Posted on 03/26/2018 8:15:05 AM PDT by OneVike
you have Kool-Aide on your chin.
Someone should have hit him with a shoe, shot out of a bazooka, at former king obamatard.
I’ve also seen libs laughing that Trump may have to resort to this fence design (ha-ha, the mighty Trump Wall), but what they don’t appreciate is that, if it works as intended, it is a complete win for Trump. Doesn’t matter what it looks like, if it keeps em out.
They laugh about tunnels, but fail to appreciate that tunnels take time to dig, and we have ground penetrating radar, to locate such things. Who do you think will get the last laugh. Let them spend the time & resources and still not make it under the fence.
There was a bit on ‘Whose Line is It Anyway’ where one of the players turned down a drink in a bar by saying, “I can’t. Can’t you see that I’m a miner?” (while wearing a miner’s hardhat complete with flashlight.)
Once they change the conditions it makes it a new one without the same teeth as the old one.
There are over 1200 pages full of items that changed to conditions of the last appropriations bill. So what Fakipedia states is not applicable here.
The steel beams driven into the ground provides some defense against tunnels as well.
As long as something gets put up, I don’t care what it looks like, as long as it is effective.
12 foot chain link is not.
>> Fencing is all that can be built <<
Double fencing, with a road between the two fences, is exactly what the Israelis have used to protect their border against terrorist infiltration. And this system has worked extremely well.
Would also be better than a “wall” because it would allow the Border Patrol to have a full view of what’s happening on the other side, whereas a wall would block the view.
They didnt say he cant use a hybrid of 2 or more prototypes. Legaleese language can hurt you as mush as help you. So if Trump construvts the wall using the bottom design of one and the top design of another, then he has not used any one full prototype as banned by the omnibus.
With all due respect, please consider the following critique of your article.
"As such, he is not bound by law to do everything it calls for."
Noting that I watched the March 23, 1 PM EST Trump critique of the pile of paper that he said he would sign, please consider this. If Trump had discretionary control of the funding of the bill, then why did he give the impression that he had a noose around his neck (imo), assuring everybody that he will never sign another bill like that?
And do the “winning” Democrats actually not care if recipients of the unconstitutional domestic funding in the bill never got their funds?
And if the Democrats don’t care, then Trump’s 1 PM lament seemed like a pro-Democratic dog-and-pony show in an election year imo.
Note that the way that the corrupt federal fiscal budget is set up, a new president, for his first year in office, has to deal with a budget signed by his predecessor. So Pres. Trump and everybody else was arguably still under Obama’s thumb for 2017 federal fiscal year.
Patriots need to exercise their voting power so that one of the first jobs of a new president is to sign a new fiscal budget.
Also, here’s the Constitution’s mandatory transparency clause for the federal budget.
"Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time [emphasis added]."
Again, thanks for posting, but dust not settled on this issue.
Insights welcome.
>> This is total nonsense and has been circulating for a few days now <<
Yeah, but say that and you’ll be seriously flamed.
Lol...I’ll bite..
On what basis can Congress impeach Trump on misappropriation of funds?
He has legal authority by Congress to spend as he sees fit.
> why did he give the impression that he had a noose around his neck (imo), assuring everybody that he will never sign another bill like that?
Perhaps because, if the ‘cRats realize they’ve been played, they will never send him such a bill again. Thus, he indeed my never sign such a bill again. The Constitution calls for the primary job of Congress to appropriate and authorize project funding. They have failed to complete that basic task of their job description for the past decade.
What happened to the Two Year Budget deal from late last year?
I thought that was passed so we wouldn’t have to deal with crap like this. Maybe I just imagined it.
Facts don’t matter if chuckie doesn’t get his tunnel. Trump signed an agreeement on where money will go. He’s very aware that he doesn’t have nearly the leeway Obama had. He’s not one to renege on agreements, which explains why he looked like he ate a crap sandwich on Friday.
Perhaps I put too much stock in 3D chess, but the media and the Democrats spent a fair amount of time crowing about how They Won. This was a great bill. The Progressives made it happen! This wasn't Trump's bill! This was the Schumer and Pelosi! As they said, they can get more done while in the Minority than they could when in the Majority!
And here we are, with Trump possibly getting exactly what he wanted and the Democrats getting possibly nothing.
Will they now declare defeat? Will they say that Trump outsmarted them? Is "their" appropriations bill a bad bill? I say that Trump snookered them twice -- he got the bill, and he got them to go on TV and praise the bill as the best thing ever. Because, you know, he looked so defeated when he signed it.
assuring everybody that he will never sign another bill like that
The POTUS should sign budget bills. Not appropriations bills. Trump knows that. I think he just won a nice victory with this appropriations bill, and I think he is ALSO saying: we'll be doing budget bills from here on out. We need to do it the right way. And let me show you why ... [because they just handed him 1.3T to play with].
>> continuing resolution continues the pre-existing appropriations <<
Well yes, but us slow thinkers need to be educated in the fact that the Omnibus Bill is not actually a budget — according to the constitutional experts around here.
These brilliant folks have magically found the word “budget” somewhere in the Constitution, and therefore they can prove to us that the POTUS is now empowered to spend defense appropriations on a border wall. The logic follows as night follows day.
Waste of bandwidth? We report, you decide.
To clarify, you can impeach a ham sandwich if you have the votes. If he deviates in this spending, the uniparty will revolt. If they have the votes to pass this crap, those same votes can impeach.
LOL!
Good point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.