Trump to declare national emergency

[iceberg]

I thought Trump would avoid getting killed again over shutting down the gummit for his politically unpopular wall. And then just tell the Trumpbots he'd "move money around." Which would quietly die a slow legal death.

But instead he's upped the ante with the bogus emergency. win or lose, it energizes his opposition. Sweet. I guess. I mean there's no compromise possible until he's gone, so the more bullshit absurdity, the better.

when did the dems try to compromise? trump asked they said no.

 

[edward37]

what if that planet with the giant insects decided to fly here and take out the USA? would the Dems block the decision to fight them?

obama declared a national emergency 13 times while in office

Yes, during the Ebola outbreak, Hurricane Sandy, similar natural disasters and you know, ACTUAL emergencies, when the states or the regions needed government resources for which no allocations had been made. The way an Emergency Declaration is SUPPOSED to be used.

What Obama didn't do was to declare a national emergency as an end around because he lost a political fight. The Constitution is VERY clear that the power of the purse resides in the House, and if the people refuse to find your program, as President, you cannot use an emergency declaration as an end-around to the Constitution.

Today, on national television, a dejected, defeated, and defiant Donald Trump told America that there is no national emergency but he's doing to declare one anyway to get his wall built. This is an admission that the is declaring this emergency for political reasons, and nothing else. All Dems need to do is to walk into the Supreme Court, play that clip, and even the SC will rule against him.

when you get to be president you can decide what are nation emergencies until STFU troll

Presidents day cancelled .....................Until we get one

 

[edward37]

what if that planet with the giant insects decided to fly here and take out the USA? would the Dems block the decision to fight them?

obama declared a national emergency 13 times while in office

Yes, during the Ebola outbreak, Hurricane Sandy, similar natural disasters and you know, ACTUAL emergencies, when the states or the regions needed government resources for which no allocations had been made. The way an Emergency Declaration is SUPPOSED to be used.

What Obama didn't do was to declare a national emergency as an end around because he lost a political fight. The Constitution is VERY clear that the power of the purse resides in the House, and if the people refuse to find your program, as President, you cannot use an emergency declaration as an end-around to the Constitution.

Today, on national television, a dejected, defeated, and defiant Donald Trump told America that there is no national emergency but he's doing to declare one anyway to get his wall built. This is an admission that the is declaring this emergency for political reasons, and nothing else. All Dems need to do is to walk into the Supreme Court, play that clip, and even the SC will rule against him.

when you get to be president you can decide what are nation emergencies until STFU troll

You have a moron who has gone bankrupt 6 times lies every time he opens his mouth ,making decisions of 100's of billions of dollars Get a fn brain

 

[edward37]

The ONLY national emergency is Our President is an Idiot
Ann Coulter

 

[easyt65]

You have a moron who has gone bankrupt 6 times lies every time he opens his mouth ,making decisions of 100's of billions of dollars Get a fn brain

And he was more successful in 2 years than Barry was in 8....does not side with / fund / supply / aid / abet / protect terrorists like Barry....does not start wars to help terrorists like Barry...does not spy on the American people / US Senate / USSC like Barry ... Does not use the IRS to attack Americans lime Barry...has not violated the Constitution and Rule of Law like Barry....has not been fly d in Contemp of Court lime Barry....has not sided with terrorists / illegals / enemies of the US like Barry...did not pay ransoms for American lime Barry...did not release enemy terrorist leaders to try to keep a campaign promise like Barry....

 

[sparky]

right.....that's like differentiating between dumb & dumber.....

~S~

 

[edward37]

You have a moron who has gone bankrupt 6 times lies every time he opens his mouth ,making decisions of 100's of billions of dollars Get a fn brain

And he was more successful in 2 years than Barry was in 8....does not side with / fund / supply / aid / abet / protect terrorists like Barry....does not start wars to help terrorists like Barry...does not spy on the American people / US Senate / USSC like Barry ... Does not use the IRS to attack Americans lime Barry...has not violated the Constitution and Rule of Law like Barry....has not been fly d in Contemp of Court lime Barry....has not sided with terrorists / illegals / enemies of the US like Barry...did not pay ransoms for American lime Barry...did not release enemy terrorist leaders to try to keep a campaign promise like Barry....

To quote a famous Republican President ...."There you go again""

 

[easyt65]

Nah...between a traitor and a businessman / rookie politician.

 

[easyt65]

To quote a famous Republican President ...."There you go again""

Yup....pointing out the obvious.

 

[edward37]

You have a moron who has gone bankrupt 6 times lies every time he opens his mouth ,making decisions of 100's of billions of dollars Get a fn brain

And he was more successful in 2 years than Barry was in 8....does not side with / fund / supply / aid / abet / protect terrorists like Barry....does not start wars to help terrorists like Barry...does not spy on the American people / US Senate / USSC like Barry ... Does not use the IRS to attack Americans lime Barry...has not violated the Constitution and Rule of Law like Barry....has not been fly d in Contemp of Court lime Barry....has not sided with terrorists / illegals / enemies of the US like Barry...did not pay ransoms for American lime Barry...did not release enemy terrorist leaders to try to keep a campaign promise like Barry....

I'm getting a judge to issue you a gag order easy

 

[edward37]

You have a moron who has gone bankrupt 6 times lies every time he opens his mouth ,making decisions of 100's of billions of dollars Get a fn brain

And he was more successful in 2 years than Barry was in 8....does not side with / fund / supply / aid / abet / protect terrorists like Barry....does not start wars to help terrorists like Barry...does not spy on the American people / US Senate / USSC like Barry ... Does not use the IRS to attack Americans lime Barry...has not violated the Constitution and Rule of Law like Barry....has not been fly d in Contemp of Court lime Barry....has not sided with terrorists / illegals / enemies of the US like Barry...did not pay ransoms for American lime Barry...did not release enemy terrorist leaders to try to keep a campaign promise like Barry....

question easy ,,did or did not Obama hand over an upwards swinging economy FAR from the misery the Repub GWB handed him?? I'll remove your gag order for this answer

 

[BWK]

Please god protect trump and America from Our domestic enemies

That would be Trump.

You want open borders?

We've never had open borders. And it certainly isn't an emergency to Trump either. He said "I didn't have to do this". Trump undermines emergency declaration as soon as he makes it

 

[BWK]

Libs are going to be beside themselves !


Trump will sign border bill and declare national emergency: McConnell

Trump will sign border bill and declare national emergency: McConnell
Published: Feb 14, 2019 3:10 p.m. ET

If Gramm Rudman was unconst (and the Scotus said it was) I don't see how the national emergency law survives .... unless the scotus wants to play theoretical diddlylwinks by saying "congress can change it"

And McConnell will be all for amending the law to prevent misuse to just try and force spending congress won't allocate ... as soon as a dem is potus.

You know this law was meant to limit the powers of the president. The law allows the president to declare and emergency but also give congress the power to resend it.

I disagree that the law was ever about limiting the executive. Under the law the "emergency" exists when the president says so. Then to end the "emergency" congress must bipartisanly act to end the "emergency." The law is to allow congress not to act. It's lazy but the natural instinct is to have someone else to it for you, which is the path to totalitarianism ... or a monarchy. If the law was about anything else, it would provide an emergency automatically ends after some period of time unless Congress acts.

I think the laws really about the opposite. The revealing quote from Nixon - Frost is Nixon saying: if the president does it, it's not illegal.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Nixon-say-When-the-President-does-it-that-means-that-it-is-not-illegal

I said the purpose of the law was to limit the president because previously there were a number of acts and court rulings under which the president might declare an emergency. The actual number was 470 which were mostly replaced by the new law. Some of these required Congressional oversight and others didn't. Some were perpetual and some had expiration periods. About the only thing in common to various statues and court rulings was the requirement to notify congress. This statue, unlike most of the previous statues, required the president to specify in detail the reason for the declaration, the actions planned, records of all orders and movement of funds, and periodic report to congress.

I agree the law stinks. The court actually removed veto power of the president making only a simple majority needed to resend the declaration. Unfortunately, congress passed and amendment restoring it. The act also gives the president far too much power without congressional approval.

