daily Digest

The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us/digests/22711 

Jan. 14, 2014

THE FOUNDATION

“I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Ludlow, 1824

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS

More Bad News for ObamaCare Costs

The White House boasted this week that one out of four Americans now enrolled in ObamaCare are aged 18-34 (assuming they’re paid up). That’s great except ObamaCare depends on 39% of enrollees being young and healthy to make the system appear to work. Unless that mix dramatically improves by the March 31 deadline, premiums will go up even further to make up the difference. In related news, the CBO estimates that ObamaCare’s caps on insurance-borne claims and bailouts for insurance losses will mean a transfer of $1.071 trillionfrom taxpayers to insurance companies over the next decade. Not to mention 79% of enrollees are currently getting subsidies. And Democrats had the audacity to call it the “Affordable” Care Act.

FBI Finally Contacts Tea Party

In May 2013, IRS bureaucrat Lois Lerner admitted that the powerful tax agency was targeting the Tea Party – political opponents of Barack Obama – in the lead-up to the 2012 election. The Obama Justice Department promised to do their best (wink, wink) to get to the bottom of it, so, of course, they hired an Obama donor to investigate1. The latest is that the FBI just last week – seven months after the supposed start of the investigation – actually contacted a few of the affected Tea Party groups. On top of that, the FBI says it doesn’t plan to file criminal charges over the scandal. It’s no surprise that the Justice Department’s finding is essentially “nothing to see here; move along.”

Gas Pump Alarmism

We’ll give eco-fascists credit for one thing – a strong devotion to hyperbole. By their logic, no atmospheric event exists that’s not somehow a result of global warming. And no evidence to the contrary will prevent even more extreme alarmism. In San Francisco, the environmental group 350.org is now demanding labels be posted on gasoline pumps that warn Americans of the danger presented by “dirty oil.” Citing the popular talking point that “we’re not going to feel the effects until well into the future,” group member Jamie Brooks claims, “The goal isn’t to take transportation away from people and say, ‘You’re a bad person.’” Instead, “The goal is to create a signal saying, ‘You need to change your behavior.’” Unsurprisingly, Brooks didn’t bother to offer a practical alternative. On the other hand, we’ll be glad to offer them a horse and carriage to aid in distributing the stickers.

Hillary Wins Last Place

Hillary Clinton, one of the most adored faces of progressivism and feminism on the Left, may be gearing up for another presidential run, but she’s got some serious catching up to do with the majority of other popular figures. The Times of London in a new poll found that Clinton took last place among the top 10 individuals most admired by Americans, and near last in the world survey, coming in at #27 out of 30. Most notably, among Americans, the former state secretary is preceded by radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh (#9) and former president George W. Bush (#4). [Source2.]

The Pope Is Catholic

Pope Francis continues to confound those on the Left, who were all too thrilled to hear his critique of capitalism and his concern for the poor. “Hey,” they thought, “this guy’s one of us!” Contrary to popular Leftmedia belief, however, the pope is Catholic. For example, speaking on the subject of abortion, Francis called the practice “horrific” because “there are children, victims of abortion, who will never see the light of day.” Reuters headlined, “Pope, in nod to conservatives, calls abortion ‘horrific.’” His position is not new and it’s not a “nod.” It’s an age-old belief held by Christians (and others) of all stripes that life is sacred. But that’s news to Reuters.

RIGHT ANALYSIS

Obama’s Recess Appointments Under Scrutiny

Ever since the beginning of the country, the executive branch has been making questionable appointments to further political ends. The Judiciary Act of 1801 allowed John Adams to make his (in)famous “midnight appointments” of federal judges in the waning days of his administration. The second, and last, Federalist president sought to pack the federal judiciary to disadvantage the incoming administration of Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson. One appointment, that of William Marbury, wasn’t recognized by Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, leading to one of the most important decisions in American jurisprudence, Marbury v. Madison, in which Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review.

Monday once again saw a significant Supreme Court case – Noel Canning v. NLRB – and it centers on the legality of Barack Obama’s “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. The Constitution gives the president the power to appoint federal judges and officers with the “advice and consent” of the Senate with one exception – that the president “shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.” Those appointments then last for the duration of the current Senate session.

But taking the position that it is both judge and jury, the administration argues it has the power to decide for itself when the Senate is in recess for purposes of making recess appointments, making it irrelevant whether the Senate considers itself to be in session or not. Obama’s expansive view of his own authority seems to include unlimited appointments power. George W. Bush never sought to make recess appointments during pro forma Senate sessions when the Senate technically gavels in and out to fulfill a constitutional requirement, but does not conduct any business. Obama’s actions go to the heart of separation of powers.

During oral arguments, leading originalist Justice Antonin Scalia went after U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who took the position that the Constitution’s recess appointments clause is ambiguous enough to validate Obama’s temporary appointments. “It’s been assumed to be ambiguous by self-interested presidents,” Scalia retorted. Scalia argued that the text of the Constitution does not permit presidents to appoint individuals to government agencies during pro forma sessions. He suggested the power ought to be restricted to official recesses. Indeed, based on the tone of arguments Monday, the vote may even be 9-0 against Obama.

Another Step ‘Forward’ for Iranian Deal

 

“Nuclear Accord with Iran Advances.” So said the front page of Monday’s Washington Post. The Post reported, “Iran and six world powers took a significant and hard-won step toward nuclear rapprochement on Sunday,” which sounds like good news for once. But alas, someone forgot to give the Iranians their talking points, and as usual they strayed from the feel-good script.

One of the sticking points in the recent deal – indeed, the sticking point in any deal with the rogue nation – is whether Iran can or cannot enrich uranium under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. As long as Iran is able to enrich uranium, it will always have a viable pathway to producing nuclear weapons in quantity.

Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi left no room for doubt on Iran’s position: “We will in no way, never, dismantle our [nuclear] centrifuges.” Muhammad Asafari, a senior member of Iran’s Majlis (their legislative body), offered equally unhelpful remarks: “If the U.S. Congress approves any [more] sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, we [the Majlis] will accelerate the approval of a bill which requires the government to enrich uranium to the 60% grade.” Another senior member of the Majlis, Mansouri Arani, couldn’t resist a dig at arch-enemy Israel: “Today, the Zionist regime has suffered the greatest loss from these agreements, as its propaganda against Iran will be ineffective from now on.” Although likely unintentional, Arani spoke the truth in this case as Israel’s freedom of action will be limited while the Iran deal is in force.

Expect Iran to continue this kind of belligerent posturing during the six months the deal is in force, with the clock starting on Jan. 20. And if you think this sounds unhelpful to the diplomatic process, wait for what Iran says when it comes time to hammer out the follow-on deal that was, after all, the reason for the interim deal.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Columnist Mona Charen: “There are limitless identities that students could be encouraged to cultivate as they mature. … It’s all done in the name of ‘inclusion’ and nondiscrimination, but let’s face it, there’s an element of fashion in it. Nontraditional sexual behavior is ‘in.’ … It’s more than a devaluation of the life of the mind; it’s an assault on human dignity. We have elevated sexual appetites, especially unusual sexual tastes, to an exalted status, worthy of study, defining our natures and experiences, and outranking other traits in importance. … [I]t is interesting that we are being asked to deny people the opportunity to change in only one direction. No one is suggesting that if a straight person wants to become gay and consults a therapist who wishes to help him make this transition, that he should be prevented from doing so. Yet children as young as 4 are being permitted to style their hair, wear the clothing and use the bathrooms of the other sex when they express the urge. This kind of change is one that liberal states approve.”

Burt Prelutsky: “Dependent voters are dependable voters. That’s why Obama and Harry Reid actually insist that unemployment insurance creates jobs. But they don’t bother explaining why, that being the case, after five years, anyone is still jobless. They also don’t explain why they are pushing for a mere three month extension of unemployment payments. Why not three years? Why not 30 years if it’s such an enormous boon for the economy? Liberals insist that adding people to the dole is an act of kindness. If so, they’re killing America, especially the vanishing middle class, with kindness. The reason, I believe, that democracy is so irrational is that it empowers the irrational, the illiterate, the slothful and the greedy.”

Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677): “Laws which prescribe what everyone must believe, and forbid men to say or write anything against this or that opinion, are often passed to gratify, or rather to appease the anger of those who cannot abide independent minds.”

The Gipper: “Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say ‘no.’”

Humorist Frank J. Fleming: “It would be refreshing one day to meet someone outraged with the substance of a scandal and not from political disagreement with the subject.”

Comedian Argus Hamilton: “Governor Chris Christie held a two-hour news conference Thursday where he denied wrongdoing on the bridge closures. He fired people whose e-mails implicated them. He insisted that he’s not a bully, and he threatened to beat up any reporter who says otherwise.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team

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.

Links

1. http://patriotpost.us/posts/22647
2. http://today.yougov.com/news/2014/01/10/infographic-bill-gates-most-admired-person-world/
3. http://patriotpost.us/
4. http://patriotpost.us/humor/22687
5. http://patriotpost.us/manage/
6. http://patriotpost.us/opinion/22703
7. http://patriotpost.us/opinion/22702
8. http://patriotpost.us/opinion/22700
9. http://patriotpost.us/opinion/22696
10. http://patriotpost.us/opinion/22695
11. http://patriotpost.us/opinion

Police can take DNA swabs from arrestees » News — GOPUSA

WASHINGTON – A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday said police can routinely take DNA from people they arrest, equating a DNA cheek swab to other common jailhouse procedures like fingerprinting.

“Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court’s five-justice majority.

But the four dissenting justices said that the court was allowing a major change in police powers.

“Make no mistake about it: because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason,” conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom. “This will solve some extra crimes, to be sure. But so would taking your DNA when you fly on an airplane – surely the TSA must know the `identity’ of the flying public. For that matter, so would taking your children’s DNA when they start public school.”

Twenty-eight states and the federal government now take DNA swabs after arrests. But a Maryland court was one of the first to say that it was illegal for that state to take Alonzo King’s DNA without approval from a judge, saying King had “a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches” under the Fourth Amendment.

But the high court’s decision reverses that ruling and reinstates King’s rape conviction, which came after police took his DNA during an unrelated arrest. Kennedy wrote the decision, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Scalia was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the court’s ruling created “a gaping new exception to the Fourth Amendment.”

“The Fourth Amendment has long been understood to mean that the police cannot search for evidence of a crime – and all nine justices agreed that DNA testing is a search – without individualized suspicion,” said Steven R. Shapiro, the group’s legal director. “Today’s decision eliminates that crucial safeguard. At the same time, it’s important to recognize that other state laws on DNA testing are even broader than Maryland’s and may present issues that were not resolved by today’s ruling.”

Maryland’s DNA collection law only allows police to take DNA from those arrested for serious crimes like murder, rape, assault, burglary and other crimes of violence. In his ruling, Kennedy did not say whether the court’s decision limits DNA only to those crimes, but he did note that other states’ DNA collection laws differ from Maryland’s.

Scalia saw that as a flaw. “If you believe that a DNA search will identify someone arrested for bank robbery, you must believe that it will identify someone arrested for running a red light,” he said.

The ruling was praised by the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.

“DNA has already aided nearly 200,000 investigations, and thanks to today’s decision it will continue to be a detective’s most valuable tool in solving rape cases,” said Scott Berkowitz, the group’s president and founder. “We’re very pleased that the court recognized the importance of DNA and decided that, like fingerprints, it can be collected from arrestees without violating any privacy rights. Out of every 100 rapes in this country, only three rapists will spend a day behind bars. To make matters worse, rapists tend to be serial criminals, so every one left on the streets is likely to commit still more attacks. DNA is a tool we could not afford to lose.”

Getting DNA swabs from criminals is common. All 50 states and the federal government take cheek swabs from convicted criminals to check against federal and state databanks, with the court’s blessing. The fight at the Supreme Court was over whether that DNA collection could come before conviction and without a judge issuing a warrant.

According to court documents, the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System or CODIS – a coordinated system of federal, state and local databases of DNA profiles – already contains more than 10 million criminal profiles and 1.1 million profiles of those arrested. According to the FBI, DNA from people who have gotten the charge dismissed, who were acquitted or from whom no charges were brought are supposed to be expunged from the federal system. But states and other municipalities that collect DNA make their own rules about what happens to their collection.

Kennedy called collecting DNA useful for police in identifying individuals.

“The use of DNA for identification is no different than matching an arrestee’s face to a wanted poster of a previously unidentified suspect; or matching tattoos to known gang symbols to reveal a criminal affiliation; or matching the arrestee’s fingerprints to those recovered from a crime scene,” Kennedy said. “DNA is another metric of identification used to connect the arrestee with his or her public persona, as reflected in records of his or her actions that are available to police.”

In the case before the court, a 53-year-old woman was raped and robbed but no one was arrested. Almost six years later, Alonzo King was arrested and charged with felony second-degree assault. Taking advantage of the Maryland law that allowed warrantless DNA tests following some felony arrests, police took a cheek swab of King’s DNA, which matched a sample from the 2003 Salisbury rape. King was convicted of rape and sentenced to life in prison.

King eventually pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of misdemeanor assault from his arrest, a crime for which Maryland cannot take warrantless DNA samples. The state courts said it violated King’s rights for the state to take his DNA based on an arrest alone. The state Court of Appeals said King had “a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches.” But the high court’s decision reinstates King’s conviction.

Maryland stopped collecting DNA after that decision, but Roberts allowed police to keep collecting DNA samples pending the high court’s review.

The case is Maryland v. King, 12-207.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

please wait…

Rating: 7.1/10 (18 votes cast)

Court: Police can take DNA swabs from arrestees

, 7.1 out of 10 based on 18 ratings