The Importance of Defining the Enemy

Congressman Chris Stewart, Representative of the 2nd district of Utah, is a Member of the House Appropriations Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

We’re back! It is with the greatest of pleasure that I say that we are joined by the representative of the people of the second district of Utah. His name is Congressman Chris Stewart. He is, among other things, in his roles in the Congress a member of the House Appropriations Committee and he also serves on the House Permanent Select Committee. I have to say that doesn’t begin to do justice to what an extraordinary man he is. He has served with great distinction in uniform as a command pilot of B1 bombers, in fact he set the world speed record as I understand it, for around the world travel in one of those air crafts. As well as having done with considerable distinction other feats of daring due in uniform, as well as author of more books than I can count-; I think 17 was the last as I recall, and of course as a successful businessman out in Utah. So for all these reasons he is a renaissance man and always a welcomed guest at Secure Freedom Radio. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

REP. CHRIS STEWART:

Oh my gosh it’s good to be with you!

FRANK GAFFNEY:

So let me ask you about a couple things that are on my mind and see what you think of them. Sir, we have been talking in the course of the program today about the failure of the Administration having come to office in part at least, on the promise to name the enemy. On the occasion of the 9/11 anniversary, successive members of the Admin starting with the President himself chose not to do so. Should we take that as a sign that something is amiss or that’s it more of the business as usual that has, I believe, not proven very successful in defeating the enemy. Because you can’t of course if you don’t name it.

REP. CHRIS STEWART:

You know Frank, I don’t know the answer to that question. I think it might be too early to draw an assumption, I can tell you I agree and as you and me talked about many times on your radio, it is important to define with clarity who and what it is your fighting and why your fighting them. And you can’t do that if you bring ambiguity into it as to what that exactly is. I don’t think the President or the admin has done what the previous admin did and that’s to refuse to do that as part of their tactics, as part of their public relations, and part of, you know, their idea of temping down emotion and Islamophobia. I don’t think this Administration has done that but I would encourage them not do to that. Again its important for us to be clear with the America people who and what it is we are fighting, and part of that is just being willing to say it.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Let me ask you, first of all I personally think Sharia Supremacism is what we are fighting but I’d be interested in how you would define it. Also I would ask you, when u hear the President, when you hear the Vice President, when u hear the Secretary of Defense, when you hear the Attorney General of the U.S., all using euphemisms that are at best sort of a variation on terrorism but some of them, for example, Jim Mattis said “these are maniacs, in false religious garbs.” Now Congressman Stewart, you spent time fighting these wars in the Middle East along other places, I think you know these are not people who are in false religious garbs, they may or not be maniacs, they are practicing what the authorities of Islam teach. Would you walk us through your thinking on how we should describe these guys?

REP. CHRIS STEWART:

Well, I have no problem calling them maniacs, and in some cases, I wouldn’t have any problem calling those who have false religious garbs, in some cases that may be true. But as you said Frank, in its entirety, this isn’t an aberration or a bastardization of some of their core beliefs. There are so many of them who as you said, believe in sharia supremacy and that is their goal and I just think we have to be willing to tell the American people that.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

I do too. Congressman, its one of the things we admire about you. Let me ask you about something which I think we may disagree and that is this Differed Action on Childhood Arrivals, better known as DACA. Of course President Trump has thrown the ball to you all to do something about this, there’s now there about some kind of legislation that would formalize it and approve basically what Barak Obama did, kind of an amnesty for these so called children. At the same time, there will be no evidently effort made to prevent, by a physical barrier at least, more of them from seeking amnesty in the future. Where are you on this Sir?

REP. CHRIS STEWART:

Yeah, you know, after all of the many conversations we’ve had I think we really may have found the one thing we may disagree on. We can have maybe a gentlemen’s agreement to disagree on this. But part of this is borne out of my experience in the military where I knew a few individuals who were brought here truly as children, and I know you emphasized children in your comments about that and the point being well some of them come as 17, 18, 19 year olds claiming child status. But these were individuals who came in one case at a few months old, and they were serving in the Military and they were serving well. And again I think that’s kind of colored my opinion on this. The second thing is the reality, this is where you and I might disagree, but the reality of how disruptive and I would even argue impossible it would be to identify these individuals and force them to leave the country for something that truly is no fault of their own, they have no where to go, they don’t have family, they don’t have a relationship, they don’t in some cases even know where they came from. So it seems to be a reasonable compromise and one of the things I think is really important to know, if you review the history, Barak Obama promised that he was going to deal with the problem we have with our immigration. And he didn’t, he had a super majority in the house and the senate, he didn’t deal with it. And my conclusion is from that and other evidence, the Democratic party doesn’t want to solve this problem, they want the issue, they would much rather have the emotion, and the argument, and the money and the attention then they would to actually solve this problem. Its actually the case that it falls upon us to do what we think can help in this situation. And again I just think that some of the legislation I have sponsored specifically for those serving in the military is a reasonable compromise.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

I want to come back to that, if I may, but just to work through the logic of this Congressman, we’re talking about an amnesty at a moment when there is not an ability to prevent more people from bringing more children here illegally and in turn, presumably, qualifying for amnesty as well. For all that means for chain migration and vastly larger numbers of people becoming American citizens or you know at least getting green cards and status here. Is that prospect that as part of the wheeling and dealing that’s going on in the Hill that you may get some action on DACA, but no action on the wall, as its called, just using the briefest of formulations. Does that trouble you Congressman?

REP. CHRIS STEWART:

Yes, I think in this case you and I actually do agree. I would support and argue for tying DACA to the completion of the law. Not only just the start, but the actual completion. So that we could say, and I think it would incentivize both by the way, for those of us who feel these individuals who came here as children, we truly need to deal with them , but also feel like the primary and the first thing we need to do is secure our southern border, again it may incentivize those two groups of political leaders to work together on this. But until we can go to the American people and say with a straight face, to look them in the eye and say honestly, we have done what we promised we would do to secure our southern border, and frankly not just our southern border as well, because many of these people enter the country legally under visas under work standard visas, so its not just that. But once we’ve done that, and now can we deal with DACA? I think that would be a situation where we would be able to assure them, we’ve taken care of the threat and now lets deal with those individuals who are here and came here as children.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

I think that does make sense. Congressman, quickly and very quickly, just on the Enlist Act and I think that’s one of the initiatives you are referring to based on your experience in the Military. One of my concerns, and I think it would be that of people in uniform as well, is as these may be perfectly decent individuals and so on, they are coming into uniform service having willfully or innocently, but none the less violated the law. And is that something that we should be ignoring and if we are going to be ignore it, are we not going to find ourselves having to ignore a lot of other laws that should be considered disqualifying for Military service if they’re violated

REP. CHRIS STEWART:

Yeah, you know in a perfect world we would say that only those who have never violated the law can enter the military but we would have a very small military. I am not sure and I would be there Frank, if we went back to our teenage days…

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Well speak for yourself Congressman, I’ve lived a good, clean life.

REP. CHRIS STEWART:

I understand your point, and it’s not a meaningless point there is no doubt, but I’m just willing to concede that we would be able to accommodate that still.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Got it, okay Congressman Chris Stewart, thank you so much for your time today as well as your extraordinary and ongoing service to our country, we appreciate it greatly and look forward to talking with you again in the very near future. Come back to us soon, Sir. Next up we will get an opposing view on DACA from the Congressman’s colleague Paul Gosar. Right after this.