Democrats Get Sneaky With Their Words

in Latest News

White House budget director Mick Mulvaney just made a staggering observation about the progress of the border wall. He shared that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s deal on the wall was only an “authorization” of the wall and not actually any “appropriation” of the money.

Mulvaney explained, “The president is absolutely interested and wants to get DACA fixed but what with you’ve just read really bears a close read which is what the Senate minority leader said was to authorize $20 billion. I know it’s getting real deep down in the weeds. You can authorize left and right but it’s appropriating the money that makes the difference. He wants to authorize the wall to be built but doesn’t want to spend the money to get it built. There was money authorized in 2006 that Mr. Schumer voted for for a wall that still hasn’t been built because that money hasn’t been spent.”

  • JohnGaltTexas

    The vermin on the left are not going to do anything to stop the illegal invasion of future demovermin voters. Kalifornistan has all but guaranteed that anyone who slithers across the border will be able to vote, and I’m sure it will be the model for all the other “Blue” states to follow. The anti-American traitors on the left have given away our country.

  • tCotUS

    How about sneaky words like this .. Scumner & the rest of the Traitor beeches can go shove their head up rectum visualitis Just what is the Government —I Mean Taxpayers —
    paying for illegals FREE LUNCH for the last 8 years ?? Building the wall is peanuts.

    • sandraleesmith46

      Latest estimates on the costs are from $113-135 billion per year to have them here.

      • tCotUS

        Its easy for the DemoRATS to spend our hard earned money..

        • sandraleesmith46

          TOO easy, in fact. Remember Margaret Thatcher’s wisdom that socialism works great, ’til you run out of other people’s money. They’re running out of our money.

          • tCotUS

            Good comparison…Sadly true.

      • Nels

        So, about four months of those expenses would pay for a $30Billion wall. Build the wall!

        • tCotUS


        • sandraleesmith46

          Yep. AND cut future costs some too, as it keeps more from coming in.

  • sandraleesmith46

    This isn’t the 1st time they pulled that shenanigan. Remember ’86? If Reagan would just amnesty the few million illegals here then… Well, that was over 30 years ago, and WHERE is that wall now? Oh, that’s right there were so many more pressing needs for the money that it just NEVER HAPPENED! That’s why we CANNOT ACCEPT ANY DEAL with the Dems again about illegals or the wall! JUST DO the wall and ship the illegals HOME where they belong! Then fix the immigration laws to include only merit migrants legally; NO chain migration, NO visa lottery, NO H1B visas without proving there really isn’t a qualified American to fill the job and then time limited to an American becoming available to fill the slot; and NO “anchor babies” by twisting the 14th without amending it to remove the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement!

    • Nels

      Not only that, but illegal invaders are still getting amnesty because of Reagan’s mistake.

      • sandraleesmith46

        Which Clinton compounded with 2 more massive amnesties that were less well advertised but resulted in even larger floods of illegals each time, than the one before. And just TALKING about amnesty for the DACAs has already started the uptick toward the NEXT massive flood of them, which will crest in warmer weather, if they get to stay.

  • Deplorable Irredeemable Susan

    So sick of the leftists getting away with their crimes!
    This is just another attempt for globalists to let our country be invaded
    by illegals. All we have to do is to look at Europe and the horrors happening
    there. We the people do NOT want the NWO here!


    The wall will pay for itself once the illegals can no longer make it across the border. And after ALL the ILLEGALS are deported, the savings is almost incalculable!!

  • alfy


  • Timothy Toroian

    Hell1 these SOBs have tried to change the definition of “machine gun”, “assault rifle” and all sorts of other words. The way they refer to the 2nd amendment demonstrates an effort to change word definitions. “Shall not be infringed” seems very definite to me and the dictionary. “SHALL” mean much more than “should”, “perhaps”, “sometimes” or even “cannot”. “Shall” means “no choice” And “the people” doesn’t mean “National Guard”, it doesn’t actually mean “militia” either. A “militia” is composed of the people, it is not a substitute for the people.