President Trump said Friday he is declaring a national emergency on the southern border, tapping into executive powers in a bid to divert billions toward construction of a wall even as he plans to sign a funding package that includes just $1.4 billion for border security.
President Trump announced a national emergency to secure $8 billion of funding to build a wall along our southern border to stop the flow of drugs, sex trafficking, and address the humanitarian crisis happening.
“We’re going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border … one way or the other, we have to do it,” Trump said in the Rose Garden.
Trump, in the Rose Garden, declared once again that “walls work” as he confirmed he’ll sign the emergency declaration.
“We’re talking about an invasion of our country,” Trump said.
And in an almost-casual tone, the president predicted a legal fight that will wind up before the Supreme Court.
Trump said he expects to be sued and hopes they get a fair shake by the federal appeals court.
Immediately afterward Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer released a joint statement, they said,
“This is plainly a power grab by a disappointed President, who has gone outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process. The President’s actions clearly violate Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, which our Founders enshrined in the Constitution.”
They have assured the American people they will continue to fight against the President of the United States.
Congress will “defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the Courts, and in public, using every remedy available.
Source: Trump declares emergency on border, eyes $8B for wall as he plans to sign spending package
Mitch Mcconnell says that President Trump will sign the bill to avoid another shutdown but he will also declare a national emergency. Many Democrats feel there isn’t an emergency and it might hurt him by going this route. This is BREAKING news.
Stayed tuned for more.
Angela Rye and Joy Reid have speculated that American descendants of slaves using the hashtag “ADOS” to critique Harris and Booker are Russian bots.
There is a group called #ADOS that is criticizing Presidential hopefuls, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. However, because they are black and not talking favorably about two “black” Democrat candidates, some are calling them “Russian Bots.”
Angela Rye, a CNN political commentator and board member of the Congressional Black Caucus PAC, has said she believes that some ADOS arguments are not organic, but were “paid for by Russia.” She added that she’s “not saying everyone who uses the hashtag is a Russian bot,” but she does believe “it originated from Russian bots.”
However, this is where they say the hashtag came from.
“We thought that there wasn’t enough policy and policy initiatives, policy proposals for Americans who descended from slavery and had ancestors who lived through Jim Crow, reconstruction, all of that, so we came up with the hashtag American DOS or ADOS,” Carnell said, adding that they started the hashtag around two years ago.
This group doesn’t fit their narrative of who would be critics of these candidates so here comes the Democrats typical explanation, “Russia” must be doing it.
ADOS stands for American Descendants of Slaves. Their most significant criticism of Kamala Harris is her racial background and public record.
There are many movements across America where minorities are celebrating the fact they have left the Democrat Party. You have #BLEXIT organized by Candace Owens and #WALKAWAY organized by Brandon Straka. Hundreds, if not thousands, of minority social media personalities, are multiplying. Even despite tech companies suppressing their voices. For some reason, if a black person is conservative, they aren’t real or a trader to their race.
Could it be that Democrats fear these voices?
UAF Contributor: Marie Penetranti
Source: Black Critics of Kamala Harris and Cory Booker Push Back Against Claims That They’re Russian “Bots”
The governor scaled back the high-speed train, calling for a more limited rail line now but leaving the door open to a statewide project in the future.
In 2008 California voters approved the high-speed bullet train connecting Northern and Southern California. The estimated cost was $32 billion dollars, and it was expected to be complete in 2029. According to the business plan by the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the costs grew to $77 billion. And they could have gone up as much as $98 billion. However, Governor Gavin Newsom has now called a halt on the project.
California’s new governor, Gavin Newsom, sharply scaled back plans to build a high-speed train from San Francisco to Los Angeles on Tuesday, saying the program had been botched and cost too much.
It is unknown why the costs continued to soar. However, Newsom admits that contractors were not transparent in the expenses or held accountable to show where the money was being spent.
Newsom on Tuesday blamed oversight failures and a lack of transparency, saying he wasn’t “interested in repeating the same old mistakes.”
