February 16th – 2019 Presidential Politics – Trump Administration Day #758

In an effort to keep the Daily Open Thread a little more open topic we are going to start a new daily thread for “Presidential Politics”. Please use this thread to post anything relating to the Donald Trump Administration and Presidency.

trump-president-3

This thread will refresh daily and appear above the Open Discussion Thread.

President Trump Twitter @POTUS / Vice President Pence Twitter @VP

Sarah H Sanders Twitter @SHSanders45

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

885 Responses to February 16th – 2019 Presidential Politics – Trump Administration Day #758

  1. Mike says:

    The thing that is flooring me about the whole spending bill and border security is the super majority in both the barely Dem controlled house and GOP controlled senate.

    The GOP goes along with anything the Dems want without even whimpering a little anymore.
    F@*k sakes, if this doesn’t show how useless the GOP is, I don’t know what does.

    Liked by 14 people

    • Zippy says:

      Yep, and look at the Reps who voted against it probably ONLY because they knew it was safe to do so since it would pass anyway. The PHONY opposition that are mock opponents when it doesn’t matter, but cowards when it does.

      Liked by 10 people

    • Mike says:

      No brainer prediction: cue the next “caravan” of “economic migrants” in 3, 2, 1……

      Liked by 5 people

    • bakocarl says:

      PTrump made an announcement before the Senate vote that he was supporting and would sign the spending bill. Undoubtedly, a significant number of Senate Repubs voted for it based on that declaration.

      Liked by 8 people

      • Mike says:

        Oh. i did not know that. Are you sure, bakocarl? Why would he do that? I’ll attempt to answer my own question: because he was planning on using the “National Emergency” workaround.

        I don’t know how this will play out if true. it makes me nervous to say the least..

        Like

        • bakocarl says:

          I’m sure, but I’m going by memory, so . . .

          I’ll see if I can find a reference.

          Liked by 1 person

        • bakocarl says:

          The White House‏@WhiteHouse
          .@PressSec: President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has stated before, he will also take other executive action—including a national emergency—to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border.
          12:44 PM – 14 Feb 2019

          The Senate passed the bill (83-16) on 14 Feb at 3:59 pm.
          The House passed the bill (300-128) on 14 Feb late in the evening.

          So, both House and Senate knew that PTrump would sign it before their votes.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Mike says:

            Thank you sir,

            Liked by 2 people

          • Mike says:

            the whole thing makes me nervous still though. I hope it works, but looks like we’ll have to wait and see.

            Liked by 2 people

            • bakocarl says:

              I’ve been reading a significant amount on this topic, and it looks like objections to the NE Declaration are baseless and unfounded in law as well as precedent.

              Suits will be lodged, some lib judges may agree, but they they would rule against PTrump having two scoops of ice cream.

              I believe it will end well.

              Liked by 5 people

              • dilonsfo says:

                Personally, I don’t understand that if something is an emergency, endangering our country and it’s people, how a court can step in and stop it. Imagine, if an country attacked us and began marching into to towns and cities, some court stepped in and stated we could not protect ourselves and country until all sides have been heard. If I were the Chinese or Russia I would begin sending troops in and file for a protection order until the matter works its way through the courts. By the time the matter is heard it would be too late for many states , cities and people. To me, an emergency means no one can stand in the way except making verbal (free speech) objections.

                Like

                • Zippy says:

                  “Imagine, if an country attacked us and began marching into to towns and cities”

                  Effectively they are, it’s just NGO “foot soldiers” instead of government ones.

                  Liked by 5 people

              • NC Patriot says:

                He is using an emergency order from Obama already in place on controlling drug trafficking to get some money—–not effected by any suit on HIS order also some other funds from treasury, and some from asset forfeiture, plus the money they gave him (to total about 4.5 Billion ) these funds are NOT subject to his order or the law suits.

                So he can build a bunch of wall waiting for the rest to go through the courts. This bill expires in 6 months and so do all the rest of the things because this is a spending bill not fixed law.

                Like

            • WSB says:

              Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike…I have wanted to do that all day!

              At any rate, this link from Larry Schweikert explains the details better than some of the info we have been seeing..

              https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1096753667493920769.html

              Liked by 4 people

          • Paprika says:

            Well now, I’ll agree that you are factually correct!

            On the other hand, the day before many R Senators and Representatives came out in favor of the bill saying it was not the best, but better than a government shutdown. Senator Grassley even added a plea to PT to sign it in the Senate Prayer on the 14th.
            Good Old Mitch, once again preached its virtues( a win for the country) during his morning monologue on the 14th(just like on the 13th) and said it would pass in both houses.

            Remember that Mitch will not bring a vote to the Senate floor unless it will win(unless it’s a D bill or amendment that he wants to ridicule). And he stated that President Trump had no choice if he wanted to keep the government open–“while not great, it’s the best we can do and compromise is a part of governing.”

            All of that took place before President Trump announced his decision at 12:44pm on the 14th. I heard very few R’s arguing against the bill on the 13th and early on the 14th. And none had the time to read it in its entirety. And though I obviously have no proof, I’m sure Mitch explicitly informed PT that the votes were there to pass it.

            So yes, President Trump did announce he would sign it 3 hours before the actual vote, but the vote was already secure for passage and PT was made well aware of that fact.

            Liked by 1 person

            • mimbler says:

              For my own reasons, I wish PDJT had come out against it, so we could primary some GOP traitors. He had his reasons, I’m sure, but this certainly gave them cover.

              Liked by 1 person

        • facebkwallflower says:

          Something about the . whole thing is weird and just off. President Trump has always said to never let the enemy know your strategy; never announce what you are going to do next and yet……he said he would sign and he would declare………..very very out of character.

          Liked by 1 person

      • lolli says:

        My reply went somewhere else. Trying again. I read the same BC. So I am not looking at the votes on the bill since OR said he was for it.
        But here is an interesting article on why. And ties it together nicely.
        https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/15/report-mitch-mcconnell-told-trump-no-land-mines-in-spending-bill-a-win-over-pelosi/

        Like

        • Mark McQueen says:

          Could be but you have to watch out for Breitbart. “It has been reported…” and they are quoting the NY Times.

          Liked by 1 person

          • lolli says:

            Mark, I never trust BB. Rarely look except during big events to see what the spin is. Lol.
            I figured I would just post it and let people decide since they were looking for clues
            I do check the border chronicles on bb. That’s decent.

            Liked by 2 people

            • mimbler says:

              I think that if you read carefully, BB is pretty accurate. It is just that I need to be careful when I read there. If they are basing something on NYT or WP, they say so, and I can disregard it.
              So there can be an article that is essentially bogus, but they are up front as to what sourced it.
              Leaves it up to us to judge the validity of their sources, and I am comfortable doing that.

              Liked by 1 person

        • bakocarl says:

          Although The Turdle said there were no land mines, I’d bet anything PTrump did all his own checking with his own people. Remember, correlation does not prove causation. Turdle said doesn’t mean PTrump bought it.

          Liked by 4 people

          • lolli says:

            Agree completely. Just an article on the topic.
            Don’t think for a second PT would trust turdle. Nope.
            But maybe someone else.
            Anyway, PT made his decision.
            Let’s rumble. 😉

            Liked by 2 people

          • mariposa232 says:

            This whole discussion is a waste of time . The bill expires in 7 mos. it’s a FUNDING bill . It can only put restrictions in funding where the language that has everyone freaking out refers to the minors and sponsors etc . Its all balcony , all P Trump has to do is tell them to continue the same policies by moving funds around . Bill has no statutory power . Please read presidential statement from yesterday . Sundance can you clear this nonsense up please !

            Liked by 2 people

            • wj2016 says:

              Yes, someone please clear it up . Do the provisions for not deporting anyone associated with a UAC expire in September? Do the other poison pills expire?
              If not then the bill is an unmitigated disaster, wall funding in it or nor. Better no wall than this POS signed into law for perpetuity.

              Liked by 1 person

      • Kintbury says:

        Unfortunately, you are giving them way too much credit. The usual suspects would have voted for it anyway. They are against anything the President wants and they are afraid of their own shadow. Heaven forbid the media is mean to them.

        Liked by 1 person

    • wee2low says:

      GOP=Democrat Democrat=GOP

      Liked by 2 people

    • ms Idaho` says:

      What I find interesting is that I am pretty sure POTUS & team read every page (& understood each page). What do you want to bet that no members of the House or Senate read every page – or even did so by delegating pages to members (written by lobbyists & CoC??) So here again, congress makes itself irrelevant – again. (They are sure they are smartest).
      So, who better understands what was proposed & voted upon?
      Hmmmmm?

