 |
| Silverfiddle Rant! |
"But the United States is no stranger to national emergencies.
In fact, the US has been in a perpetual state of declared national emergency for four decades, and the country is currently under 31 concurrent states of emergency about a spectrum of international issues around the globe..."
Here is CNN's list of "active declared emergencies:"
2. Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nov. 14, 1994)
3. Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process (January 23, 1995)
4. Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources (March 15, 1995)
5. Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers (October 21, 1995)
6. Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba (March 1, 1996)
7. Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan (November 3, 1997)
8. Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans (June 26, 2001)
9. Continuation of Export Control Regulations (August 17, 2001)
10. Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (September 14, 2001)
11. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism (September 23, 2001)
12. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (March 6, 2003)
13. Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest (May 22, 2003)
14. Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria (May 11, 2004)
15. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus (June 16, 2006)
16. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (October 27, 2006)
17. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions (August 1, 2007)
18. Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals (June 26, 2008)
19. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (April 12, 2010)
20. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (February 25, 2011)
21. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (July 25, 2011)
22. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)
23. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (March 6, 2014)
24. Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (April 3, 2014)
25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)
26. Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (March 9, 2015)
27. Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (April 1, 2015)
28. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (November 23, 2015)
29. Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption (December 20, 2017)
30. Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election (September 12, 2018)
31. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua (November 27, 2018)
Thank you for posting this list SF; I don’t think most Americans are cognizant of the vast powers we’ve surrendered to the Executive Branch. I don’t consider anything on this list to be a national emergency.
ReplyDeleteNor is the current invented “crisis”.
CI,
DeleteI don’t think most Americans are cognizant of the vast powers we’ve surrendered to the Executive Branch.
Of course they aren't aware. They trust the government to do the right thing.
I disagree with you about current invented “crisis.” For one thing, the children of these illegal aliens are draining the public education system -- on the taxpayers' dime. All the school additions along with more and more staff, expensive projects which in large part, are directly traceable to the children mentioned above. And let us not forget the burden on healthcare facilities. So many non-paying customers.
Well, if this is a "crisis", it was a "crisis" two years ago as well.
DeleteVisa overstayers accounted for around 62 percent of recent illegals. while 38 percent had crossed the borders illegally, and visa overstays have significantly exceeded illegal border crossings for seven consecutive years.
Similar with illegal drugs; the vast majority comes through legal ports of entry via vehicle, yet only ~2% of vehicles are able to be scanned, and there are unfilled CPB positions.
My sympathy wanes in cases such as these. Political gamesmanship and appeal to emotion only serve to debase us as a society.
Actually, according to Senator Durbin, backed up by Lizzy Warren, 40% of illegals overstayed their visas. This figure is verified by Check Your Facts.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Anonymous
DeleteActually, according to Senator Durbin, backed up by Lizzy Warren, 40% of illegals overstayed their visas. This figure is verified by Check Your Facts."
Great! Let's stop the other 60% with a wall.
Then enforce E-Verify.
Done.
Sure, plus scanners, ground sensors and filled CBP vacancies.
DeleteWe also need laws allowing border patrol to take picures and biometrics and then toss people back into Mexico, and summary deportations by airplane back to home countries.
DeleteOur system has become a shyster-riddled farce.
We need to:
DeleteA) END Birthright Citizenship
B) DISALLOW anyone who simply trots, limps, walks, or crawls into our midst to SEEK "ASYLUM." That has become an OBVIOUS RACKET, and it MUST be STOPPED. DemonRAT hypocrites be DAMNED.
C) place a STRICT MORATORIUM on ANY and ALL IMMIGRATION from ANYWHERE, and forbid even VISITORS to come from "Troubled Regions." Tha means the AIRPORTS and ther ports of entry must be heavily guarded by INS officials empowered to ARREST and FORCE undesirables to GET the HELL OUT and STAY OUT. PERIOD!
if we don't issue any more VISAS, then no one could possibly OVERSTAY them, right?
PS: Leftists publish, study and quote FACT-FREE sources or sources that take selected "FACTS" and twist them to fit a desired LEFTIST NARRATIVE.
DeleteThe exercise of emergency powers has been on the table for a very long time. John Locke successfully argued that there must be occasions when an executive must exert a broad discretion in meeting the demands of exigencies or emergencies for which a legislative body had no remedy or provided no relief. The test for such action was simply “in the public good.” In the modern day, constitutionalists have argued that the granting of emergency powers to the president is implicit in Article I, Section 8, which charges the president to “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare.” These would be the so-called “implied powers” which may be invoked to respond to an emergency situation. In other words, presidential declarations of emergency are assumed to be constitutionally permissible ... but also dependent on how the chief executive views his duties as president.
ReplyDeleteTheodore Roosevelt defended his authority by declaring a responsibility of the president to act as the steward of the people. A president, he argued, does not need to rely on some prior authorization to implement emergency powers, but rather it was/is his right and duty to do anything that the needs of the nation demanded, unless such action was specifically forbidden by the Constitution or laws of congress. Mr. Taft disagreed, making the opposite assertions. The disagreement on this issue appears wide-ranging, from “...the authority of a president is largely determined by the president himself,” to Adam Schiff’s declaration that the president has no powers except for those delineated to him in the Constitution, or by the Congress. I suspect that whichever of these is true depends mightily on the party in power in the Congress, and the party of the sitting president whenever an emergency action is declared.
Which brings me to my favorite topic, “national interest.” What does it mean, and who or what circumstances invoke it? It is used frequently to take America to war, and yet to my knowledge, beyond making a declaration that one action or another serves the “national interest,” no one is able to say specifically how a declared national interest serves the public good. I’m still waiting for someone to explain our national interest in Afghanistan, for example. If the term is used as an analytic tool, then someone should be able to describe or explain how a specific national interest satisfies foreign or domestic policy. If the term is used merely as a tool of political action, then someone should be able to justify a proposed policy ... or “how” it is best in serving the public good.
Some things appear self-evident and pig-simple. Controlling the southern border of the United States must be in the national interest, building a wall may not be—no matter how much it cost. There are portions along the southern border that are desolate and indisposed to construction of any kind. Now, if this is true, then how will building a wall at some locations and not at others substantially restrict the flow of illegal aliens? It would only be a matter of time before these people find the weaknesses and exploit them. Perhaps it is the president’s intention to establish “avenues of approach,” whereby the concentration of border enforcement officers are able to focus their attentions on places where there are gaps in the wall. I don’t know —I haven’t seen any indication of any plan to protect our southern border.
Sam,
DeleteSome things appear self-evident and pig-simple. Controlling the southern border of the United States must be in the national interest...
Can't get the Dems and the GOPe to admit that, though.
Of course not, AOW, and it is precisely BECAUSE of the virulent, frankly insane, anti-Trump bias we see coming at us constantly from ALL sides.
DeleteThe totally irrational anti-Trump bias is SO strong it supersedes and virtually obliterates ALL other considerations. President Trump's enemies hate HIM –– and the 63-million citizens who voted for him –– FAR more than they love our COUNTRY.
Also many who like to think of themselves as PRINCIPLED, HIGH-MINDED and FAR ABOVE IT ALL adore THEIR Convictions and Personal Opinions far more than they do the country and their fellow Americans as well.
Different opinions (which is what makes them personal) IS the country. What kind of America would you have without a diverse range of opinions or convictions? A Soviet state, perhaps?
DeleteGiven that the majority of illegal immigration comes from people legally in the country overstaying their VISAS, wouldn't it make sense to be spending money there. If we could eliminate that avenue of entry, we'd cut by most estimates between 55 and 65% of the problem.
DeleteAs for the claim that a wall will stop the influx of drugs, that too seems to be a canard as again, almost all numbers, including those from the Trump Admin say over 85% of all drugs entering the US across our southern border come through legal points of entry. What if we spent money there?
The view that someone who does not support a wall does not support border security is not necessarily true. Is it possible for someone to support beefing up the two areas I mentioned, be against the wall, and be for border security?
Or has the wall become the litmus test?
Spot on Dave...given the facts of the matter....it would be a win if POTUS actually made the case for where the most benefit would come. I support a barrier across most of the southern border...though a wall unobserved is a no barrier [basic military doctrine]; but to stake so much on false premises.....shows that he doesn't have the best interests of the nation in mind. It's another motive altogether.
DeleteThanks CI... As for motives, I want to believe that Trump does has the best interests of America at heart, even if his policies are not well thought out.
DeleteJust as I hope most people believed Bush, Obama or any other president had our best interests at heart while they served.
@ Dave ... you seem to have a good heart. Bless you. But I wonder if you agree, having our best interests at heart doesn't cut it when our young men are being killed or maimed. Presidents sent those men into harms way, and there's an awful lot of people suffering now ... troops, wives, sweethearts, kids, parents, siblings, all because these presidents, with "good intention," got it wrong.
DeleteSam, you are a WONDER –– a great fount of solid knowledge, always carefully presented in a dignified, non-tendentious manner.
DeleteWe need more like you. Thanks for you careful, solid research.
Such erudition is so rare in the blogophere it tends to be overlooked amidst the swirling storm of virulent passion and personal antagonisms that arise all too easily.
Sam... you are 100% right, "having our best interests at heart" does not always cut it, nor guarantee success. Look, my brother was on the in famous USS Turner Joy so I'm well aware of presidential and governmental screw ups/lies and obfuscations.
DeleteBut getting it wrong is about policy, as opposed to impugning motives. I just don't find a lot of value in the leftist folks who claimed Pres Bush got up every morning thankful soldiers were dying in Iraq or that he wanted black people to die in the aftermath of Katrina. Nor do I find value from the conservative folks who said all Pres Obama wanted to do was destroy America.
We can criticize presidential policies, but if we've gotten to the point that we really believe any politician who disagrees with our preferred solution only wants to destroy the country and harm her citizens, then we really are lost.
Dave - Yes, sadly......we have gotten to that point.
Delete@ Dave
DeleteSpeaking only for myself, of course ... I do not question the motives of bad presidential policy decisions, I only note their devastating results. Naturally, people do not elect themselves to lofty positions; voters choose unwisely. And yet, in the defense of badly informed voters, the American people do not have many good choices. We have been stuck in this rut of having to choose between bad and worse for far too many years. We, as a country, are in serious trouble. But again, this is just my opinion.
My Goodness, Gracious and also Me!
ReplyDeleteIt appears we've been holding perpetual BLOCK PARTY for more than FORTY YEARS.
I wonder why no one appears to be having even the faintest resemblance of a Good Time, don't you?
It sure doesn't FEEL like a party.
It feels more like a WAKE. Goetterdaemmerung! Ragnarok! The Masque of the Red Death!
}:^(>
I don't think that the Congresses inability to do it's job (fund a wall) constitutes a "National Emergency". If it were so, the President should disband the Congress and rule by fiat.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the list, just about every item on it is in quick/expedient reaction to some third world government party's actions. IMO, the reason why this case (stopping immigration) is different, is that they come BECAUSE there is no wall, and not because local governments are driving their people out.
looking at the list, it can be interpreted as actions necessary to maintain the wealth pump of empire and the wall is simply part of the fear narrative necessary to keep the military complex well greased.
DeleteTrue Acharnians(1) all!
Deletef(1) The deme of Acharnae was largely inhabited by charcoal-burners, who supplied the city with fuel.
AMPHITHEUS: I was hurrying to bring your treaty of truce, but some old dotards from Acharnae(1) got scent of the thing; they are veterans of Marathon, tough as oak or maple, of which they are made for sure—rough and ruthless. They all started a-crying: "Wretch! you are the bearer of a treaty, and the enemy has only just cut our vines!" Meanwhile they were gathering stones in their cloaks, so I fled and they ran after me shouting.
-Aristophanes, "The Acharnians"
YOO HOO! WOO HOO! GOOD NEWS!
ReplyDeleteThere really IS a GOD after all.
Late Breaking News!
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Retire Next Month.
O fabjous day! Clloo Clay!
H Chortled In His Joy!
HALLELUJAH!
HALLELUJAH!
HALLELUJAH!
I think someone's pulling your leg, or you got if from one of the marginal rightwing "news" outlets.
DeleteIt will obviously come to pass....just hopefully in the next two years, and hopefully replaced by a Constitutionalist.
DeleteThe headline appeared exactly as Iquoted it as The Banner atop the L,com News Forum Homepage –– a venerable conservative news site run by Lucianne Goldberg, mother of well-kwn cinservative columnist Jonah Goldberg. The site has existed since the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke more tun twenty years ago.
DeleteLucianne Goldberg was instrumental in exposing the untoward relationship between 49-year-old Bill Clinton and the 22-year-old Ms Lewinsky. I believe i was Mrs. Goldberg in league with Linda Tripp who advised Monica to "hang onto that little blue dress."
If nothing else Lucianne may well have saved ditzy Monica's life.
Can you IMAGINE how this would have turned out if Bill Clinton had been a REPUBLICAN?
Flogged, Hanged, Drawn, Quartered, Castrated, and Burnt to Cinders on the Capitol Steps no doubt.
SORRY! The report of RBG's retirement appeared as the BANNER HEADLINE at a reputable conservative news site, but it has not been confirmed anywhere. I jumped the gun.
DeleteFranco,
DeleteI wouldn't have expected an error like that on Lucianne.
Me either. that's why I trusted it enough to start spreading it around. So far she hasn't explained or retracted it, but since therehave been no follow up articles on the subject, I guess it really must have been an unsubstantiated rumor, ALTHOUGH the prospect of RBG ever returning to active duty on The Bench seem very slim considerng her age and serious health challenges.
DeleteOnly Time will tell ...
We seem to be living in an age where NOTHING in the political sphere ever seems to reach a RESOLUTION. Endless suspense is the name of the game.
I would have expected an error like that on Buzzfeed.
DeleteI’m entertained by the breathless implications that Buzzfeed was some sort of journalistic venue. It’s always had no more gravitas than Cosmo.
DeleteI'm sure Ed was being ever-so-gently sarcastic, CI.
DeleteNo one takes Buzzfeed seriously, except the brain-dead devotees of Leftist cant and rhetoric
The same SHOULD be said for CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, the NYT, WaPo, boGlob, LAT, the Natin, and all the other crackpot Leftist Propaganda Mills.
I know you despise ALL forms of Propaganda as basically dishonest, and you have a point, but when the propaganda aids and abets political initiatives and activity in which I, personally, believe, I can't find it in my heart to reject it categorically.
"WE" –– if the is such a thing as"WE" in these fractious times ––, need ALL the HELP "WE" can get.
This my sound like nonsense to you, but I am certain there ARE times when a LIE can be a good thing, when, and if, it serves the best interests of a larger fundamental TRUTH.
Just pursuits can be attained without dishonor. To ignore that in pursuit of emotional gratification and expediency, is to sacrifice integrity and the entire point of the endeavor.
DeleteDoubly so when the propaganda is based on false premises, as they do often are. If “we” don’t hold ourselves to a high standard, why would we waste breath holding the opposition to any standard?
Franco,
DeleteNo one takes Buzzfeed seriously, except the brain-dead devotees of Leftist cant and rhetoric
The same SHOULD be said for CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, the NYT, WaPo, boGlob, LAT, the Natin, and all the other crackpot Leftist Propaganda Mills.
And that is the truth.
With all the smoke and mirrors emanating from the various propaganda arms of the Democratic Party, it's difficult and time consuming to discern the truth.
Is the same true of some Right Wing sites? Sure. But they don't have the power or the reach of the Left Wing propaganda mills.
You don’t think Fox does? The cable outlet that supposedly gets more viewership on average than the competitors?
DeleteCI,
DeleteWell, around here in Liberal Land Northern Virginia, not too many watch Fox. And the denigrate any who do.
That said, I'm sure that Fox does reach many. But as many as CNN or the others? I doubt it.
Rest assured that at government agencies in the NOVA area, a few televisions are tuned to BBC or AFP........but the majority are on Fox.
DeleteDems have painted themselves into a corner. If they ever again vote one penny for any kind of barrier, then all this shutdown idiocy has been for naught but to poke a finger in President Trump's eye and to hell with all the federal workers who aren't getting paid.
ReplyDeleteThink about it: All of this because they don't want to approve $5 billion to DHS to build 215 miles of "wall system" as the DHS calls it. This is the first year congress refuses to provide money for physical barriers.
Congressional Democrats will end up losing this one way or another, sooner or later.
Sure, but the DemonRats' SPITE FEST and GRUDGE MATCH against President Trump means that tens of thousands more "caravans" of illegal alien "migrants" will pour through our inadequately defended borders and continue to flood OUR country with feeble, sick, criminal, undesrable, unassmilable people who have littleton GIVE to OUR country, and will only DEPLETE our dwindling resources.
DeleteThe Wall will not solve the problem completely, of course, but it will GREATLY deter further ioverlad nvasion of OUR sovereign nation.
n additin to the Wa, we MUST structly FORBID further entrance by Sea or Air by ANYONE who comes from "Truble Spots anywhere in the world.
Just CLOSE and LOCK the GATES. Stand Guard and BAR the ENTRANCE to OUR country for the foreseeable future..
Even so called "TOURISTS" should no linger be permitted even to visit OUR country.
resident Trum- shuld follow Lincoln, Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt's prededent and JAIL opposition to his plan to secure this nation from further Freign Invasion. That means MUZZLING the ENEMEDIA. And JAILING Leftist "Professors" or putting the bastards under HOUSE ARREST.
It's been done before, and it's long past time to DO IT AGAIN.
Might as well, there few enough Conservative patriots left to stand in the way of such tyranny......the fall of the Republic should be hastened in the way for the expediency of all Subjects and Serfs.
DeleteSF - The Democrats are certainly not blameless, but the GOP all but had 25 billion for the taking just a few months ago. Not to mention the previous two years of inaction......setting the stage for invented an “crisis” and political games.
DeleteRepubes had it all and failed to get anything done. I think this is a good take on what happened:
DeleteHow the Latest Attempt at a DACA Deal Failed
Democrats--and many Republicans--do not want comprehensive immigration reform.
It also angers me we cannot get an honest accounting of the cost of illegal immigration.
DeleteNeither are we getting an honest report on the proposed COST of President Trump's blessed WALL.
Deletei distinctly recall his mentioning TWENTY-FIVE BILLION as the projected cost when he first floated the idea.
WHY he let the DemonRATS cause him to pare it down to the ridiculously inadequate 5.6 billion over which they are now wrangling –– AS IF IT REALLY MATTERED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER –– I'll never understand.
IF the president gets what he initially SAID he wanted, the project will cost AT LEAST 25 BILLION.
So what's the point of staging this Gigantic Pissing Contest when the stakes are so ridiculously LOW they just don't MATTER?
You're smart. Please explain it to me, IF YOU CAN.
He had 25 billion for the taking, in exchange for discourse on DACA. Ironically, that could well be his message today, based on early reports.
Deleteaccording to the Bloomberg article I linked to, Dems weren't satisfied with what he offered, and they did not agree to his comprehensive reforms that included no more chain migration.
DeleteI'm not casting blame, just providing information.
The sticking point is apparently the difference between permanent DACA resolution versus a “bridge” proposal.
DeleteIf a bridge is proffered and the Democrats rebuke it, then they will have snatched deftest from the jaws of victory.
I support his policies....lower taxes, strong law enforcement, strong military, lower welfare cost, strong border enforcement.
ReplyDeleteI could care less who he's sleeping with or his previous business dealings
And SEVENFOLD AMEN to YOU, sir!
DeleteLet's hope that this Buzzfeed story is total BS just like the CNN stories are As we all know the bulk of the stories that come out by the Fake News Libers are mostly BS.
ReplyDeleteThe Fake News stations like CNN, MSNBC, and others are full of shit.
Mostly put out by liar and a cheats like Schumer, and Pelosi.
They are the ones who sho
In a little over an hour, President Trump will address the nation. Let's see what his proposal is.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't Trump need to build three more walls for the other 3 cardinal directions even if the wall does get built? All he's done is cut off one avenue of entry for illegals.
ReplyDelete