Posted on

Report: Israel on High Alert for Iran Strike

The Times of Israel reports: Israel is readying for a direct cruise missile or drone strike by Tehran in response to recent attacks on Iranian regional proxies which have been attributed to the Jewish state, Army Radio reported Tuesday evening.

Unlike ballistic missiles, which usually fly through a high arc on the way to the target, cruise missiles and drones fly at low altitude, making them harder to detect. The report cited anonymous “Israeli sources,” who said the IDF was already on high alert for the possibility and that the security cabinet will convene for an “unplanned” meeting next Tuesday against a backdrop of tensions with the Islamic Republic.

This would be the second time this month that the high-level security cabinet has convened. On October 6, its members gathered amid cryptic warnings by Israeli leaders of a growing security threat from Iran. That meeting lasted for nearly six hours.

Read more here.

via Breitbart News

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

Posted on

VIDEO: GOP Lawmakers Kicked Out of Democrats’ Top Secret Star-Chamber Impeachment Proceedings

Republican lawmakers led by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and the Freedom Caucus held a press conference on Wednesday morning in the basement of the US Capitol against the top secret star chamber impeachment proceedings by Democrat lawmakers.

Democrats are holding secret meetings and releasing only pieces of testimony to their liberal fake news media on the sham impeachment proceedings of President Donald Trump.

The liberal media once again is pushing the false narrative that Democrats have proof of a quid pro quo withe the Ukrainian government. This false narrative, like the Russia-collusion hoax is making headlines in the mainstream liberal media.

Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) told FOX News on Tuesday that not a single Democrat Trump-hating witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aide was being withheld from them by President Trump. As Ratcliffe said, “You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo!”

Following the press conference on Wednesday the GOP House members attempted to enter the star chamber impeachment proceedings.
The Democrats had them removed.

The American public is NOT ALLOWED to observe the top secret impeachment proceedings.

Featured image via Sam Brodey

The post VIDEO: GOP Lawmakers Kicked Out of Democrats’ Top Secret Star-Chamber Impeachment Proceedings 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

Posted on

Jury Condemns 7-Year-Old Boy to Live with Woman Determined to Make Him a Girl

Yesterday, a Dallas jury decided that father Jeff Younger was not only to lose his joint custody over his 7-year-old twin boys, but that one of those children, under the mother’s care, will have his hormones suppressed and his body surgically altered to appear female.

I reached out to Kayla White, a #SaveJames supporter who flew from Illinois to Dallas last week to document the trial.  In her own words, she explains what it was like to be in that courtroom and witness the heartbreak delivered by the jury that is absolved from the effects of its decision.  She, like most of the nation, is horrified that a Texas jury gave sole custody to Anne, a woman propositioning a court to chemically castrate a young child.  Our interview below has been slightly edited for length and clarity.

DAY: How do you know James?

WHITE: I met James this weekend and have seen how he truly is through that meeting, the videos, and photos that have been shared since last year (via Jeff Younger’s SaveJames website).  I’ve taken some of my own photos and videos of James along with his brother, Jude.  He wrote the name “James” down at least twice while I was with him this weekend.  He knows who he is and is constantly reminding himself of that.

DAY: What do you think about the verdict today?

WHITE: Honestly, I thought we had the jury on our side, but I gave them too much credit.  I was told by other audience members that most of them checked out during Jeff’s expert witnesses’ testimonies.  When the verdict was being read, something in me said that there was more to it and that it was not over.

DAY: I’m seeing a lot of people on social media saying that Anne isn’t the biological mother.  Is this true?

WHITE: It is.  Jeff and Anne had gone through a process to choose eggs that were fertilized inside of her.  I’m not sure how the process overall works, but the eggs were from a donor.

DAY: How would you explain the jury’s decision?

WHITE: I honestly thought we were dealing with semi-intelligent and responsible people.  One of the requirements the judge gave to her jury was “do not worry about the implications of your decision.”  Looking back at it now, it’s so morbid.

I also remember the jury being told not to let what they personally do or don’t agree with get in the way of their decision.  I’m still shocked that people these days are that far gone in their logic and sense of morality to think it’s okay for any parent to subject their child to that kind of abuse.  It shows how much society has devolved, if not the tip of the iceberg of our moral decay as humans.

It was an 11-1 vote against Jeff.  Only one seemed to grasp what was really happening.  God bless whoever that individual was.

DAY: What was the reaction in the court and community when the verdict came in?

WHITE: One woman who sat next to me, started to break down, and I saw another one turn around to face the back wall to avoid watching Anne dance.  She did an “in your face” jig once Judge Cooks left the courtroom.  No one who came there for Jeff was happy.  I broke down sometime later while talking with Odeneal (Jeff Younger’s attorney) and Jeff.

I’ve cried a couple of times before and after the verdict.  Jeff was very quiet and seemed defeated.  Even Odeneal was rather silent.  There was a lot of hugging and reassurance from supporters and friends alike, that we are not giving up.

Something else I will add, too: There was talk of how the judge had written her verdict a day or two before the jury gave their own decision.  Judge Cooks did not present it yesterday but will [tomorrow].

            In my heart, there is hope that Judge Cooks saw what was happening and will reconsider her original stance.  It does not make sense for a judge not to announce her final verdict along with the jury’s when she had it prepared.  I believe she will have to make changes to either accommodate the jury’s decision or reconstruct it altogether. 

The community itself — everyone was freaked out or angry.  I’ve seen shock at the decision of this jury.  Many can’t seem to grasp it, and a lot of Texans are upset at what’s become of their proud state.

DAY: Was there any testimony from a medical professional who did not support James transitioning?

WHITE: Yes.  Jeff’s expert witnesses, Dr. Paul W. Hruz and Dr. Stephen Levine from Beachwood, Ohio.  Both gentlemen spoke about the major risks of transitioning, how their preference for their patients was for them to desist and align their gender identity back to their biological body, and went over the history of their patients’ lives and environments to determine the possible cause for their gender dysphoria.

They both described how trans patients become medically bound to the system and can never come off the hormones once the medical transition is complete.  Both described how if the child is not affirmed, there is a high chance that the child will desist.

A study was cited, that was done with 11 children, I believe.  Eighty-five percent of those children seemed to have desisted and aligned their gender identity back with their biological body.

DAY: Your notes say Anne changed James’s name to Luna — was this done legally?

            WHITE: No, this was done illegally.  None of this was run by Jeff until afterward.  From the testimony, there is no application to change James’s legal name to Luna…yet.

DAY: Has James seen a counselor selected by Jeff for a second opinion?

WHITE: No, he has not.  Anne’s original lawyer, Kim Meaders, sent a letter to Jeff threatening that they would enjoin him from doing so if he attempted to, as well as jailing him for contempt.  They don’t want a second opinion, or at least, one that goes against their agenda.  Also, Anne considers Albritton [chosen by court]’s evaluation to be Jeff’s second opinion.

DAY: Anne repeatedly told the court she hasn’t considered hormone-blockers despite it being part of the literature from Genesis [medical facility she visited for gender transitioning].  Was the jury told to deliberate over this or made aware of its side-effects, like sterilization?

WHITE: Honestly, no, they were given some information, but we observed the jury checked out during Levine’s and Hruz’s testimonies…  

The jury was given two questions.  Should the joint conservatorship be replaced with a sole conservatorship?  If the answer is yes, should the sole conservator be Jeff?

They were also told to put their own beliefs aside.  How can you make a decision like that and not consider the ramifications using your own moral stance?

DAY: Do you know if Jeffrey is planning to appeal the decision?

WHITE: Yes, there was talk before the verdict was given that if things did not go well for Jeff, to raise an appeal.  I was also made aware that this process was going to take about two years.  Jeff really wishes to fight this.  Many of us will be here to support him, fighting alongside him.

Kayla White’s YouTube channel is rich with information regarding this case.  I want to thank her for spending time during a very hectic day to discuss this with me.

Yesterday, a Dallas jury decided that father Jeff Younger was not only to lose his joint custody over his 7-year-old twin boys, but that one of those children, under the mother’s care, will have his hormones suppressed and his body surgically altered to appear female.

I reached out to Kayla White, a #SaveJames supporter who flew from Illinois to Dallas last week to document the trial.  In her own words, she explains what it was like to be in that courtroom and witness the heartbreak delivered by the jury that is absolved from the effects of its decision.  She, like most of the nation, is horrified that a Texas jury gave sole custody to Anne, a woman propositioning a court to chemically castrate a young child.  Our interview below has been slightly edited for length and clarity.

DAY: How do you know James?

WHITE: I met James this weekend and have seen how he truly is through that meeting, the videos, and photos that have been shared since last year (via Jeff Younger’s SaveJames website).  I’ve taken some of my own photos and videos of James along with his brother, Jude.  He wrote the name “James” down at least twice while I was with him this weekend.  He knows who he is and is constantly reminding himself of that.

DAY: What do you think about the verdict today?

WHITE: Honestly, I thought we had the jury on our side, but I gave them too much credit.  I was told by other audience members that most of them checked out during Jeff’s expert witnesses’ testimonies.  When the verdict was being read, something in me said that there was more to it and that it was not over.

DAY: I’m seeing a lot of people on social media saying that Anne isn’t the biological mother.  Is this true?

WHITE: It is.  Jeff and Anne had gone through a process to choose eggs that were fertilized inside of her.  I’m not sure how the process overall works, but the eggs were from a donor.

DAY: How would you explain the jury’s decision?

WHITE: I honestly thought we were dealing with semi-intelligent and responsible people.  One of the requirements the judge gave to her jury was “do not worry about the implications of your decision.”  Looking back at it now, it’s so morbid.

I also remember the jury being told not to let what they personally do or don’t agree with get in the way of their decision.  I’m still shocked that people these days are that far gone in their logic and sense of morality to think it’s okay for any parent to subject their child to that kind of abuse.  It shows how much society has devolved, if not the tip of the iceberg of our moral decay as humans.

It was an 11-1 vote against Jeff.  Only one seemed to grasp what was really happening.  God bless whoever that individual was.

DAY: What was the reaction in the court and community when the verdict came in?

WHITE: One woman who sat next to me, started to break down, and I saw another one turn around to face the back wall to avoid watching Anne dance.  She did an “in your face” jig once Judge Cooks left the courtroom.  No one who came there for Jeff was happy.  I broke down sometime later while talking with Odeneal (Jeff Younger’s attorney) and Jeff.

I’ve cried a couple of times before and after the verdict.  Jeff was very quiet and seemed defeated.  Even Odeneal was rather silent.  There was a lot of hugging and reassurance from supporters and friends alike, that we are not giving up.

Something else I will add, too: There was talk of how the judge had written her verdict a day or two before the jury gave their own decision.  Judge Cooks did not present it yesterday but will [tomorrow].

            In my heart, there is hope that Judge Cooks saw what was happening and will reconsider her original stance.  It does not make sense for a judge not to announce her final verdict along with the jury’s when she had it prepared.  I believe she will have to make changes to either accommodate the jury’s decision or reconstruct it altogether. 

The community itself — everyone was freaked out or angry.  I’ve seen shock at the decision of this jury.  Many can’t seem to grasp it, and a lot of Texans are upset at what’s become of their proud state.

DAY: Was there any testimony from a medical professional who did not support James transitioning?

WHITE: Yes.  Jeff’s expert witnesses, Dr. Paul W. Hruz and Dr. Stephen Levine from Beachwood, Ohio.  Both gentlemen spoke about the major risks of transitioning, how their preference for their patients was for them to desist and align their gender identity back to their biological body, and went over the history of their patients’ lives and environments to determine the possible cause for their gender dysphoria.

They both described how trans patients become medically bound to the system and can never come off the hormones once the medical transition is complete.  Both described how if the child is not affirmed, there is a high chance that the child will desist.

A study was cited, that was done with 11 children, I believe.  Eighty-five percent of those children seemed to have desisted and aligned their gender identity back with their biological body.

DAY: Your notes say Anne changed James’s name to Luna — was this done legally?

            WHITE: No, this was done illegally.  None of this was run by Jeff until afterward.  From the testimony, there is no application to change James’s legal name to Luna…yet.

DAY: Has James seen a counselor selected by Jeff for a second opinion?

WHITE: No, he has not.  Anne’s original lawyer, Kim Meaders, sent a letter to Jeff threatening that they would enjoin him from doing so if he attempted to, as well as jailing him for contempt.  They don’t want a second opinion, or at least, one that goes against their agenda.  Also, Anne considers Albritton [chosen by court]’s evaluation to be Jeff’s second opinion.

DAY: Anne repeatedly told the court she hasn’t considered hormone-blockers despite it being part of the literature from Genesis [medical facility she visited for gender transitioning].  Was the jury told to deliberate over this or made aware of its side-effects, like sterilization?

WHITE: Honestly, no, they were given some information, but we observed the jury checked out during Levine’s and Hruz’s testimonies…  

The jury was given two questions.  Should the joint conservatorship be replaced with a sole conservatorship?  If the answer is yes, should the sole conservator be Jeff?

They were also told to put their own beliefs aside.  How can you make a decision like that and not consider the ramifications using your own moral stance?

DAY: Do you know if Jeffrey is planning to appeal the decision?

WHITE: Yes, there was talk before the verdict was given that if things did not go well for Jeff, to raise an appeal.  I was also made aware that this process was going to take about two years.  Jeff really wishes to fight this.  Many of us will be here to support him, fighting alongside him.

