Posted on

Trump administration announces rollback of ‘destructive and horrible’ Obama-era water rule

The following is an excerpt from Blaze Media’s daily Capitol Hill Brief email newsletter:

The Trump administration is set to announce a final repeal of the Obama administration’s “Waters of the United States” rule on Thursday. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Andrew Wheeler made the announcement via an op-ed in the Des Moines Register Thursday morning.

The Obama-era regulation, put forward in 2015, drastically expanded which waterways are subject to federal control under the Clean Water Act to include man-made ditches and streams on private property that only have water in them following rain or snowmelt. It was swamped with litigation from the start. Last month, a federal judge ruled that the Obama administration’s rule violated federal law and sent it back to the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to be reworked.

Wheeler’s op-ed explains that the 2015 rule was “was so far-reaching that they needed to clarify in regulatory text that puddles were excluded.” This created a regulatory headache for farmers, land developers, and anyone confused about whether or not they now needed a federal permit to work on their own land.

President Trump vowed to kill the rule on the campaign trail, and in 2017, he directed the EPA to work on the “elimination of this very destructive and horrible rule.” A proposed rule introduced by the Environmental Protection Agency back in December would relax the definition of what counts as waters that can be regulated. Republican senators tried to pass an amendment repealing the 2015 rule last year, but it failed.

Wheeler wrote that the “new, more precise definition would mean that farmers, land owners, and businesses will spend less time and money determining whether they need a federal permit and more time upgrading aging infrastructure, building homes, creating jobs, and growing crops to feed our families.”

The post Trump administration announces rollback of ‘destructive and horrible’ Obama-era water rule appeared first on Conservative Review.

via Conservative Review

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

Posted on

SCOTUS delivers big Trump win and implicit rebuke to San Francisco federal judge’s 50-state injunction on asylum rules change

In a very unusual move, the Supreme Court bypassed the lower courts and issued a decision vacating an injunction issued by Judge Jon Tigar of the San Francisco Federal District Court (who normally sits in the Oakland Federal Courthouse), prohibiting implementation of new rules on asylum. Adam Liptak reports in the New York Times:

The Supreme Court, in a brief, unsigned order, said the administration may enforce new rules that generally forbid asylum applications from migrants who have traveled through another country on their way to the United States without being denied asylum in that country.

The court’s order was a major victory for the administration, allowing it to enforce a policy that will achieve one of its central goals: effectively barring most migration across the nation’s southwestern border by Hondurans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans and others. Mexican migrants, who need not travel through another country to reach the United States, are not affected by the new policy.

This is the second time that Judge Tigar has been overruled in his effort to dictate to the entire nation that a presidential policy not be allowed to take effect because he doesn’t like it. Jared Samilow of Legal Insurrection explains:

This case, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, followed the familiar pattern. In July, the Justice Department and Homeland Security issued a new rule denying asylum to most migrants who did not apply for asylum in a third country they transited through on their way to the United States. For example, the rule denies U.S. asylum to someone from Guatemala who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without having applied for asylum in Mexico. In a lawsuit brought by an asylum organization, Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco granted a nationwide injunction against the rule. The government appealed.

A few weeks later, in a partial ruling for the government, the Ninth Circuit held the record did not support the award of a nationwide injunction. It ordered the rule be blocked only within the Ninth Circuit unless a more developed record showed that broader relief was necessary. Shortly thereafter, Judge Tigar ordered a bit more paperwork, held another hearing, and quickly restored the nationwide scope of the injunction.

The Supreme Court’s ruling allows the rule to go into effect entirely. In other words, the plaintiffs are probably worse off then they would have been had they accepted the Ninth Circuit’s geographic compromise. They paid for being greedy.

There is reason for optimism that the Supreme Court will finally end the recent practice of federal district judges issuing nationwide injunctions preventing implementation of Trump administration policies while court challenges are underway. It makes no sense that a single judge in a deep blue jurisdiction can act to suspend a Trump policy that he or she doesn’t agree with when the appellate courts above district courts can only enforce their judgments within the territory of their jurisdiction, not nationally.

