Posted on

Exclusive — Ret. Gen. Robert Spalding: China’s Goal Is to ‘Bankrupt’ and ‘Distract’ U.S. with ‘Endless’ Middle East Wars

“They want us to bankrupt ourselves, that’s the goal,” said Ret. Gen. Robert Spalding, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, of China’s plan to usurp America’s global position as the leading superpower, offering his analysis in a Friday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Rebecca Mansour and special guest host Rick Manning.

Prior to the Trump administration, assessed Spalding, America had not effectively realigned its global strategy towards addressing geopolitical threats from an ascendant China.

“Despite the fact that the National Security Strategy said we have entered an era of great power competition, again, we just haven’t oriented ourselves to it,” said Spalding. “In addition to the regional competition you have between Iran — which is both a Persian-Arab and a Shiite-Sunni competition — you have a global competition between the U.S. and China.”

LISTEN:

Spalding continued, “In each of the regions … we have regional combatant commanders. In Europe you have the Russians who are causing problems for the European commander. In the Middle East you have Iran who is causing problems for the Central Command commander. In the Indo-Pacific, you have the North Koreans who are causing problems for the Pacific Command commander.”

China, stated Spalding, is the primary common denominator unifying the aformentioned regional threats to America’s global security interests.

“Each of these commanders are vying for resources in dealing with these regional challenges,” explained Spalding. “The problem is that each one of these regional problems is linked to the main problem, which is China. Now, the interesting thing we had in the competition in the Cold War is that Soviet Union wasn’t really an economic competitor. It didn’t have a strong economy. The Chinese do. They’re the number two economy in the world. So they’re using this big economy and this wide global net to support each of these challenges to the United States.”

China wages economic warfare against the U.S. by supporting — and enriching itself off of — America’s competitors in Asia and the Middle East.

“Since we’re in economic competition, part of that competition by the Chinese is to drain the coffers of the United States — so keep defense spending high — by keeping it pinned down in the Middle East, in Europe, and in Asia,” determined Spalding.

Spalding called for more responsibility-sharing and decentralization of military and security preparations with America’s allies and partners against the aforementioned potential threats.

“In order to actually break out of this, you have to step back and take an approach that relies on regional partners,” Spalding said. “So in the Middle East, that’d be the Saudis and a lot of their Arab allies, and in Asia it’d have to be the South Koreans and the Japanese.”

Spalding went on, saying, “In each of these regions, the partners there have to step up, and then we have to basically save our strength. We have to reinvest in the country. We have to grow our economy. We haven’t invested in infrastructure, STEM education or research and development in 30 years. All those things are being taken away by these endless wars that we’re fighting.”

Spalding drew on Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 warning of a growing “military industrial complex” driving American policies towards its own ends.

“What we have to do is basically take a page out of Eisenhower’s book, where he said, ‘Beware the military industrial complex; the undue influence of them,’” advised Spalding. “And then focus on deterrence. Don’t spend all your money on weapons and focus on growing your economy. So things that Eisenhower did like the national highway system. In the space race we educated all our scientists on federal grants and our R&D budget in the 60s was 2 percent. All those things lead to enormous economic growth, and we haven’t spent on any of those things in the last 30 years.”

Military capacity cannot be separated from economic capacity, noted Spalding.

“The challenge is that we have this enormous budget expenditure on defense, and we’re not actually building — or rebuilding, in the case of infrastructure — the things that actually grow the economy,” declared Spalding.

Spalding recalled his time as a national security adviser in the Trump administration.

“When I got to the White House, one of the biggest contentions I heard was, ‘Economic security and national security have no relation whatsoever,’ and what I tried to impart on my colleagues was, ‘If you don’t have a strong economy, it doesn’t matter, because you’re not going to be able to pay for the things you need to secure yourself,’” shared Spalding.

Spalding added, “Now we’ve got an even bigger challenge because not only have we not invested in the things that actually grow the economy, like infrastructure, STEM education, and research and development, we’ve actually divested of most of our industrial base.”

China’s control of international logistics — particularly global shipping infrastructure — threatens American national security, explained Spalding.

“Today, when you talk about the defense industrial base in the United States, when China entered the WTO, we closed 78,000 factories,” recalled Spalding. “We put 5.4 million people out of work. We closed ship-building facilities. We closed so much of our manufacturing capability that today we’re heavily reliant on the Chinese to provide the things we need to fight.”

Spalding continued, “Not only that, [the Chinese] have managed to — in buying all these global ports and buying most of the global shipping — control all the logistics. So think about that $800 billion [defense] budget we spend, and then all the money we’re spending to move and ship personnel and supplies all over the world, and you realize that the Chinese are making enormous sums out of what we do on a day-to-day basis. This is what they’ve built.”

Spalding explained China’s procurement of influence via financial relationship with America’s academia, businesses, entertainment and news media companies, non-profits and think tanks, and politicians.

“What the Chinese have done — they’ve studied us, they’ve studied the competition we had with the Soviet Union — they realized that if we ever became focused on their activities, then that would be tough for them because they relied on our openness in order to go after us,” stated Spalding. “So they were essentially slowly eroding our personal freedoms through their economic and financial interaction with the country.”

Spalding said, “Most of the country’s elites have essentially aligned themselves — corporate interests, academia, politics, law firms, think tanks — with the Chinese Communist Party because of financial interests, and the Chinese knew that if they could continue to pursue that — and if we stayed distracted in the Middle East or in Europe or in Asia with North Korea — that they could continue to slowly erode our competitive edge.”

“In essence, they want us to spend as much money as we can on defense, because that is not their area where they want to compete with us,” assessed Spalding. “They want us to bankrupt ourselves. That’s the goal.”

President Donald Trump, said Spalding, had reversed the status quo of America’s approach towards China set by his presidential predecessors.

“Until 2017, when the president basically said, ‘Enough is enough,’ that’s what we were doing,” Spalding remarked. “The only challenge I think that we have going forward is that we have to realize that the defense budget is actually taking away from other things that we need to invest in that would make us more competitive in a long-term economic competition with China that we find ourselves in.”

“They use the profits they make off [their dealings with America] to help the Iranians, to help the North Koreans, to help the Russians, both in a technological sense [and] economic sense,” concluded Spalding of China’s geopolitical strategy, describing Trump’s “decoupling” of America from dependence on Chinese exports and logistic as a means to reinforce America’s global positioning. “Essentially, they’re aiding and abetting these countries that we’re trying to put sanctions on, while at the same time turning around and helping them. Whether or not they’re directly involved in the Iranians placing mines on tankers in the Persian Gulf, they’re complicit in that they’re enabling the Iranians to have the resources that enable them to do these things.”

Breitbart News Tonight broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot channel 125 weeknights from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern or 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific.

Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter @rkraychik.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

Eleven 2020 Democrats Back Health Care for Illegal Immigrants

Most of the prominent 2020 Democrat presidential candidates said that illegal immigrants should have access to health care either under Medicare for All, a public option, or other government health programs.

According to a New York Times survey, eleven 2020 Democrat presidential candidates backed healthcare for illegal immigrants either under Medicare for All or a public option, while eight Democrats either did not answer the question or did not provide a clear answer.

Here are the 2020 Democrats that backed health care for illegal immigrants:

  • Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) said, “Undocumented immigrants should have the option of purchasing health insurance on the exchange.”
  • Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said:
    • Access to quality, affordable health care is a human right. We need to make our health care system more effective and efficient, and we must pass comprehensive immigration reform that creates a pathway to citizenship for those already living in the United States.
  • South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg said, “Undocumented immigrants should be able to buy coverage through the public option.”
  • Julian Castro said yes, explaining:
    • Undocumented immigrants pay taxes and are contributing members of our communities. I believe they should be eligible for government health care support and put on a pathway to citizenship. I look forward to putting forward a health care plan that addresses the health care gap for undocumented families.
  • Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) said yes, explaining, “I support the process outlined in the Medicare for All bill, which ensures universal coverage.”
  • Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) said yes, explaining:

    • They would be allowed to buy into my public option. Under current law, hospitals in the U.S. cannot refuse to treat patients who need care. Therefore, our system already pays for health care for undocumented immigrants — usually through emergency rooms, which are the most expensive form of care.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) campaign said yes, explaining, “Medicare for All means just that: all. Bernie’s plan would provide coverage to all U.S. residents, regardless of immigration status.”
  • Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) said yes, explaining, “It is in society’s interest to have everyone be as healthy as possible, and that’s achieved through access to affordable health care for everyone.”
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said yes, explaining that “Health care is a basic human right.”
  • Marianne Williamson said yes.
  • Businessman Andrew Yang said yes, explaining, “I believe in a pathway to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants. Anyone who applied for that pathway would be eligible to buy into the Medicare for All system.”

Here are the 2020 Democrats that did not back health care for illegal immigrants or did not answer the question:

Many 2020 Democrats’ embrace of giving health care to illegal immigrants raises the question over whether it will only increase America’s illegal immigration problem.

As Breitbart News’ Joel Pollak noted in October, “You can’t have universal health care and open borders.”

“The same people who say we should have “Medicare for All” also want to allow as many immigrants into the country as possible — legal or illegal,” Pollak explained. “That would swiftly bankrupt and destroy whatever health care the government managed to provide, leaving Americans with nothing.”

Further, 2008 and 2012 presidential candidate and former Congressman Ron Paul contended that America’s current welfare system encourages more illegal immigration.

To solve the problem, Paul contended that America should make it harder for illegal immigrants to access American welfare. Paul said that to fix illegal immigration there should not be “a penny in welfare for immigrants. It’s really that simple.”

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

18 Much Better Questions Than the New York Times Asked the Democratic Candidates

The New York Times recently asked 21 of the Democratic candidates running for president 18 questions, hitting topics ranging from immigration and climate change to their favorite comfort foods and most recent embarrassing moments.

The Washington Free Beacon came up with 18 much better questions to ask the massive field. Here they are.

  • "In an ideal world, would anyone not own a handgun?"
  • "Would your focus be on building off the impressive Obama drone program or developing more MOABs?"
  • "If you could waterboard any billionaire, who would it be?"
  • "Do you think Che Guevara went to heaven?"
  • "Which is worse: accepting opposition research from a foreign adversary, or the Holocaust?"
  • "You’ve privately referred to Elizabeth Warren as Pocahontas, haven’t you?"
  • "Why is Eric Swalwell?"
  • "Would you bake a cake for Alex Jones?"
  • "How disgusted were you when Donald Trump told the Russian president he would offer him more flexibility after his re-election?"
  • "If you were stuck on a desert island with a mermaid for sexual companionship, would you choose upper half fish/bottom half woman, or upper half woman/bottom half fish?"
  • "Where did Joe Biden touch you?"
  • "If elected, would you seek justice and pursue federal charges against the Nigerian brothers who brutally attacked Jussie Smollett?"
  • "Scenario: Iran develops a nuclear weapon. How will you punish Israel?"
  • "MFK: Charlie Kirk, Sean Hannity, Seb Gorka."
  • "Abortion is controversial. How would you go about making it ‘cool’ again?"
  • "What Cabinet position will you offer Alyssa Milano?"
  • "President Trump has obviously made America great again. Why do you want to be a jerk and reverse that?"
  • "If Star Trek: Beyond established that the Beastie Boys exist in the reboot timeline, what should we make of the fact that their song ‘Intergalactic’ has the lyric ‘Like a pinch on the neck from Mr. Spock’? Do you think that lyrics are the same, and the Beastie Boys of that universe were very prescient? Or in that universe, did they never write ‘Intergalactic’? Or perhaps in that universe they swapped the lyric out with something else?"

The post 18 Much Better Questions Than the New York Times Asked the Democratic Candidates appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

Posted on

ANALYSIS: Joe Biden Advisers Hate Their Boss

Former Vice President Joe Biden, the current frontrunner to win the Democratic party’s presidential nomination in 2020, is under attack this week after touting his close working relationship with two segregationist senators in the 1970s.

Biden’s primary opponents are piling on, while some of his former colleagues in Congress are defending him, which is more than can be said about some of his own campaign advisers. A bizarre dynamic appears to exist between Biden and these advisers, who seem all too willing to throw their boss under the bus when controversy strikes.

CNN reports that Biden advisers warned the candidate not cite James Eastland, a former Senator from Mississippi who repeatedly referred to black Americans as an "inferior race," when discussing his ability to work with people who don’t share his views. A person close to Biden told CNN the former veep needed to find a "new, less problematic example."

Politico also spoke to a campaign source who said the issue had become "a point of contention" between Biden and his staff, who appear eager to wash their hands of the situation. "There’s only so much we can do. This is his decision," the source said.

It’s not the first time Biden staffers have confronted the candidate on a hot-button issue. The Atlantic reports that campaign advisers previously lobbied Biden to rescind his support of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortions. They were ultimately successful, but Biden was not easily persuaded to change his position:

Joe Biden’s aides knew that the 2020 front-runner was going to get ripped apart over his support of the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion procedures. They were frustrated that the former vice president wouldn’t change his stance, and that he wasn’t initially receptive to their concerns. Now that Biden has come out against Hyde, his aides are trying to prevent him from being labeled a flip-flopper.

One also gets the sense that Biden advisers are routinely annoyed with their boss’s shenanigans. Former example, senior adviser Symone Sanders, who worked for Bernie Sanders in 2016 and donated to Pete Buttigieg’s campaign before joining Team Biden, said she "cringed" when Biden made light of his aggressive touching scandal by claiming he had "permission to hug" a union president at a campaign event. Sanders "didn’t think the joke was funny," but she’ll presumably have to get used to it, because her 76-year-old boss does not seem to be very willing to change his ways.

The post ANALYSIS: Joe Biden Advisers Hate Their Boss appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

Posted on

Nancy Pelosi to Donald Trump: Thanks for Halting a Few Deportations, Now Give Us a Giant Amnesty

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to President Donald Trump’s decision to delay the deportations of a few hundred recent illegal migrants by asking for a nationwide amnesty for millions of migrants living in the United States.

“Mr. President, delay is welcome,” she tweeted, adding, “Time is needed for comprehensive immigration reform.”

In recent weeks, Democrats have been stepping up their calls for “comprehensive immigration reform,” usually by praising the 2013 “Gang of Eight” amnesty and cheap-labor bill. Democrat’s use of “comprehensive immigration reform” is shorthand for a political deal that would promise better border security for Americans in exchange for an immediate nationwide amnesty that would provide Democrats at least 10 million new voters in a decade.

On June 11, for example, Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar touted the 2013 bill to Kevin McAleenan, the acting secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, saying, “Do you think that comprehensive immigration reform that we passed in 2013 in the Senate that was supported by President [Barack] Obama and blocked by the Republican leadership in the House, do you think that would have helped to prevent from happening with all the funding that was there for the border and also having a much more orderly process for legal immigration?”

In recent years, Democrats have adopted an increasingly aggressive pro-migration agenda, despite the myriad economic, civic, and political harm to ordinary Americans. Before Trump’s announcement of a delay to the repatriation of illegal migrants, for example, Pelosi issued a statement that characterized the enforcement of judges’ deportation orders on a few hundred recent migrants as terrorism and a “brutal action.” Pelosi said:

Tomorrow is Sunday, and as many people of faith attend religious services, the President has ordered heartless raids.  It is my hope that before Sunday, leaders of the faith-based community and other organizations that respect the dignity and worth of people will call upon the President to stop this brutal action which will tear families apart and inject terror into our communities.

Families belong together.  These families are hard-working members of our communities and our country.  The President’s action makes no distinction between a status violation and committing a serious crime.

Democrats hope to win this decisive “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” political goal by using business groups to lobby the GOP. In any amnesty deal, business groups would gain tens of millions of new workers, consumers, and renters, so suppressing wages, boosting housing prices, and spiking profits.

For example, the 2013 “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill would have provided voting cards to all illegals in the United States and doubled the annual inflow of legal immigrants to 2 million. That annual inflow would have import one new legal immigrant for every two Americans born each year.

The 2013 amnesty would also have allowed companies to hire an unlimited number of foreign graduates for the white-collar professional jobs which are sought by the 800,000 Americans who graduate with skilled degrees each year. The flood of foreign workers would have been delivered by giving greencards to foreigners who get masters degrees from American universities.

Overall, the 2013 Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill would have suppressed wages earned by ordinary Americans while boosting Wall Street stocks by flooding the labor market with lower-skilled immigrants, said a June 2013 report by the Congressional Budget Office,

“Because the bill would increase the rate of growth of the labor force, average wages would be held down in the first decade after enactment by a reduction in the ratio of capital to labor, which would make workers less productive,” said the report, titled, “The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.”

The 2013 bill was blocked by grassroots GOP opposition, which included the 2014 shock defeat of the House GOP’s second-ranking leader, Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor.

In contrast, Trump’s proposed immigration reform bills would fix many border security problems, and also would shrink or stabilize the inflow of new migrants, so boosting wages for Americans.

 

Immigration by the Numbers

Each year, roughly four million young Americans join the workforce after graduating from high school or university.

But the federal government then imports about 1.1 million legal immigrants and refreshes a resident population of roughly 1.5 million white-collar visa workers — including approximately one million H-1B workers — and approximately 500,000 blue-collar visa workers.

The government also prints out more than one million work permits for foreigners, tolerates about eight million illegal workers, and does not punish companies for employing the hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants who sneak across the border or overstay their legal visas each year.

This policy of inflating the labor supply boosts economic growth for investors because it ensures that employers do not have to compete for American workers by offering higher wages and better working conditions.

Flooding the market with cheap, foreign, white-collar graduates and blue-collar labor also shifts enormous wealth from young employees towards older investors, even as it also widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, and hurts children’s schools and college educations. It also pushes Americans away from high-tech careers and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions. The labor policy also moves business investment and wealth from the Heartland to the coastal cities, explodes rents and housing costs, shrivels real estate values in the Midwest, and rewards investors for creating low-tech, labor-intensive workplaces.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

Multiple fingers pointing at alleged leaker of plans for ICE raids today

The chronic problem of sabotage by bureaucrats hostile to the outsider president shaking up the Deep State will never be solved until unmasking and punishment become the order of the day.  That’s why it is so heartening that with unusual swiftness, accusations are pointing to the alleged identity of a leaker who successfully delayed implementation of a key Trump policy initiative, the planned ICE raids on illegal alien scofflaws who have defied court orders for theior deportation.

This exercise will – if the allegations are sustained by evidence – help establish a norm of exposing the rat finks that could discourage future saboteurs.

Leaks to multiple media outlets, first reported by the Washington Post, exposed plans for ICE raids on illegal aliens who have gone through the appeals process and ignored court orders for their deportation. As a result, following strong Democrat protests, implementation of the plan has been delayed by two weeks.

Anna Giaritelli of the Washington Examiner reports on the evidence leading to accusations against  acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan as the orchestrator of a leak campaign intended to stymie the policy of the elected leader of the executive branch, a campaign that has succeeded for at least two weeks:

Kevin McAleenan (official photo)

… all five officials who spoke with theWashington Examiner confirmed McAleenan’s decision to go rogue and stymie the operation was what prompted the White House to call off the 10-city operation. (snip)

The sources said only a small number of people in the White House, ICE, and DHS were even aware of the plan’s details, including which cities, the date and time, and who would be targeted.

Two officials said the acting secretary, who was promoted internally in April, had fought for months during closed-door discussions with White House officials, the former acting ICE Director Ronald Vitiello, and the new acting ICE Director Mark Morgan against the plan, which they noted was similar to one the Obama administration carried out in 2015.

“I know he has not approved of this operation for months,” one person familiar with those private conversations said during a phone call Saturday night. “The president wouldn’t leak that. ICE wouldn’t leak that. There’s only a few people involved in these discussions … The only one who could have shared the details of those operations were Kevin.”

“That’s our belief,” a second official said when asked if McAleenan was behind the leak. “The secretary was not supportive from day one.”

The first official said McAleenan may have leaked it so that he could “be the martyr” in the face of anticipated blowback in the future.

A third official claimed McAleenan “cares more about what liberals and ‘Never Trumpers’ in Congress and the media think of him the achieving the express mission of his department.”

One former official, now a Fox News contributor and President Trump’s announced candidate for “border czar,” actualy went on TV yesterday (on Fox News, natch), strongly implying McAleenan was the scoundrel. As Sundance notes:

… Tom Homan [has said there were discussions, and he wants to support the president, but he would only take the position if certain “structural changes” within the internal DHS system were made.  In essence, Homan appeared to be saying he’d only take the job if chain-of-authority was changed, and all the hurdles to doing the job were removed.

[Saturday], Mr. Homan seemed to clearly identify Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan as the person working against the interests of the President; leaking information to impede the immigration policy of President Trump; and likely the reason why Homan would only consider entering back into the administration if the process was changed to allow him to work around a corrupt Acting DHS Secretary, McAleenan.

Suffice to day, after this interview Tom Homan and Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan will likely never work together. It would appear if President Trump wants Homan as border czar, he’s going to have to fire McAleenan…. or change something.

The chronic problem of sabotage by bureaucrats hostile to the outsider president shaking up the Deep State will never be solved until unmasking and punishment become the order of the day.  That’s why it is so heartening that with unusual swiftness, accusations are pointing to the alleged identity of a leaker who successfully delayed implementation of a key Trump policy initiative, the planned ICE raids on illegal alien scofflaws who have defied court orders for theior deportation.

This exercise will – if the allegations are sustained by evidence – help establish a norm of exposing the rat finks that could discourage future saboteurs.

Leaks to multiple media outlets, first reported by the Washington Post, exposed plans for ICE raids on illegal aliens who have gone through the appeals process and ignored court orders for their deportation. As a result, following strong Democrat protests, implementation of the plan has been delayed by two weeks.

Anna Giaritelli of the Washington Examiner reports on the evidence leading to accusations against  acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan as the orchestrator of a leak campaign intended to stymie the policy of the elected leader of the executive branch, a campaign that has succeeded for at least two weeks:

Kevin McAleenan (official photo)

… all five officials who spoke with theWashington Examiner confirmed McAleenan’s decision to go rogue and stymie the operation was what prompted the White House to call off the 10-city operation. (snip)

The sources said only a small number of people in the White House, ICE, and DHS were even aware of the plan’s details, including which cities, the date and time, and who would be targeted.

Two officials said the acting secretary, who was promoted internally in April, had fought for months during closed-door discussions with White House officials, the former acting ICE Director Ronald Vitiello, and the new acting ICE Director Mark Morgan against the plan, which they noted was similar to one the Obama administration carried out in 2015.

“I know he has not approved of this operation for months,” one person familiar with those private conversations said during a phone call Saturday night. “The president wouldn’t leak that. ICE wouldn’t leak that. There’s only a few people involved in these discussions … The only one who could have shared the details of those operations were Kevin.”

“That’s our belief,” a second official said when asked if McAleenan was behind the leak. “The secretary was not supportive from day one.”

The first official said McAleenan may have leaked it so that he could “be the martyr” in the face of anticipated blowback in the future.

A third official claimed McAleenan “cares more about what liberals and ‘Never Trumpers’ in Congress and the media think of him the achieving the express mission of his department.”

One former official, now a Fox News contributor and President Trump’s announced candidate for “border czar,” actualy went on TV yesterday (on Fox News, natch), strongly implying McAleenan was the scoundrel. As Sundance notes:

… Tom Homan [has said there were discussions, and he wants to support the president, but he would only take the position if certain “structural changes” within the internal DHS system were made.  In essence, Homan appeared to be saying he’d only take the job if chain-of-authority was changed, and all the hurdles to doing the job were removed.

[Saturday], Mr. Homan seemed to clearly identify Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan as the person working against the interests of the President; leaking information to impede the immigration policy of President Trump; and likely the reason why Homan would only consider entering back into the administration if the process was changed to allow him to work around a corrupt Acting DHS Secretary, McAleenan.

Suffice to day, after this interview Tom Homan and Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan will likely never work together. It would appear if President Trump wants Homan as border czar, he’s going to have to fire McAleenan…. or change something.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

Don’t Submit to Iran’s Extortion

With each new day, it seems Iran is in the headlines for another act of belligerence. On Thursday, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps shot down an American surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz. The incident came one week after the Trump administration blamed Iran for attacking two oil tankers—one Japanese, the other Norwegian—with mines in the Gulf of Oman. On Wednesday, an unidentified militia fired a rocket at a compound in southern Iraq used by ExxonMobil and other international oil firms. The incident was the fourth time in less than a week that rockets have been fired at facilities where Americans are stationed in Iraq, and the eighth rocket attack on American-linked facilities this year. While it is unclear who launched the most recent assault, experts have suspected that an Iranian-backed militia is responsible. There is certainly good reason to suspect Iran. The strike came two days after rockets were fired at Camp Taji in Iraq, north of Baghdad, a facility where American soldiers are present and which Iranian proxies attacked on May 1. The United States also believes that Iran or its proxies were behind an unsuccessful rocket attack against the U.S. embassy in the Green Zone in Baghdad on May 19. Beyond Iraq, Iran’s atomic agency announced Monday that Tehran will exceed the limit that the nuclear deal places on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by next Thursday, and also threatened to blow past the level to which the deal allows Iran to enrich uranium. And these are just some of the recent incidents involving, or believed to involve, Iran!

On the surface, these acts of aggression seem disparate. Attacks near the Strait of Hormuz, suspected rocket attacks in Iraq by proxy, illicit nuclear activity—how can all of this chaos be connected? But these incidents comprise a coherent Iranian effort to coerce the West into stopping, or opposing, the Trump administration’s policy of exerting "maximum pressure" on the Islamic Republic. Sure, the intended victims are Western leaders and countries, not shop owners, and, yes, the objectives go beyond simply obtaining money, but this campaign is, fundamentally, a form of extortion similar to the mafia—give me what I want, or else I will make you. The seemingly disparate events of recent weeks should be understood as part of a single, broader effort. This way, one can maintain clarity and avoid getting too sucked into the day-to-day craziness of the news of the moment.

For Iran, the idea is to scare the West—perhaps through nuclear threats or attacks on international shipping—into yielding. In this case, yielding means lifting or opposing American sanctions, but it can also mean returning to the nuclear deal or, perhaps, returning to negotiations in which Iran has greater leverage because the West blinked first, fearing the prospect of war. The term "West" is important here because Iran does not only want to spook President Trump and his principals, though the mullahs certainly want to do that. But Iran’s extortion also targets other Western countries, especially those in Europe, which are hellbent on remaining in the nuclear deal. Iran hopes to break the Western alliance and sees the Europeans’ determination to avoid conflict at nearly all costs as a weakness to exploit.

