







Three days.

That’s all it took for a non-profit group to build one full mile of the border wall between the United States and Mexico.

Get Your FREE ‘Build The Wall’ Coin While Supplies Last

And it’s a wonder why conservatives don’t put so much faith in government doing the right thing or getting the job done, huh?

From Daily Mail:

A non-profit organization, backed by Steve Bannon, to fund Donald Trump’s border wall between the United States and Mexico has built its first mile-long section of wall.

The wall, which spans just under one mile in length, went up over the weekend on private property running next to El Paso, Texas, through Sunland Park, New Mexico, triple-amputee veteran Brian Kolfage told DailyMail.com on Monday.

‘It’s just under one mile long,’ Kolfage said. ‘The wall starts at the Rio Grande River and goes up Mount Cristo Rey where the US Army Corps of engineers said it was impossible to build.

Kolfage said once everything is said and done, his organization will sell the wall, which cost between $6million and $8million to build, to the federal government for the bargain price of $1.

‘We’re going to sell this wall to them for $1 and release the title to them,’ he said. ‘We can’t give the government the money because that’s not the way it works. But we wanted to show the American people how to get this job done.’

WATCH:

Democrats are united in their hatred for America.

That couldn’t be any clearer.

The latest example comes by way of blocking additional funding to erect a stronger wall on the nation’s border to keep illegal aliens at bay.

House Democrats introduced legislation that would block the Pentagon from reallocating money to border wall construction, an attempt to undercut President Donald Trump’s trademark campaign goal.

A defense spending bill introduced Tuesday by Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee not only gives the Department of Defense far less money than it requested, but also limits its authority to shift funds within its budget. The legislation comes after Democrats have grown enraged at the Pentagon for diverting funds toward border wall construction without first asking permission from Congress.

“This bill rejects the Trump administration’s budgetary gimmicks and sleights of hand and instead provides the Defense Department with appropriate resources to address an evolving threat landscape and ensure the security of our nation and our allies,” House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, a Democrat from New York, said in a prepared statement Tuesday.

The 158-page document provides the Pentagon, in total, $690.2 billion for the 2020 fiscal year — an increase of $15.8 billion from the current fiscal year. Roughly $622 billion will be allocated for base budget funding and the other $68 billion would go toward a war fund called the Overseas Contingency Operations account.

The judge who recently blocked construction of the wall has donated upwards of $30,000 to Barack Obama and other Democrats over the years.

Isn’t that a slight conflict of interest?

A federal judge who partially blocked President Trump’s plans to build a border wall along the United States-Mexico border previously donated almost $30,000 to former President Obama, other Democrats, and a political action committee.

U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, an Obama appointee confirmed in 2014, donated $6,900 to Barack Obama’s debut campaign for president and $14,500 to his reelection campaign, according to federal election records. The same records also indicate he contributed $4,500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2012 and, between 2012 and 2015, sent $3,100 to the Covington Burling LLP PAC, which supports candidates from both parties. His contributions totaled $29,000.

Gilliam made the donations, first reported by the Epoch Times, prior to serving as a U.S. District judge. He had said during his confirmation hearing that he “would base my decisions solely on the facts of each case and the applicable precedent, without regard to any political ideology or motivation,” and that “any personal views would not interfere in any way with my ability to neutrally apply the law.”