Conservative columnist Ann Coulter issued a put-up-or-shut-up demand Tuesday to President Donald Trump, challenging him to identify exactly where his administration has erected new border barriers between the U.S. and Mexico.
Trump claimed Saturday on Twitter that the '[m]ajor sections of Wall are being built.' He tweeted a day earlier that his long-promised border wall 'is being built and is well under construction.'
Coulter told DailyMail.com in an email that she wants details.
'The President’s tweet says he’s already building the Wall. Could he give me the precise latitude and longitude of its location?' she asked. 'Also, how many miles long is it?'
'I want to throw a party there and need the exact coordinates,' she wrote.
This really sums it all up:
DailyMail.com asked the White House on Tuesday to identify the location of any 'place where there's a barrier now and there was none on Inauguration Day.'
One White House spokesperson referred the question to another, who did not respond.
Coulter told Mark Simone on Wednesday she'd be happy to kiss and makeup with Trump as soon as he "keeps a single one of his promises on immigration."
Federal law prohibits non-citizens — much less illegal immigrants — from participating in U.S. federal elections, but that hasn’t stopped some Democrats in Congress from attempting to legislatively extend the right to vote to non-citizens and illegals, at least on the local municipality level … for now, so they say.
The Washington Times reported that a majority of House Democrats voted on Friday in favor of supporting localities that allow for legal non-citizens and even illegal aliens to vote in local elections, such as for school board members and other local matters, a growing trend among mostly blue cities and states run by Democrats.
The question arose as part of a larger debate over Democrat legislation known as H.R. 1, which would completely overhaul the U.S. elections system and processes. The measure within that legislation on illegals voting in local elections was put forward by Republicans as a way to make clear that illegals and non-citizens had no right to participate in any elections — federal, state or local
According to Fox News, the bill would have affirmed the belief that “allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.”
The spirit is clearly to protect Americans’ voters from being canceled by illegals’ — now or in the future.
That might seem utterly uncontroversial, but in 2019, many things that were once taken for granted are now open to question.
The measure was soundly defeated by Democrats by a margin of 228-197.
That vote total means only six House Democrats joined with Republicans to denounce allowing illegal immigrants to participate in elections, a far cry from the 49 Democrats who had joined with the GOP to vote for a similar measure in 2018, when Republicans held control of Congress.
To be sure, illegal immigrants and non-citizens are still prohibited from voting in federal elections, and nothing contained within the current legislative effort would change that, at least as of now.
Do you think non-citizens should be barred from voting?
However, it is clear that there is support among Democrats for allowing illegals and non-citizens to have more of a say in the democratic process by granting them the right to vote.
And it isn’t a stretch to wonder how long it will be before they push to open up voting rights in federal elections, as well as local.
The disparity in the Democratic House members’ vote totals from now as compared to last year was duly noted by Republican Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw, who had pushed the issue to the floor for a vote.
Crenshaw tweeted on Friday, “Today I offered a motion to recommit #HR1 reaffirming that only US citizens should have the right to vote. Dems rejected it. Next time you go to the ballot box, keep that in mind. The future of their party is in cities like San Fran, where illegals can vote. Let that sink in.”
Today I offered a motion to recommit #HR1 reaffirming that only US citizens should have the right to vote.
Dems rejected it.
Next time you go to the ballot box, keep that in mind. The future of their party is in cities like San Fran, where illegals can vote. Let that sink in.
— Rep. Dan Crenshaw (@RepDanCrenshaw) March 8, 2019
The Times reported that Crenshaw said of the vote afterward, “It sounds like I’m making it up. What kind of government would cancel the vote of its own citizens, and replace it with non-citizens?”
And that right there gets to the crux of the matter — allowing illegal immigrants and non-citizens to cast a vote, even in just a local election, effectively cancels out a vote cast by a U.S. citizen.
Taking that thought process further, consider the Democratic Party’s support for allowing illegal immigrants to flood the country unchecked, coupled with the incessant push to grant them the same rights and access to benefits enjoyed by citizens.
And that’s not to mention the tendency of said migrants to then support the left and Democratic politicians as a sign of appreciation for their consideration.
Viewed that way, is it really any surprise that Democrats would ultimately want predominantly left-voting illegals and non-citizens to vote in federal elections, where each one of those heretofore prohibited votes would essentially cancel out the vote of a conservative citizen?
If Democrats eventually succeed in extending the right to vote in federal elections to illegal aliens and non-citizens, there is no question that the votes of millions of conservative Americans would effectively be nullified and rendered moot.
To borrow a phrase often championed by the left, they would be disenfranchised.
Democrats can loudly deny that they want to allow illegal immigrants and non-citizens to vote in federal elections or cancel out the votes of U.S. citizens, but their actions and support for it on the local level — not to mention their adamant opposition to voter ID laws that would prevent it — belie their true agenda of seizing and maintaining political power by any means possible.
And that clearly could include allowing illegals and non-citizens to vote for them.
This is yet another example of the left’s utter hypocrisy and duplicity toward the American people, as they are increasingly and routinely displaying that they hold more concern for the well-being and “rights” of illegal immigrants and non-citizens over that of U.S. citizens.
One thing Congress gets right: funding their own pensions | The Daily Bell
A study found that while the average American’s net worth increased 3.7% per year between 2004-2012, members of Congress averaged 15.4% annual gains.
That high level of pay means half the members of Congress are millionaires today… and continue to collect their $174,000 annual salary.
Of course it’s you, the taxpayer, paying that cushy salary.
But did you know the taxpayer also foots the bill for insane retirement benefits for Congress?
Each retired member can start collecting a pension at age 62 if they’ve spent just five years in Congress.
And they’ll collect 80% of their $174,000 annual salary.
That’s almost $140,000 a year, for the rest of their lives… for five years of service.
Where can I sign up?
Meanwhile, 40% of Americans can’t cover an unexpected $400 emergency expense… 57% have less than $1,000 in savings.
And a third of baby boomers—the generation currently retiring—have NOTHING put away for retirement.
While Congress’ pension is secured by your tax dollars, only 13% of regular Americans have pensions today. And even if you were promised one, collecting it is another story…
A recent Boston College report estimates 25% of private US pension funds—the pools of capital that pay out retirement benefits—will go bankrupt in the next decade. Public local, state, and federal pension funds are in even worse shape: $7 TRILLION short on what they promised to pay retired government workers.
But most Americans are relying on a different broken retirement fund… Social Security.
The Social Security Administration admits it is $50 trillion underfunded, and will run out of money by 2034.
That means cutting payouts, raising the retirement age, or both. And even that is only a short term solution…
There are, however, at least two Senators who see the injustice in all of this. They introduced legislation to eliminate pensions for members of Congress.
They say it’s not fair that while the poor get poorer, Congress gets richer.
The median American household net worth declined .94% per year from 2004 to 2012. And over the same period, 100 members of Congress watched their net worth gain 114% per year.
Members of Congress added $316.5 million to their net worth during this time period.
(But it wasn’t the Socialists in Congress who introduced the bill to address this wealth gap. They’re happy to ignore this prime example of the rich literally stealing from the poor.)
Getting rich at the taxpayers’ expense, collecting a salary 3x the median household income, and getting a six-figure lifetime pension…
That’s Congress’ reward for sinking the US government $22 trillion in debt… for creating debt bubbles in housing and student loans… for utterly failing to address a broken Social Security system… for wasting billions on things like a broken Obamacare website, defending Congressmen from sexual assaultlawsuits… and fighting like children during a government shutdown while millions of Americans were out of work.
But whatever happens next with the economy, whatever destruction their actions cause, rest assured, they’ll take their money and run…
Just like they did in 2008 before the big financial crash. Strange how 34 different members of Congress rearranged their investment portfolios within two days of talking to top Treasury and Federal Reserve officials.
One Senator even sold up to half a million dollars’ worth of Lehman Brothers stock the day after he met with the Treasury Secretary… just months before the firm declared the largest bankruptcy in history.
These politicians suffer no consequences for the policies they force on the entire nation. On the contrary, they personally gain tremendously from the turmoil they cause.
Even if their pensions are cut — I’m not holding my breath — it is largely a symbolic move. It won’t make a dent in the dire debt and liabilities of the US government.
Unlike members of Congress, you’re on your own for retirement.
One option is, if you can’t beat them, join them. Run for Congress and watch your net worth skyrocket. Even without their golden pensions you’ll be all set for retirement.
But a more realistic (and ethical) solution is to plan your retirement assuming the government promises will not be fulfilled.
One solution is to take matters into your own hands by using self directed structures for your IRA or 401(k).
But perhaps a better solution is to become a better investor. Saving an extra couple grand a year, and putting it into the right places can make a huge difference over the course of a couple of decades.
Sovereign Man’s Chief Investment Strategist Tim Staermose was on our Podcast last week explaining two different targeted investment strategies with proven track records. You can listen here.
Worst case scenario is we are wrong—the government by some miracle saves Social Security, pays off the debt, funds its pensions, doesn’t tank the economy and avoids another recession…
And you’ll still be better off having prepared for the worst.
You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.
Dems Push 'Journalist Protection Act' to Make Attacking Journos A Federal Crime
Ron Paul Warns Against 'Bipartisan Attack On The Second Amendment'
Parents Demand Removal Of Cell Tower At Elem. School After 4th Child Diagnosed With Cancer
Stephen Colbert Goes After Tulsi Gabbard In Hostile Interview: David Duke And Steve Bannon 'Like You'
Lindsey Graham: Democrats, GOP Can 'Come Together' for Gun Confiscation Law
New York Magazine's Andrew Sullivan writes in his latest column that under President Donald Trump the state of Israel has "achieved almost every goal" they've aimed for from "the scrapping of the Iran deal" to "moving the US embassy to Jerusalem" to ending "every form of US aid to Palestinians" but the US has gotten "nothing" in return.
From Sullivan's column titled, "How Should We Talk About the Israel Lobby's Power?":
Is it possible to write honestly about the Israel lobby's power in D.C. without using any anti-Semitic "tropes" at all?
The basic facts are not really in dispute. A very powerful lobby deploys the money and passions of its members to ensure that a foreign country gets very, very special treatment from the U.S. [...]
The U.S. provides the Jewish state with $3.8 billion a year in aid, and has committed to doing so for each of the next ten years. Compare that with what the U.S. gives other allies who are as wealthy as Israel: The U.K. got $150,000 in 2017; South Korea got $775,000. The average aid for high-income countries like Israel, according to USAID, is $79 million a year. Israel gets 48 times more.
Per capita, the disparity is close to absurd. Israel gets $436 in U.S. aid a year; dirt-poor Afghanistan $154; post-war Iraq $91; Egypt $14. By any measure, this is extreme exceptionalism. Yes, Israel faces military threats. But so does South Korea. And, unlike South Korea, Israel has nuclear weapons (illegally acquired) and its enemies don't.
[...] Under Trump, Israel has achieved almost every goal it aimed for: the scrapping of the Iran deal, the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, a surge in settlements, and an intensification of the abuse of the Palestinians. Every form of U.S. aid to Palestinians in the West Bank has ended. We're now the only country to have no diplomatic relations with the Palestinians, and just defunded the U.N. agencies that serve Palestinian refugees. Again you might ask: What did the U.S. get in return for all this from Israel? And again the answer is: Nothing.
[...] Now observe the public discourse in Washington. Here is Nancy Pelosi last year: “If this capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain would be our commitment to aid — I won’t even call it aid — our cooperation with Israel.” Chew on that a minute. If the United States were to collapse, its one objective would be to aid a foreign country. Here’s Chuck Schumer: “The view of Palestinians is simple, the Europeans treated the Jews badly culminating in the Holocaust and they gave them our land as compensation. Of course, we say it’s our land, the Torah says it, but they don’t believe in the Torah. So that’s the reason there is not peace.” If only Palestinians would convert to Judaism, all would be well!
Does this quote from Pelosi sound like a declaration of "allegiance" to you? pic.twitter.com/UGF3FZk2eO
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) March 5, 2019
Insightful geopolitical analysis here:
"Of course, we say it's our land, the Torah says it, but they (Palestinians & Arabs) don't believe in the Torah. So that's the reason there is not peace." - Senator Chuck Schumer's speech at AIPAC. pic.twitter.com/g2q38YGuwN
— saeen (@_Saeen_) March 7, 2018
The Jerusalem Post reported on Monday that President Trump said during a closed door with Republican donors in Florida on Friday: "If I ran in the Israeli elections, I would win 98% of the vote."
well yeah, that's mostly true but someone should tell him he is not the President of Israel. https://t.co/fanC0BgowR
— Luke Rudkowski (@Lukewearechange) March 11, 2019