathetic policy, funded by the American taxpayer. People will have to pay a little more in taxes to pay for these pumps, pay a little more for the ethanol that comes out of the pumps and then pay more to fix what the ethanol destroys.

The final problem with the EPA’s proposal — and perhaps one of the primary reasons for it — is that there are subsidy recipients who stand to profit handsomely. In other words, the government is picking winners. While we’re not opposed to people and businesses making profits, we are adamantly opposed to the central planners who by regulations and fiats force products into the market. Some farmers and ecofascists stand to benefit, but when free market principles are cast aside America loses.

In the coming months, we’ll be watching to see where the Republican presidential candidates stand on this issue. So far, most of them are singing praises of the ethanol mandate. It seems they’re more concerned about getting votes in Iowa and bowing to King Corn than they are for standing for free market principles. Note to Republican presidential candidates: Try not to get on board with the ethanol mandate, because it’s ultimately part of Obama’s climate change agenda.

Comment | Share

TODAY AT PATRIOTPOST.US

• ANALYSIS: Paul and Graham Both Have Something to Learn
• Meme: Obama’s Version of ‘American Exceptionalism’
• Humor: Hush Money

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

• Ed Feulner: Minimum Wage, Maximum Hypocrisy
• Dennis Prager: Differences Between Left and Right, Part II
• Arnold Ahlert: Demoralizing Police Forces Is Insane
• David Limbaugh: Leftist Censors Strike Again
• Thomas Sowell: Paying the Price
• Michael Barone: Is It Time for Civil Disobedience of Kludgeocratic Bureaucracy?

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Dennis Prager: “[C]onservatives believe that good is achieved far more gradually than liberals do. The process of making a better world is largely a one-by-one-by-one effort. And it must be redone in every single generation. The noblest generation ever born still has to teach its children how to battle their natures. If it doesn’t, even the best society will begin to rapidly devolve, which is exactly what conservatives believe has been happening to America since the end of World War II. The Left does not focus on individual character development. Rather, it has always and everywhere focused on social revolution. … The Founders all understood that the transformation that every generation must work on is the moral transformation of each citizen. Thus, character development was at the core of both childrearing and of young people’s education at school. … [F]reedom requires self-control. Otherwise, external controls — which means an ever more powerful government — would have to be imposed. The more that Leftist ideas influence society the less character education there is. … [T]he age-old wisdom embraced by conservatives remains as true as ever: Before you fix society, you must first fix yourself.”

Comment | Share

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build
and nobody wants to do maintenance.” —author Kurt Vonnegut Jr. (1922-2007)

Non Compos Mentis, Part I: “[T]he best way to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon is a verifiable, tough agreement. A military solution will not fix it. Even if the United States participates, it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it will not eliminate it.” —Barack Obama, taking options off the table when he promised not to do so

Non Compos Mentis, Part II: “People don’t remember, but when I came into office, the Untied States in world opinion ranked below China and just barley above Russia, and today once again, the Untied States is the most respected country on earth.” —Barack Obama

Non Compos Mentis, Part III: “As I always point out, democracy is hard. I think many of the things said about me are terribly unfair. But the reason American democracy has survived so long is because people, even if they are wrong, have the right to say what they think.” —Barack Obama

Village Idiots: “We must find a formula which is valuable for everybody and valuable for the U.S. without going to the Congress.” —French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius on reaching a climate accord in Paris later this year

Woman of the people: “Go to the end of the line.” —Hillary Clinton to supporters wanting a photograph with her

And last… “Hillary Clinton’s campaign revealed she’ll announce for president at a rally next week in New York. She’ll kick off the day by giving an interview to George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. The announcement was made by Hillary Clinton’s press spokesman, George Stephanopoulos of ABC News.” —Argus Hamilton

Comment | Share

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.

THE FOUNDATION

“There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness.” —George Washington, Fifth Annual Message, 1793

EDITOR’S NOTE

Sometimes events remind us all that life is more than politics. The death of Beau Biden, son of Joe Biden, is one of those events. Beau had privately battled brain cancer for the last few years, but succumbed on Saturday. Beau, 46, was a major in the Delaware Army National Guard. He served in Iraq and was awarded the Bronze Star. He was also attorney general in Delaware and once considered a potential governor. Beau leaves behind his wife, Hallie, and two children, Natalie and Hunter. Joe Biden is no stranger to tragedy, either. In 1972, he lost his first wife, Nelia, and 13-month-old daughter, Naomi, in a car accident. Biden’s sons, Beau and Hunter, survived. Political differences aside, we in our humble shop offer our sincerest condolences to the Biden family.

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

DOJ Planning Next Assault on Gun Rights

If Barack Obama can’t push gun control through the nation’s lawmaking body, then he’ll pile on the regulations. By November, the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are expected to finalize regulations that would restrict who is qualified to exercise their Second Amendment rights. “The regulations range from new restrictions on high-powered pistols to gun storage requirements,” The Hill reports. “Chief among them is a renewed effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable or have been convicted of domestic abuse. … As proposed, the regulation makes it illegal for some who has been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense to own a gun.” The Left has been test firing these regulations since 1998, but it is revising the proposed regulation binge because of Sandy Hook and “public health.” Furthermore, what constitutes domestic assault and mental illness is subject to social mores, and rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not tied to majority rule.

Comment | Share

Patriot Act Expires After Last-Minute Senate Fight

The Senate allowed the Patriot Act to expire Sunday after opposition, led by Rand Paul, derailed the efforts of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to renew the act and endorse the NSA’s mass metadata collection efforts. The chamber did, however, vote 77-17 to take up the House-passed USA Freedom Act, which would revise the Patriot Act to specifically prohibit the NSA’s domestic spying program — a program ruled illegal by a federal court. Unfortunately, congressional efficiency being what it is, leadership waited too late to bring either bill up for debate, almost ensuring unnecessary drama. That means the good of the Patriot Act was thrown out with the bad. Yet as Reuters reports, “Intelligence experts say a lapse of only a few days would have little immediate effect. The government is allowed to continue collecting information related to any foreign intelligence investigation that began before the deadline.” Fighting terrorists is critical, but collecting data from every American to create the proverbial haystack doesn’t strike us as an efficient or trustworthy way to go about doing that. And it’s time Congress took its national security responsibly more seriously than leaving important work to the last minute.

Comment | Share

O'Malley Officially Challenges Hillary

The symbolism was a bit off, or a telling example of what the future may hold if Martin O'Malley wins the White House. With the Baltimore skyline in the background, the former mayor of the city announced Saturday that he would seek the Democrat nomination for president. Between the idealistic socialist Bernie Sanders and the conniving politician Hillary Clinton, O'Malley doesn’t seem to have much of a chance winning the Democrat Party’s horse race. Publisher of the Rothenberg and Gonzales Political Report, Stuart Rothenberg, told the Baltimore Sun, “The only way he’s going to have a path, is if [Clinton] stumbles. Right now, it’s not about O'Malley and I don’t believe it ever will be about O'Malley.” While we know Clinton’s track record on foreign policy, we know O'Malley’s track record on domestic issues through his leadership in Maryland. It was he that brought tough, zero-tolerance policing to Baltimore — the policing strategy that contributed to the riots that recently rocked the city. Furthermore, it was the guitar-playingpolitician’s progressive economic strategies as governor that drowned Maryland in taxes and waterlogged the state’s economic engine. That economic policy caused Maryland to have the third slowest economic growth of all the states from 2011 to 2013, The Wall Street Journalreports — something the nation’s economy cannot bear after years of implementing Obama’s economic ideas.

Comment | Share

Share

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS

Breaking the Tyranny of DC Gun Laws

By Robin Smith

The left-wing ruling class in the District of Columbia continues its relentless fight against the God-given freedom recognized by the Second Amendment — the right to bear arms, the palladium of liberties. Of course, to the Left, the thought of a constitutional right that doesn’t involve the redefinition of marriage or legalizing the dismemberment of a baby in the womb seems ludicrous.

This chapter in the ongoing saga revolves around a federal judge’s ruling last July that overturned the city’s 40-year ban on carrying firearms for self-defense. In response to the ruling, the leftist DC government designed a very restrictive right-to-carry permit process — one that approved as few applications as possible.

That, too, has been struck down in a federal decision joining the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller ruling that overturned the District of Columbia’s complete ban on handgun ownership. Since that restoration of rights, over 3,000 handguns have been registered in DC, but only for use in protecting one’s home.

The impact of crime upon citizens has made clear that law enforcement is only minutes away when seconds count. The necessity of armed self-defense is becoming more and more a reality in a world where abled-bodied thieves, emboldened by the Left, are confident that only criminals and those riding in squad cars have access to firearms.

