Connect with us

Latest

Video

Here is the Assad interview CNN will never show you, “EU is supporting the terrorists in Syria from the very beginning”

Assad tells a Belgium reporter that the EU cannot re-build Syria ‘while destroying Syria.’

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

11,617 Views

On the 7th of February, 2017 Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told Belgian media that their country and the EU merely obey ‘the American master’ when it comes to Syria and political decision-making in general.

Once again Assad shows that he is far from the dictator the western media paints him to be.

What Assad shows is that he is a well educated, well spoken, leader of a sovereign Syria that has undergone a massive and brutal US/EU invasion using Wahhabi jihadist forces masked as “moderate rebels.”

Here is the full transcript of the interview (courtesy Middle East Observer)…

Reporter: We’ve been to Aleppo, we’ve seen the destruction…how do you see the way forward for peace nowadays after Astana?

President Assad:

If we want to talk about how to see the peace – it is not related mainly to Astana, it is something much bigger: how can we stop the flowing of the terrorists towards Syria or in Syria? How can we stop the support from regional countries like Turkey, Gulf states, or from Europe like France and UK, or from the US during the Obama administration? If we deal with that title, this is where we can talk about the rest, about the political procedure. Astana is one of the initiative(s) during this war on Syria, and it’s about the dialogue between the Syrians.

Now it’s too early to judge Astana. The first one was positive because it was about the principles of the unity of Syria, about the Syrians deciding their future, how can you implement this communique? That’s the question. And I think we are going to see an Astana 2 and so on. So the peace is two things: fighting terrorists and terrorism, stopping the flowing of terrorists and every kind of logistical support, and second, dialogue between the Syrians to decide the future of their country and the whole political system. These are the headlines about how to see the future of Syria.

Reporter: We have seen many breaches in the ceasefire. Would you consider the ceasefire still upholding or is it dead?

President Assad:

No it’s not dead, it is…and it’s natural in every ceasefire anywhere in the world, in every war in any conflict to have these breaches. It could be sometimes on an individual level, it doesn’t mean there’s (a) policy of breaching of (the) ceasefire by government or any other party, and this is something we can deal with on a daily basis, and sometimes on an hourly basis, but till this moment, the ceasefire is holding.

Reporter: In the fight against (the) terror group Daesh, do you think all means are justified?

President Assad:

It depends on what do we mean by all means, we have to be…

Reporter: Literally all means…

President Assad:

Yeah but I don’t know what the means that are available to tell you yes, all means, so I don’t know what all means, but if you want to talk about military means, yes of course, because the terrorists are attacking the people. I’m not only talking about ISIS. ISIS and al-Nusra and all the al-Qaeda affiliated groups within Syria. When they attack Syrians and killing civilians, and beheading people and destroying properties – private and public – and destroying the infrastructure, everything in this country…our constitutional duty and legal duty as (a) government and as (an) army and as state institutions is to defend the Syrian people. It is not an opinion, it’s a duty. So regarding this, you can use every mean in order to defend the Syrian people.

Reporter: But we have seen the destruction in Aleppo – you have seen the images as well. Was there no other way to do it than in such a…or (sic) way?

President Assad:

Actually since the beginning of the crisis or the war on Syria we used every possible way. We didn’t leave any stone unturned in order to bring people to the negotiating table. But when you talk about the terrorists…when you talk about terrorists, when you talk about al-Qaeda, when you talk about al-Nusra and ISIS, I don’t think anyone in this world would believe that they are ready for dialogue, and they always say they’re not. They have their own ideology, they have their own way-path. They don’t accept anything (that) could be related to (a) civil state or civil country. They don’t. And I think you know as (a) European about this reality. So no, making dialogue with al-Nusra & al-Qaeda is not one of the means, but, if somebody wants to change his course on the individual levels, we are ready to accept him as a government and give him amnesty when he goes back to the normal life and give up his armament.

Reporter: The Belgian government is contributing in the fight against Daesh. There are six F-16 fighter planes in the fight against Daesh. Are you grateful to the Belgian government for that contribution?

President Assad:

Let me be frank with you: when you talk about contribution in the operation against ISIS – actually there was no operation against ISIS. It was (a) cosmetic operation. If you want to talk about (the) American alliance against ISIS, it was only an elusive alliance, because ISIS was expanding during that operation. At the same time that operation is (an) illegal operation, because it happened without consulting with or taking the permission of the Syrian government, which is a legitimate government. And it’s a breaching of our sovereignty. Third, they didn’t prevent any Syrian citizen from being killed by ISIS. So what are we grateful for? To be frank: no.

Reporter: You have stated several times that it is up to the Syrian people, it is up to the constitution to decide who their leadership should be, who their president should be. If the Syrian people would decide for a new leadership, would you consider to step aside?

President Assad:

If the Syrian people choose another president, I don’t have to choose to be aside, I will be aside, I will be outside this position, that’s self-evident, because the constitution would put (a) president, and the constitution would take him out according to the ballot box and the decision of the Syrian people. Ofcourse that’s very natural. Not only because of the ballot box, because if you don’t have public support, you cannot achieve anything in Syria, especially in a war. In a war what you need – the most important thing – is to have public support in order to restore your country, to restore the stability and security. Without it you cannot achieve anything. So yes ofcourse.

Reporter: Mr President, I am 43 years old, if I would have been born in Syria, there would always have been an Assad in executive power. Can you imagine a Syria without a member of the Assad family in executive power?

President Assad:

Of course, we don’t own the country. My family doesn’t own the country to say that only Assad should be in that position. That’s self-evident. And this could be by coincidence, because President (Hafez) Assad didn’t have an heir in the institution to be a successor. He died, I was elected – he didn’t have anything to do with my election when he was president.I didn’t have any position in the government. If he wanted me to be a heir, he would have put me somewhere, given me a responsibility. I didn’t have any responsibility actually. So it’s not as many in the media in the West use to say since my election that he was succeeded by his father or his father put him in that position. So yes Syria (is) owned by the Syrians, and every Syrian citizen has the right to be in that position.

Reporter: Do you think the European Union or even NATO can play a role in like rebuilding the country, in rebuilding Syria?

President Assad:

You cannot play that role while you are destroying Syria because the EU is supporting the terrorists in Syria from the very beginning under different titles: ‘humanitarian’, ‘moderate’, and so on, actually they were supporting al-Nusra and ISIS from the very beginning, they were extremists from the very beginning. So they cannot destroy and build at the same time.

First of all they have to take (a) very clear position regarding the sovereignty of Syria, stopping supporting the terrorists, this is where the Syrian would – I say would – accept those countries to play a role in that regard. But in the meantime if you ask any Syrian the same question they would say they don’t accept those countries that supported the people who destroyed our country, we don’t want them to be here. That’s what I think.

Reporter: Do you think Belgian can play a role in Syria?

President Assad:

Let me talk about the European political position in general. Many in this region believe that the European do not exist politically. They only follow their master the American. So the question should be about the American, and the European will follow and will implement what the American want. They don’t exist as (an) independent state, and Belgian is part of the EU.

Reporter: There is a new administration in Washington with Trump in power. What do you expect from it? Are you looking to work closely together?

President Assad:

What we heard…a statement by Trump during the campaign and after the campaign is promising regarding the priority of fighting the terrorists, and mainly ISIS. That’s what we’ve been asking for during the last six years. So I think this is promising. We have to wait – it is still early to expect anything practical, it could be about the cooperation between the US and Russia that we think is going to be positive for the rest of the world including Syria. So as I said it is still early to judge it.

Reporter: If you look back on the last couple of years, are there any things that you regret?

President Assad:

Every mistake could be a regret by any individual…

Reporter: Have you made mistakes?

President Assad:

As a human…I have to make mistakes to be human, otherwise I’m not a human.

Reporter: What would you consider a mistake?

President Assad:

A mistake (is) when you either take a wrong decision, or make wrong practice. It depends on the situation. But if you want to talk about the crisis as I understand from your question, the three decisions that we take from the very beginning is to fight terrorism, and I think it’s correct; is to make dialogue between Syrians – I think it’s correct; to respond to every political initiative, whether it’s genuine or not, and I think it’s correct; and actually we supported the reconciliation between the Syrians, and I think it’s correct. Anything else could be trivial – you have a lot of things regarding the practice, regarding the institutions, you always have mistakes.

Reporter: If you look back do you think this war was avoidable?

President Assad:

No, because there was bad intention regarding the different countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, France, UK, and the US, in order to destabilise Syria. So it wasn’t about the Syrians. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have many flaws before the war and today, as a country that allow many of those countries to mess with our country. I’m not excluding – I’m not saying it’s only about them, but they were the ones who took the initiative in order to run this war, so I don’t think it was avoidable.

