THE FOUNDATION

“I am commonly opposed to those who modestly assume the rank of champions of liberty, and make a very patriotic noise about the people. It is the stale artifice which has duped the world a thousand times, and yet, though detected, it is still successful.” —Fisher Ames, letter to George Richard Minot, 1789

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS

NYT Fires Squib Load at NRA

The National Rifle Association’s annual convention kicks off today in Nashville, and our own Mark Alexander is there (say hello!). But the event is also a cue for Leftmedia hackery. The New York Times editorial board points and misfires at what it perceives to be hypocrisy: “Seventy-thousand people are expected to attend the National Rifle Association’s convention … and not one of them will be allowed to come armed with guns that can actually shoot. After all the N.R.A. propaganda about how ‘good guys with guns’ are needed to be on guard across American life, from elementary schools to workplaces, the weekend’s gathering of disarmed conventioneers seems the ultimate in hypocrisy.” Except the Times' editors are exactly wrong — per Tennessee law, attendees with a valid carry permit can carry “guns that can actually shoot” in the convention hall. The crack shot editorial team moves on to criticize the NRA for removing firing pins from guns on display, which is also utter nonsense. The logical conclusion of their argument is that all guns on display ought to be loaded, which as any responsible gun owner would tell you is absurd. Besides, it’s a trade show, not a retail expo. So the Times' editors want to pretend the NRA is loaded with hypocrites, while gun companies and owners are merely proving they aren’t reckless.

Comment | Share

Oh, Look, a Squirrel! Obama Denounces Conversion Therapy

Besieged by criticism for his disastrous deal with Iran, Barack Obama sought a shiny object to distract — even for just a moment — from more pressing concerns. Thus, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett issued a statement on conversion therapy for the gender disoriented. “The overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates that conversion therapy, especially when it is practiced on young people, is neither medically nor ethically appropriate and can cause substantial harm,” the statement said, also warning of “potentially devastating effects on the lives of transgender as well as gay, lesbian, bisexual and queer youth.” Therefore, “As part of our dedication to protecting America’s youth, this administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors.” Recall that until a couple of years ago, Obama was (ostensibly) opposed to same-sex marriage. Now, however, he’s riding a political wave of growing support — or should we say tired and coerced concession — to the homosexual agenda. (Oh, and by the way, the White House will now feature an “all gender bathroom,” too.) This isn’t to evaluate conversion therapy one way or the other, but why on earth would Obama need to offer his opinion other than as a political distraction?

Comment | Share

Walter Scott’s Family Tells Sharpton to Stay Away

Yesterday, Al Sharpton was sending mixed messages about his response to the police shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina. At first, he was rip-roaring ready to make the town Ferguson 2.0. “[National Action Network]’s South Carolina chapter leaders have been with the family since Saturday and our thoughts and prayers are with them and the entire community of North Charleston,” Sharpton said in a statement Friday. “I have spoken with the Scott’s family attorney, Chris Stewart, and plan to visit North Charleston very soon.” But that’s not how Sharpton described the conversations to the New York Daily News. He told the paper he talked with the family, but “we had no plans to go down.” Sharpton continued, “They are in mourning and we would never come unless they asked. We’re willing to be helpful to the family but only when needed.” By the sounds of it, Sharpton learned about the shooting and started preparing for another race-bait crusade before reading the tea leaves. As a person close to the Scott family told NY Daily News, “We don’t want another Ferguson type of circus here.” More…

Comment | Share

Experiment Doesn’t Bode Well for Advocates of Women in Combat

A female infantry experiment implemented by the Obama administration has come to a close without the results many wanted to see. The Marine Corps Times reports, “The two-and-a-half year period in which the Marine Corps' Infantry Officer Course became gender-integrated for research will end without a single female graduate. The final iteration of IOC to accept female Marines on a volunteer basis began April 2 with two female participants. One was a volunteer and one was a member of the newly integrated ground intelligence track. Both were dropped that same day during the grueling initial Combat Endurance Test.” All told, 27 women volunteered alongside two other mandatory participants — well short of the Corps goal of 100 — and all failed to pass the entirety of the course. As for the program’s future, the Pentagon will have the final say. According to the Times, “[D]ata will be taken alongside other research points, including the much higher success rate for enlisted female Marines in passing the Infantry Training Battalion course at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. As of February, 358 women had attempted the course, with 122 graduates, for a pass rate of 34 percent. … All this information will be compiled this summer and used to inform Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford’s recommendation to the secretary of Defense on whether or not to open remaining ground combat units to female troops.” Let’s hope that, rather than playing the sexist card, the Pentagon concedes to common sense — namely, that men and women are created equal, but that doesn’t mean they’re interchangeable. More…

Comment | Share

Did Someone Say Lincoln Chafee?

Republican-Turned-Independent-Turned-Democrat Lincoln Chafee is set to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democrat presidential nomination. (Clinton will likely announce Sunday.) Chafee was a liberal Republican senator from Rhode Island before winning the governor’s seat there as an independent. He then made the switch official and became a Democrat in 2013. In his videoannouncing that he’s “considering” a run for president, he slams Republicans for economic failure before Barack Obama came in and “led admirably” and “revived our economy.” But then he immediately warns of the chaos in the Middle East. Uh, who’s been in charge of foreign policy for the last six years? That may Chafee’s angle for attacking Hillary, as are his boasts about having opposed the Iraq war and resisted Wall Street influence. Will it be enough to challenge Hillary’s coronation? Don’t bet on it. After all, he’s still Lincoln Chafee.

