its most entertaining watching the wall 'debate' especially considering some of the evidence displayed here below, like when schumer loves the israeli wall but hates on trumps;

The demand of President Donald Trump that congress should appropriate money to build a wall securing the nation’s southern border has resulted in the longest federal government shutdown in history with no end in sight. There is considerable opposition to the wall based on two quite different perceptions of border security. The generally “progressive” view is that there is no border threat at all, that the thousands of migrants heading for the U.S. can be assimilated and indeed should be allowed entry because of U.S. government policies in Central America that have created the ruined states that the would-be immigrants have been fleeing.

There is certainly some truth to that argument, though it suggests that the United States should essentially abandon sovereignty over its own territory, which most Americans would reject. The alternative viewpoint, which has a much broader bipartisan constituency, consists of those who do feel that border security is a national priority but are nevertheless critical of building a wall, which will be expensive, possibly ineffective and environmentally damaging. They prefer other options, to include increased spending on the border guards, more aggressive enforcement against existing illegals and severe punishment of businesses in the U.S. that hire anyone not possessing legal documentation. Some also have argued in favor of a national ID issued only to citizens or legal permanent residents that would have to be produced by anyone seeking employment or government services.

Whether the wall will ever be built is questionable, but one thing that is certain is that there is more than enough hypocrisy regarding it to go around. Democratic Presidents including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama when campaigning have called for better border security, as have Democratic Congressional leaders who are now smelling blood and attacking Trump for seeking to do what they have long at least theoretically sought..........http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/a-tale-of-two-walls/

another sent by a friend presented here for your consideration;

This political farce is tiring.

Subject: McCarran-Walter Act of 1952

People always say, “We don’t need new legislation, we just need to ENFORCE that which is already on the books.”  Not sure why that option does not get more discussion and exposure.  Here is a classic case.  

     Wouldn't it have been interesting if, at some point during the presidential campaign, if one of the candidates asked, "Oh, by the way, has anyone in Washington, D.C., ever heard of the McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952?"

     I did not know of this act until recently, but it has been a law for almost 65 years.  Here are the historic facts that would seem to indicate that many, if not most, of the people we elect to work for us in Washington do not have the slightest idea of what laws already EXIST in our country.

    After several terrorist incidents were carried out in the United States, Donald Trump was severely criticized for suggesting that the U.S. should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities and even people of certain religions (Muslims).  

    The criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist.  Congressmen and senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and our former president (Obama) called such a prohibition on immigration 'unconstitutional'.  (Well once again that shows his lack of brilliance..)

    As Gomer Pyle would say, "Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!”  It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several occasions.  

Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the - "suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the president, whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

    "The president may, by proclamation and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens, immigrants or non- immigrants, or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate."

    Who was president when this was passed?   Democrat - Harry Truman.  Who do you suppose last used this process?  Democrat - Jimmy Carter, no less than 37 years ago, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States.  But Carter actually did more.  He made ALL Iranian students, already in the United States, check in with the government.  And then he deported a bunch of them.  Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979.   My question:  'If it was good enough for the democrats then, why is is NOT okay now'??   Could it possibly be that just because Trump wants it then they (at least their narrow-minded leaders)  have now decided that they don't want it???   We've all seen the clips numerous times (at least on Fox News) where Obama, Clinton, Schumer et.all have in the past heavily endorsed building a wall and protecting our southern border.  ...Since Trump used 'The Wall' as one of his primary campaign planks the 'liberal left' democrats have done a 180 degree flip on this idea!!!!!

    So, what do you say about all of the criticism that Donald Trump received from the Democratic senators, representatives and the Obama Administration?

Additionally, it is important to note that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an "applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution.”Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution,  technically, ALL Muslims should or could be refused immigration to OUR country.  When pro-illegal immigration advocates (liberal and Democrat) say our immigration laws are broken, perhaps they would find that they are intact and encompassing if they would actually use them !!

Go ahead … read it. (updated link below - look under 1952)

http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/USimmigrationlegislation.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Immigration_and_Nationality_ Act_of_1952

 

sent by a friend and here it is for youse;

kunstler presents some predictions that are entirely plausible and the way things are going may be what we see in the near future;


As in this age of Hollywood sequels and prequels, America prefers to recycle old ideas rather than entertain new ones, so you can see exactly how the 2020 presidential election is shaping up to be a replay of the Great Depression, with Roosevelt-to-rescue! — only this time it’ll be with somebody in the role of Eleanor Roosevelt as chief executive. Donald Trump, of course, being the designated bag-holder for all the financial blunders of the past decade, gets to be Herbert Hoover. As was the case in the original, economic depression will segue into war, with maybe not such a happy ending for us as World War Two was.
There should be no doubt that the money part of the story is on a slow boat to oblivion. The world has been running on loans to such a grotesque degree that it’s managed the impressive feat of bankrupting the future. The collateral for all that debt was the conviction that there were ample amounts of future “growth” up ahead to service that debt. That conviction is now evaporating as car sales plummet, and real estate goes south, and nations twang each other over trade, and global supply lines wither. Globalism is unwinding — and not for the first time, either.
As in the standard Hollywood screenplay format, expect an “all is lost” moment when the “hero” (the USA) faces the existential dread of realizing that there is no more borrowing with the collateral gone. Translation: when the Federal Reserve discovers it can’t cue up yet another round of “Quantitative Easing” (QE) and ZIRP without destroying the value of the dollar — which it might do anyway, since monetary inflation is a great benefit to those who can’t pay back their debts, and the USA is the biggest deadbeat of all. An inflationary depression won’t be the same as the deflationary depression of the 1930s, but remember (cliché alert): history doesn’t exactly repeat, it rhymes. Financialization, it’ll turn out, was just money with its value removed. Imagine how pissed off the voters will be.....http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/coming-attractions/

when reading this i remembered recently reading where beto o'rourke, the texas politician widely loved by 'our free press' was quoted as saying the constitution was outdated and needed to be replaced and i'm sure gun rights was one of his points of focus;


It isn’t even St. Patrick’s Day, but we are all Irish now: In Connecticut, the boneheaded state government passed a law demanding the registration of certain firearms, and the people of Connecticut, perhaps communing for a moment with their independent-minded Yankee forebears, mainly refused to comply. On the other side of the country in the heart of California’s technology corridor, the city of Sunnyvale demanded that residents hand over all firearms capable of accepting magazines holding more than ten rounds — effectively, everything except revolvers and some single-shot rifles — and the good men and women of Silicon Valley responded by turning in a grand total of zero firearms. Similar initiatives in other jurisdictions have produced similar results.
Political scientists call this “Irish democracy,” the phenomenon by which the general members of a polity resist the mandates of their would-be rulers by simply refusing to comply with them. It is a low-cost form of civil disobedience, but one that can be very effective at times: Mohandas K. Gandhi was entirely correct in his famous declaration to the British powers that they would eventually be forced to simply pack up their tiffin pails and go home, because 300,000 Englishman could not control 300 million (at the time) Indians if those Indians didn’t cooperate.
RELATED: The Big Three Villains — Laziness, Stupidity, and Corruption — and the Gun-Control Debate
.............https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/12/gun-control-laws-connecticut-california-new-prohibition-same-totalitarianism/

the empire is militarily active in a large portion of the world, and this begins with a map showing some of that;


Less than a month after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, U.S. troops—with support from British, Canadian, French, German and Australian forces—invaded Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban. More than 17 years later, the Global War on Terrorism initiated by President George W. Bush is truly global, with Americans actively engaged in countering terrorism in 80 nations on six continents.
This map is the most comprehensive depiction in civilian circles of U.S. military and government antiterrorist actions overseas in the past two years. To develop it, my colleagues and I at Brown University’s Costs of War Project at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, along with Smithsonian magazine, combed through U.S. and foreign government sources, published and unpublished reports, military websites and geographical databases; we contacted foreign embassies in the U.S. and the military’s United States Africa Command; and we conducted interviews with journalists, academics and others. We found that, contrary to what most Americans believe, the war on terror is not winding down—it has spread to more than 40 percent of the world’s countries. The war isn’t being waged by the military alone, which has spent $1.9 trillion fighting terrorism since 2001. The State Department has spent $127 billion in the last 17 years to train police, military and border patrol agents in many countries and to develop antiterrorism education programs, among other activities.........https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/map-shows-places-world-where-us-military-operates-180970997/

the question, who runs the world, is answered to some degree in this post that gets into a british detail;


Our world is run by oligarchs, the holders of vast wealth from monopolies in banking, resource extraction, manufacturing, and technology. Oligarchs have such power that most of the world doesn’t even know of their influence over our lives. Their overall agenda is global power – a world government, run by them – to be achieved through planned steps of social engineering. The oligarchs remain in the background and have heads of state and entire governments acting in their service. Presidents and prime ministers are their puppets. Bureaucrats and politicians are their factotums. 
Who are politicians? Politicians are people who work for the powerful while pretending to represent the people who voted for them. This double-dealing involves a lot of lying, so successful politicians must be good at it. It’s not an easy job to make the insane agenda of the powerful seem reasonable. Politicians can’t reveal this agenda because it almost always goes against the interests of their constituents, so they become adept at sophistry, mystification and the appearance of authority. For example, wars for Israel have been part of the agenda of the powerful for years. Since 2001, wars for Israel have been sold as “the war on terror” and lots of lies had to be made up as to why the war on terror was a real thing. The visible faces promoting the war on terror were neoconservatives in the US, almost all of whom were advocates for Israel, or Zionists. Zionists are not the only members of the oligarchy, but they seem to be its lead actors.

False flags and propaganda..............https://www.redressonline.com/2019/01/who-runs-the-world/