Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Congress Just Blindsided Dems With Huge Border Wall Deal

Published

on

We are almost two years into Trump’s presidency and the wall is not complete… yet. It has been started in places. It now looks like Congress just blindsided Democrats with a huge border wall deal. This will have Americans cheering.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is getting ready to introduce a bill this week that would fully fund the wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. That sets up the midterm elections as a referendum on immigration policy. Outgoing Speaker Paul Ryan hinted at a post-election border wall funding fight on Monday.

“We intend on having a full-fledged discussion on how to complete our mission to secure the border, and yes, we will have a fight about this,” Ryan stated. It’s long overdue.

Breitbart News is reporting on what is going to happen leading up to the midterm elections and right after them. McCarthy’s office will introduce a bill this week that includes the full funding for the border wall which amounts to about $23.4 billion more than what has already gone to the wall effort.

Trending: Trump Gives Adam Schiff New Nickname And He Is Fuming

Several other enforcement measures have already passed the House of Representatives. Congress has already directed $1.6 billion to wall funding in the omnibus spending bill for fiscal year 2018 that just passed Congress. This new bill that is entitled the “Build the Wall, Enforce the Law Act,” would take the wall to completion and provide for a variety of enforcement measures.

From Breitbart:

“For decades, America’s inability to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration has encouraged millions to undertake a dangerous journey to come here in violation of our laws and created a huge loophole to the legal channels to the immigration process where America welcomes immigrants to our country,” McCarthy said in a statement to Breitbart News. “President Trump’s election was a wakeup call to Washington. The American people want us to build the wall and enforce the law. Maintaining strong borders is one of the basic responsibilities of any nation. For too long, America has failed in this responsibility.”

“The enforcement measures expected to be in this wall funding legislation include, among other legislation, Kate’s Law, an enforcement bill named for Kate Steinle, who was killed in sanctuary city San Francisco in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. Kate’s Law passed the House 257-167 last year. Also included will be a bill the House has already passed targeting sanctuary cities, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which passed the House last year 228-195. The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act, which passed the House last year 233-175, will be in the bill, as will two House resolutions on immigration that passed the House this year: one upholding and honoring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, the other admonishing illegal alien voting in a number of American cities.

“McCarthy’s forthcoming bill will not deal with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the illegal executive amnesty program that former President Barack Obama implemented granting temporary status administratively to illegal alien youths, or visa programs. In other words, the bill will be enforcement and security only, dealing with those other more contentious immigration policy matters in future legislation after the wall funding is secured and enforcement of immigration law is strengthened.

“McCarthy’s bill introduction comes as he travels Wednesday to the U.S. border with Mexico, where the wall will be built, to meet with Border Patrol agents. While on the border, McCarthy will receive an operations and threat briefing from Border Patrol and law enforcement officials, speaking directly with the men and women who on a daily basis on behalf of the United States confront illegal immigration, drug smuggling, human trafficking, and weapons trafficking.

“Given that this new bill comes from the Majority Leader, McCarthy, and this bill contains several other measures already passed by the House with high margins of success, its prospects for passage are promising.”

The Senate is another matter, however. Even though Republicans hold the majority there, they don’t have enough votes to force this through. They have a 51-49 majority but would need 60 votes to clear a filibuster hurdle on a cloture vote unless Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell changed Senate rules. McConnell has resisted doing that.

Here’s where it gets interesting. If Republicans pick up five or six extra Senate seats in the midterms, that’s a game-changer. That brings us much closer to the 60-vote threshold. Pressure a few Blue Dog Democrats into supporting the bill and it would be on its way to Trump’s desk.

The Republican reinforcements, if elected, will not arrive until January 2019 when the new Congress is sworn in. That means whatever the House passes in late 2018 for it to become law would need to be passed again in early 2019. This is a huge incentive for Republicans to turn out and vote in November.

If the Dems take control of the House, reanointed Speaker Nancy Pelosi definitely would not support funding the wall. This, in turn, makes the midterms a referendum on the wall because if Republicans hold the House and add seats in the Senate, they can get the votes necessary to get full wall funding to Trump’s desk in early 2019.

If there was ever a time to get up and get out and vote, this is it, folks. The left must not take back control in Congress period.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Trending Now on Right Wing News


WHOA: Trump Admin Reveals BIGGEST Move Again Yet Again Acosta — ‘Permanently’

Published

on

...

* By

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by: Sara Palin

The drama between the Trump administration and CNN reporter Jim Acosta may not be done anytime soon as it is being reported the White House press staff are looking to have Acosta permanently banned.

The ban comes amid a legal feud between Acosta, CNN, and the White House.

Here’s how everything has gone down:

Acosta initially refused to hand over a microphone to a White House intern, resisting her attempt to retrieve it.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders accused Acosta of putting his hand on the intern, called the incident unacceptable, and subsequently banned him.

They took his press credentials and suspended him from covering events at the White House.

CNN and Acosta sued the Trump administration over the incident, claiming Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said the White House violated Acosta’s right to a due process as they pulled his media pass and denied Acosta an option to repeal his revocation.