Comment | Share

For more, visit Right Hooks.

WE DEPEND ON YOU

Fellow Patriots, as we continue to stand on the front lines of the battle to restore constitutional limits on the central government, your Patriot Post editors and staff humbly request your support for our mission. We continue to hold the line on our budget — it’s not going up. We hope you’ll consider making a donation to our 2015 Patriots' Day Campaign today. From each of us here, our sincerest thanks for your support. —Managing Editor Nate Jackson

RIGHT ANALYSIS

When Anger Management Leads to Gun Confiscation

Angry man with gun

Anti-Second Amendment zealots are sure to be stirred up by a new study that claims 22 million Americans have severe anger issues and access to guns. The study, conducted by researchers at Harvard, Columbia and Duke universities, goes on to identify these angry people as generally young or middle-aged men living in suburban areas and having a history of impulsive and explosive anger issues. Next up: Gun confiscation.

The study’s authors note that, while laws are already on the books limiting gun access for people with felony convictions or misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, there have been few attempts to limit access for people with documented anger management issues or alcohol abuse.

In recent years, newly minted federal and state laws focused on limiting gun access to people with mental illness, but so far the results have been mixed. While it has been possible to prevent some mentally ill people from owning firearms, there are also cases where perfectly healthy individuals have had their guns confiscated after being swept up in this dragnet. Furthermore, the study’s authors point out that, even if mentally ill people are removed from the equation entirely, it would reduce violent crime by only 4-5%.

The study concludes that it’s time to widen gun restrictions to include people with other misdemeanor convictions and documented behavior that, according to its findings, indicate the potential for gun violence. The anti-gun lobby is sure to latch onto this study as it continues its fight to remove firearms from private ownership.

Certainly there are people so mentally unstable that they shouldn’t own guns. But who gets to decide just how angry people must be before we revoke their Second Amendment rights? Is it, for example, throwing a rock through a neighbor’s window, or is it something mundane like raising one’s voice in a heated discussion about picking up the trash? Everyone expresses anger, and, while the study defines an “anger problem” through a series of aberrant behaviors like repeatedly destroying property or getting into physical altercations, lawmakers may not adhere to such a strict definition. Nor does it instill confidence that the execution of laws meant to curb gun ownership by so-called angry people will be administered without prejudice. We need only look at the gun-grabbing effect of laws already on the books to prove this point.

Take the case of Michael Roberts, a law-abiding citizen in California who had his 21 firearms, including some irreplaceable family heirlooms, confiscated in 2010 when his doctor filed a restraining order against him. The matter was peacefully resolved, but the police refused to return Roberts' guns despite a court order instructing them to do so. In the end, he sued for and received the cash value of his guns, but the police, who had no such authority under the law, destroyed the firearms.

Sadly, the Roberts case is not unique. States with strict gun laws — California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, et al. — often operate on a confiscate-first, ask-questions-rarely mentality. These types of cases happen under the radar and often go unreported in the media, leading people to think lawful gun owners needn’t fear having their guns confiscated and destroyed by government officials.

The gun grabbers who hide behind state and federal laws count on the bureaucracy to mask their actions and to prevent people from seeking restitution if their guns are confiscated. Oftentimes, the cost of litigation, fees and fines are too great for gun owners to pay, and they have little recourse as their firearms are seized for ginned up reasons.

The right to own firearms is protected by both the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, which covers private property. But if government officials and anti-gun zealots are making the rules, the status of legal gun ownership will remain on precarious ground.

Comment | Share

Share

Framework for Iran Deal Collapses

To those with common sense, and to those who have followed the continuing comedy that is our nuclear negotiation with Iran, this will come as no surprise. But it seems the Obama administration was caught flat-footed when it was learned that the Iranians expect all economic sanctions against them to be lifted once a deal is concluded in June.

Even more grating to Iranian leaders, the American summary of the deal states that “sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place under the deal.” For that, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali “Yes, Of Course, Death To America” Khamenei claimed the fact sheet was “wrong on most of the issues.” Of course, Khamenei alsorevealed he “was never optimistic about negotiating with America,” and this tends to reflect our opinion about Iran as well. Yet the Obama administration is choosing to believe that the sheer force of their negotiating skills can keep Iran one year away from going nuclear for the next decade.

Skeptical as well, for different reasons, are former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz. They penned a stinging op-ed in The Wall Street Journal dismantling the deal. In it, they noted, “Absent the linkage between nuclear and political restraint, America’s traditional allies will conclude that the U.S. has traded temporary nuclear cooperation for acquiescence to Iranian hegemony.”

The pair also point out that the two sides have divergent interests elsewhere, even when ostensibly working together as they are against the Islamic State. “Even while combating common enemies, such as ISIS, Iran has declined to embrace common objectives,” write Kissinger and Shultz. Iran’s goal in Iraq, for example, is one of spreading its influence all the way to the Mediterranean Sea, putting Israel in peril. On the other hand, one of the strategic interests to our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan was to place American allies to either side of Iran, which we’ve known to be a bad actor ever since the Shah was deposed in 1979.

That same grand game is being played in Yemen, which had often been touted as a success by the Obama administration until it no longer was successful or even a viable state. Iranian-backed Houthi rebels are now the target of a Saudi-led coalition for whom we’re playing a minor support role.

Given the ramshackle framework for the current nuclear “deal,” it seems Iran is using its typical delaying tactics to edge closer to arming itself with nuclear weapons. The mullahs realize the sanctions won’t return once lifted, giving them a final victory in their quest to go from a rogue nation the world determined would never be nuclear to joining the North Korea club.

As for the rest of the region, Kissinger and Shultz warn the future’s not bright. “Some of the chief actors in the Middle East are likely to view the U.S. as willing to concede a nuclear military capability to the country they consider their principal threat. Several will insist on at least an equivalent capability. Saudi Arabia has signaled that it will enter the lists; others are likely to follow. In that sense, the implications of the negotiation are irreversible.”

Age-old differences in religious belief are one thing when fought with conventional armaments, but add nuclear weapons to the mix and the unthinkable becomes much more probable.

Comment | Share

For more, visit Right Analysis.

TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS

• Jonah Goldberg: Tsarnaev Conviction Puts Death Penalty Opponents in an Awkward Spot
• Charles Krauthammer: The Iran Deal: What We’ve Given Up
• Mona Charen: Still Worth Arguing About the Financial Crisis
• Brent Bozell & Tim Graham: Shocking Primetime Balance on CBS
• Burt Prelutsky: Obama Strikes Out Again

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Author Eric Hoffer (1902-1983): “Absolute power corrupts even when exercised for humane purposes. The benevolent despot who sees himself as a shepherd of the people still demands from others the submissiveness of sheep. The taint inherent in absolute power is not its inhumanity but its anti-humanity.”

Columnist Jonah Goldberg: “There are capital offenses for crimes other than murder because the integrity and effectiveness of the armed forces is a priority. We are not a martial society, but I could make a similar argument about police officers who murder and lie about it. Faith in the fairness of the justice system is simply indispensable to a democracy and social peace. Lack of such faith may be why [Walter] Scott ran from Officer [Michael] Slager. If so, his mistrust was tragically well-placed. … People claim, usually tautologically, that retribution is illegitimate because revenge is illegitimate. Maybe that’s true. But it seems to me that what some people call revenge many others see plainly as justice. Deterrence is often a distraction. Capital punishment clearly doesn’t deter every murderer, but does it deter any would-be murder? It seems obvious it must. Deterrence is a red herring because the function of the death penalty isn’t simply to scare a would-be murderer with the corpse of a convicted one; it is also to inform an entire society about what we take seriously.”

Comment | Share

Columnist Charles Krauthammer: “With sanctions lifted, its economy booming and tens of billions injected into its treasury, why would Iran curb rather than expand its relentless drive for regional dominance? An overriding objective of these negotiations, as Obama has said, is to prevent the inevitable proliferation — Egypt, Turkey, the Gulf states — that would occur if Iran went nuclear. Yet the prospective agreement is so clearly a pathway to an Iranian bomb that the Saudis are signaling that the deal itself would impel them to go nuclear. You set out to prevent proliferation and you trigger it. You set out to prevent an Iranian nuclear capability and you legitimize it. You set out to constrain the world’s greatest exporter of terror threatening every one of our allies in the Middle East and you’re on the verge of making it the region’s economic and military hegemon. What is the alternative, asks the president? He’s repeatedly answered the question himself: No deal is better than a bad deal.”

Comment | Share

Comedian Argus Hamilton: “The White House said that Russian hackers made it into the White House’s computers last year through State Department computers. They gained access to Obama’s top-secret daily schedule. The Russians not only knew what golf course he was at, they knew what hole he was on.”

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

“Strive to be the greatest man in your country, and you may be disappointed. Strive to be the best and you may succeed: he may well win the race that runs by himself.” –Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanack, 1747

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS

Will Boston Bomber Get Death Penalty?

There never was a question of guilt. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s defense admitted as much on the first day of trial. Yesterday, the Boston jury handed down its decision: The 22-year-old who helped his brother plant pressure-cooker bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon in 2013 is guilty on all 30 counts. Seventeen of those charges are punishable by the death penalty. Now, the most important part of the trial begins — deciding whether Tsarnaev will get life in a federal prison or be executed. “This [bombing] reminds us, once again, that this is not ordinary crime, it’s not even [an] ordinary enemy; these are people who are irredeemable,” political analyst Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News. “Nonetheless, I personally generally oppose the death penalty with some exceptions. I would rather not make him a martyr. Let him serve all his life and contemplate his deeds for decades.” For conservatives, it boils down to one question. Should jurors consider the effect Tsarnaev’s death would have on radical Islamists looking for martyrdom, or should the punishment match the crime?

Footnote: Tsarnaev’s mother said, “America is the real terrorist and everyone knows that,” adding, “My boys are the best of the best.” That explains some things.

Comment | Share

SC Police Officer Charged With Murder Thanks to Video

Thanks to a citizen who filmed an altercation between a South Carolina police officer and a motorist, Rule of Law is being upheld in the death of Walter Scott. On Saturday, Officer Michael Slager of the North Charleston Police Department stopped Scott because of a broken taillight. According to the initial police account, Scott grabbed the officer’s Taser, and in the ensuing struggle Slager feared for his life and shot in self-defense. Officers then administered CPR, according to the police. But a video of the event that emerged earlier this week shows a vastly different story. Unlike the altercation in Ferguson between Officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown, Scott turned and ran from the officer with what appeared to be the wires of the Taser trailing behind. Slager drew his gun, aimed at the fleeing man, and fired eight times. It appears the officer then planted the Taser next to Scott, and when other officers arrived on the scene, CPR was never given to him. North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey said at a news conference, “When you’re wrong, you’re wrong. If you make a bad decision, don’t care if you’re behind the shield or just a citizen on the street, you have to live by that decision.” Slager was charged with murder and fired, which might not have happened without the video. Seems like a good case for body cameras. More…

Comment | Share

With Iran Deal Crumbling, Pelosi Defends Negotiations

Well that was fast. Before Barack Obama could finish his victory lap around the Rose Garden, Iran announced a couple red lines that could derail the whole nuclear deal crazy train.Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, said inspectors would not be allowed to photograph or film the country’s nuclear sites, because it would endanger nuclear scientists. Then the country’s Defense Minister, Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan, said there were certain nuclear sites inspectors would be forbidden from entering. He said, “No such agreement has been made; principally speaking, visit to military centers is among our redlines and no such visit will be accepted.” Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate alike are skeptical of Team Obama’s negotiating prowess, as they are pushing a bill that says Congress must approve the Iran deal. But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stands in their way. She insists the “legislation undermines these international negotiations and represents an unnecessary hurdle to achieving a strong, final agreement.” Constitutionally, the Senate works with the president to make international treaties. What Congress does with the Iran deal isn’t Pelosi’s business.

Comment | Share

U.S. Ships Arms to Yemen, Obama’s Foreign Policy Success Story

It’s plan B for the Obama administration after the government of Yemen dissolved in the face of warring groups in the nation. A few months ago, al-Qaida of the Arabian Peninsula was decimated. This week, the Obama administration’s strategy is to mitigate threats. Ashton Cartertold an audience in Tokyo, “AQAP has seized the opportunity of the disorder there and the collapse of the central government. … Obviously it’s always easier to conduct counterterrorism when there’s a stable government in place. That circumstance obviously doesn’t exist in Yemen.” Now, the United States is sidelined, sending precision-guided munitions to the Saudi Arabian-led coalition that is fighting the Houthi rebels. In a twist of fate, Saudi Arabia was targeting U.S. arms in Yemen during its bombing runs because it feared those weapons would fall in the hands of the enemy. Whoever said war was economical? More…

Comment | Share

If Biden Thinks He Makes Too Much, He Should Donate

It’s funny how the meaning of $200,000 differs from one politician to the next. For the Clintons, $200K is a pittance, a discounted speaking gig for Hillary. But for Joe Biden, that amount is almost too much, probably because he’s echoing his boss' mantra about “middle-class economics.” During an appearance at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Biden said, “I make a lot of money now as vice president — I make a lot of money. When the president was thanking everyone for the sacrifices they made when they got us all in the Blair House — after he took office — and the financial sacrifices they made, he looked at me and said, ‘Except for Joe, he’s getting a pay raise.’” Biden needs it. According to the Washington Free Beacon, Biden doesn’t have a savings account. He never invested in stocks. His mismanagement of finances is a good reason no one should take financial advice from him. But when he leaves office and its $230,700-a-year salary, Biden will receive a pension of about $200,000 a year for life. If he thinks that’s too much, maybe he could do a bit better than the $369 annual average he gave to charity over a decade. More…

Comment | Share

For more, visit Right Hooks.

Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column

Read Amendment II: In Defense of Liberty, on how any discussion about the Rights of Man is nothing more than talk unless it includes discourse on the ability to defend those rights.

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

RIGHT ANALYSIS

Smelting Down the Water Supply

Call it potty policy. This week, California took aim at the porcelain throne, mandating that all toilets — along with urinals and faucets — sold in the state after Jan. 1, 2016, conserve water. It’s part of a frantic effort to do anything to manage the state’s severe drought without actually doing what’s needed to manage the state’s severe drought.

While it’s true that California is in the fourth year of below-average precipitation, and that January and March of this year have been particularly dry, neither of these things is fully to blame for the intensity of the drought’s impact. Instead, the culprit is bad government policy and a three-inch fish.

Despite population growth, California has not completed a major water infrastructure project in nearly 50 years. Indeed, Democrats, including Governor Jerry Brown, have opposed state and federal water projects since the 1970s. And while California voters have authorized $22 billion in water bonds since 2000, most of the money has gone to environmental projects and not to safeguarding and improving water supply.

Then there’s the Delta smelt. The little swimmers, whose most appreciated contribution to society arguably comes in conjunction with the word “fried,” have become so revered by ecofascists that they’re willing to imperil the entire state to save them. Delta smelt are native to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in northern California, and a federal rule from the 1970s limits diversion of water from this northern delta to the San Joaquin Valley and southern California — all for the sake of the smelt.

The ridiculousness becomes apparent when you consider that in the past two years more than 2.6 million acre-feet of water were let out into the San Francisco Bay because there was not enough capacity north of the delta to store the water, and the “save the smelt” policies wouldn’t allow the water to be sent to reservoirs south of the delta. So instead, the water was wasted.

Indeed, as The Wall Street Journal notes, “During normal [rainfall] years, the state should replenish reservoirs. However, environmental regulations require that about 4.4 million acre-feet of water — enough to sustain 4.4 million families and irrigate one million acres of farmland — be diverted to ecological purposes.”

And the problem is nothing new. A year ago, California, populated by thriving smelt, was in asimilar situation. At that time, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the smelt and against diverting much-needed water south. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California took the issue to the Supreme Court, which earlier this year turned down the appeal, effectively raising a glass to smelt and a finger to California farmers and residents.

The water shortage has become so severe that the Sierra Nevada snowpack, which houses about one-third of California’s water reserve, is at a paltry 5% of its normal average. Given smelt priority and the mismanagement of billions intended for water improvement projects, Governor Brown has now instituted the first mandatory water restrictions in the state’s history, requiring cities and towns to cut usage by 25%, with possible fines of up to $10,000 per day for those localities that fail to meet the mandate.

While conserving water will help, it will hardly solve a problem decades in the making. For this, a good lesson is needed in prioritizing humans over fish. Now, please pass the tartar sauce.

Comment | Share

Judge Rebukes Obama’s Immigration Deception

Judge Andrew Hanen

The executive amnesty ordered by Barack Obama last November has been eclipsed in the headlines by his disastrous dealings with Iran. But the story isn’t over.

The amnesty would grant three-year stays of deportation, Social Security numbers and work permits to some illegal aliens, but in February U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen declared that Obama exceeded his authority and blocked the amnesty.

After further deliberation, Hanen this week declared his injunction will remain in place in part because Obama’s lawyers misled the court. The administration revealed two weeks after Hanen’s first ruling that it had already granted more than 100,000 work permits to illegals before the court issued its injunction, and the judge wasn’t too happy. “Whether by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they were misled by their clients,” Hanen wrote, “the attorneys for the Government misrepresented the facts.”

“Even worse,” he added [emphasis in the original], the government’s lawyers “urged this Court to rule before disclosing that the Government had already issued 108,081 three-year renewals under the 2014 DACA amendments despite their statements to the contrary.”

“Thus,” he concluded, “even under the most charitable interpretation of these circumstances, and based solely upon what counsel for the Government told the Court, the Government knew its representations had created ‘confusion,’ but kept quiet about it for two weeks while simultaneously pressing this Court to rule on the merits of its motion.”

So incensed was Hanen at this deception that he considered dismissing the case with prejudice, but opted instead for the greater good of settling the constitutional matters at hand through further court hearings. “Under different circumstances,” he wrote, “this Court might very well [consider striking the Government’s pleadings]. The Court, however, finds that the issues at stake here have national significance and deserve to be fully considered on the merits by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and, in all probability, the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Next week, the Fifth Circuit Court will hear oral arguments in the case. Clearly, Obama has flouted Rule of Law with his smoke and mirrors immigration strategy, and then misled Congress, the courts and the people to keep it in place. So it certainly bears watching whether the Fifth Circuit takes into account the administration’s deliberate deception.

In related immigration news, Obama’s policies have real world consequences. Word of Obama’s executive amnesty (notwithstanding the nuances of court battles) has surely made the rounds south of the border. “The second wave of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children has begun, with more than 3,000 of them surging across the Mexican border into the U.S. last month — the highest rate since the peak of last summer’s crisis and a warning that another rough season could be ahead,” The Washington Times reports. “Authorities report having captured 15,647 children traveling without parents who tried to jump the border in the first six months of the fiscal year.”

While those numbers are down a bit from last year’s record surge, 2015 is still on pace to be the second-biggest year on record.

Immigration officials say both violence in Central America and warmer weather are to blame for the influx, and there’s no doubt that’s at least partly true. But again, when the president of the United States issues an executive amnesty, it’s a virtual welcome mat for any who might come illegally — especially children, given Obama’s favorable treatment of them. Specifically, the administration ordered non-Mexican children to be released pending deportation proceedings. Those children rarely show up for hearings and end up staying in the U.S.

Obama himself once said, “I am not a dictator. I’m the president. … If in fact I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress then I would do so. … I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.” We have no further witnesses, your honor.

Comment | Share

For more, visit Right Analysis.

TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS

• George Will: When Everything Is a Crime
• Ann Coulter: Can the Left Come Up With One True Story?
• Jonah Goldberg: Iran Nuke Deal Is No Deal At All
• Larry Elder: Someday the World Will Cry, ‘Why?!’
• Victor Davis Hanson: Is the Modern American University a Failed State?

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755): “In republican governments, men are all equal; equal they are also in despotic governments: in the former, because they are everything; in the latter, because they are nothing.”

Columnist George Will: “What began as a trickle has become a stream that could become a cleansing torrent. Criticisms of the overcriminalization of American life might catalyze an appreciation of the toll the administrative state is taking on the criminal justice system, and liberty generally. … There are an estimated 4,500 federal criminal statutes — and innumerable regulations backed by criminal penalties that include incarceration. Even if none of these were arcane, which many are, their sheer number would mean that Americans would not have clear notice of what behavior is proscribed or prescribed. The presumption of knowledge of the law is refuted by the mere fact that estimates of the number of federal statutes vary by hundreds. If you are sent to prison for excavating arrowheads on federal land without a permit, your cellmate might have accidentally driven his snowmobile onto land protected by the Wilderness Act. … Given the principle — which itself should be reconsidered — of prosecutorial immunity, we have a criminal justice system with too many opportunities for generating defendants, too few inhibitions on prosecutors, and ongoing corrosion of the rule and morality of law. Congress, the ultimate cause of all this, has work to undo.”

Comment | Share

Columnist Ann Coulter: “Without even knowing that the rape accuser, ‘Jackie,’ had refused to let Rolling Stone check the most basic elements of her narrative, every human being who read Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s piece knew it was nonsense by around the second paragraph. … Her managing editor, Will Dana, admitted that he should have ‘pull(ed) the strings a little harder … question(ed) things a little more deeply.’ Yes, maybe the editors were just not pushing hard enough. It’s as if a doctor attacked his patient with an ax, and the Columbia Medical Review responded with a forensic report concluding that the procedure failed to follow clinical protocols on hand hygiene, scrubs and restricted areas, while the doctor gallantly admitted that mistakes were made. How about not allowing reporters to go off on politically driven crusades against liberal hate-objects, like fraternities, the military and athletes? How about not basing entire stories on the uncorroborated dream sequences of fantasists?”

Comment | Share

Comedian Conan O'Brien: “The top 15 contenders for the Republican presidential nomination own at least 40 guns among them. In other words, if we elect a Republican president, nobody is hopping over the White House fence.”

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

“At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a nation; and if their citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own.” –George Washington, Letter to the Governors, 1783

WE NEED YOUR HELP

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.” –Thomas Paine

Our 2015 Patriots' Day Campaign is underway. The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization. Nor do we accept any online or email advertising. Instead, our operations and mission are funded by – and depend entirely upon – the voluntary financial support of American Patriots like you! Please help us meet our Spring funding goal by making a donation today. Thank you! –Nate Jackson, Managing Editor

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS

Iran Is Too Radical to Recognize Israel, Says … Obama?

“The notion that we could condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons … on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won’t sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms,” Barack Obama explained in an interview with NPR. “And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment. … We want Iran not to have nuclear weapons precisely because we can’t bank on the nature of the regime changing.” Believe it or not, Obama is right in a sense. The Iranians are entirely too radical to recognize Israel and, in fact, regularly promise to annihilate the Jewish state. But isn’t “fundamental transformation” Obama’s specialty?

Comment | Share

Obama Admits Iran Won’t Be Far From Nukes

Barack Obama may like to insist that his deal ensures Iran will never obtain nuclear weapons, but even he admitted the opposite in an interview with NPR. “Most of [Iran’s] enriched uranium is supposed to be set off to the side and diluted; it may, however, remain inside Iran,” Obama said. “Eventually, the deal expires. Perhaps the uranium is still there, which is why … where the regime changes is a significant question.” He then said, “[T]hey’re not going to have been able to horde a bunch of uranium that somehow they then convert to weapons-grade uranium. What is a more relevant fear would be that in year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.” Not to worry, though. He said, “[C]urrently, the breakout times are only about two to three months by our intelligence estimates. So essentially, we’re purchasing for 13, 14, 15 years assurances that the breakout is at least a year … that – that if they decided to break the deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we’d have over a year to respond. And we have those assurances for at least well over a decade.” Everything is awesome. But he just put his seal of approval on a future Iranian nuke.

Comment | Share

Schumer Agrees Congress Must Approve Iran Deal

We didn’t have high hopes for soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, but he’s proven himself sane on at least one count: joining several other Democrats in pushing for Congress to vote on Barack Obama’s deal with Iran. “This is a very serious issue that deserves careful consideration,” Schumer said, “and I expect to have a classified briefing in the near future. I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement and I support the Corker bill which would allow that to occur.” He’s referring to Sen. Bob Corker’s Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which requires a two-month review period for Congress and a final vote before sanctions on Iran can be lifted. “[B]efore [the Obama administration] starts unraveling the [sanctions on Iran] that Congress put in place, we want to make sure that they show us the deal,” Corker said in a statement prior to Congress' recess. Schumer’s support will help. Then again, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest assured, “The sales pitch has only just begun.” And Nancy Pelosi may just save Obama in the House.

Comment | Share

Obama Attacks Walker’s Foreign Policy Bona Fides

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had decisive words for Barack Obama’s deal with Iran: If the Republican were elected president, he would throw out the deal on the first day of office. Barack Obama’s reply was haughty, dismissive and forgetful of where he was seven years ago. In aninterview with NPR, Obama said of Walker’s declaration, “I am confident that any president who gets elected will be knowledgeable enough about foreign policy and knowledgeable enough about the traditions and precedents of presidential power that they won’t start calling to question the capacity of the executive branch of the United States to enter into agreements with other countries. … It would be a foolish approach to take, and, you know, perhaps Mr. Walker, after he’s taken some time to bone up on foreign policy, will feel the same way.” If Walker does reach the White House, he’ll have executive experience developed as governor of Wisconsin – something Obama never gained when he was the freshman senator in Illinois or a community organizer in Chicago. And the fruits of that show in his administration’s dealings with Iraq, Ukraine, Yemen, China, etc. Because of that, Obama can only resort to narcissistic counter attacks that label everyone else stupid. More…

Comment | Share

Obama Slams Christians – Again

Barack Obama, who claims to be a Christian, used Tuesday’s Easter Prayer Breakfast at the White House as an opportunity to criticize the faithful. Obama declared, “On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that, as a Christian, I’m supposed to love, and I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.” He is “concerned” about “less-than-loving expressions by Christians,” in reference to those who do not comport lockstep with his view on same-sex marriage, while offering not a word on the plight of Christians targeted by Muslims worldwide. Just last week, after nearly 150 students were slaughtered in Kenya, commenting on the massacre, Obama neglected to mention that the killers were Muslim and all the victims Christian. Recall that in February, Obama used the National Prayer Breakfast todefend Islam and criticize Christianity, claiming, “Lest we get on our high horse and think [terrorism] is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” At both events, Obama’s comments were not only inappropriate, they were inaccurate. More…

Comment | Share

For more, visit Right Hooks.

Share

RIGHT ANALYSIS

Libertarian Paul Courts Conservatives

Rand Paul announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in Louisville Tuesday. He began, “I have a message – a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We have come to take our country back.” While his supporters cheered his announcement, several questions remain for Paul, not least of which is whether a libertarian can earn the support of enough Republicans to win the nomination in a field soon to be crowded with other highly attractive candidates.

Dr. Paul certainly seems to be a fine man. He’s a church-going Christian with a wife and three sons. He’s an ophthalmologist who often extends his services free of charge to those who can’t afford them. Through the Children of the Americas Program, he provides these services to children throughout Latin America.

Paul is a great asset in the Senate, to which he was elected during a swell of Tea Party enthusiasm in 2010. He’ll simultaneously run for re-election in 2016 after Kentucky’s legislature made a special exception for him to seek two offices, normally not allowed by law.

But Paul has virtually been a presidential candidate since he was first elected, and that has made for some unconvincing policy shifts – especially on national security – as he tries to position himself for electoral success. For example, he raised a few eyebrows with the rapid evolution in his foreign policy views, leaving many to wonder whether he really knows what foreign policies he would pursue as president.

Recently, he called for an increase of $76 billion in defense funding, raising the Senate Budget Committee’s total to $696 billion. (Interestingly, Marco Rubio has called for the same increase.) But in 2011, his first year in the Senate, Paul proposed significant cuts in defense spending. The change is almost certainly driven by primary politics.

And last year, Paul’s opinion regarding airstrikes against ISIL evolved from “very skeptical” to strongly supportive in a three-month period. Whatever the merits of the issue, any Republican candidate would be grilled about such a sudden change in opinion regarding a critical foreign policy.

Needless to say, his voting to raise the defense budget won him no plaudits among libertarians. “[L]et’s be clear: It ain’t gonna help at all with libertarians who see in Paul their best hope for a major party politician whom they would vote for in a presidential race,” wrote Nick Gillespie, editor in chief of the libertarian Reason.com. “Paul toys with lower-case libertarians at his own peril.”

Still, Paul hopes he can build a coalition of fed-up conservatives and Millennials large enough to win.

Paul’s social agenda includes transforming our criminal justice system, which currently imprisons people for relatively minor offenses, putting them into penitentiaries where they learn how to be hardened criminals. Instead, Paul says petty criminals could be forced to make restitution, and mandatory minimum sentencing should end.

As American Spectator editor R. Emmett Tyrell explains, “The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, but it has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. According to the Charles Koch Institute, incarceration leads to ‘a 40 percent decrease in annual earnings, reduced job tenure, and higher unemployment.’”

In his speech Tuesday, Paul said he wants to see a new economic boom and “a return to a government restrained by the Constitution.” The two are related. “Opportunity and hope are slipping away for our sons and daughters,” he warned “[a]s our once-great economy collapses under mounting spending and debt.”

“Congress will never balance the budget unless you force them too,” he added. “I propose something extraordinary. Let’s just spend what comes in.”

Furthermore, he said, “Under the watch of both parties, the poor seem to get poorer, the rich get richer. … My plan includes economic freedom zones to allow impoverished areas to prosper … by leaving more money in the pockets of the people who live there.”

He spoke without benefit of a teleprompter, something all prospective Republican candidates do well. He offers many good ideas that could reignite both the economy and the flame of Liberty. He just has to win the primaries.

At least two people present a clear challenge to Paul on that front. The first is fellow candidateTed Cruz, who is a maverick of a somewhat similar ilk and will compete for Tea Party votes. Cruz called Paul his “good friend,” but the two differ on important issues, the major one being the extent to which America should extend herself in the world militarily.

The second man who could undermine Paul’s run is his father, Ron Paul. The elder Paul doesn’t share the nuanced views of his son and likes to call ‘em as he sees 'em – which is sometimes alarming to conservatives. It’s hardly likely that he’ll remain silent throughout the entire campaign. “Pop” could end up being the shot that ends Rand’s campaign.

In short, Paul’s announcement is just the second in what is sure to be a long string of candidates. Indeed, 2016 will present the most wide-open field the GOP has seen in a very long time, and we expect a spirited campaign.

Comment | Share

Another Gun Grab: Tax Breaks for ARs

Joe Bango took his AR-15 rifle out of his safe and traveled to the headquarters of the Connecticut State Police in Middletown. It was weeks after a mentally deranged man shot his mother and proceeded to use a gun similar to Bango’s to murder 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Bango was taking his to the police to have it destroyed.

The Connecticut native owned the AR-15 for 10 years but never used it. Suddenly, Bango saw it as a liability. “There’s always a chance it can be stolen,” The New Haven Register quoted him as saying. “It’s an attractive nuisance. You can lock it in a safe, but people think there may be valuables in there. Why take a chance if I’m not using it?”

The press and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) were at the station. In a public display, Bango gave up his rifle to a police lieutenant who wore a pistol on his hip. In that move, Bango became the impetus for the warmed over piece of gun control idiocy DeLauro re-introduced to Congress this week.

The bill, Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of our Streets Act (SAFER Streets Act), would give a $2,000 tax credit over two years for anyone who, like Bango, voluntarily give up their “assault weapon” as defined by the federal government. It was a bill Bango suggested to his Nutmegger representative.

Gun grabbers exploited the Sandy Hook murders in order to introduce lots of bad bills. This bill is no exception.

“Let us be clear. Assault weapons are not about hunting or even self-defense and they should be off the streets,” DeLauro said in a statement introducing the original bill. “There is no reason on Earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in a very short period of time, that anyone needs a gun designed for military purposes.”

Did DeLauro even try? She barely tweaked that statement when she reissued it this week.

It’s hard to take her bill seriously – because she seemingly didn’t. And it will go nowhere in the Republican Congress.

There are unsubstantiated facts, such as her claim that assault weapons “have been disproportionately used to kill law enforcement officers in the line of duty.”

What baloney. The Executive Director for the Fraternal Order of Police, in countering Obama’s attempted administrative move against popular AR-15 ammunition, said M855 “green tip” ammunition “has not historically posed a threat to law enforcement.”

In terms of reducing crime, that’s already done. The Department of Justice’s own numbers show that violent crime dropped 75% since 1993, and the murder rate has been halved. As National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke writes, “[S]o-called 'assault rifles’ are used so infrequently that the FBI doesn’t even keep statistics.”

And the whole plan of using the IRS as a carrot to entice people to give up their guns? That’srich.

Reason Magazine’s J.D. Tuccille argues it could be good for the gun industry: “If Rep. DeLauro wants to hand out tax credits to people willing trade in a qualifying hunk of junk so they can score sweet new guns, it would be churlish to say ‘no.’”

Hey! April will be stimulus month at Bushmaster, Stag Arms and DPMS!

Furthermore, this could be a boon for the developing market for 80% AR-15 receivers. What used to be a high-end project for gun nuts with access to a milling machine could become an easy way to get a tax credit, thanks to DeLauro. The thing you hand in to the government just has to be defined as an “assault weapon.” Does it have to work? We read the bill. Nope.

This episode illustrates two strategies of gun control advocates. First, DeLauro’s bill is incremental. The Right blogosphere is rife with jokes about how a Democrat wants to give gun owners heaps of cash for guns. But really, it’s a subtle change that will set a government precedent of discouraging gun ownership.

Make no mistake: DeLauro wants all the scary-looking guns banned. “She supports a comprehensive ban on assault weapons as well as high-capacity ammunition feeding devices,” her press release reads. She won’t be content with just giving a tax credit for her favorite people.

Second, her bill is full of the rhetoric of gun control crusaders: that it’s a safety issue, or a public health risk. DeLauro introduced this bill to commemorate Public Health Week.

If Joe Bango doesn’t want his gun anymore, that’s his right – just like it’s every American’s rightnot to speak his or her mind, or not practice any religion. But if somehow Congress were to pass this law, it would be a clear infringement of the Second Amendment, as the government would actively encourage people to disarm. Bango and DeLauro should not confuse personal decisions with policy.

Comment | Share

For more, visit Right Analysis.

TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS

• Jonah Goldberg: Rolling Stone Ignored Basic Journalism
• Walter Williams: The Ticket to Prosperity
• Michelle Malkin: VA Reform: Another Obama ‘Success Story’
• Terence Jeffrey: Will Republicans Protect the Lives of 20-Week-Old Humans?
• Brent Bozell & Tim Graham: Yawning Over the Left’s Pizza Bullies

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

American statesman John C. Calhoun (1782-1850): “Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail.”

Columnist Jonah Goldberg: “The field of journalistic ethics can get ridiculously Talmudic. But it’s all based on a very simple rule: Tell the truth. If the truth is unclear, tell what you know and give both sides (or as many credible sides to a story as might exist) an opportunity to make their case. (For opinion journalists, like yours truly, the rule is even easier: Don’t say anything you don’t believe.) Rolling Stone ignored this basic rule. At every stage, editors and reporters knew what they should do: Talk to the accused rapists, confirm the identities and testimony of alleged witnesses, give the University of Virginia and the leadership of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity, where the rape allegedly occurred, a fair opportunity to rebut the charges, nail down corroborating details, etc. And, at almost every turn, they collectively went another way, caving to Jackie’s refusal to help confirm her story. … [T]he real culprit here is ideological groupthink in service to a political agenda. … [I]n their hearts they’re sure they were right, and that’s all that matters.”

Comment | Share

Columnist Walter Williams: “People with limited understanding make the mistake of making a link between economic freedom and democracy. There is no such necessary link. India, for example, politically is a democracy. Economically, it is mostly unfree and poor, ranking 128th on the 2015 Index of Economic Freedom. There are countries much higher on the economic freedom index that do not have much of a history of democracy, such as Chile, now ranking seventh, and Taiwan, 14th, yet these countries are far wealthier than some of their more democratic counterparts. Why? It’s because their economic systems are free or mostly free, something that is not guaranteed by a democratic political system. The bottom line for why some countries are rich while others are poor is best-explained by the amount of economic freedom.”

Comment | Share

Comedian Seth Meyers: “According to The New York Times, Jeb Bush identified himself as Hispanic on his 2009 voter registration form. While Hillary Clinton identified herself as ‘President.’”

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.