He just got 300 billion approved for the military. He has the cash.
How's that wall coming along?......BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
- Thread starter Elfiero
- Start date
He just got 300 billion approved for the military. He has the cash.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Anybody who doesn’t think we can find money for the wall wasn’t paying attention when the budget was passed. It’s monopoly money.
Oh yes Baby, oh yes, oh yes!
Trump sending National Guard to the border
A day after saying he would send the military to the U.S.-Mexican border, President Trump ordered the immediate deployment of the National Guard, but few details were available about the plan.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said Wednesday that Trump deploy the guard “in support of” the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. The president signed a proclamation Wednesday night ordering the mission.
Administration officials declined to say when that would happen, how many troops would be sent, where they would be posted or what they would do.
No details were available from either the Defense Department or Texas National Guard.
“It’s time to act,” Nielsen told reporters at a White House briefing.
Gov. Greg Abbott, who has assigned around 100 Texas Guard soldiers and airmen to the border under a state-funded program, intends to send more troops there, but a spokesman for his office declined to provide further details.
Abbott, in a statement Wednesday afternoon, cheered the administration’s decision, saying, “I welcome the support.” The guard, based at Austin’s Camp Mabry, said it had been given no guidance and was awaiting orders. Nielsen told reporters the administration’s action would be similar to past efforts, but that she didn’t want to “get ahead” of planning that involves governors.
“It will be strong, it will be as many as needed to fill the gaps today,” she said.
The announcement clarifies the president’s decision Tuesday that he intended to deploy the military to the border, among a series of responses recently to Congress’ refusal to appropriate the $25 billion he has demanded for the border wall.
Instead, Congress approved $1.6 billion last month for roughly 100 miles of barriers, much of it for fencing and “secondary” barriers.
-----------------------------------
And how appropriate that I make him dance for this message?
Trump sending National Guard to the border
A day after saying he would send the military to the U.S.-Mexican border, President Trump ordered the immediate deployment of the National Guard, but few details were available about the plan.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said Wednesday that Trump deploy the guard “in support of” the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. The president signed a proclamation Wednesday night ordering the mission.
Administration officials declined to say when that would happen, how many troops would be sent, where they would be posted or what they would do.
No details were available from either the Defense Department or Texas National Guard.
“It’s time to act,” Nielsen told reporters at a White House briefing.
Gov. Greg Abbott, who has assigned around 100 Texas Guard soldiers and airmen to the border under a state-funded program, intends to send more troops there, but a spokesman for his office declined to provide further details.
Abbott, in a statement Wednesday afternoon, cheered the administration’s decision, saying, “I welcome the support.” The guard, based at Austin’s Camp Mabry, said it had been given no guidance and was awaiting orders. Nielsen told reporters the administration’s action would be similar to past efforts, but that she didn’t want to “get ahead” of planning that involves governors.
“It will be strong, it will be as many as needed to fill the gaps today,” she said.
The announcement clarifies the president’s decision Tuesday that he intended to deploy the military to the border, among a series of responses recently to Congress’ refusal to appropriate the $25 billion he has demanded for the border wall.
Instead, Congress approved $1.6 billion last month for roughly 100 miles of barriers, much of it for fencing and “secondary” barriers.
-----------------------------------
And how appropriate that I make him dance for this message?
Speaking of immigration, look what Iowa is doing. Go Hawkeyes!
Iowa House approves 'sanctuary city' punishment
A measure that would punish so-called sanctuary communities in Iowa took a major step forward Tuesday as lawmakers approved a bill that would cut off state funding to cities and counties that circumvent federal immigration laws.
The Iowa House of Representatives approved Senate File 481 on a 55-45 vote as Latino activists watched from the upstairs visitor galleries, waving miniature U.S. and Iowa flags.
The bill now faces a final vote in the Iowa Senate, where it's expected to be approved.
"This legislation is about the rule of law and the safety of all people — citizens and immigrants alike," said the bill's floor manager, Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison.
But Democrats said the law would make communities less safe.
"Law enforcement officers and prosecutors will tell you that the way that you keep communities safe and people safe is you build trust between the local community and government and the people that it serves and protects," said Rep. Todd Prichard, D-Charles City.
"This will push people who would otherwise report when they’ve been victimized, report when they see something like a drug deal in their neighborhood. It will push them into the shadows and it will have a chilling effect on community members," he said.
Republican leaders have said the legislation is in response to a policy adopted in Iowa City that says the city will not commit local resources to enforcing federal immigration law, as well as similar policies in cities across the country.
"This issue, in my opinion, has been thrust upon us — provoked, if you will — by local municipalities across this country that for whatever reason have decided to thumb their nose at the rule of law and as a consequence put the lives of citizens and non-citizens at risk," said Rep. Greg Heartsill, R-Chariton.
Officials in Iowa City have stopped short of identifying themselves as a "sanctuary" community, which is often used as a catch-all term to indicate those communities with policies intended to limit their involvement with federal immigration authorities.
But Rep. Marti Anderson, D-Des Moines, said the policy does not meet the definition of sanctuary cities issued by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
"There are no sanctuary cities in Iowa," she said.
Republicans said the bill is intended to proactively prevent the types of crimes and circumstances that led to the death of Sarah Root, a 22-year-old Council Bluffs woman who was killed in Omaha in a January 2016 car accident involving an undocumented immigrant.
Eswin G. Mejia, 19, the man accused of driving drunk and causing the crash, was in the U.S. illegally and was charged with motor vehicle homicide. He fled after posting bond and has not been found.
"Who speaks for Sarah Root? Who speaks for others like her?" asked Rep. Jon Jacobsen, R-Council Bluffs, who said Root's family was in attendance Tuesday. "... This is going to save many lives. But to sacrifice innocent Americans on the pyre of political correctness is unjust."
One Democrat, Rep. Charlie McConkey of Council Bluffs, voted in favor of the measure. Five Republicans voted against it. They were Reps. Michael Bergan of Dorchester, Dave Heaton of Mount Pleasant, Megan Jones of Sioux Rapids, Kevin Koester of Ankeny and Gary Worthan of Buena Vista.
Iowa House approves 'sanctuary city' punishment
A measure that would punish so-called sanctuary communities in Iowa took a major step forward Tuesday as lawmakers approved a bill that would cut off state funding to cities and counties that circumvent federal immigration laws.
The Iowa House of Representatives approved Senate File 481 on a 55-45 vote as Latino activists watched from the upstairs visitor galleries, waving miniature U.S. and Iowa flags.
The bill now faces a final vote in the Iowa Senate, where it's expected to be approved.
"This legislation is about the rule of law and the safety of all people — citizens and immigrants alike," said the bill's floor manager, Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison.
But Democrats said the law would make communities less safe.
"Law enforcement officers and prosecutors will tell you that the way that you keep communities safe and people safe is you build trust between the local community and government and the people that it serves and protects," said Rep. Todd Prichard, D-Charles City.
"This will push people who would otherwise report when they’ve been victimized, report when they see something like a drug deal in their neighborhood. It will push them into the shadows and it will have a chilling effect on community members," he said.
Republican leaders have said the legislation is in response to a policy adopted in Iowa City that says the city will not commit local resources to enforcing federal immigration law, as well as similar policies in cities across the country.
"This issue, in my opinion, has been thrust upon us — provoked, if you will — by local municipalities across this country that for whatever reason have decided to thumb their nose at the rule of law and as a consequence put the lives of citizens and non-citizens at risk," said Rep. Greg Heartsill, R-Chariton.
Officials in Iowa City have stopped short of identifying themselves as a "sanctuary" community, which is often used as a catch-all term to indicate those communities with policies intended to limit their involvement with federal immigration authorities.
But Rep. Marti Anderson, D-Des Moines, said the policy does not meet the definition of sanctuary cities issued by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
"There are no sanctuary cities in Iowa," she said.
Republicans said the bill is intended to proactively prevent the types of crimes and circumstances that led to the death of Sarah Root, a 22-year-old Council Bluffs woman who was killed in Omaha in a January 2016 car accident involving an undocumented immigrant.
Eswin G. Mejia, 19, the man accused of driving drunk and causing the crash, was in the U.S. illegally and was charged with motor vehicle homicide. He fled after posting bond and has not been found.
"Who speaks for Sarah Root? Who speaks for others like her?" asked Rep. Jon Jacobsen, R-Council Bluffs, who said Root's family was in attendance Tuesday. "... This is going to save many lives. But to sacrifice innocent Americans on the pyre of political correctness is unjust."
One Democrat, Rep. Charlie McConkey of Council Bluffs, voted in favor of the measure. Five Republicans voted against it. They were Reps. Michael Bergan of Dorchester, Dave Heaton of Mount Pleasant, Megan Jones of Sioux Rapids, Kevin Koester of Ankeny and Gary Worthan of Buena Vista.
Oh yes Baby, oh yes, oh yes!
Trump sending National Guard to the border
A day after saying he would send the military to the U.S.-Mexican border, President Trump ordered the immediate deployment of the National Guard, but few details were available about the plan.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said Wednesday that Trump deploy the guard “in support of” the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. The president signed a proclamation Wednesday night ordering the mission.
Administration officials declined to say when that would happen, how many troops would be sent, where they would be posted or what they would do.
No details were available from either the Defense Department or Texas National Guard.
“It’s time to act,” Nielsen told reporters at a White House briefing.
Gov. Greg Abbott, who has assigned around 100 Texas Guard soldiers and airmen to the border under a state-funded program, intends to send more troops there, but a spokesman for his office declined to provide further details.
Abbott, in a statement Wednesday afternoon, cheered the administration’s decision, saying, “I welcome the support.” The guard, based at Austin’s Camp Mabry, said it had been given no guidance and was awaiting orders. Nielsen told reporters the administration’s action would be similar to past efforts, but that she didn’t want to “get ahead” of planning that involves governors.
“It will be strong, it will be as many as needed to fill the gaps today,” she said.
The announcement clarifies the president’s decision Tuesday that he intended to deploy the military to the border, among a series of responses recently to Congress’ refusal to appropriate the $25 billion he has demanded for the border wall.
Instead, Congress approved $1.6 billion last month for roughly 100 miles of barriers, much of it for fencing and “secondary” barriers.
-----------------------------------
And how appropriate that I make him dance for this message?
Hmm???
I believe there was a certain board member that suggested this on this thread......
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,599
- Reaction score
- 29,974
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Tibs? ElftardPoloLiar?
That is what the National Guard is supposed to be used for. Surprised it didn't happen sooner.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Border security is not the job of the National Guard except in the case of a border security emergency. It could be argued that we've been in that condition for many years.
https://www.ngaus.org/sites/default/files/pdf/primer fin.pdf
The War Powers Clause of the Constitution grants the federal government plenary authority to raise military forces and to employ such forces, including mobilized (sometimes referred to as “federalized”) National Guard units, under federal control and at federal expense for national defense purposes.
This is the authority under which the federal government mobilizes and deploys National Guard units and personnel for combat, combat support and combat service support missions at home and throughout the world. Such service is performed under the authority of Title 10 USC; service members performing such duty are therefore commonly said to be in “Title 10 duty status,” meaning, among other things, that command and control rests solely with the President and the federal government.
Since the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine and Coast Guard Reserves, like their active-duty counterparts, are federal military forces wholly controlled by the federal government, they are not directly accessible by Governors and duty performed by such personnel is always in “Title 10 status.” When performed within the United States, Title 10 duty (including Title 10 duty performed by National Guard personnel) is subject to a number of legal restrictions, including provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385), which severely limits the use of federal military forces in support of domestic law enforcement operations.
When employed at home or abroad in Title 10 status, National Guard forces are stripped of all state control and become indistinguishable elements of the federal military force. This was the authority used by the federal government to mobilize and deploy National Guard forces to augment federal law enforcement agencies at the Canadian and Mexican borders in the spring and summer of 2002.
Getting closer to my idea of shooting people trying to cross the border.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
For the record.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">DHS secretary, Kirtsjen Nielsen, told Mexican govt the National Guard won't carry guns & will only provide logistical & other support. Just like in 2006 and 2010, they won't be allowed to make arrests, unless Congress changes rules (not likely)... a big show for Trump´s base</p>— Maria Pena (@mariauxpen) <a href="https://twitter.com/mariauxpen/status/981709207429885953?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">DHS secretary, Kirtsjen Nielsen, told Mexican govt the National Guard won't carry guns & will only provide logistical & other support. Just like in 2006 and 2010, they won't be allowed to make arrests, unless Congress changes rules (not likely)... a big show for Trump´s base</p>— Maria Pena (@mariauxpen) <a href="https://twitter.com/mariauxpen/status/981709207429885953?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
we know who's next on the Federal chopping block.
Such a limited description of the effort.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/0...play-supporting-role-to-agents-at-border.html
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
Also for the record, there was a military presence on the southern border during the Clinton years and both Presidents Bush & Obama deployed National Guard to the border. In case anyone's busy patting themselves on the back what a genius, stand-alone move this is from Trump.
Or we're just glad he's living up to his promises to build walls and protect our borders. No, it couldn't be that, it has to be that every stupid person in America thinks this is the first time this is done. That's it!
Just remember those times and deployments were different. His Holy Obama is also the same jackass that told illegal immigrants in 2016 they'd face no penalties if they voted in the election.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,599
- Reaction score
- 29,974
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Jesus, Tibs, Trump SAID that using the National Guard on the border is something that Clinton and W. Bush did.
I get it - you hate Trump, to the point that you wish harm on America just to see Trump's policies fail. But for **** sake, try to avoid statements about "patting themselves on the back" as to what a genius Trump is for using National Guard on the border, where Trump himself explained why this was certainly permitted as other Presidents have done so.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,599
- Reaction score
- 29,974
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Oh, and Tibs, didn't you mock Trump for promising to destroy ISIS? Yeah, I'm pretty sure you did.
So how is ISIS doing nowadays? You can admit you were wrong. Go ahead.
So how is ISIS doing nowadays? You can admit you were wrong. Go ahead.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
No dummy, my comment was directed at you and this post of yours specifically.
Oh yes Baby, oh yes, oh yes!
You seemed particularly excited, as if you didn't realize this has been done several times before by other presidents, including President Obama, or that the National Guard will be unarmed with no specific policing or military role.
Uhm, sure, this deployment is different....because...uhm....err...
Last edited:
so if previous presidencies have determined that we need the National Guard on the border, and we continue to use these people in this fashion, wouldn't it make sense that we need to do more to secure the border, since we continue to have to use the National Guard on the border?
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 4,780
- Points
- 113
It would make sense....if you were a hate mongering, vile racist. Wait they did it too? Ummm, let's go back to talking about Stormy what's her face.
forgot, momentarily, that you must be The First Black President, Ye Who Can Do No Wrong, The Most Mostest, The Divider of Groups, The Big O, in order for this to be applauded with seal claps from the tolerant and intellectual left.
Oh no Tibsie PooPoo, see that's a classic example of you being a Libtard and putting words in my mouth. You are jumping to a conclusion. Inferring what you "think" my glee was all about.
I am excited as hell that he's addressing the caravan of illegals coming in. Happy as a clam. Living up to his campaign promises.
No where in my reverie did I TRY to indicate he was the first and only. Now did I?
Thank you for reminding me that I particularly get under your skin. You made my damned day!
Now back under your bed with your kitty cats.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
We don’t need Mexico. At all. For anything.
Mexico is a Narco Terrorist swamp. Drug Cartels run the government, all their leaders are in the cartel's pockets.
WE should move the border south - set up a 10 mile DMZ buffer zone inside Mexico and landmine the **** out of it,
BUILD THAT WALL DONALD J TRUMP!
Mexico is a Narco Terrorist swamp. Drug Cartels run the government, all their leaders are in the cartel's pockets.
WE should move the border south - set up a 10 mile DMZ buffer zone inside Mexico and landmine the **** out of it,
BUILD THAT WALL DONALD J TRUMP!
Similar threads
