A National Emergency and Border Security


Justin Smith explains how President Trump is using his authorized National Emergency power to keep making America great again despite of Dem Party subversion to keep America weak.

 

JRH 2/17/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

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

A National Emergency and Border Security

President Trump Counters Bad Border Deal 

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/15/2019 9:08 PM

 

“We want to have a safe country. I ran on a very simple slogan – ‘Make America Great Again.’ If you’re going to have drugs pouring across the border, if you’re going to have human traffickers pouring across the border in areas where we have no protection, in areas where we don’t have a barrier, then, [it is] very hard to make America great again.~ President Donald J. Trump, Rose Garden Speech February 15th 2019

 

President Trump simultaneously declared a national emergency for humanitarian and national security reasons along the border. In the same breath, he noted on February 15th that he would sign the omnibus bill and the bad Border Deal it contains; and in fact, he signed it shortly afterwards, acquiring authority over the $1.375 billion appropriated for the wall, while declaring his intention to spend eight billion more dollars through his authority under the national emergency declaration.

 

The President was left with very little choice from an intransigent, duplicitous Democratic Party leadership in control of the House, at the moment, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had vowed “not $1 for the wall”. He took a head on approach to avoid another partial government shutdown, however unwise a course it may be, while he diverts $6.5 billion to build portions of the wall that the Democrats have refused to authorize.

 

Americans across the board want The Wall built. These Democrats are against the American people and against U.S. Sovereignty. [Blog Editor: In November 2016, Donald Trump was elected President largely on the promise of a big beautiful wall. YET most recent polls show American disfavor for a border wall. Why? No one can give a definitive answer (unless of course you are a lying Leftist). But here is something to mull over as you hear the Left-Stream Media quote polls most Americans do not want a wall: Those same polls back in November 2016 told Americans Crooked Hillary would win the vote to become President. Those polls were wrong then and I STRONGLY suspect those polls are wrong NOW!]

 

The Republican Party got smoked and beaten badly in this deal. Who in the Hell was negotiating for them?

 

Making the declaration was a strong move for national security and to gain further momentum for the Republicans leading up to the 2020 election, since the Border Deal was a farce of a deal, that only funded 55 miles of the wall, rather than the 200 miles requested.

During his speech on Friday at the White House Rose Garden, President Trump stated: “We’re going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border, and we’re going to do it, one way or another. We have to do it. … We’re talking about an invasion of our country.”

 

Many previous presidents have declared national emergencies prior to this, including George W. Bush and Barack Obama. There were already 31 active national emergencies in the U.S., before President Trump’s declaration marked the 32nd.

 

One should also note, when Obama used his pen to counter U.S. immigration law and implement DACA, to safeguard Illegal Aliens, he eroded U.S. sovereignty, and he went against the Constitution and the express will of the American people. On the other hand, President Trump’s actions are in line with his Constitutional edict to defend and protect U.S. borders and the Constitution.

 

However, the abdication of Congress, in the face of this and many other dire problems, i.e. out-of-control spending, and its relinquishing of its own power and authority over the decades, gave all previous presidents extraordinary power to act in the face of a national emergency, through numerous laws passed by Congress. President Trump has referred to the 1976 National Emergencies Act found at 50 U.S. Code 1601-1651.

 

In light of all this, there is still no way to see this so-called compromise as a anything less than a major loss, once one views the fine print in the Border Deal, which is even worse than it first appeared. It’s the fine print that should have had Republicans turning their backs on this deal. And it’s no wonder the Democrats were in such a rush to sign, not just to avoid a shutdown.

 

Not even 24 hours had elapsed from the introduction of the 1,169 page bill to the vote. House rules require 72 hours for representatives to review a bill.

 

According to Daniel Horowitz, writing at Conservative Review, the bill limits construction to just the Rio Grande Valley sector, disallowing any concrete barriers, while section 231 of the bill prohibits construction even within this area in five locations, that are either state or federal lands. And, much worse, this bill gives veto power to local officials, who may not want the wall in their area.

 

The Rio Grande area is in dire need of significant security measures and an actual physical wall. However, it is home to some of some of the most hardcore “progressive” liberals, and giving these local Democrat satraps a veto over the wall is nothing less than a poison pill.

 

Prior to the President signing the bill, former border officials told Fox News, and several other media outlets, that expanded protections for potential sponsors of unaccompanied migrant children were “land mines” that make the bill worthy of a presidential veto.

 

The Border Deal is one massive betrayal of the American people, in what Daniel Horowitz framed as “a blatant amnesty for the world’s worst cartel smugglers. Section 224 (a) prohibits the deportation of anyone who is sponsoring an “unaccompanied” minor illegal alien; anyone who says they might sponsor an Unaccompanied Child, and anyone who lives in a household with a UAC or a household that potentially might sponsor a UAC. … “the very people paying the cartels to invade us.”

