Tag Archives: Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter: By signing the budget deal, Trump signs away his right as CIC to build the wall

Yesterday afternoon, the AP reported that “The White House confirms that President Donald Trump will sign a bill averting a potential partial government shutdown at the end of the week.”

At the same time, “Press Secretary Sarah Sanders says Trump will also take ‘other executive action — including a national emergency’ as he seeks to keep his border wall pledge.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) confirmed that Trump would quickly declare a national emergency, so as to divert money from other budget projects into building the southern border wall.

According to Ann Coulter, however, by signing the budget deal, Donald Trump has signed away his right as commander in chief to build a wall.

On the Lars Larson radio show yesterday, Coulter said (beg. 1:00 mark):

“It’s over…. I’ve been one saying since November 8, ‘Hey, you’re commander in chief. You have always had authority to build the wall. That is part of your job description.‘ They’ve talked about national emergency, and his special emergency powers, whether he uses that or not, he’s the commander in chief and his job is to keep America safe.

But now, he signed a bill in which he has signed those powers away. The bill that he signed prohibits any part of the wall going any place on our border. It allows not the prototypes, not a wall, but some gentle pedestrian bollard fencing, in one small section, the Santa Fe section, but only if the local authorities agree….

It’s worse than amnesty — it’s a pre-approved amnesty. You may not be deported if an ‘unaccompanied child’ is a member of your household. This will put human smuggling into overdrive. You could be an MS-13 member, anyone, any illegal in this country, just get a kid in the household, just traffick that child across the border, you got amnesty! That’s the bill he signed.

They’ll try to go to the Supreme Court and say, ‘Hey, I’m Commander In Chief! It’s my job to defend America!’. And the Supreme Court will say, ‘That’s funny, because whose signature is this on a bill that says the commander in chief isn’t allowed to build a wall? Whose John Hancock is on this?’

He has just signed away his inherent powers under the Constitution. It is over. There will not be a fence, there will not be a wall, there will not be a garden trellis, and there will be mass amnesty and open borders like you’ve never seen before. The country’s over, there’s no point to what you do, there’s no point to what I do, there’s no point to listening to this radio show because the whole country goes the way of California. America was nice while it lasted, but they outmaneuvered us, the people who wanted to destroy this country….

This bill passed the United States Senate 83 to 16. I understand some of the Democrats voted against it, so it won’t be held against them, they can’t be blamed for open borders. You know who can be? The guy who put his John Hancock on the bill — Donald Trump. Full open borders like something Hillary Clinton couldn’t have gotten through.”

So, is Ann Coulter correct in her assertions?

In seeking to confirm/disconfirm what Coulter said, I tried to find the primary source — the budget deal itself.

Infuriatingly, I couldn’t find a link to, or even the name of the budget deal in any of the news reports on the agreement. So I went to Congress.gov, and found the budget agreement among the 31 bill texts that Congress.gov received yesterday.

This is what H.J.Resolution 31: The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, which was passed by both the House and the Senate, and presented to President Trump today, says, which confirms what Ann Coulter said:

(1) Effective amnesty, i.e., no deportation, for illegals with an unaccompanied child:

Title II, Sec. 224. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act or any other Act, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the components funded by this Act, may be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to place in detention, remove, refer for a decision whether to initiate removal proceedings, or initiate removal proceedings against a sponsor, potential sponsor, or member of a household of a sponsor or potential
sponsor of an unaccompanied alien child (as defined in section 462(g) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(g))) based on information shared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

(2) No wall, but only pedestrian fencing may be built on the border:

Title II. Sec. 230. (a) Of the total amount made available under “U.S. Customs and Border Protection–Procurement, Construction, and Improvements”,$2,370,222,000 shall be available only as follows:
(1) $1,375,000,000 is for the construction of primary pedestrian fencing, including levee pedestrian fencing, in the Rio Grande Valley Sector;

Sec. 230. (b) The amounts designated in subsection (a)(1) shall only be available for operationally effective designs deployed as of the date of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31), such as currently deployed steel bollard designs, that prioritize agent safety.

(3) Not even pedestrian fencing in these areas:

Sec. 231. None of the funds made available by this Act or prior Acts are available for the construction of pedestrian fencing–
(1) within the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge;
(2) within the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park;
(3) within La Lomita Historical park;
(4) within the National Butterfly Center; or
(5) within or east of the Vista del Mar Ranch tract of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge.

(4) Construction of pedestrian border fencing is subject to local authorities’ approval (which means there won’t even be pedestrian fencing in places like California):

Sec. 232. (a) Prior to use of any funds made available by this Act for the construction of physical barriers within the city limits of any city or census designated place described in subsection (c), the Department of Homeland Security and the local elected officials of such a city or census designated place shall confer and seek to reach mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers within that city or the census designated place (as the case may be). Such consultations shall continue until September 30, 2019 (or until agreement is reached, if earlier) and may be extended beyond that date by agreement of the parties, and no funds made available in this Act shall be used for such construction while consultations are continuing.

Sec. 232. (c) The cities and census designated place described in this subsection are as follows:
(1) Roma, Texas.
(2) Rio Grande City, Texas.
(3) Escobares, Texas.
(4) La Grulla, Texas.
(5) The census designated place of Salineno, Texas.

While what Ann Coulter said about the budget deal — the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 — is true, does this mean that by signing the bill, President Trump effectively signed away his right as commander in chief to build a border wall?

Certainly, for Trump not to sign the bill would mean another government shut down — and government shut down has shown itself to be ineffective in pressuring the Demonrats to allocate the $5+ billion Trump wants to build the wall. But by signing the bill, Trump in effect agrees to the bill’s provisions, including its stipulation that the funds Congress has allocated for border security can only be spent on pedestrian fencing, instead of a wall.

But that doesn’t mean President Trump can’t muster funds outside of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 to build the wall, on the grounds of national emergency. Whether that will work remains to be seen.

H/t Auntie Lulu

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

5.0
01
Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Sunday Smile: The best election night compilation video of all time

Warning: Some foul language due to libtard butt hurt.

This will NEVER GET OLD.
DCG

3.0
01
Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Ann Coulter hits it out of the park at CPAC 2013


I think Ann is at her best when she has Liberal veins in her teeth. ~ TD 
The people who should take cover immediately include:

  • Chris Christie
  • Bill Clinton
  • President Obama
  • Lindsey Graham
Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Barnhardt: Why conservative media avoid Obama ineligibility

We “get it” as to why the Liberal Establishment Media simply refuse to investigate or even pay attention to the mounting evidence on Obama’s dubious birth eligibility to be POTUS. But we are baffled why supposedly Conservative media such as FoxNews and Hot Air, pundits such as Ann Coulter, and talk show hosts like Sean Hannity also shy away from it. Worse still, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly not just avoid it, they go out of their way to mock the “birthers”.

The fearless and outspoken Ann Barnhardt has an idea as to why. Here’s a hint:

“Follow the money!”

The following are excerpts from her blog of May 17, 2012, “Yes, I saw the Breitbart Obama Bio Thing” – referring to the revelation that, as recently as 2007, Obama’s literary agency Acton & Dystel in its book promotional brochures described Obama as having been “born in Kenya”:
Two points:
1. This proves that Obama is a stone-cold liar and con-man. Checkmate. Either he lied when he said he was born in Kenya, or he lied when he said he was born in Hawaii. The fact that he commissioned and released an OBVIOUSLY FORGED Hawaiian birth certificate certainly causes the Obama garbage scow to list to the side of the lie being that he was born in Hawaii.
Barack Obama IS A LIAR. He is a man of degenerate morality, and is a psychopath. Is anyone going to do anything about the fact that a con-artist psychopath is the Chief Executive of the largest economy in the world and the history of the world? Is anyone going to do anything about the fact that a con-artist psychopath is the Commander-in-Chief of the largest military force in the world and the history of the world? Is anyone going to do anything about the fact that the entire intelligence, law enforcement and bureaucracy of the United States government is either so incompetent that they couldn’t even vet ONE MAN or that they are complicit in Obama’s con?
Which segues into my second point . . .
2. The Breitbart group AND the HotAir fools (Ed Morrisey and Allahpundit), ONCE AGAIN are pissing all over people who dare point out that Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of the Presidency is seriously, seriously in question. They are doing this in the same breath WHILE REPORTING THIS VERY STORY, which proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that Obama is a liar and con-artist.
WHY? Why do these “conservatives” refuse to engage reality on this point?
I know the answer, and I warn you, it is very depressing.
These folks have made a BOATLOAD of money off of the Obama usurpation. Bottom line: Obama is good for business if you are a “conservative” blogger looking to advance your career and either move into a high-paying gig in the “mainstream media” OR attempting to establish a new-model business like Glenn Beck. It was reported (I think in Forbes) that Beck made a cool $80 million last year. Don’t think for a second that Morrisey, Allahpundit and the Breitbart Team aren’t salivating at the thought of seven-to-eight figure annual hauls.
I actually believe that most of these folks are rooting for Obama to “win”, for whatever that means in a lawless electoral environment, in November because Obama is very, very good for their businesses. Think about yourself. Do you read more or less news now than you did four years ago? Oh, I’d be willing to bet that you read MULTIPLES of what you read four years ago. I do. No doubt.
In order to get those page views, and thus that ad revenue, these folks want as much upheaval and fear among their readers as possible. Obama provides upheaval, fear and outrage in massive quantities. Thus more page views. Thus more income. If Romney is “elected”, many folks would stand down and traffic to sites like HotAir, Breitbart and Beck would curtail precipitously.
Before you accuse me of hypocrisy, please remember that there are no ads on this site. I have been told that I could easily generate several thousand dollars per month by putting ads up here. I refuse. I refuse to profiteer off of the end of the world. I also fully realize that if I started advertising here that I would notice and CARE about traffic, and would thus censor or otherwise shade what I write in order to maximize revenues and retain readers. Okay, at that point I would not be serving God, I would be serving mammon (money). Nope. I don’t give a crap if I have ten million readers or zero. It’s all exactly the same to me, and it is going to stay that way. In other words, HONEST.
Doing this “blogging thing” has done nothing but cost me money, and now that Barnhardt Capital Management is no longer in business (thanks to Obama crony and oligarch Jon Corzine, who stole $1.6 billion and totally destroyed the entire financial market paradigm) I am burning through reserves with each passing month. I have enough material to publish at least TWO books of essays – I even have a self-publishing deal ready to go – but I can’t bring myself to do it because I don’t want to go to hell for profiteering off of the death of my country and civilization.
So yeah, I am uniquely qualified to call out these money-hungry bloggers and pundits (Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh) who refuse to report on the fact that Obama is illegitimate, and who may even be rooting for his reign to continue.
Sins of omission are every bit as grave as sins of commission, and protecting income or assets is not a valid excuse for concealing the truth. Michelle, Ann C. and Rush may be able to buy their way out of the country when the poop hits the prop, but they won’t be able to buy their way out of their Particular Judgments.
+++
Like Barnhardt’s blog, Fellowship of the Minds (FOTM) also does not make any money for its owner (Dr. Eowyn) or our hardworking team of writers. FOTM does not solicit ads, nor do we have ads on this site. But FOTM’s host, WordPress, does occasionally insert an ad into one of our posts — which FOTM writers don’t see but you, dear reader, do. FOTM has no control over it, nor do we derive even a penny from those WordPress-inserted ads.
Like Barnhardt, I’ve also been told if FOTM were to go the commercial route, with total “hits” or views of over 4,373,000 in a mere 2 years and 5 months, we’d probably make thousands of dollars a month in ad revenue. But I had made a decision at FOTM’s inception on December 23, 2009, that this blog will remain non-commercial for the same reason as Barnhardt’s: I want our writers to speak the truth, unimpeded by fears of offending ad sponsors.
And that is why I laugh whenever some drive-by troll or an outraged reader goes into a hissy fit and threatens that he or she will no longer read FOTM. That threat is an empty one because it makes no difference to us: FOTM doesn’t live or die by how many hits we get. So if someone goes into a snit and threatens to forever leave FOTM, it’s not our loss. The loss is wholly yours!
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Democrats Are the Party of Racists

Jason Mattera of Human Events writes on June 14, 2011:

“A crucial part of the Democrats’ victim folklore is that they have been losing the South to Republicans over the past half century because the Democrats stood on principle to oppose race discrimination, while the Republican Party pandered to racists in the South—a region of the country liberals believe is composed primarily of Klan members….  The Republican Party’s allegedly racist appeal to Southerners is darkly referred to 17 times a day in the mainstream media as the ‘Southern Strategy.’

[In her new book, Demonic , Ann Coulter tackles] the popular myth that Democrats are the party of civil rights.  It’s the exact opposite, she states, noting, ‘It was Republicans who overwhelmingly introduced, promoted and passed every civil rights act from the end of the Civil War right up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act.’

…[The liberal fable is that] conservative hero Barry Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act in order to appeal to racists in the South, and for that reason, the GOP started to lose the black vote.  The reality is that Goldwater didn’t have a racist bone in his body…Goldwater founded the NAACP chapter in Arizona, integrated the Arizona National Guard and ended racial segregation in his family-owned department stores.  In other words, Goldwater was a vociferous foe of race discrimination, and actively fought to abolish all the Jim Crow laws that Democrat politicians adopted.”

Here’s Mattera’s interview with Coulter:

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GKM9abol3Uw]

H/t my friend Bob W.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0