WARNING 🚨 Can Democrats Defeat Trump on Emergency? Trump vs Deep State

Can Democrats Defeat Trump on Emergency? Without Veto Override, Only in Court

As expected, the House of Representatives voted yesterday to overturn President Trump’s declaration of emergency because of the crisis at the southern border with Mexico. But even if open-borders Democrats and their Republican sympathizers prevail in the Senate too, Trump will veto the final bill.

The vote was 245-182. That’s nowhere close to the two-thirds majority Democrats need to override Trump’s certain veto. So the emergency will stand until the court decides the issue.

Sixteen Republicans joined the open-borders Democrats, who stridently oppose border control because they want to keep future voters coming into the country. Democrats hope that relentless flood-tide of illegals, more than 200,000 so far in fiscal 2019, will permanently alter the country’s demographics and cement a Democratic majority.

Trump hopes to stop that invasion with a wall, which Democrats have angrily refused to build. Thus, the emergency declaration.

Senate Vote Before Recess
Unsurprisingly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unbosomed another one of her big lies. “We are not going to give any president, Democratic or Republican, a blank check to shred the Constitution of the United States,” the elderly leftist said as she held up a “pocket copy of the Constitution,” as the Washington Post reported. “Is your oath of office to Donald Trump or is your oath of office to the Constitution of the United States?”

Pelosi had no such concerns when she shrugged off questions about the constitutionality of ObamaCare, or when President Obama unilaterally declared an amnesty, and declared the unpassed DREAM Act federal law.

House Minority chief Kevin McCarthy of California backed the president. “There is a national emergency at the southern border that the Democrats will declare today doesn’t exist,” he said. “The president has the authority to do it, and we will uphold him.”

Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky, one of the most constitutionally minded members of the House, voted against the president, stating Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution as his reason for doing so: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

Now the matter goes to the Senate. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell anticipates a vote on a resolution, the Post reported, before the Senate recesses in March.

Liberal Republican Senators such as Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska can be expected to vote against Trump. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas might vote against the president as well. Cruz worries about a “slippery slope,” he told the Intercept, meaning a Democratic president might follow Trump’s suit and declare an emergency “to implement radical policies contrary to law and contrary to the Constitution.” But a Democratic president can do that anyway.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is skeptical as well. “I don’t think it’s a good way to run government — to run government by emergency,” Paul said. “I think the Constitution’s pretty clear that the power of the purse is with Congress.”

Either way, Democrats don’t have the votes to override a certain presidential veto.

CRS: Trump Has the Power
Paul is right; the Constitution is clear. But as The New American reported before Trump declared the emergency, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has said Trump can use funds to build a wall with or without an emergency declaration.

After declaring an emergency requiring the use of the armed forces, CRS reported, the secretary of defense may “without regard to any other provision of law ... undertake military construction projects ... not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”

This law enables presidents to build military fortresses in remote parts of the unconstitutional American Empire.

Federal law also permits the secretary of defense to “carry out a military construction project not otherwise authorized by law” if “the project is vital to the national security or to the protection of health, safety, or the quality of the environment,” or if not pursuing the project immediately will harm national security or the environment.

Another statute says the defense secretary can build barriers to help civilian authorities fight drugs.

The question, CRS said, is whether invoking these laws will survive challenges in court, which the Left mounted almost immediately. A coalition of 16 states, led by California and its subversive, open-borders Attorney General Xavier Becerra, has sued the president on multiple grounds.

The Democrats and the anti-Trump media claim the situation at the border is not a national emergency because illegal immigration is decreasing, an argument, on looking at the numbers, that is akin to Captain Smith’s claiming the Titanic isn’t sinking because only half the ship’s compartments have flooded.

Numbers from Customs and Border Patrol are frightening. The number of illegal aliens collared thus far in fiscal 2019 is 201,497: 99,901 family units, 21,123 unaccompanied minors.

Inadmissible illegal aliens blocked at ports of entry for the two months totaled 20,344, including 8,595 family units and 762 unaccompanied minors. Total inadmissibles this fiscal year are 40,720, including 17,759 families and 1,621 unaccompanied minors.

The December-January totals for both figures 118,986. The total for fiscal 2019 is 242,217.

Trump vs. Deep State

In March 2018, New York Times bestselling author and investigative journalist Jerome Corsi released his most explosive book yet — Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump.

In searing detail, the book exposed an alleged conspiracy by the Deep State — the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and other intelligence and military agencies, along with the mainstream media and globalist elite — to topple the presidency of Donald Trump as part of a goal to create a borderless, one-world government and economic system.

Several months later, Corsi found himself summoned to an unmarked FBI building in southeast Washington, D.C., where he was threatened with indictment by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutorial team unless he testified “falsely against [former Trump campaign advisor] Roger Stone and/or President Donald Trump,” Corsi’s attorney, Larry Klayman, wrote in a voluminous complaint alleging Mueller and his team are engaged in a “coup” to “overthrow the duly elected President of the United States.”

“They ended up treating me like a criminal from day one,” Corsi, 72, told The New American. “It was this 40-hours. It was such a grueling experience. I think it is so counter to American justice as I understand it. It’s more like a Gestapo interrogation — KGB — and I thought I was going to go off to the gulag next.”

In response, Corsi wrote a new book, Silent No More: How I Became a Political Prisoner of Mueller’s “Witch Hunt.”

“I wrote it as [the interrogations took place], so it’s first-person,” he says. “I think you’ll feel my emotions and my horror at this process as it unfolded for what I feel is a politically-motivated investigation that was engaging in criminal prosecutorial misconduct.”

In January, Klayman, a former prosecutor at the Department of Justice and founder of Judicial Watch, filed a $350 million lawsuit on Corsi’s behalf against Mueller, the FBI, and intelligence agencies for alleged “illegal surveillance on him, his family, friends and legal counsel, without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and related alleged illegalities.” 

Corsi alleges he’s being improperly pressured by Mueller’s team to sign a plea deal, which he says he won’t sign. Mueller’s team wants him to admit that he acted as a liaison between Stone, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and the Trump campaign regarding the release of hacked e-mails from the Democratic National Committee, according to Corsi’s complaint. In November, Corsi rejected a deal offered by Mueller to plead guilty to one count of perjury.

“They wanted me to establish a connection,” Corsi says. “They had a predetermined theory of the case. They predetermined that there was a crime of Russian collusion even though nobody can tell you whether that is really a crime or not.”

“And then they’ve got a ‘criminal,’ namely the president, that they want to impeach. And they are looking for factors that fit their predetermined theory. I don’t consider this to be a fair or honest investigation at all. I mean they wanted me to establish that I had contact with Julian Assange so they could connect the dots from Roger Stone to me. Of all people, I became the linchpin of this whole Russian collusion theory.”

But Corsi, the former Washington bureau chief of Infowars, who holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University, says he had nothing to do with the release of the WikiLeaks e-mails that damaged Hillary Clinton’s White House bid.

“It just didn’t happen,” Corsi says. “I mean, I don’t know Julian Assange. I’ve never met Julian Assange. I’ve never communicated with Julian Assange in any way, either directly or indirectly, and I couldn’t provide them what they wanted, especially during the last 20 of the 40 hours. They got nasty, they got abusive, they were constantly walking out of the room…. When I couldn’t provide them the link to Assange, they just blew the whole thing up, threw me out, and said my testimony was worthless.”

Corsi’s experience with the Deep State, eerily similar to what New York Times best-selling author Dinesh D’Souza underwent following the release of his explosive film 2016: Obama’s America, highlights growing concerns that the globalist elite and Deep State — now that Democrats control the U.S. House of Representatives — plan to topple the Trump presidency by any means possible, create some type of planetary government, and usher in what they have long described as the New World Order.