The judge ordered the White House to immediately restore Acosta’s press credentials.

So…

The Trump administration is complying with the order and will reinstate Acosta, but they are making a move to have him permanently banned from the White House, the Daily Caller reports.

The White House sent a letter to Acosta notifying him that his pass granting him temporary access to the White House grounds would be suspended after a temporary restraining order runs its course. The letter is the latest in the fight between the White House and the CNN reporter who caused a fracas at a recent presidential press conference when he refused to give up the microphone.

Judge Timothy J. Kelly issued an injunction Friday morning ordering the White House to reinstate Acosta’s credentials, saying his Fifth Amendment right to due process was violated. The judge was clear, however, that he made no ruling on whether the First Amendment right applies for any reporter to be at the White House.

According to the report, President Trump admitted he was not sure whether the administration would ultimately win the CNN lawsuit.

“We’ll see how the court rules,” the president said.

“Is it freedom of the press when somebody comes in and starts screaming questions and won’t sit down?” he added, speaking of Acosta.

Should the administration lose the lawsuit, Trump revealed his administration has a strategy.

During an interview with Fox News, Trump said the White House press team would implement new policies and rules for reporters such as turning off cameras.

“I think one of the things we’ll do is maybe turn the camera off that faces them because then they don’t have any airtime, although I’ll probably be sued for that and maybe, you know, win or lose it, who knows,” Trump said, as the Daily Caller reports.

As the legal feud continues, the Trump administration announced they would be “temporarily” reinstating Acosta’s press pass and would be complying to the order, BUT they are giving him a 14-day pass and will resume their suspension once it expires.

The Hill reports CNN is already responding to the move by requesting an emergency court hearing:

CNN on Monday requested an emergency hearing in the U.S. District Court after the White House threatened to again pull the press credentials of the network’s chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta.

CNN said the letter amounts to an “attempt to provide retroactive due process,” calling for a hearing on a preliminary injunction during “the week of November 26, 2018, or as soon thereafter as possible.”

Note: The author of this article has included commentary that expresses an opinion and analysis of the facts.


Continue Reading

Continue Reading

Democrat-Controlled House Just Changed Major 181-Year Rule For Muslims

Published

on

...

* By

181 years is a long time for a dress code to stay in place… even for Congress. Hats were forbidden in the House of Representatives, but no more. Of course, members are being told to use good judgment but given their track record, this should be interesting to watch. Now, men and women will be allowed to wear ‘hats’ in the chamber.

Change is not always good and this will probably wind up being a circus. Ilhan Omar, a newly elected Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota, is behind this move. She will be the first to wear an Islamic hijab in the chamber. Lawmakers will be allowed to wear religious headwear and coverings for medical reasons – so there are some restrictions on this at least for now.

Chicks on the Right has the scoop on this story:

Ok…so I have a feeling some “traditionalists” are going to have an issue with this. CHANGE IS BAAD.

But honestly, after hearing from Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, I don’t have a problem with this at all. I think (I hope) that Congresspeople will go about this with respect and their best judgment. (That’s… a high hope for Congress.)

So anyway, the U.S. House has changed a 181-year-old dress code rule against hats.

According to Daily Wire:

Back in 1837, the U.S. House of Representatives banned the wearing of hats in the chamber in a move to differentiate itself from the British Parliament.

But in 2018, the elected lawmakers have voted to rescind the rule. Ilhan Omar, a newly elected Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota, will be the first to wear a hijab in the chamber.

“There are those kinds of policies that oftentimes get created because people who have blind spots are in positions of influence and positions of power,” Omar told the New York Post on Thursday. “I think it will be really exciting to see the stuff that we notice within the rules that don’t work for a modern-day America.”

Under the revised rules, lawmakers will be allowed to wear religious headwear and coverings for medical reasons.

I’m not a fan of Ilhan Omar’s, but I am a staunch supporter of religious freedom. I’m not the kind of hypocrite who supports the rights of Christians not to have their religion infringed upon, and will not do the same for others. It’s Omar’s constitutionally-protected RIGHT to wear her hijab. She was elected by her constituents to represent them. She should not have to choose between upholding her religious dress code and that of her congressional position. The END.

And that’s not all. The new rule allows for head covering for religious AND medical reasons. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman made a compelling point.

The New Jersey Democrat had a tumor successfully removed and has undergone chemotherapy since September to ensure she’s cancer-free.

The treatment caused her hair to fall out. She wears a hat outside, but when she votes on the House floor she takes it off.

“I just have a bald head and I’m somewhat getting used to it hoping that it’s a very temporary thing,” Watson Coleman told The Post. “I don’t think I would start wearing a (hat) now, but I recognize that if someone else has the same issue and wants to, they should be able to.”

So sure… I’m as traditional as the next guy. But I ABSOLUTELY think the “no-hat” rule can be bent for religious and medical reasons.

I’m SURE some of you will disagree with me on this one.

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend