“If individuals be not influenced by moral principles; it is in vain to look for public virtue; it is, therefore, the duty of legislators to enforce, both by precept and example, the utility, as well as the necessity of a strict adherence to the rules of distributive justice.” —James Madison (1789)
IN TODAY’S EDITION
- Ted Cruz steps up with a bill to end family separation at the border.
- Hillary Clinton offers “Biblical” justification for opposing Trump’s border policy.
- SCOTUS leaves gerrymandering to the states.
- Washington Post employees slam billionaire Bezos for pay practices.
- After Trenton gang shootout, Dem governor blames guns.
- Daily Features: Top Headlines, Memes, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.
As Democrats and the mainstream media continue to whip up the firestorm over President Donald Trump’s zero-tolerance enforcement of immigration law, specifically family separation at the border, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Monday proposed legislation to quickly mitigate the immediate problem.
Cruz’s bill would end the practice of separating families by authorizing new temporary shelters to house families together until their asylum requests are processed. He also proposes that the number of federal immigration judges be doubled to a total of 750 and that an expedited review and processing of asylum cases within 14 days be implemented. Those families who do not meet the asylum requirements would be immediately returned to their home countries.
Cruz’s proposal does offer at least a temporary solution to a problem that has been years in the making. It would essentially end the bad optics of separated families, while not returning to the flawed policy of Barack Obama’s “catch and release.” It offers Trump and Republicans a bill that doesn’t compromise the commitment to fighting against illegal immigration and securing the U.S. border, while avoiding the biggest objection for Democrats — funding the border wall.
Since the implementation of Trump’s zero-tolerance policy in April, almost 2,000 children have been separated from their parents at the border. However, the vast majority of children currently housed in Health and Human Services detention centers — 10,000 of them — are children who illegally crossed the border without their parents. At least some of these children were teens who came here to abort their children. That’s a family separation policy that Democrats don’t care about.
When Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the zero-tolerance policy, he noted that it was both a return to enforcing our nation’s laws and would serve as a deterrent to others who may consider crossing the border illegally. Ultimately, who is to blame for children being separated from their parents? It is parents who choose to cross the border illegally. In some cases, it’s not parents, but other adults exploiting children for entry. The outrage over Trump’s policy to enforce the law is entirely misplaced. And enforcing the law does appear to be working to deter some from illegally crossing, as CBS News laments that fear has spread along the Mexican border over family separations.
So while Cruz’s legislative fix might mitigate the immediate ugly optics of enforcing the law, an interesting side effect is that in the long run it may also remove a disincentive for illegal immigration.
With all the ginned up controversy over the Trump administration’s border policies in recent days, you had to know Hillary Clinton would wander back out of the woods to pontificate on the injustice of it all. But first, a little background.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended enforcing immigration law by citing the Bible’s book of Romans. “I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order,” Sessions said. “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.” Without going into full Biblical exegesis, Sessions was both right and wrong. He was specifically responding to both conservative and liberal evangelical critics of the administration, but we’d prefer for him to leave this Biblical defense for others to make besides the one in power.
Enter Hillary. “This is not happening because of the ‘Democrats’ law,‘ as the White House has claimed,” Clinton insisted. “Separating families is not mandated by law at all. That is an outright lie. And it is incumbent on all of us, journalists and citizens alike, to call it just that.” Actually, she’s the one lying, as we explained yesterday. In fact, it was her husband’s policy. But Clinton only lies on days that end in “y.”
She wasn’t done. “Nor are these policies rooted in religion,” she lectured. “In fact, those who selectively use the Bible to justify this cruelty are ignoring a central tenet of Christianity. I went to a lot of years of Sunday School — I even taught it from time to time. I’ve studied the Bible, both the Old and the New Testament, and what is being done using the name of religion is contrary to everything I was ever taught. Jesus said, 'Suffer the little children unto me.’ He did not say, ‘Let the children suffer.’”
That’s rich coming from a rabid pro-abortionist like Hillary, who has even defended partial-birth abortion — the practice of literally collapsing a partially born baby’s skull to terminate his or her life. But then again, Democrats only care about children when they can exploit them for political gain. That’s true of abortion, gun control, education, welfare programs, immigration and so on.
While Hillary may throw out a vague Biblical reference to make her point, she and her party have utterly rejected God’s Word, preferring to make government their god. And it is their policies on each of the aforementioned issues that hurt children the most. Welfare and abortion have destroyed families. Education has ruined kids’ minds and indoctrinated them in leftist causes. And open borders and sanctuary cities have invited the flood of illegals across the border — including illegal smugglers who grotesquely exploit children for entry to the U.S. So, again, spare us the outrage.
- Gallup: Satisfaction with direction of country highest since 2005 (American Thinker)
- Fact-checking four claims about detaining children at the border (The Daily Signal)
- Trump directs Pentagon to establish Space Force as new military branch (The Washington Free Beacon)
- Trump seeks additional $200 billion in tariffs against China — and threatens even more (MarketWatch)
- Senate rebukes Trump with vote to reinstate ZTE sales ban (The Wall Street Journal)
- There’s always the ethanol mandate: Iowa farmers could lose $620 million from U.S.-China trade war (Reason)
- SPLC agrees to $3.3 million settlement over its “Field Guide To Anti-Muslim Extremists” (Hot Air)
- West Point grad who posed with “Communism will win” in cap discharged (Fox News)
- Armed civilian who took down Walmart shooter is pastor, medic (KIRO)
- Humor: American viewer disgusted to see World Cup teams not singing U.S. national anthem before games (The Babylon Bee)
- Policy: Encouraging lawful immigration and discouraging unlawful immigration (The Heritage Foundation)
- Policy: What successful antipoverty efforts look like (American Enterprise Institute)
For more of today’s news, visit Patriot Headline Report.
For more of today’s memes, visit the Memesters Union.
For more of today’s top cartoons, visit the Cartoons archive.
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
For more of today’s columns, visit Right Opinion.
Do This Today
Last week, we launched The Patriot Post’s
It’s a risky decision, but we are trying to make budget with fewer appeals.
As you probably know, The Patriot Post is supported 100% by its readers — avoiding the influence advertisers and special interest groups impose on other publications. We run three fundraising campaigns each year to fund our mission and operations, and we must raise a total of $275,000 by July 4th to meet our tight budget.
From each of us here, our deepest thanks for your support. —Christy Chesterton, Director of Advancement
The Supreme Court decided in two cases Monday on partisan gerrymandering to stay out of the political fray, choosing instead to rule against Democrats in Wisconsin and Republicans in Maryland who sued to change their respective state electoral maps.
In the Wisconsin case, Gill v. Whitford, the Court ruled 9-0 against a group of Democrat voters who claimed that the state’s redistricting plan was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the alleged dilution of the plaintiff’s voting power is an injury specific to a voting district. “Remedying the individual voter’s harm, therefore, does not necessarily require restructuring of all the state’s legislative districts,” Roberts wrote. The case was sent back to the lower courts for another look.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch objected only in sending the case back for review. “After a year and a half of litigation in the District Court,” Thomas wrote, “the plaintiffs had a more-than-ample opportunity to prove their standing under these principles. They failed to do so.”
In the Maryland case, Benisek v. Lamone, the Court ruled against Republican voters in Maryland who claimed Democrat officials put them at a disadvantage in drawing a congressional district that led to the defeat of Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett in 2012. In an unsigned opinion, the Court sided with the district court, which decided not to block Maryland from holding congressional elections and forcing the state to redraw the district in question.
The Supreme Court added that the plaintiffs waited too long to seek relief, since they did not ask for an injunction until 2017.
Voting-rights advocates were stunned by the back-to-back decisions. The ACLU, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and other leftist voter groups had hoped the Supreme Court would pass down specific guidance on how to handle these types of cases. In other words, they were hoping that the justices would legislate from the bench.
No such luck. The Supreme Court has a solid track record of stepping around gerrymandering cases and avoiding wading into the political quagmire. Districting is a power delegated to the political branches, notes David French of National Review. “States can choose different ways to district,” writes French, “but when a state chooses the political path, the Supreme Court’s default position should be to defer, absent clear and unequivocal constitutional violations.” Claiming that your voting power was diluted because your political party happens to be in the minority in your district or state does not constitute a violation of voting rights.
Democrats have cried foul about redistricting for much of this decade because Republicans have won control of so many of the levers of power at the state and national level. Of course, Democrats can thank Barack Obama for their plight. His presidency drove millions into the waiting arms of the GOP, which picked up close to 1,000 state seats to give it control of two-thirds of state legislatures, as well as winning Congress by gaining 63 House seats and 10 Senate seats. But it wasn’t just Obama who poisoned Democrat fortunes. Activist judges are primarily responsible for the pickle the Democrat Party finds itself in with redistricting.
In the 1980s, Democrats redrew congressional districts with the express purpose of putting more blacks and Hispanics in Congress. This effort was clearly aimed to help the Democrat Party because these minority groups vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Districts were remade so that large numbers of minorities would virtually guarantee electing a minority to Congress. However, by grouping minorities into specific districts, other districts inevitably became more nonminority, in some cases overwhelmingly so. The result was that formerly competitive majority-minority districts ended up becoming Republican strongholds with few minority voters.
Democrats should not be puzzled that their high vote counts have not translated into widespread electoral victory. What is happening now is a consequence of their attempts going back 30 years to game the system in their favor. If Democrats want to fix it, they must look elsewhere, because the Supreme Court has decided, at least for this term, that they are on their own.
Don’t Miss Patriot Humor
Check out Peak 2018.
If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here.
MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST
- WaPo Employees Demand Bezos Open Up Purse Strings — Is the wealthiest man in the world not practicing what he preaches at his own company?
- NJ Dem Governor to Blame for Trenton Shooting — The gang member and now murderer was released 10 years early thanks to Democrat policies.
- Video: Students Say Bakers Should Bake the Cake — Campus Reform asks students about the recent Supreme Court case on religious liberty.
OPINION IN BRIEF
Stephen Moore: “All of a sudden, everyone on the Left wants ‘free markets in energy policy.’ As someone who’s advocated for that for, oh, about three decades, this riff should be music to my ears. But is laissez faire energy policy really what liberals are seeking? First, some context. A few weeks ago, liberal activists leaked a draft of a Trump administration directive that would order utilities to purchase coal and nuclear power as part of their energy mix in supplying electricity to homes and businesses. There are good arguments for and against this policy — I’m fairly neutral — but what was fascinating was the indignant response from those on the Left who hate fossil fuels. … The Los Angeles Times slammed the Trump plan as ‘a preposterous idea’: ‘Continuing to operate financially nonviable power plants and forcing grid operators to buy power they don’t need or want is an unacceptable governmental intrusion into the power market that, by one analysis, would needlessly cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars.’ This could cost hundreds of millions of dollars? That’s bad, for sure, but have you ever heard the Los Angeles Times rail against subsidies for wind and solar power? I haven’t. The Obama administration’s policy was to try to bankrupt coal, oil and other fossil fuels through regulation, while enriching their renewable energy pals in Silicon Valley with lavish subsidies. … There is nothing more horrifying to proponents of renewable energy than a genuine free market in energy.”
Belly laugh of the week: “Poor FBI — agents who had nothing to do with the improper behavior will have to take a ‘full day of training’ to learn things like: Don’t use work texts with your mistress to conspire to use your official position to impact a presidential election.” —Sharyl Attkisson
Nothing to see here! “[Peter Strzok] was trying to impress the girl he was f—ing! That’s all it was! [Lisa Page] is saying, ‘Oh my God! Is Trump going to be president?’ He says, ‘No, I’m Captain Save-A-Hoe… and I will stop it, baby!’” —Bill Maher
Upright: “It’s a good start for Democrats to be outraged over migrant children separated from their parents. Now do outrage over 1M unborn children separated from their parents by being ripped from their mother’s wombs. Then I’ll know you mean it.” —Liz Wheeler
Nope — they don’t mean it: “Hey dads, Happy #FathersDay! Caring about women’s #reprofreedom & bodily autonomy makes you better at raising future generations of feminists. So if you’re a pro-choice dad & one of the many #MenForChoice, we’re celebrating you today!” —NARAL
Maybe because most Americans see right through this charade? “I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be when people realize that [apprehending migrant children] is a policy that they defend.” —Nancy Pelosi
A blind squirrel finds a nut: “We’re in a much better place… We’re on the diplomatic path, as opposed to where we were six or eight months ago [with North Korea].” —Obama’s DNI James Clapper
Self-evaluation: “Our party right now, and I’m probably the only one who says this, is pickled in identity politics and victimology.” —Democrat Matt Flynn, who’s running for governor of Wisconsin
And last… “You think any of these people care about family separation? If they did, they’d be upset about the collapse of the American family, which is measurable and real. They’re not. They welcome that collapse, because strong families are an impediment to their political power.” —Tucker Carlson
Join our editors and staff 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