Alexandria Occasionally-Conscious has better ways to spend $5.7 B instead of a border wall

Representative-elect Alexandria Occasionally-Conscious (AOC) suggests there are [more] better ways to spend $5.7 billion rather than on a border wall.

Earlier this year, the economics major New Yorker responded to questions about the projected cost for funding the "Medicaid for all" delusion she suggested. When asked specifically how we would pay for it, she simply said, "just pay for it."

How astute.

Now AOC was asked a similar question about the border wall proposed by President Trump that he wants $5.7 billion to fund.

The Democratic brain-trust tweeted:

And just like that, GOP discovers $5.7 billion for a wall.

$5.7 billion 

What if we instead added $5.7B in teacher pay?

Or replacing water pipes?

Or college tuition/prescription refill subsidies?

Or green jobs?

But notice how no one’s asking the GOP how they’re paying for it. https://t.co/jXdm1w9bpy

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018)

A few people responded to her brilliant idea on Twitter. One person responded:

Here’s the thing… umm… defending our borders is actually… like… a function of Federal government. And the stuff you listed is… like… so not. https://t.co/2UCpymb3oe

— Maveríko (@TheMaverick21) December 21, 2018

Another response spelled it out for the socialist who has no clue about how the government functions or how it's comprised:

Literally none of those things is the job of the federal govt. – from the get-go they have been charged with protecting our people and our BORDERS. That IS their main job.

Not paying teachers.

Not fixing pipes.

Not pretending to care about green energy.

Not paying for college. https://t.co/6bxxsjukJo

— Bunny The Christmas Foo (@PolitiBunny) December 21, 2018

AOC is the new kid on the block, or should I say Capitol Hill. And she hasn't even gotten there yet.

Some in the leftist media actually wish they would change the Constitution so that AOC can run for president in 2020, representing one of the chambers of government and hoping for control of the other two chambers of government--the House and the Senate.

I cannot wait for her inauguration . . . or is it coronation?

Hello fellow conservatives. At this time of year when everyone has a hand out for a hand-out, I don't. I simply want you to follow Brain Flushings and check out the ads on this page. It's free, I'm free and you're free to follow me or not. I hope you do. 

I hope you had a wonderful Christmas.

Tweet

Obama: "I have spoken!"

Al, Lou, and Akbar

Our Supreme Exulted Monarch has decreed Wednesday that all "57 states" do not have the right to refuse potential Islamic terrorists (aka refugees) and if they go against his orders, the leaders of his caliphate will suffer the consequences.

The decree letter from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) tells American governors that they are not permitted to deny taxpayer money to provide services and benefits to refugees based on their country of origin or so-called religion of peace and otherwise. In other words, it used to be your money and your rights but now it belongs to Big Brother.

"Accordingly, states may not categorically deny ORR-funded benefits and services to Syrian refugees. Any state with such a policy would not be in compliance with the State Plan requirements, applicable statutes, and their own assurances, and could be subject to enforcement action, including suspension and termination."

Even Canada is smart enough to realize how most of these so-called "refugees" are men of military age, as well as the age that fits terrorist profiles. So Canada is only admitting families and women with children. 

But we don't profile in the USA because that would be politically incorrect. Instead, we have a president who is going against a significantly large majority of Americans who believe that the nation's security trumps political charity. 

Even many Democrats agree, except for the hard-line robots like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

The ORR letter discussed the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin in all programs that receive federal funding. The Democrats like to take credit for the Act but while 6 Republicans opposed it, 21 Democrats also opposed it.

And speaking of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, you may recall a Democratic president, Lyndon Baines Johnson who discussed the '64 act with several southern governors. (WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE.) 

Johnson is alleged to have said: 

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference . . . I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years."

Furthermore, Democrats like to say the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the brainchild of the Kennedy or Johnson administrations, but actually, it was an extension of the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts created by the Republican Party. Barry Goldwater, one of the six Republicans who voted against the 1964 version didn't like the idea that the 1964 version was totally Republican policy with Democrats taking the credit.

Back to the Syrian "refugees." Last week the House overwhelmingly approved a bill that would improve the screening for Syrian (and Iraqi) refugees. It would require a more comprehensive background check on every one of them before they can be admitted to the US and a certification that they do not individually pose a threat.

The ORR followed the administration's line saying Syrian refugees are subject to even more precautionary measures than other refugees, referring to the measures as "a multi-layered and intensive screening and vetting process involving multiple law enforcement, national security, and intelligence agencies across the Federal Government."

When Democrats have these "refugees" living in their neighborhoods, only then will I have a modicum of trust for their claims that they pose no danger to our citizens. But I will still wait eagerly for any possible repercussions that may occur based upon their poor judgment, as the results of those repercussions will impact directly upon them.

Tweet