Pressure builds on Trump to declare national emergency to fund border wall


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

The coming dark age: Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) joined a growing chorus from the right calling for President Trump to fund and build the border wall by declaring an national emergency.

Trump himself has raised this option, and has even looked into the legality. Whether he will do it remains at this moment unknown.

What is known is that to do such a step would continue the ugly process of increasing the arbitrary power of the president, irrelevant to Congress or elections. This process has been on-going since President Roosevelt in the 1930s and 1940s, but it accelerated significantly during Obama’s term. If Trump bypasses Congress he will further cement the idea that the President can do whatever he wants, without restrictions.

The eventual result will be a dictatorship, not by Trump but by a future President, in the not too distant future. I say this as a historian who has studied how democratic governments fall. We are heading that way.

Share

59 comments

  • Phill O

    Bob, your point is well taken. I have been reading “Killing Regan”. O’Reilly writes that it was Regan who first started the gun regs of California in response to the intimidation the Black Panthers were doing with their carrying of firearms in inappropriate places. We now see the outcome of this start.

    Apart from that, I believe the dems opposition to the wall (in whatever form) is treasonous to Americans. The result of the open border is far more costly than the wall. In AZ and NM, we need more hoofs on the ground including more barriers whether physical or electronic. Also, move the border patrol stations to the border, not 50 miles north as is current. Also, reducing lights at FOBs is important. The FOBs are so well lit that they have become beacons for navigation by the drug runners and illegals.

    This problem is a national emergency. The dems abhorrence to the law is also a national emergency.

    Again in “Killing Regan” O’Reilly writes about the communist trending of hollywood during Regan’s acting time. We now see the outcome of hollywood following that path.

  • Chris Lopes

    It’d be a stupid move on a couple of levels. While your argument is spot on as far as the long term goes, it’s also a bad idea in the short term. Declare an emergency, and all the Hitler comparisons suddenly become real. The Democrats go ballistic, the media backs them up, and Mr. and Mrs. Average American begins to think impeachment isn’t such a wild idea.

  • Cotour

    I do not believe that Trump will go the emergency route, too complex and just a slow motion train wreck.

    It will be much more effective if the Democrats in the red districts of the country start to pressurize the Democrat leadership through their representatives to abandon their purely political obstruction position and do something in the security interests of our country. Everyday Americans for the most part understand that there is a security problem on the Southern border and they want it addressed.

    What is the indicator that this can be accomplished? Trump being willing to stay focused and not relent and force them to bend to his demands. Thats the game and Trump plays that game.

    A fence and security measures with a cost of 5.7 billion dollars, 1 10th of 1 percent of the Federal budget being refused for political reasons and federal employees not being paid because of it.

    This is Trumps to lose, this is for all the marbles.

  • Chris Lopes

    Not sure I agree that it’s his to lose, but the response to Trump’s speech didn’t help the Democrat cause. Trying to drum up sympathy for a group of upper middle class government workers is a lost cause. It also tells the folks in flyover country who you are really working for.

  • Cotour

    That should read “Blue” districts of the country.

    PS: A little perspective, how much is California spending on their high speed rail that no one will use? I think its $77 billion dollars.

    Don’t believe in fences Democrats? Show your commitment to the immorality of the concept of the fence and remove all of the gates from all of your properties. Have I made my point?

    PPS: Trump made the point that the wheel was older than the fence. That is incorrect, the fence is the simplest and most effective form of technology devised by man and is much older than the wheel.

    Trumps point is still valid though, the wheel is old technology and so is the fence and they are both employed still to this day because they are so effective.

  • Phill O: If you are reading a book about Ronald Reagan you should then be aware the proper spelling of his name. :)

  • Cotour

    The cracks in the Democrat party begin to be seen on CNN?

    https://youtu.be/ybo0-WBvv-U

  • wodun

    Congress has already authorized the directer of DHS to construct whatever infrastructure and barriers that they think is required in the 2006 Fence Act. https://lidblog.com/secure-fence-act/

    Trump should look into this as there may be a way to use existing laws to get the wall built.

  • Edward

    Robert wrote: “What is known is that to do such a step would continue the ugly process of increasing the arbitrary power of the president, irrelevant to Congress or elections.

    Wait. Does this mean that Trump could become a part of the very swamp that we want him to drain? Say it ain’t so, because such a move would provide us with the wall that we all want (even the Democrats have said, before Trump would get credit for it, that they want the wall). We should accept any means necessary to get what we want, because the end justifies the means. Right?

    Heck, we could get anything that we want, without Congress, and the president could act like a dictator or king, just by declaring all kinds of emergencies. Oh, wait. We would only get anything that the president wants, not necessarily what we want.

    The good news is that emergencies are few, far between, and short lived, so we should expect tyrannical behavior to be rare.
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/trump-wall-active-national-emergency/

    57 declared in the past 40 years; 31 still in effect, one of which is four decades old.

