Police are looking to charge more than 1,100 people who were arrested during last month’s “Extinction Rebellion” climate protests, a senior officer has said.
During the protests, activists laid down in the middle of busy public roads, glued themselves to the walls of financial institutions such as the London Stock Exchange, and even attempted to disrupt flights from Heathrow airport.
The protests also saw actress Emma Thompson fly 5,400 miles from America, using 1.67 tonnes of CO2 in the process, to join in the protests and recite a poem called ‘Mother Earth is Not Your Slut’.
The demonstrations lasted for 10 days in total and required a police presence of 10,000. It is estimated this cost the police force £7.5 million, which is more than half the money assigned by London mayor Sadiq Khan to assist with extra policing in the capital.
Extinction Rebellion Threatens to Shut Down Heathrow, One of World’s Busiest Airports, on Good Friday https://t.co/rBRwDmpHiv
In an official briefing on Friday, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor announced that the police would be looking to charge all those arrested in the protests in order to deter others from similar action in the future.
He said: “We have charged over 70. All the others are currently under investigation and we have got a dedicated unit of around 30 officers who are investigating those offences.
“It is our anticipation that we are putting all of those to the [Crown Prosecution Service] for decisions.”
Mr Taylor called for stronger punishments for those who break the law, saying, “I’m not saying going to jail, but we would like to see consequences for any activity at these events that is unlawful.”
“Protest is not illegal. There is nothing unlawful about protest,” he explained, but added that “the activity of some individuals at a protest can be unlawful.”
“What we are saying is at the moment there doesn’t seem to be much of a criminal deterrent for doing that and therefore, it doesn’t legitimise it but it does make it easy for that unlawful activity to take place. And what we would like to see is consequence, where the law is clearly broken and it goes beyond what is reasonable and a legitimate aim for a protest, for that to be recognised and for appropriate sanctions.”
Rich Actress Emma Thompson Flies 5,400 Miles to Protest Climate Change https://t.co/m6KkjE27C4
Gang members in London and the wider country are taking part in a deadly game in which they receive varying points for stabbing or shooting victims in different parts of the body.
The system of point scoring sees 50 points given for an attack on the head or face, 30 points for the chest, 20 for the stomach, and so on. The gang members often brag about the points they have racked up in rap videos posted to YouTube and other social media.
One such victim of this type of crime was Rhyhiem Barton, a 17-year-old boy who was shot in South London last year. Barton had himself been seen in a video rapping about “the scorecard” in a drill music video seen over 300,000 times.
Barton was involved in a mentorship programme and his mentor, Sayce Holmes-Lewis, told Sky News: “Is there a literal scoreboard? Yes. People are keeping count of the attacks that each organisation is carrying out.”
Mr Holmes-Lewis continued: “You stab a person in the head or the chest you get a certain number of points. You get varying points for the severity of the violent act. Young people’s reality seems to be very warped when it comes to violence. They think it is a game. Taking somebody out and killing somebody is now fun.”
“These videos are not being taken down quickly enough and they should be screened before they go on,” he added.
“I know it’s very difficult with the high volume of traffic on social media but these are young people — young people are dying as a result of some of these things that are being released on YouTube, on Instagram and Snapchat and more needs to be done.”
In Ipswich last month, four young men were sentenced for the murder of Tavis Spencer-Aitkens. Aristote Yenge, 23, Kyreis Davies, 17, Isaac Calver, 19, and Adebayo Amusa, 20, stabbed Spencer-Aitkens 15 times.
They later bragged about the murder on social media, saying they were “scoring points like 23”. This is thought to be in reference to the high point scoring American basketball player Michael Jordan, who wore the number 23 on his jersey.
Chris Peddie, who works with young people affected by gang crime, said of the videos: “They are always ‘scoring points like 23’. It means they always get their target. They sing about ‘riding dirty, never clean’. It means they’ve always got drugs or knives or guns.”
He added: “The more violent the attack, the more points. You get a lot of points for the face and the head because it is visible.”
His warning comes as it was reported on Wednesday that a charity recommended children be taught grime rap and hip-hop in schools instead of classical music such as Mozart — to be more “relevant” to young people’s tastes and prevent school exclusions, somehow.
— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) May 15, 2019
Popular grim rapper Michael Ebenazer Kwadjo Omari Owuo Jr, or “Stormzy”, has produced music contains lyrics such as “beef with the champ, my man pulled out a shank, how you gonna scare me with this?” and “I don’t never ever slack, grab my gun and go to war (boy) I got brothers up in jail, going mad up in their cells”.
Stormzy is friendly with hard-left Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who described him as “one of London’s most inspiring young men” in 2017 and presented him the “Best Solo Artist” trophy at the GQ awards.
Well, folks, this is why the judiciary is so important: In a pithy decision which began with a line seemingly designed to bait the media, an Obama-era federal judge blocked Mississippi’s fetal heartbeat law.
The law, passed in February, would have banned most abortions after six weeks.
“Except when a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this section, no person shall perform an abortion on a pregnant woman before determining if the unborn human individual that the pregnant woman is carrying has a detectable fetal heartbeat,” the Mississippi bill read in part.
“Any person who performs an abortion on a pregnant woman based on the exception in this section shall note in the pregnant woman’s medical records that a medical emergency necessitating the abortion existed.”
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves blocked its implementation and found that the plaintiff in the case, Mississippi’s sole abortion clinic, is “substantially likely to succeed on the merits of this claim.”
“Mississippi has passed another law banning abortions prior to viability. The latest iteration, Senate Bill 2116, bans abortions in Mississippi after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is as early as 6 weeks lmp. [After last menstrual period.] The parties have been here before. Last spring, plaintiffs successfully challenged Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks lmp. The Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement. The State responded by passing an even more restrictive bill, S.B. 2116.”
“This Court previously found the 15-week ban to be an unconstitutional violation of substantive due process because the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that women have the right to choose an abortion prior to viability, and a fetus is not viable at 15 weeks lmp,” Reeves ruling continued.
Do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned?
0% (0 Votes)
0% (0 Votes)
“If a fetus is not viable at 15 weeks lmp, it is not viable at 6 weeks lmp. The State conceded this point. The State also conceded at oral argument that this Court must follow Supreme Court precedent. Under Supreme Court precedent, plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on the merits of this claim.”
Now, one could legitimately question whether or not Mississippi expected the bill to survive this challenge. After all, the end goal of most of this legislation is for it to end up before the Supreme Court in order to clarify the limits of — and possibly overturn — Roe v. Wade and other abortion-related decisions.
However, the fact that this ended up before Reeves is yet another reminder of why judicial appointments matter.
Reeves is one of the more high-profile judges at the district level. As the Jackson, Mississippi, Clarion-Ledger noted, he blocked Mississippi’s religious objections law back in 2016, a ruling that was reversed by the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. He’s also been openly critical of President Donald Trump’s judicial appointments, making parallels between conservative judicial philosophy and the KKK and segregation.
“When politicians attack courts as ‘dangerous,’ ‘political,’ and guilty of ‘egregious overreach,’ you can hear the Klan’s lawyers, assailing officers of the court across the South. When leaders chastise people for merely ‘using the courts,’ you can hear the Citizens Council, hammering up the names of black petitioners in Yazoo City,” Reeves said in an April speech at the University of Virginia School of Law.
“Dangerous,” “political,” “egregious overreach” and “using the courts” were all quotes from Trump, although they could have easily come from any Republican who feels the courts have been guilty of judicial activism. Clearly, we’re dealing with a man possessed of both impartiality and subtlety here.
Again, this ruling is hardly the end. Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant, a Republican, said in a statement that he would “encourage the Attorney General to seek immediate review of the preliminary injunction.”
“As Governor I’ve pledged to do all I can to protect life,” he wrote. “Time and time again the Legislature and I have done just that.”
— WJTV Gerald Harris (@GeraldHarrisTV) May 24, 2019
However, the ruling underscores the importance of being able to send judicial appointments to the Senate to be confirmed. For eight years, Barack Obama was able to do that. When he couldn’t get enough appointments through the Senate, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option and ended the filibuster on judicial nominations. (Incidentally: Thanks, Harry.)
Reeves is a man who says that any politician who complains judges are “political” is resorting to the tactics of segregationists and the Klan without realizing the sad irony or the shamelessness involved. When it comes to headline-grabbing, here we go again, indeed. That’s not what the judiciary is for, however — and I would much prefer to have a president who recognizes that.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Are you gay? Do you support President Donald Trump?
