No products in the cart.

News

THE MILITARY CAN SECURE THE BORDER AND BUILD THE WALL

Why President Trump is right to call out the troops.

Daniel Greenfield  4-04-2018


The United States has 14,000 troops in Afghanistan, 39,000 in Japan, 34,805 in Germany, 23,000 in South Korea, and around 5,200 in Iraq. Our military protects the borders of countless nations.

Except our own.

In 1919, we had 18,500 soldiers on the border. “Twice a day every foot of the border line is patrolled by cavalrymen and infantrymen,” the New York Times noted.

A hundred years later, President Trump’s proposal to use the military to secure the border is controversial even though Marines fighting drug cartels have come under fire from drug smugglers.

El Salvadoran migration has inflicted 207 murderers on this country. The migrant caravan threatening to invade this country includes migrants from El Salvador. Some of them may be MS-13 members. The Pueblo Sin Fronteras caravan of 1,000 migrants is the product of an alliance between international leftists and migrant invaders. Their goal is the invasion, colonization and occupation of America.

And the only ones defending us against them are the members of an outnumbered border patrol, threatened by both drug cartels on the other side of the border and sanctuary states in this country.

That’s why President Trump is mobilizing the troops to do the job that the Democrats won’t do.

“Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military,” President Trump said.

Some of the same politicians who oppose withdrawing our forces from Syria also oppose sending troops to secure the border. But which should be a higher priority?

If an enemy army were invading South Korea, our soldiers would swing into action. But the United States has already been invaded. The invaders have occupied and seized control of state governments, including California, while declaring that their rebel cities will defy Federal immigration law.

They mean to do the same thing to the entire country. Their DREAM is the end of America.

From fighting Indian raids to the banditry of Pancho Villa, the military has always secured the border against invasions out of Mexico. The military was our defense against the “Plan of San Diego” terror waged by Mexican racists who vowed to seize control of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Colorado, liberate the “proletariat” and execute all “North American over sixteen years of age.”

And yes, the military can even “build the wall”.

Joint Task Force North’s military engineers have already built 62 miles of road, and border fence construction. There’s no reason why its anti-terrorist and drug smuggling prevention mission can’t be expanded to include securing the border with a wall and other impassable physical barriers.

Presidents have taken action against urgent illegal migrant threats before.

“Let me just tell you that Dwight Eisenhower, good president, great president, people liked him. ‘I like Ike,’ right?” Donald Trump said during a primary debate. “Moved 1.5 million illegal immigrants out of this country, moved them just beyond the border. They came back. Moved them again beyond the border, they came back. Didn’t like it. Moved them way south. They never came back.”

Operation Wetback was fantastically effective in clearing illegal aliens out of California and Texas.

Under General Joseph Swing, who had done everything from hunting Pancho Villa in Mexico to going up against the Japanese in the Philippines, the INS caught, detained and deported over a million illegals. Wetback had been based on the Operation Cloud Burst plan, which would have used a presidential proclamation to authorize the use of military force if the Army had not been tied down in Korea.

Some commentators have claimed that the Posse Comitatus Act would prevent the use of any military forces other than the National Guard on the border. But securing the border against foreign invaders (as opposed to domestic law enforcement directed against citizens) has always been a military matter.

Furthermore the military is already authorized to operate in areas where drug smuggling occurs.

Stopping illegal migrants does not subject “citizens to the exercise of military power”. If the military does not supplement ICE, but directly secures the border, there would be no Posse Comitatus issue.

But the law also permits the use of military force to “prevent disruption of Federal functions”.

Sanctuary states like California have disrupted the functioning of immigration law and have even passed laws prohibiting citizens from cooperating with Federal authorities. 10 U.S.C. 332, “authorizes use of the militia and Armed Forces to enforce Federal law when unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States renders ordinary enforcement means unworkable.”

The unlawful obstruction of immigration law by sanctuary cities and states has made ordinary enforcement unworkable. The rebellion against the authority of the United States must end.

10 U.S.C. 333 further, “authorizes use of the militia and Armed Forces when domestic violence or conspiracy hinders execution of State or Federal law, and a State cannot or will not protect the constitutional rights of the citizens.” That’s the current state of affairs in California and elsewhere.

Californians are being robbed, raped and murdered by illegal aliens because their government not only refuses to protect their constitutional rights, but criminalizes cooperation with immigration authorities.

 


Read more at FRONTPAGEMAG

 

 

0

nancy.larned


6 comments

  1. “10 U.S.C. 333 further, “authorizes use of the militia and Armed Forces when domestic violence or conspiracy hinders execution of State or Federal law, and a State cannot or will not protect the constitutional rights of the citizens.” That’s the current state of affairs in California and elsewhere.”

    That is a statute, the US Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of this land. The US Constitution says that it is the Militia, NOT the military, that is to be used to stop invasions, but let’s NOT stand for our LEGITIMATE government, instead lets support MORE UNLAWFUL military actions.

    Without the Congress declaring war, there is NOT one person who serves within our government who has any LAWFUL authority to call up Americans to die, be maimed, etc. There is a very good reason for that. Know why? So that the military cannot gain great power, because HISTORY shows that they ALWAYS take over their own country, are used AGAINST their own nation. Justify it however you want, but it is still NOT LAWFUL, and is an ACTION AGAINST the American people (dumbed down or not), and against our LEGITIMATE government, against our nation. Go flippin read it for yourself, your Oath bound to that document, you know, to SUPPORT AND DEFEND IT, not the military, not those who serve within our government.

    Go on, go read it for yourself, show me where I missed that the military, that the UN, that anyone EXCEPT for those who serve within our Congress has any LAWFUL authority to call up Americans to fight. It is NOT there.