  • wayne

    I would put forth the proposition; Lindsey Graham is an idiot and should shut up. Why we listen to this clown is beyond me.

    Ronald Reagan utilized many of the emergency powers specified in the 1976 law passed by Congress. Export Controls being a biggie. But as the law states quite clearly, the Executive Branch has broad discretion.
    Where as Obama just invented imaginary laws. Big difference.

  • wayne

    Mark Levin: Why President Trump can use Emergency Powers for the Wall
    January 10, CRTV
    https://youtu.be/dpdcEOFAUtU
    10:17

  • wayne

    Look up the “CRS Report on National Emergency’s Act of 1976.”

  • Phill O

    Bob I am afraid my 3rd grade teacher could not get me spelling correctly. It is just not going to happen no matter how hard I try, it continues.

  • wayne

    hot-link—

    “CRS Report on National Emergency’s Act of 1976.”
    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf

  • Brendan

    Bob-
    This is not the end of the world. It’s been declared multiple times by multiple presidents. This is Trumps’ first. Obama did it a dozen times.

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/08/trump-national-emergency-not-unprecedented-obama/

  • Cotour

    Brendan:

    Your not really fully comprehending what will take place. Because it is Trump and Trump represents a real and tangible existential threat to the Democrat / RINO Republican powers that be and their media sycophants a move like Trump exercising an emergency declaration, even though he is well within his rights to do so, will be interpreted and cast in the public by the media and by those threatened politics as a Hitlarian type strong man move.

    Trump is better off waiting it out and forcing the Dems to his will through increasing pressure from the outside who see the dems as being just unreasonable and entirely political and ultimately anti American. If trump is strong here he will in time prevail and more importantly be respected. (By at least a good half of the country that is)

    The fact that these self interested politicos and the fate of their party’s and their place at the public power and money trough and their 50 year investment in pushing America further and further to the Left to secure it forever makes them very dangerous, just like a cornered animal. You can expect anything from them and their deep state co dependents. And I mean anything up to and including the most extreme measures you can imagine.

    So in real terms this is the end of the world for a segment of America, and Trump is the man that can and will deliver their demise. And it must happen for everyone’s sake, this is Trumps destiny as I see it.

    Let us not be naive, from the beginning this Trump presidency was in for it from the start and it will be every day, every day, every day until the end of his presidency and that will hopefully be another 4 years starting in 2020.

  • MDN

    So far, all Trump has done is make the Ds blatantly reveal their total resistance to enforcing reasonable border security. That may be all he really seeks and he will simply hold tight with the shutdown, but as it happens that is simply illustrating how little impact furloughing ~15% of the federal workforce (those deemed non-essential) is really having.

    And that sets up future discussions to downsize government by cutting much of these non-essential functions (can you say SLS?) with the now fiscally hawkish Ds since $5B is such a big deal. With our debt now at $22T this could make for some interesting debates in 2020.

    That said I think Trump could well go the national emergency route. As it is set up they can debate this for the next month and read the polls. My sense is that so far those are backing Trump as none are being reported that I have seen and it’s been 4 days since the national address. And if it looks grim for the Ds they will cave and we move on. But if it trends against Trump and he is serious he wants the wall, he’ll pull the trigger before or at the SOTU address and use that venue to make his case again, and this time to a much larger audience and with no real time constraint.

    That will trigger lawsuits for sure and that will take 3-6 months to get to the Supreme Court, but if it goes that far I suspect he prevails. Then he goes into 2020 with the Army Corps of Engineers running full tilt building the whole slam, not just a $5B start, and a happy and energized base. And win or lose whatever gets built is not going to be removed, so he’ll have a lasting, and likely effective (what the Ds really fear) legacy. And Trump is a real estate developer, so I’m guessing he would know how to push the Corps to get A LOT done before inauguration day 2021 on what in reality is a pretty basic construction project. Especially with a $100B Pentagon construction slush fund (a non verified number I’ve heard) suddenly in play.

    WRT Bob’s dire view to such an action all I can say is border security is national security, so this is clearly way closer to his Constitutional authority than approving DACA was for Obama. And it will almost certainly never proceed without the Supreme Court weighing in on its legitimacy, so if it proceeds it WILL BE Constitutional to do so.

    One mans opinion.

  • I find it depressing how the comments here generally confirm the trends I expressed in my post, whereby the American public and our politicians are increasingly okay with the idea of a president having the right to arbitrarily dictate what must happen, independent of Congress or the law. This began in the mid-20th century, and continues at an increasingly faster rate. And the willingness of people on both the left and the right to encourage it, for their own political gains, only bodes ill for the future of freedom and constitutional government.

  • commodude

    The three branches of government were meant to be co-equal, with none having the power to act unilaterally. The childish pettiness of each branch has got to end. We need to move away from politicians, and towards statesmen. I see none in either party at the moment at the national level. All are concerned with their egos, their party, their “cred”, and none are concerned with their duty to the voters and the United States above all.

    I voted for the candidate I did in the Presidential election not as a motion of support, but as a motion of disgust with the status quo from both parties.

  • MDN

    I share the concern, and in an ironic way if Trump takes this action it could in fact be a good thing because it will be challenged and go to the court. Too often Congress has neglected their duty to challenge the president. The most recent cases of import include the attacks on Libya that were legal under the war Powers act for 90 days, but which Obama continued for 9 months under the ludicrous claim that they were not combat. And these actions toppled a sovergn regime and destabilized the western border of a shaky Egypt, and left a mess we had no plan or intention to clean up.

    And most recently, under Trump, we continue to pursue combat in the Middle East on the basis of a Congressional authorization for the use of force dating to 2001 for measures against Al Queda and the Taliban. How on God’s green earth does that cover interventions against ISIS in Syria?

    Then there is the Paris Accord and Iran agreements pursued as Executive Agreements but intended to commit the country to sustained, trans administration, obligations. Those were not agreements, they were treaties which by the Constitution require approval by the Senate.

    It is Congress who has failed us, but in this case the D’s WILL attempt to counter Trump. Again, I think they will fail in this case after temporary success in the lower courts, but I could be wrong as Roberts has proven quite creative in deferring to Congressional will what with his interpretation of the O’care mandate as a tax. Regardless it will pave the way to a more regular exercise of Congressional power to check the actions of the Executive.

    And I just hope the Republicans are paying attention and taking notes. Because if they aren’t then Trump’s greatest legacy, the appountment of an unprecedented number of conservative judges to the federal bench, will go wasted as you have no chance to prevail if you refuse to try, which has sadly been their modus operandi.

  • BSJ

    It is depressing Bob. I’ve said all along that Trump, and Trumpism, is a danger to the Constitution. And now that he has destroyed the Republican party and rebuilt it in his image, those of us who still hold the Constitution above all else are increasingly left with the choice between evil and more evil. There is nothing lesser about either anymore!

    Republicans used to be the strongest supporters of the Constitution, which was why I supported them over the Democrats, but now they are eagerly clamoring for its destruction because they hold Trump above all else. They seem to forget that he is only a temporary occupant of the office of President…

    What comes next will be even worse than today. We’ll either get the Left’s anti-Trump. Or the Right’s Trump-plus.

    Dark ages indeed.

    Ps. The Russians are stationing supper-sonic nuclear bombers in Venezuela, and all anyone can talk about is the stupid wall. We went to the brink of ‘War’ over a few missiles in Cuba, long ago, when that sort of stuff seemed to matter…

  • commodude

    BSJ,

    One man is not and cannot be a danger to the Constitution. Our Republic is far stronger than that. Two entrenched political parties who cannot compromise and work together, however, are a clear an present danger to our Republic.

    As to the BlackJacks in Venezuela, they’re nothing more than forward positioned targets with little actual military threat, they’re there for PR purposes. We almost went to war with the USSR over Cuba because the missiles were a threat. The bombers are flying targets, and Vlad knows it.

    Evidently Putin has the PR war down pat.

  • Cotour

    BSJ:

    What you are witnessing in this wall issue is the exercise of focused and hopefully unrelenting and determined political strategy, nothing more and nothing less. What disturbs you is that there is a president that is willing to “go there”, as in actually attempting to turn the ship of state in what in his opinion and many, many other Americans, including mine, is a more proper American centric direction and abandon the the Globalist / leftist direction we have been on for quite some time now.

    You just do not recognize actual leadership because all other modern presidents bent to the will of the Left because of their flaccid political concerns, I.E. payoffs, and not because of their American centric vision. Most presidents were / are just tools of bigger men’s and associations agendas on the planet earth. I give you G.Bush jr. as a prime example. Things like the Constitution can become bothersome to these high achievers and masters of the universe. And we need masters of the universe, we just need them to believe in the rules and structure of the Constitution as a general rule. Trump seems to be at least to some great degree one of the latter mentioned types of leaders.

    We are just witnessing the political warfare that is set up in the Constitution by the Founders, they understood how messy things could and sometimes would become. Our Constitution invites and sets up this political warfare it does not protect us from it, for there in untested and soft it could become easily usurped.

    And so you and others can choose to be “depressed” over what has been allowed to go on in America in the name of “Bi partisan” compromise, which to me only means the more Conservatives adherents to the concepts of the Constitution among the politicos have been cowed or did not have the stones or votes to do what must be done. And we being adults understand that when you allow something like this to fester and become worse and worse over time the solution and righting things becomes ever more messy. You have heard of the frog in the slowly warming pot that will in time cook him? Thats us. PREPARE FOR MESSY!