 

This invasion is driven by the intentional skewing of the UAC law, that sets forth what constitutes a true “refugee”. Central American teenagers are only supposed to be treated as refugees, if they are a victim of sex and drug trafficking or have no relatives in America, and yet, nearly each and every one of them is self-trafficked by their own extremely illegal relatives, who reside in America. Rather than saying “No Deal” or forcing much needed changes to the bill, the Republicans went ahead with this miserable fleecing of the American people, which rewards these Illegal Aliens with a de facto amnesty.

 

And from the Center for Immigration Studies, Jessica Vaughn’s interpretation was even grimmer: “We can call this the MS-13 Household Protection Act of 2019.”

 

In justifying his emergency declaration, President Trump repeatedly acknowledged and honored the presence of the Angel Moms in attendance, as he retold the stories of their children’s deaths at the hands of Illegal Aliens. Some of the Angel Moms in the Rose Garden urged the president not to sign the bipartisan bill, noting that it contained several measures that incentivized illegal immigration.

 

At one point in his speech President Trump exclaimed:

 

“We’re talking about an invasion of our country with drugs, with human traffickers, with all types of criminals and gangs. We have some of the greatest people here; I know — they’ve been with me from the beginning of my campaign, almost from the first week — the Angel Moms. Unfortunately, we have new Angel Moms.

 

One incredible woman just showed me her daughter who — we’re talking about killed — in the year of 18. I said, I haven’t seen you before. She said, ‘No, I’m new.’ I said, that’s too bad. It’s too bad. It’s so sad. Stand up, just for a second. Show how beautiful your girl was [in the picture she held]. Thank You.”

 

The President called his actions necessary given the scale of the problem along the southern border, as he responded to CNN Jim Acosta’s suggestion that he had “concocted” an emergency for political gain, whereupon the President responded: “Ask these women [Angel Moms] if there’s a national emergency.”

 

He expects to be met by numerous legal challenges, even as the ACLU sharpens its pencil. He also expects to win in the Supreme Court.

 

Under the Emergency Declaration, President Trump  will attempt to appropriate discretionary military funds to close the gap between the nearly $1.4 billion Congress appropriated for The Wall and the $5.7 billion he has long demanded. However, now the president is reaching for $8 billion, by taking $600 million from the Treasury, the Treasury forfeiture front and $2,5 billion out of the Defense Department. His staff is also looking at using drug interdiction funds and the $3.5 billion they discovered in the military construction budget, that certainly won’t conflict with the President’s constitutional mandate to defend America.

 

Declaring the emergency also puts a companion statute in motion — 10 U.S. Code 2808, that gives the president authority to create military construction projects using funds appropriated for other military projects, such as a $10 billion account approved by Congress last September, for the Army Corps of Engineers, with its military and civilian workforce of 37,000 people.

 

Once he declares an emergency, a companion statute, 10 U.S. Code 2808, says the president can create military construction projects, using funds originally intended for other military projects such as a $10-billion account that Congress approved last September. That money involves the Army Corps of Engineers, with its military and civilian workforce of 37,000 people, which is why a border wall might become a military project

 

Love him or hate him, no one can say that President Donald Trump isn’t standing up for America. He isn’t usurping any powers, not when Congress gave it to him, because they are risk-averse and want to pass the buck to him rather than accept responsibility themselves — dodging accountability and evading its Constitutional duty. Yes — Love him or hate him — President Trump is ideally suited to lead America at this pivotal moment precisely due to his ability to go where no other President would, being a warrior for the American people, whom he so obviously loves

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

BORDER WALL, NATIONAL SECURITY & USA SOVEREIGNTY!


While I was sharing the blog post “National Security Debates on the Border and Beyond,” Kelly Guthridge shared some thoughts along the same lines. It’s worthy of a share.

 

JRH 1/4/19

Please Support NCCR

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

BORDER WALL, NATIONAL SECURITY & USA SOVEREIGNTY!

 

Photo via Blog Editor found on Facebook

 

By Kelly Guthridge

January 3, 2019

Via Facebook Messenger

 

Let’s examine some basic information and ideas.

 

1) Democrats years ago supported and demanded Border SECURITY!

2) Democrats all have Walls, Fences, Gates, Heavily ARMED Guards surrounding and protecting them!

3) Donald J. Trump is Elected President of the United States of America and NOW Democrats OPPOSE a Border WALL… Only because it would occur during President Trump’s time in office!

4) Democrats and their Propaganda Machine, the MSM Fake News Media keep insisting that all of the INVADERS attacking our Republic and attempting to enter illegally are simple poor migrants that we must embrace… which is all a lie!

 

I could keep going on and on but what would be the reason after all we all know the FACTS and REALITY of this ongoing situation!

 

NOW, here’s my idea… if Democrats truly don’t believe in WALLS then let them remove all of those that surround their own personal properties… Also, perhaps there needs to be a MASSIVE MIGRATION OF HOMELESS AMERICANS that all converge upon and surround these Obstructionists Democrats Homes… and start DEMANDING immediate entry for a better future and life!

 

What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander… time to bring the REALITY OF THEIR HYPOCRISY HOME TO THE STEPS OF THEIR OWN HOMES!!!

 

 

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

 

Trump’s New 70-Point Immigration Plan Is Bad News For…


President Trump’s 70-Point plan on immigration reform pretty much hits the head of the nail on accomplishing his campaign promise. He even offers a compromise bone on DACA to the Leftist Dems if they go along with funding The Wall and strengthening border security. But let’s be clear! The only way this plan doesn’t get through Congress is will be due to RINO members joining the Dem hysterical lies.

 

JRH 10/10/17 (H/T: Freedom Outpost email alert 10/9/2017 4:09 PM)

Please Support NCCR

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

Trump’s New 70-Point Immigration Plan Is Bad News For DACA, Sanctuary Cities And Violent Gang Members

“…restore the rule of law to our immigration system, prioritize America’s safety and security, and end the lawlessness.”

 

By Jack Davis

October 9, 2017 at 7:27am

Western Journalism

 

President Donald Trump unveiled a vast overhaul of America’s immigration policies Sunday night.

 

The package would require that in exchange for any legislation to allow children of illegal immigrants to remain in the United States, Congress must approve funding a wall along the southern border, approve curbs on federal grants to sanctuary cities and fix the leaky border to stop potential gang members from crossing into the U.S.

 

Trump’s package of proposals would also give federal agents more ability to stop illegal immigrants at the border, detain them if they slip into the country and deport them faster.

 

“These findings outline reforms that must be included as part of any legislation addressing the status of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients,” Trump wrote in a letter to Congress. “Without these reforms, illegal immigration and chain migration, which severely and unfairly burden American workers and taxpayers, will continue without end.”

 

The proposals received support of many lawmakers and officials.

 

“President Trump has put forth a series of proposals that will restore the rule of law to our immigration system, prioritize America’s safety and security, and end the lawlessness. These are reasonable proposals that will build on the early success of President Trump’s leadership. This plan will work. If followed it will produce an immigration system with integrity and one in which we can take pride. Perhaps the best result will be that unlawful attempts to enter will continue their dramatic decline,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement.

 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., praised the administration for “a serious proposal” and said that “we cannot fix the DACA problem without fixing all of the issues that led to the underlying problem of illegal immigration in the first place.”

 

When Trump announced that he wanted to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allowed children of illegal immigrants to remain in the United States, he said he was open to a deal with Congress to allow the estimated 800,000 DACA participants to remain.

 

“Anything that is done addressing the status of DACA recipients needs to include these three reforms and solve these three problems,” a senior White House official told The Washington Times. “If you don’t solve these problems then you’re not going to have a secure border, you’re not going to have a lawful immigration system and you’re not going to be able to protect American workers.”

 

“We would expect Congress to include all the reforms in any package that addresses the status of the DACA recipients,” one White House aide said on the conference call with reporters. “Other views had their fair day in the democratic process.”

 

But Democrats were outraged and accused Trump of racism.

 

“The administration can’t be serious about compromise or helping the Dreamers if they begin with a list that is anathema to the Dreamers, to the immigrant community and to the vast majority of Americans,” Senate Minority Leader Church Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a joint statement Sunday evening, according to The Washington Post. “We told the President at our meeting that we were open to reasonable border security measures … but this list goes so far beyond what is reasonable. This proposal fails to represent any attempt at compromise.”

 

Others were not so restrained in their opinions of Trump.

 

“Congress should reject this warped, anti-immigrant policy wish list. The White House wants to use dreamers as bargaining chips to achieve the administration’s deportation and detention goals,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.), vice chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus

 

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., called the package of reforms “an extension of the white supremacist agenda.”

 

He said it is “fanciful thinking that you can sit down with a man who has based his presidential aspirations and has never wavered from his xenophobic positions. I never understood — I just never got it, how you go from Charlottesville and white supremacists to reaching an agreement with him.”

________________

Copyright ©2017 Liftable Media Inc. All rights reserved.

 

About Western Journalism

 

Western Journalism is a news company that drives positive cultural change by equipping readers with truth. Every day, WesternJournalism.com publishes conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters.

 

As Americans — and indeed, readers around the world — continue to lose trust in traditional newspapers and broadcast networks and their claims of objectivity and impartiality, Western Journalism is rapidly filling the gap as a trusted source of news and information. Western Journalism is staffed by an experienced team of editors, journalists and media experts who both recognize the stories that matter to everyday readers and provide a truthful and unfiltered view of current events.

 

Over 35 million unique visitors read WesternJournalism.com monthly, putting the site securely among the Top 200 most-visited websites in the United States, according to global traffic analysis by Alexa. Western Journalism continues to break new records in engagement and trust in a rapidly shifting media landscape.

 

Western Journalism is committed to its founding principles: truth, honesty, integrity and accountability. These values are demonstrated through accurate, insightful reporting of information and events happening around the world.

 

WesternJournalism.com is a property of Liftable Media Inc., a Top 100 digital publisher in the U.S., according to Quantcast.

 

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com.