Category: immigants

President Trump has officially declared the US-Mexico border security crisis a national emergency. Is it?

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

Speaker Pelosi has directly contradicted President Trump by claiming, “There is no crisis on our southern border,” and that, “President Trump has manufactured this crisis.”

Ok…, well…, let’s look at the facts.  Let’s look at the numbers.

According to “Investor’s Business Daily:”

“[Regarding] illegal immigration: Democrats and the mainstream press accuse President Donald Trump of manufacturing a crisis at the border. The numbers tell another story.”

“NPR’s ‘fact check,’ like countless others, dismissed [President] Trump’s claim as false because ‘illegal border crossings in the most recent fiscal year (ending in September 2018) were actually lower than in either 2016 or 2014.”

“What they aren’t telling you is border patrol agents apprehended more than 100,000 people trying to enter the country illegally in just October and November of last year. Or that that number is way up from the same two months the year before.”

“Nor do they mention that last year, the border patrol apprehended more than half a million people trying to get into the country illegally. And that number, too, is up from the year before.”

“Trump’s critics certainly don’t bother to mention that those figures only count illegals the border patrol caught.  It does not count the ones who eluded border patrol agents and got into the country.”

 

The Department of Homeland Security claims that about 20% of illegal border crossers make it into the country.  Other studies, however, say border agents fail to apprehend as many as 50% of illegal crossers.

Is that not a crisis at the border?

Wait…, there’s more.

“Pelosi and company also don’t bother to mention the fact that there are already between 12 million and 22 million illegals, depending on which study you use, in the country today already.”

I would venture to say there are probably even more that 22 million in the country.

Let’s put those numbers in perspective.

“At the high end, it means that the illegal population in the U.S. is larger than the entire population of countries like Syria, Chile, the Netherlands and Ecuador. Even if the number is just 12 million, that’s still more than the entire population of Sweden, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Ireland and New Zealand.

Isn’t having millions and millions in the country illegally, with thousands joining them every day, not a crisis at the border?

But wait…, there’s more.

“Critics also complain that Trump overstated the risk of illegal immigrants committing crimes. They all point to a report from the Cato Institute, a pro-immigration libertarian think tank. Cato did a statistical analysis of census data and concluded that incarceration rates for Hispanic illegals were slightly lower than those of the native-born.”

Oh goody!

“But the Center for Immigration Studies looked at federal crime statistics [as well].  It found that noncitizens accounted for more than 20% of federal convictions, even though they make up just 8.4% of the population.”

The state of Texas alone “Has been monitoring crimes committed by illegals.  It reports that from 2011 to 2018, it booked 186,000 illegal aliens.  Police charged them with a total of 292,000 crimes.  Those included 539 murders, 32,000 assaults, 3,426 sexual assaults, and almost 3,000 weapons charges.”

Maybe we should talk to the victims of those 539 murders, 32,000 assaults, 3,426 sexual assaults (in Texas alone), and see if they think there is a crisis at our southern border.

And all of this does not even take into account the smuggling of illegal drugs.  According to the “VeryWellmind” website, “The estimated cost of drug abuse in the United States, including illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, is more than $820 billion a year and growing. Substance abuse in the U.S. costs society in increased healthcare costs, crime, and lost productivity.”

According to The National Institute on Drug abuse, “More than 70,200 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017.”

Unquestionably, the overwhelming majority of dangerous illegal drugs pours through our southern border.

In 2018 alone, border agents seized 5,000 pounds of heroin, 60,000 pounds of cocaine, 80,000 pounds of meth, and 1,600 pounds of fentanyl.  And that’s what they caught.  How much made it over the border?

Maybe we should talk to the families of the “more than 70,200 Americans [who] died from drug overdoses in 2017,” all of those people who have had their lives ruined by illegal drugs, and all of their families, and see if they think there is a crisis at our southern border.

Then we have the whole issue of human trafficers, who smuggle women and children into our country for sex and as slaves.

So, after looking at the numbers, is there a national crisis at our southern border?

I believe the only answer we can responsibly give is “yes.”

Others, of course, put their politics before the safety of the American people.

“This is plainly a power grab by a disappointed President, who has gone outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. “The President’s actions clearly violate the Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, which our Founders enshrined in the Constitution.”

They vowed Congress would “defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the Courts, and in the public, using every remedy available.”

“The President’s declaration of a national emergency would be an abuse of his constitutional oath and an affront to the separation of powers. Congress has the exclusive power of the purse, and the Constitution specifically prohibits the President from spending money that has not been appropriated. … This is a gross abuse of power that cannot be tolerated,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

First of all, Mr. Nadler, all of the money that President Trump is talking about using has been “appropriated.”

And on a related note…, when former President Obama sent over $150 BILLION (in cash by the way) to Iran as part of the failed Iran Nuclear Deal, where exactly was that money “appropriated?”  Just sayin’.

So…, what gives President Trump “the right” to declare a national emergency anyway?

The National Emergencies Act (NEA) authorizes the president to declare a “national emergency.”  This legislation was signed into law by President Gerald Ford on September 14, 1976

A declaration under NEA triggers emergency authorities contained in other federal statutes. Past NEA declarations have addressed, among other things, the imposition of export controls and limitations on transactions and property from specified nations.  A national emergency was declared in 2001 after the September 11th terrorist attacks and has been renewed every year since then.

58 national emergencies have been declared since the National Emergency Act of 1976 was signed into law.