    Trump is but a symptom of a desperate population, he is not the cause. “Trumpism, is a danger to the Constitution.”. Really? I think not.

  • Phill O

    Question: If the democrat party is so willing to disregard the constitution and cry for the impeachment of their opponent at every turn, and try to block every action of their opponent, What do you do? The dems have demonstrated they are willing to lie and cheat at every opportunity; just consider their treatment of Kavanaugh

  • Phill O: The solution certainly should not be to join the Democrats in disregarding the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is what our culture appears willing to do.

  • Cotour

    The culture can desire what ever it wants, that is all emotional energy being voiced in the purposefully confused public’s minds. Its what the political party leadership chooses to do in executing their Constitutional fiduciary responsibilities that is where the rubber meets the road.

    And the Democrats, like I have been pointing out for quite some time, are in an existential moment in their evolution as they attempt to further pander to the “Everything is free” Left and are desperate, and THAT makes them the more dangerous and more Constitution disregarding and surrendering political party.

    The Constitution is designed exactly for what is going on and the choices must be made and fought for in the political arena. This however does not come with guarantees only potentials.

  • Phill O

    I am reminded of the wars where the military gets handicapped or one arm tied behind their back. This may not be the best analogy.

    Maybe the constraints put on the anti-terrorist squads in Ireland might be a better one.

  • Phill O

    How this could happen by democracy, is scary for me. I once thought the real problems would be for not the next generation but the one after. However, now it is for the next generation but the one which is near life’s end that I worry.

    https://www.wired.com/story/how-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-shapes-new-political-reality/

  • Cotour

    This was made by and for a Democracy.

    ” In a world awash in irony and preening phoniness, she possesses the unique and valuable currency of authenticity: She is who she ran as, she’ll be that same person in office, and it drives her political opponents crazy.”

    That should read: “And it drives her political opponents in her own party crazy”, because that is who she is the biggest threat to.

    Her child like purity and willingness to share her honest thinking on the many subjects that she is willing to share are either manna from heaven or an introduction to Americas brave new world where the Washington political overlords live a very, very nice life while they direct all others and their activities and lives. Much like the Chinese Mandarins that run China today.

    I say AOC is manna from heaven.

    Its important to always remember that America and its Democracy is an open society and it invites those who oppose it, like the Chinese and the Russians to come and interact with it, spy on it, steal from it, etc, etc and in turn benefit from it. And that is very counter intuitive but it in many ways is where America and its Constitutions strength lies as we tend to drag those more closed and authoritarian societies more towards us rather then they dragging us more towards them.

    What is going on in Washington today? Determined and focused presidential leadership, a most rare occurrence for sure that not many recognize. It may make people tense and up tight but so does going to the dentist. We will get on the other side of all of this and an optimist assumes that it will all work out for the best in the long term.

  • m d mill

    This law giving the president the power to take emergency action AT HIS DISCRETION was enacted by congress. It is moral and legal to use it. The democrats have certainly used such law. It would be idiocy for trump not to invoke it (or to call for Trump not to invoke it) if he so deems. The congress can rescind the law if they so chose. Perhaps they should and will think twice before enacting any such law in the future.

  • Phill O

    Interesting take m d mill!

  • Edward

    m d mill wrote: “It would be idiocy for trump not to invoke it (or to call for Trump not to invoke it) if he so deems.

    This is Robert’s point that joining the Democrats in disregarding the Constitution is what our culture and some commenters here appear willing to do. The pressure is for Trump to use this law to become more tyrannical, like the swamp is. Apparently, few people see this, choosing instead for the end despite the tyrannical nature of the means.

    It would be tyrannical for Trump to invoke it. Just because the Democrat-controlled Congress, in 1974, believed that no Republican would ever again be in office (because Nixon) does not make a law moral — it only makes it legal, except that it violates the Preamble (spirit) and checks and balances (letter) of the Constitution. Congress could pass a law that rescinds this bad law, but then they have to convince the (possibly tyrannical) president to give up his powers as dictator. George Washington would have done so, but are modern presidents pro-liberty enough to do so? President Ford was pro-tyranny enough to sign the bad law in the first place.

    Democrats will not think twice before creating such laws. California’s Democrat legislature and Democrat governor recently enacted and now use an election law that allows a week for Democrats to create enough votes to overcome the lead of any Republican candidate who has won the election on election night. They think that Californian elections will never again be run by anyone other than Democrats, so to them this seems like a good law or even the best law ever (because the end justifies the means, right?).

    But even if some other political party starts to run Californian elections and uses this law to create votes for its own candidates, that still does not justify the loss of the democratic process and the gain of tyranny by the other party.

