WASHINGTON

The post Trump border emergency survives as House veto override fails first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

WASHINGTON — Democrats who have railed against President Donald Trump’s national emergency as a manufactured crisis are facing a political dilemma as border apprehensions have spiked and are on pace for the highest level since 2008.

The post Democrats struggle to address rising border apprehensions and counter Trump on immigration first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post U.S. House passes bill rejecting Trump’s border wall emergency first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

“This is creating a climate of instability,” said Jorge Contreras Fornelli, a member of the Citizens’ Council for Public Security and a furniture maker.

A group of priests, including a representative of the Vatican, and migrant advocates plan a Tuesday afternoon Mass near an 18-foot-high fence to push back against President Donald Trump’s Feb. 15th declaration of a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. The House is expected to vote Tuesday on a resolution to block the declaration.

The priests are also calling on the government of Mexico President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, popularly known as AMLO, to resist pressure from Trump to implement “Migration Protection Protocols,” which are already in effect in Tijuana and are expected to be enforced in the coming days in the El Paso-Juarez area, too, said U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar of El Paso.

The controversial protocols, originally known as “Remain in Mexico,” require that immigrants headed to the U.S. wait in Mexico until their asylum claims are considered. Critics say the policies are contributing to a bottleneck crisis with catastrophic effects on the border.

The protocols may lead to the building of tent cities in Juarez, argued Dylan Corbett, executive director of the Hope Institute.

“The criminalization and militarization of the border has lethal, fatal consequences for our border, and we’ve seen that firsthand,” said Corbett, noting the deaths of two young Guatemalans while in U.S. Border Patrol custody in December.

The flow of migrants has already put a strain on resources on both sides of the border. Casa del Migrante, the leading shelter in Juarez, is filled to capacity and no longer accepting asylum seekers. Similarly, a gym used as a shelter is no longer taking in migrants. Efforts are underway to create additional space at a factory.

Across the border in El Paso, Annunciation House, a principal nonprofit way station for asylum seekers, said it took in more than 3,600 migrants from Feb. 16-23, a record for the shelter. Some migrants are being sent to New Mexico for temporary shelter. Over the weekend, dozens of Central American families, clutching their children, were spotted at the airport, bound for cities that included Atlanta, Houston and Dallas.

In interviews, many said they were lured to the border by guias, or smugglers, who charged them to be taken to remote areas near Antelope Wells, N.M., where they turned themselves in to Border Patrol authorities. Because space is limited in holding cells there, many were released with ankle bracelets and given court dates to present their cases for asylum.

The situation is largely a result of Trump’s so-called metering system, which limits the number of people allowed to present their asylum claims at legal ports of entry. For instance, in Juarez, up to 60 people were being processed a day at one point. That number is now down to an average of 20, thus discouraging migrants from seeking asylum at border checkpoints and leading many to attempt to cross in remote, often desert or scrub areas.

Their only other option is to be added to the U.S. waiting list and wait in Mexico until their names rise to the top of the list for processing. Mexico’s tacit cooperation with this controversial policy has put Lopez Obrador in an uncomfortable situation. He’s come under fire from a variety of critics, led by U.S. legislators, Catholic leaders and dozens of immigrant rights groups, who accuse him and Trump of sidestepping international human rights law that grants asylum seekers a hearing.

“With the initial stages of a ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy already underway and the likelihood that it will extend all along our border new challenges are on the horizon,” said Bishop Mark J. Seitz in a statement Monday. “We will seek strength and guidance in mutual prayer.”

Lopez Obrador administration officials have said they want to avoid a confrontation with Trump over immigration, something they see as a domestic matter that needs to be resolved by U.S. courts and not the Mexican government. But some analysts say playing along is risky.

“By avoiding a confrontation with Trump and allowing Central American migrants to remain in Mexico while applying for asylum, AMLO is losing credibility with his nationalistic base,” said Howard Campbell, an anthropologist at the University of Texas at El Paso and author of Drug War Zone: Frontline Dispatches from the Streets of El Paso and Juárez. “AMLO needs to resist Trump’s policies and rhetoric in order to maintain his popularity in Mexico.”

Indeed, given their populist natures and strong political bases, the two leaders face an inevitable explosion, said Guillermo “Jesus” Velasco, a specialist on U.S.-Mexican relations at Tarleton State University.

“The conflict will arrive in any moment, and it will be intense,” he predicts. “This is a time bomb.”

The situation in Juarez is compounded by Mexican state governments, including Coahuila, that have opted to pay for buses to push migrants out of their states and into Juarez, angering local officials here. This comes amid renewed drug turf wars in Juarez, pushing homicides rates into the hundreds per month.

Last year, Mexico tallied 33,341 murders, a record.

“Mexico is not safe for Mexicans and therefore not safe for asylum seekers,” said Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, an associate professor at George Mason University and expert on Mexico. “It seems that Mexico is doing the dirty work for Trump. Mexico continues to be America’s backyard.”

Across the border in El Paso, meanwhile, one of the safest cities in the country seems to be preparing for battle. Razor wire has gone up on the international bridges, placed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection authorities to prevent a “rush” of migrants and their children into the city. The Pentagon’s top brass also toured the city amid Trump’s plans to divert billions of dollars from the military budget for his promised wall. Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan fired off a couple of Border Patrol weapons on Saturday as cameras clicked.

Local leaders fired back.

“Our bridges are a symbol of our history with Mexico, our strong binational ties and shared interests, and should not become militarized zones based on a misguided policy rooted in fear,” said Escobar.

El Paso Mayor Dee Margo, a Republican, reminded lawmakers in a column for Ripon Forum on Monday, that “115,000 jobs in El Paso and 559,000 jobs in the State of Chihuahua, Mexico depend on our cross border commerce. Any rhetoric implying otherwise is false and should immediately be retracted. Mexico is Texas’ largest trading partner, and instituting policy that will detrimentally affect that trade is unacceptable.”

In Juarez, Sergio Marquez, 59, crosses the border from El Paso daily to work in the gritty streets of his native city as a cab driver. He said he’s concerned about migrants swarming the streets alongside rising violence, and razor wires going up, generating a tense climate.

“Both sides of the border just feel too tense, stressed,” he said. “Like we’re about to go to war, but with who? I don’t get it.”

Source: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/mexico/2019/02/25/juarez-el-paso-grapple-rising-tensions-trump-policies-lead-migrant-backup-border

The post Juarez, El Paso grapple with rising tensions as Trump policies lead to migrant backup at border first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Sen. Graham makes predictions on what will happen with the resolution to block Trump’s emergency declaration first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at America’s southern border is intended to allow the construction of a long-promised border wall to move forward.

House Democrats introduced a resolution opposing the declaration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Friday.

“The president’s act is lawless,” Pelosi told reporters, according to CNN. “It does violence to our Constitution and therefore to our democracy. His declaration strikes at the heart of our Founders’ concept of America, which demands separation of powers.”

Reporters asked Trump about Democrats’ resolution in the Oval Office on Friday.

TRENDING: Kamala Harris’ Father Turns on Her: ‘We Wish To Categorically Dissociate Ourselves from This Travesty’ – Report

“Will I veto it? 100 percent. 100 percent,” Trump said. “And I don’t think it survives a veto. We have too many smart people that want border security, so I can’t imagine if it survives a veto, but I will veto it. Yes.”

Trump said he believes Republicans in Congress will support his declaration.

“Oh, I think they’ll stick,” the president said.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told Fox News on Friday that some Republicans will defect in the GOP-controlled Senate.

Graham estimated that there will be “a handful” of Republicans supporting the Democrats, but that the Democrats would not have the votes to override a presidential veto.

At least one high-profile Republican in the House has already joined the anti-emergency bandwagon by signing on to the resolution as a co-sponsor, The Hill reported.

Rep. Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, tweeted his opposition to Trump’s declaration.

RELATED: House Democrat Threatens To Subpoena Mueller if Report Isn’t Made Public

Before a Friday meeting with China’s Vice Premier Liu He, Trump reaffirmed his position that the wall is critical for America’s security.

“Everybody knows we need border security. We need a wall. I think it’s a very bad subject for the Democrats,” he said.

“We’ve apprehended more people than we have in many, many years — apprehended meaning we’ve gotten. With a wall, we wouldn’t even have to apprehend them, if we had the proper structures. It’s costing us a lot of money with the military there. We have a lot of military there.”

The president praised law enforcement for doing an “incredible job at the border,” but said a wall would make their job significantly less difficult.

“We have caravans heading up and we’re able to head out the caravans. We’ve done a great job, but if we had the wall, it would be much easier and, frankly, it would be a job that would be perfecto and it would cost actually, ultimately a lot less money.”

