Yes, Border Patrol Arrests Are Down But Our Immigration Policies Still Need Work

The last few months have seen a significant decline in Border Patrol arrests thanks in part to attempts by the Trump administration to deter and discourage illegal immigration. But serious problems remain unsolved and more remains to be done.

Following the inauguration of President Trump, illegal entries into the U.S. fell sharply, partially as a result of new policies to combat illegal immigration, but also because there was a widespread perception that Trump would be able to completely stop illegal immigration.

However, loopholes and weaknesses in U.S. immigration laws remained. For example, a 2016 decision by the 9th Circuit court reinterpreted a 1997 court settlement to rule that when adults enter the country illegally, any child accompanying them must be released from immigration agencies’ custody within 20 days.

The U.S. asylum system is also easy to game. Many who enter illegally are able to pass the initial “credible fear” hearing and get released into the U.S. – but very few end up being granted asylum.

With an easy-to-game asylum process and loopholes for bringing children to the border, the U.S.’s ability to manage its border and adjudicate claims was being overwhelmed.

The Trump administration tried to plug these weaknesses through policies such as zero tolerance (also known as family separation), but these solutions were far from ideal and received widespread pushback. The administration ended them and began releasing anyone caught with a child. And so it became clear that because of the loopholes, bringing a child to the southern border was the golden ticket into the U.S. for illegal immigrants.

The result was that the number of family units (adults with children) and unaccompanied children coming to the border spiked. In May, the U.S. reached a high of more than 140,000 individuals who were caught crossing illegally or turned back at legal ports of entry. That was up from around 52,000 in May 2018 and just 20,000 in May 2017.

Importantly, 70 percent are now family units or unaccompanied children, versus 40 percent in 2018 and just over 20 percent in 2017, according to Customs and Border Protection.

With a humanitarian disaster unfolding before our eyes, the Trump administration asked Congress to fix this untenable situation. Unfortunately, the progressive majority in the House refused. As a result, these loopholes remain embedded in our laws and court decisions.

The Trump administration, however, has refused to go along with this chaos. Over the past year, it has published multiple policies and regulations to try to address the weaknesses in our laws. It has:

1. Worked to expand the “Remain in Mexico” policy that allows us to send asylum seekers back to Mexico while they await their court hearing for asylum.

2. Decreased the availability of bond for asylum seekers.

3. Required asylum seekers arriving at our southern border from countries other than Mexico to have first sought asylum in another country on their way to the U.S.

4. Required asylum seekers to request asylum at ports of entry.

Some of these policies have been stopped or altered by courts, but such efforts are having an impact. By not giving asylum seekers and those with children quick release into the U.S., the federal government is increasingly deterring illegal immigrants from making the dangerous journey in the first place.

The Wall Street Journal reports that apprehensions and those turned back at ports of entry declined to around 64,000 in August – less than half of May’s total, though still about 17,000 higher than in August 2018.

Yes, illegal immigration tends to naturally fall in the summer as the heat discourages migrants from making the journey. But the fall over the past few months is sharper than previous years. Clearly, the new policies are having an impact.

But it’s also clear that the policies themselves are not perfect. Some run afoul of other immigration laws; some may be excessively severe; most can’t address the entirety of the problem; and all such policies are ultimately temporary and can be undone by future administrations.

While Congress fiddles, the administration continues to reach for the tools at its disposal.

A far better solution would be legislation to fix these loopholes in a more permanent and measured way. Until calmer heads on the left can agree that illegal immigration should be stopped, imperfect solutions are better than none at all.

Originally published on Fox News.

The post Yes, Border Patrol Arrests Are Down But Our Immigration Policies Still Need Work appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

She Had an Abortion at 19. Now She Helps Lead the Pro-Life Movement.

Catherine Glenn Foster had an abortion when she was just a teenager. Today, she’s leading the fight against abortion as president of one of the nation’s largest pro-life groups. In this episode, she sits down for an exclusive interview to share her story, what she’s doing now, and the recent achievements of the pro-life movement. Read the transcript, posted below, or listen on the podcast:

We also cover these stories:

  • President Trump remembers 9/11 and warns the Taliban.
  • Dan Bishop credits Trump with helping him win a close House race in North Carolina.
  • Trump voices concern over youth vaping, suggesting government action.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunesSoundCloudGoogle Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!

Rachel del Guidice: We’re joined today on the Daily Signal podcast by Catherine Glenn Foster. She’s the president and CEO of Americans United for Life. Catherine, thank you so much for being with us today.

Catherine Glenn Foster: It’s a pleasure.

del Guidice: So, to start off, can you talk about Americans United for Life, its mission, and what you guys are doing right now?

Foster: Absolutely. So we were founded in 1971, two years before Roe v. Wade struck down life-affirming laws nationwide, and introduced this nationwide regime of abortion-on-demand.