In late October 2014, DC politicos crafted a very narrow “may-issue” policy awarding carry permits on the basis that at least one of three conditions can be met: A) there’s a clear and immediate threat to personal safety, B) the applicant works with enough physical currency or items of high value to create a substantiated risk of theft or harm, or C) the applicant cites responsibility for protecting a disabled family member. Further, the applicant must prove they’ve not suffered from mental illness within the last five years. And finally, they have to undergo 18 hours of certified training.

Once the applicant squeezes through the eye of that needle, further restrictions await: No personal weapon can be carried on public transportation, at schools, in any government buildings, bars, hospitals, stadiums, at any protests, or around the White House. An approved permit holder would also have to remain 1,000 feet from any U.S. or foreign dignitary.

By the way, 1,000 feet is more than the length of three football fields. Is anyone in DC that far from a “dignitary”?

As a result of this blatant attack on the constitutional rights of DC citizens, three applicants filed a lawsuit in federal court to combat the ruling. And they succeeded. In his 23-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. wrote, “For all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

Though the restrictions remain regarding places and proximities that permit holders may carry their weapons for self-defense, this new judgment provides some remedy for a city where almost the entire government, from the mayor to the city council to the attorney general, is vehemently anti-gun.

Following the reversal of the unconstitutional ban in late October 2014, the Metropolitan Police Department began accepting applications for carry permits. Of the 107 applications filed as of May 9, only 26 have been approved.

So, in addition to the 3,000 DC citizens who are officially allowed to have arms to protect their homes, there are a whopping 26 individuals who have a carry permit for personal self-defense. All else in DC is a “gun-free zone.” Which means, of course, more guns are in the hands of criminals than with the law-abiding citizens denied their Second Amendment rights.

The 18th Century French political philosopher Montesquieu, known for his belief that free governments are dependent on fragile constitutional arrangements and freedom from tyrants, would sum up the DC denial of rights thusly: “There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.”

Comment | Share

TODAY AT PATRIOTPOST.US

• ANALYSIS: The (Un)Affordable Healthcare Act
• Democrat Wants to Require Insurance for Gun Owners
• On Hastert’s Indictment
• The Iowa Straw Poll Will Be Ignored by Some GOP Candidates
• No, Rains in Southern Plains Not Linked to Global Warming
• Fight Against Islamic State Just a Political Strategy

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

• Jeff Jacoby: It’s Socialism, Not Deodorant, That Starves the Poor
• John Goodman: How Dishonest Is Barack Obama?
• George Will: A Summer Break From Campus Muzzling
• Larry Kudlow: The GOP Needs a 5 Percent Growth Target
• Peggy Noonan: The Hillary Clinton Paradox

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Jeff Jacoby: “What this country needs, says Bernie Sanders, is less deodorant. The 73-year-old senator from Vermont, now running for the Democratic presidential nomination, told CNBC’s John Harwood in an interview on Tuesday that because American consumers can choose from so many brands of personal-care products, kids are going to bed with empty bellies. ‘You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country,’ Sanders lamented. … On Wednesday … the United Nations reported that hunger still afflicts about 795 million people around the globe, or about one out of every nine human beings. As great a challenge as that is, it represents an amazing decrease in the number of undernourished people over the past 25 years. Even though the world’s population has grown by 1.9 billion since 1990, there are 216 million fewer men, women, and children threatened by hunger today than there were then. … [P]opulist rhetoric from a ‘humorless aging hippie peacenik Socialist’ (as Sanders was once described in a New York Times Magazine profile) doesn’t fill empty food bowls. Market economies do. ‘Markets that function well are important for promoting food security and nutrition,’ the UN report says. ‘Markets … ensure food availability.’ From China to Tanzania, from North Korea to the Soviet Union, socialism over the past century condemned countless children — and their parents — to hunger, malnutrition, and famine. Deodorant never hurt a soul.”

Comment | Share

SHORT CUTS

The Gipper: “Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid.”