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Source: https://www.westernjournal.com/trump-throws-major-wrench-democrats-plan-block-emergency-declaration/

The post Trump Throws a Major Wrench in Democrats’ Plan To Block Emergency Declaration first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

After being rebuffed by the U.S. Congress in his request for $5.7 billion to help build the wall that was a signature 2016 campaign promise, Trump on Friday invoked emergency powers given to the president under a 1976 law. The move, according to the White House, enables Trump to bypass lawmakers and redirect money already appropriated by Congress for other purposes and use it for wall construction.

Peter Shane, a professor at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, said challenges to the emergency declaration could end up as a replay of the legal battle against Trump’s travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority nations. The Supreme Court last year upheld the travel ban after lower courts had ruled against Trump, with the justices giving the president deference on immigration and national security issues.

Trump has painted illegal immigration and drug trafficking across the border as a national security threat.

“Courts are reluctant to second-guess the president on matters of national security,” Shane said.

Democrats, state attorneys general and at least one advocacy group have vowed to take the Republican president to court over the declaration.

“I’ll sign the final papers as soon as I get into the Oval Office and we’ll have a national emergency and then we’ll be sued,” Trump said at the White House.

The National Emergencies Act of 1976 has been invoked dozens of times by presidents without a single successful legal challenge. Congress never defined a national emergency in the law.

The legal experts said Trump’s declaration could be challenged on at least two fronts: that there is no genuine emergency and that Trump’s action overstepped his powers because under the U.S. Constitution Congress has authority over federal appropriations, not the president.

Trump made the declaration after asking Congress to appropriate $5.7 billion for wall construction and lawmakers gave him none.

The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority that includes two justices appointed by Trump, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Chief Justice John Roberts has emerged as the court’s swing vote, and the decision on the legality of Trump’s action could come down to him.

“The handwriting is on the wall here,” said Steven Schwinn, a professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago. “The Supreme Court is almost certain to uphold President Trump’s emergency.”

Legal experts said the 1976 law gives presidents vast discretion. Trump plans to redirect $6.7 billion in federal funds to pay for a wall, money that would come from a U.S. treasury forfeiture fund, a defense counter-drug program and the military construction budget.

“The odds favor the president by a significant majority,” George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley said. “He has the authority to make the declaration and he has the money.”

But the administration’s defense of Trump’s action may not be a smooth ride. Lawsuits could delay the use of funds the president is planning to tap, and legal experts said the bulk of funds may be tied up for years.

Trump is running for re-election next year and a loss would mean his presidency ends in January 2021. It is possible the legal fight over the emergency declaration might not be resolved by then.

“My guess is the money, the significant amount of money, won’t flow before the 2020 election,” Harvard Law School professor Mark Tushnet said.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, and Chuck Schumer, the Republican-led Senate’s top Democrat, said Trump actions “clearly violate the Congress’s exclusive power of the purse.”

Congress is unlikely to muster a veto-proof majority to vote down Trump’s emergency move. The Democratic-led House could try to sue, but courts generally do not allow Congress to litigate after lawmakers fail to legislate, the legal experts said.

States may lead the fight. California Governor Gavin Newsom and state Attorney General Xavier Becerra, both Democrats, said they anticipated they would sue, saying the state would be harmed because Trump’s action could drain money from its drug-fighting efforts, endangering its residents.

One possible advantage for California is that its case likely could at some point go to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has dealt Trump setbacks on previous policies including the travel ban and potentially could impose or uphold an injunction against the emergency declaration.

Legal experts said landowners along the border could sue because they face the imminent threat of land seizure by the federal government to build the wall.

Opponents may have more traction arguing that the president is unlawfully trying to tap funds Congress appropriated for the Pentagon, the experts said. The Defense Department construction money that Trump wants has almost never been used for domestic construction. In addition, Congress required the money be spent supporting military operations, and opponents could argue the border wall fails to qualify.

The post Legal challenges to Trump emergency declaration face uphill battle first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

They can’t seem to get Brexit done.   Britain is having a mighty hard time leaving the European Union.   The sticking point seems to be the Irish “backstop.”   Any Brexit deal with the EU would require a closure of the Irish border, likely prompting the IRA to resume its campaign of bombings and terror attacks in “protest.” Prime Minister Theresa May just lost another vote to conclude the British exit, and the whole thing is up in the air once again. As it stands, if March 29 rolls around and there is still no vote for a “deal” in the British Parliament then a hard exit would take place without trade and immigration agreements with the EU as to how business will proceed.   Britain is already making side agreements with individual European nations, and probably should tell the EU where to get off.

We’ve got a mess here too, and it is equally convoluted.   The President invoked a national emergency this morning, because Congress would not fund a border wall that was one of Trump’s primary campaign promises, perhaps the one most responsible for his victory.   The news media is in lock-step with the President’s opponents in government declaring that there is no crisis at the Southern border.   Now it’s off to the courts.

In fact, there has been a border crisis for decades.   A casual stop at any public place in any city in Texas is enough to convince you that the damage is largely done.   Never mind the crime statistics showing that hundreds of thousands of crimes have been committed by illegal aliens in Texas alone.   Try stopping at McDonalds for something to eat on “the good side” of town on the outskirts of Dallas, as I did with family yesterday.   For most of the time, we were the only English speaking people there.   Mind you, the “immigrants” haven’t been starving.   And they’ve got kids. Lots of them. The crisis has been going on for decades but if you notice that nobody speaks the language, you must be a racist.   You don’t suppose these people help choose our leadership?   Nothing against Hispanic people, but this place is no longer anything close to the country we knew. These swarming immigrants are foreigners, period.

Expect now that there will be angry wailing over the declaration of national emergency. Somehow some 30 such emergencies have been declared since 1977 and this is the one that is a bald outrage, media wide.   Most previous national emergencies dealt with foreign entities and military foes, and went by almost without notice.   Obama invoked them over such things as the tainted water in Flint, Michigan and swine flu. The current one is about infrastructure to keep millions from simply walking into the United States across the Southern border. The problem is that we’ve already got some 22,000,000 (if you can even conceive of that many) and untold tens of thousands more who plan to simply come on in.   If this President can’t get a handle on it this flood will overtake every generation to follow.

The real outrage is that another “budget” is being signed into law.   It funds the gargantuan bureaucracy and all the social “safety net” programs. The military is being beefed up with hundreds of billions in spending.   Our resources and massive debt spending are being used for the needs and protections of nations all around the world.   But America’s Southern border?   That, they tell us, would be immoral and racist to worry about.   It looks as if that battle was lost a long time ago.   The cartels apparently control the Southern border, and Congress is determined that it remain so.

America carries a $22 Trillion debt, run up at least another trillion this year.   President Trump believes that increased productivity and the roaring economy will prevent disaster. Let’s hope he’s right.

If you suspected all those parading priests at the Vatican were a little light in the slippers, you were right.   A new book by a French author claims that eighty percent of Vatican priests are homos. But the priests claim this has nothing to do with all the children (little boys) being abused by Catholic priests all over the world.   No, they’ve taken a vow of celibacy.   So the priests say, neither has anything to do with the other.   Figure that one out, Mr. gay-friendly pope.

It looks like several of the instigators of Russia, Russia, Russia, can’t get their stories straight.  If the new Attorney General, just approved and sworn in, is going to make a good faith effort at doing his job things might get entertaining.   Not that it will save western civilization, but it would be good to see the perpetrators of the attempted silent coup get exposed.   Even better if the queer TV anchors have to eat the last two years of their nightly coverage. They’re whistling in the dark, pretending that their two year “collusion” narrative still has merit. Time is running out, thankfully. Another blessed Sabbath has arrived, and none too soon.   Have a great one, knowing that Almighty God knows all and will in His time institute righteous governance on earth.

Mark

Source: http://www.intercontinentalcog.org/fridayupdates.php

The post Weekly Update by Mark Armstrong – 15 February 2019 first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

“The president is going to build the wall,” Mulvaney said on “Fox News Sunday.” “This is going to get built with or without Congress.”

Mulvaney’s words come as another potential government shutdown looms. Lawmakers have until Friday to craft a deal that the president would sign on to.

The negotiations hit a roadblock Sunday when Democrats pushed to limit the number of migrants that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency can detain at one time. Many Democrats have criticized ICE for going too far in detaining immigrants who lack proper documentation but are otherwise lawful and some have advocated getting rid of the agency altogether.

Republicans have called the push to abolish ICE evidence that Democrats are for “open borders” and do not really wish to stop illegal immigration. They say ICE is essential in enforcing current U.S. immigration law.

“I don’t think the Dems on the Border Committee are being allowed by their leaders to make a deal,” Trump tweeted Sunday in response to the Democratic proposal to limit the number of ICE detainees. “They are offering very little money for the desperately needed Border Wall & now, out of the blue, want a cap on convicted violent felons to be held in detention!”

Caravans: Here’s what happened to the migrant caravan that arrived in Tijuana last year

More: Trump, Beto to face off Monday in El Paso in dueling rallies near the border

Democrats say they proposed their cap to force ICE to concentrate its internal enforcement efforts on dangerous immigrants. Democrats have proposed reducing the current number of beds ICE uses to detain immigrants here illegally from 40,520 to 35,520. But within that limit, they want most of the beds used for people detained at the border and proposed limiting the number of beds for immigrants here illegally who are caught within the U.S. to 16,500.

“I promise you this. Donald Trump is not going to sign any bill that reduces the number of bed spaces available to hold violent offenders who come across our border. He can’t do that. He won’t do that,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Graham said such a move “incentivizes more violent people to come to the United States” and “at the end of the day, they’re making it impossible for the president to work with them if they’re reducing bed spaces for violent offenders.”

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., was not optimistic about the chances of reaching an agreement ahead of Friday’s deadline.

“I think talks are stalled right now,” Shelby told “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace. “I’m not confident we’re going to get there.”

On the other side of the aisle, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., told Wallace on Sunday that, “We are not to the point where we can announce a deal.”

If lawmakers fail to find common ground and the president is not presented with a bill that he finds acceptable, Trump is prepared to reject it and risk another shutdown, Mulvaney said.

“The government shutdown is technically still on the table,” he said. “We do not want it to come to that, but that option is still open to the president and will remain so.”

When asked if Trump – who wants $5.7 billion for a border wall – would sign a funding bill that only appropriated between $1.3 and $2 billion for construction, Mulvaney said, “We’ll take as much money as you can give us and then we will go off and find the money someplace else legally.”

Congressional Democrats have steadfastly refused to approve the $5.7 billion requested by Trump for the wall, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has insisted the wall won’t be built. In December, the impasse led to a record 35-day government shutdown.

Mulvaney said Trump could get some of the money without Congressional approval and with declaring a national emergency through “reprogramming,” which would permit the president to move around previously allocated defense funds.

Border wall: How congressional Democrats could fight a national emergency declaration

A number of Republican lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., oppose the idea of declaring a national emergency to get the money because they say it would subvert congressional authority and establish a bad precedent. Despite that opposition, Mulvaney said such a move is “absolutely on the table.”

“Yes, there’s a lot of Republicans who don’t want to do it. Face it, the president doesn’t really want to do it. That’s why we had to go through the shutdown,” Mulvaney said. “He would prefer legislation because it’s the right way to go and is the proper way to spend money in this country.

“But if that doesn’t happen, the president proceeds. His number one priority is national security. He will then look at the National Emergencies Act as a way to do his job,” he added.

Contributing: The Associated Press

State of the Union: Politically wounded from the shutdown, Trump faces a tough time with his agenda

More: After fleeing violence at home, migrants wait patiently at Texas border to enter U.S.

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/10/border-wall-negotiations/2830515002/

The post Border wall negotiations hit hurdle as Democrats push for cap on number of ICE detainees first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

YES, TRUMP CAN DECLARE AN EMERGENCY
Congress did not get to be so terrible overnight.

Feckless and incompetent, our legislative branch stumbles forward without direction or even a modest impulse toward self-preservation. But unlike the proverbial turtle on a fence post, it mostly got there by itself.

It may be dismaying for Democrats to hear just now, but President Trump most assuredly has the authority to declare a national emergency concerning matters of immigration. He has that authority because the Congress explicitly gave such power to the executive branch in 1976.

In the wake of Richard Nixon’s reign, Congress still devolved its own authority to an executive branch that had just proven itself to be an unreliable custodian of liberty.

The first president to issue an emergency proclamation was, not surprisingly, Woodrow Wilson, no fan of Congress or the Constitution. He established the United States Shipping Board which, essentially, made the government into a shipbuilding company. His three Republican successors did not follow suit, Calvin Coolidge especially abjured such monarchical power.

Franklin Roosevelt, however, had no such qualms and exerted broad executive authority over the ways Americans lived and worked, citing the emergency of a worldwide depression.

Eventually the Supreme Court did intervene, telling Roosevelt’s successor Harry Truman that no, he could not nationalize the steel industry because of some murky combination of the Soviet Union and labor disputes.

Things stayed murky for a while, even as Nixon’s royalist impulses led to new “emergencies,” including one to address striking postal workers in 1970.

The joke here is that the devolution of congressional authority that today gives Trump the power to override a clearly stated congressional refusal came from a Congress that was trying to put a check on executive authority. It was the same Democratic congressman who oversaw the effort to bring articles of impeachment against Nixon who spearheaded the National Emergencies Act. When Gerald Ford signed it into law it was received as a defeat for executive authority.

Har-de-har-har.

Consider that. Immediately after the previous high tide of abuse of executive authority and in the wake of a president being forced from office for lying about the illegal activities of his administration the Congress of these United States went ahead and granted broad authorities to the executive branch.

We don’t have enough test cases to know for sure, but the constitutional legitimacy of the law is dubious at best. Like our friend Judge Andrew Napolitano would say: “Legal but not constitutional.”

When Trump said today that it would “be very surprising [to him] that [he] would not declare a national emergency” it sounded preposterous and not just for his garbled syntax. Congress has repeatedly refused the president’s demands for an additional $4 billion or so in border security funding. Does the president really have the power to deploy the military to circumvent Congress?

Yup.

Like many great civilizations before us, America is slouching toward authoritarianism. Democracies tend toward kingship in almost every case since charismatic leaders and demagogues are so successful at deceiving voters by appealing to emotion rather than reason.

Our founders rejected pure democracy for that very reason. That’s why we have a republic in which institutions and a constitutional separation of powers prevents authority from coagulating. The same Democrats who now decry Trump’s claims of magisterial power include some of those who said, for instance, that Trump’s predecessor had the authority to mint a $1 trillion coin in order to circumvent congressional authority over borrowing.

There are many crises in America today. That may include our chaotic and malformed immigration regime. But it also includes our pitiful Congress, partisanship and electoral cowardice has made the branch of government intended to be the first among equals into a vassal.

THE RULEBOOK: INFERIORITY COMPLEX
“There is evidently a great inferiority in the power of the President, in this particular, to that of the British king; nor is it equal to that of the governor of New York, if we are to interpret the meaning of the constitution of the State by the practice which has obtained under it.” –Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 69

TIME OUT: DRILL ON   
History: “On this day in 1901, a drilling derrick at Spindletop Hill near Beaumont, Texas, produces an enormous gusher of crude oil, coating the landscape for hundreds of feet and signaling the advent of the American oil industry. The geyser was discovered at a depth of over 1,000 feet, flowed at an initial rate of approximately 100,000 barrels a day and took nine days to cap. Following the discovery, petroleum, which until that time had been used in the U.S. primarily as a lubricant and in kerosene for lamps, would become the main fuel source for new inventions such as cars and airplanes; coal-powered forms of transportation including ships and trains would also convert to the liquid fuel. Crude oil, which became the world’s first trillion-dollar industry, is a natural mix of hundreds of different hydrocarbon compounds trapped in underground rock.”

Flag on the play? – Email us at HALFTIMEREPORT@FOXNEWS.COM with your tips, comments or questions.

SCOREBOARD
Trump job performance
Average approval: 42 percent
Average disapproval: 53.4 percent
Net Score: -11.4 points
Change from one week ago: unchanged
[Average includes: Gallup: 40% approve – 55% disapprove; USA Today/Suffolk: 42% approve – 54% disapprove; Quinnipiac University: 39% approve – 52% disapprove; NBC/WSJ: 43% approve – 54% disapprove; Fox News: 46% approve – 52% disapprove.]

NEW BORDER WALL FIGHT IS TRUMP VS. TEXAS LANDOWNERS
AP: “As President Donald Trump travels to the border in Texas to make the case for his $5.7 billion wall, landowner Eloisa Cavazos says she knows firsthand how the project will play out if the White House gets its way. The federal government has started surveying land along the border in Texas and announced plans to start construction next month. Rather than surrender their land, some property owners are digging in, vowing to reject buyout offers and preparing to fight the administration in court. … Trump is scheduled to visit the border Thursday in McAllen, a city of 143,000 on the river. … The government has laid out plans that would cut across private land in the Rio Grande Valley. Those in the way include landowners who have lived in the valley for generations, environmental groups and a 19th century chapel. Many have hired lawyers who are preparing to fight the government if, as expected, it moves to seize their land through eminent domain. … Even a compromise solution to build ‘steel slats,’ as Trump has suggested, or more fencing of the kind that Democrats have previously supported would likely trigger more court cases and pushback in Texas. Legal experts say Trump likely cannot waive eminent domain — which requires the government to demonstrate a public use for the land and provide landowners with compensation — by declaring a national emergency.”

The Judge’s Ruling: To build or to not build a wall – This week Judge Andrew Napolitanoasks if the president alone can build a border wall: “The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. … All federal powers come from the Constitution — and from no other source. … President Trump has no power to build a wall or a fence or a doghouse on private property without an express or implied congressional authorization to do so. The vast majority of the property in Texas on which he wants to build is private, according to Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas, whose district contains a longer stretch of the border than anyone else’s. Thus, the federal government must use eminent domain, which gives each landowner the right to a trial to challenge the government as to the worth of the property the government wants. … A valid emergency declaration streamlines the government to address the emergency, but it cannot authorize anything that the Constitution prohibits, nor can it authorize the president to avoid anything that the Constitution requires.” More here.

Graham gathered senators for last-ditch attempt to end shutdown – Politico: “Sen. Lindsey Graham is throwing a Hail Mary to reopen the government. Graham brought together a half dozen Republican senators Wednesday afternoon in a last-ditch attempt to resolve the three-week stalemate before President Donald Trump deploys an explosive emergency declaration to build his border wall. The Republican senators were joined mid-meeting by White House emissaries Jared Kushner and Shahira Knight, the president’s congressional liaison. Democrats were not invited to participate in the meeting, which largely comprised of centrist Republicans, including Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). The participants emphasized that the discussions were preliminary in nature, but some of these senators are scheduled to meet Thursday with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to continue the discussions, according to congressional sources.”

Trump cancels trip to World Economic Forum in Davos, cites funding standoff – Fox News: “President Trump announced he is canceling his upcoming trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland, citing the government funding standoff. ‘Because of the Democrats intransigence on Border Security and the great importance of Safety for our Nation, I am respectfully cancelling my very important trip to Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum,’ he tweeted.”

HARRIS EYES MLK DAY FOR KICKOFF
KCBS: “Sen. Kamala Harris has decided to run for president in 2020 and will announce her candidacy on or around Martin Luther King Jr. Day, probably at a campaign rally in Oakland, sources close to the freshman senator from California tell KCBS Radio. Harris, 54, has been making the rounds of television talk shows and appearing at several events this week as part of a brief tour to promote her new book, ‘The Truths We Hold: An American Journey.’ At every stop, when asked about running for president, Harris has answered with some variation of ‘I’m not ready yet’ to announce her decision, citing family considerations. But several sources knowledgeable about her plans say she is ready, and has in fact decided to run, with the enthusiastic blessing of her husband and two stepchildren. The debate within her camp is how, and where, to launch her campaign. The tentative plan is for Harris to enter the race for the Democratic presidential nomination with a campaign rally, most likely in Oakland, where she was born and began her legal career.”

Sanders issues apology for harassment of female staffers on 2016 campaign – Politico:“Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) apologized Thursday to women who said they were sexually harassed while working on his 2016 presidential campaign. His comments to reporters in the Capitol came shortly after POLITICO reported that a 20-something female staffer said she was forcibly kissed by a top Sanders adviser at a bar in Philadelphia on the final night of the Democratic National Convention. ‘It appears that as part of our campaign, there were some women who were harassed or mistreated. And I thank them, from the bottom of my heart, for speaking out,’ Sanders said after a press conference about a prescription drug bill he’s supporting. … ‘To the women in our campaign who were harassed or mistreated, I apologize,’ he added. … Sanders said he was not previously aware of the incident detailed by POLITICO.”

The Beto show goes to the dentist – Politico: “‘So, I’m here at the dentist.’ Thus began Beto O’Rourke’s latest dispatch from El Paso, Texas, where the potential presidential contender filmed himself in a green bib — and with dental tools in his mouth — talking with his dental hygienist about life on the U.S.-Mexico border. The unusual video, posted on Instagram, left jaws agape in Washington on Thursday. But it is in keeping with O’Rourke’s practice of livestreaming virtually anything — and, more recently, of focusing attention on the lives of people living along the U.S.-Mexico border. Introducing viewers to Diana, his dental hygienist, O’Rourke asked her what she wanted people to know about the border, as President Donald Trump continues to press for funding for a border wall.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ emerges as litmus test – Fox News: “A growing number of Democrats considering a presidential bid have signaled support for the sweeping ‘Green New Deal’ pushed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other liberal lawmakers, underscoring how the 2020 field is being pulled further left by the influential progressive wing. … Higher-profile potential candidates ranging from Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Sen. Cory Booker also have voiced support. … Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. … along with Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., endorsed the proposal last month and said he would introduce his own version of a Green New Deal in 2019. … Former Obama administration Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, poised to make a 2020 announcement this weekend, will reportedly support the proposal… And Democratic darling Beto O’Rourke … is apparently supportive of the ‘concept.’ … Other 2020 prospects, like Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, have weighed in, but not yet offered official positions on the plan.”

STEVE KING DRAWS PRIMARY CHALLENGER AMID UPROAR
AP: “A three-term Iowa state senator says he plans to challenge longtime U.S. Rep. Steve King in next year’s Republican primary. Randy Feenstra, an assistant Republican legislative leader, announced Wednesday he intended to run for the northwest Iowa seat and has opened a federal campaign committee. Without mentioning King by name, Feenstra said the district doesn’t have a voice in Washington ‘because our current representative’s caustic nature has left us without a seat at the table.’ He added Iowans don’t need more ‘sideshows or distractions.’ King just began his ninth term. He’s known for hardline views on immigration, abortion and gun rights. Democrats and sometimes Republicans have criticized his blunt comments. King has typically won re-election easily in the solidly Republican district but narrowly defeated his Democratic opponent in November.”

Yet another Kansas Republican eyes Senate run – The Wichita Eagle: “Kansas Senate President Susan Wagle plans to form an exploratory committee in anticipation of a possible run for the U.S. Senate. Wagle, a Wichita Republican, said Wednesday she is taking a ‘serious look’ at a campaign after Sen. Pat Roberts announced last week he will not run again in 2020. Wagle – whose state Senate term will end in two years – has a reputation as a hardline conservative. She is also the first woman to serve as president of the Kansas Senate. In an interview, she emphasized her frustration with the continued partial federal government shutdown.”

PLAY-BY-PLAY
House Dems waste no time pushing legislation to put pressure on GOP – Roll Call

WH legal team gets ready to defend Trump’s executive privilege as House Dem investigations loom – WaPo

AUDIBLE: YIKES
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” – Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, talking to the NYT.

FROM THE BLEACHERS
“In yesterday’s opinion you stated ‘….there’s far more cynicism than gullibility at play. This is about winning and losing. Republicans who are cheering on the shutdown would cheer just as hard if it was $3 trillion or $3. Forcing Democrats to knuckle under is the idea’. In fact, building additional physical barriers and being a ‘hawk’ on immigration has been a position popular among Republicans since at least 2005. Trump did not create this, he tapped into it and used it to win the primary. We support the shutdown because we have wanted additional physical borders for over a decade. 5.1 billion is a pittance compared to our 4 trillion budget, but it is much more than the 1.4 billion given in the Secure Fences act in 2006.” – Eric Scott, Jacksonville, Fla.

Share your color commentary: Email us at HALFTIMEREPORT@FOXNEWS.COM and please make sure to include your name and hometown.

CLEAN UP IN THE PRODUCE DEPARTMENT
WAPT: “A Jackson, Mississippi, grocery store was shut down after six women got into a fight inside the business. Investigators said a security guard was injured when he tried to break up the fight, which was recently reported at a Food Depot. Witnesses said the women were throwing cantaloupes and produce and hit the guard over the head with a glass bottle of syrup. He was taken away in an ambulance. The women left behind a mess, including torn-out hair extensions and broken merchandise, witnesses said. It’s unclear if any arrests were made.”

AND NOW, A WORD FROM CHARLES…
“Best to mandate nothing. Let the customer decide. A 60-year-old couple doesn’t need maternity coverage. Why should they be forced to pay for it? And I don’t know about you, but I don’t need lactation services.” – Charles Krauthammer (1950-2018) writing in the Washington Post on March 30, 2017.

Chris Stirewalt is the politics editor for Fox News. Brianna McClelland contributed to this report. 

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/yes-trump-can-declare-an-emergency

The post Yes, Trump can declare an emergency first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.