      Liked by 3 people

      • mimbler says:

        If you look at the length (over a thousand pages IIRC), no one person had time to read and understand the entire bill.

        And assigning (for example) 10 people to each read 100 pages doesn’t really gain a total knowledge of the bill (portions can interact).

        I’m not one for new laws, but IMO it shouldn’t be legal to schedule a vote on a bill that not a single one of the voters could have read in its entirety.

        Liked by 1 person

      • facebkwallflower says:

        And who is to say what was signed is what was given?????? Or if not that, a Trump insider wrote stuff in…..and the bill was actually written, with what counts by Trump? Nice to fantasize, huh?

        Like

      • piper567 says:

        ms Idaho…I agree.
        I am confident that the President’s people read every dog-gone page of this mess.

        Like

    • WRB says:

      The President and Congress came to an agreement before the vote, and hence the bill passed with bi-partisan support. It is speculative to assert it was “veto proof”, as the voting would have been different if POTUS had stated he was not supporting it.

      But soon we shall see if the rino’s can be trusted, because Congress can rescind a national emergency. Of course the House will do so, and it remains for the Senate to hold the line.

      Liked by 4 people

  2. bakocarl says:

    I don’t consider myself particularly well informed or politically astute. But, given that recognition, I find myself looking at the Dimm “splitter strategy” with (Ohhh! Here it comes!) concern.

    Would a well informed and politically astute Treeper care to weigh in with a quickie evaluation of that concept as might occur in the 2020 election?

    I’d appreciate it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Binkser1 says:

      I don’t consider myself politically astute or well informed but from a layman’s point of view, I see the Dims running a bunch of whackjobs in the primary and there will be a chosen one that will speak and seem sane and level-headed by comparison. They’ll get this person through (unless the Leftist whackjobs are able to do what we did in getting Trump through) the primaries and run him/her/it as a centrist. Of course, it will all be lies and if elected, it will be full on continued destruction of the U.S. Just my opinion.

      Liked by 3 people

    • I’ll wait for Sundance. He’s expert on splitter strategy.

      Liked by 3 people

    • WRB says:

      What is the concern?

      If the dems (or their donors/controllers) tweak their “procedures” so that the “correct” nominee is selected, who cares? (Other than the losers in the rigged process.) Even the best of the candidates is bad news, and it goes down hill from there.

      If you are worrying about splitters in the general election, that is more of a concern. But we faced that in ’16 with McMuffin (who was meant to steal the solid Rep state UT from DT), and Gary “Aleppo” Johnson who was meant to peal off repub votes. It did not work. In 2020, I (am surmising) think incumbency is good protection against 3rd parties. For example, in 1984, third party candidate John Anderson was either negative for dems (siphoned off some of their votes) or a non-factor. Reagan won with 525 out of 538 electoral votes.

      Liked by 1 person

      • bakocarl says:

        Yes, it is the general election I’m thinking about . . . with all the conservative looking and moderate people the Dimms and GOPe can get ahold of running as independents, Romney and Kasich and ???, too.

        Like

        • WRB says:

          I think the election will be a choice between “Change” and “Stay the course.” All of the challengers must necessarily fall into the change category, hence splitting that vote. That does not mean the dems can’t win, but the more candidates on the slate, the more the opposition is split. If enough voters think it better to stay the course, POTUS wins.

          But if you want to worry, worry about voter fraud, or (to not assume criminal activity), “voter turn-out”. For examples, AL (dem win of a senate seat), the near-misses for governor in GA and FL, and the debacle with CA house representatives all show the dems can “get out the vote” (or in my opinion, have “professionals” fill in absentee and mail-in ballots… who needs a pesky voter to have to show up?)

          Like

  3. evergreen says:

    Couple of realities that are being discovered by the non-CTH and similar crowds:
    1. Trump induces vertigo. He pulls the eyeballs in so tight that his adversaries get tunnel vision. He then maneuvers so wildly and smoothly that they lose any sense of being redirected. He has them thinking up is down.
    2. USA founding principles are liberty of the person, govern by consent of the people, equity before the law. That means people are free to the degree that they do not curtail others’ natural liberties; those wronged have redress before the courts; property may not be confiscated except by the consent of the governed. Summary: you want your liberty and rights respected, don’t allow the govt to use its powers to be unjust to another citizen. Dems have thrashed that principle, meaning govt and law is a free-for-all. A proper practice of foundational principles places a wall on the border and cultivates strong, sovereign citizens with an efficient, restricted govt. Laws are our friends in that world. Today, laws are our cages, and DNC regulates the locksmiths.

