President Trump is privately pushing for the Pentagon to pay for his proposed border wall between the U.S. and Mexico, according to a new report.
The Washington Post reports that Trump made the suggestion to several advisers last week, saying it was a "national security" issue that the wall be funded.
Trump reportedly told Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in a meeting last week that the military should pay for the wall. Ryan offered little reaction to the idea while senior Capitol Hill officials called its prospects unlikely, the newspaper reported.
The president has sought $25 billion in funding for his long-proposed wall, but a massive funding bill passed by Congress last week only appropriated $1.6 billion for border security, with funding provided for fencing and levees.
In a separate meeting with senior aides last week, the president reportedly voiced confidence that the Pentagon would have enough funds to cover the wall's cost under the omnibus spending bill.
Trump expressed frustration while signing the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending package, originally threatening to veto the bill because of its lack of funding for his border wall. The bill allots about $700 billion for the military.
Two advisers also told the Post that when Trump tweeted "Build WALL through M!" earlier this week, the "M" was intended to stand for "military." Trump originally said that Mexico would pay for the wall.
A senior Pentagon official told the newspaper that any reallocation of 2018 military funding for the border wall would require an act of Congress.
A budget amendment to find funds for the border wall in the fiscal 2019 budget would require 60 votes in the Senate, which the White House would be unlikely to find. Republicans currently hold a slim 51-49 seat majority. Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee last fall added language to the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have prevented any Pentagon funding from being used to cover the wall's costs.
That amendment, introduced by Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas), who is running against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for Senate, was stripped from the final NDAA bill.
"The demographic most opposed to President Trump is not a racial minority, but a cultural elite." Daniel Greenberg
"Failure to adequately denounce Islamic extremism, not only denies the existence of an absolute moral wrong but inherently diminishes our chances of defeating it." Tulsi Gabbard
"It’s a movement comprised of Americans from all races, religions, backgrounds and beliefs, who want and expect our government to serve the people, and serve the people it will." Donald Trump's Victory Speech 11/9/16
INSIDE EVERY LIBERAL IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT -- Frontpage mag
Normally, i wouldn't have a problem with something like that, BUT: The military is rapidly falling behind our enemies in new technologies, improving old technologies, and fielding a sufficiently trained and prepared force for combat [the Army's assessment of combat ready brigades is abysmal]. To me, using the Pentagon budget for the wall wastes the ability to remedy those things.
If Trump can't get his RINOS to fund the wall, plant a f*cking minefield: [1] You'll have a pretty good idea where the illegals are at night by tracking the explosions.[2] A minefield will dissuade all those do-gooders who go out there to leave water and food for the "poor and tired". [3] It will serve notice that we mean business.
Now I'm not saying anti-tank mines, or even the standard anti-personnel mine. I'm thinking more along the lines of the German SCHU mine. WW II. Made of wood with brass fittings. almost invisible to minesweepers. Small, cheap to manufacture. Explosive charge that'll take off a foot, or little more. Makes them easier to track [blood trail], requires two loving family members or "Dreamers" to evacuate the wounded back over the border.
Of course the minefield should be well marked. With warning signs. In ENGLISH.
Quote: PzLdr wrote in post #2Normally, i wouldn't have a problem with something like that, BUT: The military is rapidly falling behind our enemies in new technologies, improving old technologies, and fielding a sufficiently trained and prepared force for combat [the Army's assessment of combat ready brigades is abysmal]. To me, using the Pentagon budget for the wall wastes the ability to remedy those things.
If Trump can't get his RINOS to fund the wall, plant a f*cking minefield: [1] You'll have a pretty good idea where the illegals are at night by tracking the explosions.[2] A minefield will dissuade all those do-gooders who go out there to leave water and food for the "poor and tired". [3] It will serve notice that we mean business.
Now I'm not saying anti-tank mines, or even the standard anti-personnel mine. I'm thinking more along the lines of the German SCHU mine. WW II. Made of wood with brass fittings. almost invisible to minesweepers. Small, cheap to manufacture. Explosive charge that'll take off a foot, or little more. Makes them easier to track [blood trail], requires two loving family members or "Dreamers" to evacuate the wounded back over the border.
Of course the minefield should be well marked. With warning signs. In ENGLISH.
While I would gladly support your suggestion (mine was stocking the Rio Gande with man eating crocodiles but that might harm some innocent cattle) it is unfortunately not going to happen.
Both are extraordinarily important. Zero decimated our military and having a big stick and the willingness to use it is often enough to ward off your enemy.
From my perspective the wall is supremely important from a national defense, economic, and political perspective. I have often thought that a break through on physically securing the border was needed to loosen the international corporate and financial grip on our government.
Perhaps plans on supplementing the military funds with some some other funds based upon - 'One of them is that the President has declared a Human Rights Emergency AND has notified Congress that he's invoking the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. 5: '