Jump to content

Nancy Pelosi warns DEM Pres could declare national emergency on guns


Bird76Mojo

Recommended Posts

After is was announced that Trump may be declaring a national emergency to help get the US/Mexico border wall built, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opens her yapper at the following link..


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/pelosi-warns-gop-that-a-democratic-president-could-declare-a-national-emergency-on-guns.html


For those that don't like to give clicks to CNBC and all of the other mass media liars..

Nancy Pelosi warns GOP that a Democratic president could declare gun violence a national emergency
  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warns Republicans on Thursday that a future Democratic president could declare gun violence a national emergency.
  • Her comments to reporters come shortly after the White House says the president would declare a national emergency in order to "build the wall, protect the border, and secure our great country."
  • "You want to talk about a national emergency? Let's talk about today," Pelosi says, referring to the first anniversary of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 dead on Feb. 14, 2018.

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned Republicans on Thursday that a future Democratic president could declare gun violence a national emergency.

Her comments to reporters came shortly after the White House said President Donald Trump would declare a national emergency in order to "build the wall, protect the border, and secure our great country."

Pelosi said she was not advocating for Democrats to declare a national emergency but that Trump was establishing a precedent that should, at least, make Republicans nervous.

"If the president can declare an emergency on something he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think about what a president with different values can present to the American people," Pelosi said.

"You want to talk about a national emergency? Let's talk about today," Pelosi said, referring to the first anniversary of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 dead on Feb. 14, 2018.

She said the shooting was "another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America."

"That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that an emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would," she said. "But a Democratic president can do that. A Democratic president can declare emergencies as well."

Sen. Kamala Harris, who is running for president, echoed her fellow Californian's remarks in a post on Twitter, but stopped short of saying she would as president declare a national emergency.

"Declaring a national emergency over this President's vanity project is ridiculous," Harris wrote. "We don't need a wall. Instead, we should address the actual emergencies facing our country — everything from gun violence to the opioid crisis."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, another 2020 contender, wrote on Twitter that gun violence, climate change and the country's opioid epidemic were all emergencies.

"Donald Trump's ridiculous wall is not an emergency," the Massachusetts Democrat wrote.

A national emergency declaration makes powers available to the executive that are otherwise impermissible, such as the reallocation of certain funds that have been appropriated by Congress. Scholars continue to debate the legality of emergency powers.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders downplayed the possible ramifications of Trump's expected national emergency declaration.

"Let's hope we don't have additional national security and humanitarian crises," she said."


For those doubting the authority of the President to reallocate funds or use the military to assist in border patrol operations securing the border and to cease drug trafficking operations..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/LSB10121.pdf


"Chapter 15 of Title 10, U.S. Code —Military Support for Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies, however, provides general legislative authority for the armed forces to provide certain types of support to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, in particular in counterdrug and counterterrorism efforts. Such authorities might permit the military to provide indirect border security and immigration control assistance. These authorities permit the Department of Defense (DOD) to share information collected during the normal course of military operations; loan equipment and facilities; provide expert advice and training; and maintain and operate equipment. For federal law enforcement agencies, military personnel may be made available to maintain and operate equipment in conjunction with counterterrorism operations or the enforcement of counterdrug laws, immigration laws, and customs requirements. Military personnel are permitted under this authority to maintain and operate equipment only for specific purposes, including aerial reconnaissance and the detection, monitoring, and communication of air and sea traffic, and of surface traffic outside the United States or within 25 miles of U.S. borders, if first detected outside the border."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will happen within he next decade and Americans will be ordered to surrender their arms, or else. Mark my words.

 

Keeping “voting”, talking about how unhappy you are on online forums, file your witness slips. Meanwhile, the antis are (and have been) staging an all out PR brainwashing campaign and getting legit socialists/communists into office. Adapt or lose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight hypothetically. If President declares war on illegals, The dems are going to declare war on law abiding citizens.

Sounds about right that dems don't care about citizens, just power..

Idiots

Yeah they are OK declaring a state of emergency against a constitutionally protected right. I'm not sure how she sees any equivalency with that and protecting our nation's borders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Gallup, last October a majority of Americans were opposed to a ban on "assault rifles". This hasn't changed.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243860/snapshot-majority-oppose-ban-assault-rifles.aspx

 

Nancy Pelosi isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. That said, I don't think she'd be running her mouth like this if she thought a Dem president could (or would) declare such an emergency. Matter of fact, President "phone and pen" Obama probably would have, if he thought he could have.

 

But don't be mad at Speaker Pelosi. She is just doing her part to make sure a Leftist is never elected POTUS again.

 

PS: Mrs. Pelosi and her cohorts think they can win elections with the eventual votes of those that come across the border illegally. If they thought the votes would go the other way, they would be down there standing guard with flamethrowers and pitchforks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just hope that Trump doesn't sign this bill. He needs to veto it asap.

 

That would just increase the odds of him losing the general election in 2020 and what good will that do us?

 

Read it.

 

"The 1,159-page bill doesn’t contain any funding for President Trump’s beloved border wall, but does allocate $1.375 billion for “the construction of primary pedestrian fencing... in the Rio Grande Valley Sector.”

 

“This agreement denies funding for President Trump’s border wall and includes several key measures to make our immigration system more humane,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey."

 

Ingraham later referred to the bill as “tantamount to an illegal immigration ‘stimulus’” and “de facto amnesty to any ‘sponsor,’ family member or “potential sponsor” of an unaccompanied minor.”

 

1169 pages of hogwash

 

https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20190211/CRPT-116hrpt9_u2-.pdf

 

"Sec.224 is a poison pill: Gives deportation immunity to any sponsor—or POTENTIAL sponsor—of an "unaccompanied" alien child. Creates incentive for illegals already here to order up kids from Central America (or anywhere)."

 

"As Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies stated in her above tweet, this amounts to a "de facto sanctuary" for anyone remotely near an "unaccompanied alien child." The ramifications of this provision are simply extraordinary. Unaccompanied alien children are already trafficked and exploited by the cartels to take advantage of our insane "credible fear" aslyum loophole regime. Furthermore, according to Vaughan, "ICE has estimated that 30-40 percent of the MS-13 members it has arrested in the last two years arrived as [unaccompanied alien children]." Remarkably, every "sponsor" or "potential sponsor" (emphasis added) of an unaccompanied alien child is shielded from being "place[d] in detention" or "remove[d]." This is insanity. Why are Republicans and this White House shilling for mass amnesty for MS-13 thugs? Why are we incentivizing the mass importation of MS-13 barbarians by the cartels?"

 

"Section 224 (a) says that ICE may not remove any sponsor or *potential sponsor* or *member of a household* of a UAC. That's de facto sanctuary for anyone near a UAC. Ridiculous. 30-40% of MS-13 arrests have been UACs"

 

Here is the text of Section 224(a) (emphasis added):

None of the funds provided by this Act or any other Act, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the components funded by this Act, may be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to
place in detention, remove, refer for a decision whether to initiate removal proceedings, or initiate removal proceedings against a sponsor, potential sponsor, or member of a household of a sponsor or potential sponsor of an unaccompanied alien child
( as defined in section 462 (g) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(g))) based on information shared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/5-insane-provisions-amnesty-omnibus-bill/

The process is indefensible: It is immoral, from any ideological perspective, to vote on an 1,169-page omnibus with new provisions on immigration amid a border crisis. We are already four and a half months into this fiscal year and have been operating on stopgap bills. There is no rush to vote on something like this, which will fund seven departments for the remainder of the year, within a few hours when we should have another stopgap bill while we debate, and even discover, the contents of this long-term bill that makes important statutory changes. The only reason one would pursue this process is to hide things from the American people. Here are the immediate issues to flag:

1) Less of a wall than even what Democrats already agreed to: ...

2) Liberal local officials have veto power over wall: ...

3) This bill contains a blatant amnesty for the worst cartel smugglers: ...

4) More funding to manage and induce the invasion rather than to deter it: ...

5) Doubling low-skilled workers: ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he signs this nonsense, he's a bigger buffoon than anyone ever thought to begin with.

It won't help him hold on to his base voters. In fact, it's going to alienate even more of them.

He'll be viewed as folding to the whims of the left, and being weak. Caving in to the demands of the democrats, once again, just as all RINO's have always done.


Now, tell me a good reason why he should sign this??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait what, she is suggesting a Democrat president will declare a National Emergency against people exercising a Constitutional protected right?

 

Is there any doubt left that the Democrats goal is to entirely revoke the second?

 

Yeah, I don't see that working out well in the end, it very well could lead to a second civil war...

No it won't. People will gladly turn them in rather than be murdered, or go to jail and possibly never see their family again. People just want to be able to go to work, spend time with family, and relax at the end of the day. We've gotten too soft as a nation.

 

I'd be surprised if 1/2% of the population had big enough "swingers" to actually stand up against a confiscation, and if they did, they'd be quickly labeled as domestic terrorists, the media would broadcast that as fact 24hrs a day, and National Guard troops, Capitol Police, State Police, etc - would gladly start shooting them.

 

I asked a couple National Guard guys about it once, and they said they had this very talk with a bunch of other Guard members during some down time. They said less than half agreed they wouldn't disarm or shoot people in the disarmament of US citizens. Their CO caught them having the talk and reprimanded all of them for it, saying "you'll do what you're told - to which they all responded "sir, yes sir!"

 

I said it in another thread and I'll say it here:

 

"this is PRECISELY WHY the 2nd Amendment was written, yet we have American citizens just willingly turning in their arms to government.

Everyone has given up, and it's too late to change it by voting. Yet NO ONE will do anything about it.

 

We have men being shot dead because they don't want to turn in their weapons... No one does anything about it. It's applauded as "common sense"

 

Yet, not one politician has suffered one bit after passing unconstitutional laws... Again, no one does anything about it.

 

The founding fathers and their brethren should have just surrendered to the crown, because all of the blood spilled was for nothing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Gallup, last October a majority of Americans were opposed to a ban on "assault rifles". This hasn't changed.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243860/snapshot-majority-oppose-ban-assault-rifles.aspx

 

Nancy Pelosi isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. That said, I don't think she'd be running her mouth like this if she thought a Dem president could (or would) declare such an emergency. Matter of fact, President "phone and pen" Obama probably would have, if he thought he could have.

 

But don't be mad at Speaker Pelosi. She is just doing her part to make sure a Leftist is never elected POTUS again.

 

PS: Mrs. Pelosi and her cohorts think they can win elections with the eventual votes of those that come across the border illegally. If they thought the votes would go the other way, they would be down there standing guard with flamethrowers and pitchforks.

 

She's positioning herself for some of that Bloomberg cash. Bloomberg isn't going to help fund anyone's campaign that doesn't suit his anti-gun agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by mauserme, February 15, 2019 at 11:25 AM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, February 15, 2019 at 11:25 AM - No reason given

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/5-insane-provisions-amnesty-omnibus-bill/

 

The process is indefensible: It is immoral, from any ideological perspective, to vote on an 1,169-page omnibus with new provisions on immigration amid a border crisis. We are already four and a half months into this fiscal year and have been operating on stopgap bills. There is no rush to vote on something like this, which will fund seven departments for the remainder of the year, within a few hours when we should have another stopgap bill while we debate, and even discover, the contents of this long-term bill that makes important statutory changes. The only reason one would pursue this process is to hide things from the American people. Here are the immediate issues to flag:

 

1) Less of a wall than even what Democrats already agreed to: Trump originally demanded $25 billion for the wall. Then he negotiated himself down to $5.6 billion. Democrats balked and only agreed to $1.6 billion. This bill calls it a day at $1.375 billion, enough to construct 55 miles. But it’s worse than that. This bill limits the president’s ability to construct “barriers” to just the Rio Grande Valley sector and only bollard fencing, not concrete walls of any kind. There’s no ability to adapt. Furthermore, section 231 prohibits construction even within the RGV in five locations that are either federal or state lands. Remember, the challenge with building a wall in Texas is that, unlike in other states, the feds need to navigate issues with private lands. The first place you’d construct fencing is on public lands, which are now prohibited. The national parks along the border have gotten so bad that park rangers are scared to travel alone in them.

 

 

2) Liberal local officials have veto power over wall: Actually, on second thought, it’s likely that not a single mile of fence will be built. Section 232(a) of this bill states that “prior to use of any funds made available by this Act for the construction of physical barriers” the Department of Homeland Security “shall confer and seek to reach mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers within that city.” With whom must the feds consult? “The local elected officials.” Now you can understand the brilliance of limiting the wall to the Rio Grande Valley. These are the most liberal counties on the border (thanks to demographics of open borders itself!), and there is practically no local official who supports the wall in these counties. What are the consequences? This bill stipulates that “Such consultations shall continue until September 30, 2019 (or until agreement is reached, if earlier) and may be extended beyond that date by agreement of the parties, and no funds made available in this Act shall be used for such construction while consultations are continuing.” Thus, all the Beto O’Rourke type of politicians in that region have de facto veto power. There’s a reason why they didn’t authorize fencing in conservative counties like Cochise and Yuma in Arizona.

 

 

3) This bill contains a blatant amnesty for the worst cartel smugglers: Section 224(a) prohibits the deportation of anyone who is sponsoring an “unaccompanied” minor illegal alien – or who says they might sponsor a UAC, or lives in a household with a UAC, or a household that potentially might sponsor a UAC. It’s truly difficult to understate the betrayal behind this provision. One of the driving factors of the invasion is the misinterpretation of the UAC law. Under current law, Central American teenagers are only treated as refugees if they are A) a victim of “A severe form of trafficking” and :cool: have no relatives in the country. Yet almost all of them are selftrafficked by these very illegal relatives who are indeed present in the country. Rather than clamping down on this fleecing of the American people, the bill gives amnesty to the very people paying the cartels to invade us! “We can call this the MS-13 Household Protection Act of 2019,” said Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies. “We know that 80 percent of the UAC sponsors are in the country illegally. The number of people this would protect would reach into the hundreds of thousands, if all of the household or potential household members are counted. ICE has estimated that 30-40 percent of the MS-13 members it has arrested in the last two years arrived as UACs. There is no reason to shield any 2/14/2019 5 insane provisions in the amnesty omnibus bill - Conservative Review https://www.conservativereview.com/news/5-insane-provisions-amnesty-omnibus-bill/3/4 Author: Daniel Horowitz Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.  Twitter of these individuals from deportation. After all, if the minor is living with family, they should no longer be considered unaccompanied anyway. If there are illegal aliens here who do not yet have a child here to serve as a deportation shield, this certainly is an incentive for them to make the arrangements to bring one.”

 

 

4) More funding to manage and induce the invasion rather than to deter it: While offering no new funding for ICE deportation agents or immigration judges to speed up asylum claims, as the president requested, this bill adds another $40 million for the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program, which moves asylum seekers to facilities in the interior of the country, where they are usually released. Vaughan, who has studied interior immigration enforcement for decades, warned that “this bill will further expand and institutionalize the catch-and-release policies for those arriving illegally at the border from all over the world.” What are the effects of the ATD program? “Most of these people have no intention of asking for asylum and know they don’t qualify for it, but are simply joining the illegal population, knowing it’s unlikely that they will be deported. The bill funds ‘case management’ staff to keep tabs on those who don’t abscond immediately, but no money for ICE officers to find and remove them. This is going to saddle the communities that have been forced to absorb these new arrivals with billions of dollars of future costs for schooling, health care, and other welfare services.” At the same time, this bill reduces border detention beds from 49,060 to 40,520 rather than expanding them as Trump demanded. It contains no funding for more border agents. It offers $3.4 billion for refugee resettlement, more than last year’s record levels. Remember, much of the refugee program has been used not just for bringing in traditional refugees from overseas but to resettle the aforementioned Central American teenagers being self-trafficked through the border, empowering cartels, and taking advantage of us.

 

 

5) Doubling low-skilled workers: This bill (p. 1,161) doubles the number of H-2B non-agricultural, unskilled seasonal workers who will continue to be a public charge on America. This gives you a glimpse of what is driving this amnesty bill on the Republican side. This is just a cursory glance through the bill. Taken together, these provisions will aggravate the criminal conspiracy of the cartels and continue the invasion. Just this week, 1,800 family units came in during one 24-hour period, a new record. The message of this bill is to come here and seek bogus asylum or to grab a kid and you and others will get amnesty. Plus, there are no wall or policy changes to mitigate these effects. Moreover, this bill will likely override Trump’s executive powers because of the sneaky limitations on wall construction. This is the sort of omnibus bill that ensnared Reagan in Iran-Contra. Signing this bill will undermine his case for an emergency at the border both legally and politically. If Trump signs this bill instead of vetoing it and firing the people in the White House promoting it, he deserves to lose re-election

Link to comment

Wow. I read the cliff notes on this budget. Garbage.

Written almost as if the Democrats wanted the President to veto it.

Now, where were the Republicans on this dumpster fire of a budget?

When they included language that stated local authorities could veto the wall, that criminals trafficking kids could be granted asylum, that the Rio Grande was pretty much off limits, that no more beds were allowed for detention facilities...was this written on the Republican's day off?

Did they just stand there like the Queens enuchs and go "Ok"....?

 

I'm not sure which are worse; the Republicans that decided to vote for this bill from the get go or the ones that just went along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I read the cliff notes on this budget. Garbage.

Written almost as if the Democrats wanted the President to veto it.

Now, where were the Republicans on this dumpster fire of a budget?

When they included language that stated local authorities could veto the wall, that criminals trafficking kids could be granted asylum, that the Rio Grande was pretty much off limits, that no more beds were allowed for detention facilities...was this written on the Republican's day off?

Did they just stand there like the Queens enuchs and go "Ok"....?

 

I'm not sure which are worse; the Republicans that decided to vote for this bill from the get go or the ones that just went along.

Party doesn’t matter. Just because they are an R doesn’t mean they aren’t a traitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Declare a national emergency on guns and a national emergency it will be.

 

This is so spot on. It's so clear that the left simply hates guns and gun owners because we see the world differently than they do. This isn't about shootings or deaths. That's only a cover to justify their opposition to your freedom. Because we all know trying to collect 300 million guns from people who don't want to give them up isn't going to work in any world. It's unrealistic. And, if you try, you will unleash more gun violence and shootings than we have right now. Isn't that obvious??? Police or military are going to have to shoot a lot of people. Some of those people will likely shoot back too. It's complete insanity. Does Pelosi even believe it's possible to impose a total gun ban? If she does, I think she ought to be impeached for being unfit for the job. Her mental faculties are diminished.

 

If they can suspend the second amendment by simply declaring an "emergency", they can suspend the first, forth, fifth, etc. Who wants to go there? I think it's a really bad idea to inspire people to revolution. It doesn't usually work out well for anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...