The End of the Line


Justin Smith views warnings of an imminent economic crisis from billionaire investors. AND the so-called Green New Deal may make the predictions even worse.

JRH 2/10/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

******************

The End of the Line

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/9/2019 5:00 PM

 

The United States’ economy has surpassed all normal ebbs and flows, corrections, by approximately five years, since on average in each past cycle it rose for 56 months before collapsing. We’re about five years past that point and our economy is only now “cooling”. We’re just about due for another economic recession, if not a collapse that makes 2008 look small. We’re at the end of the line.

The U.S. spends almost a third of its revenue on interest payments alone, and it doesn’t seem like it can afford to pay much more.

In the short decade since 2008, the national debt, ever on the rise, has jumped from $10.6 trillion to $22 trillion. It also comes with a deficit that’s currently over $1 trillion currently. The interest payments alone may be forming a “black hole” from which the U.S. may never escape.

These facts alone should raise concern in any interested observer.

 

And now we see twenty-nine year old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a product of the Puerto Rican Enlightenment and a Bronx resident, and other red, radical socialists like her in the House of Representatives, promising Pie-In-The-Sky Utopia for everyone. This makes her a danger to herself, her constituents and the nation, since she believes there isn’t any problem that a government program cannot solve, and she is already advocating for Medicare for all, a job guarantee, free college tuition, a green infrastructure program, and a squeeze the rich tax plan (70% for those making over $10 million).

 

Most political pundits say, “It will never pass … it’s crazy … it will harm the economy.” But, crazy plans that hurt the economy just might stand a chance at passing, since just over half the population in its entirety, and 51% of all Millennials, now have an acceptable view of socialism, some even embracing communism.

 

When existing laws of the land cause bankruptcy and chaos, people seem to look to legislate even more absurd laws, which is precisely how the first New Deal was pushed through Congress, during the panic and despair of the 1932 elections. And the New Deal gave President Franklin D. Roosevelt carte blanche to enact a series of costly programs.

 

A good guess is that the next economic crisis will be severe and long-lasting, too, as stocks fall hard and the economy goes into a deep recession.

 

“How did we get here”, one young lady recently asked me. Short answer: America has been guided to this point, by the consequences of the Federal Reserve Act, centralized banking, regulations, currency manipulation, devaluing the U.S. dollar, socialist initiatives in Congress to fast-track globalism, unfunded debt, monetized debt and acts of anti-American national sovereignty on both sides of the aisle who are intent on tearing apart the Founders’ vision and U.S. sovereignty, in order to pave the way for the globalists and their vision of a “new world order”.

 

The enemies of America, both foreign and domestic, have been working towards this goal for the past 120 years, and they have been working tirelessly and consistently towards leveling America’s power and wealth to the point She can be managed and coerced or forced to submit to the global agenda of the few power elite, the oligarchs of the world,

 

Mainstream media almost never hype a financial crisis, so it’s significant when they do. But when billionaires are sounding the alarm, you might want to pay close attention.

At least two billionaires are doing just that, starting with Baupost Group’s Seth Klarman. Baupost Group is a $28 billion hedge fund, and Klarman normally positions himself out of the limelight. His fund is only open to private investors, so he has little incentive to promote his brand to the public.

But recently, he felt the need to write a warning to investors about the global debt, with specific reference to the U.S., according to Sovereign Man:

In a 22-page letter to his investors, Klarman warned that government debt levels, particularly in the US (where debt exceeds GDP), could lead to the next global financial crisis.

The seeds of the next major financial crisis (or the one after that) may well be found in today’s sovereign debt levels,” he wrote.

 

Even ignoring economic history, there are signs everywhere, as nearly every major asset class around the world, from stocks and bonds to real estate, is selling at nearly an all-time high at prices that defy common sense. This suggests the possibility of a big recession and market correction just before the 2020 election, giving the socialists a much needed crisis that could catapult them into a majority in both houses of Congress. And that’s why we should all be praying that if any coming recession must come, let it hit soon, so it can be properly addressed before it becomes a major election issue.

In the same letter, Klarman continued: “There is no way to know how much debt is too much, but America will inevitably reach an inflection point whereupon a suddenly more skeptical debt market will refuse to continue to lend to us at rates we can afford…

Since the U.S. spends almost a third of its revenue on interest payments alone, it doesn’t seem like it can afford to pay much more.

And Klarman isn’t the only billionaire expressing unease. At the World Economic Forum [Blog Editor: WEFORUM – Globalization 4.0; Breitbart-Pompeo-Nationalism; New American-Merkel-Communist China-Globalist Agenda; & TheGatewayPundit-Ted Malloch-Criticizing Davos] in Davos, Switzerland, Ray Dalio, founder of the world’s largest hedge fund, said that debt would be to blame for the next downturn, which he believes will be bigger than the Great Depression.

“The biggest issue is that there is only so much one can squeeze out of a debt cycle and most countries are approaching those limits”.

You might think the U.S. government would do everything to curb this problem, but Uncle Sam’s total debt is rapidly approaching $22 trillion, and according to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest ten-year projection, it will be more than $33 trillion by 2029, with $1 trillion annual deficits set to begin again and stay above that for as far as the fiscal eye can see.

Skyrocketing debt, check. Deficit to match, check. Or will it be checkmate?

Although I’ve stated this twice before in this piece. let me reiterate — The U.S. spends almost a third of its revenue on interest payments alone.  America and Her people cannot afford to pay much more.

WE’VE ARRIVED AT THE END OF THE LINE.

~ Justin O Smith

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Interview with the Polish Ambassador


Piotr Opaliński – Poland Ambassador to Pakistan

 

Shamim Mahmood – a Pakistani Christian advocate/journalist – has submitted some interesting information on foreign relations between Pakistan and Poland derived from Ambassador Piotr A. Opalinski.

 

JRH 2/3/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Interview with the Polish Ambassador

 

By SHAMIM MAHMOOD

Sent 2/2/2019 11:43 PM

 

ISLAMABAD (Online) Mr. Piotr A. Opalinski, the Ambassador of Poland to Pakistan has said that Poland values its historical links with Pakistan and enjoys the multifaceted collaboration. Currently, the two countries are significantly developing their political, economic and defence cooperation. The current trade volume is reaching a half billion Euro and there are good prospects for the further growth of their bilateral trade. Peace and stability are the key for the development of the region. Poland supports the peace process in Afghanistan and acknowledges Pakistan’s efforts in facilitating the talks between the US and Taliban.

 

Talking to the ‘Online News Agency’ in an exclusive interview, the Polish Ambassador Mr. Piotr Opalinski said that the relations between Pakistan and Poland are ‘excellent and very cordial’. He pointed out both at the ongoing political dialogue as well as enhancement of economic cooperation, especially in the areas of energy and exploration of natural resources, in which Polish companies have been engaged in Pakistan since last 20 years. He said that Poland’s vast expertise and long tradition in coal mining, defence production, agriculture and food processing offered new opportunities for the mutually beneficial cooperation in these areas as well.

