Trump Announces Step to Stop ‘Meritless’ Asylum Claims at Border

/in , , , , , , /by

President Donald Trump said Thursday he is working on an executive order to deny automatic entry to the U.S. to illegal immigrants claiming asylum unless they go to a legal port of entry.

“My administration is finalizing a plan to end the rampant abuse of our asylum system, to halt the dangerous influx, and to establish this control over America’s sovereign borders,” Trump said.

“Under this plan, the illegal aliens will no longer get a free pass into our country by lodging meritless claims in seeking asylum,” he said. “Instead, migrants seeking asylum will have to present themselves lawfully at a port of entry.”

Trump said he will be releasing a “quite comprehensive” executive order next week.

“Those who choose to break our laws and enter illegally will no longer be able to use meritless claims to gain automatic admission into our country,” the president said. “We will hold them—for a long time, if necessary. The only long-term solution to the crisis, and the only way to ensure the endurance of our nation as a sovereign country, is for Congress to overcome open-borders obstruction.”

Currently, illegal immigrants who illegally cross the border can claim asylum, and the United States is legally obligated to grant them a hearing.

However, a single asylum case can take as long as three years to hear. Trump and other federal officials have said that illegal immigrants frequently don’t show up for those hearings, since they are already in the interior of the country.

“We will end catch and release. We are not releasing any longer,” he said.

Trump also spoke of the Central American caravan of migrants in Mexico making its way toward the United States’ southern border. At one point, the caravan reportedly numbered 10,000, but the crowd is said to have declined since then to fewer than 4,000.

“These illegal caravans will not be allowed into the United States, and they should turn back now, because they’re wasting their time,” the president said. “They should apply to come into our country. We want them to come legally into our country.”

Trump called the caravan an “invasion” that has already “overrun” the Mexican border, carrying out violent acts against Mexican police and soldiers. He has deployed 7,000 active-duty military personnel to assist Customs and Border Protection officials and has threatened to double that number.

He said the caravan was involved in a “break-in” to Mexico, one in which its police and military were attacked.

“Anybody throwing stones or rocks, like they did to the Mexican military and the Mexican police, where they badly hurt police and soldiers of Mexico, we will consider that a firearm, because there’s not much difference,” Trump said.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Announces a ‘Comprehensive’ Executive Order on Immigration Is Coming Next Week

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured image by Free-Photos on Pixabay.

Washington Post Advice Columnist Gets it Right on Irrational Fear of School Shootings

/in , , , , , , /by

These days the cynical adage “if it bleeds, it leads” seems as applicable to the news media as ever. This is all the more reason that Washington Post advice columnist Carolyn Hax should be applauded for a recent piece where she sought to quell her readers’ out-sized fears about school shootings. Titled, “Apply the empirical method to your school-shooting anxieties,” Hax urged her readers to take a moment to look at the facts about school shootings before succumbing to fear.

In the column, a parent of a kindergartner told Hax, “I am just a wreck every time I see news about a school shooting.” The Parent went on to explain “I know there are daily risks in life (getting in a car, etc.) but I am having a really hard time with the possibility that something fatal could happen to her at school,” and asked “I’d love to hear thoughts on how to deal with this anxiety.”

In the opening of her response, Hax didn’t mince words, writing, “Throw facts at your anxiety, because it is in fact irrational.” Hax explained,

Something fatal can happen to all of us anywhere — and does, eventually — but the likelihood of any U.S. child dying by any cause is very low. When something bad does happen, it is typically accidental; you brush past the “daily risks” but the numbers are much grimmer for that car trip than for any school day. School shootings are more terrifying because they’re outside our daily risk trade-offs — such as, do we stick only to places we can walk, or accept the risk inherent in vehicle travel?

The simple truth is that school shootings are extremely rare.

In another excellent piece published in the Washington Post last March, Harvard Instructor David Ropeik explained just how vanishingly rare such incidents are. Walking readers through the numbers, Ropeik noted,

The Education Department reports that roughly 50 million children attend public schools for roughly 180 days per year. Since Columbine, approximately 200 public school students have been shot to death while school was in session, including the recent slaughter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. (and a shooting in Birmingham, Ala., on Wednesday that police called accidental that left one student dead). That means the statistical likelihood of any given public school student being killed by a gun, in school, on any given day since 1999 was roughly 1 in 614,000,000.

As one writer for the New York Times put it, “A school can expect a shooting once every few thousand years.”

Moreover, despite the prevailing news media narrative, school shootings are not becoming more common. In fact, according to research from Northeastern University Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy James Alan Fox, schools are safer than they were in the 1990s.

A February piece for Northeastern.edu that summarized Fox’s work quoted the professor as follows,

Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today, Fox said. “There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” he said, adding that more kids are killed each year from pool drownings or bicycle accidents.

The trouble many Americans have in accurately evaluating the prevalence and risks of violence extends beyond school shootings. Polling routinely shows that Americans believe crime is worsening, even as it has trended downwards.

Given the obvious difficulty many have in evaluating risk, and much of the news media’s alarmist bent, it is incumbent upon those who have been exposed to the facts to share their knowledge with others. Hax’s call to reason should help some to better understand the realities of school shootings, and in a small way help inject some much needed sanity into the school safety debate.

It’s Time For America To Go On The Offensive On Immigration

/in , , , , , , , /by

Mine is a love-hate relationship with Geraldo Rivera. I find him comical and light-hearted most of the time. But then he goes off and says the stupidest things; so dumb it makes Juan Williams look professorial.

In particular, Geraldo Rivera tends to fall off the deep end when he speaks of immigration, and yesterday was no exception. In an article expressing his proposal at resolving the immigration crisis, Geraldo wrote,

“In exchange for leniency and a path to citizenship for long-time undocumented residents already in this country — who were brought to the U.S. as children by their parents — pro-immigration advocates, like me, should announce our support for President Trump’s border wall. It will help restore order along the southern border, and mitigate the hysteria currently gripping the national immigration debate and tainting the mid-term elections.”

