Law & the Courts

Lisa Murkowski Will Vote ‘Yes’ on the Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett

Loading...
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) listens during a Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on new coronavirus tests on Capitol Hill, May 7, 2020. (Anna Moneymaker/Pool via Reuters)

Alaska GOP senator Lisa Murkowski, who announced immediately after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that she opposed holding a vote on a Supreme Court nominee before the election, said on Saturday she nevertheless will vote “yes” on the final vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett.

“I will vote ‘no’ on the procedural votes ahead of us, but ‘yes’ to confirm Judge Barrett when the question before us is her qualification to be an associate justice on the Supreme Court,” Murkowski said during remarks on the Senate floor.

Murkowski’s vote isn’t necessary to confirm Barrett — it was already clear there were 51 Republican senators to vote “yes.” But her support for Barrett is a clear sign that the Alaska senator intends to remain in the Republican caucus.

Murkowski lost a Republican primary challenge in 2010 but still held onto her seat that November by running as an independent write-in candidate. In 2016, she easily won the Republican primary, but Murkowski opposed the confirmation of Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. A vote against Barrett may have been tantamount to ejecting herself from the Republican Party. “You could launch, fund, and win a Republican Senate primary on this vote alone,” one GOP strategist told National Review.

The vote to cut off debate on Barrett’s nomination is scheduled for Sunday, and the confirmation vote is scheduled for Monday.

World

Polish High Court Outlaws Abortion for Fetal Disability

Loading...

Poland has traditionally outlawed most abortions, except for those obtained due to fetal abnormality or to save the life or health of the mother.  Now, the Constitutional Tribunal, Poland’s highest court, has ruled that abortion obtained because of fetal disability is unconstitutional. From the New York Times story:

In the ruling, the tribunal’s president, Julia Przylebska, said that allowing abortions in cases of fetal abnormality legalized “eugenic practices with regard to an unborn child, thus denying it the respect and protection of human dignity.”

Because the Polish Constitution guarantees a right to life, she added, terminating a pregnancy based on the health of the fetus amounted to “a directly forbidden form of discrimination.”

In other words, the court treated the unborn child as a human being deserving of the same equal rights as people who are born.

Fetal anomaly was the reason for most of Poland’s 1,110 legal abortions in 2019, so this ruling could save the lives of children diagnosed with Down syndrome, dwarfism, and other genetic conditions.

Most non-Polish news stories about the case focused on the “angry” protests that erupted in the decision’s wake, with some critics of the decision worrying that more women will have to leave Poland for an abortion — which more than 100,000 already do each year.

The only way the case could be overturned would be to amend the Polish constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority vote of the people. Poland is a pro-life country — one of the few in the West — so that isn’t likely, at least in the near term.

Elections

‘Debate Debrief’

Loading...

Today on The Editors, Rich, Charlie, and Jim discuss last night’s presidential debate, points Trump missed, Biden’s many lies, and more. Listen below, or subscribe to this podcast on iTunes, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, TuneIn, or Spotify.

Elections

Re: Outrage over the Obvious

Loading...

In response to Outrage over the Obvious: Trump’s Swipe at India’s Air Quality

The eminent Indian journalist Shekhar Gupta writes:

Our air IS filthy. Every year about 15 of the 20 cities with the filthiest air in the world are in India. We’ve also done little to address this, except pass the buck around. No point being outraged when Donald Trump speaks that truth.”

 

Energy & Environment

Outrage over the Obvious: Trump’s Swipe at India’s Air Quality

Loading...
A man walks in front of the India Gate shrouded in smog in New Delhi, India, October 29, 2018. (Anushree Fadnavis/Reuters)

Donald Trump didn’t call them “sh-thole” countries — but to the outrage-prone ear, he came close.

A moment from last night’s debate being treated by some in the media as (1) a diplomatic blunder, (2) a politically disastrous turnoff for the very Indian-American voters he’s courting, and/or (3) a racist dog siren came when he inartfully referred to India (and China and Russia) as “filthy.”

Rebuffing a climate question, Trump said: “Look at China, how filthy it is. Look at Russia. Look at India. It’s filthy — the air is filthy.”

Let’s just presume that the caveat at the end — he was talking about the air — will be granted far less consideration than the Biden campaign’s caveat that their candidate was referring only to subsidies when he vowed to transition away from oil.