The speed with which the court acted, and the fact that only two justices – Sotomayor and Ginsburg — dissented from the order may indicate that the entire court is ready to slap down the national pretensions of its inferior courts at the district level.  Note that the lawsuit against the new regulations will proceed. This SCOTUS decision does not consider the merits of the case, only the propriety of a nationwide injunction against them while the case is being heard.

Judge Tigar is the very judge that President Trump denounced as an “Obama judge” last November, provoking a widely-derided rebuke from the Chief Justice of the United States:

President Trump scoffed at the judge who held up his order on ending asylum by calling him an “Obama judge,” implying that it was nothing but politics that drove the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court was having none of it:

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is somethng we should be thankful for.”

The Chief Justice of the United States is ignoring the evidence:

There were 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June. In those cases, the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted the same way 51 times

More than three-quarters of the time, four Democrat-appointed justices voted in lockstep.  Republican-appointed justices were slightly less partisan, voting in lockstep 55% of the time:

…the five Republican appointees held tight 37 times.

More importantly, in close votes, the Republican appintees were far more likely to stray from the partisan expectations:

And of the 20 cases where the court split 5-4, only seven had the “expected” ideological divide of conservatives over liberals. By the end of the term, each conservative justice had joined the liberals as the deciding vote at least once.

A strong Supreme Court decision forever banning district court judges from nationwide injunctions is desperately needed. The fact that only two Deocrat appointees dissented from the decision in question may yield a 7-to-2 decision.

Photo credit: Pixabay

In a very unusual move, the Supreme Court bypassed the lower courts and issued a decision vacating an injunction issued by Judge Jon Tigar of the San Francisco Federal District Court (who normally sits in the Oakland Federal Courthouse), prohibiting implementation of new rules on asylum. Adam Liptak reports in the New York Times:

The Supreme Court, in a brief, unsigned order, said the administration may enforce new rules that generally forbid asylum applications from migrants who have traveled through another country on their way to the United States without being denied asylum in that country.

The court’s order was a major victory for the administration, allowing it to enforce a policy that will achieve one of its central goals: effectively barring most migration across the nation’s southwestern border by Hondurans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans and others. Mexican migrants, who need not travel through another country to reach the United States, are not affected by the new policy.

This is the second time that Judge Tigar has been overruled in his effort to dictate to the entire nation that a presidential policy not be allowed to take effect because he doesn’t like it. Jared Samilow of Legal Insurrection explains:

This case, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, followed the familiar pattern. In July, the Justice Department and Homeland Security issued a new rule denying asylum to most migrants who did not apply for asylum in a third country they transited through on their way to the United States. For example, the rule denies U.S. asylum to someone from Guatemala who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without having applied for asylum in Mexico. In a lawsuit brought by an asylum organization, Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco granted a nationwide injunction against the rule. The government appealed.

A few weeks later, in a partial ruling for the government, the Ninth Circuit held the record did not support the award of a nationwide injunction. It ordered the rule be blocked only within the Ninth Circuit unless a more developed record showed that broader relief was necessary. Shortly thereafter, Judge Tigar ordered a bit more paperwork, held another hearing, and quickly restored the nationwide scope of the injunction.

The Supreme Court’s ruling allows the rule to go into effect entirely. In other words, the plaintiffs are probably worse off then they would have been had they accepted the Ninth Circuit’s geographic compromise. They paid for being greedy.

There is reason for optimism that the Supreme Court will finally end the recent practice of federal district judges issuing nationwide injunctions preventing implementation of Trump administration policies while court challenges are underway. It makes no sense that a single judge in a deep blue jurisdiction can act to suspend a Trump policy that he or she doesn’t agree with when the appellate courts above district courts can only enforce their judgments within the territory of their jurisdiction, not nationally.

The speed with which the court acted, and the fact that only two justices – Sotomayor and Ginsburg — dissented from the order may indicate that the entire court is ready to slap down the national pretensions of its inferior courts at the district level.  Note that the lawsuit against the new regulations will proceed. This SCOTUS decision does not consider the merits of the case, only the propriety of a nationwide injunction against them while the case is being heard.

Judge Tigar is the very judge that President Trump denounced as an “Obama judge” last November, provoking a widely-derided rebuke from the Chief Justice of the United States:

President Trump scoffed at the judge who held up his order on ending asylum by calling him an “Obama judge,” implying that it was nothing but politics that drove the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court was having none of it:

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is somethng we should be thankful for.”

The Chief Justice of the United States is ignoring the evidence:

There were 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June. In those cases, the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted the same way 51 times

More than three-quarters of the time, four Democrat-appointed justices voted in lockstep.  Republican-appointed justices were slightly less partisan, voting in lockstep 55% of the time:

…the five Republican appointees held tight 37 times.

More importantly, in close votes, the Republican appintees were far more likely to stray from the partisan expectations:

And of the 20 cases where the court split 5-4, only seven had the “expected” ideological divide of conservatives over liberals. By the end of the term, each conservative justice had joined the liberals as the deciding vote at least once.

A strong Supreme Court decision forever banning district court judges from nationwide injunctions is desperately needed. The fact that only two Deocrat appointees dissented from the decision in question may yield a 7-to-2 decision.

Photo credit: Pixabay

via American Thinker Blog

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

Posted on

Fake News, Fake Polls – CNN Edition

It’s been a tough few weeks for CNN. Who knew pushing fake news could be so challenging?

First, they tried to turn President Trump into a rube for suggesting that Alabama could be in the path of Hurricane Dorian. It turns out that CNN suggested the same thing, a few days before Trump did, warning Alabama to “be on the lookout”.

Then came the fiction that Trump outed a Russian informant. Instead the reality was that the decision on any outing or exfiltration occurred before Trump became president. We know whose watch this occurred on, but CNN chose to instead blame the current president.

Now it’s an opinion poll. CNN’s story of the week is, ”6 in 10 say Trump does not deserve a second term.” Well, that settles it. If CNN says so, it must be true. Get ready for President Beto or Pete.

YouTube screen grab

Remember how they said endlessly that Trump colluded with Putin and the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. And how Trump would soon be frog marched from the White House, if the gaggle of psychiatrists declaring Trump insane didn’t get rid of him first via the 25th Amendment.

CNN told us Stormy Daniels would be the Trump slayer. Or was it Omarosa? Or Michael Cohen? Or Megan Rapinoe? I’ve lost track. Michael Avenatti was the perfect candidate in the eyes of Brian Stelter, host of CNN’s show with the most fraudulent name, “Reliable Sources.”

CNN is giddy over this latest poll, reinforcing their reputation as a hackneyed and partisan propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. This will be the story that reverses Trump’s likely successful bid for reelection. In the minds of Beltway journalists, everyone hates Donald Trump and wants him sent packing in November 2020.

CNN describes their poll by saying, “Overall, the poll paints a picture of a President who has done little to improve negative impressions of him or his work during his time in office.” I wonder if they mean his conservative judicial appointments. Or record low unemployment, particularly for women, blacks and Hispanics. Or America’s energy independence. I guess those achievements cause “negative impressions” for the CNN-watching zombies.

Polls are as good as their survey sample. Conduct a Trump approval poll on the Upper East Side of Manhattan or in Boulder, Colorado and not surprisingly his approval number will be in the low single digits. In this particular poll, the internal methodology illustrates how CNN obtained their desired result by commissioning a poll which oversampled Democrats. “31% described themselves as Democrats, 25% described themselves as Republicans, and 44% described themselves as independents or members of another party.”

The poll oversampled Democrats by 6 percentage points. Of the 44 percent who were either independents or “members of another party,” how many other parties are there? Could some be members of the Green Party or the Democratic Socialists of America, the latter being the party of “The Squad”? Are their opinions more reflective of Republicans or Democrats?

The CNN poll also looked only at self-described registered voters, not likely voters, as other more accurate pollsters survey.  According to CNN, “about 55% of voting age citizens cast ballots” in the 2016 presidential election, meaning half of those surveyed didn’t even bother voting.

For comparison, look back eight years ago when Barack Obama was running for reelection. A Gallup poll from December 2011 found that 55 percent of those surveyed believed that Obama did not deserve reelection. This number is not much different from the Trump number of 60 percent cited in the CNN poll. Yet Obama was reelected easily.

