Report: Dem-Invited Immigrants to Heckle Trump During Speech to Congress

null

Rumors are swirling that anti-Trump Democrats will prompt Muslim and immigrant guests to boo and hiss during the President’s speech to Congress tomorrow.

Lawmakers usually get one guest ticket each for presidential addresses and numerous Democrats are reportedly planning to pack the crowd with immigrants (both legal and illegal) as well as Muslims angered by Trump’s travel ban.

However, the question of whether the guests will merely represent a symbolic rebuff to Trump’s policies, or if they will engage in actual heckling is being hotly debated.

According to DC Whispers, “It is rumored some of these guests will boo and hiss the president and that the media is already preparing to highlight those examples in its coverage of the prime-time address.”

Given the mainstream media’s obsession with hyping Republican Congressman being interrupted by protesters at town halls across the country, the anti-Trump press must be licking their lips at the prospect of immigrants becoming vocal during Trump’s prime time speech.

Any attempt to interrupt Trump during his presidential address will be abnormal but not totally unprecedented.

continued here

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2017/02/27/report-dem-invited-immigran...

Views: 694

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The DEMs live in their own cocoon. They will continue to drink their own bathwater exclusively. Anything else gets tuned out. For the people on our side, ....anyone who thinks the DEMs are ever going to 'reach across the aisle' - especially when they are NOT in power, needs a refresher course on "How the Socialist DEMs Operate."

The DEMs exist to maintain power, beat us and radically CHANGE America as it was founded. That's it! Period! 

By remaining seated, the DEMs were not only being childish and rude - their intentions were to send a direct message to the far left fringe base (major donor$)  that they are staying strong and upholding their #resist against Trump pledge.

Keep it up, I say, until they become totally extinct. (and they are more than halfway there). 

Yea the more they obstruct the more it reveals their true anti amerikan agenda to those who haven't caught on to them yet

There is only one way to deal with the DEMONRATS... strip them of what little power they have to OBSTRUCT and then ram thru the legislation needed to totally dismantle Big Government and the Socialist State.  However, that would take the GOP Leadership to act in defense of our Constitution... .too, abandon their globalist views and the NWO.

AUSTIN, Texas (March 1, 2017) – A bill introduced in the Texas House would create a mechanism to review federal laws and end state cooperation with enforcement of those determined to violate the U.S. Constitution. This process would set the stage to effectively block some federal laws and acts in the Lone Star State.

Rep. Cecil Bell (R-Magnolia) and two cosponsors introduced House Bill 2338 (HB2338), the “Texas State Sovereignty Act,” on Feb. 23. The legislation would form a permanent standing committee to review federal laws, agency rules and regulations, executive orders, federal court decisions and treaties.

When reviewing a federal action, the committee shall consider the plain reading and reasoning of the text of the United States Constitution and the understood definitions at the time of the framing and construction of the Constitution by our forefathers before making a final declaration of constitutionality.

Under the proposed law, if the committee determines a federal action violates the Constitution, both the full House and Senate would then vote on that determination. Passage of the resolution and the governor’s signature would constitute an official determination of unconstitutionality and would prohibit state enforcement of the act.

(a) A federal action declared to be an unconstitutional federal action under Section 393.004 has no legal effect in this state and may not be recognized by this state or a political subdivision of this state as having legal effect.

(b) The state and a political subdivision of the state may not spend public money or resources or incur public debt to implement or enforce a federal action declared to be an unconstitutional federal action.

(c) A person authorized to enforce the laws of this state may enforce those laws, including Section 39.03, Penal Code, against a person who attempts to implement or enforce a federal action declared to be an unconstitutional federal action.

--This is a model law for the rest of the states, that we should write our Congresscritters and ask them to sponsor this federally.

Excellent... Gov. Abbot and the GOP legislature are doing exactly what our founders expected.... they are checking the power of the Federal Government... something long neglected by the States.

Next, this law should be adopted by the US Congress ... too put the Federal Courts and Administration on notice that unconstitutional regulations and or court orders/judgments will go unenforced and in effect ignored... if found unconstitutional by both Houses of Congress and the President. Let the Courts and Administration Bureaucrats chew on that.

exactly

Their interest and ability to work with R's was quite evident last night from their pouting and pretending to be innocent (white), while sitting on their butts even during the applause for the slain Seal's memory. They are beyond any hope for working together.

They are truly REPROBATE... unredeemable. There can be no working with these miscreants.  The GOP should pull out all the stops... Consign the Dem's to the basement of the Capitol building... until they change their obstructionist disposition and reject there 'by any means necessary' tactics. 

Yes, I know your right and not sure enough Republicans are in house and senate that aren't globalist. We need fresh conservatives that firmly believe in originalist view of our Constitutional Republic.

yes we are deluged with 'establishment" GOP and they need to be replaced

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

OMG!!! Ruth Bader Ginsburg Voted Best Real-Life Hero At MTV Awards

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday was crowned the best real-life hero at the MTV Movie & TV Awards.

The 86-year old judge — whose 2015 biopic The Notorious RBG help cement her as a cultural icon among Liberals — beat out tennis star Serena Williams, WWE wrestler Roman Reigns, and comedian Hannah Gadsby to take him the award.

Though it wasn’t a clean sweep for Ginsburg last night.

The RGB documentary lost the “Best Fight” category for “Ruth Bader Ginsburg vs. Inequality” to “Captain Marvel vs. Minn-Erva.”

The justice was absent from the ceremony in Santa Monica, California.

Last December, Ginsburg had surgery to remove cancerous growths on her left lung. She was released from the hospital in New York four days later and recuperated at home.

Earlier this year, Ginsburg missed three days of arguments, the first time that’s happened since she joined the court in 1993. Still, she was allowed to participate using court briefs and transcripts.

Ginsburg has had two previous bouts with cancer, in 1999 and 10 years later.

Flashback: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Pregnant Woman Is Not A ‘Mother’

Celebrated liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in an opinion released Tuesday that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.”

“[A] woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother’,” Ginsburg wrote in a footnote, which in turn responded to another footnote in the 20-page concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in the Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. case.

As Breitbart News’ legal editor Ken Klukowski reported, the case concerned a law signed by then-Governor (now Vice President) Mike Pence of Indiana in 2016, which required that the remains of an aborted fetus (or baby) be disposed of by cremation or burial. The law also prohibited abortion on the basis of sex, race, or disability alone.

The Court upheld the first part of the law, but declined to consider the selective-abortion ban until more appellate courts had ruled on it.

In his lengthy opinion — which delighted pro-life advocates, and distressed pro-choice activists — Thomas wrote that “this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.” He traced the racist and eugenicist beliefs of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and warned that the Court would one day need to wrestle with abortion as form of racial discrimination.

In a footnote, Thomas attacked Ginsberg’s dissenting opinion, which argued the Court should not have deferred to the legal standard used by the litigants in the lower courts, but should have subjected the Indiana law to a more difficult standard instead, since it impacted “the right of [a] woman” to an abortion.

Ginsburg cited no legal authority for her claim that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.” The claim that a fetus is not a child is central to pro-choice arguments.

SPECIAL VIDEOS

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service