Reporter: You have just had a visit from a Belgian parliamentary delegation with Mr Dewinter and Mr Carcaci, do you consider them as friends?

President Assad:

The most important (thing) about those visit is not to be friends. As a politician you don’t come to Syria to visit your friend, you come to Syria to see what’s going on.

Reporter: Do you see them as political allies?

President Assad:

No because…no, they are not my allies at all – they are coming here not for that reason. They are here in order to see what’s going on. They are the allies of the Belgian people. They came here because the government, the Belgian government, like many European governments, are blind today, they have no relation with this country on every level, so they don’t see what’s going on, they cannot play any role. So now the only eye that you have are the delegations that’s coming from your country, and this is one of them, this is one of the eyes that your government could have, and you could have many other eyes and delegations coming to Syria. So they’re not my allies, they’re not coming here for me, they’re coming here to see the situation, and I’m one of the players in the Syrian conflict. It’s natural to meet with me to hear what’s my point of view.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

At Age 70, Time To Rethink NATO

The architect of Cold War containment, Dr. George Kennan, warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics would prove a “fateful error.”

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via The Unz Review:


“Treaties are like roses and young girls. They last while they last.”

So said President Charles De Gaulle, who in 1966 ordered NATO to vacate its Paris headquarters and get out of France.

NATO this year celebrates a major birthday. The young girl of 1966 is no longer young. The alliance is 70 years old.

And under this aging NATO today, the U.S. is committed to treat an attack on any one of 28 nations from Estonia to Montenegro to Romania to Albania as an attack on the United States.

The time is ripe for a strategic review of these war guarantees to fight a nuclear-armed Russia in defense of countries across the length of Europe that few could find on a map.

Apparently, President Donald Trump, on trips to Europe, raised questions as to whether these war guarantees comport with vital U.S. interests and whether they could pass a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

The shock of our establishment that Trump even raised this issue in front of Europeans suggests that the establishment, frozen in the realities of yesterday, ought to be made to justify these sweeping war guarantees.

Celebrated as “the most successful alliance in history,” NATO has had two histories. Some of us can yet recall its beginnings.

In 1948, Soviet troops, occupying eastern Germany all the way to the Elbe and surrounding Berlin, imposed a blockade on the city.

The regime in Prague was overthrown in a Communist coup. Foreign minister Jan Masaryk fell, or was thrown, from a third-story window to his death. In 1949, Stalin exploded an atomic bomb.

As the U.S. Army had gone home after V-E Day, the U.S. formed a new alliance to protect the crucial European powers — West Germany, France, Britain, Italy. Twelve nations agreed that an attack on one would be treated as an attack on them all.

Cross the Elbe and you are at war with us, including the U.S. with its nuclear arsenal, Stalin was, in effect, told. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops returned to Europe to send the message that America was serious.

Crucial to the alliance was the Yalta line dividing Europe agreed to by Stalin, FDR and Churchill at the 1945 Crimean summit on the Black Sea.

U.S. presidents, even when monstrous outrages were committed in Soviet-occupied Europe, did not cross this line into the Soviet sphere.

Truman did not send armored units up the highway to Berlin. He launched an airlift to break the Berlin blockade. Ike did not intervene to save the Hungarian rebels in 1956. JFK confined his rage at the building of the Berlin Wall to the rhetorical: “Ich bin ein Berliner.”

LBJ did nothing to help the Czechs when, before the Democratic convention in 1968, Leonid Brezhnev sent Warsaw Pact tank armies to crush the Prague Spring.

When the Solidarity movement of Lech Walesa was crushed in Gdansk, Reagan sent copy and printing machines. At the Berlin Wall in 1988, he called on Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.”

Reagan never threatened to tear it down himself.

But beginning in 1989, the Wall was torn down, Germany was united, the Red Army went home, the Warsaw Pact dissolved, the USSR broke apart into 15 nations, and Leninism expired in its birthplace.

As the threat that had led to NATO disappeared, many argued that the alliance created to deal with that threat should be allowed to fade away, and a free and prosperous Europe should now provide for its own defense.

It was not to be. The architect of Cold War containment, Dr. George Kennan, warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics would prove a “fateful error.”

This, said Kennan, would “inflame the nationalistic and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion” and “restore the atmosphere of the cold war in East-West relations.” Kennan was proven right.

