House Appropriations Bill Would Cut State Dept. Funding – However, Less Than Half of POTUS Budget Cut Proposal…

The House Appropriations Committee has proposed a State Department budget with significant cuts of 14 percent.  However, those proposed cuts are only half of the proposed “deep state” spending cuts in President Donald Trump’s budget outline.

WASHINGTON DC – […]  The panel’s spending bill for State and Foreign Operations which includes State Department funding and other agencies and programs is $47.4 billion, an overall 17 percent cut. That figure includes $12 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding that does not count toward budget caps.

The cuts, while deep, are less severe than those proposed by President Trump in his budget. The president’s blueprint would have cut State’s funding by roughly twice as much. (read more)

It might be challenging to see what this budgetary angle is to the larger aims of the Trump administration, but the spending proposal of the Trump administration is actually targeted toward a larger objective of swamp draining.  And therein, we find the entire apparatus of the administrative state, ‘deep state’, UniParty pushing back.

The State Department’s spending is the root cause of foreign government lobbying within the U.S. and within DC specifically.  The larger aim to eliminate the influence of lobbying is best achieved by actually eliminating the need for the lobbying.

Cut off the source of funds the lobbyists are paid to solicit and you necessarily stop the lobbying itself.  If there are no resources, financial or otherwise, for foreign governments to try and capture, there’s no reason for their lobbyists to try and influence the politicians toward their own international objectives.

This budgetary approach is, at its root purpose, specifically fundamental to understanding how President Trump is methodically putting into place a system to eliminate the corrupt influence upon elected officials in Washington DC.   However, the politicians have become accustomed to the indulgences afforded to them by the outside foreign interests.

Various foreign governments spend lavishly on politicians in order to gain benefits from the U.S. Treasury and domestic policy. The politicians get rich from these expenditures and live a life filled with indulgence.

If President Trump is successful on reducing the amount of money the politicians can spend the DC swamp begins to drain.  Cut off the head and the rest of the snake begins to wither.

The DC apparatus, both sides of the UniParty, will fight any reductions in spending specifically because of this reason.

[…]  Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), the panel’s ranking member, said the cuts harmed “critical” areas of national security.

“Diplomacy and development are critical pillars of our national security, and a 17 percent cut to these investments will only hurt the United States’ ability to help our allies, alleviate poverty and disease, and promote democratic values,” she said.

The bill maintains the same $6.1 billion for embassy security, an issue that gained prominence after the 2012 attack in Benghazi.

The bill also withholds funds from the United Nations Security Council and U.N. bodies headed by countries that support terrorism. (link)

Here’s where you insert your prior understanding of the Trump mid-East policy that withdraws U.S. financial support, and policy, for nations that engage in the advanced messaging of extremist entities (See Qatar -vs- the GCC).

Without filled coffers to apportion, senators like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse, et al will not have anyone knocking on their door with *quid-pro-quo junket tickets etc.   Deep State becomes less influential and politicians are forced to focus their time on U.S. best interests.

A reminder how the influence and indulgences game is played:

♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.
♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.
*NOTE→ ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.

Remove the money, and you remove the ENTIRE purpose of the multinational lobbying.

See how that works?

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Budget, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, media bias, President Trump, Secretary of State, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

121 Responses to House Appropriations Bill Would Cut State Dept. Funding – However, Less Than Half of POTUS Budget Cut Proposal…

  1. M33 says:

    Well, surprise, surprise…

    Liked by 21 people

  2. seekingthetruth2 says:

    Just because a particular budget provides for a specific sum of money, does not mean it has to be spent. In fact, don’t spend beyond what you want to and that will lower the baseline for the following year.

    Liked by 14 people

    • SpanglishKC says:

      Except that’s never happened. I’ve done biz with Feds and state govs in past. Best time to sell is at end of fiscal year when they are desparate to spend all of their oney budgeted so they will get as much the following year if not more.

      Liked by 4 people

      • fleporeblog says:

        I think things will be different this time. TREX will do what our President thinks is best for our country. TREX ran a multi billion corporation when he was the CEO of Exxon. This man knows the ins and outs. He isn’t a politician and doesn’t profess to be one. If he and our President say 31%, they could care less f these morons come up with 17%. They will figure out where that extra 14% will be saved. Notice that the freeze hasn’t been lifted and probably never will be over the next 8 years!

        Liked by 9 people

    • Sylvia Avery says:

      This is EXACTLY true. I know a bit about government budgeting and accounting and this is a nice, quiet way to make significant cuts.

      I posted a link to an article a week or so ago, and I think another Treeper did as well, about a former State Dept. employee who went back to the agency to visit a friend or go to lunch or something

      It seems many people at State, although Democrats, had apparently been hopeful that TRex would bring reorganization to State as the bureaucracy had been ignored and left to run on its own while the jet setting Secs of State were out covering themselves with fame and glory.

      Instead of reorganization, the former State employee discovered a major DOWNSIZING had been undertaken. Lights were off, doors closed, furniture moved out into the halls waiting to be removed. Many who were eligible retired, and their positions not filled. Others close to retirement were waiting and hoping for a buy out offer. Entire departments were reduced to one person.

      T Rex is a businessman. He’ll create efficiency. And I just bet you Wilbur Ross will do the same at Commerce, Mnuchin at Treasury, and so on. It’s gonna be great!!!

      Liked by 14 people

      • maiingankwe says:

        Sylvia,
        I don’t want to be a pain in the rumpus, but could you please give us that link again for some of us who may have missed it? I’d so appreciate it. 😁

        Liked by 3 people

        • Sylvia Avery says:

          Found it! It was in Politico, which I never read. As you will guess from the publication, the author whines about the the downsizing and the changes, but as I was reading I was bouncing with excitement. I see it as POSITIVE changes!

          http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/29/how-rex-tillerson-destroying-state-department-215319

          Liked by 8 people

          • maiingankwe says:

            Sylvia,
            Ooh, what a nasty, little-minded and short-sighted lying man. Yes, I did laugh and cheer in more than a few places, but others got my goat, and I won’t repeat the words I used out loud. They were pretty deragatory to the backstabber of our country. He got me so angry I wanted to kick a perfectly fine door.

            My anger comes from all the disinformation our people getting from these anti-Americans and that for the most part are being believed, for now anyways.

            If I had the time, I would love to re-write the article from my standpoint. I think that would make me very happy indeed. I doubt politico would publish it, especially coming from an American like me. At least I’d know I would be speaking the truth and with all of the tutelage we’ve received from Sundance we might even get people to actually stop and think. Hey, maybe that what we are supposed to be doing. Taking our knowledge and arguments to the public rather than through just family and friends, a larger audience is what I’m talking about. I’m going to ponder that idea a bit more.

            Thanks so much for being so quick to add this link, very nice of you. Be well and stay smiling,
            Ma’iingankwe

            Liked by 3 people

            • Sylvia Avery says:

              Yeah, there was a lot in there by the author about how unpolitical he was and really, so was most of the State Department. Haw, haw, haw. Sure, right.

              And nasty comments about TRex and PTrump. However, we know better. We are “woke” to use an annoying millenial term. Instead, I just thrilled to hear about the reductions. Boo hoo, no one to go to VIP meetings and conferences! Yeah, whatever.

              Liked by 2 people

            • Sylvia Avery says:

              I did think that this article was worthwhile to read just because of the sense of the cutbacks, and I thought it helped make the argument that just because funds were allotted doesn’t mean they must be spent.

              So the House can appropriate funds, but if for example TRex chooses not to spend them then that is a de facto budget cut, and better still that means next year they will look at what was spent and use that to make budget proposals.

              It’s a clever way to steadily decrease spending in the right hands.

              Liked by 4 people

          • WSB says:

            Sylvia, that was a stitch. A real State Department Snowflake!

            Here’s the author:

            Max Bergmann is senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. He served in the State Department from 2011–2017.

            I hope he won’t be working for John Podesta too long.

            Liked by 3 people

            • Sylvia Avery says:

              FTA: “And there is little Congress can seemingly do—though lawmakers control the purse strings, it’s hard to stop an agency from destroying itself. (by downsizing)”

              The takeaway from the article is supposed to be that TRex is ruining the State Dept. by his silly unnecessary cuts and he doesn’t know what he is doing, blah blah blah.

              But for me the takeaway was just jubilation that real cuts were taking place! I read it and thought, “Go Rex, GO!” I loved it and thought it was great.

              Liked by 6 people

            • maiingankwe says:

              WSB,
              Well, that sure answered a lot of my questions. I know when I was reading it he sure sounded familiar, he sounded just like his boss Podesta. Yeah, it sure does make a lot more sense now.
              Thanks!

              Liked by 2 people

            • SpanglishKC says:

              CAP is Soros! But YOU knew that… I say that for the newbies

              Liked by 1 person

          • Rodney Plonker says:

            The author is from Center for American Progress. One of Podesta’s clones. What a surprise then that he is critical of T Rex.

            Liked by 6 people

          • filia.aurea says:

            I needed that, still laughing at the headline!

            Liked by 1 person

          • SpanglishKC says:

            Thanks for sharing that article. What that clown sees as destruction I’m guessing many of us see as a strong correction. Go Rex go!

            Liked by 2 people

    • MaineCoon says:

      This was my thought and TRex could be a freeze on spending when he wants those anti-Trumpers to stop spending.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Plain Jane says:

      Is there no way PDJT can actually trim that percentage down? Wish he had line item veto or something similar.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. No problem, just redirect any surplus funds into building THE WALL.

    Liked by 16 people

      • Well, I am indeed honored to have SD reply to one of my comments. $1.6 Billion is a good place to start. 🙂

        Liked by 16 people

        • That is only 10% of the cost of the wall and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn is dead set against a wall along the border(he get lots of support from Texas ranchers along the border who do not want a wall on their land), and has said so in several interviews. He couches his opposition by saying things like “there are other things we can do to improve our border security”, yada yada yada. Trump’s got to fight the Uniparty on this one.

          Liked by 6 people

          • babethebeagle says:

            We’ll see what they do next year … closer to election time! Our big chance to drain that swamp, and send those swamp critters out to dry!

            Liked by 8 people

          • annieoakley says:

            Someone has been saying that Texas Ranchers are all completely against a wall on their land. They may not want to deed half of their ranch to Mexico but for some it is too late and some are tired of finding dead people on their property. John cornyn has never had a dead person on HIS property.

            Liked by 8 people

          • Sylvia Avery says:

            You know, I don’t doubt what you are saying at all but I confess it puzzles me.

            I have seen a number of interviews with ranchers whose property is on the border. They all have stories of the illegals crossing their property and damaging their land, littering, killing crops and livestock, and threatening the ranchers and families phyiscally has me scratching my hand about their objections.

            Do you, or does anyone else, know why a border wall or fence would be objectionable to a rancher?

            Is it that they want access to the water for their livestock? I am so ignorant I don’t even know if that would be a real thing or not. All I can think is that Rio Grande river water must be icky and I wouldn’t want any of my animals to drink out of that germy cesspool…

            Liked by 5 people

            • mimbler says:

              Yes, we don’t know what percentage of ranchers along the border actually don’t want the wall, we just know what we’ve been told by people we don’t trust.

              But for whatever percentage don’t want it, I could think of some reasons;
              Loss of view
              Loss of access to river for recreation, water and livestock
              Loss of land (compensated or not)
              Loss of illegal labor that wades across

              For myself, the added security to me and my family would be worth any of the speculations I’ve listed above,

              Liked by 7 people

              • Sylvia Avery says:

                One thing, I read somewhere when the discussion about building the wall began in earnest several months ago that the federal government already owns a strip of land all along the border. I think it was something like sixty feet?

                I remember reading that and thinking that would cut a lot of time out of the process if the government already owns the land they wouldn’t have to tie up time and money trying to buy land.

                I do get your point about losing the view and access to the river for recreation and so on. Those would be definite drawbacks, but still!

                Liked by 3 people

                • mimbler says:

                  Oh, I agree with you! First of all, the good of the country should come first, but even for them, the added security/privacy should add value to their land and their enjoyment of it.

                  I can’t even see myself allowing my children to play outside there in the current situation with the stories I’ve heard.

                  Liked by 6 people

                • carrierh says:

                  The wall will have doors so won’t cut off us but won’t open for invaders. Just take your permit to go thru the door or the proper identification. You do that when you leave America and when you return, so nothing new for those of us who have traveled.

                  Like

            • The Rio Grande is not icky! It pains me to think of conceding our part of the river to Mexico because they refuse to obey our laws.

              Liked by 2 people

              • Sylvia Avery says:

                Okay, I stand corrected. I have never seen the Rio Grande in person, so obviously I don’t know. I have a lurid imagination at times and I was picturing it as full of floating dead illegals, and missing shoes, and backpacks, discarded clothes, plastic bottles and other assorted litter. But I bow to your knowledge and mean no offense to your beautiful state.

                Like

      • Larry Bucar says:

        Nice exposé of how the “The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s)” diamond bullet. Did you or can you discuss the other 3 diamond bullets in a similar manner as this “influence and indulgences game is played” post?

        Liked by 3 people

  4. litlbit2 says:

    Just say’n the enormous amount of spending approved by the same nuts the last eight has really benefited the American Citizen!

    You can not fix stupid but November 2018 the folks will take a giant swipe at it.
    Also possible many dnc and GOPe members just maybe at Gitmo along with the rapid removal of McConnell and Ryan. Two names defining corruption.

    Liked by 7 people

    • thluckyone says:

      LOL! litlbit you got me started. “McCain, McConnell and Ryan!” So the announcer voice comes on and sez: “Is your foundation, nation or organization seeking a DEEPER level of corruption and worthlessness?” “Is there just too much effectiveness where there should be graft, misdirection of funds and outright THEFT?” “Are you wondering whether you could be / should be doing more to raise your principle string-pullers to the status of ‘Above the Law’?”

      “Then CHEER UP, little darlin’s cuz help is just a phone call away! It’s time to call McCain, McConnell and Ryan at 1-800-Swamp-Me!” “Yez, call now for extraordinary obfuscation, misdirection, hostility to honesty, cynical self-promotion and (everybody’s favorite) P-P-P-POWER MONGERING!

      “Don’t WAIT to see if your favorite company or corporation or charity or ‘benevolent’ organization can be made even MORE sleazy and DECADENT!” “The time to call is NOW” “Call, 1-800-Swamp-Me” “That’s, 1-800-Swamp-Me for McCain, McConnell and Ryan – The Names Proudly DEFINING Corruption!” “Operators are standing by so call NOW!” (Not affiliated with any legitimate organizations, useful, actual swamp creatures or any patriotic ventures designed to make America great again…)

      LOL! THANK YOU, litlbit2!

      Liked by 11 people

  5. Minnie says:

    Precision analogy, Sundance – “cut off the head and the rest of the snake begins to wither”.

    Says it all 👍

    Liked by 8 people

  6. Wend says:

    Nita Lowey-uh huh. I was a diplomat for five and a half years. If you think “diplomacy [huge Embassies and staffs] and development” have anything to do with national security I have some swampland in Florida to sell you. But I keep the gators, turtles and egrets.

    Liked by 14 people

  7. MOA says:

    There’s an easy formula to live by.
    Sack one third of a Dept, any Dept , and no-one will notice any difference.
    Go to it.

    Liked by 11 people

    • Waco Bob says:

      Why only a third. We have an embassy in almost every nation on earth. Why do we need an embassy in Celyon, Swaziland, Yemen, Benin, Bolivia, Laos? Why do diplomats issue visas rather than INS personnel?

      We shoud reduce State by 70%. If a place is so dangerous that the host government cannot guarantee the safety of the American staff we should be gone. Lets end foreign aid and the peace corps. Most of State’s money is wasted in sweetheart deals because it uses minority contracting set asides. Worse State employs so many contractors that the real number of State’s employees would probably go up by 50% if they were included.

      The worst problem are the civil service types as well as the FSOs who never serve anywhere but the Berlin-London-Tokyo circuit.

      Just gut the thing. What has State ever done to justify their existence?

      Liked by 2 people

  8. emet says:

    If you cut DOS staff too far, there will be nobody to get the congressmen laid when on those fact-finding tours

    Liked by 4 people

  9. pyromancer76 says:

    Good heads up on this process for us to think about, Sundance. What I have understood is that the Congress might appropriate, but the Executive has discretion on spending. I hope the bills are written, or amended, with lots of discretion (wiggle room) in mind.

