Democrats tonight voted along straight party lines to impeach President Trump. They do not appreciate the gravity of their act.
My congressman, Sanford Bishop, voted to impeach. Georgia’s 2nd District is generally viewed as a safe district for a Democrat. The idea of a safe district leads to complacency and an aura of invincibility. Continue reading
by 
I have had several people ask me about the hearings that the House Intelligence Committee held over the past two weeks. I heard a lot of interpretations, understandings, and opinions from witnesses, but no facts that differed from the transcript of the phone call to the Ukrainian President that President Trump provided.
The witnesses were all connected with the State Department or Intelligence community. They appeared to be disturbed over the call because the President did not follow their talking points or because he made the call at all.
It was clear that Democrats set the rules to prevent Republican participation to the fullest degree possible. When Republican Congressman David Nunes attempted to yield a portion of his time for questioning to Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, Schiff ruled her out of order because the rules, adopted just two weeks earlier, only allowed Nunes to yield time to the legal counsel.
One of the most revealing moments came when Republican Jim Jordan asked Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman to name the individual to whom he spoke about the call. Vindman had earlier testified that he spoke to someone in the intelligence community.
Vindman had also testified that he did not know who the whistleblower was. When Jordan asked to whom Vindman spoke, Chairman Schiff immediately interjected that he was not going to allow the witness to identify the whistleblower.
Jordan pointed out the obvious logic that if Vindman does not know who the whistleblower is and Schiff had publicly stated that he did not know who the whistleblower is, then how was Vindman outing the whistleblower?
What happens next? It looks like the Intelligence Committee will make a recommendation to the House Judiciary Committee to proceed with formal impeachment hearings.
The report will present the opinions of the unelected bureaucrats as the troubling proof that the President abused his authority and should be removed. I do not think that Republicans will be allowed to provide a minority report .
Since Democrats have a majority, the Schiff report will be treated as the gospel. Democrats in the House will wring their hands in anguish over this travesty by the President as the Judiciary Committee begins its hearings.
Democrats will wield the power in the House of the simple majority and try to find one Republican to join them. If they find just one Republican to join them, be prepared to hear the term “bi-partisan majority impeachment” until you are sick of hearing it.
The high stakes match up comes if Nancy Pelosi goes through with this for a full impeachment vote. Once the matter goes over to the Senate, the Republicans are in control and they will not be gagged.
All of this going on here at Christmas time is the lump of coal in the stocking for the American people every time they turn on the news. There is a bright side to this though.
Given the dismal viewership ratings of the Schiff hearings, Americans won’t be watching the news. They will be too busy watching Hallmark Christmas movies and shopping.
by If you have wondered why the Democrats in Congress seem to be in such a rush to remove President Trump from office, wonder no more. They have been in a race against an impending dangerous storm warning.
The storm warning is not President Trump. It is US Attorney General William Barr, US Attorney John Durham, and Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
First, IG Michael Horowitz wrote Congressional leaders that his report on the secret surveillance warrants used by the FBI during the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential campaign was “nearing completion.” The next day, news broke that the investigation by US Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Russia investigation was now classified as a criminal investigation.
Over the past three years, mainstream media reports made bold predictions about impending revelations of treasonous behavior by President Trump. One by one these claims were thoroughly debunked.
During the same three years, conservative investigative reporters reported on unelected bureaucrats colluding to remove, disable, or impair a duly elected President. These investigations focus on what Donald Trump called “the swamp.”
The swamp is more than political parties or political philosophy. It is a controlling culture composed of elected officials, bureaucrats, lobbyists, consultants, and contractors who had a free run of Washington, DC.
Donald Trump ran on a platform of draining the swamp. He represented a clear and present danger.
The swamp used the power of the United States intelligence and law enforcement agencies to try to stop Trump before the election. When the people elected him, the swamp tried to keep him from being inaugurated.
Since the day Trump took office, the swamp used every weapon available to cripple or destroy his service as President. Every attempt has failed.
President Trump stood up against the swamp, He has also done his job leading the American people.
Real median household income continues to rise as wages rise. More Americans have jobs today than ever before.
The unemployment rate continued its drop to record lows not seen in half a century. African-American and Hispanic unemployment is at record low levels as well.
The people in mainstream America are better off than ever before. They are experiencing more freedom and opportunity to invest and enjoy the fruits of their labors.
This is all the more threatening to the swamp. Adam Schiff and House Democrats, as the defenders of the swamp, are dug in deep in the bowels of the Capitol basement. In this inquisition, they are frantically searching for something – anything that they can call an impeachable offense.
The dragnet of justice is closing in on the swamp. The threat is imminent and real, and they know it. This is Adam Schiff’s last stand.
by Democrats continue to shock and anger the nation with their assault on truth and justice in their ongoing coup attempt to remove Donald Trump. News outlets are calling the latest efforts an impeachment, but this is not an impeachment, it is an inquisition.
A two year, multi-million dollar fishing expedition by Robert Mueller came back with no catch on Russian interference or obstruction of justice. The best Mueller could do was say that he could not file charges but neither could he exonerate President Trump.
The latest attempt came with an unauthorized discussion about the President’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last July. Conversations between the President and leader of another country are classified.
Someone who apparently was authorized to be involved in the conversation broke the law and talked about it with an unauthorized individual. That second-hand party, who is referred to as a “whistle blower,” then talked to Congressman Adam Schiff and his staff.
They helped the second-hand whistle blower craft a formal letter to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Schiff himself is the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
That letter, then went to the Intelligence Inspector General (IG) as a “whistle blower” complaint. What the IG received, was, at best, a second-hand report of an allegation about the President.
It would seem that the IG would want to get someone who actually heard the call to corroborate the story. If he could not get a first-hand account, it should be “case closed.”
On September 18, the Washington Post published a story, based on an anonymous source, about the existence of a “whistle blower” report on the President’s phone call. That was the trigger in the Democrat playbook for Schiff, Pelosi, and the Democrats.
On September 24, Nancy Pelosi met with the Democrat caucus behind closed doors to discuss impeachment. In order to begin an impeachment process, the House of Representatives must vote. Newly elected Democrats who ran as moderates did not want to go on record voting for an impeachment.
Shortly after Pelosi had her closed door meeting, President Trump, who was at the United Nations, announced that he would be releasing the unredacted transcript of his phone call with the Ukrainian President. The Whitehouse also announced that the second-hand whistle blower complaint would be released by the end of the week.
Later that afternoon, Pelosi addressed Congress. She said, “I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I am directing our six Committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.”
There was no vote then. There still has not been a vote. I do not believe that there will be a vote.
In spite of having no vote for an impeachment inquiry, some Democrats were quick to jump on the bandwagon calling for Trump’s impeachment. Among the followers of the left was my member of Congress, Sanford Bishop, from Southwest Georgia’s 2nd Congressional District.
Even after President Trump announced that he would be releasing the unredacted transcript of the call, Sanford Bishop published a statement saying that it was “imperative” that Congress begin an impeachment inquiry. He stated:
“The President has admitted publicly to asking the Ukraine President to investigate Hunter Biden and has instructed his Director of National Intelligence to withhold the whistleblower’s complaint from Congress, which is illegal.”
Sanford Bishop made up his mind without getting any facts. He pre-judged the reported allegation before knowing the details or even seeing the complaint itself.
The next day as President Trump promised, in an unprecedented display of transparency, he released the totally unredacted transcript of the call. Later that day, the second-hand whistle blower complaint was also declassified and forwarded to Congress.Â
Democrats were so caught off guard by the release of the transcript that Congressman Adam Schiff made up his own version. In a meeting of the House Intelligence Committee on September 26, Schiff read into the record a totally fictitious transcript of the call.
Republicans called his hand. He said that it was just a parody.Â
When the second-hand whistle blower complaint was declassified, Sanford Bishop was quick to update his website with a link to the second-hand account of the whistle blower. In a blatant display of deceit, Bishop did not include a link to the transcript of the call itself.
The transcript was released before the whistle blower’s second-hand account and complaint. Nearly one month later, there is still only a link to the second-hand account made by the whistle blower.
Sanford Bishop has made no acknowledgement of the transcript. He has not provided a link that would allow a constituent to read the transcript of the call itself.
Sanford Bishop should provide the transcript so that his constituents can get the complete and accurate account. He is presenting only one side. This is a calculated and disingenuous ploy to mislead.
Democrats, with their loyal followers like Sanford Bishop, are seeking neither truth nor justice. They are carrying out a duplicitous, devious, dishonest inquisition.
by The New York Times unveiled their new project named, “The 1619 Project” in their August 14, 2019 issue of the New York Time Magazine. The 1619 project is a series of essays that looks back to the 400th anniversary of the first slaves from Africa brought to the American colonies.
The Times made no effort to hide the project’s intent and primary thesis. Times stated that its purpose was to “reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as the true founding,” of America.
These essays are neither good journalism nor sound historical analysis. The heading of the first essay reads,
“Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written.”
Nikole Hannah-Jones – 1619 Project – NY Times Magazine August 14, 2019
The problem with the series is with the thesis itself. The essays blame every societal issue today affecting the minority population in the United States on slavery. One essay even relates the interstate highway system during the Eisenhower administration to the institution of slavery that had been abolished a century earlier.
The 1619 Project, in “reframing” history has both a short term and long term objective. Dean Baquet, Executive Editor of the Times, said that after Robert Mueller’s testimony before Congress, the Times was caught “a little tiny bit flat-footed.”
Before the Mueller testimony, the New York Times staff expected Mueller’s testimony would finally put Donald Trump out of office. They were more excited than a six year old on Christmas eve.
After Mueller’s stumbling testimony, their hopes and dreams were dashed. There was nothing under the Christmas tree – not even a lump of coal in the stockings.
In a town hall meeting with his newsroom staff, Baquet revealed the new strategy to end the Trump Presidency. They would turn from the failed Russian collusion story to a strategy of racial division. Baquet exhorted them to join him in the new vision.
“That, to me, is the vision for coverage. You all are going to have to help us shape that vision. But I think that’s what we’re going to have to do for the rest of the next two years.”
Slate Magazine – Transcript of NY Times Town Hall – August 15, 2019
The short term objective of The 1619 Project is to stoke the fires of race in the left’s ongoing war against President Trump. The strategy is historical revision and a division of the American people based on race.
There is a long term objective as well. The liberal media’s assaults look beyond President Trump. They are an assault on the greatness and exceptionalism of the United States.
The 1619 Project has already published student curriculum for young students including reading guides, activities, and other teaching resources. Media outlets and professional journals will present stories and hold workshops on The 1619 Project. Higher educational institutions, especially those who train teachers and write curriculum, will incorporate quotes and conclusions and use them to shape new curriculum for public school students.
Democrats played the race card against Republicans for decades. That well is running dry. President Trump’s policies have led to a booming economy and record high job and wage growth for black Americans.
Democrats can no longer point to economic indicators and accuse Republicans of racial discrimination. Their new approach is to go back 400 years and “reframe” America’s history.
Their strategy is a sign of misery and fear on the part of Democrat leadership. They know that they cannot win if even a small percentage of black voters leave the fold and vote Republican.
Democrats presumed that the black vote belonged to them. That presumption is evaporating before their very eyes.
The 1619 Project is an example of the last gasp of desperation. It may sound good to the New York Times, but it won’t work for Americans who are standing up and rejecting the strategy of revision and division.
by Have you ever been in the grocery store and seen a parent, let’s say a mother, with a small child, let’s say a 3 year old boy. The little boy spots a bright shiny package of candy. The mother says, “you can’t have that, you need to put it back.” You know that this will go one of two ways and what happens next will reveal it all.
One path could be that the little boy says, “yes ma’am” and puts it back as they continue to shop. End of story.
Well, I try to keep my commentary short, but this is a little too short. Nowadays, unless the boy is shopping with his retired Marine Drill Sergeant uncle, that ending is a rarity.
Here is the path this story more likely takes. After hearing, “you need to put it back,” the boy tightens his grip on the shiny package of candy, pulls it close to his chest and turns away from his mother. The mother says, “you know that candy is not good for you, so let’s put it back.”Little boy, “No.”
The mother, while still pushing the buggy down the aisle farther away from the candy, says, “well, you know that will give you a tummy ache and you won’t be able to sleep.” She extends her open hand toward the little boy to receive the package of candy. The little boy turns even farther away from his mother, pulling the candy even closer to his chest. He answers, even a little louder this time, “No!”
Still pushing the buggy down the aisle and rounding the corner to the next aisle, the mother says, “Now, I’m not going to tell you again, we’ll have to put the candy back. I’ll tell you what, I’ll get a nice little toy for you. Won’t you give me the candy?” The little boy now shouts as other customers in the store turn and look. “No! I want this!”
Fortunately for the mother, she was finished loading her cart so she continues the conversation with her little boy as she strolls to the checkout line. “You are making me sad and your father will be disappointed in you. Please give me the box of candy.” The little boy holds the candy even closer and twists farther away from his mother with another louder shout, “No! I want this!”
Just before going through the line, the mother stops the buggy and walks to face the little boy as he has twisted far away from her. Now things are really serious. “Give that package to me now. I’m going to count to three. ………. One ………. Two ……….
Moments later, you see the mother pushing the buggy with everything checked and paid for heading out the door. The little boy is happily eating the candy and holding on to the new toy that his mother bought for him.
This describes negotiations with other countries by the United States in recent history. China has cheated the world in trade deals and everyone knew it. It might be unfair to China to call it cheating since they were just going as far as they could go.
Iran and North Korea defiantly developed nuclear weapons. The Obama administration made a deal with Iran that was so bad, it makes the mother in the story above look like a stern disciplinarian.
Mexico, opened their doors for a pipeline of illegal immigration to the United States. Democrats in Congress refuse to support our Border Patrol to protect our citizens. President Trump declared an emergency and is building the wall in spite of the Democrat opposition.
Then, Trump played another card to stop the flow of illegals through Mexico to the US. He told Mexico to change their behavior and act in a positive, responsible fashion. In other words, “put the candy back.”
For decades, Mexico and all of these countries acted like the little boy in the grocery store. During those decades, Democrats and Republicans took turns playing the role of the mother. Predictably, every drama ended with the little boy happily eating his candy and playing with his new toy as they left the store.
This time, Donald Trump is pushing the buggy. This time he set forth expectations and clear consequences that would take effect on June 10.
The mainstream media exploded with doom and gloom. Democrats and Republicans reacted saying that his move was a blunder. Like the 10 spies that Moses sent to the Promised Land, they were saying , “we became like grasshoppers in our own sight.” (Numbers 13:33 NASB)
Mexico, on the other hand, knew that Donald Trump would do what he said he would do. It would hurt them worse than it hurt the United States.
Mexico deployed 6,000 troops to their Southern border with Guatemala. They took steps to stop the wide-open pipeline. They agreed to do more in a speedy fashion.
Once again, Donald Trump put America first. The swamp denizens were shouting the equivalent of passages from the 1950’s child rearing advice of Dr. Benjamin Spock. Trump just looked Mexico in the eye and said the equivalent of, “you need to put the candy back.”
After over two years with President Trump, Mexico knew what was about to happen. They chose to behave in a positive fashion. They put the candy back. Trump wins again!
by I watched Robert Mueller’s press conference. For over two years, I held on to a glimmer of hope that Mueller was trying to do a thorough investigation to find and report the facts. His press conference confirmed solidly in my mind that his entire investigation was not to find the truth but to find that President Trump committed a crime.
He could not find that President Trump committed a crime so he turned the foundational principles of justice on its head. With glaring hypocrisy, Mueller applied the principle of justice to indicted Russians when he said that he would not comment on their innocence or guilt because, “Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”
In President Trump’s case, however, instead of reporting the facts that there was no evidence to charge the President with a crime, he turned the burden of proof upside down. While he extended the presumption of innocence to Russians, for President Trump he said, “if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
This sounds more like the famous swimming test of a witch trial than American justice. In the swimming test, the accused would be bound with ropes and thrown into a lake. If she somehow managed to get to the surface for air, it was clearly through means of witchcraft. If she sank, then she must not have been a witch.
In the Russian collusion investigation, Mueller also attempted to plant a seed of guilt where there was none. He said, “there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.” Note the modifier, “broader.” He clearly intended to leave the impression that there could have been a conspiracy. It was just that if there was one, it was a county road conspiracy, not an I-75 conspiracy.
Mueller went on to say that he did not come to any conclusion because department policy prohibited charging a sitting President. He said, “we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.” Notice the careful use of words when he said that “we would not” not “we could not.”
Mueller’s argument on DOJ policy immediately raises a glaring question. If he was not going to come to a conclusion, then why did he waste millions of dollars over two years to write a 400 page gossip column?
Newt Gingrich quickly knocked down Mueller’s DOJ policy argument. He pointed out that Kenneth Starr’s report on the investigation of President Bill Clinton used the word, “guilty” eleven times with five of those being for obstruction of justice.
In an interview with Jan Crawford, Attorney General Bill Barr said that Mueller could have reached a conclusion. He and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein were both surprised when Mueller did not.
Barr went even farther by pointing out that Mueller’s statement saying that he could not exonerate the President was not DOJ policy either. Barr said that Mueller’s standard of exoneration, “of course is not the standard we use at the department. We have to determine whether there is clear violation of the law.” There was no violation of the law. There was no narrow violation. There was no broad violation. There was no violation.
Mueller also said that the DOJ policy held that the Constitution puts the responsibility on Congress to formally accuse a sitting President. Barr said that he was not sure what Mueller was suggesting but that “the Department of Justice doesn’t use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress. …we are not an extension of Congress’s investigative powers.”
Mueller concluded his press conference by saying that he would not take questions. He went on to say that he had no plans to testify further. Referring to his report, he said, “We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony.”
This raises another glaring question. If the report speaks for itself and is his testimony, then why hold a press conference?
There is a simple answer. Mueller was seeking to find that President Trump committed a crime. He could not because there was nothing to find. Bill Barr released the Mueller report six weeks ago. It was gaining no traction.
Mueller’s press conference was simply a Hail Mary pass. Bill Barr intercepted it in the end zone.
by Friday afternoon, President Trump announced that he would sign a bill to fund the government for three more weeks and end the government shutdown. He accepted the Democrat proposal to first open the government and then they will discuss the President’s request for border security.
It was evident on the President’s face that this was not something he wanted to do. He knew that the headlines would be, “Trump Caves.”
President Trump did not cave. He compromised. There is a big difference.
A cave is when one party gives in without fighting to win on their position. They may talk a great deal but do not put up a fight because they never intended to put up a fight.
A compromise on the other hand is when both parties come to an agreement to resolve an issue. Both parties come out of the deal with something and both parties give up something.
President Trump’s position was to fund the government and include border security provisions with physical barriers, commonly referred to as a wall. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer said, no wall.
Both made small concessions along the way. Trump’s recommendation changed from wall to steel slats that allowed border guards to see through to the other side. He later threw in provisions to address the issue of children who had been brought to the United States illegally by their parents.
Pelosi and Schumer softened their position from “no wall” to a short term bill of a few weeks to open the government. During that period, they assured the President that there would be serious and meaningful bi-partisan discussions to fund border security.
The President had serious reservations about Democrats actually operating in good faith. He did not want to play the role of Charlie Brown to have Lucy (Pelosi and Schumer) snatch the football away again.
President Trump knew that the shutdown was putting a financial strain on impacted federal employees. The strain was showing, particularly in air travel.
During the shutdown, President Trump has been talking with members of Congress. Some meetings were well publicized while many were out of the limelight.
His statement below summarizes the spirit of the compromise.
After 36 days of spirited debate and dialogue, I have seen and heard from enough Democrats and Republicans that they are willing to put partisanship aside, I think, and put the security of the American people first. I do believe they are going to do that.
They have said they are for complete border security and they have finally and fully acknowledged that having barriers, fences, or walls or whatever you want to call it, will be an important part of the solution. A bipartisan conference committee of House and Senate lawmakers and leaders will immediately begin reviewing the requests of our homeland security experts, and experts they are, and also law enforcement professionals who have worked with us so closely.
The key in this statement is the agreement to have a bipartisan conference committee. A conference committee is generally formed after the House and Senate pass a bill with slight differences. The conference committee meets to work out the differences and present the same bill to both chambers for final approval.
The bipartisan makeup of the committee means that Democrats and Republicans will both be at the same table talking with each other. They will not be talking at each other via 30 second sound bites.
The address was originally scheduled for 1:00 pm last Friday. It was almost 2:30 before the President spoke. That delay indicates that he was working on this address, probably making phone calls, and finalizing agreements up until the last minute.
President Trump wanted a bill that included funding for a wall. He believed that he could strike some agreement to get it done.
Democrat leadership refused to talk. As time went on, the focus of attention turned more and more to the impact of the government shutdown and away from the crisis at the border.
The President decided to eat humble pie. He agreed to the appeals he was hearing from both sides to open the government. The compromise agreement is in the best interest of all Americans.
President Trump displayed leadership in fighting for his position. He displayed leadership by taking action to move the issue forward. He displayed statesmanship by putting trust in both parties to work together on a conference committee in good faith.
President Trump kept his part of the agreement. Within hours of giving his address, the President signed the bill to give full back pay and put federal workers back to work.
Furloughed federal workers are no longer an issue. Now, the issue is solely on border security and funding a wall to address the crisis on our Southern border.
The President recognizes the process that the Founding Fathers built into our constitutional government. Technically, the President could declare a national emergency and act unilaterally.
He believes that Congress should recognize the crisis at the Southern Border. They should acknowledge the crisis by funding border security.
The President has done his part. Now, it is in the hands of Congress. President Trump did not cave. He compromised. There is a big difference.
by Peanuts is an American classic. One of the ordeals for Charlie Brown is his repeated misplaced trust in Lucy holding the football for kickoff.
Time after time, Lucy assures Charlie that she will hold the football. Charlie hesitates because she always pulls the football away.
Finally, Charlie again trusts Lucy and races forward to kick the ball. At the last split second, Lucy snatches the ball out of the way. Charlie flips backwards through the air, landing on his back with a thud.
In some ways this is a good analogy of what is going on between the Democrats and President Trump in the government shutdown.
The latest proposals from the Democrats provide for opening the government for two or three weeks. During the two or three weeks, the Democrats promise that they will make an honest and diligent effort to consider the President’s request for border security.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called on the President to postpone his State of the Union address. It is scheduled for January 29. She wants him to wait until the government is reopened.
She also suggested that he deliver it in writing rather than a televised address to the American people. Her request is understandable given her poor performance with Chuck Schumer in their response to President Trump’s Whitehouse address on border security.
So far, the President is not buying it. He is standing firm.
Democrats are playing the role of Lucy. They promise that if President Trump will sign a bill to fund the government for just two or three weeks, they can work things out.
The script assures us that Charlie Brown will finally trust Lucy. There is a big difference this time. President Trump is not Charlie Brown.
by Last Wednesday I called my Congressman, Sanford Bishop, Democrat, 2nd District of Georgia. I left a simple message with his kind receptionist.
“Part ways with Nancy Pelosi and represent your district by funding the President’s request. If you have not called, will you take a moment to do that? 202-225-3631.
Earlier this morning, I also sent the following message.
Dear Congressman Bishop,
Represent your constituents. Part ways with Nancy Pelosi. Cross the aisle, and vote to secure the borders and reopen the government.
In his address to the American people, President Trump said that this entire shut down could be resolved in 45 minutes with sincere negotiation.
Thus far the Democrats have been hypocritical. If you insist on listening to and voting as Nancy Pelosi directs, then you, too, will be hypocritical.
For years politicians on both sides of the aisle have talked about the need for stronger border security. I have read statement after statement from Presidents and leaders from both parties, including the the present Democrat leadership that you are following.
You know that some of those crossing the border are ruthless and merciless criminals. They bring innocent victims along with them.
Reports are that one third of the women who are on caravans to try to illegally cross the open border are victims of horrendous rape and sexual assault along the way.
Statistics like this indicate that many of the people funding and leading these caravans are not humanitarians helping families seek the American dream. Rather it reveals that these are criminals callously treating women and children as mere commodities in modern day slavery and sex trafficking.
Now you are inflicting even more pain by allowing the government to shut down. As I write you, federal employees are due a paycheck. It won’t come today.
President Trump said that he would own the shutdown. He may own the shutdown, but you own the solution.
You voted for the Secure Fence Act when President George W. Bush asked for it. Chuck Schumer voted for it. Today, when the crisis at the border is even worse, you suddenly make a 180 degree turn. Why?
It is not because of policy. Border security is an American issue, not a party issue.
It is not a funding question. I have not heard one word asking what to cut in order to fund the request.
There is only one reason for the sudden change. It is a political issue to keep President Trump from fulfilling a campaign promise. This is childish behavior.
Even more childish, it is a personality issue about Donald Trump himself. It is time to put away childish behavior.
It is time for you listen to your constituents. It is time to part ways with Nancy Pelosi. It is time to cross the aisle.
Vote to secure the borders, and reopen the government.
by