 

Ambassador said, that Poland supported the inclusion of Pakistan in the GSP Plus by the European Union (EU) to grant non-reciprocal preferential treatment to Pakistan’s exports. He emphasized that the geographical location of Poland in the exact centre of Europe made it very suitable to become a hub for Pakistani products designed for the European market. The bilateral trade volume in 2018 raised to about 500 million Euro. The trade balance is in favour of Pakistani exports, mainly textiles (90 percent), with a relatively smaller share of leather products, sportswear, foodstuff and surgical instruments.

 

Ambassador Opalinski also said, in the area of development cooperation Poland was directly working with Pakistani partners – local organisations capable of a very efficient implementation of the projects. Some of the best examples of educational projects supported i.e. by the Polish Embassy were the primary schools in Kaghan Valley and Bari Imam area of Islamabad. They are providing quality education, counselling and medical care for the children.

 

Answering a question about visa policy, the Ambassador said it was based on the common Schengen Visa Code, as Poland, being one of 26 Schengen Member States, issues the visas allowing for a border-free movement of travellers in the whole area in all categories of travels – businessmen, tourists, students etc. The available statistics indicate that the number of visitors from Pakistan to Poland is gradually increasing.

 

Talking about the regional and international situation, the Ambassador appreciated Pakistan’s role in the Afghan peace process and its efforts in facilitating the talks between the US leadership and Taliban. Poland wholeheartedly supports peaceful resolution of the protracted conflict in Afghanistan, to the benefit, stability and development of the whole region.

 

Recollecting his very good personal experiences of nearly ten years of diplomatic service in Pakistan (first tenure as Deputy Head of Mission and now as Ambassador) Mr. Piotr Opalinski said the Polish-Pakistani friendship, transcending through different times and geographical distance was deeply-rooted in history and time-tested. He referred to the memories of Polish refugees who were granted shelter in Karachi during the World War and to the Polish pilots, who made a great contribution to the development of the PAF and civil aviation at the nascent stage of Pakistan’s statehood. He said, all this, and more fascinating stories of Polish-Pakistani personal relations of friendship, would be described in an excellent book “Freedom Under the Pakistani Sky” by Polish author Mrs. Anna T. Pietraszek [Polish Wikipedia], which is going to be launched in Pakistan later this year. Ends/

 

Be Blessed,

 

Shamim Mahmood

Diplomatic Correspondents

Online Int’l News Networks

Daily Jinnah [Urdu]

Daily Morning Mail

Journalist, Blogger and Social Reformer

+92-300-642-4560

[Blog Editor: Shamim also does Christian activism in Pakistan. It can be dangerous work in Islamic Pakistan. Please consider a contribution. The last I heard services like PayPal are not supported in Pakistan. The Western Union is a good way to send money which will transfer into Pakistan Rupee – https://www.westernunion.com/us/en/send-money.html; Shamim Mahmood; Islamabad; +92-300-642-4560.

+++++++++++

Blog Editor: This Facebook video should be of interest in relation to Polish refugees helping to build the Pakistan Air Force after WWII:

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Shamim Mahmood

 

The Democratic Party Endangers America’s Cultural Heritage


This essay by Justin Smith could easily criticized as a White Supremacy racist message. IT IS NOT! Justin is criticizing foreigners desiring to live in America illegally and/or without intention to assimilate to American culture are an unwelcome burden on the American taxpayer (i.e. Red, Yellow, Black and White) and an assault on the Liberty and Values built on the pedestal of American Founding Fathers.

 

If you are a person refusing assimilation or an un-American Marxist in all that ideology’s political deceptions, get over yourself.

 

JRH 1/21/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

******************

The Democratic Party Endangers America’s Cultural Heritage – Open Borders Are National Suicide

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 1/20/2019 7:33 PM

 

America is currently witnessing the harsh reality of a Democratic Party intent on gaining power by any means necessary and so enraged by the election of President Trump, that they will not even acknowledge America and her patriots have a right to determine who and how many enter our nation, under any set of circumstances. The resulting standoff between President Trump and Speaker Nancy Pelosi and their respective supporters has allowed the harsh reality to come home, that the Democratic Party really has become the anti-American Party of Brown Ascendancy; and, the Democrats, such as Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, place more value on their own power and their by and large white-hating communist, socialist, and fascist allies from South and Central America and North Africa and the Middle East, than they do on America’s own citizens.

 

This is an egregious and horrific affront to millions of true American Patriots who have long subscribed to MLK’s admonishment to judge a person not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, and although many Democrats’ may not intend the “browning of America”, their policies are having that effect. The results are emanating from the Democrat realization that most of these people vote for large centralized government and socialist solutions, which the Democrats are using to their advantage to secure power.

 

No one is walking around saying, “We really need more Guatemalans and Eritreans around here.” If immigration was capped at zero, no one would notice. In fact, if there was a moratorium and the government started aggressive deportations of illegal aliens, even those in the system, most Americans really would appreciate it.

 

And certainly no one, other than the radical socialists and the Democratic Party (One in the same?), would want any more Muslims and their backward, violent and evil Islamic ideology from the Middle East, since they simply don’t fit well at all in a modern Western country. Everywhere Muslim migration has been high, we see terrorist barriers, armed patrols and absurd security measures. In fact, most Americans, the average citizen on the street, would go along with deporting all Muslims. Our efforts to reform and assimilate Muslims has not worked and they can never work. U.S. policy toward all Muslim majority nations should always first be containment.

 

Similarly, sub-Saharan Africans are a no-go. America has a long history of trying to integrate Africans into a European country. It does not work. It does not make any sense to bring a new population of immigrants into America, especially when they have a reluctance to assimilate and a natural hostility towards Europeans. Again, no one is walking around wondering how affairs are in Chad. That and American blacks don’t like African migrants [Blog Editor: Of possible interest – African immigrant perception (from Sierra Leone), Academic themed perception & another Academic themed perception (pdf download & web cache).

 

One must note, Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor of political science and Mexican-American studies at the University of Texas and co-founder of La Raza Unida (the Race United), made the following statement in [FrontPageMag.com posted] 2017: “Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes … if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”

 

In 2011, a visiting professor of African American Studies at the University of North Carolina, Kamau Kambon stated: “We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem… the problem on the planet is white people.”

 

This new Democratic Caucus in Congress represents most Muslims, a large Jewish segment, exotic transgender groups, the black church ladies and the college queers, and they all hate one another. Its incoming class is the most diverse in history and includes the first Muslim Congresswomen and the first Native American Congresswoman. However, they all hate the white man more, which is the main focus that keeps them united, as they say in so many words, “White men are the ones keeping you down. You must hate white men.” [Blog Editor: I think Justin is referencing Ann Coulter’s controversial sentiments from mid-December 2018.]

 

The red, radical Democratic Party is all that stands in the way of solving the current border security issue and our immigration crisis, because they do not seem to care that an Open Borders policy means the end of our Republic, as it has stood since 1776. They have turned away from their collective position that voted for the 2006 Secure Fence Act and 700 miles of barriers along the southern border, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi reiterates that she will not consider any deal that includes President Trump’s wall.

 

Democrats have also long held positions against both legal and illegal immigration, just like California Governor Jerry Brown, who stated in 1975: “(It’s strange to say) ‘Let’s bring in 500,000 more (Vietnamese) people’ when we can’t take care of one million (Californians) out of work.”

 

In 1994, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told ‘Face the Nation’: Border control is a federal responsibility. We simply don’t enforce our borders adequately. [In California] about 2,000 people a day illegally cross the border … about two million [annually] who compete for housing … classroom space … there’s well over 300,000 (on Medicaid) today who are illegal aliens. That presents obvious problems.”

 

The media has focused on the sexual assault of young women and girls in the immigrant caravans and other hardships, while ignoring the real consequences of crimes committed by millions of illegal aliens in America each year and the cries for justice from the Angel Families of the victims. In the past two years, from DHS records, ICE arrested 266,000 aliens with criminal records, which included 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sexual assaults and 4,000 heinous murders. Also, the cost of the illegal drug trade is more than $500 billion, with ninety percent of the heroin and deadly fentanyl coming to America across the southern border, and as noted by President Trump, this is “vastly more than the $5.7 billion we have requested from Congress.”

 

Although the 9/11 terrorists came to America legally and the wall is only a part of national security and border control, wherever walls and barriers have been erected, whether in Korea or Israel, they work. As President Trump recently observed: “There are now 77 major … Walls built around the world … Over 800 miles of Walls have been built in Europe since 2015 (and) recognized as close to 100% successful. Stop the crime at our Southern Border!”

 

So now America has upwards of approximately 22 million or more (no one really knows) illegal aliens in the country, who are influencing the vote and elected positions and laws, who have no idea what this nation was founded upon, working with a limited and or flawed understanding of Judeo-Christian and Western principles and often refusing to assimilate. This has changed our country as much as if we had been conquered by an enemy nation, but because it has happened slowly, even those who see the changes often don’t know how to explain them. And, abandoning assimilation of immigrants guarantees the eradication of essential values and customs that created America to be the envy of all other nations.

 

Do the math. Give 22 million illegal aliens with strong socialist leanings the vote, as planned by Democrats, when historically the biggest landslide victory in American history was determined by several million less votes, and it means a massive pay-off for the Democrats in a permanent electoral majority for the foreseeable future. In a word: Power.

 

For Americans, the real issue is how many South or Central Americans or people of any other nationality we will accept. That quickly reduces to a much simpler question. Do we need any of them? For most of Us, the answer is “No, we don’t need more people.” Therefore, the only question left is, “Are we morally bound to take anyone in for permanent settlement?”

 

Everyone in the world does not have the right to live in America. However, all Americans have the right, through their elected representatives, to decide who immigrates to America and under what conditions. How much more American blood must be spilled before Congress does its job?

 

Our heritage and culture of freedom and individual liberty is now placed in danger by the Democratic Party and large numbers of uninvited people who have no such experience. There is a limit to the number of people that can immigrate to America in a short period of time without changing our culture. Continuing in the direction of the Open Borders desired by the Democrats is national suicide.

 

The solutions are found in building the wall first and followed immediately by the deportation of the illegal aliens already in the U.S. Next, tell Mexico that all legal immigration is halted until they stop illegals from trying to get here from their nation. Prosecute everyone helping or hiring illegal aliens; and start with U.S. governors and mayors. Seize business under RICO of any business caught with five or more illegals in its hire. Tax remittances at the top rate in perpetuity. And finally, stop all legal immigration for at least the next three decades.

 

Until the American people, on the whole, are made to understand the real threat of socialism and communism to their freedoms and liberties, in the public discourse and dichotomy, our nation is on course for a miserable future. We either win this debate, or we prepare for an all-out civil war to rid the nation of the Reds — the Communists and the Socialists. the multiculturalists and diversity crowd — and their white hating allies from South and Central America and various African nations, who are bent on open borders and globalist policies and the destruction of Our national sovereignty and Constitutional Republic, our traditional American way of life.

 

[Blog Editor – Lessons failed to be taught in American schools & colleges:

 

 

 

 

Any sane person intuitively knows that the culture, the law, the stability and the economics of a nation are endangered by massive illegal immigration, especially if that immigration is comprised of a culture that is inherently in opposition to the existing culture. Any normal, reasonable and prudent person instinctively knows that if the make-up of those illegally immigrating to another nation are culturally poor in income levels, job skills, education and hygiene, the cost to the existing population will be a huge, growing and dangerous burden. To allow massive illegal immigration to continue, without trying to stop or impede it, is an affront to the living population and makes a mockery out of the rule of law. To establish sanctuaries for illegal aliens, whether by government or religious organizations, openly and blatantly violates the rights of legal citizens. Those political or religious leaders who are proponents of massive illegal immigration, open borders and illegal alien sanctuaries are traitors to the nation and its people, and they should be summarily fired, charged, prosecuted and placed in prison.

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links, text and commentary enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Introducing UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration


Intro by John R. Houk

Intro © January 19, 2019

Since the MSM primary propaganda agenda is to publish as much fake news as possible hoping to lead to President Trump’s impeachment, you may not catch too much info on a United Nations globalist agenda.

 

The UN has spent the last half century doing all it can to undermine the sovereignty of successful Capitalist-minded UN member nations. This undermining is especially aimed at the sovereignty of the United States of America.

 

I used to pay attention to this UN Leftist-globalist agenda that smacks of a One-World -Government paradigm. You can brush up on this UN paradigm by searching for all thing Agenda 21. Be warned in your search on Agenda 21, much if not most of Left-Wing sources (too often government friendly sources) paint a utopian picture land management, food production and population management (which really is human depopulation).

 

In relation to National Sovereignty and a UN globalist paradigm, Claudia Rosett looks how the UN’s globalist migration policies threatens the U.S. rule of law with the attempt to make rules/international laws supersede U.S. sovereignty and by extension the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution within our national borders.

 

Points I found of interest I placed in bold text.

 

JRH 1/19/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

************************

The UN is trying to grab control of worldwide immigration policies*

 

By Claudia Rosett*

January 18th, 2019 3:55PM

American Center for Democracy

 

UN GCM logo

 

While President Donald Trump seeks funding for a bordering! wall, the United Nations is seeking control of migration policies worldwide, with a campaign configured to undermine America’s sovereignty and control over its own borders. And, yes, if the U.N. has its way, America will help pay for it. [Bold text Blog Editor]

 

As with many of the U.N.’s turf grabs, this campaign to co-opt national migration policy has been years in the making. Incremental in its origins, and swaddled in U.N. jargon and procedure, it has largely escaped the U.S. headlines. But it’s now reached the stage of becoming dangerous.

 

The spearhead of this U.N. campaign is an international agreement with the high-minded name of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. That’s not remotely what this document boils down to. While proclaiming a utopian “unity of purpose” among the 193 highly diverse member states, this Global Compact would have the U.N.’s largely unaccountable, self-aggrandizing and often opaque bureaucracy, operating in service of its despot-infested collective of governments, set the terms for all.

 

The lengthy text reads like a template for setting up the world’s most politically correct welfare state, with a colossal menu of entitlements and central planning for migrants; never mind the cost to the pockets, rights and freedoms of the existing citizens. This “compact” does not restrict itself to refugees. It anoints the U.N. as arbiter of how to handle cross-border human mobility worldwide, meaning migrants, permanent or temporary, whatever their reasons for wanting to move. In this scheme of the universe, the U.N. proposes to become the overarching authority “addressing migration in all its dimensions.” [Bold text Blog Editor’s]

 

Coming from a United Nations that has yet to solve its own problems with peacekeeper rape of minors, that’s ambitious.

 

In a section on eliminating “all forms of discrimination,” this compact also aims to “shape perceptions of migration,” not least by smothering free speech and promoting gags and penalties for news coverage or debate that the U.N., in its collective majesty, deems unfriendly to migrants. [Bold text Blog Editor’s]

 

This compact was adopted without a vote at an international conference last month in Morocco, in which the U.S. declined to take part. The resulting draft was endorsed on Dec. 19 by the U.N. General Assembly in New York, over U.S. protests.

 

It is telling that among 193 member states, the 152 countries voting in favor of the compact included such brazen human-rights abusers as Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Myanmar and Iran. The five countries voting no were the U.S., Israel, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. The remaining 36 member states either officially abstained or did nothing. [Bold text Blog Editor’s]

 

At the U.N., such big vote tallies in favor of U.N. turf grabs are business as usual. In practice, the Global Compact would entail virtually no costs for rogue, despotic or failing member states, which routinely vote for resolutions that they themselves ignore. The main costs would fall on the law-abiding, free countries that provide the most desirable destinations for migrants, and notably on the biggest single contributor to the U.N., the United States. [Bold text Blog Editor’s]

 

The U.S. Mission to the U.N. denounced the compact, accurately, as amounting to a bid “to advance global governance at the expense of the sovereign right of States to manage their immigration systems in accordance with their national laws, policies and interests.” A U.S. envoy warned that this compact could translate into a “long-term means of building customary international law or so-called ‘soft law’ in the area of migration,” and expressed particular concern that the term “compact” is an amorphous word in international law, “but implies legal obligation.” [Bold text Blog Editor’s]

 

The U.N.’s rejoinder has been that General Assembly resolutions are nonbinding; participation by member states is voluntary.

 

Which brings us to the real pressure tactics with which the UN is attempting an end-run around the United States. In concert with a vision outlined in 2017 by Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, the Compact itself calls for the U.N. to set up a sprawling “network on migration,” to embed, coordinate and promote the compact’s methods and goals throughout the U.N. system and around the globe. The UN Terms of Reference for this compact include a preliminary list of 38 U.N. entities already slated to promote this agenda.

 

The Compact further stipulates that the secretariat and coordinator of this migration network will be a U.N. agency called the International Organization for Migration. The IOM operates with a staff of more than 9,000, in some 150 countries, with a budget of more than $1.4 billion per year, the biggest slice of that contributed by the United States. [Bold text Blog Editor’s]

 

The kicker is that it was less than three years ago that the International Organization for Migration joined the U.N. For some 65 years before that, it was chiefly led, bankrolled and shaped by the U.S., and served as one of America’s most reliable partners in dealing with migration. Based in Geneva, the IOM was founded in 1951 as an intergovernmental agency — outside the U.N. system. The migration organization was not a policy shop. Its mission was primarily to help with logistics in resettling people displaced in Europe by World War II. That led to it helping migrant populations hit with both man-made and natural disasters, from the Soviet invasions of Eastern Europe, to the Vietnamese boat people, to victims of the Christmas tsunami of 2004, and so forth. The international migration group cooperated with the U.N., but in keeping with longstanding U.S. preferences, it did not join the U.N. The arrangement worked pretty well.

 

That all changed under President Barack Obama. During Obama’s final year in office, in 2016, with a nod from his administration, the IOM joined the U.N., which promptly declared plans to create a global plan for migration. For 2017, as a parting gift of the Obama administration, America’s $544 million contribution included $1.68 million earmarked for conferences and consultations supporting the creation of the Global Compact. [Bold text Blog Editor’s]

 

In late 2017, the Trump administration reversed that policy, announcing the U.S. would no longer support U.N. activities leading to the Global Compact. Ambassador Nikki Haley released a statement that: “America is proud of our immigrant heritage and our long-standing moral leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe,” but the U.N.’s global migration project, she said, “is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.” [Bold text Blog Editor’s]

 

The U.N. pursued the compact regardless, with the IOM playing a major role in consultations and conferences around the globe, including a major preparatory conference in 2017 in Mexico and a culminating conference last month in Morocco. In early 2017, Guterres appointed as his special representative for migration a former U.N. human rights commissioner, Louise Arbour, who worked closely with the IOM to shepherd the Global Compact to fruition and presided at the Morocco conference, which Secretary-General Guterres also attended.

 

When the IOM elected a new director-general in 2018, the U.S. lost its longtime leadership of the organization to a Portuguese socialist, Antonio Vittorino. An old cohort of Guterres, Vittorino made a career as a member of Portugal’s Socialist Party, and in the 1990s, during Guterres’s tenure as Portugal’s prime minister, served a stint as his deputy. Now they are working together on what is basically a socialist vision for global migration. [Bold text Blog Editor’s]

 

According to the terms under which it joined the U.N., the IOM is not supposed to shape norms or prescribe policy. The agreement spells out that it “shall function as an independent, autonomous and non-normative international organization.” But that’s not how it’s working out. The precise arrangements within the IOM for its new role as secretariat and hub of the U.N.’s new systemwide migration network are still in flux, according to a spokesman reached by phone in Switzerland. But policymaking looms large, as confirmed by this spokesman: “The IOM is finally after 67 years setting up a policy shop.”

 

Last year the Trump administration cut off funding for IOM activities specifically related to the Global Compact. The idea was that these could be disentangled from the rest of the organization’s activities, for which a lot of U.S. money continues to flow, most of it voluntary. In 2018, according to IOM budget estimates, the U.S. contributed roughly $448 million in voluntary funds, all but $2 million of that project-dedicated, plus $12 million in assessed dues.

 

But with the International Organization for Migration now planning its own policy shop and serving as the hub and secretariat for a U.N. migration network to promote the Global Compact, it’s hard to see how any IOM project might escape being entwined with this campaign to undermine U.S. sovereignty. It’s looking ever more as if a good step toward enhancing U.S. border security would be to stop funding the migration organization and spend all those American tax dollars on projects and partners more dedicated to the genuine interests of both migrants and the U.S. itself.

 

*Claudia Rosett is a foreign policy fellow with the Washington-based Independent Women’s Forum.

 

*This column was first published in The Dallas Morning News, on January 18, 2019.

_____________________

Introducing UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

Intro by John R. Houk

Intro © January 19, 2019

_____________________

The UN is trying to grab control of worldwide immigration policies

 

Copyright © 2013 | The American Center for Democracy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

 

About ACD

 

OUR MISSION

 

The ACD is dedicated to exposing threats to our free speech rights, political and economic freedoms and national security.

 

ACD is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. All contributions are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

 

OUR DISTINCTION

 

ACD fills an important gap created by inadequate risk assessments of our cyberspace, GPS & UTC. We use our Threatcon programs, our multidimensional Terrorist Finance Network Tracker (TFNT), and our experts to better inform government, public and private sectors’ policy makers.

 

CONNECTING THE DOTS

 

  • ACD’s synergistic approach to connect the dots on emerging threats is facilitated by extensive multidisciplinary global research in various languages. We publish our knowledge-based analysis and use the information to offer special tools to help prevent and mitigate such threats.

 

  • ACD’s Threatcon, offers individually tailored programs of briefing and scenario gaming to encourage government, public and private sectors to cooperate in preventing and mitigating the risks to our political and economic freedoms and to our national security.

 

  • ACD’s Terrorist Finance Network Tracker (TFNT), a unique anti money laundering (AML) system, is using a multidimensional approach to build and regularly update a comprehensive database identifying operational and financial networks of transnational radical Islamic groups.

 

“Lean and agile, ACD/EWI is always ahead of the next threat: cyber attacks, market manipulation , the use of legal structures to inhibit free speech and stifle debate”- Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense

 

READ THE REST

 

The “Trump Hid His Meetings with Putin” Stories Begin to Unravel


Fake News exposed AGAIN!

 

JRH 1/15/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

******************

The “Trump Hid His Meetings with Putin” Stories Begin to Unravel

 

By Fred Fleitz

January 15, 2019

Center for Security Policy

Over the weekend the mainstream media launched a new ploy to promote their Trump-Russia collusion narrative with a story that first appeared in the Washington Post titled “Officials in dark on Putin talks.” A similar piece was published in the Wall Street Journal today, “Trump didn’t use notetakers at Putin/ Meeting.” Cable News networks and Democratic congressmen claimed these stories indicated that President Trump held secret discussions with Russian President Putin that were revealed to no one. For example, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) told CNN on Sunday that the U.S. government ‘does not know’ what Trump and Putin discussed.

 

These stories were misleading, if not mostly false. First, they neglected to mention that the President’s decision to restrict access to read-outs of his one-on-one meetings with Putin were due to the extraordinary number of leaks to the press of his phone calls and meetings with foreign officials at the beginning of his presidency.

 

Second, it is untrue that senior officials are unaware of what was discussed in President Trump’s meetings with Putin.

 

Concerning Trump’s first meeting with Putin in 2017, although a notetaker reportedly was not present and Mr. Trump allegedly took possession of his interpreter’s notes, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson attended this meeting and provided a detailed read-out to senior U.S. officials. It is clear that the unnamed officials cited in the Washington Post piece on the 2017 Trump-Putin meeting were irritated they were not provided with copies of Tillerson’s read-out of the meeting, not that there wasn’t a read-out. It also is ridiculous for the press to assert that President Trump said something nefarious to Putin with Tillerson present.

 

Concerning President Trump’s one-on-one meeting with Putin in Helsinki last July, I can attest as former National Security Council Executive Secretary and Chief of Staff that senior U.S. officials – including myself – knew everything that was discussed. Again, the real issue here is that some U.S. officials are irritated they were excluded from read-outs of this meeting and voiced their frustrations to the press.

 

The media’s claim that this story amounts to a U.S. president concealing his secret discussions with the Russian president as part of his alleged collusion with Russia is fake news. Senior U.S. officials knew exactly what was discussed in these meetings. This story is really about a successful effort by President Trump to prevent anti-Trump government officials from leaking sensitive national security information to the press.

 

Good job President Trump!

_______________________

About Fred Fleitz

 

Fred Fleitz is President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy. He recently served as a Deputy Assistant to President Trump and Chief of Staff to National Security Adviser John Bolton. He previously worked in national security positions for 25 years with CIA, DIA, the Department of State and the House Intelligence Committee staff. Read his complete bio here. Follow Fleitz on Twitter @fredfleitz.

 

 Copyright © 1988-2018 Center for Security Policy | All Rights Reserved

 

About CSP

 

The Center for Security Policy was founded in July 1988 by 30 national security policy practitioners united by an overarching goal – to perpetuate the time-tested policy Ronald Reagan used to such transformative effect during his presidency: “Peace through Strength.” Led by Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan Defense Department official and aide to Senators Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Tower, they founded an non-partisan, educational public policy organization with a single, overarching mission: secure freedom.

 

“What an exemplary organization you are — devoting yourselves to the pursuit of peace and national security.  I can think of no loftier purpose or goal.” — 1995 letter from President Ronald Reagan to the Center for Security Policy

 

The Center has diligently advanced that goal ever since through a combination of: cutting-edge public policy research; the skillful and evolving use of multi-media platforms for outreach to – and impact with – the nation’s leadership and people; and, most uniquely, the creation and direction of coalitions to undertake effective advocacy.

 

In its early days, the READ THE REST

 

Surprising New Allies for Asia Bibi?


Asia Bibi spent about nine years on a Pakistani prison death row convicted under Islamic Supremacist Blasphemy laws. Only because some Muslim accusers couldn’t get their story straight, the Pakistan Supreme Court set aside her conviction. Her accused crime: Refreshing her thirst at a Muslim well (which irritated Muslims anyway) in which an argument with Muslim co-workers over who was better person – Jesus or Muhammad (Undoubtedly giving the Islamic Supremacists the excuse to cause harm to the Christian Asia Bibi – aka Aasiya Noreen).

 

Asia Bibi is out of prison yet STILL stashed away by the Pakistan government hoping a nation will step up against Islamic Supremacism and grant her and her family asylum. A CFI article has a story that some prestigious Pakistan Muslim scholars are condemning the violence aimed at Asia Bibi. I’m still not reading an asylum promise.

 

JRH 1/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

********************

Surprising New Allies for Asia Bibi?

 

January 11, 2019

Christian Freedom International

 

Photo from AsiaNews.it

 

Pakistan Muslim Clerics Denounce Violence

 

Over 500 Muslim scholars gathered in Pakistan to condemn terrorism and extremism. They signed a declaration rejecting violence and murder committed “under the pretext of religious belief” and criticized the use of fatwas (edicts) by radical clerics.

 

They also called Asia Bibi’s case an absolute “priority”. The Christian mother was acquitted of blasphemy after 9 years in jail but lives in hiding from violent mobs organized by extremist Islamist leaders. Pakistan’s Supreme Court called the case a “feast of falsehoods” and her accusers were guilty of insulting her Christian beliefs.

 

Christians in Pakistan and other Muslim-majority countries live in constant fear of rising radicalism. “Refugees tell us that the spread of Islamist ideology turns life-long neighbors into terrorists,” said Wendy Wright with Christian Freedom International.

 

The Pakistan Ulema Council signed the declaration in Islamabad on January 6, 2018. Muslim scholars formed the group to be a voice for peace, stability and religious harmony in the county. They declared 2019 a “Year to annihilate terrorism, extremism and sectarian violence from Pakistan” and stated, “non-Muslim citizens must enjoy the same rights as everyone else.”

 

“We tried to issue a similar declaration in 2002,” the chairman of Pakistan Ulema Council told ucanews.com, “but the government ignored such efforts. People were afraid to speak about harmony between sects and other faiths.”

 

The declaration states all citizens, regardless of religion “have the constitutional right to live in the country following their cultural and religious principles”. The government must “ensure the protection of the life and property of non-Muslims living in Pakistan.”  Murder in the name of religion “is contrary to the teachings of Islam”.

 

The clerics affirmed the right for religious groups to meet and organize and asks authorities to ban “any material (books, pamphlets, audio) that incites religious hatred” and to punish anyone that threatens “the sacred places of non-Muslims”.

 

The resolution also criticizes fatwas against public servants.

 

The Pakistan Ulema Council plans to keep a check on non-Islamic decrees beginning in late March. Over 5,000 religious scholars and clerics will meet in Islamabad in March for “The 4th International Message of Islam Conference”.

 

Radical Islamists killed two government officials who defended Asia Bibi, and threatened to murder Pakistan justices who acquitted Asia Bibi.

 

“Too many leaders – religious and government – fear criticizing radical Islamists. This declaration is a step toward countering Islamists’ murderous hatred and promoting respect and rights for Christians,” said Wendy Wright.

 

This article was compiled from reports from Asia News, Zenit and UCANews

___________________

© 2018 Christian Freedom International. All Rights Reserved.

To God be the Glory

 

About CFI

 

Our Mission

 

The mission of Christian Freedom International is to help Christians who are persecuted and suffering for their faith in Jesus Christ. We are a non-denominational human rights organization providing real solutions to conditions of oppression and misery caused by religious persecution. We reach the part of the persecuted Church that is the most repressed, most at risk, and most isolated. In areas of disaster, we provide immediate relief to Christians, and their communities, who are ignored by conventional aid organizations.

 

It is our privilege to minister to the Persecuted through Bible distribution, medical aid, resettlement assistance, advocacy, asylum case-work, and aid to the disabled; to sponsor schools, vocational training, and self-help initiatives; to provide these services at no charge by CFI staff and volunteers. It is our goal to work together with Christians at home to ease the burdens of our struggling brethren around the world.

 

Our History

 

Since 1998, Christian Freedom International has been on the forefront in the battle for the rights of persecuted Christians around the world. CFI has come to the aid of thousands of suffering men, women, and children through the distribution of food, water, medicine, clothing, Bibles, and other basic supplies in countries where persecution is most intense. CFI has built field hospitals, schools in refugee camps, Bible Schools, and Centers to aid disabled Christians. But CFI’s work is not limited to the distribution of relief aid. Over the years, CFI has consistently remained active as a “voice for the voiceless” in Washington, DC, providing political advocacy and practical grassroots action on behalf of the millions of Christians who routinely suffer for their faith.

 

CFI Logo

 

The CFI logo is of a lone CFI Backpack medic delivering aid to Christians in the war-zones of Burma. In 1998, CFI pioneered the backpack medic program and the lifesaving work has continued ever since.

 

READ THE REST

 

National Security Debates on the Border and Beyond


Mark Alexander

 

Mark Alexander tackles the Trump vs. Dem on Border Security: The Wall, Dem hypocrisy over the Wall and government shutdown. ALSO, he takes a relatively brief look at plus and minus of troop withdrawal from Syria.

 

JRH 1/3/18

Please Support NCCR

******************

National Security Debates on the Border and Beyond

Two national security issues are casting a long shadow over 2019.

 

By Mark Alexander

January 2, 2019

The Patriot Post

 

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” —George Washington

 

Ronil Singh, wife & baby

 

Sometimes, the first column of the year is an easy one — just a few reflections about the year past and the year to come.

 

Unfortunately, the last week of 2018 was marred by a couple of political confrontations that are casting a long shadow over the new year. Most notable among those issues are two significant national security issues.

 

The first of these is a rather straightforward interruption of some “non-essential government bureaucracies” beginning on 22 December, which President Donald Trump implemented after Democrats failed to provide sufficient federal funding to secure our border with Mexico.

 

The second is a policy shift in the Middle East — much more a chess move than the mainstream media’s typical portrayal of this policy change as a game of checkers.

 

Regarding the border security/shutdown showdown

 

I have covered in detail how all Democrat Party leaders, including incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have repeatedly advocated for border security and strong immigration laws — until it was no longer politically expedient to do so. Democrats oppose securing our southern border for two reasons: first, because Trump supports it, and second, because these illegal immigrants and their progeny represent the Democrat Party’s most promising and powerful source of new votes.

 

Demos, therefore, don’t want “immigration solutions.” They want to appease their Hispanic constituents with smoke-and-mirror political rhetoric. In addition, they are using immigration as diversionary fodder to undermine the Trump administration’s considerable economic policy success.

 

Thus, by advocating for open borders, Democrats hope to create a socialist-voter pipeline by flooding our nation with illegal immigrants who are likely to require long-term, taxpayer-funded government assistance.

 

However, an unforeseen problem with this strategy is that a growing number of Latinos and Hispanics in our country now, legal and illegal, don’t want the job and wage competition from more illegals flooding in from Mexico and Central America. Democrats say they support a “living wage” but then advocate, in effect, an open border, which ensures that millions of working men and women will never break free of the minimum wage.

 

The Democrats’ refusal to secure our border with Mexico, and their so-called “sanctuary city” agenda, has, over the years, invited millions of illegal immigrants to invade our southern border, many of them using children as human bargaining chips in order to stay in the U.S. Some are seeking economic welfare, while others pose a significant threat to our citizens.

 

Three recent and tragic deaths should constitute a low benchmark in the never-ending border-security debate.

 

In late December, there were two deaths of immigrant children in Border Patrol custody. The first was an eight-year-old boy whose Guatemalan mother declared, according to press reports, that the boy’s father brought the sick child with him “because they figured he’d have an easier chance of gaming the American immigration system to gain an illegal foothold here.” His sister said, “We heard rumors that they could pass [into the United States]. They said they could pass with the children.” Another Guatemalan child, a seven-year-old girl who was sick when she and her father were apprehended by the Border Patrol, also died.

 

President Trump noted correctly, “Deaths of children or others at the Border are strictly the fault of the Democrat … immigration policies that [encourage] people to make the long trek thinking they can enter our country illegally. … The two children in question were very sick before they were given over to the Border Patrol. The father of the young girl said it was not their fault, he hadn’t given her water in days. The Border Patrol needs the Wall and it will all end. They are working so hard and getting so little credit.”

 

But there was another death in December, also the direct result of Democrat inaction on border security, that should be a rallying point for all Americans.

 

The day after Christmas, Newman, California, police officer Ronil Singh, himself a legal immigrant from Fiji, was murdered by an illegal immigrant. Arrested for that murder was Gustavo Arriaga, a Mexican national with reported ties to the violent Surenos gang and previous arrests that should have resulted in his deportation.

 

Tragically, California’s incomprehensible “sanctuary” restrictions prevented his arrest from being reported to immigration officials. In other words, Democrats opened the door for Officer Singh’s murderer to enter our country, and Democrat policies prevented him from being rightly deported. Seven other illegal immigrants have been arrested in connection with Singh’s murder. (A week earlier, another illegal immigrant in California murdered two people in a crime spree.)

 

Singh’s brother Reggie expressed his family’s grief and his gratitude for the apprehension of the assailant: “I’d like to thank you from the bottom of my heart. … I wish I could thank all of the law-enforcement agencies, Homeland Security in San Francisco, everyone.”

 

Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson, whose agency led the investigation into Officer Singh’s murder, issued this condemnation of the California laws that allowed for this cold-blooded murder: “While we absolutely need to stay focused on Officer Singh’s service and sacrifice, we can’t ignore the fact that this could’ve been prevented. … This is a criminal illegal alien with prior criminal activity that should have been reported to ICE. We were prohibited — law enforcement was prohibited because of sanctuary laws, and that led to the [murder of Cpl.] Singh. … This is not how you protect a community.”

 

This murder by a violent illegal immigrant — and countless others before it and to come — demands an answer to the following question: “Sanctuary for whom?”

 

On these senseless murders, Don Rosenberg, whose son Drew was killed by an illegal alien, said, “We relive what happened to our loved ones. It’s just another stab in the back, particularly in California by our government that doesn’t give a damn about our families. They don’t care about us. They don’t care that their policies and their laws are killing people.”

 

Officer Singh now joins a tragic and ever-growing list of Americans murdered by illegal immigrants, including Kate Steinle, Jamiel Shaw, and Mollie Tibbetts, as well as countless others whose violent deaths apparently didn’t warrant widespread media coverage. (Two days after Singh’s murder, in nearby Knoxville, Tennessee, an illegal immigrant was arrested for the criminally negligent homicide of a 22-year-old local resident.)

 

We extend our prayers for officer Singh’s family and for all law-enforcement personnel who man that wall 24/7, providing protection for their fellow citizens.

 

Responding to the latest instances of violence and the epidemic issues of drug- and sex-trafficking of minors across our southern border, President Trump, who has already deployed military personnel to assist with border security, declared that inaction on securing our border with Mexico will result in shutting it down entirely: “We will be forced to close the Southern Border entirely if the Democrats do not give us the money to finish the Wall and also change the ridiculous immigration laws that our Country is saddled with.”

 

Trump quote on Illegal Immigration Embarrassment

 

Regarding the enormous financial cost of illegal immigration, Trump noted, “It’s a national embarrassment that an illegal immigrant can walk across the border and receive free health care and one of our Veterans that has served our country is put on a waiting list and gets no care.” Indeed it is.

 

The taxpayer burden of illegal immigration is conservatively estimated at $155 billion per year — versus a one-time expense of $7-$9 billion for Trump’s border barrier.

 

For the record, Congress has already authorized redistributing $10.6 billion in taxpayer funds to Mexico for its own southern border security.

 

But on own southern border, Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Waldman Tuesday, “Once again we have had a violent mob of migrants attempt to enter the United States illegally by attacking our agents with projectiles. The agents involved should be applauded for handling the situation with no reported injuries to the attackers.”

 

Regarding the so-called “shutdown showdown”

 

President Trump has already signed legislation approving $900 billion of $1.2 trillion for federal agency operating expenses, but the partial shutdown is having a significant impact on 800,000 people on the federal payroll.

 

The interruption of “non-essential government services” and furlough of 380,000 government employees could be viewed as “paid vacation,” as Congress has always restored back pay retroactively. However, many of those affected live on tight margins, and missing paychecks means potentially missing loan and mortgage payments and other bills. They will begin feeling the pinch in January, but taxpayers, who are footing the bill, are already bearing the shutdown burden. The same is true of the 420,000 essential government employees who remain on the job, most in security positions, who will not receive pay starting in January, but are guaranteed their back pay. Those employed by government contractors will not see their back pay restored.

 

How did we get here?

 

In short, President Trump requested $5 billion in additional border-security funding in order to begin construction of barriers along our southern border with Mexico. Before recess, in one of the last actions of the Republican-controlled House before Democrats take over this week, lawmakers passed a bill approving $5.7 billion in additional funding. But that bill was dead on arrival in the Senate, which only agreed to $1.3 billion for border security, and none of that for a border barrier.

 

When Senate Democrats denied additional border-barrier funding, including a $2.5 billion compromise offer from Vice President Mike Pence, Trump ordered the partial shutdown. For how long? According to the president, “I can’t tell you when the government is going to reopen. … [Not until] we have a wall, a fence, whatever they’d like to call it. I’ll call it whatever they want. But it’s all the same thing. It’s a barrier from people pouring into our country.”

 

Trump drew attention to the necessity of security walls by mentioning one in particular: “President and Mrs. Obama built a 10-foot Wall around their D.C. mansion/compound. I agree, totally necessary for their safety and security. The US needs slightly larger version!”

 

Dem Homes Walled Hypocrisy

 

The consummate dealmaker, Trump is looking for some concession from Democrats by using Obama’s illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) deceit as a bargaining chip, but he may not get one. Notably, he has also issued an executive order putting a hold on pay increases for all non-military government employees — another bargaining chip.

 

Meanwhile, Pelosi’s Democrats are weighing their options for a rebuttal when they return this week. They intend to pass a package of Senate spending bills to reopen the government — in an attempt to shift blame for the shutdown to Republicans.

 

Of course Trump will not approve that ploy, as noted by Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders: “Pelosi released a plan that will not re-open the government because it fails to secure the border and puts the needs of other countries above the needs of our own citizens. The Pelosi plan is a non-starter because it does not fund our homeland security or keep American families safe from human trafficking, drugs, and crime.”

 

The president has called key members of Congress to the White House today for negotiations. But the biggest obstacle to border security is, as Trump noted, this: “The Democrats don’t want to let us have strong borders, only for one reason. You know why? Because I want it.”

 

Regarding our military presence in Syria and Middle East policy

 

Whether in domestic or foreign policy matters, Trump has shown a penchant for strategic unpredictability that inevitably comes with varying degrees of perceived instability — which he happens to thrive on.

 

In 2016, Trump laid out his priorities for defeating the resurgent Islamic State, along with his policy objective in Syria: “What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria. You’re going to end up in world war three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton. You’re not fighting Syria any more, you’re fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right?” He added that dealing with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad was “secondary … to [ISIS].”

 

A week before Christmas, the White House announced President Trump’s “slow and highly coordinated pullout of U.S. troops” from Syria. According to Trump, “We have won against ISIS … Our young women, our men, they’re all coming back and they’re coming back now. We won.”

 

Trump elaborated, “American and coalition forces have had one military victory after another over the last two years against ISIS, including the retaking of both Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria. We’ve liberated more than 20,000 square miles of territory … and liberated more than 3 million civilians from ISIS’s bloodthirsty control … I made it clear from the beginning that our mission in Syria was to strip ISIS of its military strongholds; we’re not nation building. … Our presence in Syria was not open-ended, and it was never intended to be permanent. The men and women who serve are entitled to clear objectives, and the confidence that when those objectives are met they can come home and be with their families. Our objective in Syria was always to retake the territory controlled by ISIS. Now that we have done so, the nations of the region must step up and take more responsibility for their future.”

 

He concluded, “There will be a strong, deliberate, and orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria — very deliberate, very orderly — while maintaining the U.S. presence in Iraq to prevent an ISIS resurgence and to protect U.S. interests, and also to always watch very closely over any potential reformation of ISIS and also to watch over Iran.”

 

Notably, he reiterated: “I never said that I’m gonna rush out. … ISIS was all over the place when I took over. It was a total mess in Syria. We’ve almost eradicated all of them. We think all of them will be gone by the time we get out.”

 

Clearly, containing Iranian and Russian influence in Syria is important, but not the job of the U.S. military. Trump is, in effect, telling Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Israel, this is their task – that we will provide weapons and aid, but not boots on the ground. The intended net effect of this policy is to strengthen the alliances between Arabs and Jews in the region, who all have an interest in preventing the expansion of Iran’s Islamist influence.

 

Predictably, criticism of Trump’s decision came in droves from both sides of the aisle. Perhaps the most controversial of the president’s assertions was “We won,” leaving many to ask what, exactly, did we win? Amidst the flood of opinion still pouring in from critics and supporters alike, what follows are the most valid pros and cons of the Syria departure.

 

 

Orderly Withdrawal of U.S. Forces

 

Supporting the departure:

 

  1. Troops in Syria, an Obama-era decision, were never congressionally authorized, so the departure is a win for the Constitution. National Review analysts Andrew McCarthy and David French, who otherwise have a difference of opinion on the Syria withdrawal, both agree that the Iraq/Afghanistan Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) did not extend to Syria. French notes, “President Obama should have gone to Congress and sought the necessary authorization to respond.” Likewise, McCarthy declared: “[If] you want to fight that enemy in an elective war, the Constitution demands that the people give their consent through their representatives in Congress.”

 

  1. We’ll continue to monitor Syria and deny it as a safe haven for terrorism, according to President Trump. One of the foremost critics of the decision to leave Syria was initially Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). However, Graham reversed course after meeting with the president, stating: “[I] feel a lot better about where we’re headed in Syria.” He noted that Trump remains stalwart in his commitment to preventing Syria from being a safe haven for terrorist cells, saying, “He promised to destroy ISIS. He’s going to keep that promise. We’re not there yet, but as I said today, we’re inside the 10-yard line and the president understands the need to finish the job.”

 

  1. To Be Determined? If Trump has taught us anything over the last two years, it’s that there’s always a bigger plan in play than what he and the ardently anti-Trump media reveal. Time and again, we’ve seen his decisions turn out better than expected. So we’re going to leave this last “pro” space open — there’s something else at play here that has yet to become clear, and we trust that it’s in our nation’s best interest. Again, Trump is playing chess while the media sees only checkers.

 

Against the departure:

 

  1. The U.S. will be less equipped to counteract its strategic enemies. The conflict in Syria is deeply complex, but of the numerous parties invested in the outcome — Syria, Iran, Russia, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Kurds, and the U.S., to name a few — our ability to influence outcomes in the region may be weakened as a result of Trump’s decision to depart. Policy analyst Colin Dueck notes: “A sudden and unexpected drawdown of U.S. forces can only reduce America’s leverage against a range of adversaries and competitors including ISIS and the Taliban.” Though we retain the ability to influence the outcome through political and economic means, we are less equipped to influence change without troops on the deck.

 

  1. Our allies will be less secure as a result, as will our myriad interests in the outcome of the conflict. Even with a reported footprint of only 2,000 troops (assuredly, some of our presence in the region is undisclosed or classified), our presence in Syria helped to assure safety and security to our regional allies by checking our enemies. As The Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick writes: “Despite their relatively small numbers, the U.S. forces in Syria have had a massive strategic impact on the power balance in the country. Deployed along the border triangle joining Syria, Iraq and Jordan, the U.S. forces in Syria have blocked Iran taking over the Iraqi-Syria border and so forging a land bridge linking Iran to the Mediterranean through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.” Now, in our absence, Israel and Jordan will have to become better equipped to prevent the flow of logistics, personnel, and ideology from Tehran to Beirut, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

 

  1. There was speculation about Defense Secretary James Mattis’s resignation before the Syrian shift, but he certainly signaled his disagreement with Trump’s decision. As David French wrote, “Our nation has lost its foremost warrior in protest [of the decision].” Although Trump will surely identify a capable defense secretary to follow in “Mad Dog’s” footsteps, his departure struck a blow to the perceived stability of our military policy. Mattis was the member of Trump’s National Security Council with the most familiarity with military policy in the Middle East, beginning with his command of Task Force 58 during Operation Enduring Freedom, the invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 Islamist attack.

 

The departure of Mattis will also have a significant impact on the morale and well-being of our men and women in uniform, who rightly held him in high regard.

 

It should be noted that Gen. Mattis also disagreed with President Trump on other important matters of policy: walking away from the Obama administration’s Paris climate agreement and tearing up its Iran nuke deal; moving our nation’s embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; engaging with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un; banning certain “transgender” individuals from U.S. military service; and using U.S. troops to defend our southern border.

 

In summary, our military analyst, Lee Crockett, concludes that Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan constitute a complex tapestry of international politics and warfare.

 

According to Crocket: “The Syria conflict is incredibly complicated, and it is a microcosm of the geopolitical conflict between Iran, China, Russia, and the West. One possible outcome could be that the unification of both parties against the pullout could result in a congressionally approved AUMF for any further involvement in Syria. But if history has taught us anything about prolonged wars (see Vietnam, 1964-1973, and Afghanistan, 2001-present) it is that simply pulling chocks and bringing the troops home has resulted in America failing to accomplish its desired ends.

 

“In 1964, we sought to prevent communism from bleeding into South Vietnam and beyond. Two administrations and three presidential terms later, our national resolve on the importance of South Vietnam faltered, and we abandoned South Vietnam to a communist takeover in 1975. We entered Afghanistan in 2001 to erode the nation’s status as a safe haven for terrorism. Two administrations and three presidential terms later in 2013, our national resolve on the importance of Afghanistan to our national security faltered, and we abandoned Afghanistan to the resurgence of the Taliban and Islamism.

 

“President Trump wisely returned to Afghanistan in force in 2017, though we returned to a nation that was not only war-torn but also being overrun again by the Islamist Taliban. In 2014, we entered Syria (unconstitutionally though it was) to counteract the Islamic State and prevent the region from harboring terrorist cells. Now that President Trump has decided to depart, have we truly accomplished our initial objective, or will the Syrian departure result in a regional failure to secure our national interests — suffering the same fate as Vietnam and Afghanistan at our allies’ expense?”

 

The criticism of Trump’s unfolding military strategy in Syria was punctuated by a surprise Christmas visit by the president and first lady to Al Asad Air Base in Iraq.

 

To the resounding cheers of military personnel, Trump asserted: “Our faith and confidence in you is absolute and total. … You are the warriors who defend our freedom. You are the patriots who ensure the flame of liberty burns forever bright. That’s who you are. … To everyone at Al Asad Air Base, and every American serving overseas, may God bless you, may God protect you, and may God always keep you safe. We love you. We support you. We salute you. We cherish you. And together, we pray for justice, goodness, and peace on Earth.”

 

On that, we can all agree. Above all the political rancor, I ask you to join us in daily prayer for God’s blessing upon our nation, especially for the protection of and provision for our uniformed Patriots and their families, and wisdom for our nation’s leaders.

 

Note: Thank you to all who supported The Patriot Fund’s 2018 Year-End Campaign — we will provide an update on Thursday. This campaign accounts for almost 50% of our annual operating revenue and sustains our publication from November to April.

 

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

__________________

Copyright © 2019 The Patriot Post.

 

The Patriot Post Mission

 

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising to ensure our advocacy is not restrained by commercial influence. Our mission and operation budgets are funded entirely by the contributions from Patriots like you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!

 

About The Patriot Post