Well, at least one person thinks that “you should combust.” I’m sure they’re not the only one.
According to TheBlaze, that sort of invective was prompted by a shirt being sold by the Trump campaign’s official website. The tee is adorned with the rainbow flag and the words “LGBTQ for Trump.”
“Show your pride and your support for Trump with this exclusive equality tee,” the description for the $24 piece of swag reads.
It seemed to get people’s attention right before Pride Month starts in June. So, prepare for a meltdown in three, two, one…
Trump — who banned trans troops, is against LGBT employment protections, wants ppl to be able to turn away LGBT customers, & is denying citizenship to kids of US gay couples born out of wedlock — is selling LGBTQ for Trump shirts for Pride https://t.co/LcfzYb6oF9 via @NewNowNextpic.twitter.com/QAG6M7tlxJ
This was the reaction from BuzzFeed News’ David Mack. It wasn’t unique:
SO the Trump campaign is selling pride shirts… Please my fellow LGBTQ+ people, if you support that trash heap, wear one, so we all know not to date you. Like seriously, if you voted for him or support him, just let the other gays know for our sakehttps://t.co/yl6Eie62n7pic.twitter.com/i8M37ws6px
Do you think that the LGBT left went too far here?
0% (0 Votes)
0% (0 Votes)
In fairness, I’m pretty sure someone wearing this T-shirt wouldn’t want to date you either.
This was actually a common sentiment, as if LGBT Republicans would somehow be dying to get into a relationship with someone who has absolute contempt for LGBT Republicans.
So, this.
(Swallows some bile.)
I mean, at least if someone wears it we know to avoid them at all costs, I guess?https://t.co/xESWvNx0rB
Anyone that I encounter wearing such a T-shirt in Boystown during Pride Month will earn a stern history lesson and a trip to the Holocaust Museum in Skokie from me! #POTUShttps://t.co/2FALZK0mSR
Other responses catalogued by TheBlaze: “If anyone dares put on that ‘LGBTQ for Trump’ shirt, you should combust,” “Don’t wear one of these ironically, unless you’ve got some sort of fetish for getting your toes run over,” “If you bought that LGBTQ for Trump shirt do not attend pride this year” and “You’ve got to be f—ing kidding me.”
That last one could theoretically be taken as a bit of a comment on the flip-out over this shirt, but sadly that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Yes, the Trump administration has rolled back some Obama-era regulations for LGBT individuals, although one could reasonably argue those protections — particularly on transgender service in the military and gender identity initiatives in public schools — went too far. The administration has also taken a much stronger stand against anti-LGBT laws abroad.
And, as the president of the Log Cabin Republicans-DC pointed out, there are LGBT Republicans out there — as much as they’re perceived as an oddity.
“I think it’s a wonderful step,” Adam Savit told The Daily Caller regarding the shirts. “It reflects the fact there is real grassroots support for Trump among some segments of the LGBTQ community.”
But for the LGBT left, it’s about policing who can even call themselves LGBT. Part of one’s identity, it seems, must be political. And if that identity doesn’t sit right with the left, well, prepare to combust.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Trump’s Message to Immigrant Sponsors: You Want ‘Em? You Pay for ‘Em!
Andrew Harnik / AP PhotoPresident Donald Trump gestures as he answers a question from a reporter during a meeting to support America’s farmers and ranchers in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on May 23, 2019, in Washington. (Andrew Harnik / AP Photo)
A memo issued by President Donald Trump on Thursday makes sponsors of immigrants who end up receiving welfare benefits liable for the cost of those benefits
The directive invokes rarely enforced 1996 legislation that holds sponsors legally liable for such costs, according to the Washington Examiner.
“The immigration laws currently require that, when an alien receives certain forms of means-tested public benefits, the government or non-government entity providing the public benefit must request reimbursement from the alien’s financial sponsor,” the memo read.
“These laws also require that, when an alien applies for certain means-tested public benefits, the financial resources of the alien’s sponsor must be counted as part of the alien’s financial resources in determining both eligibility for the benefits and the amount of benefits that may be awarded. Financial sponsors who pledge to financially support the sponsored alien in the event the alien applies for or receives public benefits will be expected to fulfill their commitment under law.”
“Since December 19, 1997, the Congress has required an alien’s sponsor to sign an affidavit of support under section 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) pledging financial support for the sponsored alien in the event the sponsored alien applies for or receives means-tested public benefits,” it also noted.
“Currently, agencies are not adequately enforcing these requirements,” the memo said. “Ensuring compliance with the rule of law requires renewed efforts to enforce these requirements and the issuance of appropriate guidance so agency practices and enforcement can be aligned with Federal law.”
The move would require states to forward the names of immigrants receiving welfare benefits, after which the Treasury Department would bill the sponsor for the benefits.
If the sponsor fails to pay up, the money will be withheld from his or her tax return.
RealClearPolitics reported that “[t]he move is meant to promote self-sufficiency for noncitizens and preserve the social safety net for people living legally in the country,” according to one senior administration aide.
Do you agree with making immigrant sponsors pay up for the costs of public benefits those immigrants receive?
100% (5 Votes)
0% (0 Votes)
“This is a historic, transformative action to restore the foundational principle of U.S. immigration law: that those seeking to join our society must support themselves financially,” the aide said.
“Furthermore, those who, for whatever reason, cannot support themselves financially, must turn to their sponsor — not the federal government.”
And that’s the point of a sponsor, isn’t it?
Between the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act — “An administration official noted with a bit of glee that the latter became law with the support of then-Sen. Joe Biden,” RealClearPolitics reported — administration officials claim the ability to enforce this policy has been around since the 1990s.
It’s just that nobody seemed particularly interested in doing so.
Now Trump can — and he doesn’t need Congress’ approval.
“It always seemed like a no-brainer. Biden voted for it. This is a Clinton-era law,” the aide told RealClearPolitics.
“This is about enforcing what is already on the books. We are saying if you are willing to sponsor someone, you have to be responsible. You can’t just bring in everybody. You have to be judicious.”
Milton Friedman may have said it best: “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.”
We have a generous safety net in this country — many conservatives would argue too generous — and it’s already under a lot of strain. That’s why we have laws like the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.
It’s time we started enforcing them.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
A federal judge in Oakland, California, is blocking a $1 billion portion of President Donald Trump’s $8 billion emergency budget for building the border wall.
The blocked project used $1 billion allocated by Congress for anti-drug accounts. The preliminary injunction will apply while the judge fully considers the lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition, which includes leaders from pro-migration and environmental groups, as well as from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
“Plaintiffs also have shown a likelihood of success as to their argument that Defendants fail to meet the ‘unforeseen military requirement’ condition for the reprogramming of funds under Section 8005,” said the judge, U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam.
The administration’s “argument that the need for the requested border barrier construction funding was ‘unforeseen’ cannot logically be squared with the Administration’s multiple requests for funding for exactly that purpose dating back to at least early 2018,” he added.
The lawsuit also suggested that another $1.5 billion may be blocked because, in part, “the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm to their members’ aesthetic and recreational interests in the areas known as El Paso Sector Project 1 and Yuma Sector Project 1.”
Gilliam was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama in 2014.
The case is Sierra Club, v. Trump, No. 19-cv-00892-HSG in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The decision can be read here.
Another day, another corrupt Obama judge legislating from the bench.
California US District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, an Obama appointee, issued a preliminary injunction on Friday partially blocking President Trump’s $1 billion border wall plan.
The anti-American ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition who argued Trump’s plan to divert funds from the Pentagon to build the wall is unconstitutional.
The Sierra Club also argued that walls “divide neighborhoods, worsen dangerous flooding and destroy lands and wildlife.”
“Because the Court has found that Plaintiffs are likely to show that Defendants’ actions exceeded their statutory authority, and that irreparable harm will result from those actions, a preliminary injunction must issue pending a resolution of the merits of the case,” the judge said in court.
The corrupt Obama judge cited the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches in making his decision.
“The position that when Congress declines the Executive’s request to appropriate funds, the Executive nonetheless may simply find a way to spend those funds ‘without Congress’ does not square with fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic,” Gilliam wrote.
The ACLU celebrated the activist judge for making a political decision to undermine President Trump and put our national security at risk.
“This order is a win for our system of checks and balances, the rule of law, and border communities. The court blocked all the wall projects currently slated for immediate construction. If the administration begins illegally diverting additional military funds, we’ll be back in court to block that as well,” Dror Ladin, attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project, said in a statement.
In February, President Trump declared a national emergency to divert funds from the Defense Department to pay for a portion of the border wall.
The crisis at the US-Mexico border is the worst it has ever been as over 100,000 illegal aliens flood across the border every month and the Democrats along with their activist judges are doing everything they can to prevent Trump from stopping the invasion.
During a House Budget Committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) engaged with the Deputy Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Mark Hadley, and expertly dissected several of the major negatives of a single-payer health care system.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is reportedly investigating two airports for religious discrimination after they booted Chick-fil-A from their food courts.
The airports — San Antonio International and Buffalo Niagara International — are under investigation by the Department of Transportation after the department received multiple complaints, Fox News reported.
“The Department of Transportation has received complaints alleging discrimination by two airport operators against a private company due to the expression of the owner’s religious beliefs,” the agency said in a statement to Fox News.”The FAA notes that federal requirements prohibit airport operators from excluding persons on the basis of religious creed from participating in airport activities that receive or benefit from FAA grant funding.”
The San Antonio Express-News reported: “Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched a separate state inquiry a week after the City Council vote, intended to determine whether the city violated Texas laws. At the time, he encouraged the U.S. Department of Transportation, which oversees the FAA, to look into the matter as well.”
Chick-fil-A has long been a target of the political Left and Democrat politicians who despise the wildly popular restaurant.
The Chick-fil-A restaurant in Buffalo Niagara International Airport was booted after leftist Democrat Assemblyman Sean Ryan urged hospitality company Delaware North and the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority to deny the restaurant a place in the terminal.
In a statement to Fox News, Chick-fil-A wrote:
Recent coverage about Chick-fil-A continues to drive an inaccurate narrative about our brand. We do not have a political or social agenda or discriminate against any group. More than 145,000 people from different backgrounds and beliefs represent the Chick-fil-A brand. We embrace all people, regardless of religion, race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.
FOX 8 noted that as the FAA’s investigation takes place, “the ‘Save Chick-fil-A bill,’ as it has been deemed, is headed to the Texas governor’s desk for expected signature. The proposed law would reportedly prevent discrimination based on a person’s religious beliefs and conscience, including biblically based views of marriage.”
Aside from its delicious food and pro-family values, Chick-fil-A has a reputation for going the extra mile when it comes to providing excellent customer service and serving local communities.
Just this week, a Chick-fil-A employee changed a customer’s flat tire in the drive-thru line, according to FOX 8. The customer wrote about the experience on his Facebook page:
Bunch of saints over at the chickfila in east ridge! My tire somehow went flat in the drive through so they rushed out to replace it for me with their hydraulic Jack. They brought my food out to me then after it was done replaced my food with new fresh food so it wouldn’t be cold and put two cookies in there for free! Those people are truly doing the lord’s work over there!
During Hurricane Harvey, an elderly couple called a local Chick-fil-A and asked for help as they were trapped in their flooded home. USA Today reported:
The restaurant manager, Jeffrey Urban, recognized Spencer’s number, and answered the phone at the store. He was the only one able to reach to store because of flooding, according to the company.
He passed on Spencer’s cry for help to a coworker, Cindy Smith. She called her husband, who got his fishing boat and hit the water.
The crew arrived at the Spencers’ home, with two men on jet skis in tow.
After the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, Florida, Chick-fil-A opened the following day, which was a Sunday when the restaurant was normally closed, to serve law enforcement and people who were donating blood to the victims.
ERBIL, Iraq—A quick story about the meaning of Memorial Day from
the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan.
On my way to dinner, I hailed one of the city’s ubiquitous beige
taxis and hopped in the front seat. Having been in Kurdistan before, I’ve
learned to sit in the front seat. The taxi drivers act a little weird if you
sit in back.
My driver was a handsome man in his mid 30s—about my age. I gave
my destination in English, and he softly replied in Kurdish-accented English,
“No problem.”
Off we went.
A moment later, I asked, “So you speak English?”
“Yes,” the driver said.
“Did you learn in school?”
“No, I worked for the U.S. Army.”
My interest piqued. I paused, then introduced myself and told the
driver my background and why I was in Iraq.
“My name is Safeen,” he said, adding: “I love America. I have many
friends who are American soldiers.”
“Do you still keep in touch with them?”
“Of course,” Safeen said before proudly rattling off a list of
names and ranks.
“I used to speak English so well, but I forget,” he said. “It
frustrates me.”
I assured him he was doing fine. Then, with renewed confidence in his English-speaking chops, Safeen proceeded to breathlessly explain how, beginning in 2004, he had been an interpreter for the U.S. Army. He said he had worked alongside U.S. troops in combat in Baghdad, Kirkuk, Mosul, and Fallujah.
Mosul, scene of a devastating battle against the Islamic State group, is only about 50 miles from Erbil. (Photos: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)
“It was very dangerous,” Safeen said, talking about Fallujah.
“Every day there were shootings and bombings, very dangerous.”
Safeen said he was already a Kurdish peshmerga soldier before the
2003 U.S. invasion to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein. When the war began,
his commander asked for 10 volunteers who spoke English to work with the U.S.
Army as interpreters. So, Safeen volunteered and proudly performed his duty, he
explained, but the war left scars. Both the visible and invisible kinds.
“I was in an American Humvee in Fallujah,” he said. “A terrorist
bomb did this to my face. You see my face?”
I said I did.
He had scars across his cheeks. They weren’t striking, and I’d
hardly noticed them when I first got in the taxi. But the scars were there, all
right.
“I have a wife and two kids now, so no more war,” Safeen
continued. “I used the money the Americans gave me to buy a nice house. I have
a good life here in Erbil. It’s very safe. It’s very good.”
He went on talking about the war as he expertly zipped through
traffic. One soldier’s name kept coming up—a “Sgt. Bill.” Safeen told his
stories about Sgt. Bill with verve and a big smile plastered on his scarred
cheeks.
I asked if he was still in touch with Sgt. Bill.
Safeen did not immediately reply. Rather, he shook his head and
squinted his eyes like he was holding something back. A lack of vocabulary
wasn’t responsible for his silence, I understood. Some memories are simply too
painful to find the words to explain, no matter what language you’re speaking.
“Sgt. Bill died,” Safeen said at last.
I said nothing more about it.
When we arrived at our destination a few minutes later, Safeen
steadfastly refused my money.
“Can’t I give you anything?” I asked.
“Of course not,” Safeen told me.
He wrote his number on a card and gave it to me.
“If you need anything while you’re in Iraq, you tell me,” he said.
“Thank you, Safeen.”
We shook hands goodbye. After I’d stepped out, Safeen said one
more thing to me before I closed the door.
“Promise me,” he said, “if you need anything, you let me know.”
I agreed, and we parted ways.
Now, sitting alone with a quiet moment to think, I understand the significance of meeting Safeen.
A Kurdish peshmerga soldier on watch in Iraqi Kurdistan.
After all, Memorial Day is on Monday. A solemn holiday, it’s an
occasion to honor those who died in service to the United States. The real
heroes.
As a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it stings to
think about the friends I’ve lost. Also, I reluctantly confess that I sometimes
question what my generation of veterans achieved and what our friends died
fighting for.
The fact is, we spent the unrecoverable currency of our youths in
wars that never really ended. We didn’t win or lose—we just never finished.
Instead, another generation is now taking our place on those faraway
battlefields. The endless seasons of waxing and waning violence go on and on
and don’t look likely to end anytime soon.
However, despite my fleeting qualms, I’m ultimately proud of what
we achieved.
Wars, after all, don’t always end with unconditional surrenders
and victory parades. In our time, we have waged a multi-generational struggle
to relentlessly resist the dark forces that exist outside our borders and are
always looking for a way to hurt our homeland.
So we never backed down, and we never gave up. Even when it hurt.
Even after so much time away from home. Even when we lost friends. Even when we
didn’t know what victory looked like. Yes, we kept fighting because evil exists
and we knew we couldn’t ignore it.
But the reasons for our service weren’t just about defending the
homeland.
You see, I’ve learned one thing as a war correspondent that I
never really understood while I was an Air Force pilot: The U.S. military
remains the torchbearer for our country’s best values and a beacon of hope for
people fighting for their freedom around the world.
Meeting Safeen reminded me of that truth. He reminded me that
freedom is worth the fighting for, and that America has friends forever due to
the sacrifices of our heroes.
This Memorial Day, that’s a message all Americans need to hear.
