In one case, they think it’s too expensive to build the most effective form of security there is on our southern border — a physical barrier.

In another, they don’t bat an eye when $150 billion is returned to a country where “Death to America” has pretty much become an unofficial motto.

Is it any wonder conservatives like Woods don’t trust the Democrats on security?

 Estimates place the cost of President Donald Trump’s border wall in the ballpark of $20-$30 billion. That’ll probably get inflated — as government projects inexorably do — but the point is that it’ll probably clock in at somewhere in that general vicinity.

That sounds like a lot, but in the milieu of modern American government, where foreign aid for a single year can approach the lower reaches of that budget, it’s actually quite modest.

So why is it so hard to get funding for it?

The top Democrat in the Senate says that it’s too costly: “Our view on the wall as something that is ineffectual and expensive has not changed,” Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said back in March as the president was inspecting wall prototypes in California, Reutersreports.

Of course, Schumer supported the wall back in 2006, back when border security was still on the Democrats’ agenda (and abolishing ICE wasn’t). But let’s forget that. The point is, since when does a party which considers $20 billion of taxpayer money to be pocket change suddenly care so much about spending that money in a way that will arguably save taxpayers far more over the life of the project?

Now, it’s worth pointing out here that the $150 billion that Woods is talking about is actually Iranian assets frozen by sanctions that were unfrozen by the Obama administration in the Iran deal.

Under current U.S. law, there’s no particular way to expropriate those frozen funds except in wartime. That said, they didn’t necessarily need to be given back to the Iranians.

There’s no court that the United States recognizes as having authority over the president’s ability to freeze foreign funds — either within America or internationally. And, while the government couldn’t use the money, necessarily, the money could have been saved for the Iranian people if and when the mullahs in Tehran are toppled.

That definitely would have been a better use of that money than what actually happened.

When Trump backed out of the Iran deal, former Bush administration official James Robbins wrote in USA Today that the deal “did nothing to hamper Tehran’s support for terrorism and insurgency. In fact, the up to $150 billion in Iranian assets the deal unfroze has probably helped underwrite the country’s recent military adventurism in Syria and elsewhere.”

In fact, that’s one of the great problems with the Iran deal — it gave a massive infusion of cash to a country that’s using that money to fund extremist groups and build up its military.

You may think that this means these two numbers aren’t related, but they are. They show a shocking consistency among the Democrats: a consistent willingness to make decisions that jeopardize American security.

https://www.teaparty.org/james...redible-meme-316535/

Original Post

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×