Iran also sees American analysts, journalists, and commentators, bolstered by like-minded allies in Congress, warning hysterically after every provocation that war is on the horizon. These voices, led by former officials in the Obama administration, have made clear they want the United States to return to the nuclear deal, to set the country back on the road toward rapprochement with Tehran. But returning to the nuclear deal, or perhaps to negotiations for a new deal out of fear of conflict, would be nothing less than submitting to Iran’s extortion, a form of irredeemable appeasement that would only embolden Iran to continue its aggression. Why would Iranian leaders stop what is working well? Iran clearly thinks America is a paper tiger; otherwise it would not be so belligerent. The only way to stop this spiral is to show that the United States will not yield. Specific Iranian acts may require specific American responses, but, overall, the most important point is that the United States must continue to exert maximum pressure on Tehran. Reversing course can only have a deleterious effect and further embolden the mullahs. Yet Iranian leaders hear the reverberations of Ben Rhodes’s echo chamber, a network of experts and journalists who praise the nuclear deal and vilify those who oppose it, and see prime targets for their extortion. They see Trump as someone who may yield on maximum pressure, but they know a Democrat elected president in 2020 will yield.

In this game of international extortion, however, the extortionist is not the one with the power. Rather, it’s the target that has all the money and the much bigger guns. Iran should keep this in mind and remember that, when America flexes its muscles, the earth shakes. Iran must be made to see that it cannot extort the United States and benefit from its current method of escalation, and that it can only help itself through negotiations. That means continuing to sanction the hell out of the Islamic Republic and weaken Iranian power, all the while strengthening America’s bargaining position for future talks. Iran will view anything else as a form of submission and continue to terrorize, unafraid of the consequences.

The post Don’t Submit to Iran’s Extortion appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

Posted on

Trump’s ICE raid deportation gambit a trap that Dems have fallen into

Once again, as is his wont, President Trump has maneuvered his opponents into a losing position on an issue of high priority to him. His original plan for nationwide ICE raids on scofflaws who already and their due process and who are ignoring court ordered deportation was a trap for Democrats, as Silvio Canto, Jr earlier explained on these pages:    

So ICE will pick up people who choose to disobey a court order?

The Democrats, who choose to, will now have to defend people in the country who don’t obey court orders.  I wonder how that’s going to play with the people in their districts who have to obey court order?

Also, these arrests will take place in “sanctuary cities.”  Are the Democrats going to criticize federal agents arresting people violating the law?

It’s a good move in defense of the rule of law.  It’s a brilliant move in continuing to define the Democrats as pro–illegal immigration, in support of sanctuary cities, and calling out ICE agents doing their jobs

Mickey Kaus summed up the untenable position into which Trump has put the Democrats:

 

 

But a saboteur leaked the plans and as a result of phone calls from Nancy Pelosi among others, President Trump announced a two-week delay – in order to allow for negotiations with the Democrats over changes in the law that he has long pushed for that could solve the problem of purported “families” qualifying for early release into the interior of the United States.

 

 

Clarice Feldman has pointed out that Trump holds more cards than Pelosi and has placed her and her party in a no-win situation:

By giving the Dems one more chance, if they fail to seize it, the President can point out the lack of equity in those being deported and emphasize what is a losing issue for the Dems per every honest survey I’ve seen.
If they fold, their base will be furious, OTOH.

If there is no deal, Democrats lose. There is no meaningful constituency for ignoring lawful court orders. Trump can drive home the absurdity of demanding the abandonment of lawful court orders as the gateway to anarchy as few others could. Thus, there is no pressure on him to cave in and offer what Pelosi and the Dems want: some form of amnesty. Instead, he can demand an end to the automatic release of purported “families” after 21 days in detention, a required by a court order. Legislation ending this situation could take “15 minutes” as he has repeated stated. Once renting a child (or subjecting your own child to the ordeal of a trip to the border from Central America) no longer guarantees release into the interior, the wave of “families” requesting amnesty will ebb.

Photocredit: Gage Skidmore

Once again, as is his wont, President Trump has maneuvered his opponents into a losing position on an issue of high priority to him. His original plan for nationwide ICE raids on scofflaws who already and their due process and who are ignoring court ordered deportation was a trap for Democrats, as Silvio Canto, Jr earlier explained on these pages:    

So ICE will pick up people who choose to disobey a court order?

The Democrats, who choose to, will now have to defend people in the country who don’t obey court orders.  I wonder how that’s going to play with the people in their districts who have to obey court order?

Also, these arrests will take place in “sanctuary cities.”  Are the Democrats going to criticize federal agents arresting people violating the law?

It’s a good move in defense of the rule of law.  It’s a brilliant move in continuing to define the Democrats as pro–illegal immigration, in support of sanctuary cities, and calling out ICE agents doing their jobs

Mickey Kaus summed up the untenable position into which Trump has put the Democrats:

 

 

But a saboteur leaked the plans and as a result of phone calls from Nancy Pelosi among others, President Trump announced a two-week delay – in order to allow for negotiations with the Democrats over changes in the law that he has long pushed for that could solve the problem of purported “families” qualifying for early release into the interior of the United States.

 

 

Clarice Feldman has pointed out that Trump holds more cards than Pelosi and has placed her and her party in a no-win situation:

By giving the Dems one more chance, if they fail to seize it, the President can point out the lack of equity in those being deported and emphasize what is a losing issue for the Dems per every honest survey I’ve seen.
If they fold, their base will be furious, OTOH.

If there is no deal, Democrats lose. There is no meaningful constituency for ignoring lawful court orders. Trump can drive home the absurdity of demanding the abandonment of lawful court orders as the gateway to anarchy as few others could. Thus, there is no pressure on him to cave in and offer what Pelosi and the Dems want: some form of amnesty. Instead, he can demand an end to the automatic release of purported “families” after 21 days in detention, a required by a court order. Legislation ending this situation could take “15 minutes” as he has repeated stated. Once renting a child (or subjecting your own child to the ordeal of a trip to the border from Central America) no longer guarantees release into the interior, the wave of “families” requesting amnesty will ebb.

Photocredit: Gage Skidmore

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Gives Illegal Aliens Tips on How to Evade ICE Raids

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) tweeted out a few tips on Saturday to illegal aliens looking to evade sweeps conducted by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) officers.

“Warning: The Trump admin is expected to begin ICE raids across the country TOMORROW, targeting people for round up,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote in the Saturday tweet.

The self-described Democratic socialist then linked to tweets from Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES) and United We Dream— both organizations which posted the locations of the suspected ICE raids.

“NOW is the time for us to come together: – Check in w/ your neighbors – Share “Know Your Rights” info – If you see ICE, report to @UNITEDWEDREAM 1-844-363-1423,” the post continued.

The freshman Democrat continued her series of tweets Saturday, claiming that the Trump administration is running “concentration camps” on the southern border where children do not get “toothpaste or soap.”

Donald Trump Jr. quickly refuted her “concentration camp” claim, sending Ocasio-Cortez a tweet with messages from Holocaust survivors.

Although Ocasio-Cortez and other Democrats have strongly condemned the Trump administration for going after people who stay in the country illegally, their rhetoric did not match up to the reality of Trump’s plan on border enforcement.

Trump announced later on Saturday that he would be delaying the administration’s effort to deport more illegal aliens until both political parties can work out a bipartisan solution to solve the problems at the southern border.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

Warren Comes Out For ‘Gay Reparations’

On Thursday, presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) came out in favor of legislation that has been equated to “gay reparations.” Under the Refund Equality Act, same-sex couples would be able to amend their past taxes, readjusting with jointly-filed tax returns and accepting refunds from the IRS.

“The federal government forced legally married same-sex couples in Massachusetts to file as individuals and pay more in taxes for almost a decade,” Warren said in a statement, according to NBC News. “We need to call out that discrimination and to make it right — Congress should pass the Refund Equality Act immediately.”

“It wasn’t until marriage equality became law that gay & lesbian couples could jointly file tax returns—so they paid more in taxes,” the Democratic presidential candidate posted to Twitter on Sunday. “Our government owes them more than $50M for the years our discriminatory tax code left them out. We must right these wrongs.”

Warren proposed similar legislation in July of 2017, according to Mic, with such a bill that would “refund married same-sex couples an estimated $67 million that they unfairly paid prior to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) being overturned,” the outlet noted. “Though co-sponsored by 36 members of Congress, the act was stalled, and therefore had to be reintroduced this year.”

In February, Warren came out in favor of reparations for black Americans “economically affected” by slavery, Reuters reported. That same month, she co-sponsored Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s patently insane Green New Deal resolution, which would cost up to $93 trillion over 10-years, according to the American Action Forum, Bloomberg News reported. And in June, the Warren’s campaign released a climate change plan: “a $2 trillion package that commits the federal government to spend $150 billion a year over the next decade on low-carbon technology, increases energy research funding tenfold and funds a $100 billion Green Marshall Plan to aid the poorer countries projected to suffer the worst as global temperatures rise,” reported HuffPost.

And there’s more. Earlier this month, the far-left Democrat outlined her plan to “cancel” student loan debt for some 42 million Americans. “The ambitious student loan forgiveness plan would cancel student loan debt for more than 95% of borrowers, and would entirely cancel student loan debt for more than 75% of Americans with student loan debt,” Forbes reported.

Plus, as reported by CNBC, Warren wants to “eliminate tuition and fees at all two-year and four-year public universities through a federal partnership with states to ‘split the costs of tuition and fees and ensure that states maintain their current levels of funding on need-based financial aid and academic instruction.’”

How exactly how will pay for all these initiatives? Tax the “ultra-rich,” of course.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml