Mid-Day Digest

Apr. 25, 2018

IN TODAY’S EDITION

  • Not only can’t Trump end DACA, a judge says he must open for new applicants.
  • California wants to ban Christian guidance about homosexuality.
  • Alfie Evans is another tragic victim of state-ordered death.
  • Facebook publishes its removal policies, but bias remains.
  • History says Afghanistan is as good as it’s going to get.
  • Hillary’s $84 million money-laundering scheme.
  • Plus our Daily Features: Top Headlines, Memes, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.

THE FOUNDATION

“We lay it down as a fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of right; that, without this, they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience.” —Thomas Jefferson (1782)

IN BRIEF

Judge: It’s Illegal for Trump to End (Illegal) DACA

Thomas Gallatin

A U.S. district judge ruled on Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s decision to end the DACA program was “unlawful.” U.S. District Judge John Bates, appointed by George W. Bush, declared that the decision to phase out the controversial program “was arbitrary and capricious because the Department [of Homeland Security] failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.” He added, “Each day that the agency delays is a day that aliens who might otherwise be eligible for initial grants of DACA benefits are exposed to removal because of an unlawful agency action.” Bates ordered not only that the DACA program continue operating but that it be opened up again to receive new applicants. However, he did give the Trump administration 90 days to explain how ending the program was legal.

This ruling is utterly outrageous.

Bates essentially ordered the Trump administration to continue implementing an illegal program, in fact declaring that any attempt to end it is illegal. So what exactly is the point of laws? Recall that it was Barack Obama who circumvented Congress via executive order to implement his DACA program — a move he had previously and repeatedly (and rightly) insisted was unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Obama’s similar attempt to implement Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) was blocked by the courts. Why? Because it circumvented Congress’s authority and responsibility. Almost comically, Bates effectively ruled that Trump doesn’t have the executive authority to rescind an illegal executive order. It’s not the Trump administration that should explain its position; it’s this judge.

Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malley responded to the ruling, stating, “Today’s order doesn’t change the Department of Justice’s position on the facts: DACA was implemented unilaterally after Congress declined to extend benefits to this same group of illegal aliens. The Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend this position.”

It has become quite apparent that the U.S. Supreme Court will need to make a ruling on this issue, and the sooner the better. Sadly, it is also apparent that too many judges are guided by the rule of men instead of the Rule of Law.

Comment | Share

CA Wants to Ban Christian Guidance. No, Seriously.

Jordan Candler

California Assembly Bill 2943, which was introduced in February and is the subject of a critical forthcoming vote, is chock-full of feckless scientific assertions on human sexuality. More importantly, it takes animosity toward Christianity to a whole new and worrying extreme and even evokes fears of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, in which the government enacts a proscription against books.

According to the bill, “Contemporary science recognizes that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender is part of the natural spectrum of human identity and is not a disease, disorder, or illness.” Many scientists would disagree with that — and nature certainly does — but, alas, the text cites the state’s “compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals” as justification for AB 2493, which “would include, as an unlawful practice prohibited under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.”

AB 2493 elucidates, “‘Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” David French alarmingly observes that this “would actually — among other things — ban the sale of books expressing orthodox Christian beliefs about sexual morality.” French elaborates on the scheme here, but here’s the bottom line: Biblical spiritual guidance, no matter in what form, will no longer be tolerated if this bill becomes law.

Making matters even worse, “fact-checkers” are flat-out lying about the implications of the legislation. Snopes.com, addressing conservative fears that AB 2492 ensnares even the Bible, definitively asserts that the “bill does not seek to outlaw all religious or moral instruction regarding sexuality and sexual orientation, nor would it ban the sale or possession of generic religious texts such as the Bible. Christian dogma might form the basis of efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation, but the Bible itself is not a ‘gay conversion therapy’ manual.”

Writing in The Federalist, Robert Gagnon offers some perspective on this tripe: “Snopes’ insistence that California Assembly Bill 2943 would not result in the Bible being banned in California is akin to Snopes calling ‘demonstrably and clearly false’ the claim that Joseph Stalin killed everyone around him.” He continues, “Sure, it is virtually impossible that California will immediately attempt to ban the sale of the Bible itself. Not even the hard Left in California has that kind of chutzpah. But citations of Bible verses in the context of declaring homosexual practice and transgenderism to be morally debased could indeed get one into serious trouble with the law if it comes in the context of selling or advertising a product or service.”

More to the point, leftists are never content. Just because Snopes can’t or won’t read between the lines doesn’t mean conscientious Americans can’t. The Left prefers incremental approaches to large policy changes, which explains its “progressive” moniker — only progress in this form means a step-by-step nullification of rights. And while the plan would ultimately be an unwise one, this AB 2493 garbage helps us to understand the real and energetic effort to split California into three.

Comment | Share

Alfie Evans: Another Tragic Tale of State-Ordered Death

Nate Jackson

Alfie Evans is a very sick 23-month-old boy in Great Britain who has been ordered by government officials to die. On Tuesday, Alfie’s parents lost their last-ditch legal effort to be allowed to seek treatment for their son in Italy, where he was granted special citizenship. All his parents want is to take him to Italy; they’re not asking for any more care in the UK. British doctors stopped providing care Monday, removing life-support — oxygen, food and water. As of this writing, Alfie is still alive, though he will almost certainly succumb soon to a serious brain condition.

As Matt Walsh writes, however, “When the death certificate for Alfie Evans is issued, under ‘cause of death’ it ought to say this: pride. The pride of a judge who did not want his judgment questioned. The pride of doctors who did not want to be proven wrong. The pride of a government that claims authority over life and death. ‘Tyranny’ and ‘unconscionable evil’ could also be cited.” In fact, Walsh argues, “A hospital is holding a child hostage against the will of his parents, and the courts are barring the family from boarding a helicopter and leaving the country. This is kidnapping and murder.”

Alfie isn’t the first victim of the bureaucratic culture of death, either.

Last year, UK authorities likewise ordered the death of 11-month-old Charlie Guard, despite his parents’ efforts to bring him to the U.S. for treatment. But don’t think it’s limited to the UK. In 2005, Terri Schiavo was dehydrated to death when her husband fought to end treatment her parents wanted to continue. And Michelle Malkin recounts the story of Haleigh Poutre, who, also in 2005, was declared “virtually brain-dead” and removed from the ventilator and feeding tube. Unlike these other stories, however, Haleigh miraculously survived. Malkin writes, “Fast forward to 2018. At 24, Haleigh lives with adoptive, loving parents. She is confined to a wheelchair, but attends school and occupational therapy. She laughs, she smiles, she lives.”

The bottom line is that Alfie and Charlie’s story is what happens to medical care when the government is more worried about the return on investment than about human life. We live in an age where human life has been devalued because of abortion on demand and increasing euthanasia. Thus we have bureaucrats deciding whether someone else lives or dies, even depriving parents of their rights to care for their own children. If ObamaCare is left to metastasize in American medicine, the next Alfie or Charlie will be in your neighborhood hospital.

Comment | Share

Top Headlines

For more of today’s news, visit Patriot Headline Report.

Comment | Share

TODAY’S MEME

Share

For more of today’s memes, visit the Memesters Union.

TODAY’S CARTOON

Share

For more of today’s top cartoons, visit the Cartoons archive.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

For more of today’s columns, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Ben Shapiro: “It’s one thing for the government to step in when parents are preventing children from receiving life-saving care. It’s another when the government steps in to prevent parents from pursuing potentially life-saving care. And yet that’s just what has happened repeatedly in the United Kingdom. Why? Why would British society place parents’ wishes below the wishes of the state? Because a bureaucratic society of experts generally sees parents as an obstacle to proper development. Parents, in this view, treat their children as chattel to be owned and trained — but the state can treat children with the dignity they are due. This means placing parental wishes to the side in every case in which those wishes come into conflict with the priorities of the state. The bureaucrats of Britain don’t merely usurp parental rights in the realm of life and death; they do so in the realm of upbringing as well. They have threatened religious Jewish schools for failing to inculcate children with LGBT propaganda; meanwhile, they have ignored the targeting of young women in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford and Newcastle because the perpetrators are disproportionately Muslim. All of this is untenable, both morally and practically.”

SHORT CUTS

For the record: “Kim’s trial balloon about ‘denuclearizing’ doesn’t mean he’s open to disarming. It’s 30-year-old jargon for getting America to abandon the South Koreans, paving the way for unification on the North’s bloody terms.” —Jonah Goldberg

The lady doth protest too much: “Let’s talk about how the NRA has grabbed people by different parts of their body and caused people to have a lack of courage. Again, another false choice. I’m in favor of the Second Amendment, and I also want smart gun safety laws. Assault weapons should not be walking the streets of a civilized country.” —Sen. Kamala Harris

Braying Jenny: “I get some heat for saying that not everybody has to be [pro-abortion rights]. When the day comes when we can say we don’t want any of our voters to be anti-choice, then I think we’d have a right to say that we don’t want any of our candidates to be anti-choice.” —Nancy Pelosi

Then it must be true! “I’m told that 70 percent of women who have been polled say they want [Trump] impeached.” —Rep. Maxine Waters

The BIG Lie: “This Trump administration has done the worst job of vetting nominees than any administration I can remember.” —Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s excuse for never-ending obstruction

Facepalm: “An article on Sunday about Campbell Brown’s role as Facebook’s head of news partnerships erroneously included a reference to Palestinian actions as an example of the sort of far-right conspiracy stories that have plagued Facebook. In fact, Palestinian officials have acknowledged providing payments to the families of Palestinians killed while carrying out attacks on Israelis or convicted of terrorist acts and imprisoned in Israel; that is not a conspiracy theory.” —New York Times correction

And last… “I’ll be impressed with @kanyewest’s awakening if he starts tweeting about Planned Parenthood’s eradication of black children.” —Matt Walsh

Comment | Share

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families. We also humbly ask prayer for your Patriot team, that our mission would seed and encourage the spirit of Liberty in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

Nate Jackson, Managing Editor
Mark Alexander, Publisher