Never mind that the position of immigration advocates regarding the President of the United States has no bearing on the state of affairs in Central America; the notion that continued opposition to President Trump’s border wall will have any effect on his resolve to pursue it is also ill-conceived. Moreover, it is increasingly clear to most Americans that advocating for an open border is an absurd position that only serves to work against the interests of the United States and its citizens.

But included in Geraldo’s article is a statement that crosses the border between political discourse and unsubstantiated, discriminatory speech. Specifically, Geraldo wrote,

“It is, in my opinion, fear of our nation being over-run by poor, hungry, brown people in sufficient numbers to change our basic national character, which motivates most critics of this caravan and, more broadly, illegal immigration.”

I can confidently speak not only for my position, but also for that of anyone I have spoken to regarding border protection, and I have been discussing this issue a heck of a lot, that in absolutely no case has anyone factored the color of one’s skin or the nationality of those crossing illegally in the analysis of immigration. Quite the opposite; the only topics that keep coming up are our national sovereignty, our economy, and our national security. And for me, the most important of these is our national sovereignty.

So, in response, let me tell share with you my proposal on how to address this issue.

First, the necessity of building the wall, at this point, is a foregone conclusion. With the chaos we are witnessing to the south of us, there is no valid argument against it to be made. Build the wall, and build it now!

Second, the more immediate question is what to do about the thousands of individuals who are heading to our southern border at this moment. Here, I think the United States is making a big mistake in playing defense. Like prevent defense in football, the United States is sitting at the end zone waiting for its opponent to arrive in the hope that once it gets there it will be able to stop it, or the clock will run out. But there is not clock on the massive caravan coming our way, nor the one forming behind it.

I say, the United States needs to go on offense.

The United States needs to coordinate an affirmative effort with Mexico to dissuade the “dissidents” from proceeding. The effort should begin with the airdropping of leaflets, in Spanish, letting the migrants know that they are continuing their journey at their own peril and that if they should choose to continue, they will be stopped, by force if necessary, at the border. Helicopters would deliver the same message using megaphones, urging them to turn back. Included in this message is the offer to have those wishing to turn back transported to their home country, free of charge.

Next, in a coordinated exercise with Mexico, the United States should begin crowd disbursement activities. This will help to further diminish the size of the crowd eventually confronting our officers at the border. The topic of forcibly repatriating those who remain while still in Mexico should also be discussed with Mexican officials. If amenable, the United States should engage with Mexico in joint exercises accomplishing this end.

Those arriving at the border despite all these civil obstacles are more likely than not eager to engage in nefarious activities. These will be engaged, forcefully if necessary, at the border, and repelled.

Having regained control in the short run, and while building the wall, the United States would then have to evaluate the issues that are allowing for an appetite for emigration in the first place. We already know these include the many economic and governmental challenges plaguing Central American countries. The United States should immediately begin a mutually beneficial, long-term strategy aimed at reforming Central America with the goal of improving living conditions while benefiting the American economy and trade. Unquestionably, if these nations partner up, the results can be lucrative for each; and for their citizens.

As opposed to empty promises of support for the President, this plan will offer short-term control and long-term stability, making it much more worthy of pursuit.

And that, Geraldo, is an actual proposal.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dropping ‘Zero Tolerance’ Signaled Open Door for Illegal Immigrants

Proof Americans are funding gang-, Middle Eastern-laced caravan

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured photo is by Aaron Burson on Unsplash.

I Used to Be Transgender. I Support Proposed New Trump Policy on Gender Definition.

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Thank you, Mr. President, for moving to make male and female great again.

In the last few years, biological girls have seen their rights violated in school bathrooms and in sports. National confusion has ensued ever since the previous administration decided to reinterpret Title IX’s sex anti-discrimination clause to include self-proclaimed “gender identity.”

That may soon come to an end under the Trump administration.

The Department of Health and Human Services has drafted a memo that would reverse the Obama administration’s action and return the legal definition of “sex” under Title IX civil rights law to what its authors meant: sex rooted in unchanging biological reality. According to The New York Times, the memo was drafted last spring and has been circulating ever since.

Title IX bans sex discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, meaning schools have to abide by the government’s interpretation of Title IX or risk losing federal funds.

When the Obama administration announced it was including “gender identity” under the word “sex,” many schools felt they had to treat gender identity as the standard for determining access to bathrooms, sports teams, etc. The result was headlines like “Transgender Athletes Dominate High School Women’s Sports.”

The memo spells out the proposed definition of “sex” as applied to federal statutes as “a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth.” The proposed definition won’t include a “select a gender” option, as was offered under the Obama administration.

This is simply a return to reality. Sex is an immutable biological reality, while gender identity is a social construct that can change over time. The two terms are not interchangeable. The authors of Title IX meant biological sex, not gender identity.

The Obama administration’s conflation of the two was not just legally problematic—it also pushed transgender ideology further into the mainstream. That’s regrettable, because transgender ideology has real and harmful effects on people who are suffering and need help.

When individuals try to live out life in an ideology that has no basis in biological fact, the consequences are stark.

I know, because I lived the trans life for eight years.

I have received hundreds of regret letters from trans people who now realize—too late—that gender-pretending is damaging. Regretters have called gender change “the biggest mistake of my life.” The late transgender movie actress Alexis Arquette called her gender transition “bulls***” because no one can really change their gender.

So many have written me personally about the unhappy consequences of imitating the opposite gender for so many years, telling of lives needlessly torn apart and thoughts of suicide. I put those emails into a book, “Trans Life Survivors,” which shows the human toll caused by encouraging distressed people to undergo permanent surgeries and take powerful hormones without considering other causes and treatments.

