January 26, 2024
Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.
Congress mulls border deal while Biden undermines Texas’ sovereignty in Mexican standoff
By Robert Romano
Amid the backdrop of Texas’ decision to continue deploying the Texas National Guard to secure the southern border with razor wire, specific to Eagle Pass crossing of the Rio Grande at Shelby Park, following a Supreme Court ruling on Jan. 22 that lifted an injunction on the Border Patrol by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the razor wire, Congress is presently considering legislation that would reportedly address the chaotic situation on the southern border — by making it worse.
On X.com (formerly Twitter) on Jan. 25, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) described the legislation in the works as normalizing the current, unabated flow of illegal immigrants, stating, “This border bill is not designed to fix the problem. It normalizes 5,000 people a day coming in—that's over 1.8 million a year. That's called an invasion.”
Although the legislation’s provisions have not been made public, if true, that’s a non-starter for the U.S. House of Representatives, with Cruz stating, “This has 0 chance of passing the House,” linking to a Fox News report entitled “Senate border bill to allow 5,000 migrants a day before Title 42-type limit starts.”
The legislation would create a Title 42-like authority to refuse entry into the country but only if entries exceeded 5,000 a day, according Fox News’ Adam Shaw: “A border proposal still being hammered out by Senate negotiators would include a Title 42-type authority that would only be mandated if numbers at the southern border exceeded 5,000 migrant encounters a day…”
Additionally, reports Shaw, “Linked to that would be a Title 42-style expulsion authority to quickly remove migrants at the border similar to the COVID-19-era authority. Multiple sources said that the use of that authority would be mandated only if there was a 7-day rolling average of above 5,000 encounters a day. Daily encounters between 4,000 and 5,000 would allow for discretionary expulsions, and any single day where there were over 8,000 encounters, expulsions would be mandated even if the 7-day average was lower. Those expulsions would also be exempted from judicial review.”
Currently, there have been more than 6.3 million southern border encounters since President Joe Biden took office in Jan. 2021, according to the U.S. Border Patrol, the most ever.
All this would be linked to a $100 billion supplemental of foreign aid to Ukraine and Israel, of which a mere $14 billion would reportedly go to the border, per Shaw: “The Biden administration is seeking over $100 billion in funding, including $14 billion for the border. But Republicans have demanded limits on migrant releases into the interior, including the use of parole, and negotiators have been attempting to find a compromise.”
So, what began as a negotiating point, that if the Biden administration wanted to send more money to Ukraine and Israel, there should be additional border security has morphed into, if there’s going to be more border security then there must be additional allowances for mass illegal immigration. It’s a poison pill.
In the meantime, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has declared the Senate deal dead on arrival jn the House, stating on X.com on Jan. 13, “Absolutely not.”
At press conference on Jan. 24, Sen. Cruz called it a "stinking pile of crap."
So, there might not be much happening in the way of a national resolution to the crisis on the southern border via Congress, putting the ball back in Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R-Texas) court, who remains on a tour of India.
On Jan. 24, Abbott issued a statement declaring to mass illegal immigration an “invasion,” saying, “The failure of the Biden Administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article IV, § 4 has triggered Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which reserves to this State the right of self-defense. For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself.”
This prompted the Biden administration to give Texas until Jan. 26 to let the Border Patrol remove the razor wire as tensions have mounted, with some calls by Democrats for President Joe Biden to federalize the Texas National Guard and the Republican Governors Association issuing a statement on Jan. 25 in solidarity with Abbott, who may be teeing up an appeal to the Supreme Court for Texas to be able to secure their own border if Washington, D.C. won’t do it.
Given that context, any hopes for a deal on the border in Congress may have just faded away in the sands of the Mexican standoff on the southern border. Stay tuned.
Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.
To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2024/01/congress-mulls-border-deal-while-biden-undermines-texas-sovereignty-in-mexican-standoff-on-southern-border/
The Non-College Vote Often Predicts the Presidential Winner – will This be the Case in 2024?
By Bill Wilson
The key takeaway that could terrify the anti-Trump camp more than the former president’s victories in Iowa and New Hampshire have, is that Trump’s strong showing among non-college voters so far could be highly predictive of the outcome of the general election.
Former President Donald Trump swept the New Hampshire primaries this Tuesday, beating out his closest rival Nikki Haley by 11 percentage points with support from a broad conservative electorate. Haley’s support stemmed largely from “undeclared” or independent voters who were encouraged to infiltrate the GOP primaries to halt Trump’s march back into the White House, but this tactic failed.
The eye-popping number from Tuesday’s race was Trump’s massive victory among voters without a college degree, a group that has long been a key Trump coalition. According to exit polls, Trump secured a full 67% of voters without a college degree to Haley’s 31%, increasing his numbers with non-college voters by 25 percentage points compared to 2016.
Historical data spanning each presidential election from 1980 through 2020 shows a strong recurring theme of the non-college vote predicting the winner in presidential elections.
Not only do Americans without a college degree make up close to twice the share of voters as those with one, but non-college voters tend to vote based on economic issues and serve as a barometer for the country’s economic state.
Non-college voters have heavily preferred Republicans in modern elections, but there is one caveat. In every presidential election between 1980 and 2008, a Democrat has won Americans without a high school diploma. For instance, in 1980 Jimmy Carter won Americans who had no high school diploma 51% to 46%, but resoundingly lost voters with a high school diploma but no college degree to Ronald Reagan 51% to 43%.
Republicans on the other hand have won Americans with a high school diploma but no college degree in seven out of the eleven elections spanning 1980 through 2020. In only four modern elections – Clinton’s in 1992 and 1996 and Obama’s in 2008 and 2012 – have voters with a high school diploma but no college degree supported a Democrat for president, and in all four, the Democrat has won the presidency.
In the remaining seven elections, non-college voters have supported the GOP candidate, and in all but one, the GOP candidate has won the election. The only time in modern election history when non-college voters have supported a presidential candidate who did not go on to win the general election was in 2020, when Biden lost non-college voters 48-50% but won the election.
Below is a table indicating the share of the non-college vote – excluding those without a high school degree – each candidate has received in all presidential elections since 1980, and the winner of the general election.
As the data indicates, the non-college vote is highly correlated with the outcome of the general election and may serve as a barometer for the country’s economic state. Non-college voters have favored Republicans more often than Democrats in modern elections, but they cast their vote behind Bill Clinton and Obama twice each time.
Non-college voters supported Bill Clinton’s 1992 election, and then reelected Clinton in 1996, on a largely economic message. In 2008, in the midst of the economic crash brought on by big banks and absurd lending leniency encouraged by big government, non-college voters supported Obama, and they did so again in 2012. In every other election spanning 1980 through 2020, non-college voters supported the Republican candidate. And in every single one of those cases except for the 2020 election, that Republican candidate won the presidency.
In the last two presidential election cycles, non-college voters have shifted significantly toward the GOP, concentrating their votes behind Trump in 2016 and 2020, after flipping to Democrats for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
In 2008 Obama won the non-college vote 52% to 46% and went on to win their vote again in 2012 51% to 47%. However, Clinton was not so lucky. In 2016 Clinton lost non-college voters 44%-52%, and subsequently went on to lose the general election. In 2020, Biden did slightly better than Clinton with non-college voters, but still lost the group to Trump by a margin of 48%-50%.
Non-college voters play a pivotal role in elections because of their sheer numbers, and their concentration in battleground states, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.
According to exit surveys, Americans without a college degree made up 59% of the total electorate in 2020 and played a key role in GOP margins in swing states.
The non-college vote is highly correlated to the eventual winner of presidential elections, creating an early indicator for the outcome of elections. In addition, non-college voters tend to rally behind candidates with a strong focus on economic issues, especially in times of economic crisis.
Virtually every measure of voter enthusiasm this year shows that voters strongly disapprove of the way Biden is handling the economy, are confused and bewildered by his “Bidenomics” message and are hungry for political change and an upset to the current system. In addition, there is a clear desire from the voters to forge a connection to candidates for office. With Trump steadily on the stump and among the voters while Biden remains aloof and hidden coupled with an unstable and spotty economic picture, the race is becoming tougher and tougher for the Democrats.
And while these facts are becoming more obvious, it is becoming more questionable if a Democrat alternative to Biden could solve the problem. Can a Michelle Obama appeal to non-college voters? Does Gavin Newsome and his California track record offer a pathway to reclaim America’s working class? While the corporate media pretends all the tough choices are facing the GOP, the facts indicate that it is the Democrats who have much more difficult challenges.
Bill Wilson is the former president of Americans for Limited Government.
To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2024/01/the-non-college-vote-often-predicts-the-presidential-winner-will-this-be-the-case-in-2024/
The Price of Failed Wars
By Simone Ledeen
A growing number of Americans grapple with a profound dilemma. This dilemma stems from our recent and painful history of interventions gone awry, and outcomes that diverged sharply from the intended goals. The conversation regarding the reasons for our current decline in military recruitment numbers, combined with Americans' increasing isolationism, should include more than just the scourge of "wokeism." We must scrutinize our failures, take the important lessons learned, and hold failed leaders accountable.
The scars from the Iraq War run deep in the American psyche. A war initiated under the pretense of eliminating weapons of mass destruction ultimately transformed Iraq into an Iranian satellite. The toll in blood and treasure was staggering. Our nation, me included, realized that the promised liberation had instead sown chaos and instability.
Similarly, the two-decade-long engagement in Afghanistan aimed to oust the Taliban and establish a stable government. Despite immense investments, our chaotic withdrawal and the subsequent collapse of the Afghan government and its armed forces, has raised questions about the efficacy of such prolonged wars when we have such fickle political leadership. Skepticism has taken root, with many Americans questioning the wisdom of sacrificing lives and resources for outcomes that seem elusive at best.
American reluctance to engage in wars is rooted in a distrust of political and military leadership, rather than a doubt in the military's capabilities. This skepticism is fueled by the observation that, despite the military's ability to achieve success, political decisions and a lack of long-term commitment often undermine these efforts. The experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, where years of sacrifice and significant casualties ultimately led to withdrawal and diminished any chance of lasting success, exemplify this concern. People question why they should support wars when leadership decisions may negate the potential for enduring achievements.
One glaring issue is the short attention span exhibited on the global stage. While adversaries plan and act in terms of decades and generations, American foreign policy often succumbs to the volatility of short-term political cycles. The absence of a cohesive, long-term strategy that spans administrations weakens the nation's position, allowing adversaries to exploit the inherent instability in U.S. foreign policy.
Furthermore, the demonization and alienation of potential military recruits exacerbate the problem. How can a government expect the public to rally behind its wars when it criticizes and ostracizes those who bear the burden of fighting? Americans want to win, and this desire for victory is palpable not only on the battlefield but also in the hearts of those considering military service. Yet, the disconnect between the government's strategic failures and the aspirations of potential recruits creates an insurmountable gap.
A successful military requires the trust and support of its citizens, and this trust erodes when the government fails to appreciate the sacrifices made by the men and women in uniform. The burden of entering an arena where victory seems elusive becomes a heavy deterrent for those considering military service. Recruiters face an uphill battle, attempting to sell a vision of success when recent history is marred by missteps and questionable outcomes.
Equally troubling is the lack of accountability for failure. While soldiers face the consequences of failed missions, higher-ranking officials often escape scrutiny. Generals and admirals who preside over misguided campaigns receive a pass for their failures, fostering a culture of impunity that only perpetuates strategic missteps.
The concept of deterrence, once a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, has lost its effectiveness. Simply restoring deterrence is not tantamount to destroying the enemy; this requires a fundamental shift in strategic thinking.
In conclusion, the reluctance of many Americans to join the military and support further engagement in global conflicts doesn't arise from a misguided sympathy for foreign adversaries or a desire for isolation. Instead, it is a response to decades of strategic failures, misguided interventions, and a lack of accountability. Rebuilding trust in the government's ability to conduct successful military campaigns demands true introspection and accountability. Only then can the United States truly earn the support of its citizens and regain its standing as a global leader.
To view online: https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/01/25/the_price_of_failed_wars_1007391.html