Trump vs. Globalists: Why Globalists Detest a Populist President who puts Americans First
President Donald Trump has been confronted by unprecedented demonstrations not only in the United States but even in foreign countries.
President Trump’s support of Brexit and his promises to secure our border with Mexico and subject aliens seeking entry into the United States to “extreme vetting” runs contrary to the Globalists goals. Consequently they fired up the mobs even before Trump’s inauguration.
Globalists are behind the vilification of President Trump and anyone who supports effective immigration law enforcement.
Globalists abhor the notion of national sovereignty and see secure borders as impediments to their wealth and consequently are doing everything possible to create Immigration Failure — By Design.
Globalists have support “Sanctuary Cities” ignoring the nexus between terrorism, enclaves and sanctuary cities.
For decades globalists and their “front groups” such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have foisted their lies on Americans, through what I have come to refer to as the immigration con game.
News organizations have, all too often, become venues for the disbursement of propaganda.
Consider how the seven countries whose citizens are being temporary barred from entering the United States have been described in the media as “Muslim majority countries.” Yet there is nothing in Trump’s executive orders that mention Islam but rather focus on how the list of countries was compiled by the Obama administration because of their links to terrorism and the inability to vet citizens of those countries.
Obviously the Democrats have been publicly leading the charge to vilify President Trump. Trump upset their plans to coronate Hillary and were stunned by her defeat. In response Democrats tried every possible strategy to delegitimize the outcome of the election and, by extension, the Trump presidency.
However, it is impossible to ignore that many journalists and politicians have, marching lockstep with the globalists, accused Trump of not really being a Republican but of being a “Populist”
Populism has been defined as:
support for the concerns of ordinary people: it is clear that your populism identifies with the folks on the bottom of the ladder | the Finance Minister performed a commendable balancing act, combining populism with prudence.
the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people: art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new populism.
Those journalists and politicians, upset over the notion of a President of the United States being a “Populist,” must not have read the Declaration of Independence that begins with the phrase, “We the people…”
You have to wonder what the Founding Fathers and especially what Thomas Jefferson would say about all of this.
In order to block the implementation of Trump’s immigration policies crafted to protect national security and the lives of Americans, the Democratic Party went “Judge shopping” and came up with James Robart, a jurist who, the media has been quick to report, had been, in fact, appointed by President George W. Bush.
CNN provided a thumbnail sketch about James Robart: 5 things to know about judge who blocked travel ban that noted that Judge Robart sided with “Black Lives Matter” over the police in Seattle, Washington in a case last year, involving an allegation of excessive force by police.
The CNN report also noted that Judge Robert had also provided pro bono assistance to refugees.
My recent article on President Trump’s Immigration Challenge noted that the President not only has to undo the catastrophic damage done to immigration law enforcement by the Obama administration but also deal with the very structure of the Department of Homeland Security, the agency created by the Bush administration in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 to address vulnerabilities in the immigration system identified by the 9/11 Commission.
My article noted that I testified at a hearing on May 5, 2005 conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims conducted a hearing on the topic, “New ‘Dual Mission’ Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.”
Of particular interest is the statement made by the then-chairman of that subcommittee, Rep. John Hostettler who, in part said in his prepared statement:
The Homeland Security Act, enacted in November 2002, split the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, into separate immigration service and enforcement agencies, both within the Department of Homeland Security. This split had been pursued by Chairman Sensenbrenner based on testimony and evidence that the dual missions of INS had resulted in poor performance.
Separating the former INS into two separate agencies to separate the immigration benefits program from the law enforcement elements of the former INS was a strategy I had strongly advocated in my testimony for the 9/11 Commission and during my discussions with members of the Congress as well as in my testimony at several hearings. However, when the DHS was created, the immigration enforcement components of the DHS were split up and combined with other, non-immigration law enforcement agencies, thereby severely hobbling efforts at immigration law enforcement.
Consider this additional excerpt from Chairman Hostettler’s testimony:
At no time during the reorganization planning was it anticipated by the Committee that an immigration enforcement agency would share its role with other enforcement functions, such as enforcement of our customs laws. This simply results in the creation of dual or multiple missions that the act sought to avoid in the first place.
Failure to adhere to the statutory framework established by HSA has produced immigration enforcement incoherence that undermines the immigration enforcement mission central to DHS, and undermines the security of our Nation’s borders and citizens.
It is impossible to believe that this was done by accident. Clearly the Bush administration opposed securing our borders and effectively enforcing our immigration laws.
Today Democrats such as Chuck Schumer have seized every opportunity to bash Donald Trump over his immigration policies. Of course, during the Obama administration it was Schumer who called for a suspension of the admission of Syrian refugees because of concerns that it was impossible to vet these aliens, a concern raised by no less an authority than John Brennan, the Director of the CIA who had been appointed by Obama.
As the Washington website, The Hill, reported on November 17, 2015, Schumer: Refugee pause may be necessary.
What a difference a year (and and administration) can make! You have to wonder if Schumer’s own words back then, bring tears to his eyes today.
However, now that President Trump is giving Schumer what he asked for in 2015, pausing the admission of refugees who cannot be vetted, to protect Americans lives and national security, Schumer has taken to shamelessly bashing the President.
On January 27, 2017 CBS reported, Sen. Menendez Slams Border Wall, Trump’s Other Immigration Plans that included this excerpt:
Menendez called the Mexican border wall a “wall of hate.” He said further that Trump’s plan to fund it violates national agreements, and will ultimately cost American jobs.
“So this is one of the worst ideas I’ve heard in the incipiency of a new administration that only creates a major diplomatic and trade challenge with one of the most significant front door neighbors that we have in the western hemisphere,” Menendez said.
Menendez’s statements are nonsensical. The purpose of the wall is to prevent the entry of criminals, terrorists and illegal aliens who displace American and lawful immigrant workers by evading the inspections process at ports of entry.
The purpose of the wall is to prevent the flood of narcotics into the United States. Indeed, as Menendez made that statement, El Chapo” was being held in a jail in lower Manhattan. Perhaps Menendez should read the January 20, 2017 press release“Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman Loera Faces Charges in New York for Leading a Continuing Criminal Enterprise and other Drug-Related Charges” and check out the links it contains to the Detention Memo and the Indictment.
Furthermore, the wall that President Trump is determined to build would not block access to our ports of entry along the U.S./Mexican border, just make certain that all movements across that violent border take place at those ports of entry and not between those ports of entry.
The only commerce that would be blocked by that wall would involve the influx of massive quantities of drugs and illegal aliens including criminals and terrorists.
However, Menendez is a Democrat. It is clear where the Democrats stand on all of these issues.
The question that has to be raised, however, is why Republicans such as Lindsay Graham and John McCain would stand should to shoulder with Menendez and Schumer on virtually every single issue where immigration and border security are concerned.
The answer is not difficult to find- they were all members of the “Gang of Eight” or, as I prefer to refer to them, “The Eight Gangsters.”
If the Republican Party is to continue to meet the rational and reasonable demands of the citizens of the United States and maintain its majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives, it will need to purge the globalists from their ranks, who have far more in common with today’s Democrats than with the goals of the Trump administration and “We the people.”
The Globalists are betraying America and Americans.
This is not about “Left” or “Right” but about right or wrong.
Leave a ReplyWant to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!