Note also the media coverage, not just by CNN, of President Trump. The Media Research Center found that Trump receives 92 percent negative media coverage. The Pew Research Center agreed, “Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive.”

Given the overwhelming difference in media coverage of Trump versus Obama, the fact that they have similar reelection poll results is quite favorable for President Trump. Another way to look at these reelection prospects is to look at approval numbers of Obama versus Trump at similar points in their respective presidencies.

Rasmussen Reports does just that. As an aside, Rasmussen was one of the most accurate pollsters in predicting the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Rasmussen has a Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of likely, not simply registered, voters, creating a more valid survey sample given that half of eligible voters don’t even vote.

On September 10, the total approval number for Trump was 47 percent, compared to 42 percent for Obama exactly eight years ago, the same point in both presidencies. And we know who easily won reelection in 2012.

Is CNN honestly reporting their poll results, based on the confounding factors noted above? Or are they pushing a narrative, trying to create their desired electoral outcome? From their article reporting the poll, “Trump’s approval ratings for handling major issues are largely stagnant, with what little movement there is heading in the wrong direction for the President.”

Democrats, and their media handlers, have learned little since 2016 when their polls all predicted a Hillary Clinton landslide, even on Election Day. Representative Jerry Nadler is pushing impeachment when only 21 percent of voters support going in this direction.

It’s interesting that the media touts polls which support their agenda or their wishful thinking, ignoring any contradictory information. For example, the media pays little attention to Rasmussen polls showing Trump support among black voters hovering around 30 percent last month.

Or a Zogby poll from last month with this result, “Trump’s approval rating has improved with minorities: 28% of African Americans and 49% of Hispanics at least somewhat approve of the president.”

Trump enjoys 88 percent job approval among Republicans according to the recent CNN poll, but that’s not the headline.

Democrats ignore the polls they don’t like or Trump rally crowd sizes and enthusiasm at their own peril. Those who live by fake news polls may have another bad night in November 2020.

Brian C Joondeph, MD, is a Denver based physician, freelance writer and occasional radio talk show host whose pieces have appeared in American Thinker, Daily Caller, and other publications. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, Twitter, and QuodVerum.

It’s been a tough few weeks for CNN. Who knew pushing fake news could be so challenging?

First, they tried to turn President Trump into a rube for suggesting that Alabama could be in the path of Hurricane Dorian. It turns out that CNN suggested the same thing, a few days before Trump did, warning Alabama to “be on the lookout”.

Then came the fiction that Trump outed a Russian informant. Instead the reality was that the decision on any outing or exfiltration occurred before Trump became president. We know whose watch this occurred on, but CNN chose to instead blame the current president.

Now it’s an opinion poll. CNN’s story of the week is, ”6 in 10 say Trump does not deserve a second term.” Well, that settles it. If CNN says so, it must be true. Get ready for President Beto or Pete.

YouTube screen grab

Remember how they said endlessly that Trump colluded with Putin and the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. And how Trump would soon be frog marched from the White House, if the gaggle of psychiatrists declaring Trump insane didn’t get rid of him first via the 25th Amendment.

CNN told us Stormy Daniels would be the Trump slayer. Or was it Omarosa? Or Michael Cohen? Or Megan Rapinoe? I’ve lost track. Michael Avenatti was the perfect candidate in the eyes of Brian Stelter, host of CNN’s show with the most fraudulent name, “Reliable Sources.”

CNN is giddy over this latest poll, reinforcing their reputation as a hackneyed and partisan propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. This will be the story that reverses Trump’s likely successful bid for reelection. In the minds of Beltway journalists, everyone hates Donald Trump and wants him sent packing in November 2020.

CNN describes their poll by saying, “Overall, the poll paints a picture of a President who has done little to improve negative impressions of him or his work during his time in office.” I wonder if they mean his conservative judicial appointments. Or record low unemployment, particularly for women, blacks and Hispanics. Or America’s energy independence. I guess those achievements cause “negative impressions” for the CNN-watching zombies.

Polls are as good as their survey sample. Conduct a Trump approval poll on the Upper East Side of Manhattan or in Boulder, Colorado and not surprisingly his approval number will be in the low single digits. In this particular poll, the internal methodology illustrates how CNN obtained their desired result by commissioning a poll which oversampled Democrats. “31% described themselves as Democrats, 25% described themselves as Republicans, and 44% described themselves as independents or members of another party.”

The poll oversampled Democrats by 6 percentage points. Of the 44 percent who were either independents or “members of another party,” how many other parties are there? Could some be members of the Green Party or the Democratic Socialists of America, the latter being the party of “The Squad”? Are their opinions more reflective of Republicans or Democrats?

The CNN poll also looked only at self-described registered voters, not likely voters, as other more accurate pollsters survey.  According to CNN, “about 55% of voting age citizens cast ballots” in the 2016 presidential election, meaning half of those surveyed didn’t even bother voting.

For comparison, look back eight years ago when Barack Obama was running for reelection. A Gallup poll from December 2011 found that 55 percent of those surveyed believed that Obama did not deserve reelection. This number is not much different from the Trump number of 60 percent cited in the CNN poll. Yet Obama was reelected easily.

Note also the media coverage, not just by CNN, of President Trump. The Media Research Center found that Trump receives 92 percent negative media coverage. The Pew Research Center agreed, “Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive.”

Given the overwhelming difference in media coverage of Trump versus Obama, the fact that they have similar reelection poll results is quite favorable for President Trump. Another way to look at these reelection prospects is to look at approval numbers of Obama versus Trump at similar points in their respective presidencies.

Rasmussen Reports does just that. As an aside, Rasmussen was one of the most accurate pollsters in predicting the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Rasmussen has a Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of likely, not simply registered, voters, creating a more valid survey sample given that half of eligible voters don’t even vote.

On September 10, the total approval number for Trump was 47 percent, compared to 42 percent for Obama exactly eight years ago, the same point in both presidencies. And we know who easily won reelection in 2012.

Is CNN honestly reporting their poll results, based on the confounding factors noted above? Or are they pushing a narrative, trying to create their desired electoral outcome? From their article reporting the poll, “Trump’s approval ratings for handling major issues are largely stagnant, with what little movement there is heading in the wrong direction for the President.”

Democrats, and their media handlers, have learned little since 2016 when their polls all predicted a Hillary Clinton landslide, even on Election Day. Representative Jerry Nadler is pushing impeachment when only 21 percent of voters support going in this direction.

It’s interesting that the media touts polls which support their agenda or their wishful thinking, ignoring any contradictory information. For example, the media pays little attention to Rasmussen polls showing Trump support among black voters hovering around 30 percent last month.

Or a Zogby poll from last month with this result, “Trump’s approval rating has improved with minorities: 28% of African Americans and 49% of Hispanics at least somewhat approve of the president.”

Trump enjoys 88 percent job approval among Republicans according to the recent CNN poll, but that’s not the headline.

Democrats ignore the polls they don’t like or Trump rally crowd sizes and enthusiasm at their own peril. Those who live by fake news polls may have another bad night in November 2020.

Brian C Joondeph, MD, is a Denver based physician, freelance writer and occasional radio talk show host whose pieces have appeared in American Thinker, Daily Caller, and other publications. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, Twitter, and QuodVerum.

via American Thinker

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

Posted on

Andy Biggs, New Chairman of House Freedom Caucus, Vows to Fight for Conservatives

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., new chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, says he has some big plans for what he’ll accomplish in the role.

“We must fight against increased government spending and for a balanced budget. We must fight for border security and the elimination of all loopholes that incentivize illegal entry into this nation,” Biggs said in a statement released Tuesday by his office. 

Biggs, elected earlier Tuesday by his colleagues in the conservavtive caucus, said he is committed to working with President Donald Trump to advance its priorities. 

“We must work to lower health care costs and improve access and quality for all Americans,” he added. “We will stand with President Trump as he keeps his promises to the American people. And we will never forget the people who sent us to Congress to work on their behalf.”

Biggs, 60, lives in Gilbert, Arizona, a town in Maricopa County southeast of Phoenix. He won election to the House of Representatives in 2016 after serving in the Arizona House and Senate.

