Democrats Win Again? The Spending Bill Congress Just Passed Contains Restrictions That Make It Just About Impossible For Trump To Build His Wall

On Wednesday, the House and the Senate both passed a massive 1,159 page spending bill that they were given less than 24 hours to read.  There was a concerted effort by the leadership of both parties to rush this bill through before the American people could be mobilized to oppose it.  We are being told that this spending package represents a compromise, but as you will see below, the wording of the bill is so restrictive that it is going to make it just about impossible for President Trump to get anything built on the border.  At this point I think that Trump is counting on declaring a national emergency in order to get his wall built, but the moment he does that the Democrats plan to tie him up in court indefinitely.

Before we get to the details of this bill, let’s talk about how ridiculous this legislative process has been.  During her first term as speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi often rushed through enormous pieces of legislation without giving anyone time to actually read what was in them, and now she is doing it again.

This 1,159 page spending bill had an average of approximately 200 words per page, and as Breitbart has pointed out, a “fast reader” could get through such a document in about 40 hours…

The document has roughly 200 words per page — ensuring that a fast reader would need 40 hours just to reach to the end of the huge document, providing they did not stop to take notes, compare the text to existing laws, eat, or sleep.

But members of Congress were not given 40 hours.  Instead, they had the bill for about 18 hours before they were expected to vote on it.

Needless to say, nobody that voted on this bill read the entire thing.

That should have been reason enough to vote no on this bill, and yet this bill overwhelmingly passed in both chambers.

You can find a list of all the members of the House of Representatives that voted yes on this bill right here.  When the next election comes along, it is your job to hold them accountable.

We were told that this bill would include 1.375 billion dollars for Trump’s wall, but that is not true.

In the bill, it specifically says that the 1.375 billion dollars is for “the construction of primary pedestrian fencing”.

So there will be no concrete wall.  Instead, it will just be the kind of pedestrian fencing that both Bush and Obama built.

In addition, the bill specifically says that this fencing can only be put up “in the Rio Grande Valley Sector”.

So why is construction of the fencing limited to that one area in Texas?

Well, the bill also contains a provision that gives Democratic lawmakers in those Texas border towns the power to block construction of the fencing

One poison pill would allow Democratic legislators in Texas border towns to block the construction of the 55 miles of border walls approved in the legislation.

A second poison pill would allow illegal migrants in the United State to get a legal shield against deportation by declaring their willingness to “sponsor” a teenager or child trafficked from Central America. Many the so-called “Unaccompanied Alien Children” who are being smuggled up to the United States by the cartels are the children or relatives of illegals who have already sneaked into the U.S.

These are the five border towns that Trump would need to get approval from, and they are all run by Democrats…

-Roma
-Rio Grande City
-Escobares
-La Grulla
-Salineno

In addition, the bill specifically says that no construction can take place “while consultations are continuing” with local officials.

On top of everything else, the bill also requires a public comment period of at least 60 days before construction can begin…

It is not just local elected officials who have to approve of border wall construction, though. The spending bill mandates DHS open a public comment period by July, giving the public at least 60 days to voice opinions about the construction of a barrier in their county.

In essence, the wording of this bill all but ensures that nothing is going to get built on the border before the 2020 presidential election.

The Democrats have done a masterful job of achieving their goals once again, and Republican leadership in Congress got played like a fiddle.

Our government is incredibly broken, and we desperately need to clean house.

The bill also puts all sorts of new restrictions on ICE.  For example, it mandates a reduction in the number of ICE detention beds from 49,060 to 40,520 by the end of the fiscal year, and this is going to force ICE to “catch and release” a whole lot more illegal immigrants.

I could go on and on, but hopefully you get the point.  This bill is a complete and utter nightmare, and President Trump should veto it.  But the White House has already announced that Trump will sign the bill

Moments after McConnell’s remarks, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed in a statement that the president will sign the funding bill and take executive action to build the wall. “President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has stated before, he will also take other executive action – including a national emergency – to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border. The President is once again delivering on his promise to build the wall, protect the border, and secure our great country,” Sanders said.

Year after year, there are showdowns over spending in Congress.

And year after year, the Democrats always get what they want in the end.

The Republicans are playing checkers while the Democrats are playing chess, and meanwhile our entire country is going down the tubes.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by Michael Snyder of The American Dream.

Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream , The Truth and Economic Collapse Blog.

Go to Source
Author: Michael Snyder

Advertisements

Large Study Concludes There Is NO Healthy Amount Of Alcohol

A newly released and large study focusing on 195 different countries has contradicted what others have found in the past.  This study claims that there is no healthy amount of alcohol that a person can consume because the risks always outweigh the benefits.

It is very important to keep in mind that while this study was the largest of its kind, it was also observational. Meaning it was linking population-wide consumption to population-wide trends, according to The New York Times.

The analysis, involving 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2016, relied on 694 sources of data and analyzed 592 studies to determine the health risks of all alcohol use.  If you still enjoy a nightly beer or that relaxing glass of wine in the bathtub, though, have no fear. The methods employed in this study left many experts unconvinced.

Online in Medium, David Spiegelhalter, a statistician at Cambridge University in England, wrote of the study’s conclusion: “Claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention. There is no safe level of driving, but governments do not recommend that people avoid driving.”  And that’s just it.  Why do we need the government to recommend or not recommend anything?  Aren’t we fully functioning and capable adults who can make these decisions on our own based on reading these studies?

According to the NYT, in 2016, 25 percent of women and 39 percent of men were drinkers. That’s about 2.4 billion people worldwide. Women consumed an average of 0.73 drinks a day, while men had 1.7 drinks. The rates of alcohol consumption also vary widely by country but in general the higher a country’s income level, the higher the prevalence of drinking. The study, which was published in the Lancet, concluded that alcohol consumption is involved in 2.8 million deaths annually worldwide, making it the seventh leading risk factor for death and disability.

“The main difference between alcohol and smoking is that no one is surprised that smoking is bad,” said the lead author, Emmanuela Gakidou, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington. “But there’s a lot of surprises, even among experts, that alcohol is as bad for you as it is.” But, the increase in risk was negligible. Dr. Gakidou and her colleagues found that just one drink a day for one year increases alcohol-related health problems slightly, to 918 per 100,000 people from 914 per 100,000.

The study concluded:

The conclusions of the study are clear and unambiguous: alcohol is a colossal global health issue and small reductions in health-related harms at low levels of alcohol intake are outweighed by the increased risk of other health-related harms, including cancer. There is strong support here for the guideline published by the Chief Medical Officer of the UK who found that there is “no safe level of alcohol consumption”. The findings have further ramifications for public health policy, and suggest that policies that operate by decreasing population-level consumption should be prioritised.

The solutions are straightforward: increasing taxation creates income for hard-pressed health ministries, and reducing the exposure of children and adolescents to alcohol marketing has no downsides.-The Lancet

So there it is…one more excuse to regulate and tax what individuals decide to consume.  The study literally then states that the way to handle a person making an unhealthy decision is to deploy taxation. We knew there was probably a reason to dismiss this study. Any study that concludes less freedom and more theft is the answer is a joke.

Personally, I don’t drink alcohol, but that doesn’t mean others should be dictated to by the authoritarians of the world and stolen from if they choose to partake in a drink of booze. And based on the fact that this study literally called for an increase in taxation on alcoholic beverages and market price manipulation by the ruling class, the rest of it is straight up junk to promote more slavery, in my very humble and voluntaryist opinion.  The study then comes across as straight up propaganda because of the approach that was taken.

Read the entire study here. 

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by The Daily Sheeple of www.TheDailySheeple.com.

This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.TheDailySheeple.com.

Go to Source
Author: The Daily Sheeple

Rep. Thomas Massie: Congress Would End Marijuana Prohibition Today if Leadership Would Allow Vote

“If the vote were today” in Congress, says United States House of Representatives Member Thomas Massie (R-KY) in a new interview with host Matt Welch at Reason, “the federal prohibition [on marijuana] would go away.”

The catch, says Massie, is that leadership will not allow such a vote to occur. “A change in leadership could mean that issue gets resolved tomorrow,” asserts Massie.

No matter the current resistance by leadership, Massie predicts “the federal prohibition on the marijuana plant will be gone within a decade,” due to states taking the lead against prohibition rather than because of the bravery of legislators in Washington, DC.

Watch Massie’s complete interview here:

In the House of Representatives, Massie has supported ending the US government’s war on marijuana. A focus of that support has been Massie’s efforts to end US government prohibition on the growing of industrial hemp.

In the House, leadership has prevented marijuana prohibition roll back bills from reaching the floor for debates and votes. The House Rules Committee has also blocked many amendments seeking to chip away at marijuana prohibition from being considered on the House floor during debate of other legislation, such as appropriations bills.

Back in May of 2014, before consideration of marijuana prohibition roll back amendments was fully shut off in the House, House members voted by comfortable margins in favor of Department of Justice appropriations bill amendments intended to direct the US government to back off from taking action against people complying with state medical marijuana and industrial hemp laws that are less restrictive than the US government laws.

Massie’s assessment that there is now majority congressional support for taking the bigger step of ending the US government’s marijuana prohibition seems in line with growing majority public support for legalization as well as legalization having been approved in nine states and Washington, DC, with Michigan and New Jersey likely to be added to the list this year.

Massie is a member of the Ron Paul Institute Advisory Board.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by Adam Dick of ronpaulinstitute.org.

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity is a project of Dr. Paul’s Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (F.R.E.E.), founded in the 1970s as an educational organization. The Institute continues and expands Dr. Paul’s lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home. The Institute mobilizes colleagues and collaborators of Dr. Paul’s to participate in a broad coalition to educate and advocate for fundamental changes in our foreign and domestic policy.

Go to Source
Author: The Ron Paul Institute