    The ILLEGAL INVADERS are NOT immigrants, they did not apply to become a citizen, nor are they keeping our laws, which would LAWFULLY deny them citizenship. That is an invasion, and it is NOT the military who has any LAWFUL authority there. That does not mean that treason happen in our past, and that domestic enemies did not in the past do these things, they did, and much more.

    Oh and by the way, until those who serve within the US Congress declares war, it is action against our nation if any who serve within the US military follow orders to go to foreign nations and fight. That is NOT allowed. Isn’t it time that Oath keepers start giving some classes on the US Constitution, because many Oath takers do NOT read it, or understand it at all. Here are some of our framers, etc comments.

    Fro some TRAITORS
    “We are going to have a war on terror which you can never win, and so you can always keep taking people’s liberties away. The media is going to convince everybody that the war on terror is real. The ultimate goal is to get everybody in the world chipped with an RFID chip, and have all money be on the chips, and if anyone wants to protest what we do, we turn off the chip.” Nicholas Rockefeller to producer Aaron Russo – eleven months before the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks

    Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberger meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992: “”Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”

    Eric H. May, a former U.S. Army intelligence and public affairs officer: “The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out. As I’ll detail below, this is exactly how government perpetrators in the US and UK handled the 9/11 and 7/7 ‘terror’ attacks, which were in reality government attacks blamed on ‘terrorists.’”

    From our past, the people who created our nation, our government and they do KNOW what they created.

    This is why the Militia is REQUIRED to be trained as the Congress requires the military to train.

    Hamilton argued in The Federalist 29 that an “army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

    Benjamin Franklin, before the Constitutional Convention, (June 2, 1787): “… as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed: the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the Princes, or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure. There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh, get first all the peoples money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever …” and “It would be thought a hard Government that should tax its People one tenth Part of their Time…”

    The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

    ‘Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”’

    Notice that the Framers placed the presidential Oath of Office after the beginning clauses which set forth the organization of the executive department, and before the ending clauses that specify the contours of the President’s assigned power. The President is required to take the oath after he assumes the office but before he can lawfully execute it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.
    Both the state and the federal governments get their powers from the people.

    But there is an important rule of constitutional law called the canon of antisuperfluity (or canon against surplusage), which despite its cumbersome name, means simply that every single word of the Constitution, or lesser laws, should be given legal effect unless their context clearly shows they have no meaning.

    Treason – Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States provides:
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    There are three elements are necessary for an offense to constitute treason:
    — an obligation of allegiance to the legal order,
    — intent,
    — and then action to violate that obligation.

    Willi Münzenberg, a propagandist for the Communist Party of Germany, about the move of the Frankfurt School to the Columbia University in the United States about 1933: “We will make America stink. Only then, after we have corrupted all its values and made life base, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

    Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas: “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”

    James Madison: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

    John Quincy Adams: “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.”

    George Washington: “It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. “

    Thomas Paine: “Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence.”

    Henry Clay: “Far better is it for ourselves, for Hungary, and for the cause of liberty, that … avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our lamp burning brightly on the western shore, as a light to all nations, than to hazard its utter extinction among the ruins of fallen or falling republics in Europe.”

    John Quincy Adams: “Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled there will America’s hearts, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher of the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

    James Madison: “The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature … the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”

    George Washington: “The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.”

    James Madison: “In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

    James Madison: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

    You are WRONG, unless you are not standing for your nation, nor for our legitimate government, nor for the US Constitution, or planning on keeping your Oath to SUPPORT AND DEFEND the US Constitution and instead changed it to something like “support and defend the Military and Defense Corporations, add banking to that list also.

    1. You talk a lot about treason as President Trump is. But did you stand up say anything when obama sent arms to isis in Syria? Or how about arms to cartel in Mexico? Or any of probably 50 acts of treason committed by him or his administration? I’m sick of libtards like you that finds some educational information and pick and choose small segments out of it to twist true meanings with nothing but BS and false flags. The national guard in each state is part of the trained militias! Y’all digits keep pushing for a civil war will regret if you live to see the end of it. Just saying, cause if President Trump wants my broke down one legged ass on the border to defend it? I’d be there ready shoot grasshoppers out to 600 yards if asked.

      1. Bubba,

        You obviously have not been paying attention to Cal’s comments for very long. You call Cal a Libtard…… how off target can you get? Yes, Cal was here criticizing Obama, (probably before you were here). I suggest you do a little research before you lash out at someone. Of course, it is possible you are just a troll.

        Shorty Dawkins
        Website Editor

  2. RE: California, Gov Brown and his administration does NOT even keep the Calif Constitution. He thinks if he can remove Calif he will then become King. Is there a better one who meets the definition of Traitor more closely?

  3. “The United States has 14,000 troops in Afghanistan, 39,000 in Japan, 34,805 in Germany, 23,000 in South Korea, and around 5,200 in Iraq. Our military protects the borders of countless nations.”

    “Except our own.”

    No, we have the Coast Guard, National Guard, Navy, Air Force and every day citizens protecting our borders. Adding some troops to thwart an invasion of who knows who and where they came from is simply prudent. Try bring a boat load of whoever into the US at Blaine Wa, or across the Great Lakes, or from Nova Scotia. The Coast Guard is all over it…people see…people get on their cell phones and radios.

    Now a group is marching from Mexico to invade the US is somehow different? Or some snowflakes from Canada armed with ice picks? It’s an invasion, whether it be boat people, Russian missiles, Chinese baby factories in San Francisco or jihads. Geeze, it’s your home. PROTECT IT

Leave a Reply