And what we do is work in the state houses, in Congress, in the courts, in the public, to educate people and to pass laws relating to life—life-affirming laws—and then pushing back on some of these threats to life that we’ve seen introduced in a few states recently.

del Guidice: You guys have been busy. I know you recently conducted a poll on public opinion of late-term abortion, as well as Planned Parenthood funding—Title 10 funding—which is essentially family planning funding.

What were the findings of this poll that you guys did?

Foster: Sure, well we found out that 80% of Americans overall, and two-thirds of even self-described pro-choice Americans, oppose late-term abortion. They oppose these abortions that are taking place when the children are viable, when the children are capable of feeling pain, and when the risk to the mother is so much greater, exponentially greater risk that we’ve seen as the pregnancy progresses, and as the child is growing. A risk of death even.

And so, two-thirds of even self-described pro-choice Americans oppose that.

We have a ways to go. We have a a third of pro-choice Americans still to reach. But that already shows us that most Americans agree on some of the fundamentals about life—whether we’re talking about abortion, or the full spectrum of life issues that we deal with at Americans United for Life.

Most Americans are in agreement when you start getting down into the actual policy questions.

del Guidice: And it’s interesting, because if you were to be following Planned Parenthood on social media anywhere, you would never know numbers like that existed, that two-thirds of these Americans are actually pro-life. So, that’s interesting that you guys have found that, and I’m glad you’re sharing that.

You have your own personal story about what led you into the pro-life movement. Can you talk a little bit about your own story?

Foster: Absolutely. You know, I had never really thought much about abortion until it confronted me personally. My best friend in seventh grade was pro-life and would talk about it, and her whole family was pro life. And it was this beautiful witness.

But I didn’t really know what abortion was. It was one of those things that, it was just sort of in the background, and so I didn’t really connect with that. And it didn’t really come up in my thinking again until I was 19 years old myself, and I was a sophomore at college, and I found myself unexpectedly pregnant. Had no idea where to turn.

I didn’t know there was a pro-life movement, hadn’t been exposed to that at all. All I knew was that I had this one friend, and I didn’t even think about that really.

I’m just thinking, what do I do? Where do I go? I wish that I had felt comfortable to tell my mother. I did tell her just a few weeks later, but I just … I was sitting there struggling in the campus health clinic right after I found out. I thought, I would love to tell her. I’m afraid to tell her because I just don’t want to disappoint her.

I didn’t think she would be angry. I just, I didn’t want to disappoint her. And no one said, “Oh, let’s call your mom,” or, “Who do you need to call? What can we do to help you? Let’s hold hands. I’ll put my arm around you. We’ll find resources. You’re strong enough, you’re smart enough, you can do it.”

All of those things that, now, I know I would say to a woman, and I do say to women who are facing these situations. No one was saying that, no one pointed me toward a pregnancy center. No one helped me along that journey.

And so I was left to just Google late at night, or search, I think it was AskJeeves or something at the time. And I’m just searching on the internet: What do I do? Where do I go?

And I found abortion clinics, abortion facilities online. And so I picked the second-cheapest one I could. I’m thinking, “OK, maybe it’s a little bit safer than the absolute cheapest.” And I made an appointment for that Saturday.

I knew that it would have to be fast because I was bonding. I was walking around campus. I was wearing my boyfriend’s oversized sweatshirt, and I was actually talking with my baby as I was walking.

But I went into that facility because I didn’t know where else to turn. I didn’t feel like there was any other choice. Small Christian college, what do you do? I had no idea who to tell.

And so I walked in. And from the moment I walked in that door, nothing restored my choice, my autonomy, my sense of empowerment. It was just stripped from me over, and over, and over by everything that happened behind those closed doors.

del Guidice: Wow. So what was your journey to healing, and also talk about what had happened in your past, and your journey into the pro-life movement. What did that look like?

Foster: Yeah, so healing was tough. You know, in the facility itself, it was, again, just so dis-empowering. Asking questions, not getting answers, not being given real information.

Step one is you pay, and then all of a sudden you’re given a pill and then they’re doing the ultrasound. And I said, “Well, can I see the ultrasound? I want to see my child. I’m still trying to make a decision here.” And they said, “No, it’s against policy.”

And then going forward from there, they said that, in fact, my child wasn’t even old enough. And I said, “Well there’s my answer. OK, I’m gone, I’m out of here, keep the money.”

And they said, “Well, let’s check again,” and they check again. And they said, “Well, old enough after all.”

And then on the actual table I changed my mind. And I tried to get up, and I said, “Let me go,” again, “Just keep the money, but this is wrong for me.” And they ended up sending more people in and held me down and forcibly aborted me. So there were layers of trauma to heal from.

It wasn’t … I mean, every woman has a different path and a different journey, and it’s so difficult for so many of us. But mine, and frankly I’ve talked to so many other women, represented other women who had similar experiences of not being given information, not being allowed to see our ultrasounds, being held down, all of these aspects of it.

So I was sobbing. I was screaming. I was sobbing. They were trying to make me shut up. I was the last patient to leave the clinic alive that day.

