Secure Borders Matter

The Trump phenomenon in the U.S. and the various populist movements sweeping Europe have forced the globalists to become more open about their agenda. The latest example comes from Jean-Claude Juncker, leader of the European Union. Yesterday, Mr. Juncker told a group of aspiring young journalists, "Borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians."

In that revealing comment, Juncker was echoing George Soros, who last year referred to national borders as "the obstacle."

Most people, no matter where they live, are astonished when they hear comments like that. Everyone knows that you don't have a nation if you don't have defined and defensible borders. When it comes to preserving your country, secure borders matter!

To most people, comments like Juncker's are nuts. But elites think it is controversial when they hear someone suggest that borders should be secured. These completely different worldviews are increasingly in competition.

Unfortunately, most politicians are still playing rhetorical games. The left will say, "Of course, we're going to secure our borders." President Obama has claimed that our borders are more secure than ever. But the left is constantly pursuing policies that make our borders less secure.

As we noted yesterday, 30,000 illegal immigrants "from countries of terrorist concern" crossed our borders last year. Hardly what I consider secure.

About That Ransom. . .

The Obama Administration has been dogged in recent days over reports that it paid a $400 million ransom to secure the release of four Americans who were being held hostage by the Islamic Republic of Iran. When details of the payment were initially described by the Wall Street Journal, President Obama angrily defended the exchange, saying, "We do not pay ransom for hostages. We didn't here, and we won't in the future, precisely because if we did we'd start encouraging Americans to be targeted."

Well, that's exactly what happened. The Iranians arrested Gholamreza Shahini, an American citizen, in June. There is news today that the regime is preparing to charge him with threatening the country's national security as well as blasphemy.

Here's the latest development, which severely undercuts the administration's spin: The State Department issued a warning yesterday to "reiterate and highlight the risk of arrest and detention of U.S. citizens" traveling in Iran. Consider this excerpt:
 

"Iranian authorities continue to unjustly detain and imprison U.S. citizens, particularly Iranian-Americans, including students, journalists, business travelers, and academics, on charges including espionage and posing a threat to national security. Iranian authorities have also prevented the departure, in some cases for months, of a number of Iranian-American citizens who traveled to Iran for personal or professional reasons. U.S. citizens traveling to Iran should very carefully weigh the risks of travel and consider postponing their travel."

Iran Is Dictating U.S. Policy

The nuclear deal with Iran was supposed to open up the country and pave the way for improved relations, leading to positive developments on a host of regional issues. President Obama even expressed his hope that the deal would "strengthen the hand of moderates" in Iran, changing the regime's behavior. Instead, it seems the deal has done more to change our behavior.

Jay Solomon of the Wall Street Journal has written a new book called "The Iran Wars." In his research, he discovered that the Iranians were essentially dictating U.S. foreign policy in the region, holding the nuclear negotiations hostage to their demands. Solomon specifically points to an abrupt about-face in U.S. policy toward Syria.

Remember President Obama's infamous "red line" about Assad using chemical weapons against his own people? Here's what Solomon told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell yesterday:
 

"When the president announced his plans to attack and then pull back, it was exactly the period in time where American negotiators were meeting with Iranian negotiators secretly in Oman to get the nuclear agreement. U.S. and Iranian officials have both told me that they were basically communicating that if the U.S. starts hitting President Assad's forces, Iran's closest Arab ally . . . these talks cannot conclude. The IRGC, the Revolutionary Guards, would not accept a continued engagement with the U.S. if their closest ally was being hit."

This is astonishing! Many critics of the nuclear deal have long felt that the price we paid was far too great. But Solomon is suggesting that President Obama allowed innocent Syrians to be murdered with chemical weapons in order to notch his biggest foreign policy "accomplishment."

This is a serious accusation that deserves further scrutiny by Congress. Furthermore, it calls into question every promise the White House has made about its willingness to aggressively enforce the deal against Iranian cheating.

Reacting to this latest revelation, House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) blasted the Obama administration, saying:
 

"If what the Wall Street Journal's Jay Solomon said is true, it is utterly shameful that this administration has effectively outsourced its Syria policy to Iran. The mere fact that the administration would make such grievous concessions to Iran just to keep the nuclear talks going further proves how harmful this negotiation was to U.S. national security interests."