Month: February 2019

After far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez railed hard against “farting cows” and beef, she was caught at dinner with a staffer who was eating a juicy hamburger.

Ocasio-Cortez was widely mocked for her attack on “farting cows” in her Green New Deal, but she doubled down on her stance last week on Showtime’s “Desus & Mero” late-night show.

The self-identified socialist explained that she wanted to “take a look at” factory farming and went on to suggest against eating beef.

“But it’s to say, ‘listen, we gotta address factory farming. Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Like, let’s keep it real,’” Ocasio-Cortez said.

Ocasio-Cortez defends wanting to regulate cow farts: “Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.”pic.twitter.com/X3WBz7wWhO

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) February 22, 2019

TRENDING: James Woods Shares Incredible Moment from Iranian Hijab Protests: ‘This Is What a Hero Looks Like’

But apparently the socialist’s own staff doesn’t follow her advice.

On Tuesday, conservatives on Twitter began circulating a photo of Ocasio-Cortez at dinner with a hamburger-clutching staffer. Fox News identified Ocasio-Cortez’ companion as her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti. The restaurant was unidentified.

pic.twitter.com/i9uivY2CZZ

— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) February 27, 2019

pic.twitter.com/48MxWOJDNr

— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) February 27, 2019

Instead of addressing the blatant hypocrisy here, Twitter liberals, including Ocasio-Cortez herself, had a meltdown and slammed the photo as “creepy.”

The conservative obsession with AOC manifests itself in the strangest ways. This creep-shot thread is really something. https://t.co/ExHHgoALQv

— Will Sommer (@willsommer) February 27, 2019

RELATED: Lying AOC’s ‘Affordable’ Green New Deal Would Cost 12 Years’ Income for Every American Household

Tonight a dude was creepily (and obviously) taking a picture of me while pretending he wasn’t and I had to break his imaginary fourth wall and say “Hi! I’m a person! This is weird!” https://t.co/JnybvVubVh

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 27, 2019

But the representative’s complaints would have more weight if liberals applied them to their own supporters.

In fact, the whole outcry just  proves the left’s hypocrisy even further because they’re known to ambush politicians in restaurants while their representatives cheer it on.

In comparison, a simple photograph is harmless.

As conservative journalist Caleb Hull pointed out, the left has “endorsed confronting people in the Trump administration anywhere in public and has run them out of restaurants repeatedly.”

My dude your party literally endorsed confronting people in the Trump administration anywhere in public and has run them out of restaurants repeatedly. I think you can handle someone sending me a pic of her COS eating a hamburger after she told the country to eat less of them.

— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) February 27, 2019

Sometimes the conservative outrage toward Ocasio-Cortez gets a bit out of hand, such as the “controversy” over an old video of her dancing.

But this instance isn’t misplaced outrage. Ocasio-Cortez wants to control what Americans eat and disrupt an important industry in rural America, but her own staffer is unwilling to comply with her advice.

So you think a powerful politician who is trying to impose her will on Americans and force them to make the food choices she wants shouldn’t have her hypocrisy pointed out? Interesting.

— EducatëdHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) February 27, 2019

With many ridiculous far-left policy proposals, Ocasio-Cortez and her staff are following the old hypocritical liberal practice of “it’s good for thee, but not for me.”

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Every elementary school in Ontario, Canada, will be forced to fly the gay pride flag for at least one week in June, which is Pride Month in the province. Greater Essex County District School Board nearly unanimously voted on the motion last week; the only dissenting voice on the board was swiftly shut down.

“The rainbow flag, symbol of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, will fly in front of all public elementary schools for at least one week during Pride Month in June,” reported Windsor Star.

Greater Essex County District School Board vice chairman Julia Burgess, who introduced the motion, said the flag will let students know that “we have their back.”

“When you’re in elementary school, and you’re just coming into adolescence, it’s a very vulnerable time. You may not have a lot of peers like you. The Pride flag tells them we have their back,” said Burgess at the board meeting, adding: “It’s a statement that we are going to recognize we’re a diverse, safe, welcoming board.”

According to Windsor Star, the main office and all high schools within the district have been flying the gay pride flags — which includes the color purple, representing gender identity, or transgenderism — during Pride month since 2016. The new measure expands the compulsory flag-flying to also include elementary schools.