31 have been annually renewed and are currently still in effect.

Here’s a list of the presidents who declared national emergencies.

President Jimmy Carter:

Nov. 14, 1979 (still in effect): A national emergency in response to the Iran hostage crisis, which froze Iran’s assets in the United States.

President Ronald Reagan:

April 17, 1980: Further Prohibitions on Transactions with Iran, never terminated or continued;

Oct. 14, 1983: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked in 1983.

March 30, 1984: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked in 1985.

May 1, 1985: Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving Nicaragua, revoked in 1990.

Sept. 9, 1985: Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving South Africa (in response to apartheid), revoked 1991.

Jan. 17, 1986: Prohibiting Trade and Certain Transactions Involving Libya, revoked 2004.

April 8, 1988: Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Panama, revoked 1990.

President George H.W. Bush:

August 2, 1990: Blocking Iraqi Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Iraq, revoked 2004.

Sept. 30, 1990: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 1993.

Nov. 16, 1990: Chemical and Biological Weapons Proliferation, revoked 1994.

Oct. 4, 1991: Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Haiti, revoked 1994.

May 30, 1992: Blocking “Yugoslav Government” Property and Property of the Governments of Serbia and Montenegro, revoked 2003.

President Bill Clinton:

Sept. 26, 1993: Prohibiting Certain Transactions Involving UNITA (a political party in Angola), revoked 2003.

Sept. 30, 1993: Measures to Restrict the Participation by United States Persons in Weapons Proliferation Activities, revoked 1994.

June 30, 1994: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 1994.

Aug. 19, 1994: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 2001.

Sept. 29, 1994: Measures to Restrict the Participation by United States Persons in Weapons Proliferation Activities, revoked 1994.

Oct. 25, 1994: Blocking Property and Additional Measures with Respect to the Bosnian Serb- Controlled Areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, revoked 2003.

Nov. 14, 1994 (still in effect): Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, continued in November 2018.

Jan. 23, 1995 (still in effect): Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process, continued in January 2018.

March 15, 1995 (still in effect): Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources, continued in March 2018 and expanded in August 2018.

Oct. 21, 1995 (still in effect): Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers, continued in October 2018.

March 1, 1996 (still in effect): Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba, modified by President Obama in 2016 and again by President Trump in February 2018.

May 22, 1997: Prohibiting New Investment in Burma, terminated in October 2016.

Nov. 3, 1997 (still in effect): Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan, continued in October 2018.

June 9, 1998: Blocking Property of the Governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the Republic of Serbia, and the Republic of Montenegro, and Prohibiting New Investment in the Republic of Serbia in Response to the Situation in Kosovo, revoked in 2003.

July 4, 1999: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with the Taliban, revoked in 2002.

June 21, 2000: Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, expired 2012.

Jan. 18, 2001: Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, revoked in 2004.

President George W. Bush:

June 26, 2001 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans, continued in June 2018.

Aug. 17, 2001 (still in effect): Continuation of Export Control Regulations, continued August 2018.

Sept. 14, 2001 (still in effect): Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks, continued in September 2018.

Sept. 23, 2001 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism, continued in September 2017.

March 6, 2003 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe, continued in March 2018.

May 22, 2003 (still in effect): Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest, continued in May 2018.

May 11, 2004 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria, continued in May 2018.

July 22, 2004: Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Importation of Certain Goods from Liberia, revoked in November 2015.

Feb. 7, 2006: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Côte d’Ivoire, terminated in September 2016.

June 16, 2006 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus, continued in June 2018.

Oct. 27, 2006 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, continued in October 2018;

Aug. 1, 2007 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions, continued in July 2018.

June 26, 2008 (still in effect): Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals, continued in October 2018.

President Barack Obama:

Oct. 23, 2009: Declaration of a National Emergency with Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic, was never terminated or continued.

April 12, 2010 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia, continued in 2018.

Feb. 25, 2011 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya, continued in February 2018.

July 24, 2011 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations, continued in July 2018.

May 16, 2012 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen, continued in May 2012.

June 25, 2012: Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, revoked in 2015.

March 6, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, continued in March 2018.

April 3, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons with Respect to South Sudan, continued in March 2018.

May 12, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic, continued in May 2018.

March 8, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela, continued in March 2018.

April 1, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities, continued in March 2018.

Nov. 22, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi, continued in November 2018.

President Donald Trump:

Dec. 20, 2017: Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption.

Sept. 12, 2018: Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election.

Nov. 27, 2018: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua.

Based on everything I’ve laid out here, President Trump’s declaring a national emergency IS NOT “plainly a power grab.”

This President HAS NOT “gone outside the bounds of the law.”

The President’s actions DO NOT “clearly violate the Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, which our Founders enshrined in the Constitution.”

The President’s declaration of a national emergency IS NOT “an abuse of his constitutional oath and an affront to the separation of powers.”

And, this IS NOT “a gross abuse of power that cannot be tolerated.”

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump national emergency

0

The President appealed to lawmakers in both parties to, “Rise above partisan politics and define victory as not winning for one party but winning for our country.”  My State of the Union address analysis: Part 2.

Liz Peek for Fox News reported that, “In a speech that was interrupted 102 times by applause, President Trump rocked the House, delivering remarks that were at times moving, funny, inspiring, feisty and visionary.”

I would have to totally agree with Ms. Peek here.  I was very impressed by The President’s tone, his overall presence, and his words.

“He appealed to lawmakers in both parties to rise above partisan politics and define victory as “not winning for one party but winning for our country.”

The President “Framed his speech as a celebration of two great occasions: the 75th anniversary of D-Day that liberated Europe [and saved the world’s civilization] from the Nazis and the 50th anniversary of America’s [Apollo 11] moon landing.  Heroes from both those historic undertakings were in the gallery, personifying the daring and selflessness that has characterized the United States throughout our history.”

He asked Democrats to partner with him in “choosing greatness” and to “keep freedom alive in our souls.”

“He exhorted Congress to ‘think of this very chamber, where lawmakers before you voted to end slavery, to build the railroads and the highways, to defeat fascism, to secure civil rights, to face down an evil empire.’”

The democrat side of the aisle honestly seemed petty and a bit foolish in comparison.

There was even a large group of democrat female representatives who wore white to represent something, or show some kind of unity.  They all characteristically chose to “thumb their noses” at President Trump’s accomplishments, and the country’s historic economic numbers.

Liz Peek added, “The Democrats also pouted as the president listed the economic gains made during his administration. They did not cheer when he said 5.3 million new jobs have been added, including 600,000 manufacturing jobs.”

“Nor did the Democrats cheer when the president cited the all-time low in African-American, Asian-American and Hispanic unemployment and the uptick in the incomes of blue-collar workers.”

“Do Democrats not approve of putting people to work?”

Do they not approve of 5 million people being lifted off of food stamps?

Do they not approve of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs being brought back to our country?

Do they not approve of us being self-sufficient, energy-wise, in the world?

Do they not approve of our NATO allies finally kicking in their fair share for their own defense spending?

It sure appeared that way, as democrats declined to applaud, and even smirked at the country’s good fortune.

President Trump did manage to break through their grumpiness, however, by pointing to the record number of women working in the United States today and the all-time high number of women in Congress. Even the “women in white” couldn’t help but celebrate themselves.

One of The President’s guests in the gallery was a survivor of Nazi concentration camps who was enjoying his 81st birthday.  It was enjoyable to see the entire House join in singing “Happy Birthday” to him.  That was certainly a first at a State of the Union address.

“In fairness, even while calling for a ‘new era of cooperation,’ [President] Trump threw some partisan zingers into the mix.  He singled out bills recently introduced in Virginia and passed in New York that allow for late-term abortions, and said he would ask Congress to pass legislation banning such procedures.”

“In addition, The President hammered home his determination to secure our ‘dangerous’ border, and the need for a wall.  To make the point, he introduced some family members of an elderly couple killed by an illegal immigrant.  Democrats were not pleased.”

How can you not be concerned with illegal drugs pouting over our southern border?

How can you not be concerned with thousands of young girls and children being taken advantage of by human trafficers at our southern border?

How can you not be concerned with gang members and other dangerous individuals coming across our southern border and committing crimes against and taking the lives of our citizens?

Just who do these democrat representatives represent exactly?

They didn’t account for themselves very well during the State of the Union address in my opinion.

The President added that “Great nations do not fight endless wars,” which is a statement no one can really argue with, as he is winding down our engagements in Afghanistan and Syria.

Liz Peek commented, “But for sure, the most contentious issue, and the one that continues to hang over the country, is immigration. Trump said no other issue better illustrates the divide between the working class and members of the wealthy [elite] political class, who hide behind walls [and gates and armed guards] while blue-collar workers suffer the lower wages, overburdened schools, [crime] and depleted safety nets that illegal immigration causes.”

“It will be interesting to see how Democrats answer that charge.”

“President Trump asked us all to ‘rekindle the bonds of love and loyalty and memory that link us together as citizens, as neighbors, as patriots.’”

“He vowed, as he has before, to put America’s interests first and, notably, promised that America will never be a socialist country.”

“Even Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer applauded that one.”

A CBS poll, conducted during and directly after The President’s speech, showed that 76% of viewers liked what they heard.

Since polling numbers regarding The President typically seem to skew low; that would translate into an 85%-90% positive approval rating of The President’s speech.

I would tend to agree with them.

In retrospect, I’m glad The President didn’t take my advice and hold his own State of the Union address away from The Capitol.  He definitely came away here as being the bigger person, the more reasonable person and the more responsible person.

Congratulations Mr. President.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump state of the union address 2019

0

Well, well, well, what have we here?  A petition to oust Nancy Pelosi surpasses 100,000 signatures?!

According to the WorldNetDaily (WND.com) website, “Amid all the talk about impeaching President Trump, more than 100,000 people have signed a White House “We the People” petition calling for the impeachment of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, accusing her of treason.”

Be still my little ole’ conservative heart!  But wait…, what’s a “White House ‘We the People’ Petition?”

It turns out that “The ‘We the People’ Petitioning System,” on the official White House website, was actually initiated by the Obama administration!

Okay…, so if Obama initiated it, it can’t be bashed as being some type of conservative shenanigans!

Gee…, thanks Obama!

The “Petitioning System” promises an official response for every petition that gathers more than 100,000 signatures within 30 days.

This Pelosi petition has garnered over 100,000 signatures after just its first 11 days!

This particular petition, “…was created by a citizen identified only as ‘M.G.,’ and it accuses Pelosi of being a traitor to the American people who is beholden to the interests of illegal immigrants, Big League Politics reported.”

“The petition further blames the San Francisco Democrat for the recent partial government shutdown. It argues she refused to negotiate with President Trump over funding for border security, causing many federal employees to work without pay for more than a month.”

‘“Illegal aliens are enemies that invade our country with drugs, human trafficking, and terrorist causing death and crime to American citizens,’ the petition states.”

‘“Nancy Pelosi adheres to these enemies by voting for and providing them aid and comfort through Sanctuary policies funded by US citizen tax dollars, and refuses to protect American people by refusing to fund our border wall, leaving our borders open and unsafe.’”

“After further complaints about the House speaker, it concludes with, ‘IMPEACH Pelosi for treason!’”

Big League Politics noted the process for impeaching a member of the House requires a majority vote of the chamber, meaning it’s unlikely to happen under the current Democrat majority.

Darn it!

These rules always have to wreck all the fun!

I will have to keep my eyes peeled for the “official response,” however.

“LOCK HER UP! (Both of them!)

“LOCK HER UP! (Both of them!)

“LOCK HER UP! (Both of them!)

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

nancypelosiilliegalimmigrants

 

1

Go for it Mr. President!

With all due respect Mr. President, please all allow me to offer you my advice related to the current partial government shutdown.

If ending the government shutdown truly depends on either side compromising on building the wall, this shutdown could last for a very long time, which really isn’t a good thing in the end.

After discussing my intentions privately with the republican Senate and House leadership, I would tell Nancy Peloser and Upchuck Schumer that I was ready to reopen and fund the government, without any money for the wall at this point, and that if they sent legislation up to my office, I would sign it.

After my signing it, I’m sure Peloser and Upchuck would quickly proceed to hold a victory press conference to rub your nose in it.

But wait…, I’m coming to the good part!

The moment they began their victory speech, I would declare a state of emergency on our southern border and immediately begin construction of the wall.  Thus upstaging their announcement, while robbing them of gloating over their victory, and ending the shutdown at the same time.

You might as well get it over with and declare the emergency, because the democrats are going to challenge you in court no matter what you do, so you might as well get the ball rolling.  The sooner we get the process moving, the sooner it can get to The Supreme Court, at which time they will deem you are within your rights as The President to do what you have done, and we can get on with securing our border.

Every few weeks now we see another “caravan” has formed, with thousands of people, and is preparing to march through Mexico and challenge our southern border.

If having to deal with these invaders on a weekly basis isn’t a national emergency, what is?

And this is on top of the “normal” amount of drug smuggling and human trafficking.

I would not be overly concerned about setting precedent here.  Was Nancy concerned about setting one with the State of the Union address?

And like it has been pointed out before, if these illegal immigrants were turning around and voting for republicans, the wall would be so big you’d be able to see it from space.

The democrats are going to do what they need to do going forward and so should we, and so should you.

Don’t do what a politician would do.  Do what a patriot and a leader would do.

Go for it Mr. President!

BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!

Like you said, “One way or another.”

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump-build-that-wall-701x393 (1)

 

0

Brilliant!  CNN’s Jim Acosta makes President Trump’s case for him without even realizing it!

“I found some steel slats down on the border. But I don’t see anything resembling a national emergency situation.. at least not in the McAllen TX area of the border where Trump will be today. pic.twitter.com/KRoLdszLUu”

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) January 10, 2019

Ian Schwartz of RealClear Politics reported that, “White House officials and Trump supporters on Twitter roundly mocked CNN White House reporter Jim Acosta after he filmed himself taking a walk along a border barrier he called “tranquil” and claiming there was “no national emergency.”

Per Jim Acosta’s CNN broadcast:

“Here’s some of the steel slats that the president has been talking about,” Acosta said as he grabbed a bar. “As you can see, yes, you can see through these slats to the other side of the U.S.-Mexico border.”

“But as I am walking along here we’re not seeing any kind of imminent danger,” Acosta reported as he walked against the barrier. “There are no migrants trying to rush toward this fence here in the McAllen, Texas area.”

“As a matter of fact, there are some other businesses behind me along this highway. There’s a gas station, a Burger King and so on,” the intrepid reporter said into the camera.

“No sign of the national emergency that the president has been talking about. As a matter of fact, it’s pretty tranquil down here.”

Acosta then ended his transmission.

Ha!

Not only is Jim Acosta obnoxious, he’s an obnoxious idiot.

Actually, it turns out that he is an obnoxious, useful, idiot!

And that’s the best kind!

I’m sure Mr. Acosta is kicking himself for unwittingly making the President’s point for him.

Let’s see what some others had to say about Jim “I Tawt I Taw a Puddy Tat” Acosta!

“When I went with President @realDonaldTrump to the border today I never imagined @Acosta would be there doing our job for us and so clearly explaining why WALLS WORK. Thanks Jim! https://t.co/7wC4rdEsZ2”

— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) January 10, 2019

 

“I would like to thank @Acosta for pointing out how peaceful, safe and secure it is at a part of the border that HAS a wall. #RealNews #BuildTheWall  https://t.co/bkssL9nOW3”

— Brad Parscale (@parscale) January 10, 2019

 

“A sincere and heartfelt “thank you” to @Acosta and @CNN for finally showing what @POTUS has been saying: barriers work! Great job Jim!!! https://t.co/jZx1NanMgh”

— Hogan Gidley (@hogangidley45) January 10, 2019

 

“Brilliant reporting from CNN’s @Acosta —walls work! Thank you Jim! https://t.co/Ymw9iCgPzx”

— U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (@SenBillCassidy) January 10, 2019

 

“Is it possible Acosta is actually a pro-Trump false flag operating under deep cover in the media? If so, he’s a genius. https://t.co/EvRYGrIQZI”

— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) January 10, 2019

 

Yes, thank you Jim.

Thank you for your unwitting support.

WINNING!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

jim acosta at the border

 

0

Listen to Cher sing her #1 hit, “Do You Believe in Life After Liberalism!?”  

Why anyone cares what Cher has to say is beyond me, but in the liberals’ world it seems she is considered a wise old sage, ala Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, and Whoopi Goldberg.

In this instance, Cher has demanded that Nancy Pelosi end this partial government shutdown and fund the border wall, tweeting to Nancy, “DON’T DIE ON THIS HILL.”

Maybe I need to reconsider my thoughts on Cher!

Cher has also admitted that she felt she went “too far” with her latest criticisms of President Trump (Whaaat?!), although she’s not exactly sorry for calling him a “cancer ravaging our nation (That sounds more like the Cher I know and love!).”

“I Say What I feel, But There’s a Responsibility That Goes With That,” the 71-year-old singer and actress tweeted. “I Walk Knifes Edge, But Sometimes It’s Too far. This Is Not An Apology….Its a Reprimand.”

She continued, “Just Because I CAN SAY ANYTHING…Doesn’t Mean I SHOULD. Sometimes I Learn The Hard Way, Over & Over. Humans are Fallible.”

Cher’s semi-apology came shortly after she described Trump as a “malignant tumor eating its way through our constitution” in a since-deleted tweet, according to Breitbart News Network.  The news site also reported that Cher called President Trump a “criminal,” a “sociopath” and a “despot.”

According to Fox News, “This is hardly the first time Cher has lashed out against Trump and members of his administration.”

“At an August 2016 Hillary Clinton fundraiser, the singer compared Trump to Hitler and told reporters that Trump was ‘a racist, he’s a misogynist, he’s a horrible person.’”

“She took to Twitter in January to express her sentiments about White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders’ style and shamed her for her everyday wear.”

Cher’s tweet read, “Would someone please tell Sarah Huckabee Sanders to stop dressing like a sister wife?”

“The singer illustrated her tweet with an image of two women in stereotypical clothing.  In the photo the women also sport braids, plain lace-up shoes and high-neck dresses with long sleeves and puffy shoulders.”

After President Trump delivered a prime-time address from the Oval Office making the case for funding the border wall, which was followed by a response from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who argued that the president must reopen the government in order to continue conversations about border security, Cher took to Twitter to blast the president for promising that Mexico would pay for the wall and demanded him to end the government shutdown.

The next day, however, she called out Pelosi: “NANCY YOU ARE A HERO. LET (Trump) HAVE HIS FKNG MONEY. PPL WILL STARVE LOSE THEIR HOMES, B UNABLE 2 C DRS.”

Cher then demanded Democrats to “stop” the shutdown before Trump does: “HELL B HERO… HE’LL EAT UR LUNCH & STEAL UR LUNCH YOU’LL B FKD 6 WAYS 2 SUNDAY.DONT DIE ON THIS HILL. HE STOPS AT NOTHING.”

I’m sorry Nancy, but I feel that I have to go along with Cher on this one.  You need to let President Trump have the money for the wall.

“If I could turn back time…,” I’d vote for Donald Trump all over again!

Winning!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

cher turn back time

0

Is it Nancy (the sky is falling) Pelosi and (Up) Chuck Schumer…, or maybe “Mork and Mindy?”  How about “Beavis and Butthead?”

Andrea Park of “W” for Yahoo Politics reported that, “Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) crowded around one podium to offer the Democrat Party’s rebuttal to President Donald Trump’s prime-time address concerning the government shutdown and his proposed border wall.”

“Wherever you land on the political spectrum, there’s no denying that Schumer and Pelosi’s stern rebuttal to Trump channeled the feeling of two parents standing side by side and chastising their trouble-making teen, a comparison that was made many times over in the flood of memes the Democrat response sparked online.”

Again, a “meme” is a humorous image that is copied (often with slight variations or enhancements) and spread rapidly by Internet users.

schumer pelosi

“Elsewhere in this deluge were approximately one billion tweets [ONE BILLION tweets!], likening the disapproving duo to Grant Wood’s 1930 artwork “American Gothic,” as well as only slightly less repetitive comparisons to The Scooby-Doo Show villains, Madame Tussauds’s wax figures, those ubiquitous AAG reverse mortgage commercials, and SNL’s Bobbie and Marty Culp.  Pelosi and Schumer were also offered up as prospective Oscars hosts, …as the Fiji Water girl from the Golden Globes somehow snuck into the background of their speech.”

schumer and pelosi

It was funny that someone apparently thought it was a good idea for the two of them to squeeze behind the same podium.  And you couldn’t tell they were reading from a teleprompter at all!!!

Their partnership will go down in history, no doubt, right alongside Sonny and Cher, Archie and Edith, Herman and Lilly, Al and Peggy and Lucy and Desi.

“Nancy…, you got some ‘splainin’ to do!”

“Oh, Chuckie!”

You really can’t make this stuff up.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

pelosi schumer

 

 

 

0

Crisis?  What crisis?

A “crisis” (from the Greek κρίσις – krisis) is any event that is going (or is expected) to lead to an unstable and dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, community, or whole society.

Fact: More Americans will die from drugs this year than were killed in the entire Vietnam War.

Fact: Our southern border with Mexico is a pipeline that permits vast quantities of illegal drugs, including meth, heroin, cocaine and fentanyl to enter our country illegally.

Fact: Every week, 300 of our citizens are killed by heroin alone.

Fact: 90 percent of the heroin in our country came across our southern border.

Fact: Last month, 20,000 migrant children were illegally brought into the United States.  These children are used as human pawns by vicious smugglers and ruthless gangs.

Fact:  60,000 unaccompanied children crossed the border last year, a 25 percent increase.

Fact: One in three women are sexually assaulted on the dangerous trek up through Mexico. Women and children are the biggest victims by far of our broken system.

Fact: The cost of dealing with the effects of illegal drugs exceeds $500 billion dollars a year in the United States.

Facts according to a study released in 2011 by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) reported on incarcerations, arrests and costs of criminal immigrants (gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf):

The number of criminal illegal immigrants in federal prisons in 2010 was about 55,000; the number incarcerated in state prison systems and local jails was approximately 296,000 for the year 2009.

Based on the GAO’s sample of criminal immigrants, it’s estimated that the study population of these 249,000 criminals had actually been previously arrested around 1.7 million times, averaging about seven arrests per person. That translated into a half-million drug related offenses, 70,000 sexual offenses, 213,000 assaults, 125,000 arrests for larceny/theft and 25,000 homicides.

The makeup of those criminal immigrants incarcerated in federal prisons: 68 percent were citizens of Mexico and almost 90 percent were from one of seven Latin American countries: Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Cuba and the Dominican Republic.

The GAO study states the cost to incarcerate these criminal illegal immigrants in federal prisons and for federal reimbursements to states and localities ranged from about $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion annually, 2005-2009.

According to Victor Davis Hanson, a scholar at the Hoover Institution, the 30,000 illegal immigrants behind bars in California alone costs the state $1 billion annually. In addition, the state spends another $10 billion annually in entitlements for illegal immigrants.

And remember, all of these numbers are from 7-8 years ago.  We can only expect that these numbers have increased on a yearly basis, and are quite worse by now.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “In 2013, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) freed 36,007 convicted criminal aliens from detention who were awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings. Many of the 36,007 convicted criminal aliens freed from ICE custody had multiple convictions including: 193 homicide convictions; 426 sexual assault convictions; 303 kidnapping convictions; 1,075 aggravated assault convictions; 1,160 stolen vehicle convictions; 9,187 dangerous drug convictions; 16,070 drunk or drugged driving convictions; and 303 flight escape convictions.” (cis.org/ICE-Document-Details-36000-Criminal-Aliens-Release-in-2013)

U.S. Census data shows that the overall population of immigrants is at an all-time high of 41.3 million. As many as 8 million immigrants have entered the United States since President Obama came into office, including 2.5 million illegally, either by crossing the border or overstaying their visa.

So, do we have a crisis on our hands?

Remember, a “crisis” is any event that is going (or is expected) to lead to an unstable and dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, community, or whole society.

Any reasonable person would have to say the answer to that question is “YES,” we have a national security, humanitarian, social, economic and public safety crisis on our hands, and President Trump has stated as much.

“Over the last several years, I’ve met with dozens of families whose loved ones were stolen by illegal immigration,” President Trump added. I’ve held the hands of the weeping mothers and embraced the grief-stricken fathers.  So sad.  So terrible.  I will never forget the pain in their eyes, the tremble in their voices, or the sadness gripping their souls. How much more American blood must be shed before Congress does its job?”

After President Trump’s address to the nation, in which he asked for a paltry $5.7 billion dollars help secure our southern border with some kind of barrier or wall, Senator Charles Schumer from New York and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi gave the Democrat response on the issue.

Pelosi and Schumer, basically condemned Trump’s words and what they called his “obsession” with building a border wall.

“President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis and must reopen the government,” Pelosi said.

Manufacturing a crisis?

Manufacturing a crisis?

Have you been listening, Nancy?  Have you looked at the numbers?  Have you seen the pictures of “the caravan” in Tijuana, Mexico, and at the border?

President Trump has brought manufacturing back to America, but he doesn’t need to do any manufacturing here.  The facts are out there for everyone to plainly see.

“Much of what we have heard from President Trump throughout this senseless shutdown has been full of misinformation and even malice,” Pelosi, standing next to Schumer, charged. “The President has chosen fear.  We want to start with the facts.”

No Nancy, the President has not chosen fear, he has chosen to address the reality and the seriousness of the situation, as opposed to kicking this political football down the road once more.

“The fact is: On the very first day of this Congress, House Democrats passed Senate Republican legislation to re-open government and fund smart, effective border security solutions,” Pelosi said, referring to bills that did not include funding for Trump’s border wall.

The “smart, effective border security solutions” that you and Chuck support, Nancy, are all good, but they are all reactive and not proactive.  Drones and other types of electronic surveillance will produce nice pictures of illegal immigrants running across the border, but they are not going to stop anybody.  A physical barrier or wall will.  Walls work.

“But, the president is rejecting these bipartisan bills which would re-open government, over his obsession with forcing American taxpayers to waste billions of dollars on an expensive and ineffective wall, a wall he always promised Mexico would pay for,” Pelosi continued.

The President, during his address, emphasized that the wall “would very quickly pay for itself,” and added that “the wall will also be paid for, indirectly, by the great new trade deal we have made with Mexico.”

Schumer and Pelosi seemed to think that federal employees missing a paycheck or two during the shutdown was more of a crisis than hundreds of families who have lost loved ones at the hands of illegal immigrants in our country.

These federal employees will get back pay.  These poor families will not get their sons, daughters, wives and husbands back.

“The symbol of America should be the Statue of Liberty, not a thirty-foot wall,” Schumer concluded.

Yes, Senator Schumer, “The symbol of America should be the Statue of Liberty,” but I’m afraid the symbol right now is of an illegal immigrant jumping over a pathetic 6 foot fence and breaking into our country.

Responding to Pelosi’s widely reported comment that a wall would be “immoral,” President Trump concluded his address by saying, “Some have suggested a barrier is immoral.  Then why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences and gates around their homes? They don’t build walls because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside.”

According to Marc A. Thiessen for The Washington Post, “Trump won the night.  Schumer and Pelosi lost.”

Thiessen added that, “Speaking from the Oval Office for the first time during his presidency, Trump embraced our country’s tradition as a nation of immigrants, declaring ‘America proudly welcomes millions of lawful immigrants who enrich our society and contribute to our nation.’ He then offered a cogent explanation why he believes we face what he called ‘a humanitarian crisis, a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul’ along our southern border.”

“He laid out his solution, which he explained were ‘developed by law enforcement professionals and border agents’ and includes funds for cutting-edge technology, more border agents, more immigration judges, more bed space and medical support, and $5.7 billion for a ‘physical barrier’ that he called ‘just common sense.’”

“The president did not unilaterally declare a national emergency. Instead, he called for compromise and said, ‘To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask: imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife, whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken?’”

“He was, in short, presidential.”

“Pelosi and Schumer failed to use the one word that millions of Americans were longing to hear, compromise.  But Trump did.  That is why the president won the night.  Schumer and Pelosi appealed to their base, while Trump made an effective appeal to persuadable Americans.”

“Until now, Trump has owned the 18-day government shutdown that prompted this address, because he’s the one who started it.  But if Democrats continue to attack him, and won’t entertain any compromise, soon the shutdown will be all theirs, because they’re the ones who have refused to end it.”

Radio and TV talk show host Mark Levin called Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer “pathological liars” and “scam artists” following their response to President Trump’s Oval Office address on the border wall.

“Let’s keep a few things in mind when you watch Schumer and Pelosi, they are pathological liars,” he continued. “They have been in Congress over half a century. What the hell have they done about the border? They are part of the scam artists. They get amnesty, legalization, citizenship, and never secure the border.”

Democrats are well known for not letting facts get in the way of a good political argument, and this argument is no exception.

But in the end, we ARE dealing with a real “crisis” here and it is way past due that we effectively and realistically deal with it.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

wall addresses

 

 

0

It seems the Central American “refugees’” need for “political asylum” is now negotiable.

As we have seen “ad nauseam” in the news recently, we have gigantic “caravans” of migrants from Central America, attempting to forcibly enter The United States through Mexico.

We have also seen that their attempt to barge into America seems to have stalled in Tijuana, on the Mexican side of the border.

If they are successful in illegally crossing the border, and if they are caught, they must be freed into our communities for a later court hearing date which 96% of these people don’t show up for.

The other possibility is requesting political asylum at a designated Port of Entry.

The reason the migrants want to avoid having to do this is that the inspections officers have the power to quickly find them inadmissible and deport them.  In this case they will not be allowed to return for five years. This can happen if an inspector believes that the person is making a misrepresentation of the truth. This quick deportation procedure is known as “summary exclusion.”

But here is what we are really talking about.

There is an exception to the summary exclusion process for people who fear persecution and request asylum.  So, even if you do not have the proper documents or you have made a misrepresentation, you could still be allowed to enter the U.S. if you make clear that your reason is to apply for asylum and you can show that you’d be likely to win an asylum case.

After you have said you want to apply for asylum, you’ll immediately be given a “credible fear” interview by an asylum officer.  The purpose of this interview is to make sure you have a significant possibility of winning your case.  Most importantly, the officer will want to be sure that your request is based on a fear of persecution.  This interview is supposed to be scheduled quickly, within one or two days.

If the officer isn’t convinced of your fear, you must request a hearing before an immigration judge. If you don’t, you will be deported from the U.S., and not be allowed to return for five years. The judge must hold the hearing within seven days, either in person or by telephone.

If the judge finds that you have a credible fear of persecution, you’ll be scheduled for a full hearing. In that case, you should seek an attorney. This proceeding will take place in Immigration Court, before a judge, and with an attorney representing the Department of Homeland Security.

The right of asylum is an ancient juridical concept, under which a person persecuted by one’s own country may be protected by another sovereign authority, such as another country or church official, who in medieval times could offer sanctuary.

Political asylum, specifically, is the protection granted by a nation to someone who has left their native country as a political refugee.

Supposedly, political asylum is what the majority of these migrants are seeking in The United States.

According to The San Diego Union-Tribune, “Two groups of Central American migrants marched to the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana with a list of demands, with one group delivering an ultimatum to the Trump administration: either let them in the U.S. or pay them $50,000 each to go home.”

Why do these people feel they are in any position to make demands on anyone, let alone The President of The United States?!  And $50,000 each?  These people are hilarious!

“Alfonso Guerreo Ulloa, an organizer from Honduras, said the $50,000 figure was chosen as a group.”

Oh, the fact they “chose this figure as a group” makes it much more reasonable!

“It may seem like a lot of money to you,” Ulloa told the paper. “But it is a small sum compared to everything the United States has stolen from Honduras.”

Soooo you want us to give you political asylum, but in the same breath you’re accusing us of stealing from your home country of Honduras?

Brilliant!  We are all now just a little stupider for having listened to you.

“He said the money would allow the migrants to return home and start a small business.”

Wait a minute!  I thought you were coming here with claims of being politically persecuted in Honduras, but now they will let you come back and start a small business and everything will be fine?

Just to let Alfonso and all of you “refugees” know, you’re not helping your cause at all right now.

In fact you are making it very apparent that your motivation for coming to our country is for the money and economic opportunity, not because you are political refugees, just like President Trump has stated many times.

We are throwing a party for all of the “caravaners,” however!  We’re featuring visas and long walks back to where you came from…, and we’re all out of visas!

Adios amigos!

WINNING!

 

Louis Casiano of Fox News contributed to this article.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

migrant caravan

 

0

BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!

With all due respect Mr. President, and I am saying “with all due respect,” it is time to draw a line in the sand and make your stand.

President Trump met Democrat leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in the Oval office yesterday, December 11, 2018, to discuss border security, the wall, and continuing to fund the government.

The President allowed the press to attend the beginning of the meeting, and the cameras were on, as The President said, “If we don’t have border security, we’ll shut down the government.”

President Trump repeatedly told Mrs. Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, that what she’s proposing would not pass the Senate.

“If it’s not good [on] border security, I won’t take it,” President Trump quickly replied.

Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer repeatedly urged The President to take the meeting private, (all the more reason not to) but not before he declared he’s “proud to shut down the government for border security” and will “take the mantle.”

Prior to the meeting, and earlier in the morning, President Trump threatened to have the military “build the remaining sections” of the wall if Congress doesn’t deliver the funding.

As President Trump began discussing the details of the negotiations, with Vice President Mike Pence also in attendance, Mrs. Pelosi complained, “I don’t think you should have a debate in front of the press.” And at another point, Mr. Schumer added, “Let’s debate in private.”

I’m sure there was a reason President Trump wanted at least a portion of the discussion out in the open for all to see.  I’m guessing The President wanted the two Democrat leaders, and democrats in general, to have to own their positions in a way that could not be confused or re-translated later.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, they say.

“Elections have consequences, Mr. President,” Schumer interjected, undoubtedly hoping to bolster his position.

“And that’s why the country is doing so well,” The President responded.

Mr. Schumer then challenged President Trump over his boasting that Republicans kept control of the Senate.  “When a president brags that he’s won Indiana and North Dakota, he’s in real trouble,” Schumer offered.

Apparently Mr. Schumer has a lack of respect for the states and the people from the states of Indiana and North Dakota, as he seems to denigrate the value of these states.

Congress last week temporarily averted a partial shutdown amid the funeral services for the late President George H.W. Bush, pushing the new deadline to Dec. 21.

President Trump wants $5 billion for the wall project, while Democrats are offering $1.3 billion for border security, which doesn’t include an actual wall.

Mrs. Pelosi said she and many other Democrats consider the wall “immoral, ineffective and expensive.”

Speaking for conservatives, I think we have seen with the recent caravan and those people waiting in Tijuana, Mexico, how effective an actual wall is and how necessary it is given our current immigration laws.

Mr. Schumer said Democrats want to work with President Trump to avert a shutdown, but said, “Money for border security should not include the concrete wall President Trump has envisioned.  Instead, the money should be used for fencing and technology that experts say is appropriate.”

Yes, Mr. Schumer, we are all aware that you can always find “experts” to support any position you may take or any belief you may have.

President Trump has said that Congress should provide all the money he wants for the wall and called illegal immigration a “threat to the well-being of every American community.”

Even though the Republicans will pick-up a couple of seats in the Senate next year, they currently have 51 votes.  Sixty votes are required in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, thus effectively blocking a proposal.

Let’s remember that during President Trump’s campaign for president, at every jam packed rally, in the dozens of states he visited, he promoted building a wall and the people in attendance chanted, “BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!”

If ever a president had a mandate, based on an election, to do anything, it is President Trump’s mandate to “build the wall.”

“We the People” have waited long enough.

We want our wall!

And yes, Mr. Schumer, elections do have consequences, and don’t you dare try and throw your weak midterms in our faces.  Especially you, as your party lost even more seats in the Senate!

You want The President and us to “own” shutting the government down in order to get our wall?  Fine!  We will proudly own the shutdown, and we don’t care if it’s shut down until the 2020 election!

“We the People” wanted a wall on our southern border and we elected Donald Trump to build that wall.

I would further respectfully suggest that President Trump address the nation, similar to the way President Reagan did on several occasions, bypassing the “biased, liberal, fake news media” “filter,” and make your case for the wall directly to the American people, putting some pressure on their representatives.

“Maybe Poker’s just not your game, Chuckie.  I know, let’s have a spelling contest!” – adapted quote from the movie “Tombstone.”

 

Thanks to Alex Pappas and Chad Pergram of Fox News, and Judson Berger and The Associated Press for contributing to this article.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump pelosi schumer wall mtg

 

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