In the vast array of comment concerning President Trump’s intervention in Syria, recall that most commentators, whether American or not, refused to envisage not only the possibility of Donald Trump winning the election, they actively campaigned against it. Many continued their campaign even after he won the election.
On the basis that he was a strict conservative constitutionalist and also his strong conservative record in the Senate, Ted Cruz seemed to me to be the best candidate in the Republican primaries. In any event, when Donald Trump gained the Republican nomination, I wrote that it had become very clear that he was a far superior candidate to Mrs Clinton. This was on the basis of her record as Senator and especially as Secretary of State. It was also because her policies would most likely have continued those of the Obama presidency, the thrust of which have been to achieve the decline of American power and influence.
From his campaign speech at Gettysburg, Donald Trump offered policies which would, as he said, make America great again. They would also restore a proper respect for the Constitution which had become the plaything of left-wing activist judges.
The President’s enemies continued to campaign against him after the election, not even relaxing their onslaught at the time of the inauguration. Even although everybody knows the President is elected by the electoral college and therefore candidates campaign on that basis, the validity of his election was challenged by contrasting the vote in the college with what is called the popular vote.
Apart from the expected opposition of the Democratic Party, two illegitimate enemies have campaigned against the President.
The first group are too many in the mainstream media, who have abandoned the essential principle of ethical journalism, that while comment is free, facts are sacred. They have continued, without any evidentiary support, to argue that whatever Russian interference in the election took place, there was collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.
There has been a corollary. This related to the widespread reports, even on TV news in Australia, that Donald Trump had no proof whatsoever to support his tweet that he had been wiretapped by the Obama administration. What is becoming more and more clear is that members of the Trump campaign were caught up in the surveillance of Russian diplomats and persons close to the Russian government, and while no wrongdoing was revealed, the information was used improperly and at times illegally by the Obama administration, even after the election result had been declared.
In fact, as leading conservative radio and TV commentator Mark Levin revealed in a detailed broadcast, it was the mainstream media who had themselves reported this, but who after his tweet called on President Trump to prove his assertion based on their reports. The mainstream media also relied on a technicality in arguing that there had been no wiretapping of Donald Trump; the fact is there had been widespread surveillance which extended to the Trump campaign, followed by the illegal leaking of the fruits of that surveillance with the names of innocent Americans not masked as the law requires. Indeed, during the supposedly lame duck period, a measure was adopted to ensure the wider circulation of surveillance material within the administration. The consequences, perhaps intended, were that leaking was easier, more likely, and more difficult to trace.
The point is that with the intervention in Syria, which has outraged the government Russian government, the argument that President Trump is somehow a puppet or ally of the Russians, colluding with them to gain power, has been exploded as the furphy or absurdity it always was. Once again, the commentariat, American and foreign, have egg on their faces.
The second illegitimate enemy of the Trump administration is a number of activist judges who should stand for election as politicians rather than trying to play a political role from the bench. There is no doubt whatsoever that the President has power under legislation to restrict the entry of foreigners to the United States. Notwithstanding that, Federal judges have spuriously enjoined the President’s Executive Orders restricting immigration from certain countries. To do this the judges have made rulings which, when they handed them down, they would have had great difficulty in keeping straight faces. These were that the states concerned would have been ”irreparably damaged” if the court did not act. The irreparable damage, believe it or not, was that state universities would have been unable to obtain the services of lecturers from some of the countries affected.
What these politician judges are trying to do is to create a constitutional right in foreigners across the world to emigrate to the United States. That the constitution of any sovereign nation would give such a right is, of course, preposterous, but this is consistent with the attitude of some judges and politicians to the creation of the so-called ”sanctuary cities” where illegal immigrants into the United States are protected from action by the authorities. This has notoriously on occasions led to the commission of serious and at times violent crimes by some illegal immigrants who had been sought by the federal authorities.
The President’s action in Syria explodes one of the justifications of the politician judges’ intervention. This is that he had shown by his statements that he is prejudiced against Muslims and was, therefore, acting in violation of the First Amendment which, notwithstanding the glosses on it, actually does no more than forbid the Federal authorities from creating an established church. The fact is of course that the President acted in Syria because of the crimes against Syrian people most of whom were likely to have been Muslims. How then could he be prejudiced against Muslims?
As to the legality and propriety of the Syrian intervention, recall that in 2013, as a result of an agreement between the Obama administration and the Russian government the United Nations Security Council resolved to require the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons. This was by Resolution 2118. The Obama administration had baulked at taking action directly and thought that a solution could be achieved by Russia to ensure that Assad would give up his weapons. But whenever the Americans tried to use the enforcement provisions in the Resolution they were met with Russian and Chinese vetoes. After the latest and appalling crime by Bashar al-Assad, it was clear there was no point in going back to the UN Security Council because the Russians and the Chinese would veto any action proposed by the United States.
President Trump could follow the precedents set by the Obama administration not only in relation to Syria but also in relation to Iran. Instead, he decided to act.
The fact is that America, the great benign and civilised leader of the West, sharing our principles and values, is back. The free world should not only be relieved; we should rejoice.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.