He said he would name Lenny Mendonca, his economic development director, as the authority’s next chairman, with a mandate to “hold contractors and consultants accountable to explain how taxpayer dollars are spent” and to put all expenses online “for everybody to see.”
So can we use the California bullet train as an example of what a high-speed rail system across America would cost? This past week Democrats proposed a Green deal that would “build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” The resolution itself doesn’t mention air travel at all but does call for the goal of “investing in … clean, affordable, and accessible transportation; and high-speed rail” as part of a 10-year national mobilization.
So here are some things to think about:
If the cost for a 160-mile rail system costs California $98 million, what would it cost to expand a rail system across America? So expansive that we can eliminate air travel.
If it has been ten years since the high-speed rail system started in California and only a few miles were completed, is a 10-year plan possible?
I hope we don’t get trillions into the whole before these politicians realize it can’t happen at the scale they want it.
UAF Contributor: Marie Penetranti
Source: New California Gov. Gavin Newsom slams the brakes on California’s S.F.-to-L.A bullet train
Governor Gavin Newsom has the most significant number of tech companies in the USA. Including Facebook, Google, Amazon, and YouTube. These companies already carry a burden of taxes in the state. However, now, Newsom has proposed a new burden on the companies. In this report in Bloomberg, they reported his idea of this “data divided.”
In his “State of the State” speech on Tuesday, Newsom said California is proud to be home to tech firms. But he said companies that make billions of dollars “collecting, curating and monetizing our data have a duty to protect it. Consumers have a right to know and control how their data is being used.”
“California’s consumers should also be able to share in the wealth that is created from their data,” Newsom said. “And so I’ve asked my team to develop a proposal for a new data dividend for Californians because we recognize that data has value and it belongs to you.”
Newsom didn’t describe what form the dividend might take, although he said: “we can do something bold in this space.” He also praised a strict California data-privacy law that will kick in next year.
This seems to be a step towards socialism. I looked up a quick summary of what socialism is and found this. Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners. People who agree with this type of system are called socialists.
I am curious if this is what these liberal companies envisioned when they supported these liberal Democrats. Sure they are making millions and billions. Sure they have wealth beyond measure. However, what company wants a government to tell them what they have to do with their money and profits? Will this make these companies flee the state? Will this deter other tech companies from moving here or growing their company here? How will this affect unemployment? Also, then the housing market etc.?
These liberal representatives don’t sit down and look at the consequences of their actions. I am sure that many citizens are saying, heck yeah I’ll share in those profits. But what happens when the company leaves the state? What happens when hundreds of thousands lose their jobs?
UAF Contributor: Marie Penetranti
Streaming giant Netflix apparently did not pay a penny in federal or state income taxes despite posting profits exceeding $845 million.
Last year Netflix profits exceeded $845 million. And yet, they paid zero federal and state taxes. However, they did pay $131 million to foreign governments. I wonder how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez feels about that? Especially when she thinks that the elites in the country should pay 70%. According to the article by Breitbart,
“ITEP noted that Netflix is still “exploiting loopholes” in the tax code that helped it gear up to become one of the nation’s leading entertainment companies.”
I remember Hillary Clinton bashing President Trump for taking advantage of loopholes in the tax code? Also, he told her that if she didn’t like them then she should fix them. However, the truth is, many of these government representatives have companies of their own that use these loopholes. Nancy Pelosi lists Netflix, Google, and Apple as assets on her tax return. And she owns many businesses that have made her rich. Also, she has even used the tax breaks to her advantage. (ex. https://freebeacon.com/politics/pelosi-tries-extend-tax-break-two-multi-million-dollar-homes/). She is the richest female in Congress.
It will be interesting to see how the Liberal Democrats will respond to these mostly capitalistic companies not wanting to give up their big profits in the name of socialism. So how will these companies respond to all these Democrats wanting to tax the rich more? Will they get money to back their campaigns?
In any case, Netflix is doing great. They raised customers prices and had more opportunities to make more money and not pay any taxes.
UAF Contributor: Marie Penetranti
Source: Netflix Paid Zero in Taxes on Record $845M Profits in 2018