This past weekend, I opened my email as I do each morning and found another message from a person who had ignored biology and went head-first into trans ideology. Now, this person wants out:

I am now 40 years old, post op male to female transgender person. And to put it simply, very miserable in life now. I have followed you on YouTube … and totally agree with your theories! I am at my wits’ end with life and what I have done to myself. It’s an inspiration to see and read about what I would call “survivors!”

Many trans folks, after years of “living the life,” now want to detransition. Many report to me that they were sexually abused, raped, or molested at a young age—in one case, as a toddler.

Teenage girls are flocking to gender change as an escape. One 15-year-old girl, who the gender experts diagnosed with gender dysphoria, explained to her mother that she wanted to “erase my past” because she was sexually abused by her dad.

In another case, a young 14-year-old girl confessed that “I used being trans to try and escape being scared about being small and weak. I thought that if I presented myself as a man I’d be safer.”

Another girl’s mother wrote that her daughter was raped at age 19 and desperately “is trying to remove any connection to her being female visually or sexually.”

This is the kind of suffering that has driven many to change genders. As a society, we need to honestly consider: Is changing genders an effective long-term treatment for past sexual abuse and feelings of insecurity?

Obviously not.

Billy, another trans life survivor, had been sexually abused at age 11 during a summer swimming camp by his diving coach. Billy explained to me that after the abuse, he hated his genitalia and wanted to become a female. Abuse can do that.

Billy, like so many abused as children, was diagnosed by the “gender specialist” with gender dysphoria and given cross-sex hormones and reassignment surgery. He lived fully as a transgender female until regret set in.

Now he has detransitioned back to male and is married—a true trans life survivor who prefers to live a biologically authentic life.

Trans ideology ruined the life of another friend, born male and now living as a trans female. After being diagnosed with gender dysphoria, his excellent employment allowed him financially to transition from male to female. But sex change regret has set in, and now he wants to detransition.

This nice-looking, tall, slender, intelligent transgender person is another who had been sexually abused as a child.

Too many people tell me that even when they establish a history of sexual abuse and communicate that to the gender therapist, the therapist disregards it. If a client wants to change their gender, the therapist will affirm them without reservation and help them down that path.

As a former trans person, and as someone who daily receives stories of physical and emotional devastation wrought by trans ideology, I look forward to a federal definition of sex as being rooted in immutable biology, without the option of being self-selected.

The science is absolutely clear. Sex doesn’t change over time, even with hormones and surgery—and that’s a good thing.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Walt Heyer

Walt Heyer

Walt Heyer is an author and public speaker. Through his website, SexChangeRegret.com, and his blog, WaltHeyer.com, Heyer raises public awareness about those who regret gender change and the tragic consequences suffered as a result.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Federal Gov’t Spending $1.1 Mil on Apps for Transwomen and “Hooking Up Simulation” for Gay Teens

Podcast: What Do Drag Queens Want With Your Kids?

LGBT Plays the Erase Card

My ‘Sex Change’ Was a Myth. Why Trying to Change One’s Sex Will Always Fail.

I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery

A Former Transgender Person’s Take on Obama’s Bathroom Directive

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This columns with images is republished with permission. Photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters/Newscom.

HHS Definition of Gender: ‘A biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.’

/in , , , , , , /by

Multiple news outlets are reporting on a Department of Health and Human Services definition of gender that has “a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” This definition is logical, true, biologically correct and politically incorrect to some.

In a New York Times article titled “‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration” Erica L. Green, Katie Benner and Robert Pear report:

A series of decisions by the Obama administration loosened the legal concept of gender in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing gender largely as an individual’s choice and not determined by the sex assigned at birth. The policy prompted fights over bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other arenas where gender was once seen as a simple concept. Conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, were incensed.

Now the Department of Health and Human Services is spearheading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times.

[ … ]

The new definition would essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans who have opted to recognize themselves — surgically or otherwise — as a gender other than the one they were born into.

[ … ]

Several agencies have withdrawn Obama-era policies that recognized gender identity in schools, prisons and homeless shelters. The administration even tried to remove questions about gender identity from a 2020 census survey and a national survey of elderly citizens.

Read the full article.

In a Life Site News article titled “Pelosi threatens ‘collateral damage’ if Dems win, push radical LGBT bill as ‘top priority’” Calvin Freiburger reports:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi desperately hopes Democrats will retake control of Congress next month, and dropped multiple hints this week to the delight of liberals and alarm of conservatives about what they’ll do if that happens.

“We owe the American people to be there for them, for their financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of every person in our country,” the former House Speaker said Sunday during an event hosted by 92nd Street Y. “And if there is some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it, but it shouldn’t be our original purpose.”

[ … ]

“It isn’t in our ‘For The People’ agenda because it doesn’t get that specific, but there’s one more because it’s personal for me that I really want to do, and it’s called the Equality Act,” the Democrat leader said, according to the Washington Blade. “The Equality Act expands ending discrimination against LGBTQ people and women and adding that to the Civil Rights Act.”

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill later confirmed that his boss considers the bill a “top priority,” which would be introduced “early in the year” if Democrats retake the House of Representatives.

Read the full article.

RELATED ARTICLES:

4 Things to Know About Trump’s Possible Reversal of Obama’s Transgender Policy

Old News: Gender Isn’t Neutral

We Hear You: The President, the Electoral College, Transgender Suicide, and Podcast Feedback

Bakers Fined $135K Over Wedding Cake Appeal to Supreme Court

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Scott Broome on Unsplash.

JUDICIAL WATCH VIDEO: 3.5 MILLION ‘Ghost Voters’ on Voter Rolls–‘That’s where you get fraud’

/in , , , , , , /by

October 17, 2018- Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton appeared on the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) to discuss election integrity and how dirty voter rolls can mean dirty elections.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Add These Voter Fraud Cases to the Growing List

How Trump Administration Will Fight Voter Fraud After Shutting Down Panel

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Paul Dufour on Unsplash.

