Over the weekend, President Donald Trump approved a new annual refugee cap of 18,000, the lowest since the U.S. program began in 1980. The reduction follows news that America took a pause last month and refused to admit any new refugees. On economic, public safety and national security grounds, this is a very good thing for the 325 million people already in our country.
But you wouldn't know it from the grim headlines and hysterical condemnations by globalist zealots and media sympathizers.
CNN International led the open borders funeral procession last week, with a report decrying, "No refugees will be resettled in the US in October, leaving hundreds in limbo around the world."
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., hyperventilated that "Donald Trump is trying to destroy the very heart of this nation. I won't let him." Social justice group CARE bemoaned this "dark moment in our nation's history." Human Rights First complained that Trump's proposal is "crippling the United States' status as a global leader in refugee resettlement."
Heaven forbid citizens in a sovereign nation have an effective say in who comes here, from where and how many. Is one refugee-less month in America such a catastrophe? Calm down, Chicken Littles. Get some perspective.
It is most certainly true that America has a legacy of embracing people from around the world fleeing persecution and war. After World War II, the U.S. helped lead efforts to assist 650,000 displaced Europeans who had fled in fear, were expelled and were victims of Nazi crimes and terror. Congress passed the 1948 Displaced Persons Act to accommodate them. Five years later, the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 aided refugees from Italy and East Germany escaping Communist regimes, adding another 250,000 refugees over four years. In the 1950s and 1960s, we welcomed Hungarians, Cubans and Czechoslovakians also escaping Communist oppression. In the 1970s, we opened our doors to an estimated 300,000 political refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The Refugee Act of 1980 created the Office of Refugee Resettlement and office of U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs and raised the annual ceiling of admissions to 50,000.
Under Obama, that number soared to nearly 100,000 annually. The idea that we've abandoned our humanitarian leadership role because of this refugee resettlement reduction is ludicrous. Overall, since 1975, the U.S. has resettled more than 3 million refugees. Under Trump, the U.S. still accepted more refugees than any other country in both 2017 and 2018. On top of that, America forked over nearly $1.6 billion to support the U.N.'s refugee resettlement campaign. Moreover, America remains the largest single country provider of humanitarian assistance worldwide. Total U.S. humanitarian assistance was more than $8 billion in fiscal year 2017, covering food, shelter, health care and access to clean water for millions.
Past refugee admissions don't lock America into those same levels now or in the future. America's constitutional duty is to Americans first ("ourselves and our posterity"). The truth is that we've been generous to a ruinous, open borders fault. Last year, the Federation for American Immigration Reform tallied refugee resettlement costs to taxpayers at nearly $9 billion over five years.
In my adopted home state of Colorado, a new University of Colorado Boulder study acknowledged that refugees are often "trapped in chronic poverty" after resettlement subsidies dry up and are unable to lift themselves out of dependency on government aid such as public housing, Medicaid and food stamps. Federal statistics show that nearly half of all refugee households receive cash welfare. Chain migration perpetuates the cycle of poverty.
A tiny cabal of government contractors, mostly religious groups cloaking their profit-seeking in compassion and Scripture, perpetuates the refugee resettlement racket. Openly hostile to American sovereignty, these people spread their tax-subsidized syndicate's wealth to a vast network of subcontractors, often tied to billionaire George Soros and his Open Society Foundations, which promote global governance and unfettered migration espoused by the United Nations, European Union and Vatican. These special interests have systematically blurred the lines between legitimate refugees seeking asylum from oppression and economic migrants from Central America clamoring for higher wages or better welfare benefits. They're indifferent to the national security risks of absorbing large numbers of Muslims whose adherence to repressive sharia and religious jihad is utterly incompatible with our constitutional principles.
Mass migration champions have stretched the definition of refugee so thin that "climate change refugees" seeking relief from uninhabitable environments are now a phenomenon. Nuts.
Doesn't America have enough residents in need of shelter and support? If we let in millions of "climate change refugees," where do Americans seek refuge when they render our climate uninhabitable?
