The Need for Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration by Fred Gedrich

Editor’s Note: From our great friend and regular SUA contributor Fred Gedrich and our friends at Breitbart.

Fred Gedrich is a foreign policy and national security analyst.  He served in the U.S. departments of State and Defense.

President Donald Trumprecently announced that he will be issuing another executive order temporarily pausing travel of refugees and/or aliens from seven dangerous countries to the United States.

His first order on this subject stalled in Federal courts after hundreds of State Department careerists objected to the original order. His new action may once again displease the State Department careerists, federal judges and others opposed to his policy, but it may save lives in the American homeland.

During the first week of his presidency, President Trump ordered a temporary pause in refugee and alien travel to the United States from seven of the most dangerous radical Islamic terror-practicing, terror-infested, civil-war-ridden, and/or failed Muslim-majority states on earth (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen). A prime purpose of the order was for the new administration to evaluate whether current U.S. visa screening procedures for travelers from those countries were adequate enough to prevent foreign terrorists entering the United States disguised as innocent refugees or aliens.

The president’s action seems reasonable to many Americans, the extent of approval/disapproval varying according to polls. One of his presidential campaign promises was to install an “extreme vetting” protocol for refugees and/or aliens from dangerous countries, in the wake of murderous radical Islamic-driven terrorist attacks in the U.S. at places like Ft. Hood, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, Orlando and elsewhere.

Nonetheless, about 900 of approximately 24,000 State Department diplomats, Foreign Service officers and civil servants (whose Dissent Channel policy disagreement with the president on this matter was improperly released to media outlets in violation of the governing Foreign Affairs Manual) objected to the president’s order. The objection came even though the State Department is the lead foreign affairs agency in implementing such presidential policies and its personnel serves on the diplomatic front lines overseas screening visa applications.

They claimed the order would, among other things, sour relations with the seven affected countries; inflame anti-American sentiments; and hurt those seeking to visit the United States for humanitarian reasons. Moreover, the four Federal judges in Washington and the 9th Circuit who stalled President Trump’s original order ruled, among other things, that it was unconstitutionally focused on Muslim-majority countries without placing the overall global Muslim population in context or addressing the governing statute giving the president the authority to act.

Americans – including the State Department dissenters, federal judges and others opposed to the president’s action – should consider the following as they evaluate the merits of the revised order which reportedly will also apply to refugees and aliens from the same seven countries:

  • The U.S. Constitution’s Article 2 gives the President the authority to conduct the nation’s foreign affairs. And the Immigration and Naturalization Act, Section 212 F8 USC 82 F gives the President the broad authority to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States when the president deems it in the national interest.
  • According to Pew Research, there are 50 Muslim-majority nations, with the global Muslim population estimated at 1.6 billion. The presidential executive order applies to only seven Muslim-majority nations with a collective population of about 220 million.
  • The U.S. State Department’s congressionally-mandated annual “Country Reports on Terrorism” identifies the governments that sponsor and support international terrorist activities and/or have significant terror groups and activity occurring within their nation’s boundaries. All seven countries listed in the president’s order are listed in this report and threaten U.S. citizens and national security. To achieve their political ends terrorists have used genocide, beheadings, crucifixions, drownings, burnings, hangings, shootings, roof-top tossings and home-made bombs – against innocent civilians in war zones and urban areas.
  • There are ongoing sectarian civil wars between Shia and Sunni Muslims, tribal wars, and/or genocide occurring in 6 of 7 countries (Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen). The State Department lists the other nation, Iran – where chants of ‘Death to America’ are routinely heard – as the world’s leading exporter of terrorism.
  • The U.S. State Department does not have open U.S. embassies or consulates in five of the seven countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen). Without onsite U.S. representation, it is extremely difficult to have normal relations with host governments (if they even exist) or to properly and thoroughly scrutinize visa applications of citizens of those countries wanting to visit the United States. And in the cases where it does have representation (Iraq and Sudan), ongoing conflicts make it very difficult as well.

The actions of unelected officials – like the State Department careerists and federal judges who may have violated their own regulations or ignored the governing law or serious conditions in the seven countries affected by the presidential order – may be doing a great disservice to the American people by opposing this presidential action, and they will have blood on their hands if a terrorist, or terrorists, from any of these countries is granted entry and strikes the American homeland while courts adjudicate the president’s order.

The most important job of an elected U.S. President is to keep the American people safe.  And it seems from the circumstances listed above that President Trump has the clear constitutional and statutory authority, responsibility and legitimate reasons to temporarily suspend travel from these seven dangerous nations until current visa vetting procedures are properly evaluated to better ensure that terrorists are not among those refugees and aliens cleared for entrance into the United States.  To do anything less would possibly endanger American lives.

Link

 

America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

Sign Up

 

“Eyes on ISIS” by F. Michael Maloof

 

 

EYES ON ISIS
Experts turn out ‘counterjihad’
blueprint for America
Concerned because U.S. foreign policy lacks national security objectives for Mideast, N. Africa
By F. Michael Maloof

WASHINGTON –

A plan to defeat the “global jihad movement” has been released by a team of national security experts who say it offers a blueprint for a “counterjihad security architecture for America” to confront what they call the “existential struggle of our time.”

The Legacy National Security Advisory Group, founded by retired Army U.S. Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely under the auspices of his Stand Up America US foundation, claims U.S. foreign policy has fallen short in setting goals for the region under Obama that encompasses the Middle East and North Africa.

“The U.S. has limited national security objectives in the MENA region, but they are important and must be precisely defined,” Vallely told G2Bulletin.

He said the objectives of the blueprint are to defend U.S. diplomatic, intelligence and military assets in the region, keep open the naval, maritime and commercial sea lanes and defend the free passage of oil and other commercial goods.

In addition, he said, the United States must make sure critical waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz, Bab al-Mandab, the Red Sea and Suez Canal are not controlled by that jihadists or other forces “hostile” to the U.S. and the West.

The plan also calls for defense and support of regional allies to include Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the Kurdish people.

In effect, Vallely said, the United States must seek a balance of power in the MENA region, rebuild the military and defeat the ISIS – “global jihad movement.”

The Legacy blueprint also said it is important to help create a “balance of power” between Shiite and Sunni Islamic forces, while avoiding actions to further destabilize the region “unless compelled in defense of other core U.S. national security objectives.”

“We must understand that fashionable policies like ‘exporting democracy. COIN (counterinsurgency) winning hearts and minds’ and ‘nation building’ are futile among societies of Islamic law (Sharia) and have showed no success. America must move the strategic “Lily Pad” concept and doctrine as articulated by MG Vallely in other published documents.

“Sometimes accepting local strongman rule that supports U.S. and Western interests, even though not democratic, is the lesser of two evils when the alternative would be either chaos or an Islamic jihad-and-Shariah takeover,” the document said.

It also calls for rebuilding the U.S. military “ASAP” (as soon as possible), given that sequestration has “decimated” U.S. military readiness, hindering its efforts to respond effectively to “national security requirements.”

It also said that Sharia law is a threat, calling on the White House to formulate and implement a national security strategy that “defines Islamic Law (Sharia) as an enemy threat doctrine.”

“It must be a priority objective of this new National Security Strategy to deter and defeat Islamic jihad globally,” the Legacy document said. “To do that, it will be necessary that U.S. national security leadership understand that the Sharia threat is advanced by way of jihad, which may be kinetic or non-kinetic.”

It also called for the White House and the intelligence community to “remove the jihadist penetration of and influence operations against the U.S. government, especially at top levels of national security.”

The blueprint particularly singled out Iran with its weapons of mass destruction programs, especially “nuclear and electromagnetic pulse (EMP) programs and international continental ballistic missile delivery systems.”

It said these pose an “existential threat to the U.S. mainland as well as to regional allies like Israel.”

The Syrian Renaissance (Rebirth, Restoration and Rebuilding of Syria) has just been launched by SUA.

Michael Maloof, senior staff writer for WND/ G2Bulletin, is a former security policy analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Maloof is author of “A Nation Forsaken—EMP: The Escalating Threat of an American Catastrophe,” the e-book, “ISIS Rising: Prelude to a neo-Ottoman Caliphate.

 

 

America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

Sign up

 

GLOBALISTS FIGHT PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR OF WORDS AGAINST AMERICA by Michael Cutler

Editor’s Note: From our great friend and regular SUA contributor, Michael Cutler, retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings.

He hosts “The Michael Cutler Hour” on USA Talk Radio Fridays at 7 p.m. (EST) and is frequently interviewed by broadcast media on various aspects of immigration issues, especially the nexus to national security.

 

 

GLOBALISTS FIGHT PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR OF WORDS AGAINST AMERICA

By Michael Cutler

Borders are a nation’s first line of defense and last line of defense against the enemies of that nation. In fact, it could properly be said that the primary role of our military is to keep America’s enemies as far from our shores (and borders) as possible.

However, “up close and in person,” the issue of border security becomes the domain and responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies charged with border security and the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

The report, “9/11 and Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,” began with this paragraph :

“It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.”

However, border security is a problem for globalists who see in secure borders impediments to their wealth. And, politicians who depend on political campaign contributions, by necessity, must take into account the demands of their campaign contributors, many of whom have globalist objectives.

Organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a host of other special interest groups that depend on the exploitation of the immigration system are eager to fill the campaign coffers of politicians irrespective of whether they are Democrats or Republicans in order to get “the best government money can buy.”

Today news reports on immigration often lack clarity and honesty. Frequently news reports appear to have been written by Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” and the term “propaganda” comes to mind when considering them.

Consider that “propaganda” has been described thusly:

propaganda |ˌpräpəˈɡandə|
noun
chiefly derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view: he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda.

the dissemination of propaganda as a political strategy: the party’s leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary.

All too frequently journalists have been participants in efforts to obfuscate the issue of immigration following the lead of Jimmy Carter, originator of the Orwellian term, “undocumented immigrant.” Their news reports foisted on Americans are part of what I have come to refer to as the immigration con game.

President Trump’s executive order to temporarily block the entry of aliens from seven countries parallels the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Aliens from those countries cannot be effectively vetted; yet, major news organizations breathlessly exclaimed that aliens who had been issued visas were denied entry into the U.S., blithely ignoring the fact that aliens with valid visas are routinely denied entry into the United States by Customs and Border Protection Inspectors, an issue with which I am intimately familiar.

For the first four years of my 30-year career with the former INS I was an Immigration Inspector at John F. Kennedy International Airport. My article, “Aliens Guaranteed Entry Into The U.S.? – Trump’s executive order on immigration and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission,” explained how a visa should be simply thought of as a “ticket” that enables an alien seeking U.S. entry to a port of entry and make an application for admission. However, an alien who has been issued a visa is not guaranteed entry into the country. Indeed, aliens do not have an inherent right to enter the U.S.; only American citizens do.

Furthermore, while nearly every news report identified those seven countries as being “majority Muslim countries,” ignored was the fact that the Obama administration had compiled that list of countries because they were identified with terrorism and were therefore extremely problematic.

Unfortunately too many Americans are “drinking the Kool-Aid,” an expression that refers to the deaths of more than 900 people who killed themselves or murdered their children, blindly following the insane exhortations of charismatic cult leader Jim Jones, in what came to be known as “The Jonestown Massacre.”

Those Americans should put down their straws and be relieved, not angered, that for once our government is seeking to protect innocent lives, putting safety ahead of the globalists’ anti-American agenda.

Support Link

 

America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

Sign Up

 

Marine Le Pen will make France Great Again by Michael Flanagan

Editor’s Note: From our great friend and regular SUA contributor, Michael Flanagan. Former Congressman Flanagan is president of Michael Flanagan Consulting, a practicing attorney, and is a former Captain in the U.S. Army and has worked for the U.S. State Department. 

 


Recently, I travelled to France to speak at a Franco-American friendship gathering assembled to celebrate the inauguration of America’s forty-fifth President.  On that trip, I had the pleasure of a private dinner with Marine La Pen and with Major General (ret) Paul Vallely.  General Vallely was our host and has long been involved in international affairs as they relate to the United States.

Ms. Le Pen was thoughtful, pleasant, informed and a true daughter of France.  She loves her country in that special way that motivates all of us to support her love affair and emulate it in our own lives and for our own country.

Like many Americans, Ms. Le Pen loves everybody but feels that her country is for her countrymen and not a potential residence for anyone in the world who wants to come.  Like many Americans, she believes that France has the right and responsibility to carefully select those whom should live among them and does not apologize for this.

Ms. Le Pen questions and largely rejects the belief that a thin veneer of overlords known as the EU Parliament and its financial backers should make all of the rules for half a billion people located among the most diverse and differing ethnicities on the earth.  She believes that the French should govern France, not a collection of other Europeans assembled from these differing ethnicities.

Ms. Le Pen rejects collectivism in economic terms as well as political ones.  She embraces the free-market and trade deals among nations close and far.  She would like France to reject the Euro and re-establish the French Franc as Great Britain still uses the British Pound.

Ms. Le Pen also is as perplexed as many Americans are that these things are in any way controversial things to say – much less hateful as the Left calls them.

Ms. Le Pen is running ahead of the pack in the preliminary elections to be held in April.  That election will be shortly followed by the run-off between the top two vote getters.  Ms. Le Pen is a shoe-in to be among the top two – in fact, the first.

Interestingly, the second contender will be the right-of -center traditional party, the Republican candidate, Francois Fillon.  Because Fillon is plagued with personal controversies, he is fading in the pack.  Le Pen is doing all of the right things and, consequently, her numbers are growing daily.

These two contenders on the Right consume well over half of the expected vote.  Consequentially, as was quoted to me repeatedly in France, “the Left is finished.”  The last time the national leader of France was as unpopular as Hollande is now, they cut his head off.

Le Pen has been working very hard on her positions and her image which has been blighted by past sins of her party, The National Front, and by a biased, left-leaning media.  To rebut unfounded attacks on her affection for all Frenchmen, she has secured very favorable statements by Mr. Gilles-William Goldnadel and by Mr. Roger Cukierman both prominent Jewish leaders in France.

Unlike so many in America, she would be thrilled with an endorsement by our President and believes that his election was the beginning of a long line of leaders all over the world to be cut from that same cloth as President Trump was.  The Trump Administration has so far been reluctant to get into the mix over there but there is time, if they are so inclined.  I hope that they seriously consider an endorsement.

Like Trump, she enjoys a cross-section of France supporting her and has strong support on the traditional sector of the country.  This may entice out a previously-unknown percentage of the vote, until now hidden – a’ la Brexit and Trump.

Young people are enjoying a re-awakening of what it means to be French in its grandest tradition and these folks make-up a surprisingly large part of her enthusiastic supporters.  The excitement of youth working for something is both infectious and heart-warming.  It is nice to see young people building something like they are over there as opposed to being paid by George Soros to pull things down like they do over here.

Marine Le Pen is on the march and I am hopeful for her success in April.  It will be a shock to the EU and will embolden so many others in Europe and around the world to re-embrace the nation-state as a the best means for a peaceful coexistence in the world.

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION CHALLENGE by Michael Cutler

Editor’s Note: From our great friend and regular SUA contributor, Michael Cutler, retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings.

He hosts “The Michael Cutler Hour” on USA Talk Radio Fridays at 7 p.m. (EST) and is frequently interviewed by broadcast media on various aspects of immigration issues, especially the nexus to national security.

 

 

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION CHALLENGE

To undo Obama’s catastrophic damage.

January 4, 2017

by Michael Cutler

 

On January 20, 2017 President Trump can and likely will end all of Obama’s illegal immigration executive orders, but he needs to do more.

For decades the effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws was hobbled by lack of resources in general and a particularly devastating failure to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

For decades the Border Patrol was perceived as the primary enforcement arm of America’s immigration laws and for the Border Patrol this worked out fine.  They got the lion’s share of publicity and, far more importantly, the funding while INS special agents and the interior enforcement mission were all but ignored

When the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) was created in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11, the former INS was dismantled and broken into several components of the DHS and mixed in with other agencies, principally the U.S. Customs Service.

Bad as it was for INS agents to operate in the shadow of the Border Patrol, the creation of the DHS was disastrous and caused many of the INS agents nostalgic for “the good old days.”

On May 5, 2005 the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims conducted a hearing on the topic, “New ‘Dual Mission’ Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.”

I was one of four witnesses who testified at that hearing.  In point of fact, I testified at several hearings that sought to understand the challenges that the creation of the DHS created for the effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.

In my testimony I clearly articulated my concerns about the myriad issues created when the DHS was established and the former INS was dismantled.

Consider this excerpt from the testimony of then-Subcommittee Chairman John Hostettler in which he articulated the importance of immigration law enforcement and that was, however, hobbled by the creation of the DHS:

The first two Subcommittee hearings of the year examined in detail how the immigration enforcement agencies have inadequate resources and too few personnel to carry out their mission. The witnesses mentioned the lack of uniforms, badges, detention space, and the inevitable low morale of frontline agents who are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of incoming illegal aliens. If this were not enough, these ”immigration enforcement” agencies also face internal confusion resulting from dual or multiple missions in which immigration has all too often taken a back seat. Sadly, contrary to Congress’ expectations, immigration enforcement has not been the primary focus of either of these agencies, and that is the subject of today’s hearing.

The Homeland Security Act, enacted in November 2002, split the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, into separate immigration service and enforcement agencies, both within the Department of Homeland Security. This split had been pursued by Chairman Sensenbrenner based on testimony and evidence that the dual missions of INS had resulted in poor performance.

There was a constant tug-of-war between providing good service to law-abiding aliens and enforcing the law against law-breakers. The plain language of the Homeland Security Act, Title D, creates a ”Bureau of Border Security,” and specifically transfers all immigration enforcement functions of INS into it. Yet when it came down to actually creating the two: new agencies, the Administration veered off course. Although the service functions of INS were transferred to USCIS, the enforcement side of INS was split in two, what is now Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to handle interior enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to guard our borders.

ICE was given all Customs agents, investigators, intelligence and analysis-from the Treasury Department, as well as the Federal Protective Service to guard Federal buildings, and the Federal Air Marshals to protect our airplanes, and finally the INS investigators.

CBP was given all Treasury Customs inspectors at the ports-of-entry, Agriculture Inspector from the Department Of Agriculture, and INS inspectors.

At no time during the reorganization planning was it anticipated by the Committee that an immigration enforcement agency would share its role with other enforcement functions, such as enforcement of our customs laws. This simply results in the creation of dual or multiple missions that the act sought to avoid in the first place.

Failure to adhere to the statutory framework established by HSA has produced immigration enforcement incoherence that undermines the immigration enforcement mission central to DHS, and undermines the security of our Nation’s borders and citizens.

It is not certain on what basis it was determined that customs and agriculture enforcement should become part of the immigration enforcement agency, except to require Federal agents at the border to have more expertise and more functions.

It is also unknown on what basis the Federal Air Marshals should become part of this agency, especially since it has been revealed that the policy is not to apprehend out-of-immigration status aliens when discovered on flights. If the mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to protect the homeland, it cannot effect its mission by compromising or neglecting immigration enforcement for customs enforcement.

The 9/11 terrorists all came to the United States without weapons or contraband—Added customs enforcement would not have stopped 9/11 from happening. What might have foiled al Qaeda’s plan was additional immigration focus, vetting and enforcement. And so what is needed is recognition that, one, immigration is a very important national security issue that cannot take a back seat to customs or agriculture. Two, immigration is a very complex issue, and immigration enforcement agencies need experts in immigration enforcement. And three, the leadership of our immigration agencies should be shielded from political pressures to act in a way which could compromise the Nation’s security.

It was clear that the Bush administration was eager to de-emphasize immigration law enforcement.  What was not noted in the testimony is that most of the management at ICE came from Legacy Customs and not from Legacy INS.

However, as bad as things became when the DHS was created by the Bush administration, the Obama administration, once again, caused ICE agents to become nostalgic about “the good old days” of the Bush administration.

While nature’s laws are immutable, legislated laws are not.  Law enforcement personnel are essential to the enforcement of laws.

The incoming Trump administration must make effective interior enforcement of our immigration laws a key priority if his immigration policies are to be successful.

Additionally, because of the policies of the Obama administration, there is an abject lack of managers and agents who have any actual experience or understanding of effective immigration law enforcement.

Institutional memory about effective immigration law enforcement has been all but expunged from the DHS.

Furthermore, most federal prosecutors lack experience in bringing criminal charges for violations of immigration laws.

I would recommend that the Trump administration make training a key priority for all prosecutors and immigration enforcement programs as well as for the employees of USCIS.

They all need to work cooperatively and collaboratively.

The culture of the adjudications program that is the realm of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) is to not cooperate with the ICE agents.  This culture was created and nurtured by the Obama administration.

The Trump administration must swiftly remove or reassign any USCIS managers who refuse to cooperate fully and collaboratively with ICE enforcement personnel.

Consider a particularly egregious case involving the manager of the San Bernardino office of USCIS obstructed ICE/HSI agents assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force from entering her facility.  They were seeking to locate and arrest a suspected coconspirator of the San Bernardino terror attack less than 24 hours after that attack.

She was subsequently nominated for the prestigious Secretary’s Award.

My article about this insanity included this excerpt:

On March 16, 2016, Senator Ron Johnson, the Chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, requested an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Homeland Security into the circumstances surrounding this monumental screw-up.  On June 1, 2016 the OIG report of the investigation was made public.

This is how the OIG report described the outrageous confrontation between the USCIS manager and the ICE agents:

The Field Office Director told the agents they were not allowed to arrest, detain, or interview anyone in the building based on USCIS policy, and that she would need to obtain guidance from her superior before allowing them access. During this exchange, the agents also spoke by phone with the Acting Chief, Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS), USCIS, Los Angeles. According to the HSI agents, he told the agents that it was USCIS policy not to arrest, detain, or interview on USCIS property.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) also accused her of lying to their investigators.

President-elect Trump’s has focused on immigration.  He will have the unique opportunity to address the multiple failures of the immigration system, many of which are decades old while some were created by the Obama administration.

Trump’s leadership can undo the madness foisted on America and Americans by the Obama administration and even correct the errors inherent in the way that the DHS was created in response to the terror attacks of 9/11.

What a way to start the new year and a new administration.

 

Article Link

America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

Sign up