Your Vote Outweighs Their Millions: Make Your Voice Heard Nov. 6

/in , , , , , /by

My fellow NRA members, we stand at the edge of the precipice of one of the most important elections of our lives. That is the reality we face, and we face it just days from now.

All the freedoms we hold dear are at stake in this election. The enemies of our freedom are highly organized and abundantly funded, thanks to a group of super-rich political elites hell-bent on “buying” this election to serve their own agenda.

This self-serving cabal of billionaires and their pet politicians have conspired to permanently transform America into a socialist state.They tried their best to win the White House in 2016, and they’ve done everything possible to undo that election ever since.

Their goal is a clear and present danger! They plan to seize power in Washington by capturing the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. Then they’ll crush the NRA, take the White House two years from now and repeal the Second Amendment. It is an all-out attack against us and our freedom, not with bombs and bullets, but with billions of dollars buying ballots.

You know their names: George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer—and their lap dog, N.Y.  Gov. Andrew Cuomo. He’s the genius who recently claimed, “We’re not going to make America great again; it was never that great.”

When he made that shocking assertion, I was at the American Cemetery in Normandy, France, with a group of NRA members, Freedom Alliance supporters and combat-wounded heroes from our current war against radical Islamist terror. We were stunned.

More stunning still: Not one of the anti-freedom cabal members distanced themselves from Cuomo’s pathetic rejection of American values. Apparently, acknowledging America’s greatness doesn’t serve their agenda.

That helps explain why Soros has pumped tens of millions into far-left political candidates and causes, why Bloomberg has vowed to spend $80 million in this election and why Steyer says he’s spending at least $110 million—all to plant Democrat-Socialists throughout our government and turn America into a gun-free socialist utopia.

Only the members of the NRA, and our country’s 100 million gun owners, stand in their way. We are the only patriots—proven by history—strong enough, tough enough and dedicated enough to defeat the big-spending liars the one and only way possible—with our votes!

On Nov. 6 every one of us must turn out and vote. And every one of us must get someone else out to vote, too. No one can sit this election out. The stakes are too high. Every vote is needed.

As law-abiding gun owners and Second Amendment advocates, you know the battlefield in this election. You helped win this fight two years ago, and you know our freedom cannot afford to let up this year.

Two years ago, NRA members helped elect one of the most openly pro-Second Amendment presidents in history. During the past two years, President Donald Trump has demonstrated his strong commitment to protecting our firearms freedom. He has fought back efforts to restrict our rights and nominated not one, but two, pro-freedom judges to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The president’s support for our freedom has driven our opponents and the so-called “mainstream” media nuts. They’ve protested, ranted and raved—and they’ve organized like never before to take over the U.S. House and Senate. If they win the House, they will spend the next two years trying to impeach the president and seize the White House in 2020.

“WE THE PEOPLE”—not wealthy oligarchs intent on ruling us and stripping away the freedoms we hold dear—are supposed to govern America.

The battle lines are clear and the fight is joined. Their last-minute smear against Judge Brett Kavanaugh in an attempt to block his confirmation is just one more indication of their tactics.

You, and I mean YOU, are the tip of the spear in this fight to preserve our liberties. You are admired, respected and trusted among your peers and colleagues. Use that credibility to encourage your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers—to spread the word and vote for candidates who support the Second Amendment on Nov. 6. A list of NRA-endorsed candidates can be found at nrapvf.org/grades.

Every vote by you and other Americans like you can make the difference in preserving our freedom and saving our nation.

Please stand with me in making that difference. Do everything you can to help us win this election battle. VOTE!

Semper Fidelis, Oliver North

RELATED ARTICLES:

California billionaire donates $2 million more to Andrew Gillum

Vote Against America, Vote Democrat

AZ Democrat Slams Stay-At-Home Moms: They’re Nothing But Leeches 

Trump Releases ‘Jobs Not Mobs’ Video Condemning Leftist Calls for Violence 

Governor Scott Extends & Enhances Midterm Election Ballots in areas affected by Hurricane Michael

/in , , , , , /by

Today, the Governor issued Executive Order 18-283 which gives Supervisors of Elections in Bay, Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Jackson, Liberty, and Washington counties the authority to extend and enhance voting options based on needs and challenges they have identified, including:

  • Locally-elected supervisors of elections in the impacted counties are now able to extend the amount of days of early voting, designate additional early voting locations and expedite the delivery and acceptance of vote-by-mail ballots. Each of these locally-elected supervisors of elections have reported significant obstacles created by Hurricane Michael preventing them from administering an election without these accommodations. These obstacles include, but are not limited to, damage to polling locations, extended telecommunications service disruptions, and large percentages of the counties’ population without power. Supervisors of Elections have not reported any damage to voting machines and all election-related equipment, including ballots, are secure.
  • The locally-elected Supervisors of Elections in the eight affected counties will be able to determine if additional early voting sites and days are necessary. The early voting period in the affected counties can begin as early as Monday, October 22, 2018, and can extend through election day November 6, 2018.
  •  The Executive Order extends the registration date for poll watchers to noon on October 26, 2018.
  • Executive Order 18-283 directs Secretary Detzner to coordinate with each supervisor of elections in Florida to ensure that Florida National Guard troops, first responders, law enforcement, volunteers, and utility power restoration workers engaged in the recovery efforts in the Panhandle and anyone who evacuated from the storm can cast a ballot.
  • The restriction on vote-by-mail ballots being forwarded to a different address has been waived. This will help displaced voters to cast a ballot. The Executive Order also waives provisions so voters in the affected counties can more easily obtain vote-by-mail ballots.

READ THE FULL EXECUTIVE ORDER BY CLICKING HERE.

Republican Party of Florida Chairman Blaise Ingoglia issued the following statement today on Governor Rick Scott’s Executive Order to extend and enhance voting options in counties impacted by Hurricane Michael.

“We applaud Governor Scott’s Administration on an Executive Order that embraces a thoughtful, comprehensive and targeted solution.  It is of the upmost importance that while we are rebuilding communities in the Panhandle, we are also allowing sufficient access to the polls this election cycle. The RPOF commends Gov. Scott and his Administration for enhancing voting options during this trying time, and for enacting an order that empowers more local input,” said RPOF Chairman Blaise Ingoglia.

RELATED ARTICLE: Texas Dems ask noncitizens to register to vote, send applications with citizenship box pre-checked

Cuban Doctors Say They Are Treated Like Slaves

/in , , , , , , /by

You are trained in Cuba and our education is free. Health care is free, but at what price? You wind up paying for it your whole life.” –Dr. Yaili Jiménez Gutierrez

In 2013, the World Health Organization brokered a deal through which Cuba would export doctors to Brazil to serve in its poorest and most remote areas. Yet as Brazil began to reap the benefits of improved care and decreased mortality rates, the Cuban doctors began to see their home’s regime in a new light.

“When you leave Cuba for the first time, you discover many things that you had been blind to,” says Yaili Jiménez Gutierrez, one of the program’s doctors, in a New York Times profile. “There comes a time when you get tired of being a slave.”

The Cuban doctors began noticing the disparity in their government’s “take” from the Brazilian government—nearly four times their own salary—as well as the higher wages and greater freedoms enjoyed by their fellow “export doctors” from other participating countries.

“We began to see that the conditions for the other doctors were totally different,” Jiménez explains. “They could be with their family, bring their kids. The salaries were much higher.”

In response, more than 150 Cuban doctors have now filed lawsuits in Brazilian courts, claiming equality protections under Brazil’s constitution and requesting that they remain in the country as independent contractors with the ability to earn a full salary.

The New York Times summarizes the situation as follows:

The seeds of the rebellion were planted a year ago in a conversation between a Cuban doctor and a clergyman in a remote village in northeastern Brazil.

Anis Deli Grana de Carvalho, a doctor from Cuba, was coming to the end of her three‑year medical assignment. But having married a Brazilian man, she wanted to stay and keep working. The pastor was outraged to learn that, under the terms of their employment, Cuban doctors earn only about a quarter of the amount the Brazilian government pays Cuba for their services.

…In late September of last year, she sued in federal court to work as an independent contractor. Within weeks, scores of other Cuban doctors followed Dr. Grana’s lead and filed suits in Brazilian courts.

As for how the Cuban government has responded thus far, some have been allowed to keep their jobs or return home, while others were fired and face exile:

Late last year, judges issued temporary injunctions in some cases, granting Cuban doctors the right to remain as independent contractors, earning full wages. One federal judge in the capital denounced the Cuban contracts as a “form of slave labor” that could not be tolerated.

But the federal judge who handled Dr. Grana’s case ruled against her, finding that allowing Cuban doctors to walk away from their contracts posed “undue risks in the political and diplomatic spheres.”

Soon after the first injunctions were issued, Cuban supervisors in Brazil summoned doctors who had filed suits and fired them on the spot, several doctors said. Each was given the chance to get on a plane to Cuba within 24 hours — or face exile for eight years.

The costs have been high for those who left family behind in order to pursue a better livelihood or improve their prospects upon returning home. But for many, the risks have been well worth it.

“It’s sad to leave your family and friends and your homeland,” says Maireilys Álvarez Rodríguez, a doctor who sued the government but managed to keep her job and bring her children to Brazil. “But here we’re in a country where you’re free, where no one asks you where you’re going, or tells you what you have to do. In Cuba, your life is dictated by the government.”

We routinely hear critics of capitalism decry the supposed injustices of free wages set by free markets driven by the actions free people. Without the steady hand of heavy government control and redistribution—we are told—the ideals of equality and justice will never prevail.

Yet note how, in the present case, we see doctors from Cuba—a land that supposedly places excessive priority on “equality”—running from their government to the Brazilian constitution for equality protections. The irony is painful and shows the illusory nature of an equality based only on material outputs.

Without true freedom, self-constructed, arbitrary, materialistic notions about “equality” quickly devolve, crowding out new growth and creating other disparities in the process, whether among neighbors abroad or among workers at home.

Likewise, when given a taste of freedom, the view gets clearer, and the supposed communist ideals of “equality” are quickly placed in the context of what’s truly at the driver’s seat: control.

This article was reprinted with permission from the Acton Institute.

Joseph Sunde

Joseph Sunde

Joseph Sunde is an associate editor and writer for the Acton Institute. His work has appeared in venues such as The Federalist, First Things, Intellectual Takeout, The City, The Christian Post, The Stream, Patheos, LifeSiteNews, Charisma News, The Green Room, Juicy Ecumenism, Ethika Politika, Made to Flourish, and the Center for Faith and Work. Joseph resides in Minneapolis, Minnesota with his wife and four children.

GOP Picks Cotton to Lead Justice Fight

/in , , , /by

The only bars liberals seem preoccupied with are the ones Brett Kavanaugh visited in college. But Senate Democrats may want to focus on a bar of another kind: the Washington, D.C. Bar. According to Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), that’s the investigation Americans should be watching. Because, unlike the FBI’s seventh trip through Brett Kavanaugh’s past, the Bar Association could prove who’s actually lying. And as far as he’s concerned, it’s not who the media thinks it is.

“Just look at the timeline that came to light during the hearing last week,” Senator Cotton told me on Monday’s “Washington Watch.” “Shortly after Miss Ford went to Dianne Feinstein, what happened? They recommended that she hire a left-wing attorney from Washington, D.C. to represent her. Attorneys who then went on to lie to Ms. Ford, apparently — because she testified last week that she didn’t know the Judiciary Committee had offered to fly to California to interview her. And that if she had known that, she would have accepted the offer, rather than go through the circus the Democrats put her through.” Dr. Ford has been just as abused and exploited by the Left as Kavanaugh, he insists. “They betrayed her.” Remember, he points out, “Ms. Ford said all along that she didn’t want her allegations to be made public.”

Like a lot of Republicans, Cotton was shocked to find out that Dr. Ford hadn’t been told about the Judiciary Committee’s offer to meet with her privately in California. “If you were gonna come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and would have been happy to speak to you out there. It wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.” If Dr. Ford’s attorneys lied to her, hoping to turn this into a public spectacle that hurt Kavanaugh, that’s a violation of the D.C. Bar.

And that’s not the only time Democrats took advantage of Dr. Ford, Cotton insisted. What most people don’t understand is that there’s a well-established procedure for allegations like hers. The two senior members of the committee — in this case, Republican Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Democrat Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) — work with the FBI to review the matter quietly. “I can tell you, Tony, it happens all the time — hundreds of times for all of the nominees that are vetted. And it’s not uncommon for the FBI to discover something in a nominee’s background like abuse or a drinking problem or a gambling problem. And the nominee will frequently withdraw — and do so discreetly…”

“Let’s just remember what happened here,” Senator Cotton went on. “Ms. Ford sent a letter, confidentially, to Dianne Feinstein in late July raising these allegations… Dianne Feinstein hid it from Chuck Grassley, she hid it from the FBI. She and Chuck Schumer kept it in their back pocket until after Judge Kavanaugh’s hearing, until after they had a private session to ask about any sensitive matters, and then linked it to the media right before the vote — solely to try to torpedo his nomination. The media got it, and only Dianne Feinstein and the Democratic congresswoman from California and their staffs had it, so it had to come from them somehow. And I think Congress needs to get to the bottom of it.”

In the meantime, voters in battleground states aren’t going easy on Democrats. At the West Virginia Pumpkin Festival on Sunday, Senator Joe Manchin (D) got an earful from locals, who made it clear: “If you don’t vote for him, I won’t vote for you.” “I get that a lot,” Manchin said. Another yelled, “Vote Kavanaugh!” and Manchin insisted, “I hear you.” If he doesn’t, he’ll almost certainly hear the polls, which showed just how potent the issue is. West Virginia voters are solidly in Kavanaugh’s camp, supporting his confirmation by a 30-point margin (58 percent to 28). Out in North Dakota, Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D) is feeling the heat of the Kavanaugh nomination, as Republican challenger Kevin Cramer continues to surge ahead, now with as much as a 10-percent lead.

The numbers follow the trend in Missouri, where red-state Democrat Claire McCaskill is watching her advantage melt away in the firestorm of the Kavanaugh hearings. Like a lot of Americans, they understand what the debate about the courts is all about. That’s why the issue topped the social conservatives’ list of concerns in 2016. They know the Left will use the court as a hammer to beat the country into submission on views that are too radical and unpopular to survive democratically.

Most voters agree with Senator Cotton, who knows what the Left is interested in — and it isn’t the truth. “They don’t want to get to the facts, they don’t want to reach a reasonable conclusion. They want to destroy Brett Kavanaugh and keep the president from filling this vacancy on the Supreme Court.”

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kavanaugh critics don’t even meet lowest standards for evidence

State Dept. Charges ahead with Visa Policy

Pray. Vote. Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Tony Perkins Washington Update. It is republished with permission.

How Trump Rescued Our Economy From Obama’s ‘New Normal’

/in , , /by

It’s hard to believe that just two short years ago, our economy was limping along with no sign of a massive boom around the corner.

Beyond any shadow of a doubt, the pivotal factor in the last two years has been President Donald Trump.

Consider this. From 2009 to 2014, real median income fell overall. It did jump a few times between 2012 and 2014, but the overall trend was one of malaise. The reason? President Barack Obama’s regulations and taxes sat like a wet blanket over our economy.

Many of his policies aimed at curing perceived social injustices rather than promoting economic growth. He reasoned that it was an injustice that every American did not have health insurance, and that CEOs made hundreds of times more income than the average worker. It was also an injustice that banks and big business took advantage of consumers.

Obama convinced Congress to pass Obamacare in 2010, which resulted in health insurance being extended to an additional 6 percent of the population. But Obamacare came with new taxes—21 to be exact—and these helped suppress middle-class income, slowing economic growth.

Obamacare also forced employers to provide health insurance to all full-time workers or pay a fine, which could be as high as $3,000 per employee. This added to the cost of labor, which again had the effect of slowing growth. Since Obama defined a full-time employee as anyone working at least 30 hours per week, employers hired more part-time workers. This drove down household income and slowed economic growth.

Obama also made the 2001 Bush tax cuts permanent for all Americans, except for the highest income earners. For them, taxes increased by 10 percent. This reduced the amount of investment capital flowing into our economy, which slowed economic growth and tended to reduce household income.

Obama also said that the financial crisis was a result of predatory lending by banks. This occurred when households freely applied for mortgages that they simply could not afford. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were buying these predatory mortgages from banks, the banks made those loans.

Obama convinced Congress to pass the Dodd-Frank bill, which stopped banks from predatory lending. The problem was that Dodd-Frank reduced all lending, which slowed economic growth and resulted in countless small community banks having to close their doors.

And yet again, this had the effect of reducing household income.

It’s no wonder that Obama was the only president in history to never see economic growth above 3 percent. The economy averaged just over 2 percent for his entire two terms. He referred to 2 percent growth as the “new normal.”

Trump flatly rejected this “new normal.” After entering office in January 2017, he spent much of February and March reversing many of Obama’s counterproductive regulations. By April 2017, the economy was back growing at a healthy 3 percent, which has since been maintained or increased.

By the end of 2017, Trump had convinced Congress to cut income taxes for all Americans, including those who supply capital: high income-earners and corporations. Since April of this year, the economy has been booming at a rate of more than 4 percent.

That growth has driven down underemployment, increased the proportion of Americans in the labor force, increased the number of part-time employees finding full-time work, boosted wages, and reduced the unemployment rate overall.

This all will lead to ever higher incomes for families. The real median income is set to hit a record level by the end of 2018.

Some have said that most of the growth will affect the highest income-earners. Whatever benefit they are getting (and they are certainly getting a lot), the facts are plain and simple: Over 700 companies have boosted wages, given bonuses and other benefits to their employees because of tax reform.

As President John F. Kennedy said, “A rising tide will lift all boats.” It’s happening. Why would we try anything else?

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Michael Busler

Michael Busler

Michael Busler, Ph.D. is a public policy analyst and a professor of finance at Stockton University. Twitter: .

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This column is reprinted with permission. The featured image of President Donald J. Trump is by Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Newscom.

CFACT public comment on Administration’s Endangered Species Act reform

/in , , , , /by

Public Comments on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fishery Service’s (NOAA Fisheries)

Proposed Revisions to Regulations Implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Submitted by Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D.,

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow

September 17, 2018

Revisions of Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat and Revisions of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants

Several proposed changes relate to section 4 of the ESA, which deals with procedures for listing species recovery and designating critical habitat (areas deemed essential to support the conservation of a species). There are two key provisions in this section of the proposal. First, FWS and NOAA propose to revise the procedures for designating critical habitat by reinstating the requirement that they will first evaluate areas currently occupied by the species before considering unoccupied areas. Second, the agencies propose to clarify when they may determine that unoccupied areas are essential to the conservation of a species.

The proposal dealing with unoccupied critical habitat is no doubt rooted in the case of the dusky gopher frog. FWS’s designation several years ago of 1,544 acres of forested land in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana as critical habitat for the endangered frog has triggered a legal dispute that is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Louisiana land in question contains no dusky gopher frogs. In fact, the only such frogs known to exist are in neighboring Mississippi. The designation of the unoccupied Louisiana land as critical habitat has devalued the property by an estimated $20 million. The case underscores the importance of the proposed revisions to the ESA’s critical habitat provisions.

By limiting the power of officials implementing the ESA so that they can no longer designate an area as critical habitat that is not currently, or even in the recent past, occupied by an endangered or threatened species, the proposed revision restores a much-needed measure of integrity to implementation of the statute. It also gives landowners some assurance that their property will not be arbitrarily designated as critical habitat for a listed species that does not reside there.

Vague language is a problem with many laws, and the ESA is no exception. The ESA defines a threatened species as one that is likely to become in danger of extinction within the “foreseeable future.” But the statute provides no definition of “foreseeable future.” For the first time, the reform proposals contain an interpretation of “foreseeable future” that makes it clear that it extends only so far that it can be reasonably be determined that both the future threats and the species’ response to those threats are probable.

In a similar vein, the proposal seeks to clear up confusion on what constitutes “destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat under section 7 of the ESA. The ESA provides no definition, leaving it to regulators to apply the term as they see fit. The proposed rule simplifies and clarifies the definition by removing redundant and confusing language. This confusion has led to protracted litigation that has benefited neither species nor landowners and has been one of the key reasons behind the slow recovery of species.

Over the decades, government officials have developed different standards for listing and delisting a species. This has resulted in substantial delays in getting a recovered species removed from the endangered species list. The proposal seeks to have the same standard used to delist that are applied to list a species and will curtail the ESA’s often arbitrary enforcement.

In a significant change of policy, the Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to rescind its blanket rule under section 4c of the ESA, which automatically conveyed the same protections to threatened species as for endangered species. The distinction between the two categories has become blurred over the years, and the administration’s proposal would end that practice, thereby restoring the original intent of the law.

Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation

Poorly coordinated interagency cooperation has been a hallmark of ESA implementation since the statute was enacted in 1973. This has raised the level of confusion for communities harboring endangered species and brought additional and absolutely unnecessary delays to the recovery process. By clarifying how biological opinions and interagency submissions are to be formulated, the proposal will avoid, minimize, or off-set adverse effects on listed species and their habitats when conducting interagency consultations.

In summary, the biggest losers in the way the ESA has been enforced over the past 45 years have been landowners with listed species on their property and the species themselves. Landowners have been punished for having listed species on their land and have been given little if any incentives to cooperate in their recovery. Taken as a whole, the steps proposed by FWS and NOAA Fisheries will break some of the bureaucratic logjams that have plagued the ESA from the outset, and begin to give landowners incentives to restore and improve endangered species’ habitat.

About the Author: Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ratepayers Get Cold Shoulder as Green Energy Gets ‘Preferential Treatment’ in Delaware

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Jack Hamilton on Unsplash. Republished with permission.

Building a better world for female entrepreneurs

/in , , , , /by

While in New York for the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), Advisor to the President Ivanka Trump took some time to focus on a message central to her work in the White House: economic empowerment for women across the globe.

“We know that investing in women is a priority in terms of our global security, in terms global prosperity, in terms of global peace. We also know that women around the world are one of the greatest under-tapped resources. When you invest in women, they invest back into their communities, they can invest back into their families, they invest in things that have a generational impact on their societies,” Ms. Trump said.

“At #UNGA 2018, I had the honor of joining @WorldBank @JimYongKim, @ConcordiaSummit + global leaders for impactful discussions on #WomensEconomicEmpowerment in furtherance of @POTUS’s National Security Strategy, as we strive for peace, prosperity & stability at home & abroad,” she tweeted.

Watch Ivanka Trump talk women’s economic empowerment at UNGA 2018:

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of First Lady Melania Trump is courtesy of the White House.

Giving Credit Where Babies Are Due

/in , , , /by

While the world’s eyes were on Brett Kavanaugh, the U.S. House did something worth celebrating!

After watching a year of trying, Republicans managed to do something no other Congress has done: they recognized the humanity of the unborn child in the U.S. tax code.Some of you might remember this debate from last year, when Republicans finally managed to pass the first round of tax cuts. As part of that bill, pro-lifers had worked to write this same provision into the language on 529 education savings accounts (ESAs). We were disappointed when Senator Steve Daines’s (R-Mt.) idea to give unborn children a tax credit never materialized, along with the House’s push to give expectant parents the opportunity to start planning for their future kids their ESAs. But unfortunately, those were the natural casualties of the reconciliation process. Unlike the House, which has a lot more freedom to think creatively, Senator Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) party had to work within the tight confines of the budget rules. And when it came to this tax credit, Republicans would’ve had to prove to the parliamentarian that the concepts weren’t overly policy-driven. In the end, it proved too much of a struggle, and they dropped it.

That shouldn’t be a problem this time around, thanks to Rep. Mike Kelly’s (R-Pa.) Family Savings Account Act — part of the GOP’s second basket of tax cuts that are working their way to President Trump’s desk. This afternoon, the House passed the bill on to the Senate, giving parents, grandparents, or other relatives the unprecedented opportunity to open a 529 plan for an unborn child and begin to save for that child’s education.

But the good news didn’t stop there. The proposal also took a major pro-adoption step by letting people withdraw money from their retirement funds — without penalty — if it’s specifically used to pay for the costs associated with raising a child. Then, rescuing another part of last year’s tax bill that ended up on the cutting room floor, conservatives finally leveled the playing field for homeschool families, who weren’t allowed to participate in 529 education savings accounts — even though parents who enroll kids in private and religious schools could. This bill put an end to that discrimination and removes an obstacle for millions of moms and dads in exercising their right to educate their kids the way they see fit.

The House did its job. Now it’s time for senators to do theirs. Help us move the Family Savings Account Act to President Trump’s desk by contacting your senators. When families thrive, everyone benefits!

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kavanaugh at the Tip of the Smear

A World on Fire in Myanmar

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Tony Perkins Washington Update. It is republished with permission.

The New York Times Explains Why the Minimum Wage Should Be $0.00

/in , , , , , /by

The minimum wage is the Jason Vorhees of economics. It just won’t die.

No matter how many jobs the minimum wage destroys, no matter how many times you debunk it, it always comes back to wreak more havoc.

We’ve covered the issues at length at FEE, and quite effectively, if I do say so myself. But I have to admit that one of the greatest takedowns of the minimum wage you’ll ever find comes from an unlikely place: The New York Times.

There are many reasons people and politicians find the minimum wage attractive, of course. But the Times, in an editorial entitled “The Right Minimum Wage: 0.00,” skillfully rebuts each of these reasons in turn.

Noting that the federal minimum wage has been frozen for some six years, the Times admits that it’s no wonder that organized labor is pressuring politicians to increase the federal minimum wage to raise the standard of living for poorer working Americans.

“No wonder. But still a mistake,” the Times explains. “There’s a virtual consensus among economists that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed.”

But why has the idea “passed”? Why would raising the minimum wage not help the working poor?

“Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market,” the editors explain.

But wouldn’t the minimum wage increase the purchasing power of low-income Americans? Wouldn’t a meaningful increase allow a single breadwinner to support a family of three and actually be above the official U.S. poverty line?

Ideally, yes. But there are unseen problems, as the editors point out:

There are catches…[A higher minimum wage] would increase employers’ incentives to evade the law, expanding the underground economy. More important, it would increase unemployment: Raise the legal minimum price of labor above the productivity of the least skilled workers and fewer will be hired.

But if that’s true, why would progressives support such a law? What’s their rationale for supporting a minimum wage if it does more harm than good? Is it sheer political opportunism?

Not necessarily. The Times explains:

A higher minimum would undoubtedly raise the living standard of the majority of low-wage workers who could keep their jobs. That gain, it is argued, would justify the sacrifice of the minority who became unemployable.

There’s just one problem with this logic, the editors say:

The argument isn’t convincing. Those at greatest risk from a higher minimum would be young, poor workers, who already face formidable barriers to getting and keeping jobs. The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable – and fundamentally flawed. It’s time to put this hoary debate behind us, and find a better way to improve the lives of people who work very hard for very little.

It’s a compelling, reasoned, and erudite argument. But it’s not exactly what one expects to see in The New York Times these days. (A naughty person might say the same about reason and erudition in general in the paper.)

So what gives? Alas, the editorial is a relic. It was written way, way back in 1987. A lot has changed since then.

We’ve had a couple wars. The internet was introduced to the masses. There was 9-11. We elected the nation’s first black president. The Cubs and Red Sox won the World Series. There was even a female reboot of Ghostbusters.

At least one thing, however, did not change. That would be the laws of economics. They hold as fast and true in 2018 as they did in 1987.

The Times’ editorial board might have changed. The perception of the minimum wage certainly changed. Relatively recent polls show seven out of ten Americans support raising the federal minimum wage. Several cities—Seattle, New York, and Minneapolis, among them—have passed laws that raised (or will soon raise) the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

So it’s safe to say the minimum wage laws have become more popular, no doubt in part from campaigns promoting them and an education system sympathetic to them. Still, economic laws do not change based on how popular humans find them. They remain true and constant whether they are popular or not.

In fact, some have observed that economic laws are inherently unpopular.

“In economics, the majority is always wrong,” John Kenneth Galbraith once allegedly quipped.

Now, there have been a lot of complaints directed at corporate media in recent years, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due. So let’s give the Times a hand.

The paper was right in 1987. And if politicians are genuinely interested in helping the poor, they’ll stick a stake in the heart of the minimum wage once and for all.

Jon Miltimore

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. Serving previously as Director of Digital Media at Intellectual Takeout, Jon was responsible for daily editorial content, web strategy, and social media operations. Before that, he was the Senior Editor of The History Channel Magazine, Managing Editor at Scout.com, and general assignment reporter for the Panama City News Herald. Jon also served as an intern in the speechwriting department under George W. Bush.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is provided by FEE and is republished with permission.

Copyright © 2024 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.