From the Super Bowl to the State of the Union Address, via the Southern Border

THE DAY AFTER SUPER BOWL LIII AND THE DAY BEFORE THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS. The easy part first. • • • SUPER BOWL LIII. It was for me a poor showing on both sides of the line. Offhand, I can think of 4 or 5 teams that would have made this a better Super Bowl...New Orleans, who should have been there but for the wildly wrong referee call late in the Rams-NO playoff game; Kansas City; Philadelphia; Baltimore...and my Forever Steelers. • Another better choice would have been to draw a random team from the AFC and NFC and lett hem play Super Bowl LIII. It could not have been worse than what we say last night. The French commentators on my TV finally found the right words for the Rams offense -- O la la la la la la. Just to put this into perspective -- the Rams punter on 3d downs had more yards in the first half than the Rams offense. • Not only were the Super Bowl LIII ratings by far the worst in NFL history, the poor numbers reflect a downward trend in the big game’s television numbers, that stretches back to 2015. The last five super Bowl overnight ratings are: 2019: 44.9 (Pats-Rams, CBS) 2018: 47.4 (Eagles-Pats, NBC) 2017: 48.8 (Pats-Falcons, Fox) 2016: 49.0 (Broncos-Panthers, CBS) 2015: 49.7 (Pats-Seahawks, 49.7). • The Fox News headline read "SUPER PATRIOTS, NOT-SO-SUPER BOWL" : The New England Patriots broke one record and tied another by beating the Los Angeles Rams 13-3, to win the lowest-scoring Super Bowl in history, and match the Pittsburgh Steelers as the NFL's only six-time Lombardi Trophy winners.... The matchup shattered the record of lowest-scoring Super Bowl to date : Super Bowl VII, when the Miami Dolphins beat the Washington Redskins by a score of 14–7 in January 1973. New England rookie running back Sony Michel scored on a 2-yard run with roughly 7 minutes remaining to give the Patriots a 10-3 lead over the Rams. Kicker Stephen Gostkowski later added a field goal late in the fourth quarter to close out the scoring." • CBS Sports said : "Patriots 13, Rams 3. Super Bowl LIII broke the record for the lowest-scoring game in Super Bowl history and it wound up being a defensive struggle few expected. Tom Brady and Bill Belichick pulled off their sixth Super Bowl title together and Julian Edelman added another chapter to his postseason legacy. Brady, playing in a record ninth Super Bowl, became the oldest quarterback to win it all at 41, and Edelman, who was named MVP, passed Michael Irvin and moved into second place in all-time receiving yards behind Jerry Rice. It just seems like the Patriots just somehow find a way to win these games year after year, and it was no different on Sunday. Was the moment too big for Jared Goff, Todd Gurley and the Rams, or was New England's defense too much? The Patriots turned back the clock with a gritty, old-school defensive masterpiece to ground the high-flying Rams on Sunday, setting a record for the lowest-scoring game in Super Bowl history. Brady's first pass was intercepted, but it did not matter. He connected with his top target Julian Edelman 10 times for 141 yards, which was enough to earn the wideout MVP honors....Tom Brady, 41, promised before the Super Bowl that he plans to keep playing, and he reiterated that after the game on the field to CBS sideline reporter Tracy Wolfson immediately after winning his sixth title, telling her this doesn't change anything on when he wants to retire. Brady wants to play until he's 45....There aren't many coaches in the NFL who will admit that the other coach was just better, but that's what 33-year-old Sean McVay did following the Rams' 13-3 loss to the Patriots in Super Bowl LIII in Atlanta. McVay, the youngest coach to reach a Super Bowl, entered Sunday's game with the second-highest scoring offense in the league and only came away with three points, which matches a record for fewest points scored in a Super Bowl game. • MY LAST WORD? Actually two last words. My personal MVP award goes to Jared Goff, who deserves enormous admiration for standing in the weak Rams pocket all night trying to find his totally covered receivers while taking unbelievable punishment from the Patriots line -- it was the most guts shown in SB LIII. • MY REAL LAST WORD goes to Gladys Knight's national anthem. It was brilliant and unadorned singing from an enormously talented lady who, as she always does, showed class, calm, and love during a week of unkind hits because of her decision to sing at SB LIII and because of her Christian faith. The worst came from CNN's Don Lemon : "Numerous performers declined to sing at the Super Bowl this year...How do you respond to that? Gladys Knight : About what they’re thinking? People are going to have their opinions about whatever. And all I can deal with right now is what my heart says...I grew up with prayer in school, singing in school before school started. We used to sing prayer in school before school started. And we just don’t have that anymore. And I’m just hoping it will be about our country, and what we are about, and about the great country that we are." Lemon fell yet another notch but Gladys Knight sang the National Anthem last night to rave reviews. and on Monday, she proved her class again : "Thank you for allowing me this moment to honor our great nation! #SBLlll ❤️🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/VWRC2eOpW2" — Gladys Knight (@MsGladysKnight) February 4, 2019. • God bless Gladys Knight ! • • • THE STATE OF THE UNION AND THE WALL. Fox News First wrote on Monday : "With the official White House theme for speech being 'Choosing Greatness,' the president is expected to strike a more conciliatory tone and emphasize unity in his State of the Union address. But he is clearly not backing down from his demand for funding for a border wall. The government is currently funded through February 15 but could be shut down again if a bipartisan group of lawmakers doesn't reach an agreement over a budget, with the border wall a clear sticking point. Both Democrats and Republicans -- Trump and Pelosi -- remain far apart on that issue. President Trump has repeatedly suggested he will call a national emergency if Congress does not provide funding for a wall. In a wide-ranging interview before the Super Bowl and ahead of Tuesday's State of the Union address, President Trump vowed to win the partisan battle over his long-promised border wall and said Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is 'very bad for our country' and 'doesn't mind human trafficking' at the border...'I think that she was very rigid -- which I would expect -- but I think she is very bad for our country,' Trump said. 'She knows that you need a barrier. She knows that we need border security. She wanted to win a political point.' " • • • MORE US TROOPS ORDERED TO THE BORDER. Newsmax reported on Sunday that the Pentagon is sending 3,750 more troops to the southwest border, as migrants from Honduras and El Salvador continue to cross the bridge over the Suchiate River on the border between Guatemala and Mexico, in Tecun Uman, Guatemala. Newsmax also reported that the Pentagon said Sunday that the 3,750 troops will put up another 150 miles of concertina wire and provide other support for Customs and Border Protection. The additions will bring the total number of active-duty troops on the border to 4,350. News max said : "The announcement is in line with what Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan had said on Tuesday when he provided estimates for the next phase of a military mission that has grown in size and length....Shanahan said on Tuesday that several thousand more troops would be sent mainly to install additional wire barriers and provide a large new system of mobile surveillance and monitoring of the border area. Sunday's announcement said the mobile surveillance mission would last through September 30." While members of Congress, such as Representative Adam Smith, the Washington state Democrat who is now chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, have questioned the Pentagon border mission, suggesting that it is 'distracting troops from their main work of fighting extremists abroad and training for combat,' Vice Admiral Mike Gilday, the director of operations for the Joint Staff, told the panel that he does not believe military readiness has been significantly affected. He said some units have missed training opportunities because of the deployment and others have seen less time at home between deployments than the military likes to provide. But he said there is an effort to rotate service members in and out of the mission every six to eight weeks in order to minimize any impact." • The Democrats are engaging in more partisan anti-Trump politics by refusing to admit that the southern border needs to be secure. • • • PRESIDENT TRUMP IS WINNING THE BORDER WAR. Fox News reported last week that 72% in a new Hill-HarrisX poll think President Trump and Congress will fail to reach border deal. Only 28% of those surveyed think President Trump and Congress will reach a deal on border security by February 15. • Last week, the President tweeted : “If the committee of Republicans and Democrats now meeting on Border Security is not discussing or contemplating a Wall or Physical Barrier, they are Wasting their time!” President Trump agreed to end the partial shutdown by signing a measure that will put off another shutdown until February 16 -- and 38% of those surveyed said that they think the government will shut down again. Another 34% said they believe President Trump will ultimately declare a national emergency to get the funds for his wall, a possibility the President mentioned numerous times during the shutdown. • While the President was often seen as losing the political battle over the shutdown given polls that showed more people blamed him for the closure than Democrats, just 23% of those polled believed President Trump ended the shutdown because he thought the public was blaming Republicans for it. Nearly half of those polled, 47%, said they think that Trump agreed to the continuing resolution to reopen the government because he realized that the government closure was hurting the country and federal employees. And, 30% said they believed Trump had re-opened the government because Speaker Nancy Pelosi had made clear she would not deal with him until the shutdown had ended." • According to a new poll conducted by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, Speaker Pelosi lost the good opinion of the public during the latest battle with President Trump. The Wall Street Journal stated : "Nancy Pelosi, who has gained new powers to oppose Mr. Trump through her role as House Speaker, had a 28% approval rating, well below Mr. Trump’s and unchanged since last month. Her disapproval rating grew to 47% from 41% the month before." And on the President, the WSJ said : "President Trump’s standing among Americans remained effectively unchanged even as he presided over the longest partial government shutdown in US history, the latest example of how his unusual brand of politics has resonated with a strong core of supporters. Mr. Trump’s approval rating was at 43% in a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, with 54% disapproving of his job performance. That was the same mark as in a December survey taken 10 days before the start of the shutdown. The latest survey was conducted over a four-day period that ended January 23, two days before Mr. Trump backed off his demand for border wall funding in what was widely viewed as a victory for congressional Democrats. In 2013, more Americans blamed the GOP lawmakers leading Congress than then-President Barack Obama, just as they did in the three shutdowns during President Bill Clinton’s time in office. While the President has displayed remarkable resilience -- his approval rating has never been more than 4 percentage points higher than his current mark, or 5 percentage points lower -- there has been an erosion in Americans’ views of how equipped Mr. Trump is for the job. Americans still give Mr. Trump positive marks on the economy. Some 51% in the new survey approved of his handling of the economy, with 45% disapproving." • How bad is Speaker Pelosi's standing with Americans? Legal Insurrection reports : "A White House website 'We the People' petition declaring 'IMPEACH Pelosi for treason!' has surpassed the '100,000 signatures in 30 days' requirement to trigger an official response from the White House. The 'Nancy Pelosi is a TRAITOR to the American People!' petition, created by a person identified only as 'M.G.' was created on January 18, 2019. Twelve days later, as of January 30, the petition had garnered more than 130,000 signatures -- enough to earn a response, the website says : 'Needs 0 signatures by February 17, 2019 to get a response from the White House.' The petition argues that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is a traitor to the United States because she provides support to its 'enemies' -- illegal immigrants -- by opposing border wall funding and by supporting sanctuary cities and tax- funded benefits for illegal aliens : 'Nancy Pelosi is a TRAITOR to the American People! The Constitution defines, 'Treason against the US....adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.' Illegal aliens are enemies that invade our country with drugs, human trafficking, and terrorist causing death and crime to American citizens. Nancy Pelosi adheres to these enemies by voting for and providing them aid and comfort through Sanctuary policies funded by US citizen tax dollars, and refuses to protect American people by refusing to fund our border wall, leaving our borders open and unsafe. Pelosi refused to meet with Angel families, caused the government shut down then traveled on US dollars to Hawaii and Puerto Rico while 800,000 Fed workers don't get paid, and uninvited Trump for SOTU. IMPEACH Pelosi for treason!' " • There is a lot of anger in America about the Pelosi-led Democrat refusal to even discuss border security that includes a physical barrier component. • The Daily Caller wrote last week that prior to the lengthy partial government shutdown : "Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer seemed to have complete control over the members of his party, even those who had expressed support for the wall during election campaigns. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- then the House minority leader -- promised that she would not appropriate a single dollar to the wall, despite Trump’s promise of a shutdown if he did not receive $5.7 billion to build on the border. But a number of rank and file Democrats have since said that they support a physical barrier in concert with other border security measures, perhaps due to pressure from the extended shutdown and a desire to prevent another one. Freshman California Representative Katie Hill, Washington Representative Adam Smith, and Illinois Representative Cheri Bustos have all conceded that fencing in certain areas is something that they are not reflexively opposed to. Virginia Representative Elaine Luria, along with 30 other members, urged Speaker Pelosi to make a deal with Trump in a letter last week and offered perhaps the most accurate view of Trump’s border proposal by Democrats yet. Luria said : 'He’s not talking about a wall from sea to shining sea. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about physical barriers as recommended by experts.' New Hampshire Senator Maggie Hassan told CNN... : 'We all pledged to work in good faith to find common ground on border security. That’s what I’m committed to doing, and I think that really starts with making sure we’re listening to the experts on the front lines on this, and that may include strategic fencing in certain places.' But even high-ranking Pelosi loyalists are now publicly signaling that they might be open to a deal with the President. Virginia Sen. Mark Warner claimed during an NPR radio interview [last] Tuesday morning that the White House is not negotiating in 'good faith' over border security. When pressed on why Democrats haven’t moved from their initial negotiating position, Warner claimed he supported physical barriers all along. 'No, listen, I’ve said repeatedly that increased border security, even if some of that means a barrier, but it ought to be based upon the experts who know how to spend funds at the border -- not some arbitrary number picked by the President.' Warner also told Fox News last week, 'I know we’re going to have to add additional border security....We’ve got about 700 miles of existing fencing. Where folks say we need additional barrier protections, I’m all for it.' ” • BUT, Daily Caller says : "The real test of whether or not Democrats are willing to budge will come from the negotiating committee they created after the government reopened Friday night. The members of the committee include Senators Patrick Leahy, Dick Durbin and Jon Tester and Representatives Nita Lowey, Lucille Roybal-Allard, David Price, Barbara Lee, Henry Cuellar and Pete Aguilar. Unfortunately for the President, many of those congresspeople have signaled a deep unwillingness to fund anything resembling a wall. However, the increased public support for a wall from other members in their party may put pressure on the committee to be open-minded and eventually reach a deal that is favorable to both sides." • • • MIGRANTS ARE ON THE MARCH TOWARD THE SOUTHERN BORDER. Breitbart reported on January 30 : " 'Current information shows that a caravan of over 12,000 people -- there’s three that we are tracking, that the DHS is tracking en route, one that is over 12,000 by the latest estimate,' said John Rood, who is the under secretary of Defense for policy. Rood was testifying before the House Armed Services Committee. Rood said there are currently more than 2,300 active duty troops at the southern border, down from a high of 5,900 in November. But he says several thousands more active duty troops are expected to head to the border in the coming weeks, to assist the Department of Homeland Security with laying down more concertina wire, and helping to monitor the border between points of entry. Democrats, who now control the House, called Pentagon officials in to testify on President Trump’s order of active duty troops to the border in October, which they have called a political stunt by the White House before midterm election. But defense officials testified that it was the Pentagon -- not the White House -- that decided that active duty troops were able to deploy faster and were better resourced to deal with the caravans headed to the border than National Guard and reserve forces. 'That was a decision made inside the Department,' said Navy Admiral Michael Gilday, the director for operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Democrat lawmakers also questioned whether there was a crisis that necessitated the deployment of troops, when the number of illegal immigrants coming across the border have been higher in previous years. 'The difference is really the caravans and really the nature of the asylum seekers,' Rood said. Ranking Member Mac Thornberry (R-TX) agreed. 'One of the things that changed is that now we have thousands, and tens of thousands of migrants who are coming in caravans which we have not seen before....The days when we had a greater number of people -- but most of them were from Mexico, and you could simply put them back across the border -- are very different from these large family groups, 10, 12,000 people coming. So yes, it changed the requirements.' 'We have 42 percent increase in the number of family units. We have 60,000 unaccompanied children that were caught last year,' Representative Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) added. 'I’m a former teacher and a mom, this is a humanitarian crisis.' Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL) noted that administrations have been sending active duty troops to the US border with Mexico 'since Alamo. I’m just astounded by the fact that we continue to act stupid in Congress and fuss over things like $5.7 billion in fencing, and it cost us $11 billion dollars to shut the government down.' " • According to Rood, the projected costs for the active duty deployments by the end of January is $132 million. He said the costs for the National Guard deployment for 2018 and 2019 to amount to $550 million. But Rood said that even with the troop deployments, illegal immigrants were still coming across the border : “Just in the last three months alone, CBP reports apprehending 145,000 illegal immigrants." He said last year, there were more than 521,000 apprehensions by law enforcement, with a larger amount of people not apprehended. He said that was up from 415,000 the year before. "In the last two years alone, a larger number than the population of Washington, DC, have been apprehended, or a city the size of San Francisco, apprehensions in two years." • Representatives Hartzler and Mo Brooks (R-AL) noted that there is existing authority the administration could use to have the military build a border barrier without declaring a national emergency, through Section 284 of Title 10 of the United States Code. “Congress has actually given the DOD the ability to provide military support to law enforcement agencies specifically for countering the counter-drug purposes. Section 284 of Title 10 of the United States Code authorizes the DOD to provide support to counter drug activities to control the transnational organized crime,” Hartzler said. "The law clearly identifies various activities that DOD is authorized to conduct including the construction of road and construction of fences. Light installation along smuggling corridors, aerial, ground reconnaissance and transportation." • Rood responded that Hartzler was correct : “As you correctly point out, Section 284 of Title 10 does provide the secretary of defense the authority in performance of that counter drug mission such as blocking drug smuggling corridors to erect barriers, fencing, provide road construction things of that nature to aid in that counternarcotics mission. We have already given the authority to do this and we have a very critical mission to keep people safe and make sure that people don’t die as a result of these transnational drug cartel activity and currently they are." "So it’s imperative for us to find a solution, and I’m very hopeful that in the next three weeks we can come together in a bipartisan fashion,” Hartzler added. • Representative Brooks also pressed Rood on whether the Pentagon would carry out an order by Trump to build necessary barriers if he ordered them to pursuant to Section 284 without declaring a national emergency. Rood answered : “If we judge it to be a lawful order, yes sir, and I assume it would be.” • • • MEXICO GRANTS MIGRANTS HUMANITARIAN VISAS. And that is also swelling the nulbers coming from Central America. Breitbart reported : "The one-year humanitarian visas, promised by Mexico’s new President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, is a newly adopted policy which allows migrants to legally travel and work during their stay in Mexico. The new policy of handing out humanitarian visas began on January 17 in response to the new caravan of primarily Honduran migrants who left their home country and headed towards the Mexican border on January 15. Officials originally estimated the caravan’s size at about 2,000. Mexico now claims the caravan’s population swelled to over 12,000 migrants, according to local media and Breitbart Texas sources. Officials put the new visa policy from President López Obrador in place to deal with caravan migrants as an attempt to prevent them from traveling unaccounted for throughout Mexico. Officials say it will also prevent the caravan members from having to illegally enter Mexico from Guatemala by crossing the Suchiate river. Migrants now entering Mexico can do so by arriving at an established border crossing and applying for the humanitarian visa with Mexican immigration officials. Immigration officials explain the process will be expedited to avoid a bottleneck at the border. Although the Mexican government is encouraging members of the caravan to remain in Mexico to work, it is believed that most of the Central American migrants intend to head to the US border and attempt to cross into the United States. The new humanitarian visa policy is now believed to be responsible for the surge in the number of migrants who decided to join the caravan. Immigration officials hope the streamlined visa process will reduce processing time to five days instead of the month or longer. It is believed that many of the migrants will be able to seek out temporary work while waiting at the US border for asylum requests to be processed. Many are expected to decide to attempt to cross illegally into the United States." • Breitbart Texas recently reported that the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials say an increase in the number of large group border crossings led to the apprehension of nearly 9,000 in a small part of the Arizona border during the first part of Fiscal Year 2019. CBP officials reported that at least 26 other large groups of mostly Central American migrants crossed in a small part of the New Mexico border. Border Patrol officials define a “large group” as more than 100 migrants. Breitbart says : "It is currently unknown if this new caravan will travel northward in mass as the previous ones have done. Earlier caravans traveled in a large group in order to avoid being arrested and for protection. With the new visa’s allowing them to work and travel freely, it is believed that the caravan may break up into smaller groups according to local Breitbart sources. Although the new caravan is made up of primarily Hondurans, officials report Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and Nicaraguans are also traveling with the group. Earlier this week, the border city of Tijuana, where previous migrant caravans arrived, reported the arrival on 100 Russian migrants who were seeking an asylum request to enter the United States." • • • BARRIERS WORK. The Patriot Post reported on January 30 that Democrats "hate the effectiveness of border barriers....Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has called a border wall 'an immorality between nations' and denies evidence that a barrier would increase border security by decreasing the number of illegal crossings into the United States....The need for new and improved barriers along some parts of the border is in the news almost daily. Take, for example, the events of January 24 near Lukeville, Arizona, in the Tucson Sector of the border. Even though there is a six-lane crossing at Lukeville, migrants seek to enter the United States illegally in nearby areas that have ineffective fencing. Thus, on the 24th, Border Patrol agents found a large group -- 242 people, most from Central America -- who illegally crossed the border west of Lukeville. 'Agents discovered the group after they crawled over and under the crude vehicle barrier separating the United States from Mexico,' the Border Patrol said in a press release. Just a week earlier, a group of 84 migrants arrived nearby in a tour bus, and then crawled under the fence into the United States, where they were taken into custody by Border Patrol agents. On December 19-20, in nearly the same place, the Border Patrol apprehended 306 Central American migrants crossing illegally into the US. Clearly, the fencing in that part of the Tucson Sector is not working." The Patriot Post says : "The vehicle fencing did nothing to stop recent crossings near Lukeville and in other places on the border. In addition, some of the pedestrian fencing is easy to breach because it is old, falling apart and was never that imposing in the first place. The Trump administration seeks to do three things : 1. Replace some ineffective pedestrian fence; 2. Replace current vehicle fence with new pedestrian fence; and 3. Build new pedestrian fence in some currently unfenced areas. The construction of barriers dramatically reduces illegal border crossing attempts. Looking at the Yuma Sector along the border in western Arizona, in 2005, before the construction of barriers, the Border Patrol caught 138,438 illegal crossers, according to figures compiled by the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors greater restrictions on immigration. Last year, with barriers, there were 26,244 such apprehensions in the Yuma Sector. The San Diego Sector in California is a case study in the effectiveness of a border barrier. In 1986, before the construction of a barrier, there were more than 628,000 apprehensions, while untold numbers of others successfully made it across the border illegally. In 2017, after the construction of extensive barriers, there were 26,086 apprehensions, according to the Border Patrol. Would anyone argue that border barriers had nothing to do with those striking before-and-after reductions? And, given what is happening in the Tucson Sector and other places today, would anyone argue that new, more daunting barriers such as the Trump administration proposes would not reduce the number of illegal crossings?" • • • DEAR READERS, we will see what President Trump has to say on Tuesday evening when he delivers the State of the Union address, but one fact is indisputable -- border barriers work. Yet some Democrats, led by the Speaker Pelosi, deny that fact and insist that new and better barriers wouldn't increase border security. Other prominent Democrats, such as recently declared presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris of California, have called the Trump barrier proposal a "medieval vanity project." But, other Democrats seem more willing to take a fact-based approach. Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, a member of the Democratic leadership, said recently : "In the past, we have supported...enhanced fencing,"And I think that's something that's reasonable that should be on the table." AND, even in the ultra- Progressive state of California, there are some reasonable voices. In an op-ed published in TheHill, Representative Tom McClintock, a California Republican, urged President Trump to recognize Democrat Party obstruction in Congress for what it is, realize that Nancy Pelosi and her thugs are never going to pony up the funds for the wall, and go back to the considered-and-discarded idea of declaring a national emergency. Not for the sake of a political victory, McClintock wrote, but for the fact that is actually IS a national emergency at the border. Here is an excerpt form Representative McClintock's op-ed : "Walls have been used for thousands of years to impede unauthorized entry, and for one reason : They work. And they still work. When Israel built a 144-mile wall to protect its southern border with Egypt, illegal immigration fell 97%. The $5.7 billion that Trump has requested to build a wall first authorized in 1996 is a fraction of the cost incurred by American citizens every year to support the illegal population in this country....The impasse cannot go on much longer, and the President cannot unilaterally appropriate funds for the wall. But in 1976, Congress authorized the President to reprogram already appropriated but unobligated military construction funds for the defense of the nation. And what is more central to national defense than the integrity of our borders?....Some have argued that the money to secure our southern border would necessarily come from other Defense Department projects. It’s an odd logic that argues the defense of the Iraqi border is more important than the defense of our own border.” • Do even some Republicans oppose President Trump’s option to declare a national emergency because they’re concerned about other Pentagon projects. Not likely. Like Democrats, these Republicans know that it would actually work. It would actually go a long way towards solving the problem of illegal immigration, which is the LAST thing many Republicans want to do -- sadly, their motive is the low-cost labor these poor and often trapped and misused illegal immigrants provide once in the US. That is simply disgusting. These Republicans have no place in the Grand Old Party of Lincoln. The President’s most important priority is the safety and security of the nation. He must and will build the wall, or barriers -- you choose the word. And, in doing it, President Trump would be living up to the very highest duty of his office. And, very likely, securing for himself re-election in the process. Consider this from American Thinker : "While President Trump is correct to remain committed to building a border barrier and has asked all Cabinet agencies for wall funding, he can fund the entire barrier without having to declare a national emergency. Instead, he can draw full funding for a complete border barrier from unobligated balances. Unobligated balances 'are the amounts of budget authority that have not yet been committed by contract or other legally binding action by the government.' Former Senator Tom Coburn described unobligated balances as 'essentially money for nothing.' While in 2012 there was an estimated $687 billion in unobligated balances, unobligated balances in federal and trust funds in FY 2019 is estimated to be a whopping $1,156 ,136,000,000. This plan works on multiple levels. Not only will it finally pay for the border wall, but it will also be impossible for Democrats to stop it. A President using unobligated funds to finance a project is hardly unprecedented. President Johnson used it to fund his Great Society, while Nixon dipped into it to fund the Vietnam War. The Bush’s also used these funds to help pay for the Iraq War. Far too often these funds are simply returned to the Treasury or are used on projects that don’t have noticeable benefits for Americans. Shouldn’t this money be used for something that will protect us here at home? And using unobligated funds to pay for the wall wouldn’t require the approval of Congress. He just needs to have the Treasury reclaim that money, and then he can use a portion of the $2 trillion sitting unused in federal and trust funds." • Speaker Pelosi thinks border barriers are "immoral," and she won't support voter ID to prevent illegals from voting. There's a cynical logic in her ProgDem position. • BUILD THE WALL, MR. PRESIDENT.