Congress voted 357-22 Thursday to support Pelosi's trillion dollar slush fund for NATO instead of $5 billion for a Mexico border wall
Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) visiting NATO in Belgium on May 27th, 2007. (National Atlantic Treaty Organization)
At the time of the above photo, she was Speaker of the House of Representatives and fourth in line to the Presidency.
She still is.
House Speaker Pelosi sits in the front row for a reason.
She is in charge of divvying up more than just America’s trillion dollar NATO funds.
The Speaker also controls how the federal budget is spent. That too is over a trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000).
The ten-year weapons for Russia is $306 billion, or a third of NATO’s budget.
Speaker Pelosi is also in charge of the U.S. Capitol Police. They report to her.
NATO’s budget is more than the budgets of 27 of its 28 member countries. The U.S. is the only NATO member with a budget over $800 million.
The U.S. has been paying from 66 to 82.5 per cent of the NATO budget since 2011.
Both slabs of pork, the U.S. and NATO’s defense budget, are courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.
Congress voted 357-22 Thursday to support NATO.
A trillion dollars to support permanent war in Europe, Asia, and Africa?
But $5 billion to build a wall on the Mexican border to protect American citizens?
Five billion dollars is .005 of a trillion dollars. Or half a penny on a dollar.
Page Six of the 15-page report, "Defence (defense) Expenditure of NATO Countries (2011-2018)” dated July 18th, 2018
Here are the Congressman who voted against paying for NATO, according to the Congressional record:
Fifty-four Congressman abstained.
This is a vote supporting the affirmative or “Yes” votes.
The Congressional Record tabulated it as “Not Voting”.
That list is here:
The rest voted “Yes” to spend a trillion dollars to pay for weapons for NATO.
To become law, the Senate must also pass it.
President Donald J. Trump can veto it.
If he does, both Houses of Congress can override it with two-thirds of each branch approving it.
Abstentions will be tabulated as “for” rather than “against”.