What I’m about to describe to you isn’t a new idea. In fact, it’s probably been thrown about by Congressmen, Senators, and White House advisers since before the government shutdown started. But there’s a reluctance to take advantage of it that I’ll discuss a little later. For now, let’s talk about Title 10, subtitle A, part 1, chapter 15, section 284 of the United States code.

Yes, it’s a mouthful, but stay with me on it.

Title 10 refers to the armed forces. Subtitle A covers general military law. Part 1 details legal military powers. Chapter 15 covers military support for civilian law enforcement agencies. Hmm. You probably already know where I’m heading with this, but let’s dig into section 284, which is titled, “Support for counterdrug activities and activities to counter transnational organized crime.”

Subsection A reads:

(a)Support to Other Agencies.—The Secretary of Defense may provide support for the counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime of any other department or agency of the Federal Government or of any State, local, tribal, or foreign law enforcement agency for any of the purposes set forth in subsection (b) or (c), as applicable, if—

(1) in the case of support described in subsection (b), such support is requested—

(A) by the official who has responsibility for the counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime of the department or agency of the Federal Government, in the case of support for other departments or agencies of the Federal Government;

Okay, so far, so good. The Secretary of Defense can provide support for law enforcement agencies at all levels requesting assistance to fight drug or organized crime that’s coming from transnational sources. That means drug lords trafficking across the border. It means MS-13 sending members into America. Heck, a local county sheriff on the border could ask the Secretary of Defense for assistance if he couldn’t keep up with heroine traffickers crossing the Rio Grande.

Now, the next logical question is what can the Defense Secretary do to support law enforcement agencies at the border? The answer is found in subsection B, line 7.

(7) Construction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.

Some may balk at this point. They’ll say we need a wall, not a fence. I have no idea if it’s legal to call the steel slats the President is requesting a fence, per se, but even if they can’t be considered fencing, we should take a quick peek at Israel’s border with Egypt. Prime Minister Netanyahu recently Tweeted an image of the fence that has virtually eliminated illegal immigration on their southern border.

#10YearChallenge pic.twitter.com/8rX4elCwmq

— Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) January 17, 2019

As you can see, this isn’t a chain link fence that border crossers could climb over or cut through in a matter of seconds. This is a sturdy, tall fence with a gnarly razor wire at the top. By itself, it cannot solve our border crisis. Combined with monitoring technology, increased border patrols, and a concerted campaign to inform people south of the border that they need to use the designated ports of entry, this will dramatically improve our border security.

The best part is, we don’t need to keep the government shutdown. We don’t need to convince Democrats to come to their senses. The President wouldn’t have to declare a national emergency that would wrap the border wall in so much red tape, we won’t see construction beginning for years. And, we wouldn’t have to trade amnesty to get it done.

This would be a beautiful move for the President. Imagine how Democrats would look if they passed on his offer to extend DACA protections, only to have him rescind his offer and build the barrier anyway. They’ll look like stubborn fools who had an opportunity to make a trade and squandered that opportunity with nothing to show for it.

Now, if you’re wondering why this isn’t done, I’ll assume it’s because of the wording. It’s a fence. The President wants a wall. Heck, I want a wall. But at this point, I’ll take a tall, thick fence with gnarly razor wire on top instead of the open air that currently separates the United States from illegal immigrants, drug traffickers, gang members, and terrorists.

If you would like to see this happen, please alert everyone you know about this information. Get every conservative on your Twitter list to Tweet this at the President and those in his orbit. Share it heavily on Facebook. Let them know we want the border secured and the government open and there’s a solution sitting right in front of them. Let’s make America safe again as quickly as possible.

I’ll keep this short.

There was more coverage yesterday about what the Clemson Tigers football team ate at the White House than the crisis at the border or the government shutdown. Why? Because sentiment is shifting among the people. We’ve grown very tired of the government shutdown and at this point, even those who do not support the President are starting to tell Democrats to just fund the darn wall and be done with it.

In standard misdirection style, Democrats and mainstream media are trying to change the topic. They’re talking about NATO. They’re back on the Russia story. They’re laughing at hamburgers for football players while ignoring the two elephants in the room.

Therein lies their problem. They realize that the two big challenges – border security and the government shutdown – can be solved by giving the President the funding he’s requesting for a small stretch of wall at our southern border. The people are starting to ask whether or not this is really the hill upon which the Democrats want to do futile battle.

Now is not the time to back down. We’re close. They’re going to crack first. We just have to expedite their blink to mitigate damage being done to those affected by the shutdown.

Democrats and their media lapdogs realize sentiment is growing that the border crisis is, indeed, a crisis. Now, they’re trying to change subjects. We cannot back down. Alert your representatives you want the wall funded and the government opened today.

When Senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders agree on an economic policy, most Republicans object. They were objecting when the Democratic Senators pushed tariffs against China a couple of years ago because they knew it was a bad idea. Unfortunately, sound advice from fiscal conservatives couldn’t break through President Trump’s bubble. Now, most Republicans believe in the progressive concept of “fair trade” instead of the conservative notion of “free trade.”

The saddest part is most Republicans who support the President’s tariffs don’t even realize he stole the idea from the progressive Senators in the first place. They’re so locked into tribal bickering and party politics that they don’t take a moment to question anything the President does. This isn’t the first time conservatives have abandoned sound principles for the sake of party unity. People who still claim to be conservatives were silent when the President pushed for his bump stock ban. They started nodding their heads in sheepish agreement as Republican lawmakers and the President started echoing leftist calls for red flag gun laws that betray the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments. They call for the wall at all costs, and while I definitely agree we need a wall, I would not accept breaching Natural Rights to property through the use of eminent domain, which President Trump used gleefully before he was elected President.

Now, as we’re seeing results of China’s economy rebounding with a record trade surplus in spite of the ineffective tariffs the President has imposed, two groups of people continue to pay the fees to the United States government. It’s not China. Their companies are simply charging more to compensate. That means the money being fed to the United States government is coming from American businesses and consumers.

Republicans understood this when they opposed Schumer’s and Sanders’ Chinese tariff proposals, but since the President adopted them, suddenly tariffs are a good idea.

There’s a reason trade deficit is not a true indicator of economic success. As the economy gets better, companies in the country tend to import more. Trying to reverse the trade deficit is both illogical and counterproductive. We should be focused on cutting regulations and costs to American businesses, not raising them as tariffs invariably do. This is why the free trade market-driven economy works so well in the 21st century. The only benefit of tariffs is driving more revenue paid by Americans into government coffers.

Notice how the economy rebounded when the President and Capitol Hill cut taxes. The reaction was strong and nearly universal. You could see more jobs being created, more wages being earned, and more companies wanting to do their business in America instead of abroad. How many jobs have come back to America since the President started his tariff money-grab nearly a year ago? The benefits have been negligible. In fact, one can argue that the tariffs have started taking away many of the gains that came from cutting taxes in the first place.

The President demonstrated his total misunderstanding of the benefits and detriments to tariffs during the GOP primary season. Now, the same lawmakers who opposed tariffs then have either remained silent or expressed tepid optimism about them. This optimism isn’t based on a new understanding of what tariffs do. It’s based solely on the fear that they would get ousted like Jeff Flake or Bob Corker if they challenge the President’s policies.

The positives that came from the tax cuts are systematically being reversed by the negatives of tariffs. Conservatives used to understand this. Now, they’re sticking their collective heads in the sand in hopes when they pull them out, the tariffs will be gone.