Connect with us

News

John Kelly and James Mattis Prevented Trump from Using Troops to Defend the Border from Illegal Invasion

Published

on

James Fulford of VDare revealed that retired generals John Kelly and James Mattis played an instrumental role in preventing President Donald Trump from using U.S. troops on the southern border.

Kelly was the Chief of Staff and Mattis was the United States Secretary of Defense under the Trump administration.

According to Fulford, the two former Trump administration officials believed that the Posse Comitatus Act prevents American Armed Forces from defending the country from invasion.

Trending: Nebraska Small Business Owner Commits Suicide After Being Railroaded With Manslaughter For Defending His Bar From Criminal Rioters

Fulford noted the following:

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is intended to prevent the US Army from being used on Americans. In the anti-terrorist panic after 9/11, various people made noises about suspending it. (One of them was Joe Biden.)

In sum, the Posse Comitatus Act prevents the U.S. army from being deployed against Americans, but it says nothing about protecting the border, which deals with keeping foreigners out — a whole separate matter.

He cited excerpts from the book Border Wars: Inside Trump’s Assault on Immigration, authored by Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Michael D. Shear:

  • Mattis was taken aback, although his dour expression betrayed no emotion. Under a late-nineteenth-century law known as the Posse Comitatus Act, much of the military was barred from performing domestic law enforcement duties, such as policing a border, and the principle had long been seen as sacrosanct.
  • …Kelly tried to explain the limits of what the troops were allowed to do at the border. They could help fortify it with barbed wire and build tent cities to help ease the crunch on ICE and CBP, which were rapidly running out of space to hold migrants. But military personnel couldn’t actually touch a migrant, either to detain one or to provide any kind of care or service. And they certainly could not use force to push them back, Kelly explained. Trump was not hearing him.
  • [Trump] talked extensively about the role of the military, and, under questioning by reporters covering his comments, suggested that the troops might use lethal force to confront immigrants at the border. Asked what the American forces would do if migrants threw rocks, Trump answered: “If they want to throw rocks at our military, our military fights back,” the president said. “I told them, ‘Consider it a rifle.’?”
  • Nielsen and her top aides, who were traveling to New York for meetings and had watched Trump’s remarks on Fox News, were horrified. The president had just suggested, in comments carried live on TV, that American soldiers had license to shoot to kill migrants at the border. Once again, they dropped everything to head off a presidentially created crisis. Nielsen frantically asked her staff to find the CBP use of force policy and send it over to the White House immediately. Someone had to show it to Trump and get him to walk back his comments right away, she said. Kevin McAleenan, the CBP chief, called DHS lawyers to discuss the policy. The rules were very clear. They stated that DHS personnel “may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer/agent has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of serious physical injury or death to the officer/agent or to another person.” If migrants were throwing rocks, it would have to be met with commensurate nonlethal force—not live ammunition from rifles, as the president had suggested.
  • Trump appeared to get the message, and he backed off publicly from the idea of the military firing on migrants. When reporters asked him about it the next day, he said rock throwers would be arrested, and responded to a question about whether he could promise that the U.S. military wouldn’t shoot at civilians at the border by saying, “Well, I hope they won’t.” But privately, Trump badly wanted to find a way that they could. A few days later, in a meeting with DHS officials, the president brought up the idea again. Listen, I get it, okay? he told them. If someone throws a rock, you can’t shoot to kill. But would it be okay just to injure them? What if we shoot these migrants in the legs? To slow them down? That’s not lethal force, right? Nielsen and her aides were flabbergasted. No, they responded quickly. That’s not allowed either.

This goes to show how entrenched certain open borders interests are in D.C.

The mass migration ideology has permeated across the political spectrum, so Trump has few hiring options available to actually implement his America First policies.

As is life in D.C….

News

Southern Baptist Convention Reverses Course on Name Change After BLP Reporting

They say they’re not changing their name.

Published

on

The Southern Baptist Convention has sought to dispel reporting from Big League Politics on the organization’s planned name change, arguing that the institution isn’t formally changing its name.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

But a close look at the American Christian church’s plans relating to its name reveal that it’s played with the idea far more seriously than they’re making it seem.

Reports of a name change first emerged in a Washington Post article published on Tuesday. SBC President JD Greear told the Post that “hundreds of churches” affiliated with the denomination had “committed” to using the phrase “Great Commission Baptist” as an alternative to the denomination’s longtime moniker. The change would come as Greear touts his support of the Black Lives Matter, although he’s been careful in pointing out he doesn’t support any formal organization related to the movement. Greear also is renaming the church he personally pastors with the term.

The SBC’s 2021 convention will also organize under the motto of “We Are Great Commission Baptists.” Sounds a lot like a name change, even if the SBC’s leadership is steadfastly maintaining it isn’t.

The name ‘Great Commission Baptist’ is theologically sound in the Christian religion, but it’s somewhat questionable that the organization’s leader appears to be emphasizing it at a moment in which political correctness is making its entryism into many Christian churches and organizations.

It seems as if the organization’s figurehead is keen to present himself as a liberal-style suburban Evangelical to the Washington Post, but he changed his tune quite quickly when the rank and file membership of Southern Baptist churches learned that he was promoting the idea of a name change.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending