One of the few points of unbounded bipartisan agreement in Washington has for decades been that U.S.-Israel security cooperation is right, good, mutually beneficial, and worth every nickel spent on it. It is well–grounded in facts and has acknowledged benefits to both sides.
However, at the J Street Conference last week, left-of-center political candidates and hostile-to-Israel speakers questioned the utility of American aid to Israel except, perhaps, as “leverage” to force Israel to meet their left-of-center and hostile-to-Israel demands. Candidates were willing to “explore” the issue. But it was left to J Street president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, to get to the heart of the conversation – Ben Ami isn’t interested in “leverage,” but in de-legitimizing the aid. “American aid is not intended to be a blank check. As Israel receives that $3.8 billion in aid, what is it being used for?”
Actually, it’s not, a secret. The United States is Israel’s ally of first choice. And Israel remains the one country the United States can rely upon to defend itself by itself and in coordination with American interests. And most of the money is then spent by Israel in the U.S.
The origins of U.S.-Israel security cooperation are in the Cold War understanding that the United States could not engage all the adversaries of all its allies and friends around the world. It was embraced warily at first — the Americans were unconvinced they would receive anything of value and the Israelis were concerned about continued freedom of action. But it worked. Israel went from being considered a net security consumer to a net security producer, meaning the United States did not have to expend resources to defend Israel. And Israel participated in making the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean regions more secure due to its presence.
The following list of Israeli assets was developed in 1979 as a “quick reference guide” to security cooperation:
<ul>
<li>A secure location in a crucial part of the world</li>
<li>A well-developed military infrastructure</li>
<li>The ability to maintain, service, and repair U.S.-origin equipment</li>
<li>An excellent deep-water port in Haifa</li>
<li>Modern air facilities</li>
<li>A position close to sea lanes and ability to project power over long distances</li>
<li>A domestic air force larger than many in Western Europe and possessing more up-to-date hardware</li>
<li>Multilingual capabilities, including facility in English, Arabic, French, Farsi, and the languages of the (former) Soviet Union</li>
<li>Combat familiarity with Soviet/Russian-style tactics and equipment</li>
<li>The ability to assist U.S. naval fleets, including common equipment</li>
<li>The ability to support American operations and to provide emergency air cover</li>
<li>A democratic political system with a strong orientation to support the United States and the NATO system</li>
</ul>
Added in 1996: Israel’s military research and development capabilities complement those of the U.S. Its intelligence services cooperate closely with ours — to our benefit. And large numbers of American troops train in Israel.
Added in 2006: The establishment of police-to-police counterterrorism training in Israel.
Nothing has ever been removed.
Not a single American serviceperson needs to be stationed in Israel. Aside from training missions, there have been American soldiers stationed in Israel since 2009, only working with the American/Israeli co-designed X-band radar system — a deployment that helps the U.S. and Israel monitor threats from the east.
Israel’s missile defense capabilities — developed and produced in conjunction with American industry — not only protect Israel from Hamas and Hezbollah missiles, but protect the United States from emerging threats from North Korea and Iran. Various branches of the U.S. military have purchased a variety of Israeli-developed systems and participated in joint development of anti-tunnel defenses, the Arrow Missile Program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Plane, THEL Laser Program, the Advanced Urban Combat Training Facility, as well as Iron Dome.
Israel has been a partner in U.S. and multi-lateral military exercises for years; interestingly, Israel and the United Arab Emirates flew together in one. Combined exercises have taken place on NATO territory, in the U.S., in Israel (where the Luftwaffe flew above Israeli territory, making a few people blink), and the Pacific Ocean. Not a single country has opted out due to Israel having opted in.
The two countries are drawn together by common values and common threats. The bipartisan support of our ally Israel has been a testament to those values, as well as to the practical recognition that the threats require cooperation in intelligence, technology, and security policy.
The volatility of the Middle East is unlikely to be constrained. The United States, desirous of removing its soldiers from the region even as it understands the risk attendant to a resurgent Russia and increasingly desperate Iran, is as much in need of capable allies now as it ever was.  It would be a shame if rampant J Street politicization of the relationship were allowed to do damage.
&nbsp;
Shoshana Bryen is senior director of <a href="https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/">The Jewish Policy Center</a>. Portions of this article appeared in the Jewish Policy Center magazine, inFOCUS Quarterly.

U.S. and Israel flags

BRYEN: U.S.-Israel Security Cooperation Is A Win-Win

Israel

Israel Defense Forces (IDF)

J Street

Military

National Security

United Arab Emirates (UAE)

The United States government has reportedly opened a national security investigation into the Chinese-owned company TikTok over concerns of how the company stores the personal data of its users and whether it is censoring politically sensitive content.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) asked U.S. intelligence officials to look into whether the social media app TikTok presented a threat to the U.S. national security.
&#8220;With over 110 million downloads in the U.S. alone, TikTok is a potential counterintelligence threat we cannot ignore,&#8221; the senators <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/24/tiktok-raises-national-security-concerns-congress-schumer-cotton-ask-federal-review/">wrote</a>. &#8220;Given these concerns, we ask that the Intelligence Community conduct an assessment of the national security risks posed by TikTok and other China-based content platforms operating in the U.S. and brief Congress on these findings.&#8221;
On Friday, Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tiktok-cfius-exclusive-idUSKBN1XB4IL">reported</a> that U.S. officials have launched a probe into &#8220;TikTok owner Beijing ByteDance Technology Co’s $1 billion acquisition of U.S. social media app Musical.ly&#8221; even though &#8220;the $1 billion acquisition was completed two years ago.&#8221;
&#8220;The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviews deals by foreign acquirers for potential national security risks, has started to review the Musical.ly deal, the sources said,&#8221; Reuters added. &#8220;TikTok did not seek clearance from CFIUS when it acquired Musical.ly, they added, which gives the U.S. security panel scope to investigate it now.&#8221;
In April, Digiday <a href="https://digiday.com/media/tiktok-publishers-comedic-clips/">reported</a> that, &#8220;according to TikTok’s pitch deck to U.S. agencies, about 60% of its monthly active users in the U.S. are between 16 and 24 years old. Also like Snapchat, users are heavily engaged with the app, spending 46 minutes per day on TikTok, on average.&#8221;
Earlier this month, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg slammed TikTok for allegedly censoring sensitive political content that Beijing deems to be offensive.
“While our services like WhatsApp are used by protesters and activists everywhere due to strong encryption and privacy protections, on TikTok, the Chinese app growing quickly around the world, mentions of these protests are censored, even in the U.S.,” Zuckerberg <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/17/facebook-ceo-zuckerberg-calls-out-tiktok-censorship-in-china.html">said</a> in regards to the Hong Kong protests. “Is that the internet we want?”
A September report from The Washington Post highlighted that while the Hong Kong protests were gaining significant traction on other social media platforms, it was not gaining traction on TikTok.
&#8220;Researchers have grown worried that the app could also prove to be one of China’s most effective weapons in the global information war, bringing Chinese-style censorship to mainstream U.S. audiences and shaping how they understand real-world events,&#8221; The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/15/tiktoks-beijing-roots-fuel-censorship-suspicion-it-builds-huge-us-audience/">reported</a>. &#8220;Compounding researchers’ concerns are TikTok’s limited public comments about the content it removes and its purported independence from censors in Beijing.&#8221;
On October 9, 2019, Sen. Marco Rubio wrote a <a href="https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/9ba023e4-2f4b-404a-a8c0-e87ea784f440/FCEFFE1F54F3899795B4E5F1F1804630.20191009-letter-to-secretary-mnuchin-re-tiktok.pdf">letter</a> to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin expressing his concerns over TikTok.
&#8220;These Chinese-owned apps are increasingly being used to censor content and silence open discussion on topics deemed sensitive by the Chinese Government and Communist Party,&#8221; Rubio wrote. &#8220;These topics include Tiananmen Square, Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other issues.&#8221;
&#8220;I therefore request the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to exercise its authority and launch a full review of the national security implications of TikTok&#8217;s acquisition of Musical.ly,&#8221; Rubio continued. &#8220;There continues to be ample and growing evidence that TikTok&#8217;s platform for Western markets, including those in the U.S., is censoring content that is not in line with the Chinese Government and Communist Party directives.&#8221;
Rubio added,  &#8220;The Chinese government&#8217;s nefarious efforts to censor information inside free societies around the world cannot be accepted and pose serious long-term challenges to the U.S. and our allies.&#8221;

TikTok

U.S. Opens National Security Investigation Into TikTok

social media

A new bipartisan piece of legislation, the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4189/text?r=4&amp;s=1">Homeland and Cyber Threat Act</a>, seeks to amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to allow U.S. citizens to sue foreign governments for injuries sustained from foreign government-sponsored cyberattacks. As explained yesterday in an op-ed in <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/467226-americans-deserve-protection-from-foreign-sponsored-hacking">The Hill</a> from the bill&#8217;s sponsors, Reps. Jack Bergman (R-MI) and Andy Kim (D-NJ), the bill &#8220;carves out a cyberattack exception to the blanket immunity of foreign governments — including foreign officials, employees, or agents — provided by FSIA with regard to money damages sought by a national of the United States for personal injury, harm to reputation, or damage to or loss of property resulting from cyberattacks.&#8221;
The congressmen point out how, under extant law and federal courts&#8217; interpretation of that law, foreign governments are generally immune from U.S. plaintiffs&#8217; legal actions. Accordingly, the Homeland and Cyber Threat Act would close this legal safe harbor and endeavor to hold hostile foreign governments accountable for their destructive actions against American citizens. The congressmen <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/467226-americans-deserve-protection-from-foreign-sponsored-hacking">argue</a> that times have sufficiently changed since the passage of the FSIA so as to make necessary such a legislative tweak:
<blockquote>
This legislation would go a long way towards providing much-needed legal protection to victims of foreign-sponsored cyberattacks. Foreign governments have been hacking into private data systems to influence politics and policy in the United States for a long time; it is time for Congress to enact a cyberattack exception to FSIA that protects the privacy and property of Americans. The bill would give victims of foreign-sponsored cyberattacks effective recourse to the courts for the first time, and it will hold foreign governments and their agents responsible for these harmful activities.
</blockquote>
As of now, the bill has <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4189/cosponsors?r=4&amp;s=1">10 cosponsors</a>: Five Democrats and five Republicans apiece. The cosponsors include some notable far-left progressives, such as Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), and some notable hard-right conservatives, such as Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL).
The FSIA was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Sovereign_Immunities_Act">passed in 1976</a>, which was well before the commercial and popular rise of the Internet.
The new bill <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4189/text?r=4&amp;s=1">lists each of the following</a> as foreign government-sponsored activities that could potentially justify a lawsuit, assuming also that a U.S. citizen has sustained &#8220;personal injury, harm to reputation, or damage to or loss of property&#8221;:
<blockquote>
(1) Unauthorized access to or access exceeding authorization to a computer located in the United States.
(2) Unauthorized access to confidential, electronic stored information located in the United States.
(3) The transmission of a program, information, code, or command to a computer located in the United States, which, as a result of such conduct, causes damage without authorization.
(4) The use, dissemination, or disclosure, without consent, of any information obtained by means of any activity described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3).
(5) The provision of material support or resources for any activity described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4), including by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state.
</blockquote>
Truly bipartisan pieces of legislation are undoubtedly rare, in today&#8217;s Congress. But much like the issue of holding Big Tech accountable, it seems that the issue of holding hostile foreign governments accountable for cyberattacks could be another issue that gains bipartisan acclaim.

Network security system

Bipartisan Bill Seeks To Hold Foreign Governments Accountable For Hacking Americans

Cyberattack

Foreign Policy

Lawsuit

As of right now, most national head-to-head polls for the 2020 presidential general election show President Donald Trump losing to his Democratic Party presidential primary rivals. This trend generally holds, regardless of whether the nominee is any of the leading top three Democratic candidates: Former Vice President <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html">Joe Biden</a>, Sen. <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_warren-6251.html">Elizabeth Warren</a> (D-MA), or Sen. <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html">Bernie Sanders</a> (I-VT).
While the Trump campaign might be tempted to rest on its laurels and sneer at the polls based upon a look back at the perceived polling debacle that was the 2016 presidential election, such a move would be just as haughty as it is myopic. As Harry Enten&#8217;s <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/">article</a> from November 4, 2016 — that would be four days before the general election — presciently pointed out, in retrospect, polling from the 2016 election cycle was not actually irreconcilable with a Trump victory. Trump obviously trailed Hillary Clinton in the polls, but his victory was actually not outside the realm of polling feasibility — or even outside the realm of polling reasonableness.
As such, the 2020 Trump re-election campaign would be wise to focus on what it can do to win over a larger share of independent, moderate, and suburban voters. In doing so, the Trump campaign would be wise to look back to a much-ballyhooed part of Karl Rove&#8217;s 2004 blueprint for George W. Bush&#8217;s re-election: Specifically, that campaign&#8217;s ingenious focus on the &#8220;<a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/security-moms-bushs-secret-election-weapon-gl6jc8cxr7j">security mom</a>.&#8221; The mythical &#8220;security mom,&#8221; at the time, was symbolized by the proverbial suburban mother who was worried about revanchist Islamist terrorism and sought to protect her home and family against those who would seek to kill us.
Although some of the specific animating issues have changed over the past 15 years, there is tremendous potential this election cycle for Trump to deploy similar messaging and reach out to a similar sect of voters.
Violent crime in America, despite overall dramatically declining since the 1990s, has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-in-defense-of-prosecutors">unfortunately spiked</a> over the past few years. Why isn&#8217;t Trump formally renouncing the <a href="https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20191004/he-was-released-early-from-prison-in-february-now-hes-wanted-for-murder-on-federal-hill">harrowing</a> First Step Act jailbreak law, the passage of which he apparently already <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/trump-reportedly-regrets-passage-jailbreak-first-step-act-gullible-conservatives-supported/">regrets</a>, and doubling down on &#8220;Willie Horton&#8221;-style anti-crime messaging?
Left-wing Democrats are campaigning harder than ever on anti-Second Amendment, gun-grabbing policy proposals. Why isn&#8217;t Trump leading Republicans on a 2020 platform of cracking down on the gun felons that <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/html/decriminalization-delusion-14037.html">light-on-crime</a> jurisdictions like California seem <a href="https://calmatters.org/gun-violence/2019/10/felons-firearms-california-federal-charges-gun-control-newsom/">hellbent on unleashing</a> upon the general public?
The global jihad — as embodied both by the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-designating-muslim-brotherhood-terrorist-josh-hammer">Muslim Brotherhood</a>, the mother&#8217;s milk of Sunni jihad, as well as more public-facing Islamist outfits like al-Qaeda and Islamic State — continues, 18 years after 9/11, to pose a threat to the U.S. homeland. Why isn&#8217;t Trump running on a platform of discussing not just the wall and border security, but also the arguably even more indispensable issue of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-border-wall-nice-interior-enforcement-nicer-josh-hammer">interior visa enforcement</a>? What about the need to radically <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-never-forget-911-we-need-rethink-how-we-josh-hammer">restructure our immigration policy</a> away from letting in largely unvetted populations of Middle Easterners?
Across the nation, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-who-will-stand-for-the-forgotten-american">neo-Confederate</a> &#8220;sanctuary&#8221; jurisdictions employ anti-<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi">Supremacy Clause</a> erroneous legal &#8220;reasoning&#8221; to defy <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiHsv7v4LXjAhWTHM0KHZKMB7gQFjAAegQIAxAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fuscode%2Ftext%2F8%2F1324&amp;usg=AOvVaw2EunpYa249SvA-oBwwFrS2">federal immigration law</a>, ignore ICE detainers on <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/another-illegal-alien-arrested-brutal-rape-notorious-sanctuary-montgomery-county/">violent criminal aliens</a>, and aid and abet the work of the transnational Mexican cartels that traffick drugs and criminals alike into the homeland. Why isn&#8217;t Trump proposing more aggressive policies to strip federal funding away from sanctuary jurisdictions and effectively message to suburban voters that the government will act to help prevent MS-13 thugs from terrorizing their neighborhoods?
There are a myriad other examples, to be sure. But to maximize its 2020 re-election chances, the Trump campaign ought to focus more intensively on appealing to moderates and suburban swing voters. In order to do so, there is no better platform than a safety and security agenda tailored to the very &#8220;security moms&#8221; that President Bush so effectively courted in 2004.

Handcuffed prisoner

HAMMER: Trump Needs To Focus On A Safety And Security Agenda For 2020

2020 Election

Al Qaeda

Crime

Democratic Party

Donald Trump

Hamas

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Jail

MS-13 Gang

President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he dismissed national security adviser John Bolton from the administration on Monday night.
&#8220;I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House,&#8221; Trump tweeted. &#8220;I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration, and therefore I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning. I thank John very much for his service. I will be naming a new National Security Advisor next week.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">&#8230;.I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning. I thank John very much for his service. I will be naming a new National Security Advisor next week.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1171452881729228802?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 10, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Bolton came out and offered a different account of what happened, tweeting: &#8220;I offered to resign last night and President Trump said, &#8216;Let&#8217;s talk about it tomorrow.'&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">I offered to resign last night and President Trump said, &#8220;Let&#8217;s talk about it tomorrow.&#8221;
— John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) <a href="https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1171455806069305346?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 10, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Bolton reportedly told Washington Post reporter Robert Costa: “Let’s be clear, I resigned, having offered to do so last night.”
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Ambassador Bolton sends me a text message just now: “Let’s be clear, I resigned, having offered to do so last night.”
— Robert Costa (@costareports) <a href="https://twitter.com/costareports/status/1171457513834696704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 10, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The Washington Post noted that key details in the president&#8217;s statement about Bolton do not add up.
&#8220;But just an hour before the announcement, the White House announced that Bolton would be appearing at a 1:30 p.m. Eastern time news conference alongside Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin,&#8221; The Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/10/something-is-fishy-about-trumps-john-bolton-announcement">reported</a>. &#8220;It seems unlikely Bolton would agree to show up after effectively being fired. If Bolton was on his way out as of Monday night, why did the White House press office not seem to know about it at 11 a.m. Tuesday morning?&#8221;
The news comes after Trump planned on meeting with the Taliban, which was ultimately canceled after Bolton and others protested, in an attempt to secure a peace deal in Afghanistan.
&#8220;The idea raised Sept. 1 during a Situation Room meeting with the president was vehemently opposed by national security adviser John Bolton, even as officials at the State Department argued it could move the parties closer to an agreement,&#8221; NBC News <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/secret-taliban-peace-talks-camp-david-floated-scrapped-within-week-n1051286">reported</a>. &#8220;Bolton had an ally in Vice President Mike Pence, who also made the case against a meeting at Camp David, a location Trump suggested.&#8221;
&#8220;Trump’s impromptu plan to invite leaders of the Afghan insurgent group to the presidential retreat at the same time as the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks set off heated deliberations last week between the members of his national security team, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo supporting the move and National Security Advisor John Bolton arguing against it,&#8221; Foreign Policy <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/09/esper-pompeo-bolton-trumps-national-security-team-splinters-over-taliban-meeting-peace-talks-details-afghanistan-pompeo-bolton-state-department-national-security-council-pentagon/">reported</a>. &#8220;The internal discussions leading up to the president’s last-minute decision to scrap the meeting this weekend shed light on the evolving dynamic among the members of Trump’s national security team since Defense Secretary Mark Esper was confirmed to the top Pentagon job in July.&#8221;
The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/us/politics/john-bolton-national-security-adviser-trump.html">added</a> the following details, &#8220;But if Mr. Trump’s original national security team was seen as restraining a mercurial new commander in chief, the president found himself sometimes restraining Mr. Bolton. Behind the scenes, he joked about Mr. Bolton’s penchant for confrontation. “If it was up to John, we’d be in four wars now,” one senior official recalled the president saying. Mr. Trump also grew disenchanted with Mr. Bolton over the failed effort to push out President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela.&#8221;

John Bolton

BREAKING: Trump Boots National Security Adviser John Bolton From White House

Trump Administration

According to sources who spoke to The Daily Wire from both inside and outside the administration, the Trump administration will not implement any policy that allows countries to import Iranian oil — thus apparently closing the door on a <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/03/trump-china-iran-oil-1396052">proposal being circulated among State Department hands</a> that would have allowed China to use an obscure legal loophole to avoid U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil imports.
Last Wednesday, Eliana Johnson of Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/03/trump-china-iran-oil-1396052">reported a very interesting scoop</a>: &#8220;The State Department is seriously considering using an Obama-era loophole to allow China to import oil from Iran,&#8221; which would &#8220;violat[e] the Trump administration’s pledge to bring Iranian oil exports to zero.&#8221; Specifically, Johnson cited &#8220;three U.S. officials&#8221; who claimed that the U.S. is considering &#8220;granting China a waiver to a 2012 law [the Iran Freedom and Counterproliferation Act] intended to kneecap the Iranian oil industry.&#8221; The proposal would have effectively allowed China to avoid paying directly for Iranian oil while nonetheless still acquiring it.
For close observers of the Trump administration&#8217;s foreign policy and national security apparatus, this might have seemed more than a little strange. Why would this administration, which famously removed the U.S. from the harrowing capitulation to fundamentalist jihadist evil that was President Barack Obama&#8217;s Iran nuclear deal and has infamous Iran hawk John Bolton as its national security advisor, undercut the thrust of its own <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2019/04/29/trump-ends-waiver-grace-period-for-irans-oil-customers/">hardline Iran oil waivers policy</a> by granting an obscure legal loophole to the U.S.&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47057/hammer-china-americas-greatest-21st-century-threat-josh-hammer">number one 21st century geopolitical threat</a>?
To be sure, Politico almost assuredly did not get the story wrong. Rather, leakers in the famously Arabist/anti-Israel State Department bureaucracy were likely candid about internal deliberations in Foggy Bottom.
But reading Johnson&#8217;s scoop, one is forced to ponder the distinct possibility that the State Department could be wildly out of line with administration officials in and around the White House national security apparatus. Sure enough, a senior Trump administration official contacted by The Daily Wire categorically ruled out implementation of any proposal that would grant the Chinese such a waiver for Iranian oil imports.
&#8220;There will be no waivers issued to any country for the import of Iranian oil, in accordance with the President’s direction,&#8221; the senior administration official stated. &#8220;Importing Iranian oil is a sanctionable activity under U.S. law. U.S. secondary sanctions will be fully enforced.&#8221;
Well.
This is what a brutal inter-agency fight looks like. Hawkish Iran hardliners in the administration are battling — quite publicly now, as of this writing&#8217;s publication — with dovish State Department mandarins.
Contacted by The Daily Wire, a U.S. official familiar with the inter-agency Trump administration battle over Iranian oil waivers put it bluntly: &#8220;The president is under enormous pressure to give Iran a face-saving off-ramp and look the other way at sanctions busting. The Europeans and their friends inside the administration are selling him the delusion that the ayatollah is ready to make a deal, if only he&#8217;ll bribe Iran with a few hundred million dollars. It hasn&#8217;t worked yet. They&#8217;re still trying.&#8221;
This will be a fascinating inter-agency fight to watch unfold. Iran hawks have a very clear rooting interest — and it is surely not with the State Department. Suffice it to say there is no world whatsoever in which China ought to be granted any waivers at all for importing Iranian oil.

HAMMER: INTER-AGENCY FIGHT: White House Closes Door On Plan To Give China ‘Get-Out-Of-Jail’ Free Card For Iran Oil

Barack Obama

Iran

Mike Pompeo

Nuclear Weapons

Politico

State Department

At this point, any fair-minded observer of our contemporary politics who does not conclude that our <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48281/hammer-trump-has-unilateral-power-stop-migrant-josh-hammer">full-on border security and migrant influx crisis</a> is anything other than the most urgent and dire national issue is, to be blunt, delusional. We are experiencing monthly border crossing/apprehension numbers <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-secretary-reveals-startling-stat-on-asylum-seekers-who-skip-hearings-disappear">not seen in decades</a>, and our political elite&#8217;s failure to properly deter, <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/deter-defend-demagnetize-10-ideas-trump-stop-illegal-mass-migration/">demagnetize</a>, and ultimately secure our beleaguered southern border ultimately serves the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46609/report-smugglers-and-cartels-profited-23-billion-josh-hammer">financial interests</a> of the <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/armys-response-incident-mexican-soldiers-send-cooks-lawyers/">paramilitary</a> transnational criminal organizations that the mainstream press generally still refers to as &#8220;Mexican drug cartels.&#8221;
Hold aside for a second the absolutely horrific recent revelation that up to 80% of women trafficked from the Central American &#8220;Northern Triangle&#8221; up through Mexico are <a href="https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/09/where-is-metoo-for-women-at-the-border/">abused and raped by the piggish cartel thugs</a> &#8212; the broader reality, as Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/government-data-shows-the-entire-family-separation-crisis-was-built-of-lies/">wrote way back in 2013</a>, is that our liberal asylum regime and mass catch-and-release status quo &#8220;successfully complete[s] the mission of the criminal conspiracy&#8221; fostered by the cartels, human smugglers, and trafficking rings. Our porous border &#8212; and all the accompanying deadly <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42908/breaking-record-fentanyl-seizure-made-border-ryan-saavedra">narcotics</a>, <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/illegal-immigrant-health-crisis-enough-reason-shut-border-migration/">infectious diseases</a>, and <a href="https://www.meforum.org/57569/trump-and-the-gop-were-hardly-the-first">Special Interest Aliens from the Middle East</a> that flood over that border daily &#8212; literally finishes the work of <a href="https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/">Hezbollah-linked</a> paramilitary rapists lurking south of the Rio Grande.
But from a broader perspective, the reality is that border security is always among the most solemn duties of the federal government. And it is important to understand why.
When the states formed the new federal government &#8212; it was not, of course, the other way around &#8212; following the 1787 constitutional convention that sweltering Philadelphia summer, the states delegated to the new government carefully delineated powers. As James Madison, in <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp">The Federalist No. 45</a>, famously phrased it: &#8220;The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.&#8221; But the totality of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei">Article I, § 8&#8217;s</a> carefully prescribed congressional powers that deal with &#8220;calling forth&#8221; and &#8220;disciplining&#8221; the militia, combined with <a href="https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-executive-power-over-foreign-affairs">&#8220;the executive power&#8221;</a> and commander-in-chief prerogative of which <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii">Article II</a> speaks, makes clear that the predominant responsibility for securing the republic against foreign foes falls in the hands of the unifying federal government that the states created. As a purely logical matter, this ought to make a great deal of intuitive sense: The government primarily responsible for defending the collective security of the entire United States must, by definition, be the government expressly established to govern on behalf of that same collective entity.
But what is border security if not a mere extension of national security? It is true that, in our federalist system of dual sovereignty, the states are quasi-sovereign actors: As Justice Antonin Scalia <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/harrowing-pronouncement-scalia-make-president-trumps-authority-secure-border/">noted</a> in his brilliant 2012 dissent in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182">Arizona v. United States</a>, an individual state&#8217;s sovereign status necessarily means that it retains an ability to secure its own borders and exclude unwanted aliens, regardless of whether the federal government also secures that individual state&#8217;s own borders. But the responsibility to secure our nation&#8217;s international borders falls, first and foremost, with the federal government. The primary responsibility to secure our ranchers against the predations of transnational paramilitary criminal organizations and human smuggler thugs falls to our federal government. The primary responsibility to preclude the smuggling in of lethal contraband, like the de facto chemical warfare that is fentanyl, falls to the federal government. The primary responsibility to thwart the cartels&#8217; &#8220;criminal conspirac[ies]&#8221; &#8212; rather than to &#8220;complete[]&#8221; them, as Judge Hanen warned &#8212; falls to the federal government. The primary responsibility to handle the nuanced underlying diplomacy and hard-nosed tactics alike that come with dealing with the venal Mexican narco-state is something that falls to the federal government.
Above all else, the primary responsibility to ensure that the United States &#8212; for which We the People that the Constitution&#8217;s Preamble references are the ultimate sovereigns &#8212; remains a distinct and sovereign nation-state falls to the federal government. And, by very definition, a country with insecure and/or undefined borders not only cannot be sovereign &#8212; it is hardly a country at all.
If we do not secure our borders &#8212; if we do not secure ourselves, more generally &#8212; then what do we have left as a nation?
The federal government is presently failing to properly counter the hitherto unprecedented Central American migrant deluge that inundates our border daily. That is nothing short of tragic, because our continuing status as a nation-state depends on rectifying that glaring deficiency. And it is the federal government&#8217;s solemn responsibility to take the lead in securing our sovereign viability as a nation-state. Let&#8217;s hope they get it right sooner rather than later.

HAMMER: The Federal Government Has NO More Important Function Than Border Security. Here’s Why.

Federal Government

Federalist

Illegal Immigration

Immigration

Southern Border

The Trump administration is planning to bring an end to a National Security Agency bulk metadata collection program first exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, an aide to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told media.
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/us/politics/nsa-phone-records-program-shut-down.html">The New York Times reports</a> that Luke Murray, an adivsor to McCarthy, told the Lawfare Podcast last week that the NSA hasn&#8217;t used the metadata collection program for more than six months, essentially proving that the program is and was unnecessary to tracking terrorist activity within the United States. The NSA and the Trump White House believe they program will wrap completely by year&#8217;s end.
The program, authorized by President George W. Bush as part of the PATRIOT ACT passed in the days following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, &#8220;permits the government to collect troves of data from phone companies with a simple court order. No actual warrant required,&#8221;<a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-nsa-stopped-collecting-bulk-phone-data-and-nothing-bad-happened"> according to the Washington Examiner</a>.
Then-NSA analyst Edward Snowden leaked details about the government&#8217;s massive metadata collection operation in 2013.
Congress reauthorized the program in 2015 with some subtle changes, but in the last year of the Obama administration, the NSA was revealed to have collected more than 151 million phone records, using 42 secret orders. In the first year of the Trump administration, the Examiner says, use of the progarm exploded, and the government collected around 543 million independent phone records, entirely without warrants.
Although the records don&#8217;t reveal much about the content of each conversation, the call &#8220;metadata&#8221; reveals things like location of the caller and recipient, length of the call, and patterns of behavior &#8212; all of which the NSA, at one time, said was necessary to help track and neutralize terrorist cells operating within the United States.
The NSA argued that Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless wiretaps and searches did not apply to non-specific metadata, which (theoretically) yielded patterns rather than instances of specific behavior, and that obtaining a warrant for each individual investigation would be tedious, expensive, and an unnecessary waste of time.
But as recently as 2018, the NSA expressed concerns that bulk metadata collection was difficult to manage and to use effectively. Data storage was unwieldy, requiring huge warehouses full of servers, and the program had not provided much in the way of useful information. As well, there were technical difficulties with the program &#8220;that led to collection of records on US persons that it didn&#8217;t have authority to collect.&#8221;
The program is due to expire in December, with the expiration of the 2015 USA FREEDOM ACT, and Murray told the Lawfare Podcast that he does not believe the adminstration will reauthorize the program.
&#8220;[T]he administration actually hasn&#8217;t been using it for the past six months because of problems with way in which that information was collected,&#8221; Murray told the hosts. &#8220;Possibly collecting on US citizens in the way that was transferred from private companies to the administration after they got FISA court approval.&#8221;
A spokesperson for Rep. McCarthy did not confirm or deny the administration&#8217;s plans, telling the NYT only that Murray &#8220;was not speaking on behalf of administration policy or what Congress intends to do on this issue.&#8221;
The NSA refused to confirm or deny the reports as well, saying that, rather, they were &#8220;carefully evaluating all aspects&#8221; of the program and would make a recommendation about it to the White House later in the year. Ultimately, the NSA told the NYT, a decision on whether to continue the program is up to the Trump administration.

NSA Ready To End Massive Data Collection Operation Exposed By Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden

National Security Agency (NSA)

On Sunday, Israeli officials <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-starts-construction-on-20-foot-high-fence-surrounding-gaza/">confirmed</a> that the Jewish state&#8217;s Defense Ministry had begun construction of a new 20-foot high steel security barrier. The Times of Israel <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-starts-construction-on-20-foot-high-fence-surrounding-gaza/">reports</a> that Israeli officials claim the new fence &#8220;will completely surround the Gaza Strip.&#8221;
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took to Twitter on Sunday morning to share the news, emphasizing both the prophylactic nature of the barrier and Israel&#8217;s continued resolve to act in Gaza to defend its sovereignty and protect its people, if need be. Netanyahu tweeted, &#8220;Over the weekend, we began building the above-ground barrier along the Gaza border. The barrier will prevent terrorists from Gaza from penetrating into our territory on the ground. If the quiet is not maintained in Gaza, we will not hesitate to act.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Over the weekend, we began building the above-ground barrier along the Gaza border. The barrier will prevent terrorists from Gaza from penetrating into our territory on the ground. If the quiet is not maintained in Gaza, we will not hesitate to act. <a href="https://t.co/vmQWT8g3ZW">pic.twitter.com/vmQWT8g3ZW</a>
&#8212; Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) <a href="https://twitter.com/netanyahu/status/1092067718990389250?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 3, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
As The Times of Israel reports, the security barrier will enclose all 40 miles of Israel&#8217;s border with the Gaza Strip, which is governed by the Sunni supremacist terror group Hamas. The security barrier, when completed, will sit directly atop Israel&#8217;s previously completed subterranean concrete wall &#8212; built to thwart Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas&#8217;s use of &#8220;terror tunnels&#8221; to infiltrate Israel and attack and/or kidnap Israeli civilians. The Times of Israel notes that Israel began construction on its initial Gaza barrier in 2016:
<blockquote>
In 2016, Israel began construction of the new barrier around the Strip, focusing first on the underground portion, following the 2014 Gaza war in which Hamas used subterranean attack tunnels to deadly effect against Israeli troops.
Over the past two years, work has persisted on the underground sensor-studded concrete wall, despite regular riots and clashes along the border and occasional attacks on the construction sites.
</blockquote>
As The Times of Israel also reports, the newly buttressed security barrier will be completed in 2019 and will cost approximately $833 million.
<blockquote>
The overall Gaza barrier project is due to be completed by the end of 2019, according to the army.
&#8220;On Thursday, we began work on the final component of the Gaza Strip border barrier project. The obstacle is unique and specially designed to protect against the threats from the Strip and to give a superior solution to preventing infiltration into Israeli territory,&#8221; said the head of the project, Brig. Gen. (res.) Eran Ofir.
The barrier project is expected to cost approximately NIS 3 billion ($833 million), with each kilometer of the underground portion of the barrier costing approximately NIS 41.5 million ($11.5 million). The above-ground fence is significantly cheaper, at just NIS 1.5 million ($416,000) per kilometer.
</blockquote>
As The Jerusalem Post <a href="https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/New-Gaza-security-barrier-in-works-to-stop-terrorist-infiltrations-579535">notes</a>, the Gaza barrier will closely mirror Israel&#8217;s preexisting barrier with Egypt&#8217;s Sinai Peninsula &#8212; a barrier which &#8220;has slashed almost completely the number of illegal African migrants arriving in Israel.&#8221; In 2010, Israel had nearly 15,000 illegal African immigrants enter via the Sinai. In 2016, there were 14 illegal migrants who entered Israel via the Sinai &#8212; and since 2016, there have been zero confirmed illegal crossings.
Israel has a robust history of successfully implementing security walls. Israel&#8217;s security barrier erected around wide swaths of Judea and Samaria, implemented after the bloody Yasser Arafat-induced Second Intifada, is generally <a href="http://www.aei.org/publication/the-places-where-walls-work/">cited</a> as slashing suicide bombings and other direct terror attacks within Israel by approximately 90%.

Walls Work: Israel Begins New Construction On Gaza Security Barrier

Palestinians

Radical Islamic Terror

Terrorism

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called President Donald Trump&#8217;s proposed border wall an &#8220;immorality&#8221; earlier this month and has refused to provide funding for such a barrier, prolonging a partial government shutdown that Trump temporarily put the kibosh on earlier this week.
So, wives of United States Border Patrol agents have formally asked Pelosi to the southern border to illustrate the need for a barrier.
&#8220;We the WIVES OF THE RGV (Rio Grande Valley) BP (Border Patrol) would like to cordially invite you to come visit McAllen, TX as President Trump did,&#8221; reads a letter from border agents&#8217; significant others, posted from Jill Demanski&#8217;s Facebook account. The letter was posted last Thursday, just before Trump paused the shutdown.
&#8220;Most of us wives will be home and available,&#8221; the letter continues, noting that they will be available and not &#8220;jetting off to Puerto Rico for a few days.&#8221; Pelosi was one of 30 Democrats to go to Puerto Rico, accompanied by 109 lobbyists, during the shutdown, <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/30-dems-in-puerto-rico-with-109-lobbyists-for-weekend-despite-shutdown">reports</a> The Washington Examiner.
&#8220;We would like to show you around! You don&#8217;t need to bring any security detail. Our husbands/boyfriends/fiances/wives/significant others are actually very good at their jobs, thank goodness!&#8221; the letter says. &#8220;And since you see no threat here, I&#8217;m sure you can just make a quick flight down here alone. Hey, Trump might even allow you to use his plane for this visit!!&#8221;
The letter from the significant others goes on to rip &#8220;weak&#8221; Pelosi for her refusal to negotiate with Trump and for &#8220;pretending&#8221; to care about federal workers:
<blockquote>
For the record, many of us have saved for these days. We&#8217;ve faced many shutdowns before. But, we also recognize a weak leader when we see one, and we realize you may take awhile to come around.
We&#8217;d also appreciate if you&#8217;d stop pretending that you care about federal workers. If you did, you would care for their safety, not just their paychecks. We can hold out awhile longer, if it means our husbands and communities are safer.
</blockquote>
The brutal letter ends with the wives offering Pelosi a pair of her own &#8220;big girl pants.&#8221;
&#8220;Also, it appears you do not own a pair of big girl pants. Do not worry, us [border patrol] wives own many pairs. In fact, that&#8217;s all we own! We&#8217;d love to give you a pair of ours, you know we&#8217;d buy you your own, but we we&#8217;re trying not to spend right now,&#8221; it says. &#8220;We look forward to seeing you soon!&#8221;
<iframe allow="encrypted-media" frameborder="0" height="282" width="500"></iframe>
On Tuesday morning, Border Patrol wife Renea Perez appeared on &#8220;Fox &amp; Friends&#8221; to echo the concerns in the letter, telling the co-hosts that a wall is &#8220;definitely needed.&#8221;
&#8220;[A wall] will allow them to do their job more efficiently and give them more time &#8211; if they are by themselves &#8211; have another agent meet them. It is definitely needed,&#8221; Perez <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/group-of-border-patrol-wives-invite-nancy-pelosi-to-visit-texas-border-town">said</a>. &#8220;We just want them to come down there on the line and actually see where the argument is all about.&#8221;
&#8220;It gets tough. The bills don&#8217;t stop. We were feeling like we were forgotten,&#8221; she added.
Read the full letter below:
<blockquote>
Dear Ms. Pelosi-
We the WIVES OF THE RGV (Rio Grande Valley) BP (Border Patrol) would like to cordially invite you to come visit McAllen, TX as President Trump did. It appears you are not busy today or any day, until Tuesday when you will return from your 4 day vacation. Since you&#8217;ve closed the House, you should come visit us!!
Most of us wives will be home and available. We will not be grocery shopping, dropping off dry cleaning, taking our cars for oil changes, throwing our children birthday parties, or even jetting off to Puerto Rico for a few days. Heck, some of us didn&#8217;t even sign our kids back up for activities b/c it appears you are unable or unwilling to negotiate. So, like I said, we&#8217;ll be here!!
We would like to show you around! You don&#8217;t need to bring any security detail. Our husbands/boyfriends/fiances/wives/significant others are actually very good at their jobs, thank goodness! And since you see no threat here, I&#8217;m sure you can just make a quick flight down here alone. Hey, Trump might even allow you to use his plane for this visit!!
When you ask Trump to open the Government, then you&#8217;ll negotiate, even though you already said you won&#8217;t secure our border&#8230;.this is kind of like when our kids want to eat dessert first, but they swear they&#8217;ll eat their broccoli after&#8230;this is kind of like that,but no notes dumb enough to play that game! 
For the record, many of us have saved for these days. We&#8217;ve faced many shutdowns before. But, we also recognize a weak leader when we see one, and we realize you may take awhile to come around.
We&#8217;d also appreciate if you&#8217;d stop pretending that you care about federal workers. If you did, you would care for their safety, not just their paychecks. We can hold out awhile longer, if it means our husbands and communities are safer.
You don&#8217;t even need to worry about those MS-13 gang members you&#8217;ll see running across the Border. Our guys and gals catch a lot of them.Like I said, they are good at their jobs!! I mean, if we had a wall we&#8217;d catch way more of them. But thanks to your laws, the ones we do catch we&#8217;ll take to our huge air conditioned building, feed them, let them clean up, offering them clothes/hats/socks, maybe play on the billiard tables, or ping pong, or watch a movie, all while they wait for our charter bus to drive them to their &#8220;family&#8221; that lives in L.A. I mean, you don&#8217;t need to worry about that&#8230;OMG I just realized&#8230;isn&#8217;t L.A. part of your state?? Wow, sorry. My bad!
Also, it appears you do not own a pair of big girl pants. Do not worry, us BP wives own many pairs. In fact, that&#8217;s all we own! We&#8217;d love to give you a pair of ours, you know we&#8217;d buy you your own, but we we&#8217;re trying not to spend right now.
We look forward to seeing you soon!
</blockquote>

Border Patrol Wives Issue Formal Proposal For Nancy Pelosi In Brutal Letter

Nancy Pelosi

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

As the debate about border security rages, and President Trump has agreed to temporarily end the shutdown, the leaders of the Democratic Party face a new challenge &#8212; agree to funding that includes a physical barrier, or stand firm in their refusal to offer any money for a border wall.
Amongst all the noise, an Obama-era border patrol chief has stepped into the fray to speak out.
Mark Morgan served two decades in the FBI before becoming Chief of the Border Patrol in 2016. Although he was dismissed from his position immediately after Trump&#8217;s inauguration, he believes in the president&#8217;s border policy.
The Daily Wire spoke with Morgan about the proposed southern border wall, its efficacy, and why some politicians are so reluctant to see it implemented.
<blockquote>
DW: Why did the Trump administration let you go?
MORGAN: That&#8217;s always the question, and it&#8217;s one that I want to walk through deliberately. Because this isn&#8217;t about me being removed, and I really don&#8217;t want that to be the story or the narrative. I don&#8217;t have anything negative to say about my removal. But here&#8217;s how it happened in a nutshell.
I was the first Chief of the United States Border Patrol that was appointed from outside of the border patrol in its history. The Border Patrol Council had some issues with that from the start, as did many of the rank and file, and I get that. They have a difficult mission and a proud culture of service to this country. I fully understand their belief that an outsider was not the right fit. Additionally, I made comments during congressional testimony about the need for immigration reform which was misinterpreted as supporting blanket amnesty. Although this was not an element I was supporting through my comments, after reflection, I can understand how my comments could be misinterpreted.
Additionally, during the 2016 campaign, the Border Patrol Council actually went out very publicly and supported then-candidate Trump.
And so when the president won the election, I was informed there were discussions with the White House administration, and told, &#8220;They wanted to go in a different direction.&#8221; So the day after the inauguration, I was removed.
DW: Is the wall (or a barrier) the best solution?
MORGAN: That&#8217;s a good question, and I think that&#8217;s another reason why I decided to break my silence, because the rhetoric is really getting twisted, and it really confuses and misinforms the American people.
The answer is, &#8220;yeah,&#8221; but there&#8217;s a comma. So yes, the wall works. It&#8217;s not needed everywhere, but it is needed in strategic locations along the southwest border. And what do we mean by the wall? The border security experts will tell you that the wall in and of itself is not the solution. The wall is a critical element as part of a multilayer strategy of infrastructure, technology, and personnel. So yes, as part of that multilayer approach, the wall absolutely works and there&#8217;s historical data that can prove that. You can go to San Diego, Nogales, El Paso, anywhere where that multilayered approach has been used, where the wall is part of that, and illegal immigration has drastically reduced by around 90%, and overall crime in those areas has drastically reduced as well. It&#8217;s not hyperbole; it&#8217;s not driven by political ideology. That&#8217;s fact, and data can show that.
DW: What is the proof that a physical barrier would work?
MORGAN: Go talk to the Yuma County Sheriff, and he&#8217;ll tell you that in 2005, 2006 when they started building the wall as part of that multilayer strategy, it works. He&#8217;ll say illegal immigration in that area went down 90%, overall crime in his county went down drastically. It&#8217;s just fact.
DW: What type of barrier would be the most effective? There&#8217;s been a lot of talk about walls versus fences, and we&#8217;ve seen all the different wall prototypes. In the end, what type of barrier would make the most sense, not only financially, but in terms of keeping the United States secure?
MORGAN: That&#8217;s another great question that again gets twisted and manipulated, I believe, for peoples&#8217; personal agenda and their own political ideology. For someone to say that a fence is okay, but a wall is not, that&#8217;s just disingenuous. So the depth and height of the physical barrier is what makes something immoral or not? That&#8217;s just ridiculous.
A quick sidebar &#8212; let&#8217;s go back to 2006 when a bipartisan bill called the Secure Fence Act was passed. The same people who are now saying that the wall is immoral voted for the wall back in 2006.
The experts, who have dedicated their lives to securing the border and protecting the safety and security of this country, will tell you that the type of barrier, wall, fence, whatever you want to call it, that&#8217;s needed is driven by many factors including terrain and differing operational needs. There&#8217;s different terrain and territory along the 2,000 miles of southwest border driving the different types of barrier applications required.
And I&#8217;ll give you an example. If you talk to the experts, they&#8217;ll say that you definitely want a barrier that you can see through, so you can see what&#8217;s coming. There are other areas with levies and other things where really nothing else makes sense except to build a concrete type barrier. So, it really depends on the terrain and the territory. The strategy has never been to build a wall from sea to sea, but rather to build the type of wall, fence, barrier, whatever you want to call it, that is best suitable for that specific terrain.
DW: Why do you believe so many politicians are so vehemently against a physical barrier?
MORGAN: I&#8217;m doing my best to remain apolitical and approach this from a very narrow prism based on my 30 years of federal service in this country. I can&#8217;t even begin to get into the politician&#8217;s head regarding what motivates them to not support the wall, especially those who supported it in 2006 &#8212; but all of the sudden it&#8217;s immoral. I don&#8217;t understand that. What I can tell you is that it&#8217;s not true when they say the wall is ineffective. If somebody says that the wall is ineffective as part of that multilayer approach, they&#8217;re misinformed and they&#8217;re misleading the American people. And I even hate to speculate why they&#8217;re doing that.
DW: Many politicians claim that a wall is &#8220;too expensive,&#8221; but many who say this have voted for numerous things that were much more expensive, including but not limited to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was projected at that time to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Why do you think someone would vote for something so pricy and then call the $20 billion southern border wall &#8220;too expensive&#8221;?
MORGAN: When somebody says, &#8220;It&#8217;s not effective,&#8221; the only conclusion I can come to is that it&#8217;s being driven by their personal political ideology because fact, historical data, and expert opinion clearly show that nothing else makes sense.
First, in the past, in a bipartisan way, they&#8217;ve approved a heck of a lot more spending than the $5.7 billion that&#8217;s being asked. Second, $5.7 billion is less than one fourth of 1% of our overall budget. So it&#8217;s disingenuous to say that it&#8217;s &#8220;too expensive.&#8221;
Third, when they talk about the wall in the context of cost, which some do, they know that they&#8217;re misleading the American people because they&#8217;ve been briefed that this isn&#8217;t just a wall, but a wall system. It&#8217;s a smart wall. That comes with technology, it comes with access roads so personnel can access it. A lot comes with that. It&#8217;s not just throwing up some steel and calling it a day &#8212; and that&#8217;s why the cost is what it is. And don&#8217;t forget, it&#8217;s 230 new miles, plus the replacement and upgrading of hundreds of miles of old, ineffective barriers.
To say that $5.7 billion is too expensive to secure the safety of this country, I don&#8217;t understand.
DW: Is there anything that you haven&#8217;t been able to say, that the media hasn&#8217;t touched on, that you would want to get across to a large readership about this issue?
MORGAN: I think what&#8217;s important to hit is that we really do have a dual set of issues along the southwest border. We definitely have a massive security crisis as well as a humanitarian crisis. So just quickly let me dissect this, too. On the national security side, we definitely have bad things and bad people coming in, both through the ports of entry and then in between the ports of entry every single day.
The other element that goes really to the heart of your question as well is this &#8212; a lot of times, they&#8217;ll use a talking point to illustrate how Customs and Border Protection interdicts more drugs at the ports as opposed to in between the ports of entry, and claim that because of that, we don&#8217;t need the wall. And that&#8217;s absolutely a false narrative because the border is so porous, we don&#8217;t know what&#8217;s getting through. But we do know that there is a ton of human trafficking, drugs, and bad people and gang members getting through our borders in between the ports of entry every single day because we need additional miles of wall to effectively secure the border and improve the border patrol&#8217;s operational control and response.
Let me give you an example. So, a little under 400,000 illegal immigrants were apprehended last year. Well, some experts will tell you that thousands more, more than likely double this amount, are getting through unapprehended because again, the border&#8217;s so porous.
But let&#8217;s cut that number in half, just for the sake of argument. Let&#8217;s say it&#8217;s 200,000 getting through because we didn&#8217;t have the resources to effectively enforce our borders. So you take the 400,000 that were apprehended, add another 200,000 that are getting through that we&#8217;re not catching, and we have about 600,000. Well, that&#8217;s bigger than the entire population of the state of Wyoming. How&#8217;s that not a crisis?
Some people want to say that the numbers have been reduced from previous decades. But my first answer is, yeah, part of the reason why the numbers were reduced is because we built 700 miles of wall, and we improved our strategy, and we also implemented consequences, meaning we deported those who were coming into the country.
We need the wall as part of the multilayer approach to shut down the avenues in between the points of entry. Can it be defeated? Yes. But it&#8217;s still 90% effective, and the last time I checked, 90% is a pretty good stat to have.
By building that wall, we&#8217;re going to drastically reduce those avenues for the cartels. We&#8217;re going to shut down, to a great extent, their drug routes, human trafficking routes, and illegal immigration routes, and then we&#8217;ve funneled them to the ports of entry where now we have offensive advantage, and we stand a better chance of interdicting. And by doing that, the patrol&#8217;s operational capacity and control is extremely enhanced so that when things come to the wall, they&#8217;ll have time to actually respond and interdict.
Now, let&#8217;s move to humanitarian side, which is not really talked about enough. Here&#8217;s the thing &#8212; the wall and that multilayer strategy and personnel &#8212; none of that is going to address the humanitarian issue, and here&#8217;s why.
[Morgan went on to speak about the loopholes in the asylum laws that are being exploited.]
All you have to do is say the magic words and you&#8217;re allowed into our country. So you can either do that illegally or you can come to the ports. The same thing happens. If you come to the ports, you just have to wait a little bit longer. Again, that&#8217;s why the incentive is there. It serves as a pull factor.
We need the wall as part of that multilayer strategy to really address the national security system, but then we have the humanitarian issue, and the only fix for that is legislative. We need to fix the asylum laws. We need to fix bad judicial case law such as the Flores decision.
So, why are parents turning their kids over to the cartels to make this dangerous trek, whether they&#8217;re in caravans or at the hands of the coyote, and paying thousands of dollars? The reason why they&#8217;re doing that is because they know the incentive. Once they set one foot on American soil, and say the magic words, they&#8217;re released into the United States never to be heard from again. Think about that. Why wouldn&#8217;t they? This is the broken &#8220;catch and release&#8221; issue.
So, the very people that are against what I&#8217;m saying, who claim they&#8217;re being compassionate, it&#8217;s actually the opposite. They&#8217;re actually facilitating these individuals making this perilous trek. I&#8217;ll give you an example. The Yuma County Sheriff said that during his time with the sheriff&#8217;s department, his deputies recovered over 100 dead bodies of illegal immigrants &#8212; just his county &#8212; who died from exposure or other related things trying to enter the country illegally.
So we have to shut those loopholes in the asylum laws. We have to fix the bad judicial precedent to remove that pull factor, to remove that incentive, because if we don&#8217;t, they&#8217;re going to keep coming. So you really have two dual tracks. You&#8217;ve got one track, which is national security. Then you&#8217;ve got the humanitarian side where the only fix for that is legislative, and both have to be done.
</blockquote>
The Daily Wire would like to thank Mark Morgan for speaking with us about border security.

The Daily Wire Speaks With Mark Morgan, Obama-Era Border Patrol Chief Who Says We Need A Wall

Republican Party

CNN analyst Phil Mudd exploded during a segment on Friday after a conservative commentator expressed support for the Trump administration&#8217;s decision to revoke security clearances of former Obama officials who no longer work in the government and who have been accused of leaking information.
&#8220;A lot of these people that have these security clearances &#8212; and this is the secret in the swampy Washington, D.C. &#8212; they have them and they keep them because it&#8217;s profitable for them after they leave government,&#8221; Paris Dennard said. &#8220;Because if you have a security clearance, especially a high-level security clearance, your contracts and consulting gigs pay you a lot more money because of the access that you have.&#8221;
&#8220;Profitable, Paris?&#8221; Mudd began.
&#8220;When I&#8217;m required to sit on an advisory board, let me ask you one question, how much do you think I&#8217;m paid to do that at the request of U.S. government?&#8221; Mudd screamed. &#8220;Give me one answer, and you&#8217;ve got ten seconds. I have no contracts with the U.S. government. They pay me zero.&#8221;
&#8220;I&#8217;ll ask you a question,&#8221; Dennard fired back. &#8220;How much are you paid for your contracting gig?&#8221;
&#8220;I have no contracts with the U.S. government that pay money,&#8221; Mudd exploded. &#8220;Zero.&#8221;
After continuing to go back and forth, Mudd lost it, screaming &#8220;get out!&#8221; at Dennard.
&#8220;Twenty-five years in the service and this is the sh*t I get!&#8221; Mudd exclaimed.
&#8220;Get out!&#8221; Mudd repeated.
WATCH:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
&#8220;Zero. I get zero dollars from consulting companies that deal with U.S. government. Are we clear?&#8221;
Counterterrorism analyst Phil Mudd takes exception to commentator Paris Dennard&#8217;s suggestion that he benefits financially from his security clearance <a href="https://t.co/oyEZ3i3gKI">https://t.co/oyEZ3i3gKI</a> <a href="https://t.co/rA2OgcJ0re">pic.twitter.com/rA2OgcJ0re</a>
&#8212; CNN (@CNN) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1030637153435484160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 18, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>

WATCH: CNN Analyst Screams &#8216;Get Out&#8217; At Republican Strategist, Curses

On Thursday, NBC News reported that National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster is going to be replaced as early as next month in a move coordinated by at least two top White House officials.
Leading the shakeup are White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Defense Secretary James Mattis, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/white-house-preparing-mcmaster-exit-early-next-month-n852371">NBC News</a> reports, citing five people who are familiar with the matter.
The report also names auto industry executive Stephen Biegun as one of the leading candidates who is being considered to replace McMaster. NBC News notes:
<blockquote>
Biegun, who currently serves as vice president of international governmental affairs for the Ford Motor Company, is no stranger to the White House. He served on the National Security Council staff from 2001 to 2003, including as a senior staffer for then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Rice introduced Biegun to Mattis, recommending him for a position in the administration, according to a close associate of Rice. After Mattis met with Biegun at a think tank event he was convinced Biegun would be a good fit for the national security adviser role, the associate said.
</blockquote>
McMaster, who replaced Michael Flynn, was widely criticized over his views of Islam as he &#8220;told his staff that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are perverting their religion, rejecting a key ideological view of other senior Trump advisers and signaling a potentially more moderate approach to the Islamic world,&#8221; <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/us/politics/hr-mcmaster-trump-islam.html">The New York Times</a> reported last year.
McMaster also was in favor of the Iran nuclear deal and was <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/mcmaster-rushes-to-save-the-iran-nuke-deal">reportedly</a> trying to save the deal that Trump wanted to get rid of after many experts <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/23359/exclusive-%E2%80%93-expert-iran-already-has-nuclear-ryan-saavedra">harshly criticized</a> the Obama-era deal.

NBC NEWS: H.R. McMaster Leaving White House. Here&#8217;s Who&#8217;s Being Considered To Replace Him

Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster

Sensitive documents from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that outlined preparations on how to deal with potential terrorist attacks at the Super Bowl were left on an airplane, according to a new report.
The documents were supposedly found by a CNN employee in the seat-back pocket of a commercial plane prior to Sunday&#8217;s game between the Philadelphia Eagles and the New England Patriots. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/05/us/dhs-super-bowl-national-security-documents-left-on-plane-invs/index.html">CNN</a> reports:
<blockquote>
The reports were based on exercises designed to evaluate the ability of public health, law enforcement and emergency management officials to engage in a coordinated response were a biological attack to be carried out in Minneapolis on Super Bowl Sunday.
The exercises identified several areas for improvement, including the problem that &#8220;some local law enforcement and emergency management agencies possess only a cursory knowledge of the BioWatch program and its mission.&#8221;
</blockquote>
The documents were marked &#8220;For Official Use Only&#8221; and included an &#8220;important for national security&#8221; warning. The reports were supposed to be kept locked up &#8220;at a minimum&#8221; and were to be shredded when discarded. CNN decided to withhold its report until after the Super Bowl after government officials warned that publishing the report could jeopardize security at the game.
&#8220;Who knows who else could have picked this up,&#8221; Juliette Kayyem, a former DHS official who now serves as a CNN contributor, said. &#8220;The biggest consequence of this mistake may have less to do with terrorists knowing our vulnerabilities and more to do with confidence in the Department of Homeland Security. In the end, confidence in the federal government at a time of crisis is what the American public deserves.&#8221;
The reports were found with travel itinerary and documents belonging to a senior government scientist in charge of BioWatch, a DHS program that deals with biological threats to national security.

SHOCK: Sensitive Super Bowl Anti-Terrorism Documents Left On Plane, Jeopardized National Security

Department of Homeland Security

Super Bowl

Donald Trump&#8217;s first State of the Union address was by every meaningful measure a huge success for the president, with Trump more presidential and unifying than he&#8217;s ever been and polls showing overwhelming approval from viewers, including <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/26573/these-sotu-tweets-independent-voters-perfectly-sum-james-barrett">Independents</a>, 72% of whom loved it. Then there&#8217;s the evidence from the left-leaning media, who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/26571/trump-derangement-syndrome-check-out-abcs-james-barrett">really had to work hard</a> to figure out how to spin the speech negatively.
While the night was a smashing success for Trump, it was also a crashing train wreck for Democrats, who made the politically disastrous decision to sit on their hands for basically all of it. The Daily Wire&#8217;s <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/26579/democrats-sat-all-night-during-trumps-state-union-ben-shapiro">Ben Shapiro</a> describes the Democrats&#8217; bad behavior this way (formatting adjusted):
<blockquote>
They didn&#8217;t just sit, actually. They grimaced. They groaned. They booed and hissed. And it wasn&#8217;t just that they disapproved of Trump on policy. It&#8217;s that they refused to stand for things they supposedly believe in because they hate Trump so much. Paid family leave? They sat. Infrastructure spending? They sat. Amnesty for 1.8 million illegal immigrants? They sat. And then they sat some more. They sat when Trump touted the American flag. They sat when Trump touted American freedom. They sat when Trump touted low black unemployment rates. They sat when Trump cheered American opportunity. They sat because the Democratic Party has become a party focused on one figure and one figure only: Donald Trump
</blockquote>
In no particular order, here are the top 5 moments the Democrats probably wish they could get back from Trump&#8217;s first State of the Union:
1. Democrats Refuse To Back America NOT Financially Supporting . . . Our Enemies
Judging by their actions Tuesday night, the Democrats are in favor of providing financial aid to America&#8217;s enemies and not so thrilled about providing financial aid to our friends. Or something.
&#8220;That is why, tonight, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to help ensure American foreign-assistance dollars always serve American interests, and only go to friends of America, not enemies of America,&#8221; said Trump &#8212; a line that any politician in their right mind would applaud, at very least for the optics.
But no. Like for most of the evening, a vast majority of the Democrats sat, hands in their laps or on their cell phones, no doubt texting snarky comments about the &#8220;unfit&#8221; Commander-in-Chief and how his &#8220;bigger button&#8221; is more dangerous than Kim Jung-un&#8217;s littler one.
2. Democrats Sit For Record-Low Black Unemployment
In a moment that raised a lot of eyebrows, the Democrats didn&#8217;t stand or even applaud Trump&#8217;s celebration of record-low African-American unemployment.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Reaction shot to Trump&#8217;s line about African-American unemployment being down <a href="https://t.co/MkxAokFPKN">pic.twitter.com/MkxAokFPKN</a>
&#8212; Tal Kopan (@TalKopan) <a href="https://twitter.com/TalKopan/status/958525542931816448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
The optics: Democrats don&#8217;t really care much about black Americans having jobs &#8212; not a great look.
3. Democrats Not Enthused About Clamping Down On The Murderous MS-13 Gang
At least Democrats can get behind clamping down on the murderous MS-13 gang, right? Not really. Here&#8217;s how The Daily Wire&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/26570/democrats-stew-hatred-refuse-applaud-democracy-joseph-curl">Joseph </a><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/26570/democrats-stew-hatred-refuse-applaud-democracy-joseph-curl">Curl</a> describes the moment:
<blockquote>
When Trump told a heart wrenching story about two young girls killed by MS-13 gang members &#8212; their parents were in Trump&#8217;s box and sobbed softly &#8212; he said: &#8220;Tonight, I am calling on the Congress to finally close the deadly loopholes that have allowed MS-13, and other criminals, to break into our country. We have proposed new legislation that will fix our immigration laws, and support our ICE and Border Patrol Agents &#8230; so that this cannot ever happen again.&#8221;
The camera panned the room: One side clapping, the other side, nothing. In fact, boos and groans were heard when Trump began his story.
</blockquote>
Yikes.
&#8220;Tonight, everyone in this chamber is praying for you,&#8221; Trump told the parents of slain girls. &#8220;Everyone in America is grieving for you. And 320 million hearts are breaking for you.&#8221; Were the Democrats among those 320 million? From their tepid reaction, viewers were left unsure.
Regarding immigration, Trump also dropped this doozy that has Democrats reeling: &#8220;My duty, and the sacred duty of every elected official in this chamber, is to defend Americans &#8212; to protect their safety, their families, their communities, and their right to the American Dream. Because Americans are dreamers too.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet"></div>
4. Democrats #TakeASeat For National Anthem Respect
Every time Trump mentioned standing to honor the flag and the national anthem, the Democrats made clear that they had collectively determined to #TakeASeat.
The apparently anti-anthem party even sat for this line: &#8220;Preston&#8217;s reverence for those who have served our Nation reminds us why we salute our flag, why we put our hands on our hearts for the pledge of allegiance, and why we proudly stand for the national anthem.&#8221;
[[{&#8220;fid&#8221;:&#8221;29760&#8243;,&#8221;view_mode&#8221;:&#8221;default&#8221;,&#8221;fields&#8221;:{&#8220;format&#8221;:&#8221;default&#8221;,&#8221;field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:&#8221;Democrats sit&#8221;,&#8221;field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:&#8221;Aaron P. Bernstein/Bloomberg via Getty Images&#8221;},&#8221;type&#8221;:&#8221;media&#8221;,&#8221;field_deltas&#8221;:{&#8220;1&#8221;:{&#8220;format&#8221;:&#8221;default&#8221;,&#8221;field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:&#8221;Democrats sit&#8221;,&#8221;field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:&#8221;Aaron P. Bernstein/Bloomberg via Getty Images&#8221;}},&#8221;attributes&#8221;:{&#8220;alt&#8221;:&#8221;Democrats sit&#8221;,&#8221;title&#8221;:&#8221;Aaron P. Bernstein/Bloomberg via Getty Images&#8221;,&#8221;class&#8221;:&#8221;media-element file-default&#8221;,&#8221;data-delta&#8221;:&#8221;1&#8243;}}]]
5. North Korean Defector Lifts Crutches In Defiance Of Regime Dems Are Running Scared From
Perhaps the most moving moment of the night came when North Korean defector Ji Seong Ho stood up and held the crutches he used to travel &#8220;thousands of miles on crutches across China and Southeast Asia to freedom.&#8221;
Democrats did stand and applaud the courageous survivor, but the moment drove home one of Trump&#8217;s key foreign policy messages in a way that&#8217;s devastating to his naysayers: Never back down, or &#8220;lead from behind,&#8221; when it comes to tyrannical regimes. That autocratic regime Ji Seong Ho fled is the same that Democrats and leftwing media figures have been running scared from while Trump has unflinchingly called Kim Jung-on&#8217;s bluff.
Here&#8217;s the powerful moment (via <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/30/north-korean-defector-ji-seong-ho-lifts-crutches-in-defiance-regime-during-state-union.html">Fox News</a>):
<div class="embed video fluid-video">Watch the latest video at &lt;a href=&#8221;http://www.foxnews.com&#8221;&gt;foxnews.com&lt;/a&gt;</div>
Trump also recognized Otto Warmbier, the young American who died after being detained by North Korea. &#8220;Tonight, we pledge to honor Otto&#8217;s memory with American resolve,&#8221; said Trump.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/26581/trumps-triumph-top-8-moments-trumps-state-union-ben-shapiro">SHAPIRO: Trump&#8217;s Triumph: The Top 8 Moments From Trump&#8217;s State Of The Union</a>

Top 5 Most Disastrous Moments For Dems From Trump&#8217;s SOTU Speech

Patriotism

According to a new <a href="https://www.cis.org/Rush/Refugee-Admissions-Under-Trump-Administration">report</a> from the Center of Immigration Studies, President Donald Trump cut refugees by a stunning 70% percent his first 11 months in office.
Analyzing State Department data, the study revealed that Mr. Trump, compared to the same time frame under his predecessor in 2016 (January-December), cut the entry of refugees from 93,668 to 28,875. President Trump also accepted more Christians than any other religion, a change from former President Obama.
Moreover, it&#8217;s important to note that the number of admitted refugees from nations considered a terrorist threat would have been substantially lower if it had not been for judicial <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/22144/supreme-court-throws-out-travel-ban-ruling-joseph-curl">blocks</a> to the administration&#8217;s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-enhancing-vetting-capabilities-processes-detecting-attempted-entry-united-states-terrorists-public-safety-threats/">travel ban</a>. For example, once the ban was <a href="https://www.cis.org/Rush/Refugee-Admissions-Under-Trump-Administration">implemented</a> on December 8, only one refugee from such designated nations, a Somali, has been accepted into the country.
Here&#8217;s the breakdown of refugees admitted under President Trump from January 20-December 20, 2017, via Center for Immigration Studies:
<blockquote>
Total admissions: 28,875 
Christians: 15,376 (53.2 percent) 
Muslims: 9,235 (32 percent) 
Buddhists: 1,551(5.4 percent) 
Hindus: 1,112 (3.8 percent)
</blockquote>
Now here&#8217;s the breakdown under former President Obama from January 20-December 20, 2016, via the Center for Immigration Studies:
<blockquote>
Total admissions: 93,668 
Muslims: 42,175 (45 percent) 
Christians: 41,389 (44.2 percent) 
Buddhists: 2,990 (3.2 percent) 
Hindus: 2,041 (2.2 percent)
</blockquote>
As noted by the center, Trump has set the ceiling for refugees in fiscal year 2018 at 45,000, &#8220;the lowest refugee ceiling since 1980.&#8221;
Though we&#8217;re seeing a massive cut in refugees on our own soil, under the Trump Administration, the United States is still the leading donor to the UN Refugee Agency ($133,795,709 for 2018).
President Trump has also agreed to settle refugees from Australia, who were committed to be accepted under then-President Obama. President Trump called the deal made by Obama &#8220;<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827002559122567168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F09%2F20%2Fworld%2Faustralia%2Frefugees-turnbull-trump.html">dumb</a>&#8221; back in February, but promised to &#8220;study&#8221; it.
&#8220;The deal to resettle Australia&#8217;s unwanted asylum seekers made between Australia and the outgoing Obama administration is being carried out by the Trump administration,&#8221; says the report. &#8220;As many as 1,250 refugees from Australia&#8217;s offshore detention centers on the small island nation of Nauru and on Manus Island, part of Papua New Guinea, could be resettled in the United States by 2018. The first group of 54 arrived this September. Another 200 (mainly Pakistanis, Afghanis, and Rohingya) are expected this coming year. The rest will probably follow.&#8221;
<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/01/data-trump-admin-reduces-refugee-admissions-by-70-percent-in-first-year/">H/T</a> John Binder

WINNING: Trump Reduced Refugees By 70% His First Year In Office

Christianity

Islam

Middle East

Migrants

Obama Administration

President Donald Trump took a major step this week to protect the United States from one of the most serious threats the nation faces, which experts have warned about for decades: an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack.
Trump became the first national leader to call for the protection of the U.S. power grid from an EMP attack, an event that North Korea recently simulated, the <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-first-president-to-protect-electric-grid-from-emp-cyberattacks/article/2644025">Washington Examiner</a> reported.
Two of the biggest proponents for protecting the U.S. from EMP attacks &#8212; Dr. William R. Graham and Dr. Peter Vincent Pry &#8212; <a href="http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/president-trump-keeping-promise-on-emp-protection#ixzz51oHb0bTm">praised Trump</a> for taking the bold step that many in Washington, D.C. have resisted for years:
<blockquote>
President Donald Trump on Monday (December 18, 2017) in what may well be remembered as an historic speech describing his new &#8220;America First&#8221; National Security Strategy, broke new ground by promising to protect U.S. critical infrastructures from &#8220;cyber, physical, and electromagnetic attacks.&#8221;
After 8 years of the Obama Administration ignoring the existential threat posed by electromagnetic pulse (EMP), President Trump deserves the gratitude of his nation for being the first president to include EMP in his National Security Strategy.
</blockquote>
In early fall, Graham and Pry <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/22236/experts-warn-congress-north-korean-emp-would-kill-ryan-saavedra">testified to Congress</a> about the threat in which they referenced a writing from Ambassador Henry Cooper, who was the former Director of the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative and a preeminent expert on missile defenses and space weapons. Cooper warned that an EMP attack on the U.S. would be catastrophic and that up to 90% of the U.S. population would die as a result:
<blockquote>
U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) interceptors are designed to intercept a few North Korean ICBMs that approach the United States over the North Polar region. But current U.S. BMD systems are not arranged to defend against even a single ICBM that approaches the United States from over the South Polar region, which is the direction toward which North Korea launches its satellites. &#8230; So, North Korea doesn&#8217;t need an ICBM to create this existential threat. It could use its demonstrated satellite launcher to carry a nuclear weapon over the South Polar region and detonate it &#8230; over the United States to create a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP). &#8230; The result could be to shut down the U.S. electric power grid for an indefinite period, leading to the death within a year of up to 90 percent of all Americans &#8212; as the EMP Commission testified over eight years ago.
</blockquote>
In the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905-2.pdf">National Security Strategy</a> plan that Trump released earlier this week, he specifically called out the threat posed to U.S. national security from EMP attacks:
<blockquote>
Critical infrastructure keeps our food fresh, our houses warm, our trade f lowing, and our citizens productive and safe. The vulnerability of U.S. critical infrastructure to cyber, physical, and electromagnetic attacks means that adversaries could disrupt military command and control, banking and financial operations, the electrical grid, and means of communication.
To improve the security and resilience of our critical infrastructure, we will assess risk across six key areas: national security, energy and power, banking and finance, health and safety, communications, and transportation. We will assess where cyberattacks could have catastrophic or cascading consequences and prioritize our protective efforts, capabilities, and defenses accordingly.
</blockquote>
The move by Trump also fulfills one of his campaign promises that he made in the 2016 Republican Party Platform that helped him win the election:
<blockquote>
Protection Against an Electromagnetic Pulse: A single nuclear weapon detonated at high altitude over this country would collapse our electrical grid and other critical infrastructures and endanger the lives of millions. With North Korea in possession of nuclear missiles and Iran close to having them, an EMP is no longer a theoretical concern &#8212; it is a real threat. Moreover, China and Russia include sabotage as part of their warfare planning. Nonetheless, hundreds of electrical utilities in the United States have not acted to protect themselves from EMP, and they cannot be expected to do so voluntarily since homeland security is a government responsibility. The President, the Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the States, the utilities, and the private sector should work together on an urgent basis to &#8230; protect the national grid and encourage states to take the initiative to protect their own grids expeditiously.
</blockquote>
Dr. Pry joined conservative icon Mark Levin in 2016 where he explained what an EMP attack is and the threat that it poses to the United States.
WATCH:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SOC8kNpRhZ0" width="560"></iframe></div>
Dr. Pry is the executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and director of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, both Congressional advisory boards. He also served as the chief of staff on the Congressional EMP Commission, the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA.

PROMISE KEPT: Here’s The Most Important Thing Trump Has Done That No One Is Talking About

North Korea

In an address to the American people on Monday, President Donald Trump outlined his administration&#8217;s new national security strategy, summed up as &#8220;<a href="http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/365397-trump-to-stress-america-first-in-national-security-strategy-report">America First</a>.&#8221; Missing from the &#8220;National Security Strategy&#8221; document <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf">posted</a> on WhiteHouse.gov and from Trump&#8217;s address was a classification of &#8220;climate change&#8221; as a national security threat, as the Obama Administration had, notably, done.
Moreover, President Trump made it clear that the country&#8217;s sovereignty and economic interests will come before adherence to international environmental regulations tied to climate change.
This is not exactly a surprise; President Trump boldly pulled the United States out of the economically crippling Paris Climate Accords this summer, much to the distress of his predecessor. &#8220;At the moment, we have a temporary absence of American leadership on the issue (climate change),&#8221; <a href="http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/03/barack-obama-rips-donald-trump-paris-climate-accord-speech">said</a> Obama while attending a gala in Paris earlier this month.
As <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/18/five-ways-trumps-new-national-security-strategy-is-a-rejection-of-obamas/">noted</a> by The Daily Caller, &#8220;Obama&#8217;s 2015 national security strategy prioritized climate change as a national security threat. Obama&#8217;s strategy devoted more space to the threat posed by climate change than to the threat posed by North Korea.&#8221;
Yes, you read that correctly: President Obama classified ambiguous climate change as a greater threat than North Korea.
&#8220;Climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources like food and water,&#8221; said the former administration&#8217;s national security strategy.
President Trump, on the other hand, emphasizes American sovereignty and economic interests over the liberal pet cause:
<blockquote>
&#8220;U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests,&#8221; reads the document. &#8220;Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty. The United States will continue to advance an approach that balances energy security, economic development, and environmental protection. The United States will remain a global leader in reducing traditional pollution, as well as greenhouse gases, while expanding our economy. This is achievement, which can serve as a model to other countries, flows from innovation, technology breakthroughs, and energy efficiency gains, not from onerous regulation.&#8221;
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
&#8220;[I]t should be clear that the United States will not cede sovereignty to those that claim authority over American citizens and are in conflict with our constitutional framework,&#8221; adds the document, according to The Daily Caller.
</blockquote>

SORRY, OBAMA: Trump Drops Climate Change As &#8216;National Security Threat&#8217;

Climate Change

On his nationally syndicated radio show Friday, Mark Levin challenged the notion of President Donald Trump colluding with the Russians to win the 2016 election. His theory rests on the guilty plea that former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn made with FBI special counsel Robert Mueller. 
&#8220;There is no collusion with the Russians. No collusion today, no collusion yesterday, no collusion the day before yesterday,&#8221; Levin said. &#8220;Mr. Mueller hasn&#8217;t brought a single charge related to collusion with the Russians &#8230; before the election, he hasn&#8217;t brought a single charge related to collusion with the Russians to influence the election.&#8221;
He pointed to the fact that former FBI Director James Comey doubted Flynn was intentionally lying and declined to press charges against him. 
Levin continued, &#8220;We have charges in this investigation with Mr. Manafort and Gates related to failure to file as federal agents, charges that are almost never brought. We have charges on tax violations without bringing any tax evasion charges.&#8221;
He pointed out that so far the FBI special counsel investigation has resulted in false statement pleas with Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopolous and now with Mike Flynn.
Levin pointed out, &#8220;Contact with foreign governments by an incoming administration. It is not illegal, it is not criminal, in any sense. Those conversations, to the extent that they took place, Mr. Mueller has access to, as a result of the constant, as we&#8217;ve learned over the past many months due to leaks, the constant espionage that goes on in terms of the ambassador to Russia and others.&#8221;
He added, &#8220;So they know what was discussed. And yet there is no charge of collusion, they know it was discussed, but there is no collusion charge, no substantive, underlying criminal charge.&#8221;
Levin emphasized, &#8220;Despite all the static, all the jumping up and down &#8230; what Mr. Mueller has demonstrated today, with the information that he has put out in open court, and leaked out through his surrogates, what Mr. Mueller has demonstrated today is he has no collusion case against anyone.&#8221;
Listen to the clip below:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="330" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OmD-UXtkxes" width="640"></iframe></div>
(<a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/03/mark_levin_mueller_has_flynn_tied_around_his_finger_like_the_mob_would_do.html">H/T: RealClearPolitics</a>)

Mark Levin: &#8216;There Is No Collusion With The Russians&#8217;

Conservatism

James Comey

Mark Levin

Michael Flynn

Paul Manafort

An analysis by left-wing Politico on Wednesday claims that the Electoral College is a threat to national security because the Founding Fathers never anticipated Facebook and fake news.
The article, titled &#8220;<a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/20/electoral-college-threat-national-security-215626?lo=ap_f1">The Electoral College Is A National Security Threat</a>,&#8221; begins by stating that Alexander Hamilton believed that the Electoral College could protect the United States from the influence of foreign powers but that he never could have foreseen 2016:
<blockquote>
Hamilton and his colleagues never could have envisioned a year like 2016, when an enemy state&#8212;Russia&#8212;was able to manipulate America&#8217;s election process with stunning effectiveness. But it&#8217;s clear the national security rationale for the Electoral College is outdated and therefore it should be retired.
</blockquote>
The notion that Russia altered the 2016 presidential election is so absurd that former President Barack Obama crushed the idea that Russia somehow tampered with votes during the election.
&#8220;We were frankly more concerned in the run up to the election to the possibilities of vote tampering, which we did not see evidence of,&#8221; Obama <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/12/13/obama-crushes-conspiracy-no-evidence-russia-tampered-votes-election/">said</a> in December 2016. &#8220;And we&#8217;re confident that we can guard against.&#8221;
Instead of explaining to readers why the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College, the article makes ridiculous claims against its importance by insinuating that it is racist:
<blockquote>
&#8230; it has a dark history involving pro-slavery sentiments; that it often gives white, rural voters more voting power than minorities living in cities &#8230;
</blockquote>
The article fails to state how the Electoral College actually protects against fraud and makes it harder for outside forces to steal the election.
Speaking in an educational video for Prager University, attorney Tara Ross explains how the Electoral College helps the integrity of elections:
<blockquote>
The Electoral College also makes it harder to steal elections. Votes must be stolen in the right state in order to change the outcome of the Electoral College. With so many swing states, this is hard to predict and hard to do.
But without the Electoral College, any vote stolen in any precinct in the country could affect the national outcome &#8212; even if that vote was easily stolen in the bluest California precinct or the reddest Texas one.
</blockquote>
Below are both PragerU videos from Ross:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V6s7jB6-GoU" width="560"></iframe></div>
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LXnjGD7j2B0" width="560"></iframe></div>

LIBERAL MAG: Electoral College Is &#8216;Threat&#8217; To National Security (And Racist)

Electoral College

Racism

Menu

National Security

Articles tagged with National Security