My boyfriend drove me back to college, an hour and a half or so away. And I just, I remember lying in bed for days, not wanting to move, not knowing how to go on. It was incredibly traumatic.

And then I just sat up one day and I said, “I have to … I can’t go back to karate, I’ve got my pass for that. You can’t do quite the same things that I was planning on for this semester, but I have to pull myself together and find some way forward.”

And a few weeks later I told my mom. She was telling me about her good friend’s daughter who had gotten pregnant, and I said, “Yeah, it really, it’s happening a lot. Right?” And she said, “Catherine, is there something you want to tell me?” And I said, “Yeah, there is.”

And I told her. And she was as loving and understanding as almost every mom is, no matter how scared we are.

In fact, I was talking to someone just recently, a few months ago, and she shared this perspective. Because I had always kind of been in my own perspective in this, because there’s so much to unpack there.

And she said, “You know how much your mom must have hurt that you didn’t feel like you could go to her?”

And I said, “I’m sorry, I have to stop the conversation right now. I’m going to call my mom, give me like five minutes.” And I called my mom up in the middle of this interview. And I said, “Mom, I’m so sorry. I wish that I had done better.” And she started crying, and she just [said], “I forgive you, I do. I wish that you had just felt like you could come to me.”

Because it was not any kind of an abusive relationship. There was no reason for me to think … I just, I didn’t want to disappoint her. But so much of life is that. You find a way forward through difficult journeys, and we would have found a way.

So she helped me find counseling. I started going to counseling at a local center, a pregnancy center where my parents live, in Johnson City, Tennessee. And that was very healing in a lot of ways.

And then I just, I kept going. I graduated college. I went and got a master’s, and I started working. And it never occurred to me that I would come back here, until I just felt this calling to go to law school.

And I followed that path. And during orientation I was in this talk, this orientation talk on health care law, this introductory conversation. I’m there in the front row, very excited about it. I’m thinking like “24,” if any of your listeners ever watched “24,” Jack Bauer—I’m thinking like bio-terrorism and, I don’t know, cool things like that.

So I’m very excited about about this health care law kind of thing, and all the different ways that health care and biological issues impact people.

And all of a sudden, sitting in that talk, I just … it hit me. No, you’re going to be dealing with abortion. You’re going to be dealing with euthanasia, and the spectrum of life issues, and just protecting and valuing life, and making sure that people are able to really experience the dignity that we all have.

del Guidice: Wow. That is beautiful. Thank you so much for sharing that.

Well, House Republicans on Tuesday held a hearing to make a case for a bill to protect babies who survive abortions. And given your own personal story, I can imagine you have some heavy insight on this.

House Democrats have blocked Republicans 80 times from voting on this bill. Why do you think this legislation is so controversial?

Foster: This legislation, first of all, should not be controversial. Let’s just start there. For some reason it’s become it, but it shouldn’t be.

This is something that we all should be able to agree on, and in the past, so often we’ve seen that agreement, that consensus from both sides of the aisle.

Yeah, this is a bill that’s needed. We know that there are babies who are born alive during an abortion. We know that they are, at that point, outside the womb. We’re not talking about an abortion anymore, we’re talking about two separate human beings. Two separate individuals in two separate places, not one inside the other.

And these are people who both deserve medical care and treatment. And yet, some people seem to think that at that point it should still be a decision between a woman and her doctor.

And I think there are a lot of reasons for that, why people may think that. It’s about that commitment, you might say, to the abortion cause. Because if you draw a line, really, I think any place but conception, at that point it’s very hard to draw a line anywhere else.

Is it viability? Well, that can change. And we’re talking about percentages there. Is it heartbeat? Is it when the child has fingernails or toenails? What point is it along that line? Is it when there’s a 50% chance of survival, or an 80, or a 95 or … There’s just, there isn’t any point that really makes sense.

And so you see certain politicians get caught up, I think, in defending something that, in some cases, they don’t even necessarily want to be defending.

But when you look at their backing, when you look at the party platform, and the pressure that you’re seeing. In so many cases, the political pressure again from some elements, when again, the majority of the American public is not in favor of this—80% of people overall oppose this idea of infanticide, oppose even late-term abortions.

And when you have two thirds of self-described pro-choice Americans opposing late-term abortions, opposing infanticide, you can see how out of touch that perspective is. And you start thinking, “Well, OK, let’s track this back. Let’s figure out how we got there, and how certain people got there, to where they’re defending what seems to be utterly indefensible.”

del Guidice: Well, we’re starting to see these numbers in states across the country. There are more pro-life convictions. Nine states this year have passed laws putting restrictions on abortions.

I’m just curious what your thoughts are on what’s been happening in states like Ohio and Alabama, where they are passing pro-life legislation.

Foster: Sure, yeah. If you look nationwide, we are seeing such an incredible time for life. We’re seeing about 60 pro-life bills passed into law every single year since 2011. We’re seeing more than ever before.

In fact, in just this year alone, we’ve seen 46 states introduce life-affirming laws, and 58 bills were passed in 22 states already. If you look at the spectrum of life-affirming law, this is really where we should be.

Because what we’re looking at is a situation where people who are on both sides, introducing bills on both sides of the life issue, are looking at certain key markers. They’re looking at, first and foremost, arguably, the makeup of the Supreme Court, and the federal bench generally. And seeing shifts there, some shifts that could be very encouraging for life.

Also looking at polling—and we’ve been talking about polling, and these shifts toward life. These shifts, especially after New York, when so many people, so many folks just said, “OK, if New York, if that kind of absolutely radical law … attacking life, attacking the dignity of human life is what pro-choice looks like, then we want no part of that.

And so we saw, in one month, from just before to just after the New York bill passed into law, I saw about a 10-point swing in the percentage of Americans who call themselves pro-life. We saw a dramatic increase in the percentage of Democrats who call themselves pro-life after New York.

And it’s no surprise, when people are celebrating the death of innocent human beings, the most disenfranchised, vulnerable members of our communities. It’s no surprise, when they’re lighting up New York pink and cheering for something that is such an attack on human life.

And so when you look at the Supreme court, when you look at the polls, and most of all, when you look at the abortion rate itself, the fact that it is now the lowest it’s been since 1972, the year before Roe was passed into law … So, the abortion rate now, when abortion is generally legal in America, is now the same as it was in 1972, when it was legal in just a few states.

That is a dramatic shift. It’s down 50% since 2006. And even more than that, the rate of of abortion within the unintended pregnancies, that has dropped dramatically. And so, even women who didn’t plan to get pregnant, weren’t trying to get pregnant, may not even know how they ended up quite in this situation, they are still choosing life.

With the technology that we have, with the scientific advances and the medicine, we’re seeing more and more women choose life as they get this awareness, and they’re looking for holistic solutions, and true, life-affirming care. And they want consistency. They want authenticity. They don’t want, “OK, well these people deserve life, these don’t.”

And so the abortion rate is down. And so, with that, and the polling, and the Supreme court, both sides are looking at these markers and they’re saying, “Well, hang on, if this is going on, then before long the abortion issue may be returning to the states. Roe may be overturned, and the abortion issue may be returning to the states.”

And at that point, that’s when we can make so much more progress, even. We would expect some states, like New York, to go the direction that they are.

We’re not giving up there. We are fighting there. We were fighting back against the bad laws. We were advancing the good bills. We are doing everything that we can, but it’s predictable that some states would go that way.

Even though the abortion rate in New York is dropping as well, even though the polling in New York is just the same. But we would see, based on the politics there, we would see states going that way.

We would see other states like Alabama going the other way, and heading toward life-affirming laws. And it’s so exciting to see other states going in that direction.

And then, most of the states are in the middle. Most of the states would have some laws that would be life-affirming, some limitations on abortion, some protections for women’s health and safety. But they wouldn’t go quite so [far] as either in New York or Alabama.

And so, this is when we have this real opportunity. And so, right now we’re doing the work. We at Americans United for Life, we’re laying the groundwork so that we can get that test case to overturn Roe, so that we have the framework of laws in place for once Roe is overturned and it goes back to the states.

And so you’re seeing these conditional laws being passed, so that as soon as Roe’s overturned, that law goes into effect. The condition is that Roe’s overturned.

And then, these laws are just saving lives now. You know, right now lives are being saved, 2 million lives saved just from the Hyde Amendment, not to mention all of the pro-life laws that are getting passed.

And so that’s millions of people who are here in the world today thanks to, in large part, the life-affirming laws that we’ve been able to pass, thanks to the pregnancy centers that I wasn’t aware of when I was 19 years old. Thanks to the sidewalk counselors, thanks to all of these different aspects that are coming together to educate and to build a more life-affirming America.

del Guidice: Thank you so much for sharing that perspective. You mentioned New York, and how they’ve passed aggressive pro-abortion laws. I know Illinois is another state that has passed laws taking away some prohibitions on late-term abortions.

What do you think this says about the direction of pro-abortion advocates, and where they’re trying to go now that they’re seeing this groundswell of pro-life efforts and legislation?

Foster: Yeah, I think we’re looking at those few certain states where they think it’s, if I could say, low-hanging fruit for them, where [we] think, “OK, they have the political structure in place, they have what they need to pass these laws.” And where there are, just like in any political system, there’s so many different things that people are focusing on and thinking of.

And so in some of these states, maybe the citizens, the people who live there, they might not hold their elected officials as accountable on the life issue as on some other issues, even though, again, the polling is showing that there’s a lot of consistency nationwide.

We’re not talking about 50% of Americans, very pro-life, 50% of Americans, very pro-choice. We’re talking about most Americans agreeing on at least rolling back abortion to the end of the first trimester. You know, 75% of Americans want it rolled back at least to that point, which requires overturning Roe.

But until that point, Planned Parenthood, certain other lobbying groups [like] Planned Parenthood Action and these different groups, are looking at states like New York and Illinois, and planning for what happens once Roe is overturned.

And so they’ve targeted obviously New York, [as] we saw with with Gov. [Andrew] Cuomo. We saw what happened in Virginia with Gov. [Ralph] Northam there, and that, no real word for it, disaster, debacle, everything that went on there.

And then Delegate [Kathy] Tran there, who you could even see her discomfort when she was having to defend, really, infanticide in front in this hearing. And you could see that she was not comfortable with that, I think we could all kind of tell.

Gov. Northam saying, “Oh, well if the child is born alive, then that’s a decision between a woman and her doctor about whether to provide care for this living, breathing, separate child, not any more within the woman’s body.”

That’s what we need to be talking about, is highlighting these kinds of extreme bills that are being introduced, and sadly, at times, even passed into law. Because it is indefensible. It is indefensible.

And so I don’t think it was surprising for many of us, at least many of us who work on these issues, when just a few short days later after Gov. Northam’s interview became public, that it also became public that in fact he had worn blackface, and disenfranchised so many, so many people in the American public in our communities. [A] huge percentage of the American population that he said, “Well, [they’re] lesser. Not quite enough. Not quite the same.”

del Guidice: Such a double standard.

Foster: Exactly. Exactly. And he offended 100% of us. I mean, who wasn’t offended by what came out, with really our apparently top three Democrats in Virginia? Just absolutely appalling.

And so, it’s not surprising. When you’re willing to disenfranchise some, everyone really is at risk. And certainly that applies to the case of newborn babies, in the case of Gov. Northam.

del Guidice: Well, looking at what happened to the former CEO of Planned Parenthood in July, she was abruptly fired. And it was reportedly because she wasn’t zealous enough in pushing Planned Parenthood’s abortion agenda.

What do you think this says about the future of Planned Parenthood?

Foster: I think that, first of all, this isn’t the first time this has happened. This is not the first time that they have doubled down on abortion as a central part of their platform. It happened multiple times before, in fact.

When they had a shakeup at the top, back a few decades ago, when they said no, every single affiliate, not necessarily every facility, but every affiliate grouping would have to perform abortions, even the ones who didn’t want to. And so, all of the affiliates are trying to scramble and sometimes merge, or come up with these creative solutions to do that.

In this case, it felt even more personal. I feel like, I know here we’re talking about a physician, an accomplished physician. A woman. A woman who’s also a minority, and someone who has such experience and such depth there.

But she wasn’t pro-abortion enough for them. She wasn’t supporting abortion enough. She wasn’t political enough for them. And even though, when her tenure began, she did begin talking about abortion openly, and saying abortion is health care. Even so, that was not enough for them. They wanted someone more political, someone who was going to be pushing abortion even more.

And so, it was really tragic, because she was someone who just … she was so much more than an idealogue. She really, she brought her heart to that role, and she believed in it.

And we had some disagreements, but she was willing to reach out to the life community, to find common ground, and we did have so much common ground when it comes to issues like health care, that it was devastating.

And especially, I would say, even more so because of her experience with miscarriage, and knowing that she has lost a child and been through that experience. And then to have her ousted like that.

It was, I know it was painful for many of us. We’re just, we’re looking at this, and it’s hard to imagine it. You just, you just feel terrible for her.

del Guidice: Well Catherine, thank you so much for being with us today on The Daily Signal podcast. Where can people follow your work at AUL?

Foster: So, our website is aul.org. We are on social media, Facebook, Twitter, whatever. Go check us out there, and we will update you on everything that’s going on with pro-life bills and laws and court cases, and everything else going on in the life movement.

del Guidice: Well, thank you again and we’ll see you next time.

Foster: Pleasure to be here.

The post She Had an Abortion at 19. Now She Helps Lead the Pro-Life Movement. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

Ben Shapiro: Did We Learn the Lesson of 9/11?

(Photo by Gary Hershorn/Getty Images)

It’s now been nearly a full generation since Sept. 11, 2001. There are people currently serving in the U.S. military who weren’t born when that act of evil took place — and the military still has thousands of troops in Afghanistan, the home base of the Taliban-supported al Qaida attack on the United States that took nearly 3,000 American lives.

With time comes forgetfulness. The same period of time has now elapsed since Sept. 11 that elapsed between the end of World War I (1918) and the German re-occupation of the Rhineland in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles (1936). Believing that World War I had ended all war, the Allied powers did nothing. That same year, Germany concluded its Axis alliance with Italy, as well as its Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan. Less than three years later, the world would be at war.

Forgetfulness is easy, because immediate costs are painful and steep. American foreign policy nearly always vacillates between two poles: isolationism and reactive interventionism. The American people (correctly) don’t like the consequences of isolationism — increased attacks on America and her allies, maximization of influence by our enemies — but we also dislike (correctly) the consequences of maintaining a global military presence. It was easy to tear into the Clinton administration’s weakness on defense in the aftermath of the Cold War, but there was almost no political cost in it for Clinton at the time. The sepia glow of media coverage regarding Barack Obama hasn’t been darkened by his single-minded quest to minimize American influence around the world.

But every so often, we’re reminded that the world is filled with enemies.

We were reminded of that unfortunate fact this week when President Trump withdrew an apparently secret invitation to the Taliban to visit Camp David. The Taliban was, is and will remain an Islamic terror group; it has continuously sought the murder of American soldiers and citizens for two decades. Why would the Trump administration think it a good idea to sign an agreement with radicals who seek to overthrow the administration of Afghanistan, support terrorism and despise the United States? Do members of the administration truly believe that any agreement signed by the Taliban will be binding?

The answer, of course, is no. That’s why the talks fell apart, according to The New York Times — a response from inside the administration in the aftermath of a terror attack on American soldiers this week, a recognition of the obvious.

The problem, of course, is that there are no easy solutions when it comes to foreign policy in the worst parts of the world. Everyone of good heart wants American soldiers out of Afghanistan and home. But how many Americans are willing to risk the increase in terrorism likely to follow such a withdrawal?

So long as we remember 9/11, the answer will be: very few.

Now, perhaps we should withdraw from Afghanistan. Perhaps the withdrawal is worth the risk. But American history isn’t replete with circumstances in which precipitous withdrawal is followed by peace and security.

All of which means that American troops are likely to remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. Few politicians will be bold enough to simply state that truth. After all, when John McCain said as much in 2008, he was roundly mocked by Barack Obama — the same Obama who escalated the war in Afghanistan and retained thousands of troops there, despite promising withdrawal repeatedly. But our politicians should be brave enough to recognize that a weaker America on the world stage means a more vulnerable America at home. If we didn’t learn that lesson on 9/11, we’re bound to repeat it.

Ben Shapiro, 35, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of “The Ben Shapiro Show” and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times bestseller “The Right Side Of History.” He lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles.

DONATE

via CNS RSS Feed Navbar

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.cnsnews.com/

Rep. Jordan Slams Red Flag Bill: ‘You Will Be Guilty Without Doing Anything Wrong’

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) give an impassioned defense of fundamental liberties. (File Photo: Screen capture)

(CNSNews.com) – The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday passed a “red flag” bill along with two other gun control bills, sending them for further action by the Democrat-controlled House.

The red flag bill, or “extreme risk protection order,” raised due-process concerns among Republicans, including Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who warned that the bill would make people “guilty” before they do anything wrong.

If the House Judiciary (Committee) passes this bill today, we will have changed a fundamental and sacred principle in this country. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty, until today.

If we pass this bill today, we are going to invert the standard that says you are guilty until proven innocent. And you will be guilty without doing anything wrong. Under this bill, you are guilty without doing anything wrong simply because someone thinks you might do something wrong.

And who’s this “someone” under this bill who can petition a court to take away your Second Amendment liberties? Who’s the “someone” defined under this bill?

Jordan pointed to page 13 of the bill, which defines that “someone” as a “family or household member.” The bill further defines “household member” as “an individual who resides or who has resided with the respondent during the past year.”

“A roommate who hung out with you for one month last year can go petition a court to take away your Second Amendment liberties,” Jordan continued.

Some roommate, maybe didn’t like you; someone who thought you were a slob, whatever, can go petition the court to take away your fundamental right without you doing anything wrong.

And oh guess what? Guess what! When they go into court to take away your fundamental liberty — even though you haven’t done anything, committed no crime — guess what, you don’t even get to be there. You don’t even get to defend yourself. That’s exactly what this bill does.

Jordan reminded his colleagues, “This is the House Judiciary Committee, for goodness sake. What other constitutional right can you lose without doing anything wrong and without your knowledge and then have to go petition a court to get it back? Tell me what that is. Tell me when that happens!”

Jordan said the red flag bill is “so wrong on so many levels.”

“It violates fundamental Second Amendment rights, it violates property rights, it violates due process rights, and yet today, the House Judiciary Committee, with the storied history this committee has in defending — defending — the Bill of Rights is going to pass this legislation?”

Jordan called it a “scary road to start heading down.”

On the other side of the argument, Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), whose son was shot to death in 2012 in an argument over loud music, called extreme risk protection orders a “life-saving tool to keep firearms out of the hands of those who pose a danger to themselves or to others.”

McBath said the House bill would “guarantee nationwide access to this critical tool.”

She said it would prevent “mass shootings, suicides and all horrific events that do not make the everyday headlines.”

“I know the pain of losing a child to gun violence,” McBath said. “And not anyone in this room, anyone in this country, should ever be faced with that pain.”

She said failure to take action will inflect the same agony on others.

“It is our responsibility to prevent this suffering,” she added.

In addition to passing H.R. 1236, the “red-flag” bill, the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday also advanced H.R. 1186, which would ban large-capacity magazines; and H.R. 2708, which would bar people convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes from owning a weapon.

 

via CNS RSS Feed Navbar

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.cnsnews.com/

Sen. Kennedy Responds to CEOs Who Are Demanding Gun Control: “I Don’t Want to See These Guys Pull Something Out of Their Orifices, Show Me Facts” (VIDEO)

This was EPIC!
Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) joined Stuart Varney on Thursday to discuss a recent gun control push by CEOs.

Earlier this week a group of woke US CEOs sent the US Senate a letter demanding the body pass gun control legislation.

Senator John Kennedy, who is known for his humorous quotes outdid him self this morning.

** I find it curious, Stuart, that when a radical jihadist blows up a school and kills kids we’re told not to judge all Muslims by the act of one Muslim, and I agree with that by the way, but I don’t understand why the same rule does not apply to the 100 million law abiding gun owners of this country. Here’s my starting point, I want to see facts.

** I believe love is the answer but I also want a handgun just in case. And that’s my right as an American citizen. The Bill of Rights is not an a la carte menu. The Second is just as important as the First and the Fourth.

** Some of my colleagues say, “OK we’re going to curtail this Second Amendment constitutional right in the interest of pubic safety and it will reduce mass shootings.” My response is, “OK, prove it.”

** I’m interested in facts. I’m not interested in speculation. I don’t want to see people pull stuff out of their orifices. Show me the scientific evidence because you’re dealing with a constitutional right.

** And in respect to what these CEOs say? I respect their right to have an opinion but I don’t pay any attention to them. A lot of these guys, they’re the ones who tanked the economy in ’08…

** …And about that poll, Stuart, first I gotta see the poll to see what they say they say. I know how to write a poll question. I can make a poll walk, talk and whistle the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

** We have a bill of rights not to protect the majority but to protect the minority.

Via Varney and Co.:

The post Sen. Kennedy Responds to CEOs Who Are Demanding Gun Control: “I Don’t Want to See These Guys Pull Something Out of Their Orifices, Show Me Facts” (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Obama-Appointed Judge Again Blocks Trump Admin’s New Rules for Asylum Seekers

Human traffickers received a gift from an Obama-appointed federal judge, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Monday after the Trump administration was handed a setback in its efforts to reduce the numbers of illegal migrants currently overwhelming the system for granting asylum. U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar, who is based in California, had…

The post Obama-Appointed Judge Again Blocks Trump Admin’s New Rules for Asylum Seekers appeared first on The Western Journal.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com

UK Professors Attempt to Mainstream Cannibalism as Normal

(Photo by Eric Lafforgue/Art In All Of Us/Corbis via Getty Images)

Dostoevsky once said, “If God didn’t exist, everything is possible.” There is wisdom in his observation since, without God, there would be nothing to serve as the ultimate reference for human acts. The eternal law that God established in the universe is inscribed on the human heart. Thus, everyone at all times and places knows right and wrong. Take away God, and all will fall into the most barbaric savagery.

Modern secular society officially denies that God exists. Thus, society comes to accept the cruelest practices by breaking down the natural repugnance that comes from transgressing God’s law. Abortion and infanticide, for example, used to incite horror among civilized people. Now, it is accepted everywhere. Some taboos remain, but these are now being questioned. Indeed, few could imagine that a mainstream news magazine like Newsweek would propose rethinking the idea of cannibalism.   

Eating Flesh: The Ultimate Taboo

Eating human flesh is the subject of a feature article. Psychologists Jared Piazza and Neil McLatchie of England’s Lancaster University declare there is nothing unethical or unreasonable about the practice. The problem with cannibalism is people’s attitudes since they are often “overridden by our feelings of repulsion and disgust.”

The reasoning behind the outlandish conclusion reveals the atheistic premises of the authors and the scientific establishment. The main title of the article says it all: “Cannibalism is common in the animal kingdom.” Thus, there is no logical reason why it should not be allowed for humans. Living creatures from spadefoot tadpoles, praying mantises, chimpanzees to lions cannibalize their own. The human is just another animal like all others.  

The problem is humans have always had a horror for cannibalism that transcends biological reasons. Because they cannot think in spiritual terms, the two scholars resort to “scientific” theories that turn the aversion into a psychological problem. Humans are generally not cannibals, they claim, because “[o]ur capacity to represent the personalities of the living and the departed is unparalleled. This deep connection between personhood and flesh can mean that careful reasoning in certain situations over the merits of cannibalism is overridden by our feelings of repulsion and disgust.”

The Presence of the Soul

In other words, people perceive the presence of a soul in the body that represents the spiritual qualities of personality, rationality and immortality. They sense it is wrong to violate the body that houses this noble part of the human being. People see no “merit” in cannibalism; they see sacrilege.

From a spiritual perspective, revering the body is logical and necessary. People have immortal souls. There will be a resurrection of the dead. This requires a reverence for the body which will be glorified. For this reason, people have always buried the body and respected the dead.

Adapting to Accept the Unacceptable

The nonchalance with which the two scientists deal with the subject is indeed shocking. To them, a human being is only matter. The failure to use this flesh for food is irrational. If cannibalism is consensual, they claim, there should be nothing wrong with it. Post-mortem consensual cannibalism might even be a sign of respect to the dead if the person permitted another to eat body parts after death.