It’s a safe presumption:

Trump hasn’t exactly been at the tip of the spear on addressing climate change, being concerned more about the economy than environment in his decision to break from the Paris climate accord. He what-abouts the issue to put the onus on India and China to improve. Scrutiny of his own environmental record is fair.

But as a statement of fact, Trump’s remark is on mostly solid ground. If you’ve traveled around Delhi, you’re well aware of how the stifling smog affects everyday life.

This report notes India was the fifth-most polluted country last year. Air pollution decreased from the year prior, but the country’s cities compose an inordinate share of the 50 most-polluted in the world.

This WHO database puts India (and to a lesser extent, China) in the ignominious top tier for air pollution.

The U.S. joins them in that same tier of carbon dioxide emitters, to be sure. But it’s not in the same league on the issue of measurable air pollution. Ironically, the only country Trump did erroneously smear on air quality was . . . wait for it . . . Russia, which according to the WHO listing is more on par with the U.S.

Of course, Trump (as he so often does) phrased his defense poorly.

No, India is not filthy. (Full disclosure, and my own caveat: I adore the country, my wife’s birthplace.) But its air is not pristine, either.

International

A Major Flaw in the French–Lebanese Connection

Loading...
Lebanese Sunni leader Saad Hariri, talks to the media after being named Lebanon’s new prime minister at the presidential palace in Baabda, Lebanon, October 22, 2020. (Mohamed Azakir/Reuters)

Lebanon has just named Saad Hariri its new prime minister — the same Saad Hariri who resigned from the Lebanese PM post almost exactly one year ago. And, he is enamored with the so-called French plan to bring Lebanon’s economy back to life. But, there is one major item in the French plan that is a killer — the immediate imposition of capital controls.

Capital controls as a panacea for economic ills are nothing new. Their pedigree can be traced back to Plato, the father of statism. Inspired by Lycurgus, the tyrant of Sparta, Plato embraced the idea of an inconvertible currency as a means to preserve the autonomy of the state from outside interference.

Before more people come under the spell of capital controls, they should reflect on the following passage from Friedrich Hayek’s 1944 classic, The Road to Serfdom:

The extent of the control over all life that economic control confers is nowhere better illustrated than in the field of foreign exchanges. Nothing would at first seem to affect private life less than a state control of the dealings in foreign exchange, and most people will regard its introduction with complete indifference. Yet the experience of most Continental countries has taught thoughtful people to regard this step as the decisive advance on the path to totalitarianism and the suppression of individual liberty. It is, in fact, the complete delivery of the individual to the tyranny of the state, the final suppression of all means of escape — not merely for the rich but for everybody.

The imposition of capital controls leads to an instantaneous reduction in the wealth of the country, because all assets decline in value. Full convertibility is the only guarantee that protects people’s rights to what belongs to them. Even if governments are not compelled by arguments on the grounds of freedom, the prospect of seeing every asset in the country suddenly lose value as a result of capital controls should give policymakers pause.

In the case of Lebanon, a country whose lifeblood has been the importation of capital, capital controls would be a killer. They would repel the large and important international Lebanese expatriate community. Indeed, the French capital-controls mandate for Lebanon should be pronounced dead upon arrival.

Law & the Courts

Sheldon Whitehouse Again Abuses the Judicial Confirmation Process

Loading...
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) questions judicial nominees during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., December 4, 2019. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

At Vanity Fair, Bess Levin pretends that she believes that Amy Coney Barrett is in favor of executing women who get abortions. Levin writes:

All of which makes one of her nonanswers to a written follow-up question from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse extremely chilling. Specifically, the one in which she says, “As a sitting judge and as a judicial nominee, it would not be appropriate for me to offer an opinion on abstract legal issues or hypotheticals” in response to the question “Under an originalist theory of interpretation, would there be any constitutional problem with a state making abortion a capital crime, thus subjecting women who get abortions to the death penalty?”

Obviously, claiming that she can’t answer hypothetical questions has been Barrett’s schtick throughout this entire process and, in some instances, it might actually be appropriate to say as much. But not when the question is “can a state sentence a woman to death for getting an abortion,” unless of course she thinks there might somehow be a scenario in which the answer is yes!

This is enormously dishonest, and Levin knows it. Barrett adopted the same approach in her hearing as did Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993: She refused to answer hypotheticals or to speculate as to how she would rule in future cases. Barrett took this approach seriously, not least because she is obliged to by the rules that govern her conduct as a sitting judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. As such, she refused to answer hypotheticals that were pleasant in nature and hypotheticals that were not.

Knowing this, the Democrats chose to play some appalling games with Barrett. The question that Levin cites here — from Sheldon Whitehouse, naturally — is a great example. Whitehouse knew full well that Barrett wouldn’t answer a hypothetical question, and so he contrived to ask her an absolutely ridiculous one so that he and his friends in the press could pretend that her silence amounted to consent. And it worked. The headline on Levin’s piece is “Amy Coney Barrett Sees a Scenario in Which Abortion Should Be Punishable by Death.” This is a lie, but many people will see it and believe it. Which, of course, is the point.

Had he so wished, Whitehouse could have asked Barrett if she believed that “Under an originalist theory of interpretation, would there be any constitutional problem with a state inviting sadistic aliens down to torture puppies?” and then, when she refused to answer, relied upon his friends in the media to scream, “Amy Coney Barrett Sees a Scenario in Which Aliens Should Torture Puppies.” And they wonder why the justices don’t want cameras in the courtroom.

Elections

Trump’s Weakness as a Storyteller

Loading...

For whatever it is worth, last night was Trump’s strongest debate performance in his two campaigns. But, it is obvious his campaign and operators have invested a great deal in the Hunter Biden story. And Trump refuses to tell it. After Trump’s last debate, I wrote this:

By far Trump’s most self-defeating habit in these debates is to refer to stories rather than tell them. He speaks as if he’s talking to people who, like himself, spend hours a day watching Fox News and have a shared folklore of scandal stories that can be referred to in shorthand. He refers to events, like ballots found in a wastepaper basket, but doesn’t tell the story of where they happened, or why they matter.

It’s still true. Nobody watching that debate who hadn’t been following the Hunter Biden story would know what happened, and what Joe Biden’s role in it really was.

Politics & Policy

The Candidates’ Dueling COVID Stats

Loading...

Last night, Biden suggested that Trump is “responsible” for more than 220,000 deaths from COVID; Trump said that 2.2 million people had been “expected to die.” He has recently said that we therefore saved 2 million lives.

Biden’s assumption is that with better leadership, we would have had no COVID deaths. Trump’s assumption is that we should look at what would have happened if nobody — not governments, and not individuals — had altered their behavior in response to the pandemic.

Great debate!

Politics & Policy

Durbin Condemns ‘Scurrilous and Disgusting Attacks’ on Amy Coney Barrett’s Adopted Children

Loading...
Sen. Dick Durbin, speaking during a Senate Judiciary Committee business meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., June 11, 2020. (Carolyn Kaster/Reuters)

Illinois Democratic senator Dick Durbin said during remarks on the Senate floor on Thursday that he condemns “the scurrilous and disgusting attacks on the adopted children” of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

Durbin’s remarks were made in response to South Dakota Republican senator John Thune’s criticism of a New York Times report on Barrett’s adopted children. “I’m still waiting for bipartisan condemnation of media coverage of Judge Barrett’s adopted children,” Thune said. “Somehow, the New York Times felt that Judge Barrett’s brief mentions of her adopted children at her introduction and hearing warranted an article full of unsavory insinuations. I’m wondering if Democrats would have found this appropriate coverage of a Democrat nominee’s children.”

“When it came to the scurrilous and disgusting attacks on the adopted children of this nominee, the Senator from Louisiana spoke up against them, and so did I on the Democratic side,” Durbin said immediately following Thune’s remarks. “They are unacceptable on either side of the aisle. For any senator to suggest otherwise, tells me he did not listen to the hearing itself. I condemned the attack on her family, and I repeat that condemnation on the floor of the Senate today.”

The Louisiana senator to whom Durbin was referring is John Kennedy. At last week’s hearings, Kennedy condemned Ibram X. Kendi — a widely celebrated media and cultural figure on the left — as “some butthead professor” for tweeting on the day of Barrett’s nomination: “Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children. They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.” 

On Monday, the New York Times reported: “Detractors have criticized as ‘white saviorism’ the judge’s public accounts of her children’s dire situations before they left Haiti.” The Times’ report on Barrett’s children was apparently the first time in history that the paper published private details about the adoption of a public official’s child. 

In 2005, the paper looked into the adoptions of John Roberts’s children but chose not to publish a report. “Bill Keller, the executive editor of the paper, told us that he would not stand for any gratuitous reporting about the Roberts’s children,” according to a statement at the time from the TimesOffice of Public Editor. “He said that as an adoptive parent he is particularly sensitive about this issue.”

“Just because adoptive parents choose to share some of their story, it doesn’t give anyone else the right to dig up details they chose not to share,” Chuck Johnson, president of the National Council for Adoption, told National Review. “Parents and ultimately the maturing child should be in control of what and with whom they share about themselves and their adoption.”

Elections

Trump Won the Debate—But Won Bigly the Post-Debate

Loading...
President Donald Trump answers a question during the final presidential debate in Nashville, Tenn., October 22, 2020. (Morry Gash/Reuters)

There was a low bar for Joe Biden in the first debate, given his cognitive challenges. Because he exceeded that pessimism, he won momentum. 

In opposite fashion, there was similarly an expectation that a disruptive Donald Trump would turn off the audience by the sort of interruptions and bullying that characterized the first debate. 

He did not do that. He instead let a cocky Biden sound off, and thus more or less tie himself into knots on a host of topics, but most critically on gas and oil. So likewise Trump will gain momentum by exceeding those prognoses. 

But far more importantly, the back-and-forth repartee will not matter other than Trump went toe to toe, but in a tough, dignified manner and beat Biden on points. Biden did not go blank — although he seemed to come close, often especially in the last 20 minutes. Had the debate gone another 30 minutes, his occasional lapses could have become chronic.

What instead counts most are the days after.  The debate take-aways, the news clips, the post facto fact checks, and the soundbites to be used in ads over the next ten days all favor Trump. In this regard, Biden did poorly and will suffer continual bleeding in the swing states. 

We will know that because by the weekend Biden will be out of his basement and trying to reboot his campaign and actually be forced to campaign. 

So we are going to hear over the next week that Biden simply denied the factual evidence of the Hunter Biden laptop computer, the emails, the cell phones, and the testimonies from some of the relevant players as a concocted smear, a Russian disinformation attack. That denial is clearly a lie. It is absolutely unsupportable. And Biden will have to drop that false claim.  

Biden will suffer for unequivocally denying what is now a demonstrable fact: there is evidence that his family ran a systematic shake-down operation to peddle inside access and influence for millions of foreign dollars in profits. In the debate, Biden seemed bewildered why anyone could ever conclude the obvious.

Biden lied about his “super-predator” quote. Ditto his flat-out untruth about his opposition to the Trump travel ban and the border cages, and his denial of prior opposition to fracking.

Usually Trump is accused more of exaggerations and fabrications; in this debate Biden will be far more fact checked.

Again, Biden’s sloppy and confused talk on the Green New Deal will not play well in swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Voters there know that his abstractions of “transitioning” out of fossil fuels or banning fracking but just on federal lands is a euphemism for renewing the Obama-Biden war on pipelines and gas and oil production. So Biden now has gone full-circle: last year bragging about banning fracking and ending fossil fuels, then in the general campaign denying that, and now reaffirming it.

Biden also hurt himself with his base, by blaming Obama for not getting more crime reform for drug sentencing while accusing Bernie Sanders of pushing a socialist health plan and suggesting his own opposition to it had boosted him over his leftwing rivals in the primaries (perhaps true, but not wise to ensure the base turns out). 

Americans know by now that treatments are improving on COVID-19, that death rates are declining, and that it is true that about 99.8 percent of the infected under 65 will survive the virus. Trump did well in pointing all that out.

So gloomy scenarios of 200,000 more dead by New Year’s, or of more national lockdowns, and no vaccination until mid-year 2021 are both unlikely and too doom-and-gloom a scenario for most Americans. 

Voters will more likely agree with Trump that they are going to get through and “live” with the virus rather than Biden’s pessimistic forecast of “dying” with it. Trump was right to say that the lockdowns are cumulatively likely to have killed or injured more than the virus itself.

Biden’s immigration meandering will turn off voters by his siding with those who illegally cross the border, are caught, and then released and do not show up for trial (he lied about this too in saying that they almost all show up for their hearings). 

Trump, then, after four years in the White House, nonetheless successfully returned to his role as the outsider cleanser of Biden’s Augean insider stables. His theme was can-do Americanism, Biden’s was timidity and caution and worries that there is little hope anywhere to be found, an attitude consistent with his own hibernation. 

Final thoughts on the debate: The moderator Kristen Welker was far better than the prior debate and town-hall moderators, in avoiding the scripted stuff like the Charlottesville distortions and ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ questions. That said, she interrupted Trump far more than she did Biden, and focused more on Biden-friendly questions. 

But most importantly, Trump kept his cool, was deferential to Welker, and was tough but not cruel to Biden.

The final question is not whether Trump won and will be seen to have won bigly by next week, but to what degree Biden’s suicidal talk of ending fossil fuels and denial of the Hunter Biden evidence that cannot be denied implode his campaign early next week or not until Election Day.

Elections

Trump’s Frustrating Lack of Preparation

Loading...

Trump was much better last night, and the debate opened up follow-on lines of attack on Biden, most importantly on oil. Still, it’s frustrating to see how many points Trump leaves on the table by simply not knowing his own brief. Take health care. I think it’s political malpractice that the White House doesn’t have some sort of Obamacare replacement plan, which would neuter all the “you don’t have a plan” attacks he gets all the time. But that aside, if you ask the White House about health care, it will send you a raft of materials on the policies it has pursued to lower health-care costs. Trump doesn’t have to have all this memorized. He doesn’t have to be a health-care wonk. All he needs is about five points or so that he can routinely throw out there when asked about this, rather than simply promising a big, beautiful replacement plan at a later date, which he did again last night. Trump famously operates on his instincts. He’d be in a stronger position right now if one of his instincts was to master enough details to make the best possible case for himself, especially in high-profile, perhaps campaign-defining settings.

Film & TV

How Heavily Edited Is the Giuliani Borat Scene?

Loading...

Amazon Prime subscribers can watch the new Borat movie today, and my review is here.

As I noted, there’ll be a lot of debate over what exactly Rudy Giuliani did with his hands after “Borat’s daughter,” a 24-year-old actress pretending to be a conservative TV journalist, removes his microphone in the bedroom of a hotel suite and partially untucks his shirt.

You really have to see the footage to judge for yourself. (There’s some uncertainty over how much footage one can borrow for a purpose like this, so NR has decided not to publish a GIF.) And over at Slate, Matthew Dessem has a very careful shot-by-shot breakdown of the footage highlighting places where it was or could have been edited.

For starters, the lead-up to the scene, where Borat sneaks past security to get to his daughter’s interview with Giuliani, appears entirely fictional. The footage isn’t even from New York City, where the interview took place.

And at the crucial moment, Dessem notes, part of the footage seems to have been duplicated (showing the same event from two different angles, one after the other) to draw out the time during which Rudy’s hands are in his pants:

There’s a seemingly instantaneous cut to the mirror camera, for a shot that shows Tutar leaning away from Giuliani toward the nightstand, as Giuliani adjusts his shirt and briefly removes his hand from his pants before reinserting it. Giuliani is looking at Tutar, and there’s the sound of heavy breathing on the soundtrack, although, again, there’s no particular reason to believe the audio is from that moment in time, especially since Giuliani has apparently taken his mic off.

The next shot jumps backward in time—you can tell by tracking Tutar as she leans toward the nightstand—and repeats the moment from the mirror shot where Giuliani sticks his hand down his pants for the second time.

Even as it’s presented in the movie, it’s not really clear to me what he’s doing in there, and if editing prolonged it and possibly added the breathing noises, it’s even more plausible that he was just tucking in his shirt. Whether he should have been in that bedroom patting a young lady on her lower back is, of course, another question.

Politics & Policy

Bidencare vs. Private Health Insurance

Loading...

Last night, Biden said, “Not one single person with private insurance would lose their insurance under my plan, nor did they under Obamacare.” The second part of that sentence is flatly false. While neither the Washington Post nor the New York Times included it in their fact-checking round-ups about the debate, in 2013 and 2014 the media provided extensive coverage of how Obamacare was causing millions of plan cancellations. (See, for example, this NBC story.)

Trump’s charge at the debate that Biden’s health policies would “terminate” private plans for 180 million people is not plausible. But there could easily be many more losses than there were under Obamacare. I wrote about some of the possibilities for NR a few weeks ago:

As people left private coverage for the public option, prices could well rise for those remaining. Some lines of coverage could disappear because they would no longer be profitable. When the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, got Avalere Health to model a proposal for a strong public option, the consultants found that 18 million people would choose to drop their employer-provided coverage. They also found that another 14 million people would join the new program because their employers had stopped offering coverage. . . .

Biden says that, in addition to creating a public option and lowering the eligibility age for Medicare, he wants to offer new subsidies for people with employer coverage to buy individual policies on Obamacare’s exchanges. That idea could be even more damaging to employer coverage, since it could enable people with lower health risks to defect from their employer plans to get lower premiums. If that happened, the sicker population in employer plans would have to pay higher premiums or see the quality of their coverage degrade.

Immigration

‘Children Are Brought Here by Coyotes and Lots of Bad People’

Loading...
Migrants cross a river next to an construction crew working on a section of the new U.S.-Mexico wall between El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, February 5, 2019. (Jose Luis Gonzalezz/Reuters)

In last night’s debate, President Trump began an answer about immigration by declaring, “Children are brought here by coyotes and lots of bad people, cartels . . . and lots of bad people, cartels, and they’re brought here and they used to use them to get into our country.”

More than a few people on Twitter believed Trump was talking about animal coyotes, not human smugglers. Those who follow border issues are very familiar with the term “coyotes” to refer to human smugglers and human traffickers.*

It is not a new term, or one that is exclusively used locally. A New York Times article from May 21, 1973, declared, “In return for his half of the bribe money, the immigration officer allowed the investigator to use his two best coyotes—a Spanish term applied to Mexicans hired to find countrymen willing to pay to get the United States.” In the New York Times archives, 360 articles have used the term “coyote” and “immigration.”

Many of those blue-checked Twitter users are so convinced that Trump is an idiot that anything he says that is unfamiliar or strange to their ears is interpreted as further evidence of his idiocy. In a way, it’s a continuation of what we saw in the aftermath of Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women” comment. In the second debate in 2012, Romney said:

We took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks,’ and they brought us whole binders full of women. I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.

You would have to be an idiot to believe, in that context, that Romney was talking about physically binding women, rather than referring to binders full of women’s resumes.

There was nothing sexist, offensive, or even odd about it, but commentators on the left convinced themselves it was an unbelievable gaffe. Democratic strategist Maria Cardona wrote for CNN that it “sounds kind of kinky and certainly not something you want to be touting.” It didn’t really matter whether Romney said something sexist; they had a narrative that Romney was sexist, and anything he said was going to be shoehorned into that narrative. Once again, Democrats are convincing themselves that an accurate statement by Trump is a sign he believes in malevolent anthropomorphic canines. They have a remarkable ability to interpret their lack of knowledge as an indicator of other people’s ignorance.

*Human smugglers are distinct from human traffickers, even though many people use the terms interchangeably. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement defines the terms: “Human trafficking involves exploiting men, women, or children for the purposes of forced labor or commercial sexual exploitation. Human smuggling involves the provision of a service—typically, transportation or fraudulent documents—to an individual who voluntarily seeks to gain illegal entry into a foreign country.”

Most Popular

Equality and Envy

We are not the same. Neither men, nor women, nor races, nor ages, nor nationalities, nor in wealth, nor in training, nor in beauty. We are not equal in any way. And that is a reason to be proud and happy, because at the end of the day we are human and not the product of some factory. Let us once and for all ... Read More

Equality and Envy

We are not the same. Neither men, nor women, nor races, nor ages, nor nationalities, nor in wealth, nor in training, nor in beauty. We are not equal in any way. And that is a reason to be proud and happy, because at the end of the day we are human and not the product of some factory. Let us once and for all ... Read More

The Pollster Who Thinks Trump Is Ahead

The polling aggregator on the website RealClearPolitics shows the margin in polls led by Joe Biden in a blue font and the ones led by Donald Trump in red. For a while, the battleground states have tended to be uniformly blue, except for polls conducted by the Trafalgar Group. If you are a firm believer only in ... Read More

The Pollster Who Thinks Trump Is Ahead

The polling aggregator on the website RealClearPolitics shows the margin in polls led by Joe Biden in a blue font and the ones led by Donald Trump in red. For a while, the battleground states have tended to be uniformly blue, except for polls conducted by the Trafalgar Group. If you are a firm believer only in ... Read More

Biden Lies Again and Again

Joe Biden is a career liar and he lied some more in the debate, for instance when he dismissed the now well-supported New York Post story about Hunter Biden's business dealing as "a Russian plant." There is zero evidence for this. He offered this line: There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said ... Read More

Biden Lies Again and Again

Joe Biden is a career liar and he lied some more in the debate, for instance when he dismissed the now well-supported New York Post story about Hunter Biden's business dealing as "a Russian plant." There is zero evidence for this. He offered this line: There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said ... Read More