Biggs replaces Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., as chairman. The caucus was created in January 2015 by its first chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Biggs thanked both men for their leadership. 

“The House Freedom Caucus has created a national reputation by standing up for Americans who have felt that they didn’t have a voice in Congress,” Biggs said, adding:

Great leaders like Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows have fostered a caucus that is a force for conservative principles, and I am thankful for their continued leadership and mentorship. I’m also thankful to my predecessor, Matt Salmon, who as one of the founding members of the Freedom Caucus laid the groundwork for the future of this caucus.

Salmon, who previously held Biggs’ seat representing Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, announced his retirement from politics in early 2016. 

The Freedom Caucus, which keeps no official roster of its members, is well known for its opposition to the Washington political establishment.

The post Andy Biggs, New Chairman of House Freedom Caucus, Vows to Fight for Conservatives 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

Black Americans Are Doing Great Under Trump

The August jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed more great news for all Americans. And particularly for black Americans.

The nation’s unemployment rate of 3.7% puts it near the lowest ever in the last half-century.

Black unemployment is at an all-time low at 5.5%.

Also at an all-time low is the gap between black and white unemployment. With white unemployment at 3.4%, the gap is 2.1 percentage points. Put in other terms, black unemployment stood 62% higher than white unemployment.

A few years ago, the Pew Research Center looked at BLS unemployment data back to 1954, the first year the data was broken down by race. From 1954 to 2013, white unemployment averaged 5%, and black unemployment averaged 9.9%.

So going back as far as we have data, the black-white unemployment gap averaged a difference of 4.9 percentage points, compared with 2.1 points now. The black rate averaged 100% higher than the white rate compared with 62% now.

This is good news for everyone except those who are more unhappy that Donald Trump is president than they are happy that blacks are working.

CNN’s Don Lemon told blacks that their vote should be influenced more by what is, according to him, Trump’s “racist behavior” than by the strong economy.

According to the BLS report, there were 349,000 more blacks employed in August 2019 compared with August 2018.

So these 349,000 black Americans now working, who weren’t working a year ago, should be thinking when they go to the voting booth that Don Lemon, whose net worth, according to various online sources, is somewhere between $3 million and $10 million, says Trump is a racist?

Lemon continued on with his CNN buddies that all the credit should go to Obama.

According to BLS, the average number of blacks working during 2016, the last year of Obama’s presidency, was 18.2 million compared with 19.5 million now.

My guess is these 1.3 million more black Americans now working will be more prone to listen to Black Entertainment Television founder, America’s first black billionaire, Robert Johnson, who said on CNBC, “I think the economy is doing absolutely great, and it’s particularly reaching into populations that heretofore have had very bad problems in terms of jobs, unemployment and the opportunities that come with full employment, so African-American unemployment is at its lowest level.”

Johnson went on to credit President Trump and the 2017 tax cuts for stimulating the economy.

The World Bank annually publishes a Doing Business report, grading nations on their conditions for starting and doing business. Economic research shows a powerful correlation between this index and economic growth. It is exactly this — a tax and regulatory environment more friendly to business — that the Trump administration has produced. And, as Johnson points out, every community benefits.

Along with the BLS, the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents the nation’s small businesses, also issued a strong report in August, showing an increase in August over July of workers added per firm.

Contrary to the message of Don Lemon, whom CNN pays a seven-figure salary to tell liberal viewers what they want to hear, Donald Trump’s accomplishments for black Americans are impressive.

First, of course, is a great economy. But in addition, the Opportunity Zone initiative has created compelling tax incentives to drive investment to 8,700 distressed ZIP codes nationwide. Criminal justice reform was passed to improve fairness in sentencing and introduce policies to reduce recidivism.

And, Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the nation and to black Americans, announced withdrawal from the Title X program as result of a new rule prohibiting referrals for abortion except in cases of rape, incest and medical emergency.

Black Americans are doing great under this president, and as this continues, we can expect surprises from this community in November 2020.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

The post Black Americans Are Doing Great Under Trump 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

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/

Posted on

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, iTunes, SoundCloud, 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 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/

Posted on

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/

Posted on

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/