    The Preamble of the Constitution makes clear that this country is supposed to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” but using means other than democracy and the republic that the Constitution created destroys the liberty that we were promised. To declare a state of emergency for political or personal reasons is tyrannical, destroys our liberty, and bypasses the checks and balances that we are supposed to have in order to protect liberty from a tyrannical government.

    An Article V Convention is the second-to-last resort for protecting ourselves from the tyranny that is taking over our national government. If Trump becomes a part of the swamp that we had hoped he would drain, then it becomes imperative that we use this resort. Sooner, not later.

  • m d mill

    This is not “disregarding” the constitution nor tyrannical …it is completely constitutional ie…

    This law giving the president the power to take emergency action AT HIS DISCRETION was enacted by congress. It is moral and legal and constitutional to use it. The democrats have certainly used such law. It would be idiocy (IMO) for trump not to invoke it (or to call for Trump not to invoke it) if he so deems. The congress can rescind the law if they so chose. Perhaps they should and will think twice before enacting any such law in the future…that is their choice in a free representative democracy.
    All these statement remain correct IMO (although morality is of course a personal subjective distinction)

  • Edward

    And now we know why so many people are so willing to accept such a tyrannical move. To them the end does justify the means.

  • m d mill

    I have not stated that I prefer any particular “ends”, only what is constitutional and legal (and moral) and NOT tyranical.
    It is a pity a very active imagination is not as equally rational.

  • Cotour

    Its certainly not tyranny for a president to make a decision to reasonably secure the border when there is plenty of reasons to do so. And Trump plainly does not even want to go there to accomplish his fiduciary responsibility and only will if absolutely forced to. (He will do anything to not go there)

    IMO the pressure will build on the Democrats and specifically on Pelosi, who also understands that she can not allow Trump the win. And in so doing will be seen as being unreasonable and purely political. Ask officer Singh’s family if Nancy Pelosi appears to be reasonable and if fences that might keep out murderous illegal aliens that kill law officers and citizens if a fence is an “Immorality”. What total BS, especially after many, many Democrat leaders, including Pelosi and Schumer are on video saying just the opposite and were all for border security and a fence before Trump came to power.

    Time and reason is on Trumps side as long as he and the Republican leadership continues a unified front and proper PR pressure. Trump is being seen as hard headed and determined for a cause and there is respect involved in his efforts. Pelosi and Schumer, not so much.

  • pzatchok

    If our Union can not go 100 days or more without funding then we as a people are just too dependent on it.

    I can live my day to day life just fine without the federal government.

    A congress that does nothing can not make things worse.

  • pzatchok

    Trump pulling the trigger and declaring a national emergency is exactly what the Dems want.
    He can then be framed as everything the Dems have been calling him. And he has no way of taking it back without looking stupid.

    But if he frames all his further arguments in “if it just saves one life” then he has a chance to turn a few to his side.

    He can also say that the Federal shutdown is exactly what the Dems what because for the most part they don’t want to fund the boarder guards, I.C.E. or the military. In fact a few even want to abolish some of them entirely.

  • Phill O

    One aspect not discussed is the Russian connection. When Reagan was dealing with the air traffic controllers strike, the Russians were watching, thinking they could use a weakness if Reagan gave in to the strikers.

    Putin is watching! If Trump does not act decisively, he knows he can manipulate Trump; to America’s detriment. Putin has shown he will act aggressively with Crimea.

    There is considerably more on the table than the domestic politics of this. Obama showed he was tough with the republicans.

  • MDN

    I concur essentially with m d mills analysis. Trump is only in a position to declare a national emergency and repurpose military funds because Congress enacted legislation authorizing it. Andrew McCarthy wrote a good piece on the National Review explaining the background at this link:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/trump-national-emergency-declaration-constitutional-twilight-zone/

    Further, border security IS national security, and as Commander in Chief the Constitution gives the President clear executive power AND the responsibility to act against threats as he perceives them. And, as I noted previously, before his action could ever yield results it will be challenged in court because the Democrats will not sit passively by as the Rs did when Obama overreached. And I suspect he will prevail on McCarthy’s legal reasoning when it gets to the Supreme court, at which point it will unquestionably BE constitutional.

    Finally, I disagree with McCarthy’s analysis with regard to the legislative veto. He argues it was lost due to another Supreme Court decision, but that is not true. All the court did was strike down the attempt to veto with a simple majority. Constitutionally however, the legislature has always had a legislative veto via the 2/3s veto override provision, so if a president ever does abuse this power far enough to turn 2/3s of congress against him it can and would happen.

    If a lawfully elected president uses this power within the constraints of legislative authorization it is not an abuse. Most particularly if it is in pursuit of a policy they clearly ran on and is considered a significant factor in their winning office, and when their action survives Supreme Court scrutiny. And it is incumbent upon Congress and the opposition party, not the president, to make sure the judicial vetting happens if they think the action truly is unlawful.

    As Obama said, elections have consequences, and this is one of them.

  • commodude

    Phill,

    Pres. Obama wasn’t tough with the Republicans, they showed that they are a spineless group with neither leadership nor principles.

    As to Russia watching, …….sigh. That canard is getting old. The Marines liquidated a “mercenary” Battalion from Russia in Syria. I think that’s about the only indication of “tough” that’s needed.

  • wayne

    The boat sailed, on worrying-about-this-type-of-stuff, a long time ago. Like’ 100 years ago.
    Trump should employ every legal means to carry out his goals– Congress can grow a spine or shut up about it all.
    They already call Trump Hitler, who cares what they would call him for utilizing a Statute Congress passed in 1976?

    Commodude–
    Good stuff.
    Boehner and the gang– funded everything Obama wanted. Truly spineless, lacking of virtue, and pathological.
    (In the Alternate Universe— dragged to the street, shot in the face, with extreme prejudice and total malice aforethought.)

  • wayne

    Edward–
    I don’t normally do this, but I’m disagreeing with you on most everything in this thread, except for an Article 5 Convention of States.

  • MDN

    Wayne

    I find your “Alternate Universe” comment inappropriate. This is a place to share thoughts and comments on topics Bob has chosen to post, and following his lead I think we are obligated to keep it respectful and civil. While couched as an “alternate” reality premise I think this crosses a line and comes off more as demented fantasy. I hope that wasn’t your intent but fell compelled to comment.

  • Max

    The coming dark age, are we pass the tipping point?

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ned-ryun-why-are-there-no-consequences-for-clinton-foundation-abuses

    From the posted article;

    “Last week news broke that whistleblowers on the Clinton Foundation had come forward over a year ago…

    For the future of our republic – for the future of the rule of law – there have to be consequences for the Clintons’ actions or we will just see more of the same behavior…

    The real question is what are we going to do about it? What do we really believe, as a nation, as a people? Do we believe that some institutions or individuals are too big to fail? Do we believe that there is rule of law and all stand equal before it? Or are we just going to accept a bifurcated legal system where for some the law is more a series of suggestions…
    There have to be consequences for the Clintons’ actions or we will just see more of the same behavior in the future from our “public servants.” If that happens, well then rule of law is a total farce.”

    Article 5 will be written and enforced by those who are now in power. Why? Because they can! They are holding all the guns. (The guns that matter anyway)
    The unintended consequences of article 5 is to undo all the oaths to the Constitution. From the Pledge of Allegiance to military oath, civilian, police, judicial…. Nothing in common from border to border to hold us together. Divide and conquer. In my opinion, far better to preserve what we have so that we all know where we stand. Enforce the rule of law or it is anarchy, “might makes right”.

    Build the wall? The next generation of “New World order” is corporate in nature. A nation without borders is not a nation. Think about it, this door swings both ways. It would be an excuse to dissolve Federal government and/or would be an invitation to invade and conquer north and south America. (Much the way Europe is today) Of course it will be packaged very pretty, “everyone cannot move to America, so let’s bring America to them!” Exporting the American culture would be wonderful if it was invited in… with our military installations across the world, our culture has changed the world very little.
    Corporations have a different agenda. you cannot un-elect billionaires who own their own military and political parties.

    Speaking of which, democracy has been used several times in this thread. We are not a democracy nor does the word “democracy” appear in our Constitution. Anyone who advocates for democracy is Un-American or is unfamiliar with history and our form of government which is a representative republic. If it had been a democracy, we all would have been ruled by the east and west coast. Literally slaves to the majority rule.

    As for the money to build the wall, there’s between 20 to 40 million fake citizens paying real taxes illegally in our country. With employee matching, that’s over $300 billion that the federal reserve considers donations and never enters the US treasury. No legally binding paper trail! (probably used for the deep state’s fourth branch of government that was created legally called operation mockingbird… Look it up)
    This money has no congressional oversight because it’s been paid illegally by citizens of foreign countries.
    The president handles foreign relations and trade negotiations which puts the problem squarely in his corner. With one executive order, State and federal taxes can be collected from illegal aliens as a “trade tariff” or “customs duty”. (they can always petition their consulate if they don’t like the terms, or they can leave)
    The foreign nationals without green cards can be allowed to stay in this country as long as the taxation imposed on them, same as on us, is used to build the wall and other infrastructure, medical bills, and social services, and housing that the illegal immigration has caused. In this way we all win. The illegals will have a legal status of sorts, less then citizen, but more than living in the shadows being preyed on by those who would take advantage.
    Being scared, remaining in the shadows is pulling down and undermining all society, which is becoming rotten from underneath. (It will also make it easier to go after the really bad dudes)
    Yes, everyone wins! The Mexicans/undocumented workers will pay for the wall, with 300 billion left over that the president can use to to pay bankrupt American hospitals/business for illegals who do not pay, and defend America. (From forces inside and out)
    The best part is that it’s already in the presidents job description, he doesn’t have to ask for permission to deal with foreigners and foreign trade… Not on American soil.

  • Edward

    So many of the posts here confirm not only Robert’s point but my point, too. The difference between Robert’s reaction to this thread and mine is that Robert is depressed, but I am amused.

    Max wrote: ““everyone cannot move to America, so let’s bring America to them!” Exporting the American culture would be wonderful if it was invited in

    The Statue of Liberty was intended to be that way. The light was not a beacon to beckon the world to us but a beacon to spread liberty to the world — for the world to choose liberty.

    (Max,
    (We are a republic with certain democratic aspects. For instance, we vote using a democratic process, and not having a class system in the feudal sense — but we pretend that there are upper, middle, and lower classes — makes us democratic in our societal relations.)

    The loss of the recognition that the Republican Party and its voters are moving in the same direction as the Democrats — toward tyranny and away from liberty — is why I no longer support the Republican Party.

    To paraphrase somebody: the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Republicans have stopped being vigilant and now are willing to dump liberty in favor of a tyranny that will give them what they want — which increasingly is free stuff.

    To paraphrase someone else: you get the government you deserve. I have come to realize that I will end up living with the government that today’s Republicans deserve.

    Now that is depressing.

  • MDN

    Max, just how does the math work that 20-40M illegals = $300B? Assuming 50% work, and that 50% of them are using fake SS numbers (with the rest black market cash employees) you only have about 10M actually paying in on the high side. So that’s $30K each to get to $300B which seems unlikely imho.

  • wayne

    Max–
    https://conventionofstates.com/
    You can amend the Constitution in 2 ways; the Congress can propose and the States ratify, or the States can propose and the States can ratify.
    I know which of the 2 I would trust, and it doesn’t include Congress controlling themselves

    Mark Levin, Constitution Article V, and the Liberty Amendments
    July 10, 2013
    https://youtu.be/XKtWK79yzuY
    30:01

  • wayne

    Max–
    The AG of New York has authority to regulate “charities” in New York State. In fact NY has some of the strictest laws on the books concerning fraud & charities, but don’t hold your breath that they will ever do anything about the clinton crime foundation.
    It’s was x-AG Schneiderman (if I’m spelling this correctly) who originally refused to carry out his duties and his replacement or the NY Governor, isn’t going to do anything.

    MDM–
    It may or may not be, but if you don’t think that’s where we ARE heading, I would propose you haven’t been paying enough attention.
    The counter-revolution, will be extremely messy. But those responsible for the coup, will be held responsible, one way or another.

    “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”
    Thomas Paine, The American Crisis
    December 23, 1776

    V for Vendetta: The Revolutionary Speech
    https://youtu.be/KKvvOFIHs4k?t=66
    3:32

  • wayne

    Jordan B Peterson:
    “12 conservative principles in 12 minutes”
    (excerpted from: “12 principles for a 21st century conservatism” 6-15-2017 )
    https://youtu.be/_MyduTaCh18
    12:29

  • Max

    A different idea;

    https://www.reuters.com/article/bc-finreg-el-chapo-divert-funds/el-chapo-act-seeks-to-use-kingpins-money-to-build-border-wall-would-divert-funds-from-law-enforcement-idUSKBN1811TS
    The problem is, they have no idea where his money is. The rumors are he was a front man for the international bankers/deep state like Manwell Noriega and many others in the drug trade.

    @MDN,
    I kept it simple, the average of 30,000,000×10,000 in payed taxes? If only half of those are working, then it’s the same as I paid in federal taxes x 15 million. Keep in mind that does not include employee matching, Social Security, unemployment insurance, any benefits paid, or state taxes. You cannot include refunds because they come from the treasury, not the Federal Reserve.
    The money paid on fake, retired, or redundant Social Security numbers never enters the treasury. (how many times have you heard people complaining that someone using their Social Security card number had doubled their income? You haven’t because the federal reserve has the most sophisticated computers available to prevent being found out. Then the population would demand an audit and the gig would be up)

    @wayne,
    Article 5 could be great, but nothing ever goes as planned. What would make people follow a new and improved constitution when they won’t follow the old one? I’m reminded of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus and the rich man asked Abraham to send the beggar back to warn his brothers not to fall in his same fate. The reply was “they have Moses and the prophets why would they believe a beggar, even from the dead?”
    My point is, if the rule of law is dead. A new and unfamiliar rule of law would never get off the ground.
    The new constitution has already been written, and it is very thick and full of loopholes. California has already petitioned that the rules should be changed so states with more population have a bigger share in the vote according to population. Remember, in politics, no one plays fair and the outcome will not be what you thought it would be.

    @Edward,
    That means a more pure democracy as you noted Edward, but they will continue to practice of illegals voting, felons voting, the dead voting, and anyone who can to vote multiple times. The red states will be closely watched of course to prevent hey this from happening assuring the majority rule will get its way in the brave new world.

  • wayne

    Max–
    If the rule of law is dead, all bets are off, and we need to immediately up-rise and seize control of everything. right now. Why wait?
    The judicial branch constantly rewrites the Constitution, for what reason do we follow those dictates?
    We’re not trying to create a new constitution with a Convention of States, just add some amendment’s that cover such things as term and spending limits. Besides, if we can’t get enough States to ratify the amendment’s, they don’t pass.

    Who would you rather have proposing Amendment’s, Congress or the State’s? At least with an Article 5, we by-pass Congress completely (they play no role).
    We either trust in an Article 5, or we continue as we have been, until we collapse.

  • wayne

    How the States Can Save America
    PragerU
    https://youtu.be/td7SXuv1LG8
    5:41

  • m d mill

    To say that Trump would be a “Tyrant” for exercising a specific discretionary power granted to him by a democratically elected congress is of course fanatic inanity from the usual sources. To fear that exercising discretionary powers, which have been routinely granted to the IRS, EPA and countless other agencies, is going to destroy representative democracy is the truly humorous part. The congress has the moral, legal and constitutional right to grant discretionary powers to presidents or other agencies as it sees fit, and to remove them as it sees fit. The public has the right to vote out presidents or legislators they deem unfit or unwise. This is representative democracy, which does have the freedom to act unwisely. And finally, the Supreme court will have the right to overturn the presidents use of discretionary power as it deems fit. Does this sound like “Tyranny” (i.e. cruel and oppressive government or presidential rule)? No, it sounds once again like the holier-than-thou rantings from the usual suspects who enjoy the “virtue” of their perceived fanatic purity.

  • wayne

    m d mill:
    Good stuff!

  • Cotour

    IN REAL TIME

    Senator Joni Earnst is right now questioning Bill Barr and is very clearly and unambiguously establishing the need for border control in relation to illegals, drugs, human trafficking and the roll that sanctuary cities plays in incentivizing them to come to America illegally.

    Bill Barr is solidly on board with her questions and has specifically followed up on them with the need for barriers and generally what the president wants.

    This gives Trump a pretty big boost related to the shut down, especially if Barr is confirmed, which I have no reason to think he will not be.

    Mr. president stay focused and strong and do not relent.

  • Edward

    m d mill wrote: “To say that Trump would be a “Tyrant” for exercising a specific discretionary power granted to him by a democratically elected congress is of course fanatic inanity from the usual sources.

    Just because Congress passed it and a president signed it does not mean that it is not tyrannical. The Founding Fathers warned us that governments trend toward tyranny, and that is what is happening to the U.S. now.

    To fear that exercising discretionary powers, which have been routinely granted to the IRS, EPA and countless other agencies, is going to destroy representative democracy is the truly humorous part.

    The IRS, EPA, and other agencies routinely create rules and regulations that have the power of law, yet Congress and the president — our representatives in this representative democracy — have had no say in them. So, how do these discretionary powers — that have no practical checks-and-balances oversight — not destroy our representative democracy? We are required to follow not only shelf after shelf of laws that our representatives impose upon us, but agency library after agency library of rules and regulations that have the force of law that our representatives had no say on. These agencies and their unelected, unfirable bureaucrats already act outside the representative democracy that we are supposed to be part of.

    This is representative democracy, which does have the freedom to act unwisely.

    I is sad that someone is truly humored by the existing loss of liberty under the bureaucratic tyranny that we already have because our representative democracy acts unwisely, giving tyrannical powers to bureaucrats without bothering to rein them in because our supposed representatives do not mind the tyranny.

    The saddest part is how so many people act like the frog in the slowly warming water. Our freedoms keep being whittled away, slowly, and we learn to accept their loss until there are no freedoms left.

    The public exercised its right and voted in a president who was supposed to drain the swamp, not join the swamp. There are now people who consider themselves conservatives (and Republicans) who are advocating for the end (a wall) to justify the means (unchecked power) rather than allow our system to work out the controversy between those who favor security and those who prefer the current lack of security.

    So how humorous would it be if the one guy that we elected to act as we wished to drain the swamp does the opposite and becomes part of the swamp?

  • Edward

    The funny thing is that people here have talked about We the People having elected representatives, but then advocate that Trump bypass those representatives in order to do the Obama thing, and use his pen and his phone to get what he wants despite our elected representatives’s representation. The hypocrisy just has to make you laugh, doesn’t it? Does the end justify the means or does the means matter, especially when the people’s representatives are supposed to be part of the process?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *