YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Senate votes to override. At least 7 Republicans. Watch fake conservatives castigate real conservatives for doing the right thing.

---

They don't have enough votes to override Trump's upcoming veto of this.

So I applaud the RINO's for ratting themselves out. First time congress has ever rejected a Presidential emergency under the 1976 national emergency act.

Illegal immigration is big business: too bad you know nothing about that. You just applauded the swamp in it's attempt to perpetuate illegal immigration so they can get rich from it.

---

I applaud Senators who follow the Constitution. Thanks for proving my point.

---

Did congress take away that 1976 law giving the president that authority? Did I miss something?

BTW....I think this is a poor use of that authority, but nevertheless they gave it to a president.

---

Elsewhere I have argued that there are several unconstitutional delegations of congressional power to the executive. Doesn't matter how long Congress has let it go. Really ironic that this particular authority was granted so soon after the imperial presidency.

---

Nixon or the book? Not disagreeing that all government branches have exceeded the authority granted under the constitution (IMO the constitution isn't a suicide pact.) and government has grown too large exceeding what the Framers intended, but congress did authorize a president this authority.

---

This authority and others. It is only partly about the growth of govt. If Congress won't protect it's own authority the checks and imbalances will grow.

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Senate votes to override. At least 7 Republicans. Watch fake conservatives castigate real conservatives for doing the right thing.

---

They don't have enough votes to override Trump's upcoming veto of this.

So I applaud the RINO's for ratting themselves out. First time congress has ever rejected a Presidential emergency under the 1976 national emergency act.

Illegal immigration is big business: too bad you know nothing about that. You just applauded the swamp in it's attempt to perpetuate illegal immigration so they can get rich from it.

---

I applaud Senators who follow the Constitution. Thanks for proving my point.

---

Did congress take away that 1976 law giving the president that authority? Did I miss something?

BTW....I think this is a poor use of that authority, but nevertheless they gave it to a president.

---

Elsewhere I have argued that there are several unconstitutional delegations of congressional power to the executive. Doesn't matter how long Congress has let it go. Really ironic that this particular authority was granted so soon after the imperial presidency.

---

Nixon or the book? Not disagreeing that all government branches have exceeded the authority granted under the constitution (IMO the constitution isn't a suicide pact.) and government has grown too large exceeding what the Framers intended, but congress did authorize a president this authority.

---

This authority and others. It is only partly about the growth of govt. If Congress won't protect it's own authority the checks and imbalances will grow.

---

The reason POTUS was voted against by even his own party has everything to do with money and nothing to do with questioning authority.

Money controls congress. Bigger government is access to more money for ALL of congress.

Whips and leaders of both parties will strip any member of congress's power if they do not vote in lock step with their agenda of passing massive lobbying fueled spending bills like the Omnibus which they themselves get a cut from. They use 501c's and essentially launder money. They can also game the stock market.

I think you're not seeing the point I'm trying to make:
All members of Congress can use political problems like illegal immigration to their advantage. For one, they can campaign on a problem if they perpetuate it.

Second, Human smuggling is big business. If you dig in to the IRS 990 forms of non-profits that run unaccompanied minor shelters, you'll see a lot of, well, "generous" wage/benefit perks. Golf, florists, cafe's, mysterious leases, land purchases, third party mortgages, $$$ Spouses on the payroll, etc of the money it receives from the federal government for unaccompanied children officials with the non-profit.

Sad thing is, it's you and me that are paying the South American human smugglers through U.S. taxpayer funds. Laundered through the immigration business bagmen at U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and/or, U.S. Catholic Charities, or Southwest Key Programs Inc; or Baptist Child and Family Services Emergency Management Division (BCFS-EMD), just to name a few.

These immigration groups, get *MASSIVE* HHS grants and then pay-off the DC politicians and human smugglers, including MS13. Billions of dollars are spent, and the business has exploded in the past six years.

So when you've got each individual immigration business making multi-hundreds of millions; and politicians getting kick-backs (lobbyists); and bribes to Mexican government officials; and payments to smugglers; who do you think actually wants the business to stop?


The "faith-based" crew (Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck, etc.) don't want it to stop, because facilitating illegal alien import is now the financial bread and butter amid groups in their base of support. The man/woman in the pew might not know; but the corporation minister, preacher or priest (inside the process) surely does.

The Wall Street, big GOPe, U.S. Chamber of Commerce crew doesn't want it to stop because they benefit from it (cheap labor), and the taxpayers -not them- are the ones funding it.

All I'm saying Quash is that when you follow the money, you get the big picture. We're all arguing against the wrong things. Money needs to get out of politics or this country falls.

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Senate votes to override. At least 7 Republicans. Watch fake conservatives castigate real conservatives for doing the right thing.

---

They don't have enough votes to override Trump's upcoming veto of this.

So I applaud the RINO's for ratting themselves out. First time congress has ever rejected a Presidential emergency under the 1976 national emergency act.

Illegal immigration is big business: too bad you know nothing about that. You just applauded the swamp in it's attempt to perpetuate illegal immigration so they can get rich from it.

---

I applaud Senators who follow the Constitution. Thanks for proving my point.

---

Did congress take away that 1976 law giving the president that authority? Did I miss something?

BTW....I think this is a poor use of that authority, but nevertheless they gave it to a president.

---

Elsewhere I have argued that there are several unconstitutional delegations of congressional power to the executive. Doesn't matter how long Congress has let it go. Really ironic that this particular authority was granted so soon after the imperial presidency.

---

Nixon or the book? Not disagreeing that all government branches have exceeded the authority granted under the constitution (IMO the constitution isn't a suicide pact.) and government has grown too large exceeding what the Framers intended, but congress did authorize a president this authority.

---

This authority and others. It is only partly about the growth of govt. If Congress won't protect it's own authority the checks and imbalances will grow.

---

Not disagreeing with you about imbalances growing, but congress gave it away 40+ years ago with little thought to foresight it appears.

settegast said:
On 20 nov 2014 donald tweeted:
"Repubs must not allow pres obama to subvert the constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ congress"
This was posted in response to obama dealings with illegal immigration.
Karma is a mother


Do the presidents words not mean anything to you?

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Senate votes to override. At least 7 Republicans. Watch fake conservatives castigate real conservatives for doing the right thing.

---

They don't have enough votes to override Trump's upcoming veto of this.

So I applaud the RINO's for ratting themselves out. First time congress has ever rejected a Presidential emergency under the 1976 national emergency act.

Illegal immigration is big business: too bad you know nothing about that. You just applauded the swamp in it's attempt to perpetuate illegal immigration so they can get rich from it.

---

I applaud Senators who follow the Constitution. Thanks for proving my point.

---

Did congress take away that 1976 law giving the president that authority? Did I miss something?

BTW....I think this is a poor use of that authority, but nevertheless they gave it to a president.

---

Elsewhere I have argued that there are several unconstitutional delegations of congressional power to the executive. Doesn't matter how long Congress has let it go. Really ironic that this particular authority was granted so soon after the imperial presidency.

---

Nixon or the book? Not disagreeing that all government branches have exceeded the authority granted under the constitution (IMO the constitution isn't a suicide pact.) and government has grown too large exceeding what the Framers intended, but congress did authorize a president this authority.

---

This authority and others. It is only partly about the growth of govt. If Congress won't protect it's own authority the checks and imbalances will grow.

---

The reason POTUS was voted against by even his own party has everything to do with money and nothing to do with questioning authority.

Money controls congress. Bigger government is access to more money for ALL of congress.

Whips and leaders of both parties will strip any member of congress's power if they do not vote in lock step with their agenda of passing massive lobbying fueled spending bills like the Omnibus which they themselves get a cut from. They use 501c's and essentially launder money. They can also game the stock market.

I think you're not seeing the point I'm trying to make:
All members of Congress can use political problems like illegal immigration to their advantage. For one, they can campaign on a problem if they perpetuate it.

Second, Human smuggling is big business. If you dig in to the IRS 990 forms of non-profits that run unaccompanied minor shelters, you'll see a lot of, well, "generous" wage/benefit perks. Golf, florists, cafe's, mysterious leases, land purchases, third party mortgages, $$$ Spouses on the payroll, etc of the money it receives from the federal government for unaccompanied children officials with the non-profit.

Sad thing is, it's you and me that are paying the South American human smugglers through U.S. taxpayer funds. Laundered through the immigration business bagmen at U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and/or, U.S. Catholic Charities, or Southwest Key Programs Inc; or Baptist Child and Family Services Emergency Management Division (BCFS-EMD), just to name a few.

These immigration groups, get *MASSIVE* HHS grants and then pay-off the DC politicians and human smugglers, including MS13. Billions of dollars are spent, and the business has exploded in the past six years.

So when you've got each individual immigration business making multi-hundreds of millions; and politicians getting kick-backs (lobbyists); and bribes to Mexican government officials; and payments to smugglers; who do you think actually wants the business to stop?


The "faith-based" crew (Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck, etc.) don't want it to stop, because facilitating illegal alien import is now the financial bread and butter amid groups in their base of support. The man/woman in the pew might not know; but the corporation minister, preacher or priest (inside the process) surely does.

The Wall Street, big GOPe, U.S. Chamber of Commerce crew doesn't want it to stop because they benefit from it (cheap labor), and the taxpayers -not them- are the ones funding it.

All I'm saying Quash is that when you follow the money, you get the big picture. We're all arguing against the wrong things. Money needs to get out of politics or this country falls.

---

As I have said many times, I agree with Citizens United, a 1st Amendment two-fer.

To get the donor money out you have to remove the goodies they are buying. Trump blew our once every generation attempt at tax reform, but maybe next time.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Senate votes to override. At least 7 Republicans. Watch fake conservatives castigate real conservatives for doing the right thing.

---

They don't have enough votes to override Trump's upcoming veto of this.

So I applaud the RINO's for ratting themselves out. First time congress has ever rejected a Presidential emergency under the 1976 national emergency act.

Illegal immigration is big business: too bad you know nothing about that. You just applauded the swamp in it's attempt to perpetuate illegal immigration so they can get rich from it.

---

I applaud Senators who follow the Constitution. Thanks for proving my point.

---

Did congress take away that 1976 law giving the president that authority? Did I miss something?

BTW....I think this is a poor use of that authority, but nevertheless they gave it to a president.

---

Elsewhere I have argued that there are several unconstitutional delegations of congressional power to the executive. Doesn't matter how long Congress has let it go. Really ironic that this particular authority was granted so soon after the imperial presidency.

---

Nixon or the book? Not disagreeing that all government branches have exceeded the authority granted under the constitution (IMO the constitution isn't a suicide pact.) and government has grown too large exceeding what the Framers intended, but congress did authorize a president this authority.

---

This authority and others. It is only partly about the growth of govt. If Congress won't protect it's own authority the checks and imbalances will grow.

---

The reason POTUS was voted against by even his own party has everything to do with money and nothing to do with questioning authority.

Money controls congress. Bigger government is access to more money for ALL of congress.

Whips and leaders of both parties will strip any member of congress's power if they do not vote in lock step with their agenda of passing massive lobbying fueled spending bills like the Omnibus which they themselves get a cut from. They use 501c's and essentially launder money. They can also game the stock market.

I think you're not seeing the point I'm trying to make:
All members of Congress can use political problems like illegal immigration to their advantage. For one, they can campaign on a problem if they perpetuate it.

Second, Human smuggling is big business. If you dig in to the IRS 990 forms of non-profits that run unaccompanied minor shelters, you'll see a lot of, well, "generous" wage/benefit perks. Golf, florists, cafe's, mysterious leases, land purchases, third party mortgages, $$$ Spouses on the payroll, etc of the money it receives from the federal government for unaccompanied children officials with the non-profit.

Sad thing is, it's you and me that are paying the South American human smugglers through U.S. taxpayer funds. Laundered through the immigration business bagmen at U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and/or, U.S. Catholic Charities, or Southwest Key Programs Inc; or Baptist Child and Family Services Emergency Management Division (BCFS-EMD), just to name a few.

These immigration groups, get *MASSIVE* HHS grants and then pay-off the DC politicians and human smugglers, including MS13. Billions of dollars are spent, and the business has exploded in the past six years.

So when you've got each individual immigration business making multi-hundreds of millions; and politicians getting kick-backs (lobbyists); and bribes to Mexican government officials; and payments to smugglers; who do you think actually wants the business to stop?


The "faith-based" crew (Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck, etc.) don't want it to stop, because facilitating illegal alien import is now the financial bread and butter amid groups in their base of support. The man/woman in the pew might not know; but the corporation minister, preacher or priest (inside the process) surely does.

The Wall Street, big GOPe, U.S. Chamber of Commerce crew doesn't want it to stop because they benefit from it (cheap labor), and the taxpayers -not them- are the ones funding it.

All I'm saying Quash is that when you follow the money, you get the big picture. We're all arguing against the wrong things. Money needs to get out of politics or this country falls.

---

As I have said many times, I agree with Citizens United, a 1st Amendment two-fer.

To get the donor money out you have to remove the goodies they are buying. Trump blew our once every generation attempt at tax reform, but maybe next time.

---

So I guess you are going to apply the same arguments to the next Democrat president who explodes the national debt and increases government to sizes never before seen?

I suspect you won't say a damn thing.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Senate votes to override. At least 7 Republicans. Watch fake conservatives castigate real conservatives for doing the right thing.

---

They don't have enough votes to override Trump's upcoming veto of this.

So I applaud the RINO's for ratting themselves out. First time congress has ever rejected a Presidential emergency under the 1976 national emergency act.

Illegal immigration is big business: too bad you know nothing about that. You just applauded the swamp in it's attempt to perpetuate illegal immigration so they can get rich from it.

---

Translation: "ends justify the means, separation of powers isn't that big of a deal."

---

^^^ Translation: Ends > means! Gimme those illiterate non English speaking welfare loving democrat voters at any cost! Country be damned!

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Senate votes to override. At least 7 Republicans. Watch fake conservatives castigate real conservatives for doing the right thing.

---

They don't have enough votes to override Trump's upcoming veto of this.

So I applaud the RINO's for ratting themselves out. First time congress has ever rejected a Presidential emergency under the 1976 national emergency act.

Illegal immigration is big business: too bad you know nothing about that. You just applauded the swamp in it's attempt to perpetuate illegal immigration so they can get rich from it.

---

I applaud Senators who follow the Constitution. Thanks for proving my point.

---

Did congress take away that 1976 law giving the president that authority? Did I miss something?

BTW....I think this is a poor use of that authority, but nevertheless they gave it to a president.

---

Elsewhere I have argued that there are several unconstitutional delegations of congressional power to the executive. Doesn't matter how long Congress has let it go. Really ironic that this particular authority was granted so soon after the imperial presidency.

---

Nixon or the book? Not disagreeing that all government branches have exceeded the authority granted under the constitution (IMO the constitution isn't a suicide pact.) and government has grown too large exceeding what the Framers intended, but congress did authorize a president this authority.

---

This authority and others. It is only partly about the growth of govt. If Congress won't protect it's own authority the checks and imbalances will grow.

---

The reason POTUS was voted against by even his own party has everything to do with money and nothing to do with questioning authority.

Money controls congress. Bigger government is access to more money for ALL of congress.

Whips and leaders of both parties will strip any member of congress's power if they do not vote in lock step with their agenda of passing massive lobbying fueled spending bills like the Omnibus which they themselves get a cut from. They use 501c's and essentially launder money. They can also game the stock market.

I think you're not seeing the point I'm trying to make:
All members of Congress can use political problems like illegal immigration to their advantage. For one, they can campaign on a problem if they perpetuate it.

Second, Human smuggling is big business. If you dig in to the IRS 990 forms of non-profits that run unaccompanied minor shelters, you'll see a lot of, well, "generous" wage/benefit perks. Golf, florists, cafe's, mysterious leases, land purchases, third party mortgages, $$$ Spouses on the payroll, etc of the money it receives from the federal government for unaccompanied children officials with the non-profit.

Sad thing is, it's you and me that are paying the South American human smugglers through U.S. taxpayer funds. Laundered through the immigration business bagmen at U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and/or, U.S. Catholic Charities, or Southwest Key Programs Inc; or Baptist Child and Family Services Emergency Management Division (BCFS-EMD), just to name a few.

These immigration groups, get *MASSIVE* HHS grants and then pay-off the DC politicians and human smugglers, including MS13. Billions of dollars are spent, and the business has exploded in the past six years.

So when you've got each individual immigration business making multi-hundreds of millions; and politicians getting kick-backs (lobbyists); and bribes to Mexican government officials; and payments to smugglers; who do you think actually wants the business to stop?


The "faith-based" crew (Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck, etc.) don't want it to stop, because facilitating illegal alien import is now the financial bread and butter amid groups in their base of support. The man/woman in the pew might not know; but the corporation minister, preacher or priest (inside the process) surely does.

The Wall Street, big GOPe, U.S. Chamber of Commerce crew doesn't want it to stop because they benefit from it (cheap labor), and the taxpayers -not them- are the ones funding it.

All I'm saying Quash is that when you follow the money, you get the big picture. We're all arguing against the wrong things. Money needs to get out of politics or this country falls.

---

As I have said many times, I agree with Citizens United, a 1st Amendment two-fer.

To get the donor money out you have to remove the goodies they are buying. Trump blew our once every generation attempt at tax reform, but maybe next time.

---

So I guess you are going to apply the same arguments to the next Democrat president who explodes the national debt and increases government to sizes never before seen?

I suspect you won't say a damn thing.

---

You'd be wrong.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Senate votes to override. At least 7 Republicans. Watch fake conservatives castigate real conservatives for doing the right thing.

---

They don't have enough votes to override Trump's upcoming veto of this.

So I applaud the RINO's for ratting themselves out. First time congress has ever rejected a Presidential emergency under the 1976 national emergency act.

Illegal immigration is big business: too bad you know nothing about that. You just applauded the swamp in it's attempt to perpetuate illegal immigration so they can get rich from it.

---

I applaud Senators who follow the Constitution. Thanks for proving my point.

---

Did congress take away that 1976 law giving the president that authority? Did I miss something?

BTW....I think this is a poor use of that authority, but nevertheless they gave it to a president.

---

Elsewhere I have argued that there are several unconstitutional delegations of congressional power to the executive. Doesn't matter how long Congress has let it go. Really ironic that this particular authority was granted so soon after the imperial presidency.

---

Nixon or the book? Not disagreeing that all government branches have exceeded the authority granted under the constitution (IMO the constitution isn't a suicide pact.) and government has grown too large exceeding what the Framers intended, but congress did authorize a president this authority.

---

This authority and others. It is only partly about the growth of govt. If Congress won't protect it's own authority the checks and imbalances will grow.

---

The reason POTUS was voted against by even his own party has everything to do with money and nothing to do with questioning authority.

Money controls congress. Bigger government is access to more money for ALL of congress.

Whips and leaders of both parties will strip any member of congress's power if they do not vote in lock step with their agenda of passing massive lobbying fueled spending bills like the Omnibus which they themselves get a cut from. They use 501c's and essentially launder money. They can also game the stock market.

I think you're not seeing the point I'm trying to make:
All members of Congress can use political problems like illegal immigration to their advantage. For one, they can campaign on a problem if they perpetuate it.

Second, Human smuggling is big business. If you dig in to the IRS 990 forms of non-profits that run unaccompanied minor shelters, you'll see a lot of, well, "generous" wage/benefit perks. Golf, florists, cafe's, mysterious leases, land purchases, third party mortgages, $$$ Spouses on the payroll, etc of the money it receives from the federal government for unaccompanied children officials with the non-profit.

Sad thing is, it's you and me that are paying the South American human smugglers through U.S. taxpayer funds. Laundered through the immigration business bagmen at U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and/or, U.S. Catholic Charities, or Southwest Key Programs Inc; or Baptist Child and Family Services Emergency Management Division (BCFS-EMD), just to name a few.

These immigration groups, get *MASSIVE* HHS grants and then pay-off the DC politicians and human smugglers, including MS13. Billions of dollars are spent, and the business has exploded in the past six years.

So when you've got each individual immigration business making multi-hundreds of millions; and politicians getting kick-backs (lobbyists); and bribes to Mexican government officials; and payments to smugglers; who do you think actually wants the business to stop?


The "faith-based" crew (Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck, etc.) don't want it to stop, because facilitating illegal alien import is now the financial bread and butter amid groups in their base of support. The man/woman in the pew might not know; but the corporation minister, preacher or priest (inside the process) surely does.

The Wall Street, big GOPe, U.S. Chamber of Commerce crew doesn't want it to stop because they benefit from it (cheap labor), and the taxpayers -not them- are the ones funding it.

All I'm saying Quash is that when you follow the money, you get the big picture. We're all arguing against the wrong things. Money needs to get out of politics or this country falls.

---

As I have said many times, I agree with Citizens United, a 1st Amendment two-fer.

To get the donor money out you have to remove the goodies they are buying. Trump blew our once every generation attempt at tax reform, but maybe next time.

---

So I guess you are going to apply the same arguments to the next Democrat president who explodes the national debt and increases government to sizes never before seen?

I suspect you won't say a damn thing.

---

You'd be wrong.

---

Sure thing. Friggin laughable

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Senate votes to override. At least 7 Republicans. Watch fake conservatives castigate real conservatives for doing the right thing.

---

They don't have enough votes to override Trump's upcoming veto of this.

So I applaud the RINO's for ratting themselves out. First time congress has ever rejected a Presidential emergency under the 1976 national emergency act.

Illegal immigration is big business: too bad you know nothing about that. You just applauded the swamp in it's attempt to perpetuate illegal immigration so they can get rich from it.

---

I applaud Senators who follow the Constitution. Thanks for proving my point.

---

Did congress take away that 1976 law giving the president that authority? Did I miss something?

BTW....I think this is a poor use of that authority, but nevertheless they gave it to a president.

---

Elsewhere I have argued that there are several unconstitutional delegations of congressional power to the executive. Doesn't matter how long Congress has let it go. Really ironic that this particular authority was granted so soon after the imperial presidency.

---

Nixon or the book? Not disagreeing that all government branches have exceeded the authority granted under the constitution (IMO the constitution isn't a suicide pact.) and government has grown too large exceeding what the Framers intended, but congress did authorize a president this authority.

---

This authority and others. It is only partly about the growth of govt. If Congress won't protect it's own authority the checks and imbalances will grow.

---

The reason POTUS was voted against by even his own party has everything to do with money and nothing to do with questioning authority.

Money controls congress. Bigger government is access to more money for ALL of congress.

Whips and leaders of both parties will strip any member of congress's power if they do not vote in lock step with their agenda of passing massive lobbying fueled spending bills like the Omnibus which they themselves get a cut from. They use 501c's and essentially launder money. They can also game the stock market.

I think you're not seeing the point I'm trying to make:
All members of Congress can use political problems like illegal immigration to their advantage. For one, they can campaign on a problem if they perpetuate it.

Second, Human smuggling is big business. If you dig in to the IRS 990 forms of non-profits that run unaccompanied minor shelters, you'll see a lot of, well, "generous" wage/benefit perks. Golf, florists, cafe's, mysterious leases, land purchases, third party mortgages, $$$ Spouses on the payroll, etc of the money it receives from the federal government for unaccompanied children officials with the non-profit.

Sad thing is, it's you and me that are paying the South American human smugglers through U.S. taxpayer funds. Laundered through the immigration business bagmen at U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and/or, U.S. Catholic Charities, or Southwest Key Programs Inc; or Baptist Child and Family Services Emergency Management Division (BCFS-EMD), just to name a few.

These immigration groups, get *MASSIVE* HHS grants and then pay-off the DC politicians and human smugglers, including MS13. Billions of dollars are spent, and the business has exploded in the past six years.

So when you've got each individual immigration business making multi-hundreds of millions; and politicians getting kick-backs (lobbyists); and bribes to Mexican government officials; and payments to smugglers; who do you think actually wants the business to stop?


The "faith-based" crew (Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck, etc.) don't want it to stop, because facilitating illegal alien import is now the financial bread and butter amid groups in their base of support. The man/woman in the pew might not know; but the corporation minister, preacher or priest (inside the process) surely does.

The Wall Street, big GOPe, U.S. Chamber of Commerce crew doesn't want it to stop because they benefit from it (cheap labor), and the taxpayers -not them- are the ones funding it.

All I'm saying Quash is that when you follow the money, you get the big picture. We're all arguing against the wrong things. Money needs to get out of politics or this country falls.

---

As I have said many times, I agree with Citizens United, a 1st Amendment two-fer.

To get the donor money out you have to remove the goodies they are buying. Trump blew our once every generation attempt at tax reform, but maybe next time.

---

So I guess you are going to apply the same arguments to the next Democrat president who explodes the national debt and increases government to sizes never before seen?

I suspect you won't say a damn thing.

---

You'd be wrong.

---

Sure thing. Friggin laughable

---

You can be wrong, too, plenty of room. I've been *****ing about the debt for years.

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Senate votes to override. At least 7 Republicans. Watch fake conservatives castigate real conservatives for doing the right thing.

---

They don't have enough votes to override Trump's upcoming veto of this.

So I applaud the RINO's for ratting themselves out. First time congress has ever rejected a Presidential emergency under the 1976 national emergency act.

Illegal immigration is big business: too bad you know nothing about that. You just applauded the swamp in it's attempt to perpetuate illegal immigration so they can get rich from it.

---

I applaud Senators who follow the Constitution. Thanks for proving my point.

---

Did congress take away that 1976 law giving the president that authority? Did I miss something?

BTW....I think this is a poor use of that authority, but nevertheless they gave it to a president.

---

Elsewhere I have argued that there are several unconstitutional delegations of congressional power to the executive. Doesn't matter how long Congress has let it go. Really ironic that this particular authority was granted so soon after the imperial presidency.

---

Nixon or the book? Not disagreeing that all government branches have exceeded the authority granted under the constitution (IMO the constitution isn't a suicide pact.) and government has grown too large exceeding what the Framers intended, but congress did authorize a president this authority.

---

This authority and others. It is only partly about the growth of govt. If Congress won't protect it's own authority the checks and imbalances will grow.

---

The reason POTUS was voted against by even his own party has everything to do with money and nothing to do with questioning authority.

Money controls congress. Bigger government is access to more money for ALL of congress.

Whips and leaders of both parties will strip any member of congress's power if they do not vote in lock step with their agenda of passing massive lobbying fueled spending bills like the Omnibus which they themselves get a cut from. They use 501c's and essentially launder money. They can also game the stock market.

I think you're not seeing the point I'm trying to make:
All members of Congress can use political problems like illegal immigration to their advantage. For one, they can campaign on a problem if they perpetuate it.

Second, Human smuggling is big business. If you dig in to the IRS 990 forms of non-profits that run unaccompanied minor shelters, you'll see a lot of, well, "generous" wage/benefit perks. Golf, florists, cafe's, mysterious leases, land purchases, third party mortgages, $$$ Spouses on the payroll, etc of the money it receives from the federal government for unaccompanied children officials with the non-profit.

Sad thing is, it's you and me that are paying the South American human smugglers through U.S. taxpayer funds. Laundered through the immigration business bagmen at U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and/or, U.S. Catholic Charities, or Southwest Key Programs Inc; or Baptist Child and Family Services Emergency Management Division (BCFS-EMD), just to name a few.

These immigration groups, get *MASSIVE* HHS grants and then pay-off the DC politicians and human smugglers, including MS13. Billions of dollars are spent, and the business has exploded in the past six years.

So when you've got each individual immigration business making multi-hundreds of millions; and politicians getting kick-backs (lobbyists); and bribes to Mexican government officials; and payments to smugglers; who do you think actually wants the business to stop?


The "faith-based" crew (Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck, etc.) don't want it to stop, because facilitating illegal alien import is now the financial bread and butter amid groups in their base of support. The man/woman in the pew might not know; but the corporation minister, preacher or priest (inside the process) surely does.

The Wall Street, big GOPe, U.S. Chamber of Commerce crew doesn't want it to stop because they benefit from it (cheap labor), and the taxpayers -not them- are the ones funding it.

All I'm saying Quash is that when you follow the money, you get the big picture. We're all arguing against the wrong things. Money needs to get out of politics or this country falls.

---

As I have said many times, I agree with Citizens United, a 1st Amendment two-fer.

To get the donor money out you have to remove the goodies they are buying. Trump blew our once every generation attempt at tax reform, but maybe next time.

---

So I guess you are going to apply the same arguments to the next Democrat president who explodes the national debt and increases government to sizes never before seen?

I suspect you won't say a damn thing.

---

You'd be wrong.

---

Sure thing. Friggin laughable

---

You can be wrong, too, plenty of room. I've been *****ing about the debt for years.

---

Really???

Ok then, here's your test

Tell me what obama did to debt and how he did it?

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Senate votes to override. At least 7 Republicans. Watch fake conservatives castigate real conservatives for doing the right thing.

---

They don't have enough votes to override Trump's upcoming veto of this.

So I applaud the RINO's for ratting themselves out. First time congress has ever rejected a Presidential emergency under the 1976 national emergency act.

Illegal immigration is big business: too bad you know nothing about that. You just applauded the swamp in it's attempt to perpetuate illegal immigration so they can get rich from it.

---

I applaud Senators who follow the Constitution. Thanks for proving my point.

---

Did congress take away that 1976 law giving the president that authority? Did I miss something?

BTW....I think this is a poor use of that authority, but nevertheless they gave it to a president.

---

Elsewhere I have argued that there are several unconstitutional delegations of congressional power to the executive. Doesn't matter how long Congress has let it go. Really ironic that this particular authority was granted so soon after the imperial presidency.

---

Nixon or the book? Not disagreeing that all government branches have exceeded the authority granted under the constitution (IMO the constitution isn't a suicide pact.) and government has grown too large exceeding what the Framers intended, but congress did authorize a president this authority.

---

This authority and others. It is only partly about the growth of govt. If Congress won't protect it's own authority the checks and imbalances will grow.

---

The reason POTUS was voted against by even his own party has everything to do with money and nothing to do with questioning authority.

Money controls congress. Bigger government is access to more money for ALL of congress.

Whips and leaders of both parties will strip any member of congress's power if they do not vote in lock step with their agenda of passing massive lobbying fueled spending bills like the Omnibus which they themselves get a cut from. They use 501c's and essentially launder money. They can also game the stock market.

I think you're not seeing the point I'm trying to make:
All members of Congress can use political problems like illegal immigration to their advantage. For one, they can campaign on a problem if they perpetuate it.

Second, Human smuggling is big business. If you dig in to the IRS 990 forms of non-profits that run unaccompanied minor shelters, you'll see a lot of, well, "generous" wage/benefit perks. Golf, florists, cafe's, mysterious leases, land purchases, third party mortgages, $$$ Spouses on the payroll, etc of the money it receives from the federal government for unaccompanied children officials with the non-profit.

Sad thing is, it's you and me that are paying the South American human smugglers through U.S. taxpayer funds. Laundered through the immigration business bagmen at U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and/or, U.S. Catholic Charities, or Southwest Key Programs Inc; or Baptist Child and Family Services Emergency Management Division (BCFS-EMD), just to name a few.

These immigration groups, get *MASSIVE* HHS grants and then pay-off the DC politicians and human smugglers, including MS13. Billions of dollars are spent, and the business has exploded in the past six years.

So when you've got each individual immigration business making multi-hundreds of millions; and politicians getting kick-backs (lobbyists); and bribes to Mexican government officials; and payments to smugglers; who do you think actually wants the business to stop?


The "faith-based" crew (Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck, etc.) don't want it to stop, because facilitating illegal alien import is now the financial bread and butter amid groups in their base of support. The man/woman in the pew might not know; but the corporation minister, preacher or priest (inside the process) surely does.

The Wall Street, big GOPe, U.S. Chamber of Commerce crew doesn't want it to stop because they benefit from it (cheap labor), and the taxpayers -not them- are the ones funding it.

All I'm saying Quash is that when you follow the money, you get the big picture. We're all arguing against the wrong things. Money needs to get out of politics or this country falls.

---

As I have said many times, I agree with Citizens United, a 1st Amendment two-fer.

To get the donor money out you have to remove the goodies they are buying. Trump blew our once every generation attempt at tax reform, but maybe next time.

---

So I guess you are going to apply the same arguments to the next Democrat president who explodes the national debt and increases government to sizes never before seen?

I suspect you won't say a damn thing.

---

You'd be wrong.

---

Sure thing. Friggin laughable

---

You can be wrong, too, plenty of room. I've been *****ing about the debt for years.

---

Really???

Ok then, here's your test

Tell me what obama did to debt and how he did it?

---

He increased it. So did every president in your lifetime.
22 trillion.

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Senate votes to override. At least 7 Republicans. Watch fake conservatives castigate real conservatives for doing the right thing.

---

They don't have enough votes to override Trump's upcoming veto of this.

So I applaud the RINO's for ratting themselves out. First time congress has ever rejected a Presidential emergency under the 1976 national emergency act.

Illegal immigration is big business: too bad you know nothing about that. You just applauded the swamp in it's attempt to perpetuate illegal immigration so they can get rich from it.

---

I applaud Senators who follow the Constitution. Thanks for proving my point.

---

Did congress take away that 1976 law giving the president that authority? Did I miss something?

BTW....I think this is a poor use of that authority, but nevertheless they gave it to a president.

---

Elsewhere I have argued that there are several unconstitutional delegations of congressional power to the executive. Doesn't matter how long Congress has let it go. Really ironic that this particular authority was granted so soon after the imperial presidency.

---

Nixon or the book? Not disagreeing that all government branches have exceeded the authority granted under the constitution (IMO the constitution isn't a suicide pact.) and government has grown too large exceeding what the Framers intended, but congress did authorize a president this authority.

---

This authority and others. It is only partly about the growth of govt. If Congress won't protect it's own authority the checks and imbalances will grow.

---

The reason POTUS was voted against by even his own party has everything to do with money and nothing to do with questioning authority.

Money controls congress. Bigger government is access to more money for ALL of congress.

Whips and leaders of both parties will strip any member of congress's power if they do not vote in lock step with their agenda of passing massive lobbying fueled spending bills like the Omnibus which they themselves get a cut from. They use 501c's and essentially launder money. They can also game the stock market.

I think you're not seeing the point I'm trying to make:
All members of Congress can use political problems like illegal immigration to their advantage. For one, they can campaign on a problem if they perpetuate it.

Second, Human smuggling is big business. If you dig in to the IRS 990 forms of non-profits that run unaccompanied minor shelters, you'll see a lot of, well, "generous" wage/benefit perks. Golf, florists, cafe's, mysterious leases, land purchases, third party mortgages, $$$ Spouses on the payroll, etc of the money it receives from the federal government for unaccompanied children officials with the non-profit.

Sad thing is, it's you and me that are paying the South American human smugglers through U.S. taxpayer funds. Laundered through the immigration business bagmen at U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and/or, U.S. Catholic Charities, or Southwest Key Programs Inc; or Baptist Child and Family Services Emergency Management Division (BCFS-EMD), just to name a few.

These immigration groups, get *MASSIVE* HHS grants and then pay-off the DC politicians and human smugglers, including MS13. Billions of dollars are spent, and the business has exploded in the past six years.

So when you've got each individual immigration business making multi-hundreds of millions; and politicians getting kick-backs (lobbyists); and bribes to Mexican government officials; and payments to smugglers; who do you think actually wants the business to stop?


The "faith-based" crew (Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck, etc.) don't want it to stop, because facilitating illegal alien import is now the financial bread and butter amid groups in their base of support. The man/woman in the pew might not know; but the corporation minister, preacher or priest (inside the process) surely does.

The Wall Street, big GOPe, U.S. Chamber of Commerce crew doesn't want it to stop because they benefit from it (cheap labor), and the taxpayers -not them- are the ones funding it.

All I'm saying Quash is that when you follow the money, you get the big picture. We're all arguing against the wrong things. Money needs to get out of politics or this country falls.

---

As I have said many times, I agree with Citizens United, a 1st Amendment two-fer.

To get the donor money out you have to remove the goodies they are buying. Trump blew our once every generation attempt at tax reform, but maybe next time.

---

So I guess you are going to apply the same arguments to the next Democrat president who explodes the national debt and increases government to sizes never before seen?

I suspect you won't say a damn thing.

---

You'd be wrong.

---

Sure thing. Friggin laughable

---

You can be wrong, too, plenty of room. I've been *****ing about the debt for years.

---

Really???

Ok then, here's your test

Tell me what obama did to debt and how he did it?

---

He increased it. So did every president in your lifetime.
22 trillion.

---

Wrong!

That $22T is just since Bush Jr

Blame him, obama and Trump

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Senate votes to override. At least 7 Republicans. Watch fake conservatives castigate real conservatives for doing the right thing.

---

They don't have enough votes to override Trump's upcoming veto of this.

So I applaud the RINO's for ratting themselves out. First time congress has ever rejected a Presidential emergency under the 1976 national emergency act.

Illegal immigration is big business: too bad you know nothing about that. You just applauded the swamp in it's attempt to perpetuate illegal immigration so they can get rich from it.

---

I applaud Senators who follow the Constitution. Thanks for proving my point.

---

Did congress take away that 1976 law giving the president that authority? Did I miss something?

BTW....I think this is a poor use of that authority, but nevertheless they gave it to a president.

---

Elsewhere I have argued that there are several unconstitutional delegations of congressional power to the executive. Doesn't matter how long Congress has let it go. Really ironic that this particular authority was granted so soon after the imperial presidency.

---

Nixon or the book? Not disagreeing that all government branches have exceeded the authority granted under the constitution (IMO the constitution isn't a suicide pact.) and government has grown too large exceeding what the Framers intended, but congress did authorize a president this authority.

---

This authority and others. It is only partly about the growth of govt. If Congress won't protect it's own authority the checks and imbalances will grow.

---

The reason POTUS was voted against by even his own party has everything to do with money and nothing to do with questioning authority.

Money controls congress. Bigger government is access to more money for ALL of congress.

Whips and leaders of both parties will strip any member of congress's power if they do not vote in lock step with their agenda of passing massive lobbying fueled spending bills like the Omnibus which they themselves get a cut from. They use 501c's and essentially launder money. They can also game the stock market.

I think you're not seeing the point I'm trying to make:
All members of Congress can use political problems like illegal immigration to their advantage. For one, they can campaign on a problem if they perpetuate it.

Second, Human smuggling is big business. If you dig in to the IRS 990 forms of non-profits that run unaccompanied minor shelters, you'll see a lot of, well, "generous" wage/benefit perks. Golf, florists, cafe's, mysterious leases, land purchases, third party mortgages, $$$ Spouses on the payroll, etc of the money it receives from the federal government for unaccompanied children officials with the non-profit.

Sad thing is, it's you and me that are paying the South American human smugglers through U.S. taxpayer funds. Laundered through the immigration business bagmen at U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and/or, U.S. Catholic Charities, or Southwest Key Programs Inc; or Baptist Child and Family Services Emergency Management Division (BCFS-EMD), just to name a few.

These immigration groups, get *MASSIVE* HHS grants and then pay-off the DC politicians and human smugglers, including MS13. Billions of dollars are spent, and the business has exploded in the past six years.

So when you've got each individual immigration business making multi-hundreds of millions; and politicians getting kick-backs (lobbyists); and bribes to Mexican government officials; and payments to smugglers; who do you think actually wants the business to stop?


The "faith-based" crew (Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck, etc.) don't want it to stop, because facilitating illegal alien import is now the financial bread and butter amid groups in their base of support. The man/woman in the pew might not know; but the corporation minister, preacher or priest (inside the process) surely does.

The Wall Street, big GOPe, U.S. Chamber of Commerce crew doesn't want it to stop because they benefit from it (cheap labor), and the taxpayers -not them- are the ones funding it.

All I'm saying Quash is that when you follow the money, you get the big picture. We're all arguing against the wrong things. Money needs to get out of politics or this country falls.

---

As I have said many times, I agree with Citizens United, a 1st Amendment two-fer.

To get the donor money out you have to remove the goodies they are buying. Trump blew our once every generation attempt at tax reform, but maybe next time.

---

So I guess you are going to apply the same arguments to the next Democrat president who explodes the national debt and increases government to sizes never before seen?

I suspect you won't say a damn thing.

---

You'd be wrong.

---

Sure thing. Friggin laughable

---

You can be wrong, too, plenty of room. I've been *****ing about the debt for years.

---

Really???

Ok then, here's your test

Tell me what obama did to debt and how he did it?

---

He increased it. So did every president in your lifetime.
22 trillion.

---

Wrong!

That $22T is just since Bush Jr

Blame him, obama and Trump

---

One of those men significantly reduced the budget deficit.

HuMcK said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Senate votes to override. At least 7 Republicans. Watch fake conservatives castigate real conservatives for doing the right thing.

---

They don't have enough votes to override Trump's upcoming veto of this.

So I applaud the RINO's for ratting themselves out. First time congress has ever rejected a Presidential emergency under the 1976 national emergency act.

Illegal immigration is big business: too bad you know nothing about that. You just applauded the swamp in it's attempt to perpetuate illegal immigration so they can get rich from it.

---

I applaud Senators who follow the Constitution. Thanks for proving my point.

---

Did congress take away that 1976 law giving the president that authority? Did I miss something?

BTW....I think this is a poor use of that authority, but nevertheless they gave it to a president.

---

Elsewhere I have argued that there are several unconstitutional delegations of congressional power to the executive. Doesn't matter how long Congress has let it go. Really ironic that this particular authority was granted so soon after the imperial presidency.

---

Nixon or the book? Not disagreeing that all government branches have exceeded the authority granted under the constitution (IMO the constitution isn't a suicide pact.) and government has grown too large exceeding what the Framers intended, but congress did authorize a president this authority.

---

This authority and others. It is only partly about the growth of govt. If Congress won't protect it's own authority the checks and imbalances will grow.

---

The reason POTUS was voted against by even his own party has everything to do with money and nothing to do with questioning authority.

Money controls congress. Bigger government is access to more money for ALL of congress.

Whips and leaders of both parties will strip any member of congress's power if they do not vote in lock step with their agenda of passing massive lobbying fueled spending bills like the Omnibus which they themselves get a cut from. They use 501c's and essentially launder money. They can also game the stock market.

I think you're not seeing the point I'm trying to make:
All members of Congress can use political problems like illegal immigration to their advantage. For one, they can campaign on a problem if they perpetuate it.

Second, Human smuggling is big business. If you dig in to the IRS 990 forms of non-profits that run unaccompanied minor shelters, you'll see a lot of, well, "generous" wage/benefit perks. Golf, florists, cafe's, mysterious leases, land purchases, third party mortgages, $$$ Spouses on the payroll, etc of the money it receives from the federal government for unaccompanied children officials with the non-profit.

Sad thing is, it's you and me that are paying the South American human smugglers through U.S. taxpayer funds. Laundered through the immigration business bagmen at U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and/or, U.S. Catholic Charities, or Southwest Key Programs Inc; or Baptist Child and Family Services Emergency Management Division (BCFS-EMD), just to name a few.

These immigration groups, get *MASSIVE* HHS grants and then pay-off the DC politicians and human smugglers, including MS13. Billions of dollars are spent, and the business has exploded in the past six years.

So when you've got each individual immigration business making multi-hundreds of millions; and politicians getting kick-backs (lobbyists); and bribes to Mexican government officials; and payments to smugglers; who do you think actually wants the business to stop?


The "faith-based" crew (Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck, etc.) don't want it to stop, because facilitating illegal alien import is now the financial bread and butter amid groups in their base of support. The man/woman in the pew might not know; but the corporation minister, preacher or priest (inside the process) surely does.

The Wall Street, big GOPe, U.S. Chamber of Commerce crew doesn't want it to stop because they benefit from it (cheap labor), and the taxpayers -not them- are the ones funding it.

All I'm saying Quash is that when you follow the money, you get the big picture. We're all arguing against the wrong things. Money needs to get out of politics or this country falls.

---

As I have said many times, I agree with Citizens United, a 1st Amendment two-fer.

To get the donor money out you have to remove the goodies they are buying. Trump blew our once every generation attempt at tax reform, but maybe next time.

---

So I guess you are going to apply the same arguments to the next Democrat president who explodes the national debt and increases government to sizes never before seen?

I suspect you won't say a damn thing.

---

You'd be wrong.

---

Sure thing. Friggin laughable

---

You can be wrong, too, plenty of room. I've been *****ing about the debt for years.

---

Really???

Ok then, here's your test

Tell me what obama did to debt and how he did it?

---

He increased it. So did every president in your lifetime.
22 trillion.

---

Wrong!

That $22T is just since Bush Jr

Blame him, obama and Trump

---

One of those men significantly reduced the budget deficit.

---

Educate me on "that man" and how he "reduced budget deficit?"

Be careful if you don't really have a clue!

HuMcK said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Senate votes to override. At least 7 Republicans. Watch fake conservatives castigate real conservatives for doing the right thing.

---

They don't have enough votes to override Trump's upcoming veto of this.

So I applaud the RINO's for ratting themselves out. First time congress has ever rejected a Presidential emergency under the 1976 national emergency act.

Illegal immigration is big business: too bad you know nothing about that. You just applauded the swamp in it's attempt to perpetuate illegal immigration so they can get rich from it.

---

I applaud Senators who follow the Constitution. Thanks for proving my point.

---

Did congress take away that 1976 law giving the president that authority? Did I miss something?

BTW....I think this is a poor use of that authority, but nevertheless they gave it to a president.

---

Elsewhere I have argued that there are several unconstitutional delegations of congressional power to the executive. Doesn't matter how long Congress has let it go. Really ironic that this particular authority was granted so soon after the imperial presidency.

---

Nixon or the book? Not disagreeing that all government branches have exceeded the authority granted under the constitution (IMO the constitution isn't a suicide pact.) and government has grown too large exceeding what the Framers intended, but congress did authorize a president this authority.

---

This authority and others. It is only partly about the growth of govt. If Congress won't protect it's own authority the checks and imbalances will grow.

---

The reason POTUS was voted against by even his own party has everything to do with money and nothing to do with questioning authority.

Money controls congress. Bigger government is access to more money for ALL of congress.

Whips and leaders of both parties will strip any member of congress's power if they do not vote in lock step with their agenda of passing massive lobbying fueled spending bills like the Omnibus which they themselves get a cut from. They use 501c's and essentially launder money. They can also game the stock market.

I think you're not seeing the point I'm trying to make:
All members of Congress can use political problems like illegal immigration to their advantage. For one, they can campaign on a problem if they perpetuate it.

Second, Human smuggling is big business. If you dig in to the IRS 990 forms of non-profits that run unaccompanied minor shelters, you'll see a lot of, well, "generous" wage/benefit perks. Golf, florists, cafe's, mysterious leases, land purchases, third party mortgages, $$$ Spouses on the payroll, etc of the money it receives from the federal government for unaccompanied children officials with the non-profit.

Sad thing is, it's you and me that are paying the South American human smugglers through U.S. taxpayer funds. Laundered through the immigration business bagmen at U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and/or, U.S. Catholic Charities, or Southwest Key Programs Inc; or Baptist Child and Family Services Emergency Management Division (BCFS-EMD), just to name a few.

These immigration groups, get *MASSIVE* HHS grants and then pay-off the DC politicians and human smugglers, including MS13. Billions of dollars are spent, and the business has exploded in the past six years.

So when you've got each individual immigration business making multi-hundreds of millions; and politicians getting kick-backs (lobbyists); and bribes to Mexican government officials; and payments to smugglers; who do you think actually wants the business to stop?


The "faith-based" crew (Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck, etc.) don't want it to stop, because facilitating illegal alien import is now the financial bread and butter amid groups in their base of support. The man/woman in the pew might not know; but the corporation minister, preacher or priest (inside the process) surely does.

The Wall Street, big GOPe, U.S. Chamber of Commerce crew doesn't want it to stop because they benefit from it (cheap labor), and the taxpayers -not them- are the ones funding it.

All I'm saying Quash is that when you follow the money, you get the big picture. We're all arguing against the wrong things. Money needs to get out of politics or this country falls.

---

As I have said many times, I agree with Citizens United, a 1st Amendment two-fer.

To get the donor money out you have to remove the goodies they are buying. Trump blew our once every generation attempt at tax reform, but maybe next time.

---

So I guess you are going to apply the same arguments to the next Democrat president who explodes the national debt and increases government to sizes never before seen?

I suspect you won't say a damn thing.

---

You'd be wrong.

---

Sure thing. Friggin laughable

---

You can be wrong, too, plenty of room. I've been *****ing about the debt for years.

---

Really???

Ok then, here's your test

Tell me what obama did to debt and how he did it?

---

He increased it. So did every president in your lifetime.
22 trillion.

---

Wrong!

That $22T is just since Bush Jr

Blame him, obama and Trump

---

One of those men significantly reduced the budget deficit.

---

I'm curious. How does a president reduce the debt? The deficit has risen under every president since Ike because of the spending of Congress. The argument now is whether a president can spend money not appropriated for a specific purpose (he can't)

And quash is correct about the $22 trillion; that is the total debt accumulated by the country since Geo Washington.

Osodecentx said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Senate votes to override. At least 7 Republicans. Watch fake conservatives castigate real conservatives for doing the right thing.

---

They don't have enough votes to override Trump's upcoming veto of this.

So I applaud the RINO's for ratting themselves out. First time congress has ever rejected a Presidential emergency under the 1976 national emergency act.

Illegal immigration is big business: too bad you know nothing about that. You just applauded the swamp in it's attempt to perpetuate illegal immigration so they can get rich from it.

---

I applaud Senators who follow the Constitution. Thanks for proving my point.

---

Did congress take away that 1976 law giving the president that authority? Did I miss something?

BTW....I think this is a poor use of that authority, but nevertheless they gave it to a president.

---

Elsewhere I have argued that there are several unconstitutional delegations of congressional power to the executive. Doesn't matter how long Congress has let it go. Really ironic that this particular authority was granted so soon after the imperial presidency.

---

Nixon or the book? Not disagreeing that all government branches have exceeded the authority granted under the constitution (IMO the constitution isn't a suicide pact.) and government has grown too large exceeding what the Framers intended, but congress did authorize a president this authority.

---

This authority and others. It is only partly about the growth of govt. If Congress won't protect it's own authority the checks and imbalances will grow.

---

The reason POTUS was voted against by even his own party has everything to do with money and nothing to do with questioning authority.

Money controls congress. Bigger government is access to more money for ALL of congress.

Whips and leaders of both parties will strip any member of congress's power if they do not vote in lock step with their agenda of passing massive lobbying fueled spending bills like the Omnibus which they themselves get a cut from. They use 501c's and essentially launder money. They can also game the stock market.

I think you're not seeing the point I'm trying to make:
All members of Congress can use political problems like illegal immigration to their advantage. For one, they can campaign on a problem if they perpetuate it.

Second, Human smuggling is big business. If you dig in to the IRS 990 forms of non-profits that run unaccompanied minor shelters, you'll see a lot of, well, "generous" wage/benefit perks. Golf, florists, cafe's, mysterious leases, land purchases, third party mortgages, $$$ Spouses on the payroll, etc of the money it receives from the federal government for unaccompanied children officials with the non-profit.

Sad thing is, it's you and me that are paying the South American human smugglers through U.S. taxpayer funds. Laundered through the immigration business bagmen at U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and/or, U.S. Catholic Charities, or Southwest Key Programs Inc; or Baptist Child and Family Services Emergency Management Division (BCFS-EMD), just to name a few.

These immigration groups, get *MASSIVE* HHS grants and then pay-off the DC politicians and human smugglers, including MS13. Billions of dollars are spent, and the business has exploded in the past six years.

So when you've got each individual immigration business making multi-hundreds of millions; and politicians getting kick-backs (lobbyists); and bribes to Mexican government officials; and payments to smugglers; who do you think actually wants the business to stop?


The "faith-based" crew (Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck, etc.) don't want it to stop, because facilitating illegal alien import is now the financial bread and butter amid groups in their base of support. The man/woman in the pew might not know; but the corporation minister, preacher or priest (inside the process) surely does.

The Wall Street, big GOPe, U.S. Chamber of Commerce crew doesn't want it to stop because they benefit from it (cheap labor), and the taxpayers -not them- are the ones funding it.

All I'm saying Quash is that when you follow the money, you get the big picture. We're all arguing against the wrong things. Money needs to get out of politics or this country falls.

---

As I have said many times, I agree with Citizens United, a 1st Amendment two-fer.

To get the donor money out you have to remove the goodies they are buying. Trump blew our once every generation attempt at tax reform, but maybe next time.

---

So I guess you are going to apply the same arguments to the next Democrat president who explodes the national debt and increases government to sizes never before seen?

I suspect you won't say a damn thing.

---

You'd be wrong.

---

Sure thing. Friggin laughable

---

You can be wrong, too, plenty of room. I've been *****ing about the debt for years.

---

Really???

Ok then, here's your test

Tell me what obama did to debt and how he did it?

---

He increased it. So did every president in your lifetime.
22 trillion.

---

Wrong!

That $22T is just since Bush Jr

Blame him, obama and Trump

---

One of those men significantly reduced the budget deficit.

---

I'm curious. How does a president reduce the debt? The deficit has risen under every president since Ike because of the spending of Congress. The argument now is whether a president can spend money not appropriated for a specific purpose (he can't)

And quash is correct about the $22 trillion; that is the total debt accumulated by the country since Geo Washington.

---

You're right mostly

Congress spends to get re-elected. That's what politicians do

And congress mainly under republican dominance during Clinton allowed debt to near -$0- at end of his 8 years I think?

Pretty sure $20T was rung up under Bush Jr and obama and this Congress dam sure will do Trump no favors(both sides aisle) so expect close to $30T debt if Trump goes to January 2025!

Clinton eventually stopped growing the debt but did not come anywhere near eliminating the national debt

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Clinton eventually stopped growing the debt but did not come anywhere near eliminating the national debt

---

How did Clinton do that?

Ok. How about" Clinton was president the last time blah blah."

I seem to remember he taxed the top.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Ok. How about" Clinton was president the last time blah blah."

I seem to remember he taxed the top.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

---

I'm nitpicking

Congress did, not the president.
Congress balanced the budget. Congress raised taxes.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Ok. How about" Clinton was president the last time blah blah."

I seem to remember he taxed the top.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

---

Do you think taxes should be raised right now?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Ok. How about" Clinton was president the last time blah blah."

I seem to remember he taxed the top.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

---

Do you think taxes should be raised right now?

---

It is too late. We've tipped.

Congress has my support to raise my taxes if:
1. Everybody is in it (48% pay no income tax)
2. They have a realistic plan to balance the budget (not an unrealistic plan built on overly optimistic forecasts 15 years from now)

My firm belief is that they would raise taxes and borrow more to pay for universal healthcare, free college, free housing, guaranteed income for those who won't work, free food, etc. IOW, no balanced budget.

The next financial crisis is the most predictable crisis in history.

My dad taught me the quickest way to have more money is to stop spending it. I think there are lots of opportunities to cut spending and/or spend more carefully. There are some government programs I would eliminate. My taxes went up a few hundred dollars this year but its my fault for not planning better. NBD. I would vote for almost any candidate that I thought would at least make an attempt to balance the budget. I didnt believe Pres Trump, with good reason.

Osodecentx said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Ok. How about" Clinton was president the last time blah blah."

I seem to remember he taxed the top.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

---

I'm nitpicking

Congress did, not the president.
Congress balanced the budget. Congress raised taxes.

---

Too lazy to look it up but wasnt it Clinton with a spllt congress or was it Clinton with both sides R.?

If I remember, his success was based on raising taxes of wealthy, welfare reform, and freeing up international trade? I didnt vote for our first black president but his economy was good. I lost respect for him when he diddled Lewinsky. The leader of the free world should be able to pull better than that. Heck, I have pulled better without even speaking the same language and an empty billfold.

I'm not wrong. Every president in your lifetime has increased the national debt.

And we didn't hit $22 trillion until this year.

Clinton had two years without deficits, with a Republican house.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Ok. How about" Clinton was president the last time blah blah."

I seem to remember he taxed the top.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

---

I'm nitpicking

Congress did, not the president.
Congress balanced the budget. Congress raised taxes.

---

Too lazy to look it up but wasnt it Clinton with a spllt congress or was it Clinton with both sides R.?

If I remember, his success was based on raising taxes of wealthy, welfare reform, and freeing up international trade? I didnt vote for our first black president but his economy was good. I lost respect for him when he diddled Lewinsky. The leader of the free world should be able to pull better than that. Heck, I have pulled better without even speaking the same language and an empty billfold.

---

GHWB put nation first and it cost him a second term. He raised taxes.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Ok. How about" Clinton was president the last time blah blah."

I seem to remember he taxed the top.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

---

I'm nitpicking

Congress did, not the president.
Congress balanced the budget. Congress raised taxes.

---

Too lazy to look it up but wasnt it Clinton with a spllt congress or was it Clinton with both sides R.?

If I remember, his success was based on raising taxes of wealthy, welfare reform, and freeing up international trade? I didnt vote for our first black president but his economy was good. I lost respect for him when he diddled Lewinsky. The leader of the free world should be able to pull better than that. Heck, I have pulled better without even speaking the same language and an empty billfold.

---

Clinton avoided war. That was the key. Maybe he should've spent money to take out Bin Laden to save New York and the Pentagon.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Ok. How about" Clinton was president the last time blah blah."

I seem to remember he taxed the top.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

---

I'm nitpicking

Congress did, not the president.
Congress balanced the budget. Congress raised taxes.

---

Too lazy to look it up but wasnt it Clinton with a spllt congress or was it Clinton with both sides R.?

If I remember, his success was based on raising taxes of wealthy, welfare reform, and freeing up international trade? I didnt vote for our first black president but his economy was good. I lost respect for him when he diddled Lewinsky. The leader of the free world should be able to pull better than that. Heck, I have pulled better without even speaking the same language and an empty billfold.

---

I think a Democrat Congress raised taxes and a Republican Congress balanced the budget with the new money.

Clinton was president the last time the budget was balanced.

Osodecentx said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Ok. How about" Clinton was president the last time blah blah."

I seem to remember he taxed the top.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

---

I'm nitpicking

Congress did, not the president.
Congress balanced the budget. Congress raised taxes.

---

Too lazy to look it up but wasnt it Clinton with a spllt congress or was it Clinton with both sides R.?

If I remember, his success was based on raising taxes of wealthy, welfare reform, and freeing up international trade? I didnt vote for our first black president but his economy was good. I lost respect for him when he diddled Lewinsky. The leader of the free world should be able to pull better than that. Heck, I have pulled better without even speaking the same language and an empty billfold.

---

I think a Democrat Congress raised taxes and a Republican Congress balanced the budget with the new money.

Clinton was president the last time the budget was balanced.

---

The deficit also shrank signifigantly under Obama (tbf it almost was going to automatically after he inherited a $1.4tril deficit from the financial crisis). It really shrank after the GOP was forced by Obama's reelection into raising some marginal tax rates on high-income earners. The deficit got down to around $450bil in 2015, then started to rise slightly in 2016-17. It was $780bil in 2018 after the last round of tax cuts, and growing at an accelerated rate.

You asked me earlier how could the debt be eliminated, and the only feasible answer I see would include both structural tax reforms and large spending cuts to entitlements and "defense". Not just playing with the numbers either, but changes in how revenue is raised and how those programs spend.

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Ok. How about" Clinton was president the last time blah blah."

I seem to remember he taxed the top.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

---

I'm nitpicking

Congress did, not the president.
Congress balanced the budget. Congress raised taxes.

---

Too lazy to look it up but wasnt it Clinton with a spllt congress or was it Clinton with both sides R.?

If I remember, his success was based on raising taxes of wealthy, welfare reform, and freeing up international trade? I didnt vote for our first black president but his economy was good. I lost respect for him when he diddled Lewinsky. The leader of the free world should be able to pull better than that. Heck, I have pulled better without even speaking the same language and an empty billfold.

---

I think a Democrat Congress raised taxes and a Republican Congress balanced the budget with the new money.

Clinton was president the last time the budget was balanced.

---

The deficit also shrank signifigantly under Obama (tbf it almost was going to automatically after he inherited a $1.4tril deficit from the financial crisis). It really shrank after the GOP was forced by Obama's reelection into raising some marginal tax rates on high-income earners. The deficit got down to around $450bil in 2015, then started to rise slightly in 2016-17. It was $780bil in 2018 after the last round of tax cuts, and growing at an accelerated rate.

You asked me earlier how could the debt be eliminated, and the only feasible answer I see would include both structural tax reforms and large spending cuts to entitlements and "defense". Not just playing with the numbers either, but changes in how revenue is raised and how those programs spend.

---

I agree totally. The part of your answer in bold will NEVER happen no matter which party is running the show. I won't support an increase in taxes until everyone is in it. I won't support a cut in entitlements until there is a comprehensive, realistic plan to balance budget

We have tipped and we won't regain our balance until there is a 'great' reset (huge traumatic event causing a reset of values and monetary policy)

Waco1947 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Ok. How about" Clinton was president the last time blah blah."

I seem to remember he taxed the top.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

---

I'm nitpicking

Congress did, not the president.
Congress balanced the budget. Congress raised taxes.

---

Too lazy to look it up but wasnt it Clinton with a spllt congress or was it Clinton with both sides R.?

If I remember, his success was based on raising taxes of wealthy, welfare reform, and freeing up international trade? I didnt vote for our first black president but his economy was good. I lost respect for him when he diddled Lewinsky. The leader of the free world should be able to pull better than that. Heck, I have pulled better without even speaking the same language and an empty billfold.

---

GHWB put nation first and it cost him a second term. He raised taxes.

---

Ross Perot, and his hatred of Bush fam, cost Bush Sr 2nd term

But I'd expect you to have missed such even though you're several years my senior!

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Ok. How about" Clinton was president the last time blah blah."

I seem to remember he taxed the top.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

---

Do you think taxes should be raised right now?

---

It is too late. We've tipped.

Congress has my support to raise my taxes if:
1. Everybody is in it (48% pay no income tax)
2. They have a realistic plan to balance the budget (not an unrealistic plan built on overly optimistic forecasts 15 years from now)

My firm belief is that they would raise taxes and borrow more to pay for universal healthcare, free college, free housing, guaranteed income for those who won't work, free food, etc. IOW, no balanced budget.

The next financial crisis is the most predictable crisis in history.

---

I get the feeling that I will be paying more than half of all my income to government within 20 years and I'm not happy about it.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Ok. How about" Clinton was president the last time blah blah."

I seem to remember he taxed the top.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

---

Do you think taxes should be raised right now?

---

It is too late. We've tipped.

Congress has my support to raise my taxes if:
1. Everybody is in it (48% pay no income tax)
2. They have a realistic plan to balance the budget (not an unrealistic plan built on overly optimistic forecasts 15 years from now)

My firm belief is that they would raise taxes and borrow more to pay for universal healthcare, free college, free housing, guaranteed income for those who won't work, free food, etc. IOW, no balanced budget.

The next financial crisis is the most predictable crisis in history.

---

I get the feeling that I will be paying more than half of all my income to government within 20 years and I'm not happy about it.

---

It will be presented as your privilege to pay over half of your income .....in support of those who don't pay at all.

Within 15 years most likely .