Printable View
https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-p...6152/2000.jpeg
Trump eyes disaster money to fund border wall...
Insists He Never Promised Mexico Would Pay Directly...
WHITE HOUSE LAYS GROUNDWORK TO DECLARE EMERGENCY...
BUCHANAN: Do it!
Romney Rebuffs...
Pentagon ready to build...
Texas landowners ready to challenge...
https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-p...ca25/2000.jpeg
PAYDAY WITHOUT PAY
https://drudgereport.com/i/logo9.gif
Texas landowners ready to challenge...
BUILD THE WALL AND PUT THESE LANDOWNERS ON THE MEXICAN SIDE
SHUTDOWN BREAK 2019! 30 Dems, 109 lobbyists party in Puerto Rico as federal workers go without pay
January 12, 2019
By Martin Walsh
It’s Shutdown Break 2019!
Democrats are so worried about the partial government shutdown and federal workers being furloughed that many lawmakers are skipping town for a luxurious retreat.
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/wp-...er-400x300.jpg More than 30 Democrats are headed to Puerto Rico with 109 lobbyists and corporate executives for the weekend to discuss their “shared priorities.”
As noted by The Washington Examiner, Democratic lawmakers are taking fancy charter flights to their luxury resort, where they will also be seeing the Broadway show Hamilton and attending at least three parties.
The retreat in San Juan is hosted by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus BOLD PAC, where “key officials” will reportedly discuss “clean-up” options after Hurricane Maria at a round table Saturday.
Outside of that one event, it doesn’t look like the nearly three dozen Democratic lawmakers will be doing anything other than vacationing and doing absolutely nothing.
“We are excited for you to join us for CHC BOLD PAC’s 2019 Winter Retreat in San Juan, Puerto Rico! Each year, this retreat serves as a way for our CHC BOLD PAC Members and friends in the D.C. community to come together to escape the cold and discuss our shared priorities for a stronger and more prosperous country,” said a memo on the trip.
“This year’s winter retreat promises to be our most widely attended yet with over 220 guests, including 39 Members of Congress and CHC BOLD PAC supporters expected to attend and participate!” the planning added.
The seaside resort where the event is taking place is so nice that rooms go for $429 a night and all food and drinks are being provided.
In total, BOLD PAC, the political arm of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, reported that they chartered 737 members, their families, and chiefs of staff to attend the event over the weekend.
The memo also informed everyone that the weather will be a perfect 80 degrees and that the dress code is “resort casual.”
The group did not identify which Democratic lawmakers were attending the event, but a list obtained by the Examiner shows that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s name is on it.
She reportedly did not make the trip — perhaps aware of how bad it would make her look — but other top Democrats such as Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., reportedly made the trip.
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/shu...JxmMb5HyeP2u7I
Pelosi party in Hawaii...now party in Puerto Rico while you SAPS work for no pay and flood our country with illegal aliens which YOU will pay for too!
Cheers snowflakes!!!
Enjoy those Tide Pods now...ya hear!
https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.mPRGl...=7&o=5&pid=1.7
President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 into law "approved $50 Billion for the wall"
WHERE IS THAT MONEY?
THIS FALLS UNDER THE RICO ACT
The cost estimate for the fencing under the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was $50 billion over 25 years. However, the Congress only set aside $1.4 billion for the pedestrian fencing, vehicle barriers, roads, lighting, and fence sensors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbornesapper07
Furthermore, there was an amendment in 2007 to the Secure Fence Act of 2006 that changed and reduced the original requirements. We have former Secretary of DHS, Micheal Chertoff, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, both Republicans, to thank for watering down the original fence act.
Do you have a link source for that one?
I'm not linking you to the limited contents of my brain pan. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was a huge piece of legislation that many of us followed very closely. However, if there is something your questioning, I'm sure you or I can find the information. What is it exactly that you don't believe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Judy
It's my recollection that the amendment gave the Secretary of DHS authority to use different types of fencing and barriers to better suit the terrain and situation. That was not "watering it down" or reducing it. That was the flexibility to use what was needed for specific locations, terrains, and circumstances. Makes sense to me. Why do you treat that as a negative? If you need a 30 foot pedestrian wall instead of cross-beams to prevent vehicles, why would you have a problem with building the better structure to fit the circumstance without having to go back to Congress for approval of the change?Quote:
Furthermore, there was an amendment in 2007 to the Secure Fence Act of 2006 that changed and reduced the original requirements. We have former Secretary of DHS, Micheal Chertoff, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, both Republicans, to thank for watering down the original fence act.
This Amendment may actually give Trump the authority to build his picket fence design without having to secure approval from Congress to do so. Very valuable Amendment seems to me.
You're seriously mistaken if you don't think the 2007 amendment didn't water down the Secure Fence Act of 2006!Quote:
Originally Posted by Judy
Omnibus Bill Includes Border Fence-Gutting Amendment
Quote:
Buried On Page 123 of Division E, Hutchison Amendment Removes Double-Layer Fence Requirement, Gives DHS Discretion
December 17, 2007 11:46 AM Eastern Standard Time
MAXWELL, Iowa--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill includes a little-known provision that guts the major provisions of the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This provision -- buried on page 123 of Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act - contradicts the Secure Fence Act’s specific mandate of a double-layer fence covering 854 miles of the U.S-Mexico border.
“In fact, DHS would not be required to build fencing in any particular location -- and the double-layer mandate is totally gone.”Grassfire.org has been tracking this provision which was first introduced quietly by Sen. Hutchison this summer as S.Amdt. 2466 to H.R. 2368 (the DHS appropriations bill). “The Hutchison amendment gives DHS virtually total discretion over how and where the fence is built,” says Grassfire.org President Steve Elliott. “In fact, DHS would not be required to build fencing in any particular location -- and the double-layer mandate is totally gone.”
Tweet this
In its report on the “Fence Funding Hoax,” Grassfire has chronicled how the plan to gut the Secure Fence Act was actually hatched the day the bill passed the Senate in 2006. (View that report.) “I find it odd that such an important amendment which releases DHS from specific requirements of an existing law would be passed by a simple voice vote in the Senate and then buried in the massive omnibus bill,” says Elliott. “The American people reasonably expect that a double-layer fence will be built but Congress has always had other plans. This amendment should be stripped from the final omnibus bill.”
https://ncvoiceblog.wordpress.com/20...ted-revisions/Quote:
Omnibus Appropriations Bill Guts Fencing, Other Immigration-Related revisions
From FAIR:
This week, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) came under increasing pressure for her amendment to the FY08 Omnibus Appropriations Bill (H.R.2764) that grants the Department of Homeland Security significant discretion regarding the border fence (Houston Chronicle, January 12, 2008). Approximately 700 miles of two-layered fencing was mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, but since the legislation was signed into law, critics have been looking for opportunities to undermine it. Senator Hutchison as early as January 2007 expressed “deep skepticism” about the fence (Dallas Morning News, January 10, 2007) and during the course of the past year successfully offered several amendments that required Homeland Security to increase consultation with border communities and gave the Department more discretion in building the fence. None of the bills to which these amendments were attached passed, however, until the Omnibus Appropriations legislation was enacted in December.
Border security advocates claim the Hutchison amendment dismantles the Secure Fence Act. The amendment: (1) eliminates the requirement for two-layered fencing; (2) deletes the specific locations for fencing set out in statute and replaces them with language that gives Homeland Security broad discretion in determining where the fencing will be built; and (3) has a sweeping consultation requirement that requires Homeland Security to consult with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as Indian tribes and “property owners.”
Finally the Hutchison amendment is particularly troubling to fence advocates because of a paragraph that some argue calls into doubt the construction of any fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. That language provides that notwithstanding the requirement that Homeland Securityconstruct 700 miles of fencing along the southwest border, “[N]othing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location” (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Division E, § 564(a)(2)(B)(ii) [internal paragraph (D)]).
Already, opponents of the border fence are gearing up for a lawsuit based on Hutchison’s amendment. Peter Schey, executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, an organization supporting several opponents of the fence, sent Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff a letter on Monday threatening legal action to prevent any further fence construction. Schey’s principal claim is that the Secretary must restart the process of building the fence in order to consult with affected parties as required by the Hutchison amendment (Dallas Morning News, January 9, 2008).
Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), one of the authors of the Secure Fence Act, told reporters Friday that the Texas Senator’s change was “either a blatant oversight or a deliberate attempt to disregard the border security of our country” (United Press International, January 11, 2008). In response to her critics, Senator Hutchison said, “I feel like this has been a little blown out of proportion” (Houston Chronicle, January 12, 2008). Hutchison insists her measure in no way jeopardizes the fence construction once due to get under way in Texas in the spring (Id.).
Yes, Kay Bailey Hutchinson was a Republican and like I implied earlier her and Secretary Chertoff completely undermined the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Of course the Obama administration didn't waste anytime taking advantage of Hutchinson's amendment to the Secure Fence Act.
Under the Amendment, the Secretary of DHS, has the authority to build what they think is best for the location and circumstance. I agreed with it then, and I still do. The Amendment is still there, it's still the law, the Secretary can build what they want where they want under existing law, as amended. So Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and the DemoQuacks are dead wrong and are violating the Secure Fence Act of 2006, as amended in 2007, claiming it is "immoral". I posted the other day that the President needs to pull out that legislation and study it, because he already has the authority to build what he wants where he wants under existing law and thus can pull unspent money from wherever he can find it to pay for it without a national emergency.
You never disappoint. Just leave it to you to try and spin a serious negative into a plus for Trump. Absolutely amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Judy
It's a plus for any President who wants to secure the border with fences/walls/barriers.