    Liked by 12 people

  4. Skippy says:

    Jerusalem Post Breaking News
    MERKEL CALLS RUSSIA A PARTNER, URGES GLOBAL COOPERATION
    FEBRUARY 16, 2019 13:23
    https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Merkel-calls-Russia-a-partner-urges-global-cooperation-580833?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    Liked by 5 people

  5. The Akh says:

    One argument the Dems keep making against the border wall reveals their stupidity and lack of critical thinking. They keep saying that it won’t slow the trafficking of drugs because “most of the drugs confiscated come from border checkpoints (paraphrasing)”. The failure of logic is that they find those drugs, because there is a controlled point of entry with border agents. Of course that’s where most of the drugs would be identified. Where else would that happen? Certainly not along hundreds of miles of open boarder. Do these people even know how to think? Did ever cross their minds that what is caught at the checkpoints, although being where most of drugs are found, is a tiny fraction of the total that comes across the open border? The sure stupidity of that argument blows me away.

    But maybe they know exactly what they are saying, and they count of the public to be even dumber.

    Liked by 11 people

    • piper567 says:

      Akh, they lie.
      They know exactly what they’re doing.

      Liked by 8 people

    • auscitizenmom says:

      Exactly…………..they count of the public to be even dumber. And, unfortunately too many are.

      Liked by 2 people

    • mimbler says:

      Yes, that logic is like saying people only speed when there is a cop around, because all speeders are caught in the vicinity of a cop.

      Liked by 6 people

    • Logic is not a trait the left /Dems have as a trait in any sense of the imagination

      Liked by 1 person

    • CM-TX says:

      Also works out as a nice diversion.
      Distract over here with this guy, who’s *acting* suspiciously – while that guy over there, has the actual (much bigger) supply… & slips right on thru.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Texian says:

      The problem is the government deep state is the drug runner.. The deep state is in control of the United States Government.. All Branches.. All Agencies.. That’s why Congress doesn’t want a Wall.. They are scared.. Scared of the deep state.. Scared of us.. Caught in the middle..

      The poor bastards.. It’s their own fault though.. They let it happen.. And now it’s up to The States and The People to clean their mess up..

      We just happened to be momentarily successful in breaching the deep state camp wire and sent a Sapper into the Executive bunker.. He is surrounded by the Enemy though within their own camp..

      We.. The People.. Have to do more.. Eventually they are going to get the Sapper or he is simply going to run out of time, be overwhelmed, captured, incarcerated or eliminated..

      And from my recon position, he’s seeing things we cannot see within the bunker.. He’s under pressure.. Implementing some satchels, but is unsure of his success..

      And time is running short..

      So what are The People going to do.. He needs some ACTIVE support NOW..

      Like State Governments around the Country to jump into the fray.. To enjoin against the Enemy.. Bills to help fund The Wall.. Something.. Anything..

      The States have to stand up.. The States can do this.. Circumvent the corrupted Federal Government.. Use the 10th Amendment..

      NOW is the TIME..

      Liked by 1 person

      • lolli says:

        Texian.
        Fantastic post IMO
        Every sanctuary city in Tx is just cartel basically. They run the show. They are ruthless and have a lot of power.
        I live sanctuary sa, so I hear you.
        If you have idea on what we can do here, let me know.

        Liked by 3 people

    • WRB says:

      Here is a counter argument:

      I do not care if the wall works or does not work. I just want the gov’t to build it, to prove to me that we are a democracy, and the voters have a say in how this gov’t is run. Billions upon billions of dollars are spent on things I strongly disapprove of, and the *one* little, tiny request I have, it is a problem.

      So build the wall and prove that this gov’t deserves to be treated as legitimate, and is not a facade behind which an oligarchy rules.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Zippy says:

      “most of the drugs confiscated come from border checkpoints (paraphrasing)”

      The fact that they can get away with or even THINK they can get away with that statement proves that a large part of the electorate, over 50% according to the popular vote in the 2016 election, is incredibly STUPID. The Dims realize this and spew statements like that which they know are laughable when logically analyzed to even nanoscopic depth because “incredibly stupid” describes their voter base.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Zippy says:

      Hey, psst, did you know that ALL speeding tickets are issued where police speed traps are present? This means that nowhere else is anyone speeding.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes! Akh.
      And also, with more wall our border agents will be able to focus resources better on those points of entry. I would imagine that the manpower split favors (at least some) unpatrolled areas given that there are no barriers to entry. With a larger % of the border protected by the wall, it should free agents to better inspect drugs coming in at established points of entry as well.

      But can’t argue with stupid.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Dora says:

    Liked by 9 people

  7. Troublemaker10 says:

    Liked by 2 people

  8. NJF says:

    Updated!!!

    Liked by 12 people

  9. NJF says:

    Updated!!!

    Liked by 8 people

  10. Tparty says:

    I have following his work for some time now. Carpet Donktum video was taken down for a copyright strike from the attention to the PT retweet. Now back for an encore with a more Patriotic score … enjoy.

    Liked by 7 people

  11. Perot Conservative says:

    Pretty please, layman translation.

    Minor concession?
    Moderate concession?
    Major concession?

    Look at the WHOLE negotiation table.

    No DACA fix for 1 Million or so.

    No PAPA action – Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA). ( Just learned about this. Also just learned only 10% of DACA applicants denied according to NumbersUSA.)

    If Dimms gained a few minor concessions, and we get $8B or more – sweet!

    Questions:

    Can we build while lawsuits commence?

    Can we bypass or fast-track combersome government bidding rules?

    Liked by 2 people

  12. joeknuckles says:

    It seems to me that the only thing AOC is truly qualified to do is shake her ass, which she does quite well.
    The scary part is that she has a huge political following based solely on that and her juvenile virtue signaling.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Johnny Dollar says:

    If Pelosi challenges the National Emergency in court, she’ll lose.

    That according to this well known swamp denizen: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/430335-why-trump-will-win-the-wall-fight.

    In essence, he says that Pelosi has one avenue open to her to stop Trump from building his wall. She needs to find 2/3 votes in both the Senate and the House to rescind the declaration.

    Alternatively, for her to argue to the court that there is no emergency at the border is a non starter for the court. Plus, of course, congress allowed the National Emergency to exist over many years without challenge and would, in effect, be declaring to the court they created a bad law.

    As the author says “If it cannot muster the votes, however, a federal judge is unlikely to do so [rescind the declaration]. Simply put, the courts were not created to protect Congress from itself.”

    I love that last line!

    Liked by 10 people

  14. NJF says:

    I seriously love these kids….

    Like

  15. Leigh Talley McGee says:

    I support my President completely. We need a wall on our southern border to protect our country. We build walls not to keep people out, but to protect the people inside.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. patrickhenrycensored says:

    Liked by 1 person

  17. patrickhenrycensored says:
  18. linda4298 says:

    This is dispicable, https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/jeffrey-lord/2019/02/16/liberal-media-hypocrisy-threat-anti-semitism The headline in the Washington Post read this way: “Film about American Nazis aims to send message to Trump voters with local ad during Sean Hannity’s Fox News show.”

    Beneath the headline was a photo of a smiling Sean Hannity.

    The story, in part, read this way, bold print for emphasis mine:

    “Some viewers of Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” on Monday night will get a jolting image: scenes from a rally of American Nazis in New York.

    The images are meant not as promotion but as a warning: They will come as part of a 30-second spot for “A Night at the Garden,” a new Oscar-nominated documentary short about the rally of the German Bund at New York’s Madison Square Garden in 1939. It was directed by the liberal-minded filmmaker Marshall Curry.

    …The short looks at the rally that attracted 22,000 people to cheer on Fritz Kuhn and other leaders of the American Nazi Party. Filmmakers have bought time during the Fox show in the hope of drawing comparisons to what they say are similar tactics by President Trump.

    Liked by 2 people

    • nimrodman says:

      “Film about American Nazis aims to send message to Trump voters”

      Trump voters?

      I suggest that black and fuslim “voters” are more deserving of a “message” about “Nazis”

      Hymietown, anyone?

      Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Ilhan Omar, Spike Lee, any number of other black power brokers and grievance mongerers and assaulters of Hasidic Jews in New York City. Go poll prevailing opinion in black communities about the ethnic group victimized by the Nazis.

      “Trump voters” – give me a break

      Liked by 2 people

    • WSB says:

      And the informants from the FBI were falling all over themselves in the stands.

      Like

      • nimrodman says:

        “… similar tactics by President Trump …

        Hell, any rally that riles up a crowd can be portrayed as “similar to Nazi tactics”

        Are high-school pep rallies now “Nazi”?
        Geez, the stupid just slays me

        Liked by 1 person

    • avi says:

      Is Robert Müller in it?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Troublemaker10 says:

      This stuff (calling Trump voters Nazis) just backfires on them every time it is played.

      Like

  19. Summer says:

    Principled Conservatives ™ never fail to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Still trying to hide behind Muh Constitution but will vote with Schumer to deny Trump his chance, of course. Spit.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Joemama says:

    I posted this on the open thread, but that thread doesn’t seem to get much traffic. I believe that the post is relevant to the PDJT thread though, so I am re-posting here. Topic: censorship of people who support PDJT:

    From Wikipedia:
    “Automattic Inc. is a web development corporation founded in August 2005. It is most notable for WordPress.com (a free blogging service), as well as its contributions to WordPress (open source blogging software).”

    Does anyone know what Automattic’s politics are? I perused their employment website and it seemed fairly apolitical, other that some stuff about inclusion and diversity, which isn’t always far left political, but in many companies is social justice warrior cultural marxism on steroids.

    The reason I ask, is:

    1. Is there reason to believe that CTH content will be censored in the future?
    2. Is there reason to believe that Automattic is creating a database that could be used by Big Brother to track down posters to be sent to communist retraining camps, if the cultural marxists end up winning the war?

    The recent time delays on posts make me wonder if Automattic is testing an automated post censoring algorithm, to be deployed once it is tuned up.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Publius2016 says:

      great point…93% of all digital is controlled by multinationals and Deep State…

      Liked by 2 people

    • FofBW says:

      IMO, they do not need to even that sophisticated. Just check our voting records and registration which is easily accessible.

      Liked by 2 people

    • patrickhenrycensored says:

      WordPress is most famous for kicking Bare Naked Islam off its platform

      Liked by 2 people

    • Carrie says:

      Omg I thought that last night when I was trying to post repeatedly. I noticed it seems to go in waves with different posters literally like they have us grouped by some sort of information (like number of times posted or possibly geographically?) I hate to sound paranoid, but it is a genuine possibility.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Zorro says:

      Yes, there’s reason to be concerned about data collection. Under common core a longitudinal database containing info about each student is kept. One of its eventual purposes to to assign what higher education the student will receive and what career they will be allowed to enter. Guess what the career prospects for conservative families will be.

      Totalitarian states always devolve into identifying the opposition then trying to 1) Re-educate them. 2) If 1) doesn’t work then imprison them 3) if 2) doesn’t work then eliminate them.

      Liked by 2 people

    • paulraven1 says:

      “1. Is there reason to believe that CTH content will be censored in the future?”

      Yes. There is a reason to believe that every conservative blog will be censored in the future. This requires no particular research to assert.

      Liked by 3 people

  21. smartyjones1 says:

    Liked by 6 people

    • bakocarl says:

      Some people seem to be rallying around the “potential sponsor” terminology and, without knowledge, are saying that anybody can make up info to claim they are a “potential sponsor” and therefore not be able to be removed.

      Well, DHS says the “potential sponsor” term is used in DHS, not a new term, and has a very specific, defined meaning. To be a potential sponsor a person has to have specific identification documents, and documents tying them to the sponsoree.

      There’s more, but I can’t remember all the details. Bottom line . . . you don’t just claim to be a “potential sponsor” and get protected.

      Liked by 6 people

      • andrewalinxs says:

        Yep, their is a whole mess of legal definitions people do not realize have specific conditions to them.

        Potential Sponsor is a defined term in DHS guidelines.

        A good example is a contract you define each individual and the terms at the start.

        While Client A might mean something different to you personally just reading it.

        In a specific contract that uses the term Client A will refer to a specific person as defined in the Contract.

        DHS guidelines and reg do the same things with terms like.
        Sponsor
        Potential Sponsor
        Family of Sponsor
        Dependent

        All those terms are defined and mean specific types of people and have requirements attached to them that if not fulfilled prevent an individual from being considered that.

        Liked by 2 people

    • mariposa232 says:

      Yes . Thank you Jones , I read the Presidents statement yesterday and listened to John Wicks explanation, it’s so simple , I don’t know why they don’t stop the gas lighting . P Trump signed nothing of any importance other than wall funding , everything else is optics for the Dems that will never be taken seriously at the executive level . In fact in spite of language is an improvement . Done .

      Liked by 3 people

    • brace1272 says:

      Kamala Harris is not eligible to be the President of the United States.
      Her birth in Oakland makes her a citizen by birth but since neither of her parents were citizens of the U.S. she is not a Natural born citizen as required by the Constitution.

      Liked by 3 people

      • ristvan says:

        Please stop repeating this utterly wrong nonsense here. Kamala Harris is a natural born citizen by virtue of US v Wong Kim Ark (SCOTUS 1898). She is constitutionally eligible to be president.
        But she is not black, any more than Obama. She is half Indian (from India) and half Jamaican. Her Jamacan father is mulatto like Obama, with great great great grandparents being white European plantation owners. Unlike Obama, her Jamaican father (retired Stanford professor) does not even have negroid features.

        Liked by 5 people

      • WSB says:

        Inagree with you.

        The Wong Kim Aek decision only defined this as being a citizen not a natural-born citizen.

        “In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, “The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts.”[10] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship “applies to children of foreigners present on American soil” and states that the Supreme Court “has not re-examined this issue since the concept of ‘illegal alien’ entered the language”.[11] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[12][13] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.”

        And the opinion sounds shaky.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

        Hulduh has a mich better detail on the definition of natural-born.

        https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/natural-born-citizen/

        Like

      • sDee says:

        “Kamala Harris is a natural born citizen by virtue of US v Wong Kim Ark (SCOTUS 1898). ”

        That case had nothing to do with Article 2 Section 1 requirements to hold thE office of the Presidency.

        The Constitution has unique strict requirements for the Office of President to minimize chances foreign usurpation. It goes far beyond the basic citizenship requirements for other Federal offices. The concept is age old and simple.
        – Jus sanguines: Born of TWO citizen parents
        – Jus Soli born on native soil.

        It has never been taken up by the Supreme Court. If fact, Leo Donofiro did extensive research on this and tried to take it to the SCOTUS. He discovered deep corruption to block his case including John (flub the Presidential Oath Twice) Roberts.

        In Donofrio’s case against the NJ SoS for 2017: John McCain not (jus soli), Barack Obama (non jus sanguines) and Roger Calero (neither) were on the ballot.

        A GLOBALIST’S DREAM IF I EVER DID SEE ONE

        Liked by 2 people

        • California Joe says:

          McCain was born on a US military base hence it was American soil! According to English law British diplomats and military officers serving overseas at embassies or fortifications were considered to be on British soil. Our law was based on the same principles.

          Like

    • Zorro says:

      Harris went to school in the Great White North Montreal. She is about as “ghetto” as Obama.

      Liked by 2 people

  22. Perot Conservative says:

    The Hill, Jonathan Turley
    Why Trump will win the Wall Fight

    Summary: Congress has given the power to the Executive branch for decades

    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/430335-why-trump-will-win-the-wall-fight?amp&__twitter_impression=true

    Liked by 3 people

    • patrickhenrycensored says:

      Why Trump will win every fight, eventually……………………………..He is opposed by losers.

      Liked by 6 people

    • andrewalinxs says:

      Pretty much yes. What I have been saying the last 3 days summarized in the article.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Publius2016 says:

      finally, we get back to US Constitution! National Emergency Declaration and The Wall gets built…dont like it Congress, ok? override Veto!!!

      “Congress has the authority to rescind the national emergency declaration of Trump with a vote of both chambers. (MUST BE 2/3 VOTE Turley)

      The legislative branch should do so. If Congress cannot muster the votes, however, a federal judge is unlikely to do so. Simply put, the courts were not created to protect Congress from itself. Congress has been heading to hell for decades, and it is a bit late to complain about the destination.”

      Liked by 1 person

  23. WeThePeople2016 says:

    Oh no!

    Liked by 5 people

  24. patrickhenrycensored says:

    Liked by 4 people

  25. patrickhenrycensored says:

    Liked by 6 people

  26. patrickhenrycensored says:

    Liked by 3 people

  27. patrickhenrycensored says:

    Liked by 2 people

  28. patrickhenrycensored says:

    Liked by 6 people

  29. patrickhenrycensored says:

    Liked by 7 people

  30. Perot Conservative says:

    A Mexican man in a local taqueria showed me a film clip of drug mules. Here is an example.

    2 minutes.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. patrickhenrycensored says:

    Liked by 3 people

  32. Perot Conservative says:

    Why we need 30′ barriers, with steel plates the top 5-10′. Same Mexican man showed me this.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. patrickhenrycensored says:

    Liked by 4 people

  34. Dennis Leonard says:

    Jack Posobiec
    🇺🇸
    ‏Verified account @JackPosobiec
    18h18 hours ago

    Twitter just censored this video from President Trump’s account. Be a shame if we made it viral again
    Carpe Donktum🔹

    Liked by 3 people

  35. patrickhenrycensored says:

    We poke fun at them, but it’s a painful realization that half of our countrymen have chosen to be idiots.

    Liked by 5 people

  36. Bert Darrell says:

    To those here who may worry about PDJT having given up anything by signing yesterday the appropriations bill that will expire next September 30, I highly recommend this audio/video (link below) explaining that you are worrying about baloney pushed by the D-Rats and that the wall WILL be built, as PDJT had promised

    When you get there, scroll down to a grayish picture showing the interior of a car and click on it to start the audio/video. In the first half of the audio the speaker describes his credentials and expertise regarding appropriation bills (the credibility component). The rest of the audio/video deals with why and how PDJT can build the wall with moneys from a previously approved budget(s) without any legal hindrance.

    My take? The Dimms lost this one pretty badly. All they got is some senseless propaganda to push to their lofo supporters.

    May God bless and continue to protect PDJT, the wisest, shrewdest, determined, and most patriotic POTUS in my lifetime.

    Liked by 3 people

  37. burnett044 says:

    yep..and on they come..

    Like

  38. Perot Conservative says:

    Plus 3800 pages of Addendum?

    Like

  39. recoverydotgod says:

    Liked by 3 people

  40. WeThePeople2016 says:

    Not good.

    Liked by 3 people

  41. recoverydotgod says:

    Maeve and the vintage coat

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Cathy M. says:

    “Insist that there are no new genders”
    But exploit it for personal gain.

    Like

  43. AS says:

    War is coming.
    Pakistan terrorist blows up bus of Indian border security.
    49 dead so far.
    India’s public wants revenge!

    Like

  44. WSB says:

    Hearher Nauer just dropped out from being nominated for US Ambassador to the UN. Too bad. I thought she would have done a bang up job.

    Cited family reasons.

    Like

  45. Hmmm... says:

    Kamala Harris is the future Dem nominee. The decision has already been made and it is becoming clearer every day that this is the case. For maximum impact be sure to tell a Democrat that they really don’t have a choice in the matter as their betters have made the decision already.

    Personally I think conservatives in general are making some huge mistakes in dealing with AOC. Just like liberals made a huge error in attacking President Trump personally instead of countering his arguments I see the same thing happening with her. Calling her an idiot without addressing her points is not great persuasion (to use the Dilbert guy’s terminology).

    Liked by 1 person

    • mr.piddles says:

      Booker/Harris. Or Harris/Booker. Dream ticket for a bunch of Dreamers.

      Like

    • Bigly says:

      Lol. A single tweet from trump and she’ll be Mondale’d.

      Needs to be a celebrity for dems to have a prayer. Politicians will not beat him.

      Like

    • Skippy says:

      Totally concur it is best for us NOT to mock her. Ignore her or show polite disagreement.

      Like

    • rf121 says:

      Good point. But she is still an idiot.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Bert Darrell says:

      RE: your comparison with the possible reaction to AOC blunders and possible back-firing.

      AOC recently was criticized for purposely derailing 25,000 jobs badly needed by financially strapped New York city and New York state because she wanted to punish super rich CEO Jeff Bezos and also erroneously thought that the 3 $billion dollar tax concession made by the city was money currently in the city’s bank account. However, what I found unforgivable is that she didn’t even know or consider that Amazon.com is a public company and its real owners are millions of investors, including Americans from all strata of society who invest directly or indirectly via their retirement accounts. An imbecile who can only regurgitate talking points that she does not even understand can be many things except a US representative whose main function is to wisely help his or her contituents.

      Like

  46. recoverydotgod says:

    America shrugs, Maeve. Meme.

    Like

  47. as11115 says:

    Pakistan backed terrorist strikes in India.

    49 dead border security police

    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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s