    Liked by 5 people

  10. sundance says:

    Ask yourself, or your friends, this question:

    Why is the House Appropriations Committee, which is entirely controlled by Republicans, proposing to spend twice what the Republican president is requesting?

    .

    Yeah, THAT !

    [Insert 2016 CPAC reminder of the standing ovation for Speaker Paul Ryan less than a month after he passed a $2+ trillion Omnibus spending bill and eliminated debt ceiling for two years]

    Liked by 19 people

    • Yes, the legislature writes appropriations, but the checks are cut by the President via the Department of Treasury. They just appropriate. They have no authority to mandate spending. He does not have to spend all that is appropriated.

      Liked by 6 people

    • Stringy theory says:

      Because they are uniparty puppets that do their masters’ bidding. I say to hell with them.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Daniel says:

      I stated here long ago more important than the power of the purse is the power to NOT SPEND. And Rex Tillerson has that ability regardless of what allocations the congress “forces” on the State Department. He can simply not spend it on that which is “not needful” to use terms familiar within the Constitution.

      And the nicest thing about it is that it is practice and policy that budgets are set by prior years’ spending. Not spending much this year means a budget cut the next. So unless someone makes some sort of radical and noticeable change, Rex can simply refuse to spend or make the case for his “spending more wisely.”

      Unless there’s something I am missing, Rex can do what he wants within the budget including spending far less than that which has been allocated. The deep state there will make every attempt to spend every dime, of course, but I’m sure there are ways to remove incentive such as creating some sort of bonus or bounty system for saving money.

      Liked by 3 people

      • SpanglishKC says:

        Getting rid of half the state dept employees who’s job is to spend money like drunken sailors (no offense to drunken sailors) should do it. He should make it miserable to work there and incentivize those too young to retire. For example do away with gubmint paid mobile phones, purchase no stationary (pencils, paper, no new computers, no new furniture, share cubes, sell buildings etc).

        Like

    • waltherppk says:

      Omnibus?

      Liked by 6 people

    • JAS says:

      Exactly. But it’s not government. Businesses are just the same, only on a smaller scale.

      An example: Many years ago I was brought in to save a small business. It owed $700,000 in late loan payments and was insolvent. In 11-months I had all the loans current and $800,000 in cash in the banks. I set special bonuses for sales people and lowered prices, micro managed expenses, even counted the foam coffee cups – Iron hand approach but I got it done. And I got paid well doing it :).

      AND, the most important thing, I didn’t fire anyone, except thieves, and every principal kept their salaries and benefits.

      Waste and theft, especially theft, are terrible, terrible things. And that is what goes on in DC, day in and day out. A LOT of theft.

      You’d be really surprised how many people get kickbacks from suppliers, never buy coffee, toilet paper, paper towels, school supplies, car maintenance, inkjet cartridges, copy paper, and the list goes on an on and on…..

      Liked by 8 people

  11. Southpaw says:

    Peopose something on the end accept something in the middle. Staties feels like a win, got more than proposed. Less than prior outlay. Repeat for eight years.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Monadnock says:

      That’s it, Southpaw – if we recall PDJT’s negotiating method, i.e. to propose something huge and then “settle” for something less…. which is actually what he wanted all along, this doesn’t seem like a bad thing to me. 🙂

      MAGA!

      Liked by 4 people

  12. Dale Fontana says:

    I eagerly await the day (which won’t ever come) when representatives or Senators will actually agree to reduce resources that finance their ever-increasing command of power over the citizenry and fund their exclusive rackets. That’s like expecting the fox to agree to a substantial reductions of available chickens he can feast on. The Deep State requires resources to continue the rackets and those resources come from the powerless and the controlled….that’s us, folks. Until the citizens demand no less and are willing to release the fury of hell on them, there can be no substantive change. Seeing how imformed and “tuned in” everyone in the electorate seems to be, what do you think the odds are?????

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Exmil-UK says:

    Because Paul Ryan is controlled by blackmail? (otherwise IMHO he would never have been selected by “Deep State” interests to be Speaker.

    Liked by 5 people

  14. Irons says:

    Take the money without a fuss, then don’t spend it. I am sure Mr Tillerson knows how to direct funds without allowing the swamp part to get at them.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Sentient says:

      Excellent idea !! Maybe the State Department should have a program where they assist in completion of The Wall.

      Liked by 4 people

      • essential liberties says:

        Heh, now that I would like to see. A program where the state department snowflake “elites” are required to dig ditches and lay foundations for the wall, paid for by the money they would have slushed around whoring themselves out to the deep state. Oh, it would be delicious to watch… out it on television to watch the meltdowns and it would be reality tv at it’s finest!

        Liked by 3 people

  15. Stringy theory says:

    It’seems a start, but the swamp denizens are constantly fighting back. I applaud POTUS for doing what he can. I am sure he won’the let up.

    Liked by 6 people

  16. snarkybeach says:

    Baseline budgeting needs to be eliminated, immediately!

    Liked by 7 people

  17. blessdog says:

    since everything that Trump does is a next level negotiation (as in saying he’s going to straight up pull out of NAFTA, which ends up bringing Canada and Mexico to the table – where if he started with negotiating, they likely wouldn’t have taken him seriously), i have to assume that his budget is designed to end up bringing the swamp close to where he ends up….
    The man is a wizard and a force of nature…

    the fish rots from the head down

    MAGA!!

    Liked by 6 people

  18. ALEX says:

    President Trump and Mulvaney deserve great credit for their budget. This put the pressure on and we will see, but any cuts should be applauded as far as I’m concerned…These issues smoke out the frauds…

    Liked by 6 people

  19. Maquis says:

    You don’t drain a swamp in a day, you have to keep at it, bit by bit. Our Prez knows the drill.

    Liked by 5 people

  20. SG says:

    this will take awhile. but at least we are moving in the right direction.

    Liked by 4 people

  21. Pam says:

    Liked by 7 people

  22. A2 says:

    So sad.
    No more John McSwain foreign Presidential tours.

    (I need to pause to wipe away my tears).

    Liked by 5 people

  23. Anita says:

    Glad to hear this. i read some years back something like…How do you get rid of lobbyists? Shrink the government so there’s no one or nothing to lobby about. Don’t forget Tillerson already got rid of how many State Dept. employees? At least the entire 7th floor. MAGA!

    Liked by 7 people

  24. Trump’s a negotiator; he puts out more than he thinks he can get, and gets what he wants.

    Like

  25. rashamon says:

    I wish a way existed to keep a tab on the cost savings initiated by PDJT and his administration.

    On that note. I just heard former Senator Tom Coburn live stream on The Official Hagmann Report promoting his book “Smashing the DC Monopoly: Using Article V to Restore Freedom and Stop Runaway Government” where all profits earned go to promoting Article V calling for a constitutional confrontation over 1) adhering to true fiscal responsibility, 2) returning to the doctrine of states’ rights and 3) initiating term limits.

    He’s totally fed up that Americans have lost all control of their lives and allowed unelected officials in DC to mandate how and where their hard-earned money is spent while growing trillions of dollars in debt that their unborn children and grandchildren will never be able to pay off.

    Another link to covering this issue:

    http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/07/06/coburn-will-get-34-states-article-v-constitutional-convention-drain-swamp/

    CoonventionOfStates.com

    Perhaps Sundance could cover this topic in the future. Note: Coburn is not a fan of PDJT personally, but gives him a “B” regarding his actions on behalf of the citizens. I don’t know what type of person could overcome the disaster our leadership has become if a forceful person such as Mr. Trump had not run. Mr. Coburn needs to take a second look.

    Liked by 4 people

    • G. Combs says:

      NO ARTICLE V CONVENTION!

      Please, an article 5 is a COMPLETE REWRITE and does away with out current Constitution. It is EXACTLY what the swamp critters want. No 1st or 2nd amendments protecting our rights against tyranny after they are finished.

      Convention of States project – by Constitutional Scholar Publius Huldah

      Publius Huldah on Dangers of “Convention of States” (COS) or Article V Convention

      Liked by 1 person

      • Maquis says:

        Thank you for that video, she is impressive, and dead right. First I heard of this business I thought it could be a good thing, but that didn’t last long… I have considered this a dangerous proposition, open season on our Constitution, I am now prepared to go to the mat to oppose it, Publius has opened my eyes to the forces actually behind this push.

        Levin is a snake. There is no doubt in my mind he is aware of the course his plan would actually take. Wonder who owns him. Soros?

