Previous post
For years Democrats in Congress kept the military operating under Continuing Resolutions and the Budget Control Act. Yet the people who withheld necessary funding, are now crying foul that Trump is reallocating DoD monies to build the southern border wall. “Hypocrites” just moved beside “Democrat” in Webster’s dictionary.
Despite a recent spending bill with the largest increase to the military budget in the last decade, Democrat politicians are no friends to the military. They spent the last decade withholding NDAA funding hostage over advancing their social programs agenda. From the Washington Post, 2015. (Before it went off the rails.)
Senate Democrats on Thursday officially threw down the spending gauntlet, blocking consideration of the annual defense appropriations bill as part of a strategy to force Republicans to agree to greater funding levels for domestic programs…. But Democrats say they aren’t concerned about the politics of blocking military funding and believe that ultimately Republicans will have to come to the negotiating table.
When the Democrats couldn’t get what they wanted, they channeled their inner toddler to get their way. “Military needs be dammed, we demand domestic spending! We’ll hold military families and programs hostage until we get it!!”
The seemingly endless CR & BCA eroded the military in ways previously unseen. Contracts couldn’t be written because funding was restricted, and at times uncertain. During his testimony to Congress, then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis put the blame squarely where it belongs. On Congress.
Of course, now that Trump is reallocating congressionally approved DoD funds to the wall, the gloves come out. The best one is Charles Schumer. He’s angry that West Point won’t get the new technology building, and supporting structure…. He’s miffed about a building and a parking lot. The academics haven’t changed, the technology is being taught in the same place as before… and the parking lot…. Really? But it’s $160 million in funding to be repurposed at the southern border. Obviously, his desire to have a vanity project help his state is highly important, especially if it comes with $160,000,000 from federal spending. His hypocrisy about this pork roll vanity projects knows no bounds.
Today Defense Secretary Mark Esper notified me that the Department of Defense will reprogram $3.6 billion in funds appropriated for military construction projects, including at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, in order to build @realDonaldTrump ‘s misguided border wall.
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) September 3, 2019
Even presidential quitter candidate CA Congressman Eric Swawell enjoys a dip in hypocrisy creek. I wonder if he remembered that he voted against the 2016 NDAA and a host of other military funding bills. He did vote “yea” on House Resoloution 124 -” Expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals.” Unsurprising because the majority of democrats view the military as their own experimental reality show.
Canceling military construction projects to pay for a wasteful border wall is yet another example of @realDonaldTrump putting his own vanity projects before the American people. His disregard for the brave men & women who serve our country is un-American & should infuriate us all
— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) September 4, 2019
Never missing an opportunity to pull at heartstrings and emotions, CBS runs with this headline,
School construction among projects being cut to pay for Trump’s border wall”
Oh, NO! Wherever will the children go to school?
Do the children have any other options?! Open panic is about to set in!!
Well, actually, yes. It’s Fort Campbell ~ Kentucky. I know this is virtually Mars to most dems, but they do have options for state public school. Instead of celebrating the saved funds, the headline is manic in its dismay. I can’t fathom why DODEA has CONUS schools, and frankly, reallocating the funds is a great idea. $62,634,000 is a lot of money for a single school.
But, should facts matter when there’s so much emotion on the line? Of course not! This isn’t about facts and how statistics support decreased migrant crossings at locations with a physical barrier. Those children coming across the hot desert at the hands of cartel smugglers… well, they’ll matter as soon as they get processed and Democrats can use more emotional pulls to get their way.
In January I wrote about how border fences reduce crossings, keeping both illegal migrants and border patrol safe. What must remain in the forefront of the story is truth. I can’t help but think this play by Trump will be costly. The military is going to get taken down by crossfire from both sides. Whereupon, each declare victory to their base, ignoring the fallout. Unless they can point out how the other guy is to blame.
Military personnel will continue to bear the brunt of the cost. It’s what they do.
Featured Image: Pixabay License: Free Image Cropped:400×400
Charles N. Steele says: Military/defense funds are *not* for walls!
Minefields and concertina wire entanglements, now *those* are appropriate uses. (Heh!)
NC says: What if the walls are used on military training grounds? 😉 I can’t tell you the number of times that aviators/Marines working in the R-2301 range spaces of the Goldwater training range had to call off live fire exercises due to vehicles coming north across the desert. Not to mention the occasion when a convoy runs head on into a bunch of SUV’s full of drugs and guns…. Let’s use military construction funds to secure our bases. Just like we do with our OCONUS bases 😉 There’s a lot of Federal Lands out there to cover. 😉
In all honesty, the MilCon budget does need to be left alone. The infrastructure on many bases is terrible. The USMC is especially proud of it’s “heritage” working spaces…. If they designate it a “heritage” location the mold, mildew, old carpet, and funky smells are part of the ambiance. 🙂
GWB says: “Ambience”? Nah.
That’s called “training”!
(For some time, I worked in an old munitions warehouse as a Navy IT contractor. They had to move us to one of the other WW2 munitions warehouses to do the asbestos abatement. That one was next to the storage mound they had to dig out in its entirety and replace the toxic dirt with new fill.)
GWB says: “Hypocrites” just moved beside “Democrat” in Webster’s dictionary.
Oh, hun, it’s been there for at least a half century.
Contracts couldn’t be written because funding was restricted
Yep. Saw that first hand.
I can’t fathom why DODEA has CONUS schools
I can, though I disagree. While DODEA was primarily formed for kids of military members stationed overseas, about 30 years ago a bunch of people complained (rightly so*, imo) that living on base meant their kids were in the crappiest local school district. So, Congress authorized DODEA to construct schools on military bases where the local school district failed to meet certain standards**. They might also include off-base housing availability as a factor.
(* Have you seen the sort of area that grows up right outside a LOT of CONUS military bases? It’s often a “bad part of town”. The income in those areas (driven partly by the lowest enlisted grade pay) is abysmal, and it shows.)
(** BTW, Guam is considered CONUS in many ways, and schools used to be one way. They built schools on base there precisely because education on the whole island sucked, bigly. The one bright spot was a church school where anyone with any money sent their kids. But the place was full, and couldn’t accommodate new students in the middle of the year (not everyone gets to PCS in the summer) at all. So, DODEA built some schools. IIRC, the high school was on the Navy base, and the elementary school was on the Air Force base.)
Good post.
LTC (R) Ben Harvey III says: Yes. I was stationed at Fort Knox in the 70’s and the post had it’s own elementary school system as the local ones did not meet the standards set by the DOD. Likewise in the 50’s I went to elementary school at Fort Belvoir, VA as it had it’s own school system. Of course at that time I was too young to know why.
NC says: Re DODEA Schools,. They are now some the most nepotistic bully ridden domiciles of education. It’s literally a holding space for inept and lazy people who fear no reprisals. Meanwhile, off- base public schools are hit or miss. So in some places kids have the worst of world choices. Even the on-base public schools in certain areas are horrible. Know kids who attend school at Belvoir (jAlexandria VA), it’s Fairfax county (excellent rated school district). This school is full of military kids who are so terrible and disrespectful. They are bullies and the admin does nothing about it. So DODEA CONUS is really an expensive tenure system with more bad than good outcomes. Hawaii is another example of poor education options. Most people who can swing it send their kids to private school. Regardless, nothing the government does is cheap and 36,000,000 is a ton of money for a single school building.
Thanks, glad you liked it.
Beans says: Totally agree, and then there’s the security side. Less chance for some anarchist/leftist/democratic supporter to snag a school bus of military dependents to screw with.
Plus, mil-kids around mil-kids provides a support structure that mixing mil-kids with civ-kids doesn’t.
On-base schools, whether CONUS or overseas are a great idea.
Well, I disagree with your disagreement… Keep the base schools.
When we first moved out here, the wife and I lived a mile north of the Davis-Monthan main entrance. When we moved out of that neighborhood, it took me quite a few weeks to get back to proper sleep – because there weren’t two or three times every night that the police choppers were circling above us. Not a good environment for children, and then they went to a crappy school on top of that?
Fortunately, when we did move, I didn’t also have to get over hearing the planes; we’re even closer to the base fence now, but over on the decommissioning / refurbishment side. Most of my neighbors are retired military or cops (or double-dippers, for that matter). Only time I’ve had trouble with sleeping due to no noise was right after 9/11, when all flight ops were shut down.
GWB says: My disagreement is … complicated. I get the perceived need, but I think, long-term, a more comprehensive solution is necessary. (You see that most of my parenthetical above is support.)
Harlan says: “Democrat politicians are no friends to the military.”
obammy certainly did all he could to neuter it…from the top down.
BH says: Yes. I was stationed at Fort Knox in the 70’s and the post had it’s own elementary school system as the local ones did not meet the standards set by the DOD. Likewise in the 50’s I went to elementary school at Fort Belvoir, VA as it had it’s own school system. Of course at that time I was too young to know why.
GWB says: I think the issues of money and control have swung back and forth over the last ~80 years. At one point military bases were an entire enclosed community, and going off-post was akin to venturing into enemy territory. That shifted, partly as the military tried to save money (housing, in particular) and partly as the military stopped seeing itself as so alien. And it shifted again as public education became problematic and got a lot of attention. So, all over the map.
SDN says: “When the Democrats couldn’t get what they wanted, they channeled their inner toddler to get their way. “Military needs be dammed, we demand domestic spending! We’ll hold military families and programs hostage until we get it!!””
Why does this surprise you? They did the SAME THING after 9/11. How do you think we got the TSA? Or Medicare Part B? Pure blackmail.
W’s biggest mistake was in going to Iraq before clearing out the Fifth Column here.
Scott says: “W’s biggest mistake was in going to Iraq before clearing out the Fifth Column here.”
Not to be contrary SDN, but you might want to look back at your reply to my comment on the thread about the DOJ and the rifle scopes.. seems the two are quite similar
The problem, of course, is this blog has completely forgotten the ACTUAL American history. The Founders revolted from England in part because the King refused to maintain open borders. Read the Declaration of Independence:
“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither”
The Founders (and present-day law) distinguished between immigration (entering the country) and naturalization (the ability to vote and hold office). Thus, the Constitution has VERY strict rules on naturalization, but none at all on immigration. In fact, there are NO federal laws restricting immigration until the 1875 Page Act, which embodied Darwinian eugenics to keep out the yellow Asian hordes.
The only mention of immigration in the Constitution refers to the importation of slaves, the only mention of deportation (not immigration, btw – immigration is never mentioned) in federal law is the Alien and Sedition Acts.
In reaction to the A&S laws, Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration) and James Madison (author of the Constitution) started the first federal nullification movement, wherein the Virginia and Kentucky legislatures passed resolutions declaring those specific federal laws invalid within their states. That is, Jefferson and Madison specifically and explicitly created those respective states as “sanctuary” states.
So, Trump’s entire riff on this is actually a violation of the Founders’ vision and constitutional law as embodied by the Founders for the first century of this country’s history. The Page Act was passed in response to Darwin’s work, and Trump has long been a proud eugenicist (as has virtually every President between Teddy Roosevelt and Trump, inclusive, with the sole exceptions of Reagan and GW Bush).
The history is quite, QUITE clear.
You are backing a Progressive Darwinian eugenics argument.
Yours is the argument of a damned liberal, not an argument in line with the Founders’ vision.
If you want to argue that times change, and the Constitution must change with it, that’s Woodrow Wilson’s argument. That’s a Progressive argument.
Either you are for Original Intent ™ or you aren’t.
Choose.
GWB says: Thus, the Constitution has VERY strict rules on naturalization, but none at all on immigration.
Really? WHERE?
I find it in Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 4:
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
(With the emphasis on uniform, btw.)
And I find it in the 14th Amendment, where it simply states
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
That’s it.
As to the grievance listed in the DoI, yes, there was a desire for more immigration. King George was probably right in some of his restrictions, as he didn’t desire all these French and German immigrants to settle in what he considered his lands. But, the kicker for George preventing immigration to the colonies was that they were all becoming a bit too independence-minded. Seems the Big Gov’t types have that same sort of problem with us, nowadays, and would prefer a different people – one more amenable to their rule.
Oh, and the king had also stopped the migration of the colonists westward. It was as much a complaint about expansion as it was about immigration.
Your defense of open borders isn’t looking too good, here.
(And that’s long before we get to “conditions have actually changed.”)
GWB says: If you want to argue that times change, and the Constitution must change with it
Oh, that’s not the argument I am making, at all. Times change, and our Constitution stands strong, allowing us to adapt it (like those 27 amendments) to our needs. But, it means what it means, and trying to change its meaning by twisting words is not something I will just let float on by.
Steven Kellmeyer says: GWB, welcome to my side! I’m glad you admit that you can only find evidence that the King wanted to restrict immigration, and – by your silence on the subject – you also admit that the Founders created this country open borders, while NEVER giving the federal government an enumerated right to restrict immigration. It’s good to see conservatives realize that open borders is the Original Intent position.
Certainly the first Republicans saw it that way. President Lincoln, in his Annual Message to Congress on December 8, 1863: “I again submit to your consideration the expediency of establishing a system for the encouragement of immigration….”
A week after Lincoln’s message a bill to encourage and protect foreign immigrants was presented in the Senate and passed, establishing the Federal Bureau to Encourage Immigration.
“That foreign immigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development of resources, and increase of nations, should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy.” ~ Republican Party Platform, 1864
As you know, it is impossible to find a law restricting immigration prior to the Page Act of 1875. That act was a Progressivist monstrosity based in Darwinian eugenics, designed to keep out the yellow man.
Of course, if anyone can find an earlier law restricting immigration, name it.
Good luck with that.
This country was founded open borders.
Pretending otherwise is
GWB says: Oh dear sweet baby Jesus.
NO, I am NOT agreeing with you.
The fact that immigration was pretty free and open in the first 150 years of colonization and the first 100 years of the nation has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION.
And, the fact that one immigration restricting bill was a bit racist has nothing to do with other, later laws restricting immigration.
Yes, the country was founded with somewhat open borders.
That does NOT mean they are a good idea now. (Hell, ask the Indians if they would do things differently.)
THEN the country was basically EMPTY.
Now, not so much.
THEN the country was NOT a welfare state.
Now, it mostly is.
NOW we have laws about how to come to our country (perfectly Constitutional ones, thank you very much), and conservatives want PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THOSE LAWS.
You’re not making honest arguments.
Steve Kellmeyer says: You can make the same damned arguments about gun control: Country was empty then, not a welfare state, different laws, different technology, yada, yada, yada BARF.
You just want to be a Progressive on immigration and an Original Intent maven on gun control.
Either follow Original Intent or Don’t, but quit picking and choosing like some damned liberal.
Scott says: ““That foreign immigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development of resources, and increase of nations, should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy.” ~ Republican Party Platform, 1864” Seems to me that position encourages immigration for the BENEFIT of the UNITED STATES. Nothing at all says “open borders”, but you already know that. That position makes it clear that the United States Government should adjust immigration to the needs and benefits of THIS country, NOT to those who wish to immigrate. But again, you already know that, you’re just twisting history to meet your agenda, as the left always does.
Scott says: OOh, and by your statements, you’re also pointing out that it’s Republicans (or conservatives) that want to, and actually HAVE protected immigrants, not just exploit them as the dims do…Thanks for that.
Steve Kellmeyer says: GWB, it was NOT “pretty free and open”.
THERE WERE ZERO LAWS restricting immigration.
None.
Goose egg.
NADA.
Empty set.
We’re looking at the inside of a GREAT BIG EMPTY.
NOW, you have begun arguing that the meaning of the words of the Constitution – which have NOT had an amendment added to them enumerating for the federal government a power to restrict immigration – are changeable according to circumstance.
NOW you are making the argument for a “living interpretation” of the Constitution.
Any power NOT enumerated in the Constitution does NOT belong to the federal government. That’s explicitly stated. Naturalization law IS an enumerated power, immigration law is NOT an enumerated power.
You want to make it enumerated based on how “empty” the country is, and who gets to define that? The entire population of the world can fit into Texas quite comfortably, so how empty does it need to be before the “living Constitution” allows you and yours to interpret it again in the way it was originally (and still is) clearly written?
The Left is composed of liars, bastards and hypocrites. But this column, and your remarks, make it appear the Right can’t be distinguished from the Left on those counts.
Either go with Original Intent, embrace citizens’ rights to own guns AND open borders, or be a damned hypocrite, picking and choosing which words you will accept and which you will “interpret”.
GWB says: NOW, you have begun arguing that the meaning of the words of the Constitution
No, I’m not, you feckless kumquat.
Naturalization law IS an enumerated power, immigration law is NOT an enumerated power.
No, they really are not separate things. Your wishing them so does not make it so.
Steve Kellmeyer says: And now you have to change the plain meaning of the English language, just like every damned liberal dose.|
There’s a reason we have an Office of Immigration *AND* Naturalization. Two different words with two different meanings. But you’re a damned liberal Progressive, so you won’t accept the facts.
Steven Kellmeyer says: Scott, that’s right. ORIGINALLY, Republicans protected immigrants. In fact, all federal law dealing with immigration regulated only the persons bringing people across the border – the various Steerage Acts were directed at ships’ captains, requiring them to provide humane treatment to immigrants.
No federal government EVER tried to restrict immigration, even though it was well-known that immigrants were bringing in diseases such as typhoid and typhus. Indeed, even though President Franklin Pierce’s own son died during an epidemic that was known to have started among immigrants, no one attempted to restrict immigration. They just passed laws that penalized any ship captain who didn’t provide adequate food, shelter and hospital facilities to immigrants. It would be as if the people open for penal laws today were not the people held in the detention centers, but the ICE agents who failed to provide adequate food, shelter and medical facilities.
Now, if you think the US had something other than open borders for the first century of its existence, then point out the federal law that restricts immigration. Any year between the adoption of the Constitution and 1875 will do quite nicely.
If you can’t find such a law, then you admit that the US was open borders until 1875.
And the ORIGINAL Republican Party was fine with that.
GWB says: No federal government EVER tried to restrict immigration
Until, of course, they did. *eyeROLL*
You really are disingenuous and you evidently think we’re not that bright.
Now, if you think the US had something other than open borders for the first century of its existence
WHO GIVES A DAMN? It is not NOW open borders, and for damn good reason.
NO ONE HERE HAS MADE THE ARGUMENT AGAINST WHICH YOU’RE MAKING YOUR COUNTER-ARGUMENTS.
Steve Kellmeyer says: It is not now open borders because the feds usurped the power that properly belongs to individual states.
I want Original Intent.
Full gun rights, including open carry, the right to own any weapon we damned well please AND open borders, because BOTH of those things are what the Constitution requires.
If you want the ability to pass federal immigration law, then pass an amendment that enumerates that power. But, until that happens, the feds have no damned right to pass laws restricting immigration
GWB says: the feds usurped the power that properly belongs to individual states
Oh criminy.
While the feds have certainly co-opted a huge amount of the sovereignty of the states, immigration is NOT one of those areas. The federal gov’t was clearly in charge of the national borders by the Constitution.
No, the Constitution does NOT require open borders.
And, honestly, only someone with the intelligence of a kumquat could argue so.
Or a liar stirring up trouble.
You pick.
Steve Kellmeyer says: Talk to Ilya Sommins, constitutional lawyer who has worked with Glenn Reynolds on several occasions.
Here’s one link. There are others. Google it, you yahoo.
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2018/09/12/ilya-somin/does-constitution-give-federal-government-power-over-immigration
Scott says: Define the original intent of “General Welfare, and Common Defense as specified in the Constitution, Anyone who understands the concept of sovereignty can see that it is intended that the government regulates the borders as part of these concepts. Federalist 22, among others speaks to this need for a common defense as a reason that the Articles of Confederation were insufficient for the nation, and should be replaced with the Constitution which addresses these points. Just as the 2nd Amendment is short and to the point, the Founders did not often belabor points they felt were “self evident” to use their words. This is also why many of them argued against the Bill of Rights. Not because they disagreed with the concepts included, but because they felt if was unnecessary, as those rights were obvious.
GWB says: because they felt if was unnecessary, as those rights were obvious
As we can see, those Founders were wrong. Thank goodness they didn’t prevail.
Steve Kellmeyer says: The Constitution requires ENUMERATED rights, not obvious rights. It wasn’t enumerated. You’re making a Progressive argument, not a conservative Original Intent argument.
Talk to Ilya Sommins, constitutional lawyer who has worked with Glenn Reynolds on several occasions. Or Andrew Napolitano.
“In recent years, Judge Andrew Napolitano has annoyed some anti-immigration activists by pointing out what the text of the US Constitution seemingly makes clear: “[T]he Constitution itself — from which all federal powers derive — does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration, only over naturalization.”
https://mises.org/wire/american-immigration-policy-160-years-ago
Scott says: You are correct that during that period, the borders were mostly open, because, as I said before IT BENEFITED THE U.S, and her CITIZENS. You are also correct that the Constitution did not address the issue directly, the Preamble speaks of the general welfare, and common defense, suggesting that sovereignty is an important issue the Declaration of Independence goes further into this, as you might recall, the Constitution is not the first, nor only document outlining the formation of our country. Also, Article I, Section 8, Line 4 speaks of a uniform Rule of Naturalization.
All of this combined, along with other writings of the Founders, such as the Federalist Papers makes it clear that Immigration was a tool to be used for the benefit of the country, NOT as an unrestricted thing no matter the costs. .
In earlier times, when medicine was less evolved, there were costs to immigration. Later, as the country grew, it became clear that immigrants should not be a burden on the country (look at rules regarding medical testing prior to entry, means testing, etc prior to entry). You might as well claim that prior to the civil war, doctors didn’t care about their patients dieing, because they didn’t practice good sanitation, or administer antibiotics… That would be just as much of a straw man argument as your making now, though technically it would be correct to say that they didn’t do those things.
Politically Ambidextrous says: “It would be as if the people open for penal laws today were not the people held in the detention centers, but the ICE agents who failed to provide adequate food, shelter and medical facilities.”
ICE agents are not the “ships’ captains” who transported the immigrants to this country.
Politically Ambidextrous says: Steve, what do you consider to be the appropriate differences today between what the Federal government is obligated to provide to citizens vs. to non-citizen immigrants, and vice-versa (what citizens are obligated to provide to the Federal government vs. the obligations of non-citizen immigrants)?
I’m hoping for an answer for 2019, not one from 1875.
Are there differences between citizens and immigrants in the applicability of laws or differences in rights (other than voting)?
36 Comments