America's military: The key now to Trump's downfall, or success?

[bigsly]

The author, obviously believing America's borders are being invaded and revolution is at hand, states that the first stage of Trump's presidency - him playing sort of nice, at least, with the Establishment - is fully over with Mattis' departure and that now Trump's Plan B begins: "a war of annihilation" against the Establishment's consolidated stance to protect America's borders from what the constitutionally-elected Commander in Chief believes is an invasion, too.

Trump’s only remaining choice is to annihilate the American Establishment and in order to do so he needs what all warlords do: an army. But does he have one? That is the big unanswered question of the day. I believe there can be little doubt that the firing of John Kelly and James Mattis, both Marine Corps generals, was done after they gave a negative answer to a simple question Trump had asked them: “are you willing to execute my order to deploy the full might of the American military, using all necessary means, to secure the Mexican border against all intruders?” Kelly’s and Mattis’s refusal to carry out this order on the grounds of its purported illegality, left them no choice but to resign and left Trump with no choice but to fire them. Trump’s recall of the American military from the Middle East is the action of a Commander In Chief who believes his country to be under attack on the homeland itself and thus in no position to project its military might abroad in support of foreign policy or humanitarian objectives.

Trump will test to the fullest the unlimited powers given him by the Constitution to command the American military forces as their Commander In Chief. To do so, he will dismiss from service any officer, any cabinet member, any staffer who opposes his order to secure the Mexican border. Will he find any who are willing to carry out his orders, even in defiance of both Congress and the Judiciary, the two branches of government that for many decades had been unconstitutionally usurping the powers of the Executive? Will the command structure of the American military withstand the enormous pressures that it will face in the upcoming days and weeks and months? Nobody knows. One things is clear, however: if a properly elected Commander In Chief cannot order his military to secure the country’s borders against invasion, America as an independent political entity in which the people are sovereign via a system of carefully crafted checks and balances in a constitutionally established federal structure of governance is finished.

Interesting, the author begins his piece by opining about what happened in Russia when its military chose to violate their oaths to side with the Bolsheviks instead of the Tsar, and ends it by offering that Trump could end up as successful a revolutionary Commander in Chief as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, or not depending on this question at this time in America's history:

Is America’s Military Loyal To Its Commander In Chief?
https://tsarizm.com/analysis/2018/1...cas-military-loyal-to-its-commander-in-chief/

 

[Ann_Tagonist]

I've always maintained that if we would just annex Mexico peacefully, or by force, building a wall just south of the Panama Canal would be much more cost effective. Plus all that tequila.

 

[bellisarius]

Interesting hypothesis.

My first question would be how does the author know the question he quoted is fact?

“are you willing to execute my order to deploy the full might of the American military, using all necessary means, to secure the Mexican border against all intruders?”

While that question is not as unreasonable as it first seems, how do we know that is true?

As far as the use of the military, as long as the posture is outward looking there should be no particular problem. Sending the military into LA, or any other city, to root out the illegals is a BIG problem. Border security not so much. We have used the military to patrol and secure our Southern border long after the Posse Commentates Act was passed. And it's not as if we haven't violated Mexico's sovereignty in the past. Complete invasions on two occasions at the least.

It is obvious to anyone paying attention that Mexico is a borderline (no pun intended) narco-state. Outside of specific, and limited, regions the government has little control. And in a very real sense they have little reason to exert control. From their standpoint this is a positive cash flow situation and the narco-dollars keep the natives from getting restless. A crackdown on the border presents a very real problem for them and will force them to deal with issues that they've LONG allowed to fester.

Of particular concern is the fact that Mexico has recently elected a decidedly Socialist president. This has NEVER worked out well for any nation and even more so Central and South American nations. If history is to show us the future those narco-dollars and wire transfers from the illegals will become even more critical to the new government. Will he follow the same path as Chavez/Maduro? Only time will tell but a prudent leader of any border state would be wise is planning for the worst while hoping for the best.

Working for the Yankee dollar.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Interesting hypothesis.

My first question would be how does the author know the question he quoted is fact?



While that question is not as unreasonable as it first seems, how do we know that is true?

As far as the use of the military, as long as the posture is outward looking there should be no particular problem. Sending the military into LA, or any other city, to root out the illegals is a BIG problem. Border security not so much. We have used the military to patrol and secure our Southern border long after the Posse Commentates Act was passed. And it's not as if we haven't violated Mexico's sovereignty in the past. Complete invasions on two occasions at the least.

It is obvious to anyone paying attention that Mexico is a borderline (no pun intended) narco-state. Outside of specific, and limited, regions the government has little control. And in a very real sense they have little reason to exert control. From their standpoint this is a positive cash flow situation and the narco-dollars keep the natives from getting restless. A crackdown on the border presents a very real problem for them and will force them to deal with issues that they've LONG allowed to fester.

Of particular concern is the fact that Mexico has recently elected a decidedly Socialist president. This has NEVER worked out well for any nation and even more so Central and South American nations. If history is to show us the future those narco-dollars and wire transfers from the illegals will become even more critical to the new government. Will he follow the same path as Chavez/Maduro? Only time will tell but a prudent leader of any border state would be wise is planning for the worst while hoping for the best.

Working for the Yankee dollar.

Is that not what ICE agents are tasked to do now?

 

[bellisarius]

Is that not what ICE agents are tasked to do now?

Uhhh, I think that was the unspoken implication.

Right now ICE is overwhelmed. With upwards of 30 million illegals in the country now it's more than they can do to round up the felons among them. This particular sector, New Mexico, is shipping two plane loads a week back to from wither they come. More than a few have made that trip more than once.

Honestly I see using the military as but a partial solution. While they may stem the flow they will do nothing about those already here. There is but one solution there, felonize anyone that hires an illegal.

 

[bigsly]

Interesting hypothesis.

My first question would be how does the author know the question he quoted is fact?



While that question is not as unreasonable as it first seems, how do we know that is true?

It's clear that it's not "fact" by the first two words the author used to begin the paragraph containing the quotation marks:

I believe there can be little doubt that the firing of John Kelly and James Mattis, both Marine Corps generals, was done after they gave a negative answer to a simple question Trump had asked them: “are you willing to execute my order to deploy the full might of the American military, using all necessary means, to secure the Mexican border against all intruders?”

And yes, it is an interesting hypothesis since it seems very easy to imagine Trump asking both Kelly and Mattis that question considering he seems to be making his stand on the border issue now, and then both of them answering in the negative which would naturally result in both of them being relieved of their duties/resigning. In fact, it really leans more to the former, I believe.

 

[bigsly]

Keep in mind it's estimated that approximately 60% of all individuals currently in the US illegally are those who entered legally and then overstayed that privilege. That really has nothing to do with a southern border wall at all.

Of course, also ponder for whatever number of illegal entries into the US the federal government announces (those they actually apprehend), they admit at least 2/3rds more enter the US without being apprehended.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Uhhh, I think that was the unspoken implication.

Right now ICE is overwhelmed. With upwards of 30 million illegals in the country now it's more than they can do to round up the felons among them. This particular sector, New Mexico, is shipping two plane loads a week back to from wither they come. More than a few have made that trip more than once.

Honestly I see using the military as but a partial solution. While they may stem the flow they will do nothing about those already here. There is but one solution there, felonize anyone that hires an illegal.

Uhhh, then just say so, no need to beat around the proverbial bush.

As of 2016 there were 10+million, nowhere near your extremely exaggerated number.

First, you said they are shipping them back to wither they came from by the planeload and then you said there's nothing they can do about those already here. Which is it?

In other words, your post is full of untruths.

 

[bigsly]

I remember 14-15 years ago when the estimations were 11-17 million. Cannot even imagine how those estimates could've possibly declined rather than increased in the last decade of record illegal entries. I wouldn't find it hard to accept at all that at least 1/3rd of America's entire population today is made up of those currently there illegally.

 

[Luk]

I remember 14-15 years ago when the estimations were 11-17 million. Cannot even imagine how those estimates could've possibly declined rather than increased in the last decade of record illegal entries. I wouldn't find it hard to accept at all that at least 1/3rd of America's entire population today is made up of those currently there illegally.

You will never be taken seriously again, eeyore. Better luck next alt, fuckwaffle.