Only a complete moratorium on immigration would give America the break it needs to regain control of our system. Trump's refugee reduction is not an apocalypse. It's a long overdue respite from the world's wretched refuse that deserves cheers, not jeers.
A new way of removing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from a stream of air could provide a valuable tool in the battle against climate change say the engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, who developed the new system.
It can work on the heat-trapping gas at virtually any concentration level, even down to the roughly 400 parts per million currently found in the atmosphere.
Most methods of removing CO2 from a stream of other gases require higher concentrations, such as those found in the flue emissions from fossil fuel-based power plants. A few variations have been developed that can work with the low concentrations found in air, but the new method is less energy-intensive and expensive, the researchers say.
The technique, based on passing air through a stack of charged electrochemical plates, is described in a new paper in the journal “Energy and Environmental Science,” by MIT postdoc Sahag Voskian, who developed the work during his PhD, and T. Alan Hatton, the Ralph Landau professor of chemical engineering.
The device is a large, specialized battery that absorbs carbon dioxide from the air, or other gas stream, passing over its electrodes as it is being charged up, and then releases the gas as it is being discharged.
In operation, the device would simply alternate between charging and discharging, with fresh air or feed gas being blown through the system during the charging cycle, and then the pure, concentrated carbon dioxide being blown out during the discharging.
As the battery charges, an electrochemical reaction takes place at the surface of each of a stack of electrodes. These are coated with a compound called polyanthraquinone, which is composited with carbon nanotubes. The electrodes have a natural affinity for carbon dioxide and readily react with its molecules in the airstream or feed gas, even when it is present at very low concentrations.
The reverse reaction takes place when the battery is discharged. During this process, the device can provide part of the power needed for the whole system, and it ejects a stream of pure carbon dioxide. The whole system operates at room temperature and normal air pressure.
“The greatest advantage of this technology over most other carbon capture or carbon-absorbing technologies is the binary nature of the adsorbent’s affinity to carbon dioxide,” explains Voskian.
In other words, the electrode material, by its nature, “has either a high affinity or no affinity whatsoever,” depending on the battery’s state of charging or discharging. Other reactions used for carbon capture require intermediate chemical processing steps or the input of energy such as heat or pressure differences.
“This binary affinity allows capture of carbon dioxide from any concentration, including 400 parts per million, and allows its release into any carrier stream, including 100 percent CO2,” Voskian says.
That is, as any gas flows through the stack of these flat electrochemical cells, during the release step the captured CO2 will be carried along with it. For example, if the desired end-product is pure carbon dioxide to be used in the carbonation of beverages, then a stream of the pure gas can be blown through the plates. The captured gas is then released from the plates and joins the stream.
In some soft-drink bottling plants, fossil fuel is burned to generate the carbon dioxide needed to give the drinks their fizz. Similarly, some farmers burn natural gas to produce carbon dioxide to feed their plants in greenhouses. The new system could eliminate that need for fossil fuels in these applications, and in the process actually be taking the greenhouse gas right out of the air, says Voskian.
Alternatively, the pure CO2 stream could be compressed and injected underground for long-term disposal, or even made into fuel through a series of chemical and electrochemical processes.
The process this system uses for capturing and releasing carbon dioxide “is revolutionary,” Voskian says. “All of this is at ambient conditions – there’s no need for thermal, pressure, or chemical input. It’s just these very thin sheets, with both surfaces active, that can be stacked in a box and connected to a source of electricity.”
“In my laboratories, we have been striving to develop new technologies to tackle a range of environmental issues that avoid the need for thermal energy sources, changes in system pressure, or addition of chemicals to complete the separation and release cycles,” Hatton says.
“This carbon dioxide capture technology is a clear demonstration of the power of electrochemical approaches that require only small swings in voltage to drive the separations,” Hatton said.
In a working plant, for example, in a power plant where exhaust gas is being produced continuously, two sets of such stacks of the electrochemical cells could be set up side by side to operate in parallel, with flue gas being directed first at one set for carbon capture, then diverted to the second set while the first set goes into its discharge cycle.
By alternating back and forth, the system could always be both capturing and discharging the gas.
In the lab, the team has proven the system can withstand at least 7,000 charging-discharging cycles, with a 30 percent loss in efficiency over that time. The researchers estimate that they can readily improve that to 20,000 to 50,000 cycles.
The electrodes themselves can be manufactured by standard chemical processing methods. While today this is done in a laboratory setting, it can be adapted so that ultimately they could be made in large quantities through a roll-to-roll manufacturing process similar to a newspaper printing press, Voskian says. “We have developed very cost-effective techniques,” he says, estimating that it could be produced for something like tens of dollars per square meter of electrode.
Compared to other existing carbon capture technologies, this system is quite energy efficient, using about one gigajoule of energy per ton of carbon dioxide captured, consistently. Other existing methods have energy consumption which varies between one to 10 gigajoules per ton, depending on the inlet carbon dioxide concentration, Voskian says.
The researchers have set up a company called Verdox to commercialize the process, and hope to develop a pilot-scale plant within the next few years. And the system is very easy to scale up. Voskian says, “If you want more capacity, you just need to make more electrodes.”
© Environment News Service (ENS) 2019. All rights reserved.
It seems like today’s gyms are only about helping young people get fit for photo sessions or chase the perfect body.
That is why one gym is offering classes to an underappreciated group: those 55 years and older. These sessions, called “Ever Fit”, help them reach their health goals and participate in the activities they enjoy most.
Estero Fit Body Boot Camp is offering 30 minute group classes exclusively to those 55 years of age and older on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 10 am and 1 pm. These classes are designed to target components of our health that become more critical with age, such as flexibility, balance and diet counseling.
“We find that people in this age group have trouble finding a place to workout that is catered to their needs,” said lead trainer Chelsie. “That is why we are excited about offering these type of classes, to give those individuals a comfortable environment that can help them with their quality of life.”
Having coaches that understand the needs of this population is critical, and that is where Coach Chelsie excels. She is uniquely qualified to lead the classes, with special certifications as a Senior Fitness Specialist and Nutrition Specialist by the American Council of Exercise.
The Ever Fit program is designed to not only help with your physical health, but also to create a community. This community provides a comfortable environment to exercise in a group setting, with trainers that can modify workouts for you based on your fitness level. That is what makes the program created by Estero Fit Body Boot Camp special. It allows you to live your life the way you want (and maybe even meet some new friends along the way!)
Whether it is playing with grandkids, golfing, or going for long bike rides, Ever Fit is designed to allow you to do more of what you love most. Call Estero Fit Body Boot Camp today at (239) 949-4159 to try a FREE week of classes and join our community!
lots of camaraderie and super classes for all levels! I have improved in my balance and strength and I've lost 6 pounds and a few inches. The instructors guide you through modifications and always pay attention to your abilities.
I love the smaller classes and the
schedule is flexible." -Linda L
a senior who does not do active sports, this
is great! Classes are not too intense, just right. The instructors are professional
"I am really enjoying myself! I've lost pounds, inches and
I am really toning up. Chelsie, Paige
and Mia are great!"
Here's what you can expect to see between now and the 2020 elections, which are less than a year away: an endless parade of so-called experts who will strain each day's political events through their ideological sieves in attempts to give them meaning.
This is nothing new. We all do it, not only with politics but also with life in general. We take information in and attempt to sort it into preconceived narratives that fit our understanding of what is going on. Otherwise, we can be overwhelmed by the thousands of bits of information that we take in each day.
Let's take the results from Tuesday's elections for the Virginia state legislature and Kentucky governor as examples. In Virginia, which has a Democratic governor, the Democrats took control of both the Senate and the House of Delegates. Before the election, each chamber had one vacancy, and the Republicans had a 3-seat advantage in the House and a 2-seat advantage in the Senate. The Democrats now have a 2-seat advantage in the Senate and at least a 9-seat advantage in the House.
As of last month, the Democratic candidates in Virginia collectively outraised the Republican candidates by 50%, or $10 million. While many will argue that Tuesday's results represent a rejection of President Donald Trump by Virginia voters, that's a simplistic interpretation. It's doubtful that the results would have been the same if each party had raised similar amounts of money.
Moving to Kentucky, which Trump visited to rally support for Republican candidates, the Republican incumbent Gov. Matt Bevin appears to have lost to Democrat Andy Beshear, the incumbent attorney general.
Beshear is also the son of former Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, who held the office before Bevin. While some Democrats and Trump bashers will point to this Republican loss as a blow to Trump, let's look at how the governor's race compared with the rest of the Kentucky statewide races.
Based on vote counts Wednesday morning, Beshear won 711,955 votes, versus 707,297 votes for Bevin. Republican candidates won the five other statewide races. Attorney General-elect Daniel Cameron won with 825,814 votes; Michael Adams won secretary of state with 748,150 votes; Mike Harmon won auditor with 782,027 votes; Allison Ball won treasurer with 858,578 votes; and Ryan Quarles won commissioner of agriculture with 823,801 votes. Each of the five statewide Republican candidates had vote totals that would have secured Bevin a victory.
The results of the governor's race is not a Republican problem; it is a Bevin problem. So let's think about what could have led people to vote for the other five Kentucky Republicans and not for Bevin.
Bevin had served with Lt. Gov. Jenean Hampton, an African American woman. In January, he dropped her from his ticket and added state Sen. Ralph Alvarado, Kentucky's first Hispanic state senator.
Bevin's explanation for this change was that Hampton's focus and priorities differed from his.
Bevin had taken on the teachers' pension -- without a lot of grace, and often came across as acerbic. He is not well liked by registered voters in Kentucky. A Morning Consult poll from the third quarter of this year reported Bevin's approval rating was 34% and his disapproval rating was 53%, the second-lowest among the nation's governors. When you consider those approval ratings, his election results don't seem so bad.
Beshear ran a moderate campaign that focused on state issues and ignored national politics as much as possible. He posted on Twitter when he had knocked on his millionth door while campaigning in Kentucky.
Bevin talked about national issues in an attempt to draw out the Republican base. The challenge is that to win an election, you have to garner more than one party's votes; you have to appeal to independents or swing a few voters from the other side.
While many will attempt to draw a straight line from the results in the Virginia and Kentucky races to Trump, the truth is messier.
For Virginia, the takeaway is that money matters, especially when it's a 3-to-2 difference. And for Kentucky, the takeaway is that it's not enough to belong to the majority party; the candidate and the campaign are both critical.
With a great economy, Trump's best bet is to hope the Democrats nominate a candidate that won't appeal to voters in a general election despite winning a Democratic primary. But lightning doesn't often strike twice (Hillary Clinton was a terrible general election candidate -- appearing aloof, entitled and irritated to have to campaign).
Instead, Republicans looking to set themselves up for 2020 should focus on candidate selection and have state candidates knock on every door they can, raise money and focus on the issues most important in their particular district, county or state. They must focus on earning every vote possible. While Trump will be at the top of the ticket, a team approach is the way to win.
When preparing the 2016 Democratic Party platform, the drafting committee promised: "We will do everything we can to protect religious minorities and the fundamental right of freedom to worship and believe."
But in the final text, Democrats substituted a broader term -- "freedom of religion." After all, critics of Hillary Rodham Clinton were attacking her occasional references to "freedom of worship," as opposed to the First Amendment's defense of the "free exercise" of religion.
"Freedom of worship" suggested that religious doctrines and traditions were acceptable, as long as believers remained inside their sanctuaries. "Freedom of religion" language would have implications for evangelists, educators, artists, doctors, soldiers, business leaders, social activists, counselors and other citizens in public life.
Thus, gadfly candidate Beto O'Rourke stepped into a minefield when he answered this question during a CNN town hall on LGBTQ issues: "Do you think religious institutions -- like colleges, churches, charities -- should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?"
O'Rourke drew cheers and applause with his quick response: "Yes. There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone or any institution, any organization in America, that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us." As president, he added, he would "stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans."
This stance would draw a different response from many other Democrats.
"Journalists should ask O'Rourke and every other Democratic candidate how this policy position would affect conservative black churches, mosques and other Islamic organizations, and orthodox Jewish communities, among others," argued law professor John Inazu of Washington University in St. Louis, writing for The Atlantic. "It is difficult to understand how Democratic candidates can be 'for' these communities -- advocating tolerance along the way -- if they are actively lobbying to put them out of business."
Meanwhile, this O'Rourke statement will remind religious leaders of the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision affirming same-sex marriage. During oral arguments, Inazu noted, a representative of the Obama administration admitted "the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges and universities who hold traditional views of marriage was 'going to be an issue.'"
Everyone knows "Democrats are not likely to lose the votes of black Christians and Latino Catholics and Muslims, since the Trump administration is making no real efforts to reach out to them," said Inazu in an interview. "What is more important is what other Democrats say when responding to O'Rourke."
Appearing on CNN, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, warned that O'Rourke's stance would mean "going to war with not only churches, but also mosques and organizations that don't have the same view of religious principles as I do." The openly gay Episcopalian added: "If we want to talk about anti-discrimination law for a school or an organization, absolutely they should not be able to discriminate."
Front-runner Elizabeth Warren's press office also rejected O'Rourke's remarks, in statements to several news organizations.
So far, responses from other Democrats "will not be of much comfort to the many Americans who are concerned about religious liberty issues at this time," said Inazu. "O'Rourke may have offered a far-left stance that others will reject, but other Democrats are offering a familiar left-of-center stance."
After all, in its recent resolution praising "religiously unaffiliated Americans," the Democratic National Committee rejected threats from religious conservatives based on "misplaced claims of 'religious liberty.'" That text also said "the religiously unaffiliated demographic represents the largest religious group within the Democratic Party, growing from 19% in 2007 to 1 in 3 today."
The primaries are just ahead, and everyone knows candidates say wild things while appealing to niche voters, noted David French, a Harvard Law School-trained religious liberty specialist. He is senior editor at TheDispatch.com, a new website appealing to #NeverTrump conservatives.
"Right now, Democrats have to focus on all those white, secular, online progressives ... who are extremely hostile to small-o orthodox religion," he said, reached by telephone. But party leaders also know they "have in their coalition the least religious and the most religious cohorts in American life. ...
"There is that coalition of woke Democrats, but there are also millions of African American churchgoers. ... That's an issue Democrats will have to deal with sooner or later."
I have a degree in Political Science, and I am a card-carrying Libertarian. I've been studying politics and political history for the past 30 years. My specialty is U.S. Presidents.
That said, I hope that the House of Representatives impeaches Trump. Let me tell you what will happen next!
1. The House can pass articles of impeachment over the objections of the Republicans and refer to the Senate for trial.
2. The Senate will conduct a trial. There will be a vote, and the Republicans will vote unanimously, along with a small number of Democrats, to not convict the President. Legally, it will all be over at that point.
3. However, during the trial, and this is what no one is thinking about right now, the President's attorneys will have the right to subpoena and
question ANYONE THEY WANT!
That is different than the special counsel investigation, which was very one-sided. So, during the impeachment trial, we will be hearing testimony from James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Glenn Simpson, Donna Brazille, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Christopher Steele, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, James Clapper, and a whole host of other participants in this whole sordid affair and the ensuing coverup activities.
A lot of dirt will be dug up; a lot of truth will be unveiled. Finger pointing will occur. Deals will start being made, and suddenly, a lot of democrats will start being charged and going to prison. All this, because, remember, the President's team will now, for the first time, have the RIGHT to question all of these people under oath – and they will turn on each other. That is already starting.
4. Lastly, one more thing will happen, the Senate will not convict the President. Nothing will happen to Trump. Most Americans are clueless about political processes, the law, and the Constitution. Most Americans believe that being impeached results in removal from office. They don't understand that phase 2 is a trial in and by the Senate, where he has zero chance of conviction. Remember, the Senate is controlled by Republicans; they will determine what testimony is allowed -- and *everything* will be allowed, including: DNC collusion with the Clinton campaign to fix the election in favor of Hillary, the creation of the Trump dossier, the cover up and destruction of emails that very likely included incriminating information.
They will incriminate each other for lying to the FISA court, for spying and wiretapping the Trump campaign, and for colluding with foreign political actors, especially George Soros.
After the Senate declines to convict the President, we will have an election, and Trump will win. It will be a backlash against democrat petulance, temper tantrums, hypocrisy and dishonesty.
Even minorities will vote for Trump, because, for the first time, they will see that democrats have spent 2+ years focused on maintaining their own power, and not doing anything at all about black murders in Chicago, homelessness, opioids, and other important issues that are actually killing people.
And, we will spend the following four years listening to politicians and pundits claim that the whole impeachment was rigged.
So let's move on to impeachment.
Hyram F. Suddfluffel, PhD,
Planning an accessible family vacation doesn’t have to mean sacrificing fun or your family’s budget. There are so many easy ways to save money while traveling with a family, and so many accessible options to make traveling with children who have special needs less stressful. So before you begin booking flights or searching for hotel rooms, think about using these budget-friendly tips to plan a stress-free vacation for your family.
Save Stress and Money By Renting a Vacation Home
Planning a staycation can be just as enjoyable and saves you more money than traveling out of state. Vacation rentals in Fort Myers can get you close to fun local attractions while providing many of the comforts of your own home. If you have baseball fans in your family, vacation rental homes near San Carlos Lakes or San Carlos Park will be your best bet, so you can have easy access to spring training fields for either the Boston Red Sox or the Minnesota Twins. Having the extra comforts of a vacation home can help all children feel more relaxed, but children with special needs can especially benefit from that home-like structure when dealing with the additional stresses of vacationing. Plus, if you are trying to save money, access to a kitchen will allow you to prepare budget-friendly meals, too.
Pack Daily Essentials to Avoid Any Added Expenses
Unexpected purchases, such as bottles of sunscreen or extra clothing, can put a damper on your vacation budget. To avoid the time, hassle, and expense of those extra shopping trips, parents should put together a packing list to make sure they have everything they need to keep little ones happy and healthy. For toddlers and babies, this means bringing a bag or backpack full of daily essentials, such as diapers, medicines, and perhaps even a change of clothing for each child and each adult. To make carrying all of these supplies more simple and stylish, think about picking up a cute diaper bag that you won’t mind carrying as your children get older. That way you will always be prepared with snacks and anything else your family needs during vacation activities, without racking up additional budget expenses.
Cut Costs When Shopping for Travel-Friendly Snacks
Every parent knows that bringing your own snacks and food on vacation can help save some serious money. With access to a kitchen in your vacation home, you can prepare healthy, low-cost meals, and you can use grocery-saving tips to keep those food costs even lower. Write out a vacation meal plan, include any special diet needs for your children, and be sure to stick to the items on your shopping list so you can stick to your travel budget. When filling those diaper bags and backpacks with snacks, look for healthy options that will satisfy the pickiest of eaters. Snack bars and pita chips are perfect for preventing hunger-related meltdowns and can easily fit into any family budget. If you do plan on dining out with your family during your travels, consider sharing your meals to save on costs.
Look for Accessible Family Fun That’s Also Affordable
Planning a vacation when your child has special needs can take some extra effort, especially when it comes to planning family-friendly activities. Providing your child with a quiet space to relax in after exciting vacation activities can definitely help, but if you need additional advice you can reach out to a special needs family vacation planning organization, such as Autism on the Sea, to book accessible family fun. If you are planning on staying in Florida, you are also in luck when it comes to finding accessible vacation activities and attractions. From coast to coast, there are countless parks and attractions with activities for children with special needs.
With a little patience and planning, you won’t have to stress out about taking a vacation with your children. For families that include children with special needs, finding budget-friendly travel options can be as simple as doing online searches to find special discounts and accomodations. Planning ahead of time will allow you to focus on having fun on your next family trip
The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has voted to fund efforts to "enhance the border security" of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Tunisia while moving to deny all funding to build walls, fencing or any other structures to enhance the border security of the United States.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants have their priorities. To them, borders on the other side of the world are more important than our own.
On June 19, the House approved a massive spending bill. In an act of legislative polygamy, it "married" the appropriations bill for the Department of Defense to the appropriations bills for the Department of State, the Department of Energy, and the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated this monstrosity would cost taxpayers $984.7 billion in fiscal 2020.
Yet there is one thing on which this bill would forbid the Trump administration from spending one penny to accomplish.
On page 304 (of 650), it says: "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act or any prior Department of Defense appropriations Acts may be used to construct a wall, fence, border barriers, or border security infrastructure along the southern land border of the United States."
A month later, the House Appropriations Committee sent the full House a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security.
This bill -- so far -- is unmarried and would cost taxpayers $63.8 billion.
President Trump had requested that it include $5 billion to use in constructing barriers at the border.
How much did the committee give him?
"No funding is provided in the bill for new physical barriers along the southwest border," said the committee report.
It also said, "The recommendation provides no funding for additional Border Patrol Agents."
Thus, the Democrat-controlled House is advancing discretionary appropriations bills that would spend more than $1 trillion in one year but provide zero dollars to build physical barriers to stop illegal aliens, human traffickers and drug smugglers from crossing our southern border.
Yet that does not mean the Democrat-controlled House is not planning to spend some money to enhance border security.
It just depends where the border is.
In that 650-page spending bill that prohibits Defense Department money from being used to defend the southern border of the United States, there is a section that creates a $1.295 billion fund for use by the secretary of defense.
"For the 'Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Train and Equip Fund', $1,295,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2021," says the bill. "Provided, That such funds shall be available to the secretary of defense in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide assistance, including training; equipment; logistics support, supplies, and services; stipends; infrastructure repair and renovation; and sustainment, to foreign security forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals participating, or preparing to participate in activities to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and their affiliated or associated groups."
"Provided further," says the bill, "That these funds may be used in such amounts as the Secretary of Defense may determine to enhance the border security of nations adjacent to conflict areas including Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Tunisia resulting from actions of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria."
So, the secretary of defense could take a chunk of this $1.295 billion and give it to the government of Egypt to secure its border with post-Gadhafi Libya, where the Islamic State group, or ISIS, is active.
And he could give a chunk to Tunisia to secure its border with Libya.
Or he could give some American tax dollars to unnamed "irregular forces, groups, or individuals" who, someplace in this world, are "preparing to participate in activities" to counter ISIS, or at least groups that are "affiliated or associated" with ISIS.
But according to the House appropriations bills, President Trump cannot spend a penny to build structures at our own border to secure our own territory and our own people.
By contrast, the Republican-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee has approved a Homeland Security spending bill that does include $5 billion to build "pedestrian fencing" -- to stop people on foot and in vehicles from crossing our southern border. Also, that committee's defense spending bill does not prohibit the president from using defense money to build barriers to defend our own border.
It even includes a larger fund ($1.8 billion) than the House bill that, among other things, can be used "for enhanced border security" not only in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Tunisia but also in Oman.
We are now more than a month into fiscal 2020. The government is running on a continuing resolution that expires Nov. 21.
President Trump should deliver a simple message to Speaker Pelosi: He is not going to sign a spending bill that funds border security in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Tunisia but not California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
He should put America first -- even if Pelosi will shut down the government trying to stop him.
Who’s Obstructing Who??
I strongly recommend that the President direct Attorney General Bill Barr to subpoena Congressman Adam Schiff to a Federal Grand Jury so that the President can determine if Schiff is again fabricating, lying and Obstructing the President from carrying out his lawful duties(a felony) or is there evidence that rises to “High Crime or Misdemeanor” as the law requires. When Pelosi claims, as she will, the President is Obstructing Congress, then we can let the Supreme Court determine who’s Obstructing who!
Let’s Talk About Intent: Criminal Intent by a Congressman…
After she was elected to Congress but before she even took her oath of office, Rashida Tliab said, “I’m going to impeach the mother f**ker”, speaking of President Trump. When Congressman Schiff, said that he had personally seen evidence that the President committed “collusion” with Russia, to win the election, an impeachable offense, and that the evidence isn’t Direct Evidence or Indirect evidence but is “in between evidence” ( there is no such evidence, under our law), he out right lied to Congress, and the American people.
Both put their foot in their mouths when they made those public comments. What they did was to show a clear, predetermined intent to remove, interfere, and harass our duly elected President before and without ANY evidence. THAT is Criminal Intent to try to unseat a duly elected President without due cause! Schiff is so ignorant that he doesn’t know that collusion is not even a legal term used in the United States Code Book (USC)! Schiff then said the crime is obstruction, when he learned firing Comey was an Article 2 Presidential power he then turned to conspiracy. Again Schiff lives in a Fantasy Land World and gets his legal opinions from Tinker Bell, neither obstruction or conspiracy, are standalone crimes…there must be a substantive pending, prosecutorial investigation that was obstructed or conspired to violate. Again ignorant and intent on “getting” this President…but with no crime…no due cause. We heard more criminal intent evidence to illegally unseat a duly elected President by other members of the House and Senate…as reported on FOX, Schumer said he wants Trump impeached and reportedly said he doesn’t care if it’s legal or not, just get the ball rolling!
Omar, Presley, AOC and Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, also claimed the President must to be impeached…most recently, for “cover up”…but no crime is ever mentioned. Again there is NO Title 18 crime called the Cover-up Crime!
The common denominator with all these coconspirators in their obsession to unseat a duly elected President and NONE, not one single member of the House, Senate or Mueller team, after 2.5 years and 35 million dollars spent, can name a crime that comes close to an impeachable offense…no one…if you can…please cite Title and Section of USC!
The President, exercising his Article 2 powers of Administering his Foreign Policy and Chief Law Enforcement Officer, is NOT a crime as Mueller so eloquently stated ,when asked if the firing of Comey was obstruction…NO was the answer!
Finding out ,from Ukraine, if Joe Biden, as VP under Obama, threatened Poroshenko (as Biden admitted he did) is not only President Trumps responsibility, it is his Constitutional duty and the only person in the United States who is authorized to make such an inquiry…who else has that authority…John Kerry? !
Better yet, ask the respected Democrat, Constitutional, Law Professor Alan Dershowitz if anyone other than the President can administer Foreign Policy, besides the President and his designee!
The AG should subpoena Adam Schiff before a Federal Grand Jury to establish whether Schiff and Pelosi, et al are Criminally liable for threatening, harassing, interfering with a duly elected President without due cause. If they have a “high crime or misdemeanor” …spell it out under oath and to the GJ , if not then ask the GJ to return True Bills for Criminal Harassment, Treason, Espionage, Sedition, against the offenders!
They cannot impeach a dog catcher with the Fantasy Land, anonymous, non-testimony, Hearsay 2-3 times removed and Tinker Bell evidence. Schiff could not bring his whistle blower nonsense before Judge Judy in a small claims court for a $100.00 small claims case, she would throw it out! Ask Judge Judy, Schiff! Schiff plans to impeach this President with this “evidence”? Schiff and Pelosi will never impeach anyone with anonymous evidence!
If he can’t convince a GJ that he has impeachable high crimes or misdemeanors, ask them to vote for the crimes he/they actually did commit…Harassing the President with the intent to interfere with the Presidents’ ability to carry out the duties of his office.!!!
Schiff and Pelosi have stated that the Schiff lead, Intel Hearing is not an impeachment hearing but is a hearing to determine if impeachment is warranted. When they issued Subpoenas, in my opinion, they created a “criminal inquiry/hearing” where our Rule of Law and NOT special Fantasy Land, Schiff Impeachment rules apply. Therefore, due process was required and denied by Chairman Schiff. Due process requires that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure be followed….you know, cross examination, subpoena power and attorney for the accused, who they say is the President, must apply…but was denied by Schiff. Another legal problem for Schiff that the President and his DOJ must look into.
You see, the ONLY “person” who can conduct a “legal investigation” with complete secrecy, no cross examination, no defense attorney, no defense subpoena power, sworn testimony” and then issue warrants for arrest and trial, is the President, his Executive branch, DOJ and the Grand Jury!
J.Gary DiLaura,FBI RED
Retired, Extremely Dangerous