America is now burdened with the duty to defend Europe from the Atlantic to the Baltic, even as we face a far greater threat in China, with an economy and population 10 times that of Russia.

And we must do this with a defense budget that is not half the share of the federal budget or the GDP that Eisenhower and Kennedy had.

Trump is president today because the American people concluded that our foreign policy elite, with their endless interventions where no vital U.S. interest was imperiled, had bled and virtually bankrupted us, while kicking away all of the fruits of our Cold War victory.

Halfway into Trump’s term, the question is whether he is going to just talk about halting Cold War II with Russia, about demanding that Europe pay for its own defense, and about bringing the troops home — or whether he is going to act upon his convictions.

Our foreign policy establishment is determined to prevent Trump from carrying out his mandate. And if he means to carry out his agenda, he had best get on with it.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The ISIS attack in Syria appears to have failed in its real mission

ISIS probably tried to get Mr. Trump to keep troops in Syria, but in reality this attack shows no compelling reason to remain there.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

ISIS is one of the bloodiest, most brutal organizations to ever exist in modern history. During its meteoric rise, the “Caliphate” struck with death and fear across the deserts of Iraq and the wastes of Syria, seducing a seemingly increasing number of recruits from the West, developing its own currency and financing abilities, all the while remaining a death cult, in the conviction that their eventual destruction would trigger a far greater Islamic uprising.

But something changed for them starting in about 2013. While ISIS got quietly aided and abetted by President Obama’s (perhaps not unwitting) support through neglect and then even quieter collaboration (Obama thought ISIS could be “managed” in the effort to oust Bashar Al-Assad from Syria), its power and reach extended through much of Syria.

But then came Russia. Russia didn’t think ISIS should be managed. Russia determined that ISIS should be destroyed. And in 2015, invited by Syria, the Russians came and went to work. They did most of the heavy lifting in terms of driving ISIS back, while (inconveniently for the US and West) also carefully taking back Syrian territory from antigovernment groups that were supported by the US and its coalition of forces operating in the country, including Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, and all the names it took on afterwards. This was quietly carried out because the Americans also had face to save, owing to Obama’s clumsy decision to send American forces into the country, which gradually grew and metastasized into a significantly sized fighting force.

With an extremely complicated group of alliances and enemies, the American forces were forced to quietly abandon their mission of removing Bashar al-Assad from power and to pivot to actually destroying ISIS. President Trump does deserve some credit for his part in helping this to happen. He also deserves a lot of credit for his recent decision to pull American troops out of Syria.

This move was severely condemned by the US hawks, resulting in the resignation / firing / retirement of former Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and, in an amusing show of hypocrisy, the pundits from the Anti-Trump crowd at CNN and other news outlets characterized this decision as the US President proving once and for all that he is a Putin operative, a real-life Manchurian President.

ISIS evidently wanted the US not to leave either, so it conducted an attack on Wednesday, January 16th, tragically killing 19 people, with four Americans among the dead. The New York Times was lightning-fast to jump into the fray to carry out what was probably ISIS’ real mission with this attack: to sow seeds of doubt among the US authorities, and to keep American forces in the region (emphasis added).

Four Americans were among 19 people killed in Syria on Wednesday in a suicide bombing that was claimed by the Islamic State, just weeks after President Trump ordered the withdrawal of United States forces and declared that the extremist group had been defeated.

The attack targeted an American military convoy in the northern city of Manbij while troops were inside the Palace of the Princes, a restaurant where they often stopped to eat during patrols, residents said. While the Americans were inside, a nearby suicide attacker wearing an explosive vest blew himself up.

The bombing raised new questions about Mr. Trump’s surprise decision last month to end the American ground war in Syria. Critics of the president’s plans, including members of his own party, said Mr. Trump’s claim of victory over the Islamic State may have emboldened its fighters and encouraged Wednesday’s strike… Mr. Trump’s withdrawal announcement, made over the objections of his top national security officials, “set in motion enthusiasm by the enemy we’re fighting,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a prominent Trump ally who has nonetheless criticized the military drawdown.

“I saw this in Iraq. And I’m now seeing it in Syria,” Mr. Graham said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday.

The rest of the article, of course, had the Trump Administration defending itself, with Vice President Mike Pence as the spokesman of that defense.

However, already only two days later, the noise about this seems to have faded. There is no ongoing media fury about the President’s decision to remove troops. In fact, aside from the ongoing investigation to confirm that ISIS indeed did carry out this attack, there is no indication of a change in the troop withdrawal process.

If this situation remains as it is, it is a very good sign for these reasons:

  1. President Trump is showing his resolve and confidence in a decision he knows to be right (to withdraw) and not to accede to the War Party wishes.
  2. ISIS is losing its reputation as a significant fighting force as far as the US population is concerned, as it probably should. With the US gone, Russia can prosecute this war full force without risk of creating more serious incidents with the Americans.
  3. The possibility exists that this attack, already heinous in what we know, could have been a false flag, designed specifically to provoke the US troop withdrawal to stop and be reversed.

This last scenario has oddly not been visibly mentioned, but it should be, because it probably happened in April 2018 and earlier. The Duran covered this quite extensively, and while the “official” (Western) investigation has come up curiously silent on the alleged chemical weapons attack last April in Ghouta, the overwhelming body of reports from the region suggested that the “gas” attack was nothing at all but drama to keep the US ensnared in the region. Remember, President Trump at that time also expressed the intention of withdrawing US troops from the area, and this event caused a reversal for a time.

ISIS tried to become a nation. It operates on terror and theater, but it considers itself free to kill people along the way as it creates its pageantry. For the souls of all those innocent people who perished in this attack, we must pray and not forget.

But ISIS is substantially done, and what is left will be dealt with by Russian and Syrian forces.

For once, the definition of “American courage” might be not to fight. President Trump’s decision to remove the troops remains one of the most significant achievements of his presidency, and one of the most important in terms of restoring balance to the United States that it deserves to have.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Trump grounds Nancy Pelosi from taxpayer-subsidized travel

Nancy Pelosi is exhibiting all the maturity of a 14-year-old druggie teenager who just got grounded, only House Speaker Pelosi is 78.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Nancy Pelosi is 78 years old. She is the Democrat Party leader of the House of Representatives, and presently she is Speaker of the House since her party holds the majority of seats there. She is also grounded, like a naughty teenager.

Like a naughty, gossipy teenager, she is bitterly embroiled in a popularity war against another septuagenarian, US President Donald Trump (age 72).

One has to admit that there is a great deal of humor that can be extracted from this. After all, we are taught as kid to “behave like adults.” No doubt The Donald and Mrs. Pelosi were taught this too, probably even more strongly than those of us who are younger.

However, the American media is eager mostly to brand this as a “temper tantrum” of the President, because most of the American media, for some reason, just doesn’t like Mr. Trump. We have noted before here on The Duran the thought experiment surrounding Mr. Trump: “what if he had run as a Democrat, but with the exact same policy set as he has now?”

It is really too bad that it is not possible to see what would happen, but a thinking person can use this thought experiment to discover that most of the sentiment against Mr. Trump is simply because he ran as a Republican.

At any rate, we have a situation where it is being reported by a one-sided media that President Trump is at fault and is being somehow unfair and mean to Mrs. Pelosi. Mrs. Pelosi evidently thinks so too, for after Mr. Trump yanked her travel privileges via taxpayer-paid military transportation, she shot back, claiming that it was in fact President Trump who blew the security for the troops and personnel on this planned trip by announcing a secret trip publicly. CNN reports:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi canceled a planned trip to visit troops in Afghanistan Friday, after — her office alleged in a statement — the White House leaked the details of the congressional delegation’s commercial plane travel.

In the middle of the night, the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service provided an updated threat assessment detailing that the President announcing this sensitive travel had significantly increased the danger to the delegation and to the troops, security, and other officials supporting the trip,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said. “This morning, we learned that the administration had leaked the commercial travel plans as well.”

Which, to borrow the parlance of the Internet, is VERY big, if true.

It’s one thing for Trump, as he did on Thursday, to rescind the military plane Pelosi and the rest of her colleagues were planning to fly on as a way of exacting revenge on her for asking the President to delay his planned “State of the Union” speech on January 29. To do so publicly — White House press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted out the letter Trump sent to Pelosi — is to raise the stakes. To leak commercial travel plans to make absolutely certain that Pelosi can’t go on the trip is a bridge even further.

Now, to be clear, this is an allegation made by Pelosi without corroboration to date. And, the White House denies it. “When the Speaker of the House and about 20 others from Capitol Hill decide to book their own commercial flights to Afghanistan, the world is going to find out,” a White House official told CNN’s Sarah Westwood and Kevin Liptak. “The idea we would leak anything that would put the safety and security of any American at risk is a flat out lie.”

It appears that Mrs Pelosi is copying The New York Times and The Washington Post narrative style of “slander the President, acknowledge somewhere buried in the article that the slanderous charge is unsubstantiated, but get that slander out there so people hear it and read it!”

It is a shoddy attempt for the news media to manipulate its consumers all while “protecting itself” from libel.

The unfortunate fact is that it does work, at least insofar as to galvanize the anti-Trump crowd into a very solid bloc of insanely angry Americans. Further, in using the classic style in which a drug addict or active alcoholic manipulates people to pity him or her, Mrs. Pelosi and the media act like the druggie teenagers arrayed as one against Dear old Dad, who is the only adult in the house.

The White House. But, still.

To put a bit of adult analysis on this story is very simple, but it is honestly not very thrilling. To be honest, it is probably more fun to be like the mainstream media and the Democrats – energized by passion, doing stupid things publicly and getting attention and praise for it.

But here is what appears to be the hard cold boring reality behind this saga.

President Trump is committed to getting a change made in how the United States handles illegal immigration. For decades, the country has been getting slowly infiltrated, if not invaded, by immigrants who at the very least game the welfare and social support mechanisms of various levels of US federal, state and local governments. When people come into the country illegally and go on welfare, taxpayers start paying non-citizens for being here. Taking care of even 100,000 illegal immigrants with such programs is likely to be extremely expensive. Housing, food, healthcare, schooling, legal protection by police… it goes on and on.

But there are not just 100,000 such people here. Last year, the Border Patrol apprehended well over four times that number. 467,000 illegals were apprehended in 2018. Estimates show anywhere from 12 million to 22 million illegals presently living in the United States. While it is certainly doubtful that all of them are gaming the welfare system, they are in the country, unknown, untracked, and not being good citizens by paying taxes and supporting our agreed-upon infrastructure and services the same way that American citizens are.

That is a huge money drain.

Add to that the drugs that do flow across the Mexican border, a fair infusion of criminals like murderers and rapists, and the possibility of terrorists making use of the open border to infiltrate the US and the situation becomes both costly and dangerous.

This is why President Trump wants to change it with a barrier running the length of the US-Mexico border.

While it is unlikely that all 2,000 miles need to have a wall, we certainly need more of a barrier than what we have now, and the barriers that DO exist are extremely successful in cutting the flow of illegals. From the high point of 2000, immigration apprehensions have on the whole fallen by quite a bit. This chart shows the track through 2016.


But our 467,000 apprehensions is an enormous number – larger than the population of the city of Long Beach, California! 

This is an enormous number, but it is far lower than the 1.6 million that got caught before the existing barriers were built. This is also the number of illegals that were caught. We do not know how many were not caught.

Now, President Trump begins to look like the adult in the room, because he wants to fix this, bringing the numbers down much closer to zero, and also finding a way to vet and interview immigrants that truly can contribute to the US dream as Americans. So, as part of creating a real border security apparatus, he wants to extend and even complete the Border Wall. It is not very expensive – even a $50 billion price tag is only about 1.3% of the bloated federal budget this year, and President Trump thinks the wall can be finished with half that amount. At this time, he is only asking for about $5 bn.

And all Nancy Pelosi will say is “no!” So, like a good parent, the President refuses to reward such behavior by giving her what she wants. Now there is a partial government shutdown. President Trump took it on himself, but he is correct. He is doing this because the Democrats are doing this childish druggie routine. And he cannot reward this behavior.

Pelosi and her loyal sidekick Senator Charles Schumer are like a clique of druggie kids in the class, disrupting everything by commanding some attention. But it seems they are gradually losing it, and the government remains shut down. However, they wanted to act like it is Trump’s fault, so Nancy Pelosi was trying to do “business as usual” and go to Afghanistan for whatever reason (do they want her?).

And the President said, “hey, not so fast. You have a partially closed government, and I have been here every day waiting for you to negotiate a deal. You have to be nuts to think this shutdown is not going to affect you, so you cannot use our military transportation while the government is shut down. It is only fair.”

Now who is looking like the bratty teenager?

For some people who read articles like this, the answer will probably still be “President Trump.”

But maybe if they put down the cannabis and the booze and read facts for a change, their heads will clear up and they will come to see what the rest of properly thinking people have already seen.

In this feud, there is an adult in the room. And he is having to manage the childish behavior of a woman six years older than he is.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending