Connect with us

News

19 States Sue to Derail President Trump’s America First Agenda at the Border

Published

on

19 states have banded together to file a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its recent allocation of $3.8 billion in defense funding for the border wall.

According to Luis Miguel of The New American, the argument these states made was that this action was unconstitutional and could bring about harmful environmental consequences.

“Use of these additional federal funds for the construction of a border wall is contrary to Congress’s intent and in violation of the U.S. Constitution,” read the lawsuit, filed on March 3, 2020 in federal court in California.

Trending: ILHAN’S DISTRICT: 17-Year-Old GOP Volunteer Shot Dead Outside of Gas Station in Minneapolis

In 2019, President Trump declared a national emergency in response to a large wave of migrants coming across the southern border.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

In addition to the declaration, the president announced he would use Department of Defense (DOD) funds to build the border wall because Congress did not allocate the full amount he wanted in the federal budget.

The Pentagon revealed to Congress last month that it would transfer an additional $3.8 billion for the wall by drawing out money from weapons programs.

The 19 states sustain that the allocation is unconstitutional because it is in violation of the separation of powers and Congress’ power of the purse.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that using DOD funds negatively impacts communities whose economies depend on military spending.

The lawsuit reads:

Defense spending in Connecticut is critical not just to national military readiness but to Connecticut’s economy. The Administration’s planned funding diversions threaten to harm the State’s economy, employment, and tax revenues. As of 2017, annual defense spending injected $15 billion into Connecticut’s economy, accounting for 5.6 percent of the State’s per capita GDP — a higher percentage than in all but two other states.

DOD’s reprogramming action diverts funding away from critical military projects for which Connecticut-based companies produce key components.

Further, the states claim that the Trump administration did not factor in environmental impacts. They described the White House’s decision as a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

“President Trump is risking the safety of every American by diverting taxpayer dollars from our military to fund the same xenophobic campaign promises he’s made for the last four years,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James in a statement.

Luis Miguel noted that in addition to New York, “the states participating in the lawsuit are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.”

The suit also asserts that the wall will cause environmental damage in some of the states where it will be built.

“Defendants’ use of the diverted funds to construct parts of their border wall in New Mexico will also harm New Mexico’s sovereign interests by imposing environmental harm to the State. The environmental damage caused by a border wall in New Mexico would include the blocking of wildlife migration, flooding, and habitat loss,” the suit states.

Last week, the Sierra Club, American Civil Liberties Union, and Southern Border Communities Coalition also took legal action regarding the reallocation of funds for the wall.

“The president is doubling down on his unlawful scheme to raid taxpayer funds for a xenophobic campaign promise that is destroying national treasures, harming the environment, and desecrating tribal lands,” an ACLU attorney declared.

The Left is working overtime to derail President Trump’s America First agenda.

Immigration is the most crucial of our time.

From maintaining a cohesive nation state to protecting political traditions such as the right to bear arms, immigration bleeds into so many areas — politics, economics, and culture.

This is one battle America First patriots cannot afford to lose

News

Southern Baptist Convention Reverses Course on Name Change After BLP Reporting

They say they’re not changing their name.

Published

on

The Southern Baptist Convention has sought to dispel reporting from Big League Politics on the organization’s planned name change, arguing that the institution isn’t formally changing its name.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

But a close look at the American Christian church’s plans relating to its name reveal that it’s played with the idea far more seriously than they’re making it seem.

Reports of a name change first emerged in a Washington Post article published on Tuesday. SBC President JD Greear told the Post that “hundreds of churches” affiliated with the denomination had “committed” to using the phrase “Great Commission Baptist” as an alternative to the denomination’s longtime moniker. The change would come as Greear touts his support of the Black Lives Matter, although he’s been careful in pointing out he doesn’t support any formal organization related to the movement. Greear also is renaming the church he personally pastors with the term.

The SBC’s 2021 convention will also organize under the motto of “We Are Great Commission Baptists.” Sounds a lot like a name change, even if the SBC’s leadership is steadfastly maintaining it isn’t.

The name ‘Great Commission Baptist’ is theologically sound in the Christian religion, but it’s somewhat questionable that the organization’s leader appears to be emphasizing it at a moment in which political correctness is making its entryism into many Christian churches and organizations.

It seems as if the organization’s figurehead is keen to present himself as a liberal-style suburban Evangelical to the Washington Post, but he changed his tune quite quickly when the rank and file membership of Southern Baptist churches learned that he was promoting the idea of a name change.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending