Fifteen years ago this argument would have been considered well-intentioned. Ten years ago, naive. Five years ago outright stupid. Today? It sounds like lying to me.
Dan Crenshaw, who was just elected to the House, wrote this op-ed for the Washington Post criticizing President Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria. Among his arguments is one that was made immediately after 9/11: that we have to fight the terrorists over there so that we don’t fight them here. At this time, in late 2018, could there be a lie more offensive to our intelligence than this?
Consider what is happening all across the West. There are now 30 million Muslims in continental Europe. A million Muslims a year pour into European countries — and most of them are young, sturdy, fighting-age men with a fighting, conquering mentality. The US and Canada are no different. Rapes, murders and terrorist attacks have now become common in Europe, even now in parts where violence was unheard of, like Sweden.
Under the surface, Europe has an ARMY of tens of millions of radicalized Muslim males. And as we see in France over and over again, they have access to weapons.
Does anybody feel safer?
Ever since the wars in Syria and Libya — which Western nations precipitated — millions of fighting-age “refugees” have fled to Europe and have begun the process of conquering the nations there.
Meanwhile, the US is being invaded from the Southern border and being conquered in its own way. Where the hell is the military to defend our nation?
To say that the American and European governments have created a policy to prevent Muslims from bringing the fight to our homelands is an outright lie. The governments welcome these very people with refugee status, give them free government benefits and housing, and do nothing to tighten our immigration laws. There will be war in our homelands, and the banal tropes of those like Crenshaw will be powerless to stop it. If he were serious about protecting America, he would call for an immigration ban on Muslims, strong border security, and propose a plan for deporting the Muslims that are already here.
As for President Trump, let us consider two facts:
- The President is representing the will of the people, which is overwhelmingly against troop deployments in Syria. Sometimes I think the President is the only one on the federal payroll who understands that democratically-elected governments must take into consideration the actual will of the people when forming policy. Crenshaw appears to be one of many who are uninterested in representing the American people.
- The Congress had already voted — under President Obama — to explicitly NOT authorize troop deployments in Syria. This means that these deployments are illegal under the War Powers Act and President Trump is legally bound to end them. He is merely doing what the law requires of him.