© Kevin Lamarque / ReutersUS President Donald Trump speaks while viewing US-Mexico border wall prototypes in San Diego, California, on March 13, 2018.
When President Donald Trump signed the "ridiculous" and massive $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill on Friday, he himself decried the "wasteful spending" and "giveaways" to Democrats that had been tucked into the legislation while he also vowed to never sign another bill like it.
Many conservatives were also incensed at the
obscene spending bill, most notably due to continued taxpayer funding for abortion provider Planned Parenthood and sanctuary cities, but also because it seemed like Democrats completely blocked Trump's efforts at building a wall to secure the southern border, granting him a paltry $1.6 billion to repair existing border fences.
The lone obvious bright spot of the spending bill was the ample funding - more than had been requested actually -
for the military, which Trump repeatedly made note of.
But while many set their hair on fire and appeared to jump off the Trump train in dismay as Democrats cheerfully crowed about how they had stymied a major part of Trump's agenda, others kept a level head and began to dig deep among the 2,200-plus pages - and all referenced statutes mentioned therein - in search of some hidden reason why the president had signed this bloated spending bill into law instead of sending it back with a veto.
That search was bolstered somewhat by
a letter sent on Saturday from the White House to both chambers of Congress which
cited a specific statute from the funds-governing 1985 Budget Control Act in relation to a specific section of the new spending bill and declared that certain funding had been designated as an "emergency requirement," which some believe grants the president
legal authority to shift funds around and prioritize spending - or even not spend at all - certain funds in relation to declared emergencies, in this case specifically as they pertain to national defense.
Comment: Israeli arrogance on full display.