Kayla White’s YouTube channel is rich with information regarding this case.  I want to thank her for spending time during a very hectic day to discuss this with me.

via American Thinker

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

Posted on

‘Gloves Are Off’ With Border Security Under Trump, Top Official Says

The Obama and Trump administrations couldn’t be further apart on the issue of border security and immigration. One man knows that from firsthand experience. Mark Morgan served as chief of Border Patrol under President Barack Obama, and now works for President Donald Trump as acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Today, Morgan joins the podcast in a special edition from President’s Club, an annual gathering of Heritage Foundation supporters in Washington. Morgan describes the progress being made under Trump and the night-and-day difference between the two administrations. This interview begins at 23:15.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, Pippa, Google 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 honored to be joined today on The Daily Signal Podcast by Mark Morgan, the chief operating officer and acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Commissioner Morgan, thank you so much for being with us today.

Mark Morgan: Thank you for having me.

del Guidice: So it’s no secret, we all know that we do have a humanitarian crisis at the southern border. The Washington Post, they had a piece out this week saying that there’s a surge of Mexican immigrants at the border. What’s your current perspective on the situation at the border right now?

Morgan: Here’s what I’ll say, and it’s very important, although we’ve made tremendous progress in the last four months … Again, if you recall in May, we were at our highest—144,000 in one month. It wasn’t unusual to have over 5,000 apprehensions in a single day.

Fast forward now four months later, that has dropped almost 65%. Last month, we had about 52,000 apprehensions for the month. That’s a dramatic shift.

That’s absolutely due to this president and this administration efforts, the network of rules and policies and initiatives that have directly led to this decrease. As well as our partnership with the government of Mexico, the Northern Triangle countries.

But make no mistake, we’re not out of the water yet. There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done, with the increase in Mexican families we’re seeing now, a slow increase. What that should alert the American people to is that the cartels, the human smuggling organizations, they are smart and they’re flexible.

As soon as we start to cut off the flow for the Northern Triangle countries … we know that they’re using social media now to encourage Mexican families to start coming across illegally. So although we’ve made tremendous progress, we’re not done yet.

del Guidice: So in regard to not being done yet, is there a specific facet of what’s happening at the border that concerns you the most? If there’s one thing that you say, “This is top of mind for me,” what would that issue be?

Morgan: Yeah, Congress has failed the American people. That’s at the top of my list.

Look, we’ve got the government of Mexico that has stepped up in unprecedented ways. Over 25,000 troops. They probably are going to double their apprehensions at their southern border this calendar year. They are absolutely targeting the smuggling routes. They’re stopping large groups coming in.

In May, we had between 40 to 50 large groups. Last month, we had one. Just a couple weeks ago, we had a caravan starting to come together of over a thousand. Mexican troops went right in there and absolutely disbanded that.

So look, Mexico is doing an incredible job. We have the agreements with the Northern Triangle countries. They’re really stepping up to do this and really [looking] at this as a regional crisis and being partners.

But the end of the day, none of this is durable or sustainable. At the end of the day, we still need what I’ve been saying from Day One: Congress needs to get off the sidelines. They need to do their job that we elected them to do and pass meaningful legislation to address the loopholes in this system. They failed to do so. They failed the American people.

del Guidice: You’ve been critical of the judicial activism that we’ve seen with the courts getting involved in affecting border policy. What can be done in this area?

Morgan: I harken back to my law school days. I like to put things [simplistically]. I learned my first few days of law school … judges, courts are supposed to interpret the law, not make the law. That’s what we’ve seen. We’ve seen, again, an unprecedented amount of judicial activism during this administration, and every single time.

So we have both ends. We have Congress on one end that’s failed to do their job, and judicial activism on the other that every time this administration, this president tries to implement a new rule, a new policy, new regulations, it’s shot down.

The judicial activism should scare every single citizen in this country. These individuals are not elected, but yet they are legislating from the bench. That’s scary.

del Guidice: What role does [Customs and Border Protection] play in preventing drugs from coming over the border. And how big is this problem, and what do we need to do? I know a lot of people across this country find it very concerning. So what is the role you all play in that?

Morgan: That’s a great question. I’ll tell you what, we need to talk about this more because when we talk about how we secure the southwest border, the wall, it’s always in the realm of talking about illegal immigration. What we don’t talk enough about is the national security crisis part of that, the illicit drugs.

Last year, 68,000 people died in this country because of illicit drug overdose. The year before that, 70,000 people. Where does almost 100% of the drugs in this country come from? From outside the country. More likely than not, heroin, meth overdose, more likely than not, that probably came from the southwest border.

That’s why I always say every town, city, and state is a border town, city, and state. Why? I’ll give you an example.

ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] just a couple of weeks ago, they did interior enforcement operations in six Midwest states—Missouri [was] one of them, my home state. They caught almost a hundred illegal aliens. A hundred criminal illegal aliens that were here illegally and committed additional crimes. And guess what? There were absolutely individuals who were smuggling drugs through this.

So last year, I’ll give you another stat, 910,000 kilograms of illicit drugs [Customs and Border Protection] sees in one year—910,000 kilograms. This year, even though up to 50% of the Border Patrol resources were taken off the line due to humanitarian [needs], I removed 731 officers out of ports.

Even with all those resources going this year … That is something that’s killing American citizens every single day. [Customs and Border Protection is] on the front lines of that.

del Guidice: For some reason, you never hear this reported on mainstream media. It’s all about the concentration camps at the border. You don’t hear about all these drugs that are being apprehended and keeping Americans safer.

Morgan: That’s exactly right. I’ll even go back. Remember, it wasn’t that long ago where we were told that this was a manufactured crisis on the humanitarian side. And then when they came … the facts were there and they couldn’t deny that, well then, what they said is, “Well, it’s a humanitarian crisis.”

We’ve been saying the law enforcement, specifically [Customs and Border Protection], we’ve been saying forever, this is a dual-front crisis. It’s both a humanitarian and national security crisis.

How come we’re not talking about this every single day? Sixty-eight thousand Americans died last year to drug overdose, and an overwhelming amount of drugs are pouring into this country from the southwest border.

So when I talk about the wall, it’s not to stop good people from coming to this country. It’s to stop and make sure we have the integrity, the system of legal immigration. But it’s also to stop bad things and bad people from coming in. That’s another thing we don’t talk enough about either, the bad people coming in.

del Guidice: That’s very true. Ten years ago, Democrats in Congress, like [Sen.] Chuck Schumer, they were very supportive of a border wall, which isn’t the case anymore. You mentioned that Congress has failed in its job to secure the border, to have good immigration policy that they’ve worked on. Why is this the case, do you think?

Morgan: Look, from a law enforcement perspective, I don’t want to weigh in politics. I’ll let people decide that for themselves. But you just said it. I think it’s common sense.

So 2005, we had bipartisan support for the Secure Fence Act that led to 654 miles of wall being built. Fast forward now, and this current president is in power, and now all of a sudden, the wall is immoral and ineffective. It’s hypocrisy and it’s a lie.

The wall is part of a multi-layer strategy example of infrastructure, technology, and personnel. It works. We can give you data and facts that everywhere that those three elements have been applied effectively, illegal immigration has gone down, illegal drug entry in this country has gone down, and assaults of agents have gone down. It works.

del Guidice: Final question. You were the Border Patrol chief under President Barack Obama. How have things changed … looking at the past administration you served in and the administration you’re in now? And what are your reflections from these two different times that you’ve been serving our country in?

Morgan: My reflections, it’s almost 180 degrees. It’s a priority. Both maintaining the rule of law, maintaining the integrity of our current immigration system, and ensuring the safety of this country. And that our hands aren’t tied anymore with selective enforcement.

It means, look, if someone is here illegally, we’re going to enforce the rule of law, whether we apprehend you at the border or interior enforcement. Your hands aren’t going to be tied [as though] you can only enforce someone here that’s illegal if they fit into this certain category. The gloves are off.

I think more importantly though, it’s just become a priority. … This administration realized the importance of securing our borders and to safeguard every citizen in this country. That’s the major difference.

del Guidice: Well, Commissioner Morgan, thank you so much for being with us on The Daily Signal Podcast.

Morgan: Thank you for having me.

The post ‘Gloves Are Off’ With Border Security Under Trump, Top Official Says 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/

Posted on

How Trump Is Beating Activist Judges on Immigration

President Donald Trump was elected on a promise to secure the border, build the wall, and reform America’s immigration system. At every step, he’s faced opposition not only from Congress, but from federal judges striking down his policy initiatives.

In this special edition of The Daily Signal Podcast, Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, says Trump is winning despite judicial activists opposing him from the bench. His interview begins at 32:30.

This episode was recorded at President’s Club, an annual gathering of Heritage Foundation supporters in Washington, D.C.

Kate Trinko: I’m joined from The Heritage Foundation’s President’s Club meeting by Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Thanks for joining us.

Ken Cuccinelli: Good to be with you.

Trinko: You spoke about the courts getting in the way of President [Donald] Trump’s immigration policy. How are they doing that, and what can be done?

Cuccinelli: We have a lot of judges that by any reasonable measure are being activist judges. By that we mean they’re implementing their policy preferences in the form of court orders, instead of simply calling balls and strikes—we’re going to have the World Series here in Washington so we’ll go with baseball analogies—and being a neutral umpire.

The example I used today in talking to the President’s Club here was a judge in New York last week who imposed a national injunction on what’s called the public charge regulation, which is a rule that requires legal immigrants seeking to stay here permanently to be self-sufficient—[it] doesn’t count humanitarian categories like asylees and refugees, just regular legal immigrants have to be self-sufficient.

Well, the judge went on what amounts to a rant against the policy, which, by the way, is about 140 years old in American immigration law, and it goes all the way back to the 1600s. He’s complaining that this somehow undermines American traditions and, in fact, it’s completely consistent with American traditions. That’s just one example.

ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], the interior enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security on the immigration front, implemented a regulation to deal with the Flores settlement. This is a case where one judge in California imposed a 20-day time limit on holding families with children in detention. This was back in 2015.

The Obama administration opposed the effort by this judge. The Trump administration opposes the effort by this judge. But the judge in their order also wrote [that] you can set regulations in place and do these things to make this qualify.

Well, we went ahead and did those, and what did she do? She imposed an injunction on the regulation that complied with her own court order.

Again, by any measure, an activist judge and an action by an activist judge imposing her policy preferences over those of the executive branch and the Congress. That’s a violation of separation of powers by a judge.

I can, unfortunately, go on and on with more examples. This president has suffered more national injunctions than all his predecessors combined, and that is not an anomaly. When these cases litigate out, we win them because we’re doing what the president told us to, and that is staying within the boundaries of the law. That tells you these judges aren’t doing that.

Trinko: How much of an impact would you say these decisions, by what you call activist judges, are having on the immigration policy that the Trump administration is trying to implement?

Cuccinelli: They’re definitely having a significant impact and yet we’re still succeeding because we just keep pressing ahead.

One thing anybody who’s observed this president knows is he’s relentless, and we reflect that in our work and the regulations and rules we’re putting in place that the law provides for. The problem is that as these judges impose more and more and more injunctions, they complicate the system terribly.

Congress has not provided the resources needed to fully implement the immigration system we’ve got, much less enforce the law properly. As you complicate the enforcement mechanism, the enforcement effort with all these new rules from new injunctions, it eats up more manpower, more resources that are all drawn from the law enforcement function, and that capacity is reduced.

We really have to push back on these judges. The president’s very determined about that. So there’s no problem in doing that, but it takes time. The courts are painfully slow.

We’re going to win these cases, but they’re essentially trying to buy time hoping this president doesn’t get reelected and that these policies will be done away with by a different administration.

Trinko: What has your agency been doing on interior enforcement regarding illegal immigration, and what changes have you made to E-Verify?

Cuccinelli: Well, certainly, as we like to say, it’s not your grandfather’s E-Verify. It’s been modernized substantially. And the data checks involved in it now are much more accurate and thorough.

We also offer simplicity paths, if you will. So you or I can go to our E-Verify website and you can self-certify. You can pre-certify yourself via E-Verify, so that when you go apply for another job, you know that it’s going to go straight through. Because in the past, there have been concerns with errors, frankly. I’ll apply for a job, I’ll get the job, they’ll run me through E-Verify, and a false negative, meaning a false flag, will come up.

Well, we’ve reduced those inaccurate results dramatically, and the self-certification allows me to go through the process on my own before I ever talk to an employer. If a problem arises, I can go zero-in on it and fix it before I ever get into that process.

There are a lot of changes we’ve made that have made it more efficient, more user-friendly, and frankly, less employer-dependent, which is what they want. They don’t want to be given another job. They just want to know they have a legal employee in front of them.

Trinko: Right. You also mentioned your agency has been trying to eradicate loopholes relating to asylum rules.

Cuccinelli: Right.

Trinko: Could you speak to that?

Cuccinelli: Yeah. This is, unfortunately, an effort that Congress should be doing that they’re not doing—perhaps one of many things they’re not doing. But this is a big one, and it’s one where there is some overlap between the Obama and Trump administrations.

The two first loopholes on our list are shared historically by the Trump administration closing the Flores loophole, which was that lawsuit we talked about about the detention of families to keep them together. The other is to close the loophole related to the trafficking of children from countries south of Mexico or even from other parts of the world.

Again, the Obama administration and the Trump administration have both urged Congress to close that loophole, and they refused to do it. So we see children used as tickets at the southern border to kind of break through our system.

Unfortunately, with the activist judges, they let them do that and it tends to overwhelm the system. That’s the goal on the part of the illegals and, by the way, the drug cartels, who benefit tremendously when the system is overwhelmed.

Trinko: New York City recently made it so that you could be fined up to $250,000 for using the term “illegal alien” maliciously or there’s some caveat. What do you think about that?

Cuccinelli: Well, first of all, it will never hold up. It’s funny. I signed an internal document that changed our use of other versions like “foreign national,” or what have you, to “alien,” to specifically use the term “alien.” Because that’s what the law says.

Here you’ve got this city trying to legislate away a [phrase] that’s actually in the federal code. … I have great confidence that they will not succeed in doing that.

But who wants to be charged and have to have lawyers defend them in a process like that? And more political virtue-signaling, but it is worth noting they’re willing to cast aside the First Amendment and its protections for free speech to impose their left-wing, politically correct agenda. By impose, I mean tyrannically impose, to tell you what you can and cannot say.

Trinko: All right, Ken Cuccinelli, thanks so much for joining us.

Cuccinelli: Good to be with you.

The post How Trump Is Beating Activist Judges on Immigration 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/

Posted on

US in Moral Decline

Attorney General William Barr last week told a University of Notre Dame Law School audience that attacks on religious liberty have contributed to a moral decline that’s in part manifested by increases in suicides, mental illness, and drug addiction.

Barr said that our moral decline is not random but “organized destruction.” Namely: “Secularists and their allies have marshaled all the forces of mass communication, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.”

The attorney general is absolutely correct.

Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality. The left’s attack on religion is just the tiny tip of the iceberg in our nation’s moral decline.

You say: “That’s a pretty heavy charge, Williams. You’d better be prepared to back it up with evidence!”

I’ll try with a few questions for you to answer.

Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to such use, do you believe that there should be the initiation of force against him?

Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me, the answer is no to both questions. I bet that nearly every college professor, politician, or even minister could not give a simple yes or no response.

A no answer, translated to public policy, would slash the federal budget by no less than two-thirds to three-quarters. After all, most federal spending consists of taking the earnings of one American to give to another American in the form of farm subsidies, business bailouts, aid to higher education, welfare, and food stamps.

Keep in mind that Congress has no resources of its own. Plus there’s no Santa Claus or tooth fairy that gives Congress resources. Thus, the only way that Congress can give one American a dollar is first, through intimidation and coercion, to confiscate that dollar from some other American.

Such actions by the U.S. Congress should offend any sense of moral decency.

If you’re a Christian or a Jew, you should be against the notion of one American living at the expense of some other American. When God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment—”Thou shalt not steal”—I am sure that he did not mean thou shalt not steal unless there is a majority vote in the Congress.

By the way, I do not take this position because I don’t believe in helping our fellow man. I believe that helping those in need by reaching into one’s own pocket to do so is praiseworthy and laudable. But helping one’s fellow man in need by reaching into somebody else’s pockets to do so is worthy of condemnation.

We must own up to the fact that laws and regulations alone cannot produce a civilized society. Morality is society’s first line of defense against uncivilized behavior. Religious teachings, one way of inculcating morality, have been under siege in our country for well over a half a century.

In the name of not being judgmental and the vision that one lifestyle or set of values is just as good as another, traditional moral absolutes have been abandoned as guiding principles. We no longer hold people accountable for their behavior and we accept excuses.

The moral problems Barr mentioned in his speech—plus murder, mayhem, and other forms of anti-social behavior—will continue until we regain our moral footing.

In 1798, John Adams, a leading Founding Father and our second president, said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

I am all too afraid that a historian, writing a few hundred years from now, will note that the liberty America enjoyed was simply a historical curiosity. Then it all returned to mankind’s normal state of affairs—arbitrary abuse and control by the powerful elite.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

The post US in Moral Decline 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/

Posted on

Transgender Model Files Police Complaint After Being Denied Porn Job for Having a Penis

Police are investigating a complaint of an alleged ‘hate incident’ in which a transgender model was denied a job as a female porn star after the photographer discovered the model still had a penis.

Ria Cooper, who became the UK’s youngest transgender person aged 15 before later transitioning back to male age 18, and then to female again later, has accused the photographer of ‘transphobic behaviour’. Cooper said the incident could prevent a future career in the modelling industry.

According to claims reported by the Hull Daily Mail, after posting pictures on social media of a new glamour portfolio, a man reached out to Cooper. He claimed that he could advance her modelling career, and offered her money to have sex with him on camera.

When the man discovered that Ria had male sexual organs, he broke off contact, saying he would not work with her because she still had “a c**k”.

In a private message, the man reportedly said: “Why don’t you send one of yours, my friend just told me — sorry Playboy won’t accept that.”

Speaking to the local newspaper, Ria said: “I am reporting this as a hate crime. It’s like calling someone who is black the ‘N’ word. It doesn’t matter if I have c*** or not. The pictures should be judged as they are. It says on my social media profile that I am a ladyboy, I didn’t ever say that I wasn’t and I thought he knew.”

The aspiring model went on to say: “I want to be a glamour model and a porn star — that’s what I want to do. I don’t think I should be treated like this. I just think those comments could easily make someone commit suicide. It is so bad that I have gone to the police.”

A spokeswoman for the Humberside Police told the paper: “We received a report of a hate incident… The report has been logged and will be investigated.”

via Breitbart News

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

Posted on

After Biden Blasts Trump’s ‘Lynching’ Comment, Video of Biden Saying Same Thing Goes Viral

There’s not really any good defense for President Trump’s “lynching” tweet.

It articulated a common frustration many Republicans have with the president: At a time when different language might have served to buttress his case that the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry was making a mockery of historical precedent in favor of a railroading, the focus was instead on the president’s phraseology.

Just in case you missed it, on Tuesday, the president caused no small amount of controversy by using the metaphor in a Twitter post admonishing the Democrats for the zeal with which they’re pursuing their impeachment inquiry.

“So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights,” he wrote.

“All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here – a lynching. But we will WIN!”

TRENDING: Tucker Carlson Hints Real Reason Behind NBC Firing Megyn Kelly: Matt Lauer Scandal

Biden got in on the condemnation with a decided swiftness, calling Trump’s remarks “abhorrent.”

“Impeachment is not ‘lynching,’ it is part of our Constitution,” he tweeted.

“Our country has a dark, shameful history with lynching, and to even think about making this comparison is abhorrent. It’s despicable.”

So it’s “abhorrent.” It’s “despicable.” It’s also a metaphor Biden himself employed during the 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Biden was, at the time, a senator from Delaware and had previously been both chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

He was a vociferous opponent of the Clinton impeachment, which isn’t any surprise; almost all Democrats were.

RELATED: Zogby Poll Shows Trump Taking Down 2020 Democrats Repeatedly – Best They Can Manage Is Warren Tying Him

What might have been surprising, given Biden’s contribution to the sturm und drang created by Trump’s tweet on Tuesday, was the language that he used in an appearance on CNN during the Clinton era.

“Even if the president should be impeached, history will question whether or not this was a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that, in fact, met the standard,” Biden told Wolf Blitzer, arguing Clinton’s behavior in the White House didn’t meet “the very high bar that was set by the founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense.”

Biden, of course, was very apologetic about using this language once the video went viral.

“This wasn’t the right word to use and I’m sorry about that,” Biden said.

“Trump on the other hand chose his words deliberately today in his use of the word lynching and continues to stoke racial divides in this country daily.”

This doesn’t wash, for several reasons.

It’s worth noting that with many of Biden’s racial controversies, mores do shift. His comments on busing back in the 1970s and his support for tough crime bills in the 1990s were very much in line with the spirit of the times, even if they don’t sound good to Democratic audiences in 2019.

Do you think Biden’s lynching comment was offensive?

0% (0 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

His comments regarding lynching are different.

We knew the evils of lynching and the tacitly sanctioned murder of blacks in the American South just as manifestly in 1998 as we do in 2019. We knew how inapt the act of lynching was as a metaphor for a political process. All of this was known — and all of it was ignored by the media in the aftermath of Biden’s CNN appearance.

Furthermore, Biden’s claim that Trump “chose his words deliberately” also doesn’t hold water, at least as a defense. Take a look at the Biden-Blitzer interview. It doesn’t seem like someone shooting from the hip. Biden instead looks like a man choosing his words with the same amount of deliberation that President Trump did. Yet we’re supposed to believe this was just some slip of the tongue.

If Biden is saying he didn’t choose his words deliberately, the same could be said for Donald Trump. If he’s saying Trump meant his words deliberately, we can safely assume Biden did, too. An apology 21 years after the remarks were made isn’t worth the keystrokes Biden expended typing it out.

Nobody ought to pretend that Donald Trump’s tweet was proper. But then, neither were Biden’s remarks.

This isn’t bothsidesism or equivocation. Instead, it’s pointing out the fact that nobody in the media seems to want to hold Democrats to the same standards they’re holding the president.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via The Western Journal

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

Posted on

BOO! Spanish Nets Resort To Fear In Desperate DACA Defense

Just in time for Halloween, the nation ́s Spanish-speaking news media seemingly agreed to put a scary spin on the latest developments in the DACA saga. The words “ fear” and “scared” are liberally sprinkled throughout DACA coverage, in order to frighten so-called “Dreamers” into action regarding their status. 

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

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