        Liked by 1 person

      • kp3ace says:

        Thank you for posting that video. That should be required reading. Our Constitution should be required reading for that matter.

        Like

  26. Plain Jane says:

    If anything, the 17th Amendment should be reversed.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. joan and bill says:

    if the representatives and senators do not cut the budget like t rex and our president wants for the usa then their staff will be cut by 75% and if they still do not comply then take away their health insurance for remaining staff and themselves and give them obamacare an eo stating that our congress can only accept money from those residing in their states and they must live in their districts last would be to delete them coming to dc except 2 times a year with only an office in their states

    Liked by 1 person

    • kp3ace says:

      Cut those salaries, benefits and pensions. Clock in and out, clean their own bathrooms, give them minimum wage, etc.
      I could spend hours stripping them of their power.
      Quality, not quantity! Now that’s American!
      #MAGA

      Like

  28. Watcher says:

    The State Department USAID grants are full of corruption. When government $$ is available the usual jackals are around, local politicians and friends, global corporations, state dept grafts, do good foundations, etc. Usually sold as humanitarian projects to help the poor that can’t help themselves.
    Spend a little extra $$ on oversight, auditors, accounting, loss prevention, vetting, and things will change.
    Most importantly put some teeth into bringing those responsible for crimes to trial, no more fines or stepping down.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. omyword says:

    It has been my experience that sometimes you have to ask for more than you want to ensure you get what you need. In this case you or rather POTUS would maybe ask for twice the cuts in spending that he truly desires, to ensure he gets what he needs. Not saying he did, but it would be reasonable to think so. In any regards, he can just not spend the money. I seem to remember something about line items. If the budget is not spent, the next yearly funds would be automatically cut back to that level. This was one reason why agencies always spent their allowance. I know back in my Navy days we did just that to ensure our ability to stay at the required readiness levels. We also inflated our requests so that we could get what we needed.

    Like

  30. scott467 says:

    House Appropriations Bill Would Cut State Dept. Funding – However, Less Than Half of POTUS Budget Cut Proposal…

    ________________

    Okay.

    How hard can this be?

    Create a “discretionary” fund.

    Our man Rex is in charge at the State Department.

    Whatever amount over the President’s proposal is approved to the State Department, Tyrannosaurus Rex allocates to the “discretionary fund”.

    The President then uses the “discretionary fund” to build the wall.

    Everybody wins 🙂

    .

    Like

  31. Lburg says:

    Remember waaaay back on March 13th, PDT signed an EO:

    “This order is intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch by directing the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director) to propose a plan to reorganize governmental functions and eliminate unnecessary agencies (as defined in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code), components of agencies, and agency programs.”
    (If only we had someone in charge who knew anything about business, mergers and acquisitions I’d be sooooo much more at ease on this.)

    So while some departments may still receive eleventy gazillion dollars in appropriations through the budget process, they may no longer exist after the business process of elimination and merger have been implemented.

    Re-reading the article also reminded me that these proposals are open for public suggestions:
    “The Director shall publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to suggest improvements in the organization and functioning of the executive branch and shall consider the suggestions when formulating the proposed plan described in subsection (c) of this section.”

    Like

  32. litlbit2 says:

    “Congressional Republicans, to avoid any threat of a shutdown, seem poised to fund Obama’s full agenda for his remaining year in office. This funding currently includes, even, Obama’s funding request to resettle 10,000 refugees from Syria and Iraq within the United States.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/16/paul-ryan-betrays-america-1-1-trillion-2000-plus-page-omnibus-bill-funds-fundamental-transformation-america/

    Called my congressman today and was informed “the President does not write the budget congress does”

    As I tried to explain to him the dismal performance to date of the representatives of the GOPe. If not corrected 2018 will be a barn burner for them as well as the Senate. Ryan and McConnell can no longer be supported or trusted to help the electorate.

    The above makes them all look very paid for puppets, including the Senators even Cruz, Paul…

    Like

  33. carrierh says:

    Graft is what it should be called and our elected/hired Houses come out millionaires and we are ignored. Yep, drain the swamp is first on our bucket list. Trump is working a roundabout and that is good. They keep forgetting he is a super special business man while they are chimps and chumps.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s