The problem is not a moral one but an adaptive one, they say. Just as butchers and morticians accustom themselves to deal with blood and gore, Piazza and McLatchie “suspect that we could adapt to human flesh if need be.”

The two scholars claim there is now no immediate need for overcoming human repugnance for cannibalism. However, the Newsweek article opens the door for cannibalism to enter into the mainstream by presenting it as reasonable and natural. Other professors and scholars on the fringes are already echoing the need for cannibalism. Indeed, Swedish behavioral scientist Magnus Söderlund has suggested that eating people after they die could be a way of fighting climate change, which they blame on the meat and farming industry.

The debate introduces the notion of consensual post-mortem cannibalism into a society where anything consensual is permissible.

Worst of all, the scholars deny that the human being has another side that is spiritual, superior, and unending. This superior side is what makes every person unique and establishes human dignity. This gives rise to political, social, cultural, and religious activities and sciences that tower above mere biological existence and ultimately lead to eternal salvation.

The cannibal’s acceptance prepares for Dostoevsky’s world where everything, even the most horrendous things are possible.

John Horvat II is a scholar, researcher, educator, international speaker, and author of the book Return to Order: From a Frenzied Economy to an Organic Christian Soceity–Where We’ve Been, How We Go Here, and Where We Need to Go. He lives in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania, where he is the vice president of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.

DONATE

via CNS RSS Feed Navbar

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.cnsnews.com/

Shalala (D): ‘You Bet’ There’s Socialism in the Democratic Party

Florida representative Donna Shalala (D.) told constituents "you bet" that there are socialists in the Democratic party’s "big tent." She added that she doesn’t apologize for reaching across the aisle to get bipartisan bills passed.

A video from America Rising PAC shows the congresswoman addressing constituents during a town hall.

"I escaped a socialist country 25 years ago," an audience member said. "I hear a lot of people from your party supporting socialist ideas in America. How far are we going to go, do you think we can beat the current president with those ideas? What would be our choices?"

"Well, first of all, I’m not a socialist. I’m a safety net capitalist," Shalala responded. She explained she supports entitlement programs and "protecting the most vulnerable people in our society."

Shalala then downplayed the presence of socialist ideas in the party.

"Second, you have misread the Democratic party," she said. "Because if anything, when we flipped the House with 40 new seats and new freshmen, 98 percent of them flipped seats that were previously held by Republicans and they expanded the center of the Democratic party, not the left of the Democratic party. So I don’t hear a lot of socialism in the Democratic caucus."

"Are there socialists in the Democratic party? You bet. Because we’re a big tent party. We have all of the above."

"The Democratic party has expanded, the caucus has expanded the centrists," Shalala said. "It’s hard enough to manage Democrats, but Speaker Pelosi does a good job."

Shalala discussed her bipartisan credentials through her work on bills concerning the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela. "A number of my bills are bipartisan and I don’t apologize for that," she said.

She also spoke out in favor of a bill that would have provided temporary protected status for Venezuelan refugees that was co-sponsored by Republican Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.) and Democrat Darren Soto (Fla.).

"If I can get people and reach across the aisle, then that’s what I’m going to do," she concluded.

The post Shalala (D): ‘You Bet’ There’s Socialism in the Democratic Party appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

CIA Blasts CNN for ‘Simply False’ Report on Moscow Spy

CNN on Monday reported that the CIA had decided to pull a highly placed spy out of Moscow because of concerns about President Donald Trump’s handling of sensitive information. That would be damning for the president if it were true — but a CIA statement called the report “simply false” and “inaccurate.” And even a…

The post CIA Blasts CNN for ‘Simply False’ Report on Moscow Spy appeared first on The Western Journal.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com

Report: North Carolina Releases 500 Criminal Illegal Aliens in Less than a Year

County jails across North Carolina have released nearly 500 criminal illegal aliens from custody, placing them back into communities, in less than a year.

Records obtained by WBTV reveal that jails in North Carolina have released about 489 criminal illegal aliens back into communities since October 2018 despite the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency requesting they be turned over to federal officials for arrest and deportation.

Illegal aliens released by North Carolina officials in the last ten months include those arrested for homicide, kidnapping, arson, and sexual assault.

Last month, ICE officials released a list of criminal illegal aliens who had recently been released by sanctuary cities and counties in North Carolina, as Breitbart News noted. Some of the illegal aliens released back into the general public include accused child rapists, sex offenders, assailants, and attempted murderers.

Acting United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Ken Cuccinelli blasted North Carolina officials online, writing:

A July report by the Epoch Times noted research by North Carolinians For Immigration Reform and Enforcement (NCFIRE.info) stating that in the last one and a half years, more than 330 illegal aliens have been charged with nearly 1,200 child sex crimes in North Carolina. Over the last four and a half years, the NCFIRE’s research states that an average of 34 illegal aliens in North Carolina are charged every month with child sex crimes.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com