Deep State -- Enemy of The People

Deep State Hates America First Policy

10/27/2019 - Jeff Crouere Townhall.com

After the longest war in the history of our country, it is time for our troops to return home. In 2001, the United States responded to the horrific terrorist attacks of 9/11 by sending our military to Afghanistan on a mission to destroy Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.  We were successful in destroying their terrorist camps, killing and capturing Al-Qaeda leaders, and forcing Bin Laden out of the country.

Amazingly, our military is still in Afghanistan, although the Taliban control over half of the country. Of course, President Trump and his supporters want to bring these troops home, but he is facing enormous resistance within the government, including the Defense Department.  

During the war in Afghanistan, the administration of President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It was believed that he harbored weapons of mass destruction; however, none were ever discovered. Eventually, Hussein was captured and executed, and, fortunately, Bin Laden was also killed in Pakistan in 2011 after a daring Navy Seal Team 6 mission.  

After many twists and turns in Iraq, the terrorist group ISIS was largely destroyed, the country was stabilized, and most of our military forces departed. Today, the United States maintains 5,000 troops in the country.

While some military presence in the region is worthwhile to monitor terrorist strongholds, it does not have the same type of importance for our economy. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, this region of the world was incredibly important to our economy. Today, while it is still critical to Europe and other areas of the world, it is not as vital to the United States. Fortunately, our country does not “need” their oil, we are energy independent for the first time in many decades.

This independence should give our country ample reason to bring many of our troops home. After 18 years of fighting and spending trillions of our American tax dollars in the region, we are still engaged in the “war on terror.” The results have been mixed, with not only a strong Taliban remaining in Afghanistan, but also a situation in Iraq which is very complicated.  While Iraq is more peaceful, terrorist activity has not been eliminated. Looming over the region is the destabilizing influence of Iran, the world’s largest supporter of terrorist activity.

When the Arab Spring movement started in 2010, governments in the region fell. For example, Libya transitioned from a dictatorship to total chaos, more terrorism, a breakdown of the country and an environment which led to the attack against our consulate in Benghazi.

In Syria, an even more chaotic situation developed as a brutal civil war erupted. The country has been torn apart, as refugees have flooded Europe and other areas of the world. Today, Syria remains fragmented and a magnet for terrorist activity.

The United States sent approximately 1,000 troops to Syria, presumably to fight ISIS and other terrorist groups. However, what is our national security interest in Syria? In fact, we should not be involved in an internal battle in Syria as some of these groups have been warring for centuries.

The United States will not be able to end such longstanding conflicts, so our troops should not be stationed in the middle of these battles. Therefore, President Trump was correct to order our military to leave the northern Syrian territory near the Turkish border. These troops may have been killed when Turkey invaded Syria to root out Kurdish fighters operating in the region.

Today, the President deserves tremendous credit for orchestrating a “permanent cease-fire” between the Kurds and the Turks in the region. In return, we are lifting the sanctions on Turkey that were imposed after their invasion of Syria. While some troops will remain to protect Syrian oil fields from ISIS, this mission is in line with our goal to prevent the terrorists from using these resources to build their organization.

With the cease fire and the protection of the oil fields, the President’s policies in the region have been vindicated. It is tragic that so many members of Congress voted to support a resolution condemning the President’s Syrian policy. Only 60 GOP members, mostly affiliated with the Freedom Caucus, did not vote for the resolution.

Sadly, many of the establishment politicians in both parties support never ending wars. Most of these political swamp dwellers hated the message of Donald Trump in the 2016 campaign.

With his recent actions, the President is fulfilling another campaign promise. This important pledge was to put “America First” and bring our troops home. It is what the American people supported, in that election, and it is outrageous the so many in Congress, the media and the Deep State are trying to negate the 2016 results and the wishes of the electorate. 

Jeff Crouere is a native New Orleanian and his award winning program, “Ringside Politics,” airs locally at 7:30 p.m. Fridays and at 10:00 p.m. Sundays on PBS affiliate WLAE-TV, Channel 32, and from 7-11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990-AM & www.Wgso.com. He is a political columnist, the author of America's Last Chance and provides regular commentaries on the Jeff Crouere YouTube channel and on www.JeffCrouere.com. For more information, email him at jeff@jeffcrouere.com

Political Corruption Behind Democrat Secret Closed Doors

The State Department's War on Trump

10/23/2019 - Betsy McCaughey Townhall.com

House Democrats are grilling a stream of disgruntled career diplomats in a basement hearing room of the Capitol. The hearings are supposed to be secret, but -- no surprise -- Democrats leak snippets of the testimony daily. They're hoping it will add up to a case for impeaching President Donald Trump.

So far, all the testimony actually proves is that these State Department diplomats think they -- not President Trump -- ought to be running the nation's foreign policy.

Never mind executive privilege or impeachment. The most pressing constitutional issue at hand is who decides the nation's foreign policy: the president or the permanent bureaucracy.

House Democrats are accusing Trump of offering Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a quid pro quo: dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden in exchange for nearly $400 million in aid. Trump's July 25 phone call with Zelensky is the subject of the hearings, but these witnesses have no firsthand knowledge of the call.

Instead, they're whimpering about being sidelined by the Trump administration and objecting that top ambassadorial appointments are going to Trump's friends instead of to them. They're seething with disdain for the president.

For example, a deputy assistant secretary named George Kent, who testified on Oct. 15, complained he was cut out of important decisions. Boohoo. Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., leaked Kent's testimony, saying "here is a senior state department official responsible for six countries" being ignored, while he watches Trump's appointees "undermining 28 years of U.S. policy."

William Taylor, acting Ukrainian ambassador who testified Tuesday, seethed with indignation that Trump went "outside regular State Department channels."

Trump's chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, described what's happening: "A group of mostly career bureaucrats" refuse to accept that "elections have consequences. And foreign policy is going to change from the Obama administration to the Trump administration."

The State Department insurrection spans embassies across the globe.

On Aug. 8, Chuck Park, a 10-year foreign service officer stationed in Mexico, penned a vitriolic public resignation for The Washington Post, condemning Trump for carrying out "mass deportations," failing "dreamers" and pursuing a "toxic agenda around the world." He publicly accused the president of "naked cruelty."

Two weeks later, Bethany Milton, a pro-immigration advocate and state department official stationed in Rwanda, announced her resignation in The New York Times, scathingly labeling Trump's foreign policy "small-minded chauvinism."

Good riddance to Milton and Park. Resigning is what diplomats should do when they are fundamentally at odds with the administration's foreign policy approach. Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for bureaucrats intent on sabotaging the president. No one elected them.

Predictably, the foreign policy establishment disagrees. William J. Burns, who capped his career as deputy secretary of state for President Barack Obama, argues that State Department careerists should be in charge, not the president and his appointees.

But these career diplomats favor globalism, open borders and huge American handouts to multinational organizations and third-world nations. The public elected Trump to implement the opposite -- an America First agenda. Trump must wrest control to achieve that.

Fifty years ago, Henry Kissinger understood that the diplomatic bureaucracy was biased against President Richard Nixon's foreign policy goals. As national security adviser, Kissinger pulled control of diplomacy into the White House, inciting resentment and pushback from the State Department.

Again, in 2003, Newt Gingrich warned that State Department bureaucrats were engaging in "a deliberate and systematic effort" to undermine President George W. Bush.

It's happening again. The bureaucrats are slithering up to Capitol Hill to complain about President Trump. History reminds us what's actually going on here.

On Monday evening, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a "fact sheet" about Trump's alleged impeachable offense. It provides no damning evidence, just speculation.

On Tuesday, Taylor told the hearing that another diplomat, Gordon Sondland, had informed him there was a price for military aid. But Sondland denies that, insisting the president made it clear there was no quid pro quo.

Too bad for the impeachment-hungry Dems and their sympathetic allies from the State Department.

Disagreeing with the foreign-policy elites is not an impeachable offense. In fact, millions of Americans are cheering Trump on.

Democrat Immigration Policy -- Rediculous, Irresponsible, Bizarre

Democrats' 'Immigrants First' Policy

10/16/2019 - Betsy McCaughey Townhall.com

President Donald Trump's key immigration rule change, to discourage immigrants from relying on public health programs, food stamps, housing assistance and other welfare, got derailed on Friday by three federal judges. Their decisions, blocking Trump's rule from going into effect, are wins for Democrats and immigration lobbyists. America's poor are the losers. Our country needs to take care of its own needy first.

Trump's proposed rule would make it harder for immigrants who use welfare to qualify for green cards and permanent residence, and it would give preference to immigrants who fend for themselves. The rule would also require visa applicants to show they won't use welfare if they're let in the country. Manhattan federal Judge George Daniels blasted Trump's proposed rule as an "exclusion in search of a justification," implying it was a racist ploy to keep out foreigners.

Judge Daniels has his facts wrong. There are already over 300,000 families in New York languishing on Housing Authority waitlists and over 4 million people nationwide waiting for public housing or housing vouchers. Some suffer in squalor on the street. Welcoming more people into this country who can't keep a roof over their head without public assistance is insanity.

Public opinion is on the president's side, according to a Harvard/Harris poll. Sixty percent of voters agree that immigrants who are likely to rely heavily on welfare instead of supporting themselves should be denied permanent residence. That's what Trump's rule boils down to.

Judge Daniels mistakenly claims there's "absolutely no support in the history of U.S. immigration law" for it. Daniels needs a refresher course. In 1882, as immigration soared, Congress voted to exclude "any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge." That law is still on the books. In 1999, President Bill Clinton redefined "public charge" to include only those receiving cash welfare payments, not health care, food stamps or housing help -- a distinction without a difference, as these giveaways use taxpayers' cash.

Clinton's rule contradicts American values, not Trump's.

University of California President Janet Napolitano slammed Trump's rule for discouraging foreign students from using food stamps and housing assistance. Napolitano says the rule makes it harder for "the best and brightest" from other countries to study here. Shouldn't taxpayers' dollars be reserved for our own best and brightest?

National Academy of Sciences research shows that the average first-generation immigrant costs state and local government $1,600 per year, including public education and safety net programs, minus taxes paid. Newcomers who don't use safety net programs cost less, benefiting taxpayers. Yet New York Attorney General Letitia James took the lead challenging Trump's rule. It makes you wonder whom she's serving -- definitely not taxpayers.

Fortunately, Friday's decisions almost certainly will be reversed on appeal. Meanwhile, Trump has announced another immigration rule -- this one to correct an outrage that gives immigrants a better deal on health insurance than U.S. citizens get.

The Affordable Care Act allows legal newcomers to enroll in ObamaCare on arrival -- no waiting. If they're poor, they get a free ride, including Uncle Sam picking up their copays and deductibles. Even immigrants over age 65 get this deal -- an invitation to bring over ailing Grandma.

No such cushy deal for Americans. In 14 states, 2 million who don't qualify for Medicaid because they earn too much also don't qualify for ObamaCare because they earn too little. Because they're American, they're caught in the middle and get nothing -- no insurance. If they were immigrants, they could enroll in ObamaCare. The rules for immigrants are more lenient.

Here's another outrage: Some 2.5 million middle-class people dropped ObamaCare because they couldn't afford it. While they remain uninsured, their tax dollars are buying plans for noncitizens.

As global migration soars, nearly every developed country has adopted rules requiring immigrants to be self-sufficient. Denmark, Germany and Austria bar them from using welfare. Finland and Belgium require proof of employment.

But here, Democrats oppose any limits on immigration, tarring those who disagree as "racists." That name-calling divides the nation. We need a civil debate over how to welcome migrants to keep our economy growing yet still put our own needy first.

Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York State. Contact her at betsy@betsymccaughey.com

Beat the Opposition at the Ballot Box - Wake Up America!

Time to Stand and Fight Back

10/7/2019 - Terry Paulson Townhall.com

This dirt-digging, impeachment inquiry searching for any allegation to justify their coup d'état of a duly elected president has turned up the heat in an already divided Washington. It's also making those who elected and support President Trump fighting mad.

When former Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting director Thomas Homan recently testified to a House committee, he said what has been building among many previously polite conservatives. After watching those testifying against border wall funding being given extra time to make their point, Holman wanted his time to counter their statements.

When Democratic Congresswoman Pamila Jayapal tried to cut off his comments for exceeding his allotted time, Holman continued anyway, "Children are dying, cartels are getting rich. Why am I angry? Because you haven't done anything to fix it-nothing. There is no downside in securing our borders. There is no downside in illegal immigration being decreased. There is no downside in less drugs in this country."

When Jayapal tried to stop him again, "The time of the gentleman has expired," Holman continued his protest, "I've asked you politely to go beyond my time. You let other people go beyond their time. You work for me, I'm a taxpayer. I'm a taxpayer and you work for me."

Later on Fox News, Holman expanded his position to a rallying cry: "I'm not going to let them sit there and tell lies about my President, tell lies about the men and women at the border with ICE. It was lie after lie. It's my responsibility to set the record straight because they are out-and-out lies. They are not going to shut me down and not let me respond. No, I am not going to shut up. You lied. I'm under oath. You should be under oath. Just because you have a gavel doesn't make you queen for the day. It doesn't allow you to lie to the American people."

Silent no more! Like many who voted for Trump, we're tired of the mainstream media parroting democratic talking points and fake news on social media being peddled as truth. We're tired of being told our conservative views offend them as they demand safe spaces on their college campuses. Every day, they blatantly offend all who voted for President Trump.

We're not dumb or bigots. We're not racist or fascists. We're patriotic Americans who work hard, support our communities, give time and money to charities, and vote for politicians committed to keeping America America. We're polite. We prefer dialogue over attacks, but we're tired of turning the other cheek while watching our elected President trashed, lied about, and trying to be impeached without evidence.

The Democrats have started what Rush Limbaugh has called a "cold civil war," and it's time to take a stand and fight back. As one voter said, "I would walk through broken glass to vote for Trump next November!" The silent majority is motivated.

As with Wendy's old ad, "Where's the beef?" When faced with the actual transcript of President Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian President, Representative, Adam Schiff was left with having to make up a parody of what he hoped Trump actually meant. They called an impeachment party and forgot to bring any evidence worthy of consideration. Now, they're left with frantically searching for anything to justify their miscalculation.

In fact, by taking a shot at Trump, they ended up hitting Biden. Trump defenders are fueling outrage at Vice President Joe Biden who publicly bragged about threatening to withhold funds from Ukraine if they did not fire the prosecutor, the prosecutor potentially looking into Hunter Biden? Where is their public investigation into "Quid Pro Joe" and the Democratic Senators who threatened to withhold funds unless Ukraine continued to help in the Russian collusion case against Trump? Where is the investigation into Rep. Schiff discussing a fake offer to provide non-existent compromising nude pictures of Trump?

Why do we like Trump? He doesn't take any of the Democrat lies sitting down. He fights for what he believes he was elected to do. He's making a difference instead of cowering in the face of their continuous assaults and three years of calling for his impeachment.

It's time to do everything we can to defeat every Democrat who votes to impeach. The gloves are coming off. Get every one of them out of Washington the old-fashioned way-by beating them at the ballot box. It's time we fight back as Trump is fighting back-with a passion and commitment to keep America great. Thank you for attempting to impeach our president; you've provided all the motivation we need to re-elect Trump and sweep Democrats out of House control.