Linda Qin, the sole trustee to question the mandate explained that the flag might confuse such young children, particularly with concern to gender identity. Qin, however, was swiftly shut down.

“The kids are so young,” she argued. “The flag may make them confused. I wonder if we’re misleading them about the idea of gender. We want to be careful.”

The trustee noted that she has knowledge of a student being bullied by “aggressive” pro-LGBT folks.

Qin was told her time was up, according to Windsor Star, and was cut off by chairwoman Jessica Sartori.

“Who wouldn’t be proud to fly that flag?” an emotional Sartori asked, who said she flies the gay pride flag at her home.

Another trustee, Gale Simko-Hatfield, suggested the mandate be optional for schools, and mandated down the road, instead.

“It’s what the community is comfortable with,” argued Simko-Hatfield. “I don’t think we’ve reached out to elementary schools to see what they think.”

It’s unclear how or if schools will be punished for refusing to fly gay pride flags, but Simko-Hatfield’s idea to make the measure optional was outright dismissed by Burgess.

Others at the meeting said flying the flag at elementary schools was not enough.

“We also need to have a lot of (LGBT) education,” said trustee Cathy Cooke.

A woman named Melissa Piva, whose child began identifying as “gender creative” at age five, was seemingly onboard with Cooke, too.

Piva’s son allegedly told her while they were shopping that he was a girl and needed to buy dresses so that others knew, too. “When she was in Grade 1, Piva said in a moving presentation, school staff liked to debate which bathroom her daughter should use. The next year, her teacher kept referring to her as ‘he’ and ‘him.’ Other kids said, ‘She’s just a boy who likes to pretend she’s a girl,'” Windsor Star reported.

As noted by LifeSiteNews, Peel District School Board similarly voted in May to fly the gay pride flag. “The board was lobbied by Pride Employee Resource Group (PERG) and heard emotional appeals in favor of raising the flag from parents of ‘gender-creative’ children and homosexual parents in a May meeting packed with LGBT activists wearing pink,” reported the outlet.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos unveiled a plan Thursday that would provide $5 billion to federalize school choice by setting up a nationwide federal tax-credit scholarship program.

DeVos is taking her federalized school choice plan to Congress where it will be introduced in legislation in the Senate by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) and in the House by Rep. Bradley Byrne, a Republican from Alabama.

Many who have been urging the Trump administration to dismantle the federal education department, however, warn another federalized program will further expand overreach into education. The U.S. Constitution provides for no federal role in education, except in the nation’s capital, in the military, and among Native American tribes.

“While school choice is critical and often undervalued, a federal school choice program reaches beyond the constitutional mandate of the federal government, and presents a real danger to private education in the future,” wrote Inez Feltscher Stepman at the Federalist Thursday. “If it passes, this latest example of federal overreach could be the Trump administration’s equivalent to the Common Core debacle, and worse, could taint one of the most important reforms advanced by conservatives in the states.”

As U.S. News & World Report observed, under DeVos’s proposal, individuals and companies would obtain a federal tax credit if they donate to organizations offering scholarships to students to attend the schools of their choice.

Individuals and companies would be allowed to donate up to ten percent of their adjusted gross income.

Many of the details of the federalized program, such as who is eligible, education providers permitted to participate, and accountability for the federal taxpayer funds would be given to the states – although, as with Common Core, the incentive to create such programs would come from the federal government.

“This is an opportunity for states to take advantage of money that would be available to them, for programs that they design,” said an unnamed education department official, according to Education Week.

In her prepared remarks announcing the Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act, DeVos said her plan was not a “mandate,” but then focused on her vision of how the federal government would incentivize states to sign onto her new plan:

The key element of the proposal is freedom. Freedom for everyone involved. Students, families, teachers, schools, states can choose to participate in the program. Or they can elect not to participate. That’s what freedom is all about.

Let me be clear: I firmly believe every state should embrace education freedom. But those are decisions families and communities must make. This is not another mandate.

We know gaining this freedom will require more work in some states than others. But as more states offer more options to families, demand will rise and pressure will mount on those who have not yet embraced the opportunity.