Obama’s America: “Powerful, wealthy special interests here at home have used our government to create, in our own country, an economy that is leaving a majority of our people behind. We are allowing our land of opportunity to become a land of inequality.” —Democrat presidential candidate Martin O'Malley on why voters should keep Democrats in the White House

Dezinformatsia: “I don’t know, maybe we were not skeptical enough [of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama]. It was a campaign. … I think as journalists, basically, what we do is we watch the campaign and we report what the two sides are doing. I think it is the politicians who make the campaign.” —CBS’s Bob Schieffer (“It’s unfortunate given Schieffer’s retirement that he was unwilling to admit the role the media have in shaping a political campaign.” —Newsbusters' Jeffrey Meyer)

Non Compos Mentis: “I have my disagreements, say, with President Obama, but President Obama has run an amazingly scandal-free administration, not only he himself, but the people around him. He’s chosen people who have been pretty scandal-free.” —New York Times' David Brooks

Village Idiot: “[T]he connection between climate change and human activity is at least as strong as cigarettes and cancer. And so, I just want everybody to keep this in mind: that it’s very reasonable that the floods in Texas, the strengthening storms … these things are a result of human activity making things worse.” —Bill Nye the “Science” Guy

And last… “The New York Times ripped President Obama for inaction leading up to the fall of Ramadi. ISIS has set fire to Tikrit, they’ve set fire to Mosul and they’ve set fire to Ramadi. Saudi Arabia has just hired a New York ad agency to re-brand ISIS as Climate Change in an effort to get President Obama to declare war.” —Argus Hamilton

Comment | Share

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.

THE FOUNDATION

“The best service that can be rendered to a country, next to that of giving it liberty, is in diffusing the mental improvement equally essential to the preservation, and the enjoyment of the blessing.” —James Madison, letter to Littleton Dennis Teackle, 1826

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Secrecy Surrounds Dennis Hastert’s Indictment

The Department of Justice unveiled an indictment against former House Speaker Dennis Hastert Thursday, accusing him of lying to the FBI and withdrawing cash in such a way as to hide the fact he was paying someone “$3.5 million in order to compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct.” It’s stunning enough that federal prosecutors brought charges against a politician of Hastert’s caliber. But the question of the hour is why he was so willing to pay someone $3.5 million. Before entering politics, Hastert taught high school history and coached wrestling in Yorkville, Illinois. Someone in the U.S. attorney’s office apparently believes paying a bribe is a greater crime than Hastert’s misconduct. So they covered up the information because it’s embarrassing to the former politician. He was once one of the most powerful politicians in the country and we are denied the ability to know whether this affected his leadership. More…

Comment | Share

Surprise! First Quarter GDP in the Tank

A month ago, the government pegged GDP growth at a tentative 0.2% for the first quarter of 2015. However, as we noted at the time, revisions knocked last year’s first quarter GDP down by a staggering two percentage points — from 0.1% to -2.1% — meaning the economy actuallycontracted to start off 2014. That inevitably raised the question: Is a repeat in the offing? We now know the answer to that question, and it’s a resounding yes. Today, Commerce Department revisions showed first quarter GDP was lower than initially reported. Instead of 0.2% growth — an already sluggish number — January-March GDP now stands at -0.7%. The Wall Street Journal reports, “The latest downgrade came after new data showed a wider trade deficit and a slower pace of restocking by firms than earlier estimates, damping demand at factories and service providers. Those developments added to an already bleak picture of weak consumer spending and a downturn in business investment.” And according to Reuters, “With growth estimates so far for the second quarter around 2 percent, the economy appears poised for its worst first-half performance since 2011.” A myriad of rehashed excuses are already flooding in — from winter weather woes to flawed government methods to a mere hiccup — but it’s not like the economy ever gained much footing under the Obama recovery to begin with.

Comment | Share

Los Angeles Labor Leaders Want Minimum Wage Exemption

Oh the irony. Fourteen Los Angeles council members recently voted to incrementally raise the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour. Considering a whopping 50% of the city’s workforce makes minimum wage, the new law is bound to have significant ramifications — which may explain this oddity from the Los Angeles Times: “Labor leaders, who were among the strongest supporters of the citywide minimum wage increase approved last week by the Los Angeles City Council, are advocating last-minute changes to the law that could create an exemption for companies with unionized workforces.” Rusty Hocks with the Federation of Labor defended the proposed exemption by opining, “With a collective bargaining agreement, a business owner and the employees negotiate an agreement that works for them both. The agreement allows each party to prioritize what is important to them.” Yet, as the Times notes, “For much of the past eight months, labor activists have argued against special considerations for business owners, such as restaurateurs, who said they would have trouble complying with the mandated pay increase.” In other words, labor leaders want the flexibility to negotiate a mutually fair hourly wage — one that may very well fall below $15 — while forcing non-unionized businesses to comply with an admittedly harmful law. The Left, it seems, doesn’t want to raise the minimum wage so much as coerce businesses into joining a union, which would then translate into political capital.

Comment | Share

Share

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS

The Debate Over the Death Penalty Has Just Begun

By Lewis Morris

Nebraska lawmakers voted Wednesday to make that state the 19th to ban the death penalty. Republican Governor Pete Ricketts vetoed earlier in the week the bill that sought to repeal the state’s death penalty statute. According to Nebraska law, it takes 30 of 49 senators in the unicameral legislature to override a gubernatorial veto. And 30 votes are exactly what death penalty opponents got. The original bill was passed last week and sent to Ricketts with 32 votes.

Ricketts stated in his veto of the original legislation, “Repealing the death penalty sends the wrong message to Nebraskans who overwhelmingly support capital punishment and look to government to strengthen public safety, not weaken it.”

The governor burned phone lines and called in favors in an effort to sustain his veto, but he was ultimately unable to do so. Still, with a thin majority supporting the original ban, and the thinnest of majorities overriding Ricketts' veto, it is almost guaranteed that this issue will come up again next term. The governor vowed, “While the legislature has lost touch with the citizens of Nebraska, I will continue to stand with Nebraskans and law enforcement on this important issue.”

Nebraska’s rejection of the death penalty is certainly being heralded in liberal circles as a victory. Advocates for the rights of convicted criminals — often acting without any regard for the rights of victims and their families — have been marching forward to make America a death penalty-free country for decades. And they have been experiencing some success lately.

Of the states without the death penalty, a third have banned it after 2007. Many of those actions have been motivated by concerns that capital punishment is cruel and unusual, grossly misapplied across various cases, and inherently racist. (This last reason is patently false. White defendants make up 55% of all executions since 1976, with blacks and Latinos comprising 34% and 8%, respectively. Seventy-five percent of the victims have been white, with 15% black and close to 7% Latino.)

Just the same, Nebraska’s case is unique. It is the most conservative state to ban the death penalty, and the reasons that motivated lawmakers to support the ban are varied.

State Sen. Mark Kolterman, a self-professed conservative, reasoned that support for the death penalty ran afoul of his commitment to protecting life. He also expressed fiscal concerns: “The state has spent approximately $100 million on death penalty related cases since 1976, but has only executed three people.”

The fiscal argument rang true for a number of senators who supported the ban, but the lawmakers who wanted to keep the punishment in place reasoned that Nebraska has executed few criminals under the statute. Ricketts wrote in the Omaha World-Herald, “In Nebraska, there are only 10 inmates on death row. Unlike California or Texas, which have hundreds on death row, we use the death penalty judiciously and prudently. Retaining the death penalty is not only important to the integrity of criminal prosecutions but also vitally important to good prison management and protecting our prison officials.”

A majority of Americans support the death penalty, although that margin has been declining over time. As might be expected, Republicans overwhelmingly support it, while a majority of Democrats do not.

Liberals should not be heartened by Nebraska’s sudden turn as a conservative state. The reasons for voting against the bill are practical in scope — consider the fiscal arguments. This is something Democrats are not known for. The final chapter in Nebraska’s death penalty saga remains unwritten despite this latest vote. Like many states across the country, the battle in Nebraska will continue to rage over whether capital punishment is just or cruel.

Recent advances in DNA research have exonerated a number of people wrongly accused of crimes that would have led to their execution, casting a dark shadow over the judicial system and its application of the death penalty. Additionally, there is the argument over method, with many now claiming that lethal injection is a cruel form of execution. Some states such as Utah, Tennessee and Oklahoma have looked into alternative methods.

Nebraska’s ban of the death penalty is not the beginning of the end of capital punishment in the United States, nor is it a last gasp for the movement to end it. It is, more appropriately, another salvo in an ongoing battle in which both sides air their grievances and continue their work.

Comment | Share

TODAY AT PATRIOTPOST.US

• ANALYSIS: SCOTUS Agrees to Define ‘One Person, One Vote’
• George Pataki Faces Impossible Odds to the Presidency
• Al-Qaida in Syria Says It’s Not About to Attack the West
• Hillary: We Democrats Inherit Republican-Caused Messes
• Here’s How the Clinton Foundation Took Care of Blumenthal

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

• Mona Charen: Obama Not Offended Enough by Anti-Semitism
• Charles Krauthammer: Why Doctors Quit
• Jonah Goldberg: Absence of a Smoking Gun Doesn’t Equate to Innocence
• Michael Barone: Colleges and Universities Have Grown Bloated and Dysfunctional
• Michelle Malkin: Who Built the Brooklyn Bridge?

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Mona Charen: “Iran’s leaders are infected by a disease of the mind that prevents them from perceiving the world accurately. Their anti-Semitism is Nazi in intensity. They believe, as Hitler did, in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy that is responsible for wars, sectarian conflict among Muslims (!), disease and oppression. The regime hosts Holocaust denial conferences. They ceaselessly refer to Israel and Jews as ‘cancers’ or ‘rabid dogs.’ What do you do to cancers and rabid dogs? You kill them. … It’s profoundly worrying that Obama can shrug off the abundant evidence that the Iranian regime is in the grip of dangerous illusions about Jewish power and Jewish evil, and casually compare it to the kind of anti-Semitism found in modern-day Europe and America. It’s also morally offensive. The mullahs' anti-Semitism, along with their threats, should be enough to cause Obama, or any decent person, to recoil in disgust. Instead, he has made it the cause of his second term to reach a rapprochement with Iran. He has invited the regime to take the ‘path’ he’s offering to become "a very successful regional power. …Obama’s morality is always in service of his politics, not the other way around.”

Comment | Share

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “We do not consider an individual disciplined when he has been rendered as artificially silent as a mute and as immovable as a paralytic. He is an individual annihilated, not disciplined.” —Italian physician and educator Maria Montessori (1870-1952)

The BIG Lie, Part I: “At minimum, the recent downpours in Texas probably offer a glimpse of what certain parts of the U.S. can look forward to in the coming decades. As the planet continues to get hotter, in large part due to human activity, warmer air in the atmosphere will hold more moisture. This is expected to alter weather patterns and lead to more frequent and more intense instances of extreme precipitation.” —The Huffington Post’s James Gerken (Ironic, considering most of the state was in the midst of a severe multi-year drought.)

The BIG Lie, Part II: “The best climate scientists in the world are telling us that extreme weather events like hurricanes are likely to become more powerful. When you combine stronger storms with rising seas, that’s a recipe for more devastating floods. Climate change didn’t cause Hurricane Sandy, but it might have made it stronger.” —Barack Obama (How then do we explain the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635 — nearly 380 years ago — that was considerably stronger than Sandy? Or any number of similarly strong pre-21st century storms?)

Demo-gogues: “It is a liberating feeling in the sense that the amount of time I have left, it concentrates the mind, and I think a lot of folks have been surprised at the degree to which we are moving and pushing and trying whatever we can to advance the goals of making sure that every American in this country and every child in this country, if they’re willing to work hard, can get ahead, and that opportunity and prosperity is broad-based.” —Barack Obama, a.k.a. The Food Stamp President

Comment | Share

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.

THE FOUNDATION

“[O]f those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” —Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1, 1787

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

EPA Expands Authority Over America’s Waterways

More than a year after initially proposing it, and despite efforts by congressional Republicans to block such a move, the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Crops of Engineers, citing authority under the Clean Water Act, enacted a new rule that gives the federal government additional control over waterways. “The Obama administration issued a rule on Wednesday putting more small bodies of water and wetlands under federal protection to ensure clean drinking supplies,” The Wall Street Journal reports, a power grab that “is estimated to put about 3% more waterways throughout the U.S. under new federal jurisdiction.” Obama officials say they’re simply maximizing existing legal authority. According to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, “This rule is about clarification, and in fact, we’re adding exclusions for features like artificial lakes and ponds, water-filled depressions from constructions and grass swales.” However, the Journal adds, “The rule seeks to require those kinds of permits for only those waterways that have physical features of flowing water.”

And that’s exactly the concern, explains Hot Air’s Jazz Shaw: “The physical feature of flowing water? Depending on the conditions, the slope of the land and how much it rains on any given day, that could apply to pretty much anything.” Moreover, “People who own property adjacent to or including swampy areas with poor drainage can (and already have) run afoul of the feds if they want to improve the drainage to dry out a section for construction or just a better looking lawn.” As Mark Alexander wrote last month, Democrats, led by the powerful EPA, leverage environmental concerns to conceal their real agenda — the constriction of free enterprise. Their objective is to incrementally implement centralized economic control through regulatory requirements justified by ever-expanding “mandates.” In implementing its newest rule — “one of nearly 10 that the EPA is slated to complete in coming months,” the Journal notes — the agency is essentially saying, “Trust us.” That’s a dangerous thing to oblige when Liberty is at stake.

Comment | Share

Krauthammer: How Amnesty Smackdown Hurts Republicans

Fox News political analyst Charles Krauthammer offered his two cents on Tuesday’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to keep a temporary injunction in place blocking executive amnesty. According to Krauthammer, “For the Republicans, it’s a problem.” Here’s why: “It’s like the case going forward on ObamaCare and the thing about the exchanges and the subsidies. The problem is what happens if you win? Because if you win then the issue gets thrown back into the political arena.” He argues, “If somehow this would be completely tossed out, then the question will be, ‘what’s your plan on immigration reform,’ if anything. I think up until now, you can say, ‘well it’s in the hands of the courts.’ But at a certain point it’s not going to be and you’re going to have to answer.” Like or not, he’s right. Immigration is a sour topic, but taking Barack Obama’s diktats to court isn’t enough. Lest they want to commit political suicide, conservatives will eventually have to rally around viable solutions to the illegal immigration problem and present them in an articulate manner.

Comment | Share

Santorum Announces Second Attempt at Presidency

Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania who appealed to conservative evangelical voters during the 2012 presidential election, announced Wednesday he will once again seek the GOP nomination for the White House. Traditionally known for his value-voter stance on same-sex marriage and abortion, Santorum may try to broaden his appeal this time around. On May 21, Santorum told the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, “We are not going be successful unless we have a message that talks to the people who are struggling to rise.” But while he came second place to Mitt Romney four years ago, he faces longer odds this time around. Statistics blog FiveThirtyEight says Santorum is running in a more crowded field this time around. This places him around 10th place in the popularity polls, right around the cutoff of the number of candidates Fox News and CNN says they will invite to preliminary presidential debates. In other words, Santorum does not only have to fight about issues, he’s running an underdog fight that may be felled by the arbitrary rules created by a media company. More…

Comment | Share

Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column

Read Memo to the GOP: Get Iraq Right, on how every Republican candidate should answer the Iraq question.

If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here.

Share

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS

Your Viewing Guide to Sunday’s Showdown Over the Patriot Act

By Allyne Caan

In the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, passing the Patriot Act seemed the inarguably patriotic thing to do. Nearly 14 years later, however, the lines of patriotism are less clearly drawn. Up for reauthorization, the act is facing staunch opposition — and creating strange bedfellows — in the wake of increasing concerns over government spying on the American people.

Last week, the House, by a vote of 338-88, passed not a reauthorization of the full Patriot Act but the equally patriotic sounding USA Freedom Act, which would continue the Patriot Act’s surveillance powers but end specific practices including the NSA’s data collection program (recently deemed illegal by a federal court), roving wiretaps and so-called lone-wolf surveillance tactics. Among other things, the USA Freedom Act would move the storage of telephone data from the federal government to telecommunications companies.

Between the House and president, however, the Senate stands. With 60 votes needed, the upper chamber came up short of passing the USA Freedom Act, producing just 57 votes before heading home for Memorial Day. At issue are competing views of liberty within the Senate.

Libertarian-leaning Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has long opposed the Patriot Act and would shed not a tear at its demise. He also believes the USA Freedom Act needs amending to ensure stronger protections for Americans against the government.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), on the other hand, believes the Patriot Act’s powers are requisite to security and had pushed for reauthorization of the act at best, a temporary extension at worst. He failed on both counts. Somewhere in the middle are senators who would keep much of the act but allow certain portions of it to expire.

Now, the Senate is set to reconvene this Sunday for a rare, holiday-recess vote in advance of the Patriot Act’s midnight expiration date May 31. Due to the political dance, the Senate is faced with the option of either passing the USA Freedom Act exactly as delivered by the House or allowing all provisions of the Patriot Act to expire, as the House is not slated to reconvene until Monday, several hours after the clock strikes midnight.

The FBI, for its part, has argued that the powers granted by the Patriot Act are invaluable for fighting terrorism. FBI Director James Comey pointed particularly to roving wiretaps, pursuing lone-wolf threats and provisions that allow the FBI to get court orders to track hotel and travel records as part of terrorism investigations. Attorney General Loretta Lynch echoed Comey, opposing the expiration of “vital and uncontroversial tools we use to combat terrorism and crime.” Of course, the meaning of “uncontroversial” is quite controversial.

For his part, Barack Obama is backing the House and urging the Senate to pass the USA Freedom Act, stating, “Make sure we don’t have on midnight Sunday night this task still undone, because it’s necessary to keep the American people safe and secure.” Please note: Obama’s sentiments apply only to government surveillance and not to border security.

Meanwhile, Obama spokesman Josh Earnest reassured the American people that the White House has no Plan B should Congress fail to extend parts of the Patriot Act. This is particularly comforting given executive action would be far worse, regardless of what the Senate and House agree or disagree upon.

Although the USA Freedom Act failed to meet the 60-vote muster the first time around, its prospects may be slightly better on Sunday. According to Politico, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), who voted “no” initially, has suggested he may back the bill; Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) missed the first vote but is being eyed as a possible “yes”; Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and John Boozman (R-AR) are also considered possible “yes” votes. And even McConnell admitted backing for the USA Freedom Act “makes it pretty challenging to extend the law as it is.”

In a world of increasing terror threats, it’s critical that the federal government fulfill its constitutional obligation to “provide for the common defense.” However, it’s up to the American people to ensure this clause does not become the next “general welfare” clause, abused beyond recognition in the name of the public good. While security is critical, liberty is essential. We would do well to remember that fully ceding the latter has never guaranteed the former.

Comment | Share

TODAY AT PATRIOTPOST.US

• ANALYSIS: Who Knew Bill Clinton Liked Soccer So Much?
• DOD Accidentally Sends Live Anthrax Around the States
• Cleveland Police to Do Paperwork if They Pull Out Their Gun
• Christianity in Decline? Not Exactly
• Santa Monica Bans Residents From Renting Out Short-Term

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

• Joe D'Aleo: Winters, Not Summers, Increase Mortality and Stress the Economy
• R. Emmett Tyrrell: A Modest Proposal for Education Reform
• Stephen Moore: Using Tax Dollars to Lobby for More Tax Dollars
• George Will: The Separation of Campaign and State

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

R. Emmett Tyrrell: “[F]rom Atlanta … comes a plan for alternative state funding of the school system that would provide widespread reform. … Glenn Delk wrote about the plan last week in The American Spectator. Here is the plan in a simplified form. The state legislature passes a law allowing families to establish an Education Savings Account for each child, placing up to $8,000 per student into a tax-free account. The money is there to use purely for educational purposes. Any funds left unspent in a year may be rolled over to the next year or for college. Additionally, the state applies for a waiver from the federal government so the state can apply the $1 billion it already gets to Education Savings Accounts of $10,000 each for the state’s poorest children. What is more, the state spends $8,000 per student from the $8 billion it has already set aside for students without regard for family income. Thus, the state could fund one million students without increasing funding. If you assume that the 150,000 students currently attending private schools would qualify, then 850,000 public school students would qualify. Assuming 100,000 of them use federal funds, and 850,000 public school students use state funds, that leaves 650,000 public school students to attend schools run by traditional school districts, with $8 billion in local property tax funding. … I think it is worth a try.”

Comment | Share

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “When individuals and nations have once got in their heads the abstract concept of full-blown liberty, there is nothing like it in its uncontrollable strength.” —German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831)

Non Compos Mentis: “I will say that there does seem to be a pattern. Democratic presidents — and there’s two in particular I’m thinking about — over the last 35 years seem to inherit a mess of problems. Have you noticed that? So then they have to dig us out of the ditches they find themselves in and put us back on the right track. And of course, I’m talking about Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. … Are we going to hand over our country once again to the people and policies that crashed our economy before and that will shred the progress that we’ve made?” —Hillary Clinton

Annals of the absurd: “Do you think the #TexasFlooding is related to climate control or God’s rebuke?” —Al Sharpton

Village Idiot: “Last weekend, more than 1.2 million Irish voters took a courageous stand for love and family when they overwhelmingly chose marriage equality. … And here in the United States, in just the past three years we’ve gone from six states recognizing marriage equality to 37 states, comprising 224 million Americans.” —Joe Biden (The overwhelming majority of those states were forced by the courts to recognize same-sex marriage.)

Dezinformatsia: “Marriage, honeymoons and welfare: @AP exclusive shows Islamic State membership has its privileges.” —tweet from the Associated Press promoting an article titled, “For an IS fighter, a paid honeymoon in caliphate’s heart”

Late-night humor: “I’d love to have Hillary Clinton as a guest on the show, but I can’t afford her speaking fee.” —Conan O'Brien

Comment | Share

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.