The US will not be shooting at women and children at the border, or allowing them to pass through minefields.

Maybe you are just blowing off steam, but there is no reason to think or talk like this.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
The US will not be shooting at women and children at the border, or allowing them to pass through minefields.

Maybe you are just blowing off steam, but there is no reason to think or talk like this.

Maybe put their worthless asses back on a southbound train and not let them enter? Fuck'em! I've had it!

quote:

Originally posted by nighthawk:
McCabe is worth, last I saw $11 million, so he really needs a go fund me page.

I'm guessing that "last I saw" was Moses handing it to you branded onto naan bread (or maybe pappadam).

Non snarky version- when you repeat something that originated on a random India-registered domain enough times, for sure it becomes truth. Or maybe someone just made it up and the confirmation bias is strong with you.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
The US will not be shooting at women and children at the border, or allowing them to pass through minefields.

Maybe you are just blowing off steam, but there is no reason to think or talk like this.

I never said we would. I said it would be more effective and cheaper.

Maybe they could deploy mines in the areas that terrorists and drug traffickers use and have some sort of official border checkpoint for the innocent women and children, where they could be properly screened, and if they have a visa, allowed to enter.

The thing is, publicized mine fields kill very few since most people will not attempt to cross them. There will of course always be a few Darwin Award hopefuls vying for the prize.

don't care if they're women and children, puppies and kittens

just don't let them in

they have no RIGHT to be here, what they WANT is not relevant

sucks to be them, but there is a process to come here to the US legally, and thousands of people manage to do it every year and are quite welcomed here

these are the kinds of people that we do not want in this country

The Democrat Party has totally undermined legal immigration into the United States. They call illegal aliens "immigrants" so persistently that the incorrect term-- they are illegal aliens, NOT immigrants-- is repeated not only by their propaganda arm, the MSM, but even by those who try to oppose them.

As far as the Democrats are concerned, we have no southern border. Anyone can cross over, and every illegal alien has some kind of right to do so, so that any American citizen who objects is a bigot and a racist.

Their strategy is clear: bring in hordes of Mexicans, Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, allow them to vote, and never again lose a national or local election. This might seem preposterous until you realize that estimates of the number of illegals already in America range from 10 to 12 million, and some put the number much higher.

It is an outrageous subversion of the political integrity of our nation. Our political representatives in this republic will be chosen and put into power by non-citizens of America-- by citizens of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador who are here illegally, putting Americans out of work, and costing taxpayers countless billions in costs for education, health, and social services.

Build.
The.
Wall.

DJT's the man!



Trump to sign proclamation sending National Guard to border immediately


The Trump administration announced Wednesday that President Trump will sign a proclamation to send the National Guard to the southern border immediately in response to what it described as an "unacceptable" flow of drugs, criminal activity and illegal immigrants.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said at the White House press briefing that it would be done in conjunction with governors and that the administration hopes the deployment begins "immediately."

"Despite a number of steps this administration has taken...we continue to see unacceptable levels of illegal drugs, dangerous gang activity transnational criminal organizations and illegal immigration flow across our border," she said.

"The president has directed that the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security work together with our governors to deploy our National Guard to our southwest border to assist the border patrol," she said. "The president will be signing a proclamation to that effect today."

Details about what the National Guard would do, how much it would cost, how many would be deployed and for how long were not immediately disclosed.

Nielsen pointed to what she described as increasing fraud and exploited loopholes among arrivals on the southern border, saying traffickers have been advertising that if migrants have children with them, then they are more likely to be released into the U.S. She also said that almost 50 percent of arriving aliens are from Central America.

She said that the administration has drafted legislation and will ask Congress to provide legal authority and resources to address the problem.

"We will not allow illegal immigration levels to become the norm," she said. "More than 1,000 people a day, 300,000 a year violating our sovereignty as a nation will never be acceptable to this president."

Trump had tweeted earlier Wednesday that he would “be taking strong action today” on the Mexico border, a day after he said that he wants to send the military to secure it until a wall is built.

Arguing that the U.S. border laws “are very weak” compared to Mexico and Canada, he accused Democrats of wanting immigrants “to pour into our country unchecked.”

Former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush had deployed the National Guard to the border in response to security issues.

The Associated Press reported that the White House was considering a model similar to a Bush-era operation, where in 2006 6,000 National Guard troops were sent to assist the border patrol with non-law enforcement duties while additional border agents were hired and trained.

Trump's recent focus on illegal immigration appeared to have been partly motivated by a caravan of more than 1,000 Central American migrants heading toward the U.S. border.

Trump had threatened to end the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and to cut foreign aid to countries such as Honduras, from where many of the migrants originate, if the caravan was not stopped.

Trump said Tuesday that he believes the caravan is being broken up after he had a conversation with Mexican officials.

Nielsen said on Tuesday that she had been advised by Mexican officials that “the caravan is dissipating” and that several hundred migrants had been repatriated.



http://www.foxnews.com/politic...der-immediately.html

Too bad the RINO Senators will probably screw this up too.


WH Considers Using Obscure Law To Gut Omnibus Bill, Democrats Helpless To Stop

BY SCOTT KELNHOFER
APRIL 4, 2018 AT 9:29AM

Conservatives who were angry with President Donald Trump and Republicans with some of the expenditures approved as part of the recently signed omnibus spending bill may soon be in a slightly better mood.

Joseph Lawler of the Washington Examiner reports congressional conservatives want Trump to use the 1974 Impoundment Act to rescind some spending authorized by the $1.3 trillion government appropriations bill, and White House officials are reportedly considering doing so.

The measure referred to by the Examiner is officially known as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. For the most part, the act established the Congressional Budget Office and gave Congress more control over the budget process.

The Impoundment Control Act allows the president to ask Congress to rescind funds that have been allocated in the budget. Congress is not required to vote on the request, but if they do agree to vote, a simple majority in both chambers is all that is needed to approve cuts the president requests.

A congressional Republican aide told the Examiner that conservatives have been lobbying for Trump to use the Impoundment Act.

“It’s a good opportunity to take advantage of a law passed decades ago and that hasn’t been used recently,” the aide said.

A spokesman for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., confirmed to The Washington Post that McCarthy’s office is working with the Trump administration on the idea.

White House legislative director Marc Short also confirmed the president is looking into requesting cuts to the budget.

“The administration is certainly looking at a rescission package, and the president takes seriously his promise to be fiscally responsible.”

The Impoundment Control Act was put in place in 1974 in response to President Richard Nixon’s practice of withholding funds for programs he opposed. Instead, the act requires any requests to withhold funding to go through Congress.

The Impoundment Control Act is considered obscure because it hasn’t been used often in recent years. The Examiner report says it was never used by Presidents Barack Obama or George W. Bush, but was used frequently during the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

After signing the omnibus spending bill that he originally threatened to veto, Trump called on Congress to give him line-item veto authority on spending bills. However, the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that such authority was unconstitutional.

These measures could pass with just a majority vote, meaning Democrats could do nothing to stop them — unless, of course, they can convince enough Republicans not to support the president’s wishes.

Considering the slim 51-to-49 majority Republicans hold in the Senate, it wouldn’t take many left-leaning Republicans to foil the president’s plans.

But a chance to rescind some of the budget programs gives conservatives reason for hope — and if Republicans throw away that chance, it will make conservatives angry all over again.

https://conservativetribune.co...ts-helpless-to-stop/

https://www.afp.com/en/news/82...s-border-doc-13p1ry3

Migrant caravan abandons plan to travel to US border

A caravan of Central American migrants whose trek across Mexico infuriated President Donald Trump has decided not to travel to the US border, leaders said Tuesday.

"We will wrap up our work in Mexico City," said Irineo Mujica, the head of the migrant advocacy group People Without Borders (Pueblo sin Fronteras).

The just over 1,000 migrants who currently make up the caravan -- many traveling in families of up to 20 people -- have been camped in the southern town since the weekend, deciding their next move in the face of daily attacks from Trump.

The caravan now plans to travel to the central city of Puebla for a conference, then on to Mexico City for a series of demonstrations -- and end its journey there.

Organizers say Mexican immigration authorities are working with the migrants to get them papers to stay in Mexico.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Migrant caravan abandons plan to travel to US border

You can thank President Trump for that. You can bet your bottom dollar that they heard that he is sending troops to the border, and you can also bet that they regret their "you can't stop us" taunt, because that's exactly what the man has done. Go back to whatever shitty place you're from. You want to come to this country? Fine, there's a process for that. Get someone to find it on the internet and read it to you.

Oh, CNN will be sooooo upset.

good - Mexico let them into the country, let Mexico deal with them and the fallout

what a great day for America

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
The US will not be shooting at women and children at the border, or allowing them to pass through minefields.

Maybe you are just blowing off steam, but there is no reason to think or talk like this.

The Camp of the Saints?

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
good - Mexico let them into the country, let Mexico deal with them and the fallout

what a great day for America

Yes indeed. Its about time they reap a little of the whirlwind.

quote:

deciding their next move in the face of daily attacks from Trump.

They're probably thinking "That's not how the last guy used to handle this stuff."

Here is a perfect example of a couple of points that I made in my post just above. California has issued about one million drivers licenses to illegal aliens-- which, of course, means that they can vote. One million!

Notice, though, in this article that illegal aliens are referred to as "undocumented immigrants." This is a very clever subterfuge, and we can't give up on this battle of language. They are illegal aliens and must be referred to correctly every time they are referenced.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/pol...rticle207939584.html

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Isn't that just perfect?

National Security
McCabe will shut down GoFundMe page, which raised more than $538,000 for his legal defense

Andrew McCabe’s team launched a GoFundMe campaign on Thursday, initially saying they hoped to raise $150,000 to help cover the ousted FBI deputy director’s legal costs. The fund far exceeded its goal within hours.

Ousted FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe is shutting down his online campaign to raise money for a legal-defense fund, after taking in more than a half-million dollars in donations, his spokeswoman announced Monday.

Melissa Schwartz, McCabe’s spokeswoman, said McCabe’s GoFundMe site will stop accepting contributions as of 7 p.m. Monday. She said the money, which “more than tripled” the original goal, would soon be transferred to a more formal legal defense trust. As of 11:30 a.m., the fund had raised more than $538,000.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.053960da62b2

Andrew McCabe’s GoFundMe Campaign Was Put Together by K Street PR Firm
by Colin Kalmbacher | 1:35 pm, April 5th, 2018


Andrew McCabe recently raised over half a million dollars from small donors by way of crowdfunding platform GoFundMe. McCabe’s cash-collecting prowess was buoyed by several #Resistance-linked personalities and MSNBC’s own Rachel Maddow, who suggested McCabe should run for office because he’s so good at raising money.

Was this apparent “grassroots effort” actually a PR campaign put together by high-priced, well-connected, and experienced PR professionals in order to take advantage of the #Resistance’s seething anger at the Trump administration? A Monday report in Slate suggested as much. Law&Crime can now confirm that some of those allegations are true, while some of them appear to oversell the issues at hand.

At or around 2 p.m. on March 29, “Friends of Andrew McCabe” launched a GoFundMe page to raise money for the “Andrew McCabe Legal Defense Fund.” The unidentified author(s) of the GoFundMe described the reason for their fundraising effort as follows:

Unfortunately, the need for a legal defense fund is a growing reality. Media reports indicate that at a minimum, there are a number of congressional inquiries that he will be required to respond to, as well as the broader Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigation that is ongoing, and any potential lawsuits he might consider.

Melissa Schwartz is a crisis and communications consultant who currently works for The Bromwich Group. After previously working for then-Senator Barbara Mikulski, the Department of Justice, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (where she served under her once-and-future boss), Schwartz joined The Bromwich Group as their chief operating officer in 2012. She’s also McCabe’s present spokesperson.

The Bromwich Group is a K Street consulting and PR firm headed by Michael R. Bromwich. Immediately prior to founding the firm, Bromwich served as the first director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management under President Barack Obama. As a former mineral extraction regulator, Bromwich promised that his firm would never lobby for energy industry clients. Prior to this role, Bromwich served as the Inspector General for the Department of Justice under President Bill Clinton.

Employed by the law firm Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, Bromwich also currently serves as Andrew McCabe’s lead attorney.

Bromwich has said little–aside from expressing gratitude on McCabe’s behalf–about the wildly successful fundraiser. Schwartz, on the other hand, has been dogged in her support for and promotion of McCabe’s GoFundMe campaign. Schwartz initially took to social media in order to discredit non-sanctioned crowdfunding accounts allegedly set up on McCabe’s behalf. In a March 17 tweet, she wrote:

Please help circulate: while it is a kind gesture, there is no “gofundme” or other crowdfunding account for Andrew McCabe. Because of the outpouring of support, we are exploring potential options for a legal defense fund. More to come.

More was indeed to come. On March 29, Schwartz sanctioned the official GoFundMe campaign by tweeting, “Correct. We launched the official campaign today.” Later that same day, in response to suspicion about the veracity of the fundraiser, she tweeted, “That is the official campaign we launched today.” (Notably, Schwartz is also the person who issued the Monday statement announcing the legal defense fund would stop accepting donations–after repeatedly shifting its initial $150,000 goal upwards.)

Ben Mathis-Lilley, writing in Slate, noted a potential conflict of interest here. He writes:

In other words, the PR and lobbying firm Andrew McCabe’s lawyer founded is helping promote the small-donor fundraising effort to pay Andrew McCabe’s lawyer.

Law&Crime reached out to both Schwartz and The Bromwich Group. Schwartz disputed that The Bromwich Group was a lobbying firm of any sort–no registered lobbyists are currently employed there and Schwartz said the firm doesn’t engage in any unofficial lobbying either.

But who is the “we” that started the legal defense fund? Schwartz confirmed in an email that The Bromwich Group did assist in setting up the GoFundMe on McCabe’s behalf. She said, “It is customary for personnel associated with a client’s legal and communications teams to field various inquiries from outsiders. In this case, it required his team to respond to the inquiries from Gofundme.” She continued, “His team concluded that we needed to make sure that people who wanted to assist Mr. McCabe had a legitimate outlet to do so.”

As for the “Friends of Andrew McCabe?” That’s still not entirely clear. Schwartz said the GoFundMe campaign was started after GoFundMe contacted McCabe’s team about various “fraudulent accounts” started in his name. Schwartz then elaborated:

In the days following Mr. McCabe’s firing, he received scores of communications asking for a place to donate to his legal defense and/or pension…His team worked with GoFundMe to facilitate the receipt of donations from the flood of people who wanted to help him. Friends of Andrew McCabe is the group of family, friends and colleagues who wanted to aid in that effort.

This is an interesting statement because the official GoFundMe campaign explicitly says it’s not related to McCabe’s pension trouble. Schwartz also stated that McCabe’s legal and PR team have been representing him “pro bono” and that “They have not received a dollar to date for their efforts.”

Law&Crime followed up for a more precise idea of who “Friends of Andrew McCabe” might be and why pro bono legal efforts necessitated such a hefty fundraiser. Schwartz refused further comment on who exactly makes up the aforementioned group and clarified that such “activity has been pro bono to date.” Schwartz then referred back to the fundraiser and cited the need for further representation.

When asked to whom exactly the raised funds would go–if not Bromwich–Schwartz declined to answer.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-p...sulting-and-pr-firm/

I'm trying to navigate thru the above article.

Seems to be saying that McCabe's lawyers, who are working pro bono, set up the $500k gofundme to cover legal costs. ??

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I'm trying to navigate thru the above article.

Seems to be saying that McCabe's lawyers, who are working pro bono, set up the $500k gofundme to cover legal costs. ??

It says they were working pro bono to date, now have a pot to draw on.

I'll see your retaliation and raise you $100 billion

quote:

President Donald Trump ordered his administration to consider imposing tariffs on an additional $100 billion in Chinese imports, a salvo that sent U.S. stock futures tumbling on concern the world’s two largest economies were hurtling toward a full-blown trade war.

The move threatens to unravel efforts by top U.S. and Chinese trade officials to lower the heat and reach an agreement that could stave off an escalating conflict.

U.S. stock futures dropped on Trump’s latest trade directive. S&P 500 Index futures slid as much as 1.6 percent, after the underlying gauge ended up 0.7 percent on Thursday.

“In light of China’s unfair retaliation, I have instructed the USTR to consider whether $100 billion of additional tariffs would be appropriate under section 301 and, if so, to identify the products upon which to impose such tariffs,” Trump said in a statement issued by the White House.

A White House official later said the $100 billion figure Trump used in the statement referred to the value of the imports that would be covered by the additional tariffs, not the total amount of tax that would be charged on the products.

Xinhua, China’s state news agency, said Friday that Beijing vowed to defend its interests "against new U.S. actions."

China said Wednesday it would levy a 25 percent tariff on about $50 billion of U.S. imports including soybeans, automobiles, chemicals and aircraft. That was in response to the release by the U.S. of a list of proposed tariffs a day earlier, covering $50 billion in Chinese products.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...in-new-china-tariffs