The purpose of the law was to allow the president to act in a matter of hours in the case of a serious emergency where going to congress could take days or longer. It was also understood that the president would use this power for declarations that would have had unanimous support such as national disasters and attacks against the US such 911 and other matters in which passage by congress would have been a certainty. Until Trump, this was how the act was used. No president had used the act to subvert the will of congress.

Obviously, we need to change the law or future presidents will follow in Trump's footsteps which would be a transfer of power from congress to the president destroying valuable checks and balances. The problem is how do you get that legislation passed. Both sides are certainly drooling over the possibility of their man in the White House doing things that could never get passed by congress. Trump may well have opened Pandora's Box that has the potential of turning the government into an autocracy.

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

Mr. Flopper, thank you for background on what was and should be. It definitely sounds reasonable. However, it was also issue specific, and only one phrase nags at me, probably for the wrong reason, but here goes: "the will of congress." That would be fine except for several harsh things about this particular congress. This congress has a number of individuals who do not speak for the majority of the American people and who take swipes at the Constitution like a goat butts a dead tree. They brought in several fresh faces this term, but one of them until stringently spoken to was mouthing off about jews as though Old World hatreds were acceptable to mainstream America. One of them recently threatened to take away peoples' rewards for a job well done or an invention made useful by raising ONLY THEIR taxes to 70%, to copy the European theatre that taxes people to an early grave in its best light. Our forefathers set in place a system of economics that reward people who come up with good ideas and placed patents and copyrights to safeguard and protect their inventions, ideas, methods. and even words in the hands of the Library of Congress. Some of these innovative persons were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths and when wealth comes their way, they often do not know how to manage finances, become overly generous to relatives, hangers on, and even the best of good causes. In other words, we try not to bury the Mozarts of America in unmarked mass graves. That's a huge mistake to raise taxes on such people. And who are they? People who turned a muddy creek bed into a precious stone that sparkles in the hearts and lives of other people.

I do not have confidence in this particular congress any more than people had Richard Nixon after Watergate. I also am skeptical of a press that takes up the banner of one party just to smite the other, 98% of the time with malice aforethought, taking their clues from whoever is their favorite redistributor of wealth, which is what many framers intimated in their private letters, that they were worried if taxes were passed on the people, future generations would see this as a means of their own personal wealth and plunder the nation's treasury. What if the press changed its mind about the Democrat Party and went with the Republican Party? Neither option to me is good. The press needs to regain the public's trust, which it no longer has with the antics of putting words into the mouths of every conservative speaker who has something to tell the American public, and it always harks back to a "gotcha!" It was great for Woodward and others to make a name for themselves by taking out a President, but it wasn't great when they let go every last error go, covered up, reworded, redefined, and ignored justice obstruction for another President who could do no wrong, considering the personal benefits accorded them from their getting on the money train bandwagon. The Republican Party cleaned house promptly in 1973 and has never tried to do that again. Yet an ambitious-to-a-fault first lady was caught interfering with the lives of 900 of her husband's rival, and the press gave her a pass when she mumbled something like "I forget" to a Congress who sicks the present dogs of the press on a new President for 2 years based on a false charge by a Special Counsel who was reprimanded by the courts for doing the same darn thing a number of years ago. Many people do not know the Special Counsel appointed by Democrats destroyed the lives of innocent people back then, but the courts know it, and the popular press ignores it. The only trouble is, the popular press is now walking on thin ice as angry people cancel their subscriptions in answer for inanities leveled at innocent men who instead of violating laws as the press insists had clean hands. Kavanaugh is one of them. Donald Trump is another.

This congress has tried a new President in the press a month before he took office, in fact, the threat was made to impeach the very next morning after his bid for president was made public that he won. Many of us view that as essential prejudice: judging a man guilty or bad or the n-word or whatever the latest personal hatred may be, and in this case, prior to his placing his hand on the Bible and pledging that he would provide for the common defense with God as his witness. They've tortured the first lady for her modeling career choices, acceptable in the land of her birth for centuries, but suddenly taboo here in America by a party who celebrates a young woman's coming of age not with a Debutante party, but with her first abortion, which is paid for by taxes from people whose religious leanings teach families to love the sinner while hating the poor judgment exercised in a moment of youthful passion.

In short, this congress is not the same one as in years before. Democrats give their members a warning, never a censure. They do not behave in an equal manner for their counterparts on the other side of the aisle. I've heard the word "impeach!!!" screeched out by both sides, but when a congressman comes up with the jew-hating language used by one of them last week, the only censure you hear about is a little wrist slap and a well-rehearsed apology that came obviously from a list of things you have to say, and not from that person's black heart that will carry punishment for Jewish people for life in this country and in this congress.

This congress needs to be confronted on a number of ill-advised "wins" it claims for itself while damning the President's staff to the hell of being constantly verbally assaulted in public by an untouchable Congressman--untouchable because she's a woman, and furthermore untouchable because she is black and demands a free pass or she will start a riot somewhere in her district if anybody in charge says one single word of reprimand in public about her. Some of us think of that in terms of something a lot more sinister than mental illness. It is precocious hatred demanding unreasonable concession and it is racially biased with roots in wrongdoing against people who are no longer alive, and taken out on innocent people of the wrongs of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. Here we are in the twenty-first century. The debt is paid in full by efforts to furnish free housing, free medical, free food, free job training, jobs for everyone, equal pay, equal justice, and no matter what good is offered, it is getting to the point of nothing given is ever good enough. Uh, well, yes it is. And if we are going to have people from every background in congress, we deserve just as much wisdom from them as we had when cooler heads prevailed in congress. Where is discipline? Is that something you can only demand from white males, discipline? No, it's something the American people want from whoever is making decisions in Washington, but it's not happening in the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party is playing brain dead right now, and for some reason, the press that used to keep politicians on an even keel are losing respect because they are unfairly targeting Democrat hate targets which is always aimed at their conservative adversaries.

The Democrat Party needs to take another approach, and that would be one of getting along with and avoidance of eating the liver of Republicans and creating the false scenario that conservatism is all bad. Um, no, it's not. It also needs to make sure it does not deliver any more frivolous lawsuits, or it will be faced with the will of the people who will override the "will of congress," if it continues with ear plugs and blinders to the majority of the people of this land, selling out to a village approach unlimited which has been tried elsewhere and winds up with deprivation of the masses and power in too few committee hands. The government needs to back off a bit, imho, and let people enjoy the earnings the sweat of their brow produces, not put everything in the pot for jew-haters you do not censure. And Maxine Waters' method of using her Congress seat to punish the Executive Branch under closer examination is pissing on the separation of powers, as are the frivolous lawsuits closed-door committees in the Democrat Party are inflicting on the President, not giving him the chance to do his job for the American people's common defense. If a dog doesn't back down, his owner buys a leash, pushes a spiral in the ground, and takes away supper for a couple of hours. Don't push that onto Republicans with frivolous lawsuits, keeping in mind that if the overbearing character assassinations continue, the bad karma this provokes is very bad for this nation, blessed by the Creator and forged by the fire of liberty and equality.

You could have saved that long winded speech by just telling us all to follow and adhere to the Constitution. That's how everyone does their job.

 

[BWK]

'President Trump said Friday he is declaring a national emergency on the southern border, tapping into executive powers in a bid to divert billions toward construction of a wall even as he plans to sign a funding package that includes just $1.4 billion for border security.'

"We’re talking about an invasion of our country,"

"We will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued," Trump said, adding that the federal appeals courts could well rule against his administration. "Then we’ll end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we’ll get a fair shake, and we’ll win at the Supreme Court

“We’re going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border … one way or the other, we have to do it,” Trump said in the Rose Garden."



Democrats do not have a legal leg to stand on.

The Constitutional Power for the President to do this was given to him by Congress through law.

Presidents of both parties have declared National Emergencies approx. 59 times since it was 1st used by President Jimmy Carter.
Approx 32 of those National Emergencies remain in effect.



Not only does the President continue to fight for this nation's national sovereignty, border security, safety for citizens, and for enforcement of existing US law, he continues to put on display the despicable, brazen partisan opposition to all of that for the benefit of the Democratic Party in hopes of harming the President's Re-election chances in 2020.



After rushing to embrace AOC's insane 'Green New Deal' expected to cost as much if not more that $100 TRILLION in new debt, after California and Gov Newsom refuses to give tax payers back $3.1 Billion after scrapping their high speed rail project which that money was for, the Democrats' opposition to $5 billion for securing our southern border makes it obviously clear it has nothing to do with the money.


.

The intent of law was to provide rapid response to immediate emergency situations that could not wait days or weeks for congressional action. The purpose of the law was never to subvert congress. Never did the writers of the bill consider that America would have a president who would use the law to take what congress refuses to give. Trump has opened Pandora's box. Closing it may prove to be impossible, a far more serious problem than how many miles of wall Trump get's built before the election.

It's been since 1986, so yeah, it can't wait anymore. Time's up, Congress, you ain't worth a shit. You've had your chance every year since 1986. Now get out the way so we can get this done.

Then you pay for it, since Trump lied about Mexico paying for it.

 

[rightwinger]

The election of Trump was a National Emergency

 

[JimH52]

When an four year old does not get his way...he throws himself on the floor and kicks and screams....that is what the National Emergency is doing.

But the courts will tell him to pick his fat orange ass up off the floor and finally read the Constitution.

 

[Hellokitty]

This is a win for the Libs.

Trump has proven he cannot broker a deal and now has to admit he lost the battle with them.

Declaring a national emergency is a waving the white flag


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

TRUMP has exposed the democrats and rinos selling out the safety of US citizens for protections for illegal immigrants. All people need do is look at the latest bill to see that any funding coming from congress for the wall will have to many anti-US strings. TRUMP declaring a national emergency in order to fund the wall is putting America First.

Its not a national emergency. But watch out, the Democrats may use the same tactic once they win the Presidency to declare a national emergency on "GUN CONTROL", or "CLIMATE CHANGE". Of course a Democratic President is likely to have congress with them unlike Trump so that probably would not be needed.

Immigration to the United States across the southern border is at a low point compared to decades ago. There is no emergency. A wall won't block 90% of the drugs and people that come into this country from Latin America.

The levels of immigration of women and children are at an all time high. Border security and DHS have both acknowledged the problems is the increase of family units or people posing as a family unit, along with higher levels of immigrants from countries other than Mexico.

You either know this and are being disingenuous of the problem this causes, or you are ignorant to the actually facts.

 

[beautress]

If Gramm Rudman was unconst (and the Scotus said it was) I don't see how the national emergency law survives .... unless the scotus wants to play theoretical diddlylwinks by saying "congress can change it"

And McConnell will be all for amending the law to prevent misuse to just try and force spending congress won't allocate ... as soon as a dem is potus.

You know this law was meant to limit the powers of the president. The law allows the president to declare and emergency but also give congress the power to resend it.

I disagree that the law was ever about limiting the executive. Under the law the "emergency" exists when the president says so. Then to end the "emergency" congress must bipartisanly act to end the "emergency." The law is to allow congress not to act. It's lazy but the natural instinct is to have someone else to it for you, which is the path to totalitarianism ... or a monarchy. If the law was about anything else, it would provide an emergency automatically ends after some period of time unless Congress acts.

I think the laws really about the opposite. The revealing quote from Nixon - Frost is Nixon saying: if the president does it, it's not illegal.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Nixon-say-When-the-President-does-it-that-means-that-it-is-not-illegal

I said the purpose of the law was to limit the president because previously there were a number of acts and court rulings under which the president might declare an emergency. The actual number was 470 which were mostly replaced by the new law. Some of these required Congressional oversight and others didn't. Some were perpetual and some had expiration periods. About the only thing in common to various statues and court rulings was the requirement to notify congress. This statue, unlike most of the previous statues, required the president to specify in detail the reason for the declaration, the actions planned, records of all orders and movement of funds, and periodic report to congress.

I agree the law stinks. The court actually removed veto power of the president making only a simple majority needed to resend the declaration. Unfortunately, congress passed and amendment restoring it. The act also gives the president far too much power without congressional approval.

The purpose of the law was to allow the president to act in a matter of hours in the case of a serious emergency where going to congress could take days or longer. It was also understood that the president would use this power for declarations that would have had unanimous support such as national disasters and attacks against the US such 911 and other matters in which passage by congress would have been a certainty. Until Trump, this was how the act was used. No president had used the act to subvert the will of congress.

Obviously, we need to change the law or future presidents will follow in Trump's footsteps which would be a transfer of power from congress to the president destroying valuable checks and balances. The problem is how do you get that legislation passed. Both sides are certainly drooling over the possibility of their man in the White House doing things that could never get passed by congress. Trump may well have opened Pandora's Box that has the potential of turning the government into an autocracy.

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

Mr. Flopper, thank you for background on what was and should be. It definitely sounds reasonable. However, it was also issue specific, and only one phrase nags at me, probably for the wrong reason, but here goes: "the will of congress." That would be fine except for several harsh things about this particular congress. This congress has a number of individuals who do not speak for the majority of the American people and who take swipes at the Constitution like a goat butts a dead tree. They brought in several fresh faces this term, but one of them until stringently spoken to was mouthing off about jews as though Old World hatreds were acceptable to mainstream America. One of them recently threatened to take away peoples' rewards for a job well done or an invention made useful by raising ONLY THEIR taxes to 70%, to copy the European theatre that taxes people to an early grave in its best light. Our forefathers set in place a system of economics that reward people who come up with good ideas and placed patents and copyrights to safeguard and protect their inventions, ideas, methods. and even words in the hands of the Library of Congress. Some of these innovative persons were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths and when wealth comes their way, they often do not know how to manage finances, become overly generous to relatives, hangers on, and even the best of good causes. In other words, we try not to bury the Mozarts of America in unmarked mass graves. That's a huge mistake to raise taxes on such people. And who are they? People who turned a muddy creek bed into a precious stone that sparkles in the hearts and lives of other people.

I do not have confidence in this particular congress any more than people had Richard Nixon after Watergate. I also am skeptical of a press that takes up the banner of one party just to smite the other, 98% of the time with malice aforethought, taking their clues from whoever is their favorite redistributor of wealth, which is what many framers intimated in their private letters, that they were worried if taxes were passed on the people, future generations would see this as a means of their own personal wealth and plunder the nation's treasury. What if the press changed its mind about the Democrat Party and went with the Republican Party? Neither option to me is good. The press needs to regain the public's trust, which it no longer has with the antics of putting words into the mouths of every conservative speaker who has something to tell the American public, and it always harks back to a "gotcha!" It was great for Woodward and others to make a name for themselves by taking out a President, but it wasn't great when they let go every last error go, covered up, reworded, redefined, and ignored justice obstruction for another President who could do no wrong, considering the personal benefits accorded them from their getting on the money train bandwagon. The Republican Party cleaned house promptly in 1973 and has never tried to do that again. Yet an ambitious-to-a-fault first lady was caught interfering with the lives of 900 of her husband's rival, and the press gave her a pass when she mumbled something like "I forget" to a Congress who sicks the present dogs of the press on a new President for 2 years based on a false charge by a Special Counsel who was reprimanded by the courts for doing the same darn thing a number of years ago. Many people do not know the Special Counsel appointed by Democrats destroyed the lives of innocent people back then, but the courts know it, and the popular press ignores it. The only trouble is, the popular press is now walking on thin ice as angry people cancel their subscriptions in answer for inanities leveled at innocent men who instead of violating laws as the press insists had clean hands. Kavanaugh is one of them. Donald Trump is another.

This congress has tried a new President in the press a month before he took office, in fact, the threat was made to impeach the very next morning after his bid for president was made public that he won. Many of us view that as essential prejudice: judging a man guilty or bad or the n-word or whatever the latest personal hatred may be, and in this case, prior to his placing his hand on the Bible and pledging that he would provide for the common defense with God as his witness. They've tortured the first lady for her modeling career choices, acceptable in the land of her birth for centuries, but suddenly taboo here in America by a party who celebrates a young woman's coming of age not with a Debutante party, but with her first abortion, which is paid for by taxes from people whose religious leanings teach families to love the sinner while hating the poor judgment exercised in a moment of youthful passion.

In short, this congress is not the same one as in years before. Democrats give their members a warning, never a censure. They do not behave in an equal manner for their counterparts on the other side of the aisle. I've heard the word "impeach!!!" screeched out by both sides, but when a congressman comes up with the jew-hating language used by one of them last week, the only censure you hear about is a little wrist slap and a well-rehearsed apology that came obviously from a list of things you have to say, and not from that person's black heart that will carry punishment for Jewish people for life in this country and in this congress.

This congress needs to be confronted on a number of ill-advised "wins" it claims for itself while damning the President's staff to the hell of being constantly verbally assaulted in public by an untouchable Congressman--untouchable because she's a woman, and furthermore untouchable because she is black and demands a free pass or she will start a riot somewhere in her district if anybody in charge says one single word of reprimand in public about her. Some of us think of that in terms of something a lot more sinister than mental illness. It is precocious hatred demanding unreasonable concession and it is racially biased with roots in wrongdoing against people who are no longer alive, and taken out on innocent people of the wrongs of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. Here we are in the twenty-first century. The debt is paid in full by efforts to furnish free housing, free medical, free food, free job training, jobs for everyone, equal pay, equal justice, and no matter what good is offered, it is getting to the point of nothing given is ever good enough. Uh, well, yes it is. And if we are going to have people from every background in congress, we deserve just as much wisdom from them as we had when cooler heads prevailed in congress. Where is discipline? Is that something you can only demand from white males, discipline? No, it's something the American people want from whoever is making decisions in Washington, but it's not happening in the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party is playing brain dead right now, and for some reason, the press that used to keep politicians on an even keel are losing respect because they are unfairly targeting Democrat hate targets which is always aimed at their conservative adversaries.

The Democrat Party needs to take another approach, and that would be one of getting along with and avoidance of eating the liver of Republicans and creating the false scenario that conservatism is all bad. Um, no, it's not. It also needs to make sure it does not deliver any more frivolous lawsuits, or it will be faced with the will of the people who will override the "will of congress," if it continues with ear plugs and blinders to the majority of the people of this land, selling out to a village approach unlimited which has been tried elsewhere and winds up with deprivation of the masses and power in too few committee hands. The government needs to back off a bit, imho, and let people enjoy the earnings the sweat of their brow produces, not put everything in the pot for jew-haters you do not censure. And Maxine Waters' method of using her Congress seat to punish the Executive Branch under closer examination is pissing on the separation of powers, as are the frivolous lawsuits closed-door committees in the Democrat Party are inflicting on the President, not giving him the chance to do his job for the American people's common defense. If a dog doesn't back down, his owner buys a leash, pushes a spiral in the ground, and takes away supper for a couple of hours. Don't push that onto Republicans with frivolous lawsuits, keeping in mind that if the overbearing character assassinations continue, the bad karma this provokes is very bad for this nation, blessed by the Creator and forged by the fire of liberty and equality.

You could have saved that long winded speech by just telling us all to follow and adhere to the Constitution. That's how everyone does their job.

You think everyone does their job following the Constitution? By following the Nazi credo of criticizing and ostracizing people of Jewish extraction? Sure, they damn do.

 

[Rustic]

Libs are going to be beside themselves !

President Donald Trump will sign the border-security agreement that heads off a government shutdown but declare a national emergency at the same time to build his proposed wall, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday. The agreement contains less money than Trump wanted but heads off another government shutdown after midnight Friday. McConnell did not give any more details of the emergency declaration while speaking on the Senate floor.

Trump will sign border bill and declare national emergency: McConnell

Trump will sign border bill and declare national emergency: McConnell
Published: Feb 14, 2019 3:10 p.m. ET

 

[Jitss617]

Please god protect trump and America from Our domestic enemies

That would be Trump.

You want open borders?

We've never had open borders. And it certainly isn't an emergency to Trump either. He said "I didn't have to do this". Trump undermines emergency declaration as soon as he makes it

Hmmm 22 million illegals here lol i think you have some fact issues