According to a federal pilot program, almost 9 in 10 illegal immigrants who’ve been recently released in the interior of the country while they wait for their asylum hearings haven’t appeared at their court dates.
For about six months now, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expanded its catch and release program of illegal immigrants and border jumpers, especially among those showing up at the southern border with children.
Since last December, the DHS has released no less than 190,500 illegal immigrants and border crossers into the interior of the country – a truly astounding figure.
Earlier this month, Kevin McAleenan, the current DHS Secretary, told Congress that of those immigrants are given work permits which allow them to take U.S. jobs while they wait for their asylum hearing.
Also earlier this month, while giving Congressional testimony, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials stated that the agency had recently carried out a pilot program with the Department of Justice (DOG) which examined just how many recently arrived illegal immigrants would actually appear at their asylum hearings after being released into the interior of the country.
The results were dismal.
An official from ICE told congressmen that approximately 87 percent of illegal immigrants – or nearly 9-in-10 – of those foreign nationals recently released into the country’s interior never showed up to their asylum hearings. Because the vast majority of recently arrived illegal immigrants aren’t appearing at their court dates, the ICE official said that the law enforcement agency is subsequently forced to struggle to locate and deport each illegal immigrant – a nearly impossible feat which puts an enormous strain on already strained federal resources.
“That particular population, as we continue to release into the interior hundreds if not thousands of family units into the interior every week, is of grave concern as it relates to these individuals not appearing before immigration judges and now being fugitives,” the ICE official told members of Congress.
Also during the same congressional hearing, another federal immigration official mentioned that only roughly 12 percent of illegal immigrants and border crossers who complete the processes required to file for asylum actually end up qualifying.
A statistic like this really highlights the widespread fraud and abuse that’s currently being perpetrated within the country’s immigration system.
If current rates of illegal immigration keep their course, it’s expected that border apprehensions in 2019 will exceed levels during each and every year of Barack Obama’s presidency. Meanwhile, since President Trump took office in 2016, DHS officials have stated that only around a measly 42 miles of – mostly replacement – border wall and border barriers has been constructed and erected.
In the months leading up to the crucial 2020 presidential election, it has become increasingly clear that American’s are ardently opposed to releasing illegal immigrants and border crossers into the interior of the country after they have been caught by authorities.
Repeatedly, Republican voters have asserted that building a border wall and drastically reducing both illegal and legal immigration is a top priority. It will be interesting to see how serious Trump is in enacting policies that will truly reflect the popular will of the people.
Last month, nearly 2 of 3 American voters told Harvard-Harris pollsters that they were against the catch and release of illegal immigrants and border crossers in the U.S. while they wait for their asylum court hearings. In the same poll, Trump supporters, conservatives, and Republican voters all placed reducing all immigration and building a border wall at the very top of their priorities.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that the people of the United States were never given a vote on whether or not they wanted unfettered and relentless mass immigration into the country which has unquestionably changed its cultural composition – perhaps forever.
While there may be no love lost between the late Senator John McCain, and the President Trump, that does not mean that McCain’s family want his words used by Trump’s Democratic presidential opponents.
The daughter of the late Arizona senator has asked Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s to “leave my father’s legacy and memory out of presidential politics.” That request came in a tweet in response to Klobuchar’s claim that the late Sen. John McCain “kept reciting to me names of dictators” during President Trump’s inaugural address.
Meghan McCain took to Twitter to criticize Klobuchar, D-Minn., a 2020 presidential candidate, for invoking her father’s name during a campaign event.
“On behalf of the entire McCain family, [Amy Klobuchar], please be respectful to all of us and leave my father’s legacy and memory out of presidential politics,” McCain, a co-host on “The View,” wrote.
At an event in Iowa over the long Memorial Day Weekend, Klobuchar claimed Sen. McCain, “kept reciting to me names of dictators during that speech because he knew more than any of us what we were facing as a nation.”
“He understood it. He knew because he knew [Trump] more than any of us did,” Klobuchar said in her speech, as has been reported.
Klobuchar called Trump’s inauguration “dark” and claimed “The arc that we are on, this arc of justice, started the day after that dark inauguration,” Klobuchar said. “The day when I sat on that stage between Bernie and John McCain, and John McCain kept reciting to me names of dictators during that speech, because he knew more than any of us what we were facing as a nation. He understood it. He knew because he knew this man more than any of us did.”
Trump and McCain Had a Contentious History
Trump and the Arizona senator had a tense relationship, with then-candidate Trump claiming at a 2015 event that the Vietnam War veteran “was a not a war hero because he was captured.”
After Trump held a joint news conference in 2018 with Russian President Vladimir Putin, McCain responded in a statement claiming “the damage inflicted by President Trump’s naiveté, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate.”
Tim Hogan, a spokesman for Amy for America responded to the controversy, saying in a statement that Klobuchar had a “long-term friendship” with McCain and has defended him against Trump’s criticisms.
“She has deep respect for his family. While she was simply sharing a memory, she continues to believe that the best stories about Senator McCain are not about the views he had about President Trump: they are about McCain’s own valor and heroism,” Hogan said.
It’s funny that any Democrat would think that they could present a challenge to Lindsey Graham’s South Carolina Senate seat in 2020, but I guess that is why South Carolina Democratic Party chairman, Jaime Harrison, chose to announce his bid to do so… in comic book fashion.
In a comic book-themed video posted on Facebook, Harrison highlights his humble roots in Orangeburg, S.C., and slammed Graham as “a guy who will say anything to stay in office.”
In the video announcement of his candidacy, Harrison tore at Graham’s shifting stance on President Donald Trump, whom he called a “bigot” who was “not fit to be president of the United States” when the two faced off for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Now, as you know, Graham has since been one of Trump’s most consistent defenders.
“Lindsey Graham can’t lead us in any direction because he traded his moral compass for petty political gain,” Harrison says in the video. “He’s forgotten about the people he represents.”
Who Is Jaimie Harrison?
Harrison, who was the state Democratic party’s first black chairman and served as an aide to Rep. James Clyburn, highlighted his “origin” story of being born to a teen mother, raised by his grandparents, and his education at Yale University and Georgetown Law School.
Upon hearing of his challenge to the incumbent Senator, The National Republican Senate Committee slammed Harrison as a “looney liberal.”
“Harrison is a looney liberal who was hand-picked to run by radical Washington Democrats,” NRSC spokesperson Nathan Brand told CBS News. “Lindsey Graham is one of the most popular U.S. Senators in the country because South Carolina voters know that he has delivered results and has been a tireless fighter for Palmetto State values.”
If Harrison were to somehow successfully unseat Graham, he would be the first Democrat from South Carolina to be elected to the Senate since 1998.
Much to the ire of Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed to fill any vacancy that should open on the Supreme Court in the midst of the 2020 campaign for the presidency.
In a break from tradition, and a seeming reversal of his own previous position on the matter, McConnell, has made it clear what would happen if a Supreme Court vacancy should materialize in the midst of the 2020 election season — “Uh, we’d fill it.”
Although his comment drew laughter and support from those in attendance at a recent luncheon, progressives swiftly accused McConnell of partisan hypocrisy, based on the treatment of former Barack Obama Supreme Court nominee and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals chief judge, Merrick Garland.
Obama nominated Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, but McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination, citing the imminent 2016 presidential election.
McConnell defended his position, then and now, as the only way a president and his party gets to enact any kind of lasting change — that is not subject to the winds of fate when another party takes the White House – is in the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.
“What can’t be undone is a lifetime appointment to a young man or woman who believes in the quaint notion that the job of the judge is to follow the law. That’s the most important thing for the country, which cannot be undone.”
McConnel’s Position Not Hypocritical
Speaking to Fox News last year, McConnell suggested his stance was not hypocritical — because in 2020 during the run-up to the election, Republicans would control both the White House and the Senate, unlike Democrats in 2016, who controlled only the White House. On Tuesday, a McConnell spokesperson doubled down on that reasoning, saying the situations are not comparable.
“You have to go back to 1880s to find the last time a Senate controlled by a party different from the president filled a vacancy on the Supreme Court that was created in the middle of a presidential election year,” McConnell told Fox News.
However, Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, begged to differ, calling McConnell a “complete hypocrite,” on Twitter.
“Senator McConnell’s statements further damage and undermine the Supreme Court at a time when its standing has been significantly diminished in the eyes of the public,” Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the nonpartisan Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told Fox News in a statement. “His naked political gamesmanship threatens to further erode the integrity of our nation’s highest court. McConnell’s comments are not only reprehensible but a reminder about the unprecedented and unprincipled tactics used to fill the seat currently occupied by Justice Gorsuch.”
Clarke continued, “For civil rights lawyers who are witnessing unrelenting attacks on constitutional rights every day, this is no laughing matter.”
With 86 year-old Ruth Bader Ginsberg facing continued heath issues, and both Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, being 80, court-watchers feel a vacancy could be imminent.
Senate Republicans have vowed to crush the impeachment effort if the Democrat-controlled House passes articles of impeachment of President Trump.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to ensure that the measure, which has caused some friction even among Democrats, would be over before it could gain traction.
Democrats in the Senate will remain largely powerless to change that. Although McConnell cannot simply ignore them — he will have to act on the impeachment articles – but, it also requires 67 votes, or a two-thirds majority, to convict the president.
“I think it would be disposed of very quickly,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham told The Hill on the viability of the impeachment process. “If it’s based on the Mueller report, or anything like that, it would be quickly disposed of.”
Other Republicans echoed Graham’s comment. Texas Sen. John Cornyn told the outlet that the impeachment articles passed by the House would lead to “nothing.”
“It would be defeated. That’s why all they want to do is talk about it,” he added, suggesting Democrats are more interested in talking about impeaching Trump than actually trying to do that. “They know what the outcome would be.”
Senate Republicans also say an impeachment trial of Trump would get just the bare minimum time on the floor.
“Why on earth would we give a platform to something that I judge as a purely political exercise?” Sen. Thom Tillis told The Hill.
“We have to perform our constitutional duty, but if people think that we’re going to try and create a theater that could give you the perception that this is a matter that rises to the level of Watergate, that’s nonsense.”
Dems in House Move Closer to Impeachment
And yet, despite it amounting to a monumental waste of time and energy, it seems some members of the Democrat controlled House, are moving in that direction.
Controversial Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib said Sunday that the House is “moving towards” supporting the measure to impeach Trump.
Her comments come despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s efforts to quell talks of impeaching the president and her repeatedly warning the Democrats against proceeding with such move.
A senior Democrat told Fox News that Pelosi won’t be “able to hold off on impeachment much longer” as the impeachment talk in her party is gaining traction and is being embraced by the voter base.
Noteworthy gains were made by Europe’s nationalist-populist, eurosceptic parties in this weekend’s European Parliament elections as support for centrist parties which had previously dominated the European Union for decades drastically fell. The enormous success enjoyed by Italy’s League party, France’s National Rally, and the UK’s five-week-old Brexit party are glaring signs that Europe is indeed undergoing significant changes.
Signs like these mark the beginning of a “new European Renaissance,” declared Matteo Salvini, Italy’s populist Deputy Prime Minister, Interior Minister, and leader of the League at party headquarters in Milan. “A new Europe is born. I am proud that the League is participating in this new European renaissance,” Salvini asserted after exit polls predicted his party had garnered 27-31 percent of the Italian vote.
Salvini continued, saying, “Significantly, as the ‘League’ became the dominant party in Italy, Marine Le Pen swept into a leading position in France, and Nigel Farage in the UK…This is a sign that Europe is changing, Europe is tired of being a slave to the elites, corporations and the powers-that-be.” Surprisingly, the League’s left-wing populist coalition partner, the Five Star Movement (MS5), was outdone by the center-left Democratic Party (PD) which came in second with 21-25 percent of the vote, according to exit polls.
The League, which campaigned on a platform that attacked the globalist, pro-mass migration policies of the European Union, made sweeping gains, outdoing it’s governing coalition partner and rival, the 5-Star Movement.
Salvini assured reporters in Milan that the European election results wouldn’t ignite any “settling of accounts” within Italy’s internal political landscape, adding that, “nothing changes at the national level.” Salvini reiterated that globalist left-wing forces that have incompetently governed Italy and Europe for years now remain as his chief adversaries, while his populist allies in government were partners and friends with whom he would immediately resume cooperation and joint work.
Last year in March, Salvini’s League came in the third place in Italy’s national elections, garnering about 17% of the vote, while MS5 amassed over 32 percent. Since, support for each party has flipped, with the League winning around 33% of EU election vote while the support for MS5 slumped to 17%. Just five years ago, in Europe’s last parliamentary elections, the League barely managed to overcome the 6 percent barrier.
Since then eurosceptic, populist, and right-wing parties have made significant gains across Europe in the EU parliamentary elections, as the political center – which has dominated over the past 40 years – has been hollowed out substantially. In France, Marine Le Pen’s right-wing populist National Rally party celebrated a small but symbolic victory over Emmanuel Macron’s globalist En Marche party. In Germany, the center-right CDU party of Chancellor Angela Merkel along with its center-left coalition partner CSU also suffered losses. In the UK, the majority of Britain’s seats went to Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, with the 5-week-old party winning nearly 32% of the vote. In Sweden, the nationalist-populist Sweden Democrats also made noteworthy gains, jumping from 9 percent to nearly 16 percent.
But the globalist-led centrist bloc that has dominated the European Parliament for the last 40 years wasn’t only eaten away by parties on the right. The left made significant gains as well, with the Greens jumping from 50 MEPs in 2014 to around 70. The composition of the newly formed parliament will be used by the 28 heads of state and government to assist in the choosing of a replacement for Juncker along with his counterpart in the European Council, Donald Tusk. This year’s election saw the highest voter turnout among its 426 million eligible voters in two decades.
The groupies inside the Beltway are obsessed with President Trump’s finances. An unusually large number of Democrat-controlled House committees are launching investigations into every aspect – and every asset – of Trump’s multifaceted and complex financial empire.
There investigations are based on rumors, gossip and unsubstantiated accusations of wrongdoing. Congressional Democrats are panning for political gold. So far, they have only found Fool’s Gold – which they are passing off to the public as the real thing.
They want Trump’s tax returns because … because … hmmmm. Oh yeah, because they hope to find some major skullduggery among all those accounting numbers. If their wildest dream comes true, they will find a billion dollar personal check to Trump from Vladimir Putin. Fat chance.
They also hope to prove that Trump is not as rich as he claims. The New York Times recently published a front-page story based on information garnered from Trump’s confidential tax information from the mid-1990s showing that the Trump Organization had run into financial difficulties when the real estate market took one of its occasional dips. What they did not find was any wrongdoing. No tax evasion. Just a business going through some difficult times.
They are also looking into the closed down Trump Foundation for some alleged … repeat, alleged … irregularities associated with the purchase of a large painting of Trump. This little transaction was overwhelmed by millions upon millions of Trump’s dollars that helped fuel the charitable work. They also accused him of using other people’s money – more accurately described as charitable donations to the Foundation. Of course, that is what most foundations do – solicit donations.
Based on mendacious accusations from former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, Trump was still exploring a legitimate business deal in Russia even as he campaigned for President. Reality check! There is nothing illegal or wrong about doing business as a candidate. Very few give up their careers and sources of income BEFORE they are elected – even if the odds of being elected are far greater than were Trump’s. After all, we were told innumerable times that he had “no path to the presidency.”
They say Trump lied when he said he had no business deals in Russia. Technically, that was true. There were talks, but no deal was consummated then or since. Even if you think Trump was a little less than forthright, so what? For whatever reasons, the Trump Organization never went ahead with the project.
House Democrats want to investigate Trump University. Why? Former New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman settled that case for $25 million in 2016, on the eve of Trump’s inauguration – shortly before Schneiderman, himself, fell from grace (and office) in a sex scandal. There was no admission of wrongdoing by the Trump organization, and $25 million was a relatively small amount to get the case off the books rather than have it drag on for several years at costs that would exceed the settlement price tag. While Schneiderman claimed fraud, that charge was never adjudicated. The only objective of a congressional inquiry is to regurgitate some bad publicity for Trump.
For Democrats, the holy grail of their dubious investigations is obtaining Trump’s tax returns. That is nothing more than a fishing expedition. They already tried fishing for two years with the accusation of criminal collusion with Russia. In that fishing expedition they came up with an empty hook – no fish and even lost their bait.
They brought Cohen before Congress again – shortly before he donned prison orange. While it produced a lot of accusations from a very bitter prevaricator, there was no meat on those bones. In fact, the prosecutors in New York cut Cohen off as a source of credible information and Special Counsel Robert Mueller reflected none of Cohen’s sensationalistic statements in his final Report. There apparently was no there, there.
Democrats seem to be operating on the theory if they launch enough investigations, the entire effort will appear more credible – defying the arithmetic reality that zero times any number is still … zero.
More importantly, the public is finding all these Democrat fishing expeditions to be uninteresting – much less credible. There was fear among some Democrats that putting the focus on investigation instead of legislation would backfire – and apparently it is. Polling suggests that the issue of Trump’s tax returns and his business finances are very … very … low on the list of issues that concern the American public. Despite the hopes of the Democrats, it does not appear that all the financial stuff is going to drive voting decisions. And isn’t that what all those investigations are supposed to be about?
So, there ‘tis
According to a recent poll, support for Nigel Farage’s Brexit party has surged in popularity, reaching a projected 35 percent of the public vote just several weeks after the party was first launched and less than a week before Britons head to the polls to vote in the European Parliament elections.
The new figures come from YouGov – a major pollster – and have remained relatively unchanged from last week’s figures which showed the Brexit Party at a historic 34 percent. Meanwhile, the same poll showed that support for the Conservatives – Britain’s currently ruling party under Prime Minister Theresa May – has slipped to just 9 percent.
These polling results mark the Conservative party’s absolute worst result in a national poll since the party’s original founding in 1834.
A map of expected results created by Election Maps UK places the Brexit party in first place in every single English and Welsh region with the exception of London. In Scotland, the Brexit party came in second, following the Scottish National Party (SNP).
Despite the positive news for the Brexit party, results from pollsters tend to be looked at with skepticism in the United Kingdom, especially after the pollsters failed miserably to predict the 2016 Brexit referendum result.
Although YouGov may have incorrectly called the Brexit referendum result, they were correct in their predictions for the 2014 European Union election, rightly polling the victory for UKIP – then led by Nigel Farage.
Last month, in an interview with Breitbart News Daily, Nigel Farage noted that occasional failure of pollsters, and suggested that results of right-leaning parties can sometimes show lower than they actually are since some conservative voters can be hesitant to speak to pollsters. Farage referred to this phenomenon as the ‘Shy Tory Factor’.
“We may be doing better than we even know, but I’ve got to be slightly cautious… one of the reasons that Trump was behind and Brexit was behind is that people can be shy telling pollsters what they actually think.”
“But I actually think it is more serious than that. I think there have been deliberate attempts by polling companies to skew, by using different measures, weighting, etc, to send a message to potential Trump and Brexit voters that: ‘look, you’re going to lose, so why bother?’… we are up against nepotism, we’re up against corruption, big business money, and the globalists who want to destroy our nation states.”
Having voted to leave the EU nearly three years ago, the U.K. wasn’t meant to participate in this year’s European Parliament election. While the British government had originally decided on March 29th, 2019 as their departure date, the date was subsequently postponed – twice – after Prime Minister Theresa May failed to push through the soft, ‘Brexit in name only’ agreement with the EU that she had wished for.
Apparently, the new date for British departure from the EU has been set back to October 31st of this year. However, after already having been delayed two times, no one should be surprised when the Remainer-dominated ruling class of the country continues to be unsatisfied with the terms of withdrawal.
Meanwhile, Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party has campaigned for the European votes to get authorization for a full, so-called, ‘hard’ Brexit – a withdrawal which would mean that Britain would no longer be bound by any of the EU’s laws or institutions.
Although this hard Brexit option is by far the most popular with the British public, with the party advocating for it currently sitting at the very top of the nationwide election next week, it remains a dreaded situation for politicians and Civil Servants in Westminister who continue to work diligently to deliver the softest Brexit possible.
If you thought President Trump had given up on the border wall, think again.
As promised, the Administration unveiled a plan that pulls $2.5 billion from the Defense and Justice Departments and $600 million from the Treasury Department to pay for border wall construction.
“How you will see this materialize in the next 6 months is that about 63 additional new miles of wall will come online,” said Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan. “So about half a mile a day will be produced.”
The plan will be challenged in court later this week by opponents who insist Trump’s financing methods are unconstitutional and illegal.
But Trump has no other choice considering lawmakers’ ongoing refusal to provide funding for the border wall. Last year, the stalemate initiated a 35-day partial government shutdown.
The government was re-opened with a spending package that included $1.4 billion to build a mere 55 miles of barrier fence (concrete walls were not permitted). Trump had asked for $5.6 billion.
In February, Trump declared a national emergency at the border that allowed the Pentagon to move billions of dollars towards the wall. Last week, Shanahan claimed the Pentagon had collected enough money to build 256 miles of border wall.
In the meantime, little progress has been made on existing projects at the border.
A $789 million contract with SLSCO Ltd. in El Paso, Texas has been stalled by a challenge in the US Court of Federal Claims. The hearing will take place this week.
A construction project awarded to Yuma, Arizona last month was immediately challenged by the Government Accountability Office and scrapped.
As the Trump Administration continues to move money around in preparation of awarding new construction contracts, Democratic lawmakers have proposed a bill that would decrease the amount of money the military can transfer between accounts from $9.5 billion to $1.5 billion.
In a separate challenge, a federal judge in California will soon hear a request by the Sierra Club to prevent Trump from using $7 billion in taxpayer dollars for the wall.
The Trump Administration is sending out a clear and decisive message when it comes to our commitment on the world stage, that this isn’t the Obama Administration, of obfuscating our responsibility as the “ONLY” superpower on earth.
No longer do we ignore, appease or apologize for our embrace of “nationalism,” rather then in the pursuit of “globalization.” The policy of appeasement practiced badly under the last administration has taken our advisories awhile to adjust. The bad actors like North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China have all tried to test the Trump Administration, hoping that the failed policies of the past administration to weaken our status on the world stage would somehow continue.
The latest “wake-up” call is currently being played out in the South China Sea near a number of small islands claimed and seized by China in 2014, to the surprise of the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Japan regional countries much closer to the islands then China’s 500 miles.
Ironically the Obama Administration had warned China in 2012 not to carry out any “reclamation works” as they have done elsewhere because the islands are part of international territories; however Obama once again ignored the threat, giving little more then lip service, which in turn singled to the Chinese Obama’s incompetence and timidity to actually confront international aggression, thus allowing China to claim the islands for themselves two years later, beginning construction of an airport and turning the islands into a strategic military installation, while Obama purposely looked somewhere else.
Much like everything Obama touched, the Trump Administration has had to clean up. For the second time this month the U.S. destroyer Preble sailed near islands claimed by China in the disputed South China Sea while the two countries engage in a trade fight.
Reuters reported that the operation was carried out on Sunday, citing that the Commander for the 7th fleet sailed 12 nautical miles off Scarborough Reef “in order to challenge excessive maritime claims and preserve access to the waterways,” the commander said.
The 7th fleet kept a watchful eye, as naval ships from India and Singapore performed drills within international waters. Those drills are expected to last until May 22. The U.S. has frequently criticized China for what it regards as the country’s militarization of the South China Sea, while China, in turn, has regarded the U.S. conduct in the region as a provocation.
Recent incidents surrounding the disputed islands within the South China Sea has the potential of becoming a flashpoint for an unintended confrontation if the players aren’t extremely careful within this high-density waterway.
On May 15th, 2019, Captain John Driscoll, commanding officer of the U.S. Coast Guard National Security Cutter Bertholf told reporters two Chinese Coast Guard ships were spotted off the South China Sea while they were conducting the joint exercise with Philippine Coast Guard.
A top American military commander says U.S. Air Force jets patrol the South China Sea daily to foster freedom of over-flight, although they’re not as visible as Navy patrols in the disputed waters.
“We fly on a daily basis in and around the South China Sea and really all across the region,” Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., commander of U.S. Pacific Air Forces, told a news briefing late Thursday in Manila.
A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman for Lu Kang said the American ships had entered waters near the shoal without China’s permission, and the Chinese navy had warned it to leave.
“I must stress once again that the U.S. warship’s relevant actions have violated China’s sovereignty and undermined the peace, security and good order in the relevant sea areas. China is firmly opposed to this,” Lu told a daily news briefing.
Obama’s reluctance to confront China’s aggression seizing islands within international waters, and strategically changing the balance of power in the South China Sea, is yet another example of Obama’s pathetic foreign policy of appeasement.