The Trump Investigation Circus

Corsi’s ordeal in connection with the FBI and Mueller’s Russia collusion investigation comes amid myriad probes into the Trump presidency, including new and ongoing ones by House committees controlled by Democrats. These committees are poised to investigate Trump’s potential business conflicts of interest, tax returns, and dealings with Russia, among other matters. 

Some members of the House have renewed their calls to impeach Trump amid a cavalcade of negative news about the president. Meanwhile, Tom Steyer, the billionaire Democratic donor, has decided not to run for president in 2020 because he believes that pursuing Trump’s impeachment is a better use of his fortune.

Riding the wave, the March issue of the The Atlantic magazine features a call for the president’s impeachment on its cover. It reads “IMPEACH” in large, red letters.

Consequently, pundits are predicting Trump’s demise, arguing that he’ll be forced to resign the presidency before the presidential election in November 2020.

Michael Golden, a senior fellow at the liberal Washington, D.C., think tank Center for American Progress — founded by John Podesta, chairman of the 2016 Hil­lary Clinton presidential campaign — alleged in a New York Daily News article that Trump has been “implicated in at least one felony.”

“The same crime that his own lawyer pleaded guilty to and has been sentenced to serve time for in federal prison (along with other offenses),” Golden wrote. “But [Trump’s former lawyer] Michael Cohen wasn’t alone. The head of American Media, Inc., David Pecker, has now implicated Trump. Pecker has also agreed to cooperate with the special counsel. At the very least, he will attest, under oath, to Trump’s directing hush money to keep women’s mouths shut about their sexual affairs with him — in a clearly stated effort to influence the campaign.”

In late November, Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress and was sentenced to three years in prison. Cohen has agreed to testify before the House Oversight and Reform Committee in February and give a “full and credible account” of his work with Trump.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in early January that she wouldn’t rule out the indictment or impeachment of Trump, describing it as “an open discussion.”

Shortly afterward, U.S. Representative Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) reintroduced articles of impeachment against Trump. He was one of three Democrats, including U.S. Representatives Al Green of Texas and Steve Cohen of Tennessee, who introduced resolutions to impeach Trump in 2017.

In a July 12, 2017 statement, Sherman said that he wanted to hold hearings on obstruction of justice and Russian interference in the election. “Recent disclosures by Donald Trump Jr. indicate that Trump’s campaign was eager to receive assistance from Russia,” Sherman said. “It now seems likely that the President had something to hide when he tried to curtail the investigation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and the wider Russian probe. I believe his conversations with, and subsequent firing of, FBI Director James Comey constitute Obstruction of Justice.”

Trump and the Federal Reserve

In December 1965, Federal Reserve Chairman William McChesney Martin was summoned to the ranch of President Lyndon Johnson for a dressing-down. President Johnson, a believer in the fiscal stimulus programs enacted by his predecessor, John F. Kennedy, wanted to cut taxes further, and expected the Fed to do its part by keeping interest rates low. Martin, however, was of the opinion that interest rates should be raised, arousing the ire of the volatile president.

Ushered into what he expected would be a calm meeting with the president, Martin was shocked to find himself being physically shoved around the living room and against the wall by a furious Lyndon Johnson, who kept screaming at him, “Boys are dying in Vietnam, and Bill Martin doesn’t care!” President Johnson had apparently never gotten the memo on the supposed independence of the Federal Reserve from political influences. Cowed by the president’s belligerence, the Fed chairman maintained interest rates very low that year and the next, putting the lie to the Fed’s alleged detachment from tawdry politics.

In our time, we again have, in Donald Trump, a president openly hostile to the Fed and its policies. Trump, be it noted, has shown no inclination to physically assault Fed chairmen. But his withering anti-Fed rhetoric on Twitter has shocked the sensibilities of the East Coast establishment because, in the years since Johnson’s outburst, criticism of the Fed simply hasn’t been acceptable to the Powers That Be. Throughout its history, the Federal Reserve has maintained a public posture of independent decision making and immunity to criticism. But the reality behind the scenes is a central bank beholden to special interests both public and private, determined to maintain the traditional veil of secrecy and special privileges that have always concealed its true nature from the general public.

Of, by, and for the Rich
In the beginning, the Federal Reserve was created to serve the interests of financial and political elites, both inside and outside the U.S. government, and both in the United States and abroad. It is purely a creation of the internationalist financial and political establishment, and has no accountability whatsoever to the American public. The fact that one of its original sponsors, Rhode Island Senator Nelson Aldrich (shown), was a prominent politician, does nothing to diminish this fact. Aldrich, related by marriage to the Rockefeller dynasty, was wholly beholden to the secretive cabal of international bankers who planned the Federal Reserve at the infamous top-secret meeting at the Rockefellers’ Jekyll Island estate in 1910. Aldrich loaned his personal train car to enable the bankers to ride in secret down to Jekyll Island, on the southern Georgia coast, without being detected by the press or the general public. To this secret meeting Aldrich went in person, along with at least five other notables: Paul Warburg, A. Piatt Andrew, Henry Davison, Arthur Shelton, and Frank Vanderlip. 

The backgrounds of these men were telling. Paul Warburg, a partner at Kuhn, Loeb, and Company and a European banking agent connected with various London and Paris banking interests for whom he had worked, was the leader of the group, by all accounts. A native of Hamburg, Warburg in 1910 was not yet a U.S. citizen, although he would become one the following year. He would go on to be a director of the Council on Foreign Relations, a key organization within the American political and financial establishment, from 1921 until his death in 1932. Warburg was determined to foist on America a central bank modeled after the great European central banks such as the Bank of England, which had been around since the end of the 17th century. Abraham Piatt Andrew, a financial wunderkind who was the son of a banker and an Ivy Leaguer, was director of the U.S. Mint and assistant secretary to the Treasury Department during the Taft administration. Henry Davison had been a founder of the Bankers Trust Company and was a partner at J. P. Morgan. Arthur Shelton was secretary to Nelson Aldrich and to his National Monetary Commission, an organization created by Congress at the behest of Aldrich in the wake of the Panic of 1907, whose ostensible purpose was to study the American financial system and propose remedies that would prevent such panics from happening again. Frank Vanderlip was president of National City Bank (the lineal ancestor of Citibank), and had long been an open advocate for an American central bank. An additional possible seventh member of the Jekyll Island group, Benjamin Strong, was the energetic vice president of Bankers Trust and would later become the founding chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the true architect of American central banking. Frank Vanderlip recalled Strong being present at Jekyll Island in his autobiography, but other researchers have doubted that he was there. Given his later influence, it would be surprising if Strong — the first governor of the Federal Reserve’s New York branch — was not involved.

The small group assembled at Jekyll Island represented all of the major American banking and financial concerns, elite American political interests, and (via Warburg in particular) wealthy European banking houses. Because many of the attendees were public figures, Aldrich concocted the cover story of a duck hunting trip and insisted that the men address one another only by their first names during the train trip — lest any of the train workers recognize them and report their activities to the media. Aldrich also pledged all of those in attendance to secrecy. The fact of the meeting having occurred was brought to light in 1916 in an article by B. C. Forbes in a publication called Leslie’s Weekly, but all of those in attendance claimed the article was pure fiction. It was not until 20 years after the meeting that some of those in attendance, including Senator Aldrich, finally admitted that they had conspired to draw up plans for the Federal Reserve at the top-secret Jekyll Island meeting. Public admissions of complicity by the likes of Aldrich and Vanderlip notwithstanding, the most important figure at Jekyll Island, Paul Warburg, always refused to talk about the event, believing himself “pledged ... to secrecy.”