While conservatives and constitutionalists heartily support parental choice of education options, they draw a bold line where the federal government takes over the project or incentivizes states to enact it through federal taxpayer funds.

Neal McCluskey, Cato Institute’s director of the Center for Educational Freedom, tweeted the title of his blog post that spells out his concerns about the new federalized plan:

Even Something as Great as School Choice Should Not Be Federalized https://t.co/GKbaGOKXFI via @CatoInstitute Hot take time! #CatoCEF @ChoiceMediatv @JasonBedrick @EricaLG @laurameckler @MichaelPetrilli @EducationNext @BenjaminEW @laurenonthehill

— Neal McCluskey (@NealMcCluskey) February 28, 2019

“School choice is about individualization and freedom, and almost certainly that is what DeVos, Cruz, and Byrne want,” McCluskey wrote. “But federal initiatives are a terrible way to deliver that. The reality is that what the feds fund, even indirectly, they inevitably want to control.”

He continued:

DeVos, Cruz, and Byrne are looking to skirt the control problem, sticking with tax credits instead of vouchers, and letting states opt in. But not only is this unconstitutional—taxes are authorized to execute specific, enumerated powers, not to lightly engineer state policy—it won’t, ultimately, prevent encroaching federal control. If enacted, the credit would spur people to demand their states participate, and as more schools benefited from federally connected scholarships all schools would be financially pressured to use them. But the federal government will have the power to decide which state programs are or are not eligible, and on what grounds.

Wisconsin homeschooling parent Tina Hollenbeck told Breitbart News the proposal is “well-meaning, but misguided.”

“DeVos even alluded to the fact that the federal government would use pressure to ‘encourage’ every state to take these ‘scholarships,’ which means she’d also ‘encourage’ eventual collection of data on all homeschoolers, not just the ones taking the credit,” Hollenbeck said. “That should chill every homeschooler to the bone! I do not believe such a consequence is part of Sen. Cruz’s motivation, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. ”

Lindsey Burke, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy, and Adam Michel, a senior policy analyst in the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, warned such an effort could actually reverse the school choice gains already made as well as recent tax policy reforms.

“It’s wonderful that the Administration wants to advance school choice but a nationwide federal tax-credit scholarship program is the wrong way to do it,” they said in a statement. “This could open the door for further education regulations down the road that neutralize the advantages of private education as well as impede future tax reform efforts.”

Burke and Michel highlighted the concerns voiced often by the conservative base of Trump’s Party, including that such a proposal “would grow, rather than reduce, federal intervention in education.”

“Future administrations could use a federal tax-credit scholarship to require that schools adhere to certain admissions and accountability policies,” they added. “That would mean the federal government could further dictate testing, reporting, academic content, and even bathroom policies for all schools involved.”

Stepman also warned that because parental choice of education options is so important, “we should be loathe to expose it to the heavy hands of federal regulators.”

“Even if Republicans get a perfectly clean version of the tax credit through Congress—a tall order given the composition of the House—the door would be open for future Democratic administrations to extend a regulatory toehold into every private school that accepted students on scholarship,” she asserted.

 

A majority of Americans would rather have a wall sealing America’s southern border than the Green New Deal, according to a poll released on Wednesday.

Fifty-one percent of Americans say that they would rather have a border wall on America’s southern border, compared to 31 percent who say that they want a Green New Deal, according to a poll released by Remington Research Group.

Republicans said that they would prefer a border wall by a 68-point margin, while Independents said that they would prefer a border wall by a two-to-one margin.

Overall, a majority of Americans, or 51 percent, said they oppose a Green New Deal, 51 percent of Democrats support the radical environmental program, while Republicans and Independents overwhelmingly oppose Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) idea outright.

Titus Bond, president of Remington Research Group, said Democrats face an uphill battle trying to convince Republicans and Independents to back the Green New Deal while still trying to appeal to their base. Bond said:

The Green New Deal has presented an interesting situation for Democrats. Democratic voters support this legislation, while the rest of the country overwhelmingly opposes it. It will be intriguing to watch Democratic leaders and presidential hopefuls navigate this issue with their base while still appealing to mainstream voters.

The Remington survey found that Americans overwhelmingly oppose a single-payer, federal government healthcare system.

The survey arises as one study conducted by the American Action Forum (AAF) revealed that Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal might cost as much as $93 trillion over the next ten years, which would cost over four times the national debt. Breitbart News also found that the Green New Deal would pay for over 3,700 border walls.

“The Green New Deal is clearly very expensive,” AAF said in its report. “It’s further expansion of the federal government’s role in some of the most basic decisions of daily life, however, would likely have a more lasting and damaging impact than its enormous price tag.”

Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.

Civil wars are horrendous and bloody affairs. That’s why we should avoid them.  They happen when two sides cannot settle on who runs the country.  When they can’t reconcile the matter through elections, the country falls apart.  When one side does not accept the election results, we have a countdown to a civil war. 

This is the thesis put forth by journalist Daniel Greenfield.  It rings true on many levels.

Does the fact that Democrats are rejecting a duly elected Republican president really mean they don’t accept the results of any election they don’t win?  If so, we may be already nearing America’s Second Civil War.

It is no secret that Democrats and Republicans are more ideologically divided than in recent years.  Parts of the country detest the other parts.  Coastal elites dislike flyover country.  The blue states despise the red states, and vice versa. 

We may now be near a point comparable to 1860.  Modern Democrats hate President Trump as much as the Democrats of old hated President Lincoln.  Democrats repudiated Lincoln for opposing slavery, and modern Democratic leaders are repudiating Lincoln’s belief that the government is of the people, for the people, and by the people.  Then as now, Democrats are on the wrong side of history.

The average conservative and the average liberal disagree on the vast majority of the issues, and in the few cases where they can agree, each won’t support the other out of sheer tribalism for his side.  Since Democrats can’t win the argument with reason and facts, they try to intimidate us into silence.  While Trump is their focus, we should know that the loathing is really against normal everyday Americans.

The Constitution plays a central role in the disagreement.  On the right are those who believe in its use as a restraint on government that can be altered only by a broad consensus through the amendment process.  Conservatives believe that natural rights are created by God and that government cannot invent or alter them.

On the Left are those who believe in the living Constitution.  This is a notion that the document is outdated and should change easily.  The main method for doing this would be judicial rulings bypassing Congress and the voters.  Basically, they just make it up as they go along. 

The Left’s reach is broad.  Leftists have been able to take over schools and indoctrinate our young people.  They have taken over nearly all the news and entertainment media.  The conservative side, conversely, has lost in these areas because it never fights back with the ruthlessness of the Left. 

Lawlessness is now reaching across the United States, which the news almost totally ignores.  The same networks that spent two years with wall-to-wall coverage to push the Russia collusion hoax are now refusing to report the documented attempt to remove our duly elected president by means of a Deep State silent coup.

The Left overwhelms the courts with legal actions designed to bog them down so that nothing conservative can be accomplished by Trump.  Democrats will concede nothing without a confrontation.  Lefty goons clash and threaten aggression with open immunity.  They shout down speakers at colleges; they block airports, bridges, and highways.  They take over college buildings, offices, and state capitals, and they terrorize individuals in their homes.  Not only does their violence succeed, but they succeed just by threatening violence. 

Democrats threaten the peace by advocating programs intended to deny the rights of average people to speak and worship freely and to defend themselves.  Never mind that millions of Americans are ready to hazard life and limb to preserve these rights.  Moreover, many of them vowed to do so when they served in the armed forces.  When push comes to shove, they will not shy away from defending their families, their homes, their values, and their country. 

While leftist liken their behavior to combating tyranny, they are actually combating anyone with whom they disagree.  While their socialist agenda is losing ground with average Americans, leftists are doubling down, assaulting verbally, and sometimes physically, anyone who opposes them. 

Ask yourself, why are liberals always angry?  Why are they so vulgar?  Why do they slander and push fake labels like racist, sexist, and homophobic?  Why do they engage in “emotional outbursts” when challenged?  Why are they violent?

The answer is that when they don’t have facts to support their arguments, they must resort to intimidation.  The narrative is designed to keep people in a constant state of fear, thereby forcing rage and violence.  They want us divided by race, class, religion, political affiliation, and more. 

All they care about is control, and they will do anything to hold on to it.  They want to keep people poor and in need of government assistance.  The bigger the government, the more power leftists possess.  When we are in need, we are weak.  Divided, we are weak.  When we are weak, we do not fight back.  When we are united, strong, and independent, we think for ourselves and challenge what we are told to believe. 

This is a dangerous time.  Americans in 1859 had no idea of the cataclysm that lay ahead for them just a few years later.  Nothing is certain, and hopefully we will avoid a similar disaster.  We may have differences, but America is profoundly good and needs only sensible corrections that reasonable people can agree upon.  We hope and pray that our differences do not escalate into a Second Civil War.

Civil wars are horrendous and bloody affairs. That’s why we should avoid them.  They happen when two sides cannot settle on who runs the country.  When they can’t reconcile the matter through elections, the country falls apart.  When one side does not accept the election results, we have a countdown to a civil war. 

This is the thesis put forth by journalist Daniel Greenfield.  It rings true on many levels.

Does the fact that Democrats are rejecting a duly elected Republican president really mean they don’t accept the results of any election they don’t win?  If so, we may be already nearing America’s Second Civil War.

It is no secret that Democrats and Republicans are more ideologically divided than in recent years.  Parts of the country detest the other parts.  Coastal elites dislike flyover country.  The blue states despise the red states, and vice versa. 

We may now be near a point comparable to 1860.  Modern Democrats hate President Trump as much as the Democrats of old hated President Lincoln.  Democrats repudiated Lincoln for opposing slavery, and modern Democratic leaders are repudiating Lincoln’s belief that the government is of the people, for the people, and by the people.  Then as now, Democrats are on the wrong side of history.

The average conservative and the average liberal disagree on the vast majority of the issues, and in the few cases where they can agree, each won’t support the other out of sheer tribalism for his side.  Since Democrats can’t win the argument with reason and facts, they try to intimidate us into silence.  While Trump is their focus, we should know that the loathing is really against normal everyday Americans.

The Constitution plays a central role in the disagreement.  On the right are those who believe in its use as a restraint on government that can be altered only by a broad consensus through the amendment process.  Conservatives believe that natural rights are created by God and that government cannot invent or alter them.

On the Left are those who believe in the living Constitution.  This is a notion that the document is outdated and should change easily.  The main method for doing this would be judicial rulings bypassing Congress and the voters.  Basically, they just make it up as they go along. 

The Left’s reach is broad.  Leftists have been able to take over schools and indoctrinate our young people.  They have taken over nearly all the news and entertainment media.  The conservative side, conversely, has lost in these areas because it never fights back with the ruthlessness of the Left. 

Lawlessness is now reaching across the United States, which the news almost totally ignores.  The same networks that spent two years with wall-to-wall coverage to push the Russia collusion hoax are now refusing to report the documented attempt to remove our duly elected president by means of a Deep State silent coup.

The Left overwhelms the courts with legal actions designed to bog them down so that nothing conservative can be accomplished by Trump.  Democrats will concede nothing without a confrontation.  Lefty goons clash and threaten aggression with open immunity.  They shout down speakers at colleges; they block airports, bridges, and highways.  They take over college buildings, offices, and state capitals, and they terrorize individuals in their homes.  Not only does their violence succeed, but they succeed just by threatening violence. 

Democrats threaten the peace by advocating programs intended to deny the rights of average people to speak and worship freely and to defend themselves.  Never mind that millions of Americans are ready to hazard life and limb to preserve these rights.  Moreover, many of them vowed to do so when they served in the armed forces.  When push comes to shove, they will not shy away from defending their families, their homes, their values, and their country. 

While leftist liken their behavior to combating tyranny, they are actually combating anyone with whom they disagree.  While their socialist agenda is losing ground with average Americans, leftists are doubling down, assaulting verbally, and sometimes physically, anyone who opposes them. 

Ask yourself, why are liberals always angry?  Why are they so vulgar?  Why do they slander and push fake labels like racist, sexist, and homophobic?  Why do they engage in “emotional outbursts” when challenged?  Why are they violent?

The answer is that when they don’t have facts to support their arguments, they must resort to intimidation.  The narrative is designed to keep people in a constant state of fear, thereby forcing rage and violence.  They want us divided by race, class, religion, political affiliation, and more. 

All they care about is control, and they will do anything to hold on to it.  They want to keep people poor and in need of government assistance.  The bigger the government, the more power leftists possess.  When we are in need, we are weak.  Divided, we are weak.  When we are weak, we do not fight back.  When we are united, strong, and independent, we think for ourselves and challenge what we are told to believe. 

This is a dangerous time.  Americans in 1859 had no idea of the cataclysm that lay ahead for them just a few years later.  Nothing is certain, and hopefully we will avoid a similar disaster.  We may have differences, but America is profoundly good and needs only sensible corrections that reasonable people can agree upon.  We hope and pray that our differences do not escalate into a Second Civil War.

Thirteen House Republicans joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Democrats to pass a resolution that would terminate President Donald J. Trump’s national emergency to build a wall along the southern border.

The House passed a resolution Tuesday to end President Donald Trump’s national emergency to build a wall along the southern border. The bill passed; however, it did not receive enough votes to potentially override a presidential veto.

Although Republicans overwhelmingly voted with the president to sustain the national emergency and keep building the wall, thirteen Republicans decided to join Democrats and help the bill pass through the House.

The thirteen Republicans who voted with Democrats to end the national emergency include:

1. Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
2. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
3. Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI)
4. Rep. Jamie Herrera Butler (R-WA)
5. Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX)
6. Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD)
7. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)
8. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
9. Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL)
10. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
11. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)
12. Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI)
13. Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)

Many of these Republicans cited congressional authority granted under the Constitution that only Congress can have the “power of the purse” to spend money.

Massie tweeted Tuesday:

I support President Trump and I support the wall. In fact I voted to fund the wall for the full amount requested by @realDonaldTrump. I also called out President Obama when he tried to use his pen and phone to sidestep Congress on immigration, war, healthcare, and gun control.

I support President Trump and I support the wall. In fact I voted to fund the wall for the full amount requested by @realDonaldTrump. I also called out President Obama when he tried to use his pen and phone to sidestep Congress on immigration, war, healthcare, and gun control.

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) February 26, 2019

 

Tonight I voted for the resolution of disapproval.

Strengthening our borders is an urgent necessity, but declaring a national emergency and reprogramming already appropriated funds without the approval of Congress is a violation of the Constitution. ➡️ https://t.co/GlxLq7hMbR pic.twitter.com/lXkwoHjMj2

— Fred Upton (@RepFredUpton) February 26, 2019

“Congress cannot grant the president by statute the authority to assume legislative powers at will, turning the executive branch into a legislative branch whenever the president uses magic words.” https://t.co/6to4FdVnjK

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) February 26, 2019

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers attempted to equate former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) illegal alien amnesty to President Trump’s national emergency to build the wall as one reason she voted for the resolution. However, one federal district judge ruled in August 2018 that DACA was illegal, whereas many lawyers have argued that Trump has the authority under the National Emergencies Act of 1976 to reappropriate money to build the wall.

I’m 100% in favor of President Trump’s wall, and today’s vote had nothing to do with the need to build it. For the same reason I was against President Obama using his ‘pen and phone,’ I voted to disapprove of this unilateral executive action. pic.twitter.com/oGKN1kpPnw

— CathyMcMorrisRodgers (@cathymcmorris) February 26, 2019

Rep. Hurd once charged in January that the border crisis is a “myth,” although in a tweet Tuesday he now says that “we have a problem at the border.”

Hurd wrote:

We have a problem at our border which is why I have supported over $220B for homeland security including technology, manpower and barriers. But possibly taking money from Joint Base SA, Laughlin AFB and Fort Bliss will not help. That’s why I voted against the national emergency.

We have a problem at our border which is why I have supported over $220B for homeland security including technology, manpower and barriers. But possibly taking money from Joint Base SA, Laughlin AFB and Fort Bliss will not help. That’s why I voted against the national emergency.

— Rep. Will Hurd (@HurdOnTheHill) February 26, 2019

President Trump tweeted Monday that without “strong borders,” we do not have a country.

I hope our great Republican Senators don’t get led down the path of weak and ineffective Border Security. Without strong Borders, we don’t have a Country – and the voters are on board with us. Be strong and smart, don’t fall into the Democrats “trap” of Open Borders and Crime!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 25, 2019