Nancy Pelosi’s Backstabbing Plan For The State of The Union (she’s lost it!)
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi just announced her plan to fill the House gallery with illegal immigrants during President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address.

Following in Pelosi’s footsteps are 24 other House Democrats that also plan to bring illegals to watch the Tuesday night speech.

Previously, these seats were occupied by military heroes, law-abiding taxpayers and America’s best. Now we can look forward to ‘Dreamers’ and liberals ruining Trump’s big night.

The ever-so thoughtful liberals have turned the U.S. Capitol into a safe haven for illegal aliens.

Democrats have decided that they would rather turn their allegiances to foreign invaders rather than honor those who have risked their lives for their freedom of Americans.

These ignorant liberals think that by bringing illegal aliens to the speech, they will be sending a message to Trump, but in actuality they will be sending a message to all of America. Their message is straight-forward — these Democrats that are supposed to be representing Americans only care about their own agenda, which is to protect immigrants who came to this nation illegally.

As of Monday, a total of 9 Democrats have announced that they will be boycotting Trump’s State of the Union. The liberals planning to attend will be taking a cue from Hollywood celebrities and will wear all black as a symbol against sexual harassment.

“I want to be clear: DREAMers are Americans,” said Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y. Lowey will be bringing a ‘Dreamer’ that came to the U.S. from El Salvador at the age of 15. “They contribute to our economy, our communities and our strength and stability as a nation.”

If these idiotic Democrats want to demonstrate their protests against Trump during his address then he needs to take matters into his own hands.

Trump should invite ICE agents to his address to put an end to this nonsense.

Aren’t Pelosi and these other Democrats breaking the law by harboring illegal aliens?

–The Horn Editorial Team.

http://thehornnews.com/46457- 2/

We hear Democrats and their lap dogs in the media tell us that a border wall would be ineffective, and useless. Are they right?

India and Pakistan

The two nuclear powers, with 1.5 billion people between them, have fought four wars since 1947, and continue to face each other down in Kashmir, a territory both countries dispute. In order to prevent Pakistani terrorists from striking inside India, the Indian government built a series of fences and walls to keep Pakistani terrorists at bay. Had it not, it is quite possible that the two countries might be at war right now.


Morocco and Algeria

Morocco built a 1,700-mile system of berms, fences and ditches to stop the Polisario Front, an Algerian sponsored terrorist group, from infiltrating the Western Sahara. It took seven years to build, but the result was so effective that Algeria agreed to a cease-fire, ending the Western Sahara war that had raged since 1975.


Israel and the West Bank

The Israeli border wall-well, actually more of a fence in most places-remains hugely controversial because many journalists and the UN officials condemn anything Israel does, no matter how much precedent exists outside Israel but, Israel's fence reduced terrorist attacks by more than 90%, something decades of diplomacy failed to do.


Cyprus

The irony of of so many UN officials condemning Israel or Trump's demands for a wall is that the UN itself built a wall dividing Cyprus in order to separate Turkish and Greek combatants. While Cyprus remains divided, the wall ended the fighting.

Northern Ireland

Saudi Arabia and Yemen

Saudi Arabia and Iraq

Turkey and Syria

Kenya and Somalia

Then there is another list of countries where a wall was built for immigration purposes


www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-border-wall-is-standard...other.../2646819

Moore's defenders are saying "innocent until proven guilty." But he is not on trial. He is running for the Senate. Alabamans have to decide whether they should send this man to Washington to represent them in the Senate. The standard is not "innocent until proven guilty." It is what do Alabamans think about this man based on what they have read by the time Election Day occurs. There will be no trial by then to determine either guilt or innocence. So that cannot be the standard. Alabamans have to make their own judgment on the merits. You have to ask yourself, why would these women make this up out of whole cloth, throwing their lives into utter disarray? Simply to try to swing an election? That seems unlikely to me. Their stories are detailed. Moore has not denied that he dated teenagers, and plenty of people seem to have corroborated that he hung around in malls and dated teenage girls. The important thing, Alabamans: judge the man by yourself, now, based on what you have read. Don't hide behind "innocent until proven guilty" because that would be true if he shot a man yesterday in cold blood. Just because there is no time for a trial does not preclude guilt. You have to figure that out yourself on this one.