January 16-17, 2018
Jan 16 00:29 President Trump's next speech Jan 16 01:55 Diggs & Gene Larkin, Part II Jan 16 08:51 The difference a wall makes Jan 16 13:36 Obstructionist DACA Democrats Jan 16 15:08 Democrats' racism accusations Jan 17 01:21 Sen. Graham's DACA negotiations Jan 17 06:43 BS environmental lawsuits Jan 17 07:43 The Democrats' shutdown Jan 17 16:58 Minnesota's regulators gone wild
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
President Trump's next speech
With Democrats insisting that they won't vote to fund government unless there's also a 'clean DACA bill', I'd recommend that President Trump's speechwriters put together a speech that politically cuts the Democrats' legs off. That speech must spell out several things, starting with funding the military but also including the fact that any negotiations must include the top priorities for both parties. Specifically, it must say that a DACA fix is available only if it includes funding for President Trump's wall. Period. It must also include a funding increase for the military. Here's what that speech would say if I wrote it:
My fellow Americans, American politics has been broken since before I got to DC. A prime example of this was a moment of bipartisan insanity that eventually got called sequestration. When Congress passed sequestration, they voted to cut military spending unless they spent additional money on domestic programs. Often, those programs were used to buy votes.
When I got elected, the American people voted for someone who wanted to drain the bipartisan swamp. That's my goal today. It's been my goal since the day I got here. Now, the bipartisan swamp is trying to maintain the status quo by insisting that I sign a clean DACA fix. While that sounds good, the truth is that it would hurt American workers because a clean DACA bill wouldn't fix chain migration, build the wall or end the visa lottery. It's important that we have all 3 of those things.
Let's make this perfectly clear. I won't sign a clean DACA fix. Further, I'm insisting that Democrats vote with Republicans to pass another continuing resolution. This time, though, I want it to include a significant increase in military spending. Considering how hollowed out the military became thanks to sequestration, it's unforgivable not to fix the problem that's been created. Once we fix the military's funding crisis, then we'll sit down with leaders of both parties who are willing to negotiate in good faith. The foundation for those good faith negotiations are simple.
First, the wall is an essential tool in preventing drug smuggling and human trafficking. It isn't the only tool but it's an important tool. Second, not fixing chain migration simply means that the illegal immigrants already here would be able to bring their relatives to the United States simply because they're relatives. I'm trying to change the immigration system to a merit-based system. It's impossible to co-maintain a merit-based system and a chain migration-based system. They're incompatible with each other. Third, we must end the Diversity Visa Lottery because its goal is to "ensure plenty of diversity in US immigration, so only individuals from countries underrepresented in US immigration are allowed to apply."
My goal is to make sure that immigration helps strengthen the US economy. Wherever there are talented people who will help the American economy grow, we should consider their applications. To Washington, that doesn't make sense. Throughout the rest of the nation, it's the only system that makes sense.
Bringing me another rehash of the same policies that have been discussed before, whether it's from the Gang of Eight bill or from the recent Gang of Six proposal, will be immediately rejected. As a negotiator, I understand giving on something I don't like to get something I really want. Thus far, Democrats have said they won't budge on funding the wall in exchange for the DACA fix.
I'm here to tell DACA recipients something important. Namely, I'm willing to sign a bill that gives DACA recipients piece of mind if it includes funding for the Wall and if it ends chain migration. The minute a bill that contains those things reaches my desk is the minute I'll sign it.
Let me finish by summarizing my proposals. First, Congress must pass a clean CR that includes a funding increase for the military and that funds the government for the rest of this year by this Friday. Second, I will sign a DACA fix bill that includes funding for the Wall and that ends chain migration. Third, I won't sign a rehash legislation that's been the centerpiece of the Gang of Eight or Gang of Six bills because I want to sign something that puts America first.
Thank you and may God bless America.
It's imperative that President Trump's next speech does 3 things. It's imperative that President Trump insists on a clean CR that increases military spending and that funds the government for the rest of the year. Further, it's imperative that President Trump's next speech calls out the Democrats for not negotiating in good faith on the military and on DACA. Finally, it's imperative that President Trump's next speech defines what he'll sign in terms of DACA and why he's insisting on those things.
If President Trump's next speech happens this week and lays out those things, he will change the conversation. In fact, I'd argue that that speech would put Democrats on the defensive. Finally, it's time to start hyping the theme that Sen. Durbin isn't a trustworthy person:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Tuesday, January 16, 2018 12:29 AM
No comments.
Diggs & Gene Larkin, Part II
As a long-suffering Vikings fan, it's time for them to end the drought and hoist the Lombardi Trophy. It couldn't happen to a more deserving team. On Sunday, Case Keenum, the player who started the season as the Vikings' backup quarterback, connected with Stefon Diggs to produce the greatest memory in Twin sports history since Dan Gladden raced home in the bottom of the tenth inning of Game 7 of the 1991 World Series.
The stories are eerily similar, though there are some dissimilarities. For instance, the Twins started the season with a 2-9 record. The Vikings got off to a slow start at 2-2 before starting on an 8-game winning streak. In early April of 1991, Twins fans were skeptical that the Twins could be a .500 team. Thoughts of winning a World Series championship weren't just distant. With the fans, they didn't exist. With the Vikings' defense, there was reason for optimism for the team, although winning a Super Bowl championship in their home stadium wasn't common.
The similarities start when the Twins took off on a 15-game win streak that ended in Baltimore and the Vikings ran off an 8-game win streak that ended in Carolina. Another similarity was that the teams had great defenses and a couple superstars that played like superstars. Most importantly, Tom Kelly and Mike Zimmer both preached the importance of playing seamless, complimentary ball.
That meant different contributors each night. With the Twins, that meant contributions from Mike Pagliarulo and Scott Leius at third, Chuck Knoblauch at second and Shane Mack in the outfield. With the Vikings, it's meant unexpected but welcome contributions from safety Andrew Sendejo, defensive linemen like Shamar Stephen, Tom Johnson and offensive linemen like Rashod Hill and Jeremiah Sirles and breakout seasons by Case Keenum and Adam Thielen.
In his 1991 article titled " A Series to Savor ", Steve Rushin wrote this:
For it was only 24 hours earlier that Minnesota centerfielder Kirby Puckett had virtually single-handedly forced a seventh game by assembling what has to rank among the most outrageous all-around performances the World Series has ever seen. Puckett punctuated his night by hitting a home run in the bottom of the 11th inning off Atlanta's Charlie Liebrandt. The solo shot gave the Twins a 4-3 win and gave Puckett's teammates the same "chill-bump feeling" Braves manager Bobby Cox confessed to having had in Atlanta, where the Braves had swept Games 3, 4 and 5 earlier in the week to take a three games to two lead into Minneapolis.
Hrbek was reduced to a 10-year-old when the Series was tied last Saturday night; Sunday morning would be Christmas Day. "Guys will be staring at the ceiling tonight," he said following Game 6. "They won't even know if their wives are next to 'em. I know I won't. She won't want to hear that, but...."
Minnesota hitting coach Terry Crowley was reduced to a doddering man in long underwear that same evening, pacing a small circle in the clubhouse, head down and muttering to no one, "It's unbelievable. Unbelievable."
And Twins manager Tom Kelly fairly shed his skin in the aftermath of that game, wriggling from the hard exterior he has worn throughout his career and revealing himself to be, like the rest of us, both awed and addled by all he had witnessed. "This is storybook," Kelly said. " Who's got the script? Who is writing this? Can you imagine this? "
I've now had 2 such moments of watching Minnesota sports that simply can't be adequately described. They can't be explained. They must be experienced.
It isn't understatement to say that Stefon Diggs' reception and run to the end zone will be seen as a transcendent moment. It's almost to that point already. Here's Diggs' electric play:
[Video no longer available]
Here's Gene Larkin's magical moment:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:55 AM
No comments.
The difference a wall makes
Spoken like a true cookie cutter Democrat, last Friday night, newly minted U.S. Senator Tina Smith said that she's opposed to building the wall , saying that "the wall is just a dumb idea", adding that "most people don't think it's a good idea." It's good to know that Democrats think it's smart to set national security policy based on public opinion rather than on what works.
I'd love hearing Democrats explain why they're opposed to the wall after people read this article about El Paso. In the article, it says "Tell that to the residents of El Paso, Texas. Federal data show a far-less imposing wall than the one Trump envisions - a two-story corrugated metal fence first erected under the Bush administration - already has dramatically curtailed both illegal border crossings and crime in Texas' sixth-largest city, which borders the high-crime Mexican city of Juarez. In fact, the number of deportable illegal immigrants located by the US Border Patrol plummeted by more than 89 percent over the five-year period during which the controversial new fence was built, according to Homeland Security data reviewed by me. When the project first started in 2006, illegal crossings totaled 122,261, but by 2010, when the 131-mile fence was completed from one end of El Paso out into the New Mexico desert, immigrant crossings shrank to just 12,251."
In other words, a wall has already significantly reduced illegal border crossings in El Paso. That isn't the only benefit of building the wall:
And crime abated with the reduced human traffic from Juarez, considered one of the most dangerous places in the world due to drug-cartel violence, helping El Paso become one of the safest large cities in America.
Let's summarize. The wall in El Paso dramatically reduced illegal border crossings and it helped reduce drug-related crime, too. Let's hear Democrats explain their opposition to something that dramatically reduces illegal border crossings and drug-related crimes.
Before 2010, federal data show the border city was mired in violent crime and drug smuggling, thanks in large part to illicit activities spilling over from the Mexican side. Once the fence went up, however, things changed almost overnight. El Paso since then has consistently topped rankings for cities of 500,000 residents or more with low crime rates, based on FBI-collected statistics.
Democrats opposed to the wall need to explain why they're opposed to stopping violent crime and drug smuggling.
Another core promise made by Trump to justify constructing a massive wall spanning from Texas to California is that it will slow the flow of drugs coming across the border from Mexico. "We need the wall for security. We need the wall for safety," Trump said last week while answering questions about the sweeping new GOP immigration bill. "We need the wall for stopping the drugs from pouring in."
On that score, El Paso already has exceeded expectations.
Drug smuggling along that border entry point has also fallen dramatically. In fact, since the fence was completed, the volume of marijuana and cocaine coming through El Paso and seized by Border Patrol agents has been cut in half. The year before the wall was fully built in 2010, the volume of illegal drugs confiscated by the feds along the El Paso border hit 87,725 pounds. The year after, the amount of drug seizures plummeted to 43,783 pounds. Last year, they dropped even further to a total of 34,329, according to Border Patrol reports obtained by The Post.
Obama, Schumer and Feinstein all voted for building a wall in 2006:
[Video no longer available]
I don't doubt that Democrats will insist that things have changed since 2006. That's true. Since then, large portions of the wall have been built. The FBI and ICE have had time to accumulate crime data. Since those sections of walls were built, illegal crossings have dropped, illegal drug confiscation has significantly increased and crime has dropped.
In other words, we now have proof that walls work. This isn't theory anymore.
Posted Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:51 AM
No comments.
Obstructionist DACA Democrats
Appearing on Fox News' Outnumbered, David Asman started off the show by saying that he thinks Democrats don't want a DACA deal because they don't want to give President Trump a political victory. That's an opinion I hold because the Democrats' Resistance Movement has been their strategy since President Trump's inauguration. The proof is plentiful that Democrats have deployed obstructionism since President Trump's inauguration. They've used every Senate rule to slow the confirmations of President Trump's Cabinet secretaries.
Further, Democrats unanimously voted against the Trump/GOP tax cuts even though many so-called moderates said there were parts of the tax cuts that they really liked. Despite liking major parts of the Trump/GOP tax cuts, every Democrat in the House and Senate voted against helping their constituents in the hopes of retaking the House of Representatives.
Multiple Senate Democrats oppose the building of Trump's wall, saying that it doesn't work. There's tons of proof that it does . It's in ICE's official reports. It's in FBI reports, too. The statistics speak for themselves. It isn't that the Wall doesn't work. It's that the special interests that fund the Democrats' campaigns insist that Democrats not vote for anything that would improve border security.
Here's the dirty truth: Democrats would much rather do what their special interest allies instruct them to do rather than make life better for DACA recipients. Here's another dirty little truth: Democrats don't want a merit-based immigration system. Asman explains why we need to implement a merit-based immigration system immediately in this video:
[Video no longer available]
Nothing that Asman said in describing his sister-in-law interests the Democrats. Why would they want self-sufficient immigrants with a history of creating small businesses to move to the United State? Democrats have shown that they prefer people who can't stand on their own or that need government programs. If you don't think that's the truth, explain why Democrats insist on increasing the number of refugees entering from terrorist-infested nations.
Finally, Democrats want to create the storyline that Republicans shut down the government. Democrats are playing with fire this time. They're saying no to increasing military spending, something that won't play well this November. Think about this: Democrats don't want to secure the Tex-Mex border. Democrats don't want to rebuild the military, either. Democrats oppose stopping drug cartel-related crime, too.
Perhaps Democrats would like to explain something that they're for that the American people want. And when I say that they should explain what they're for, I'm talking about actually voting for it, not just saying that they're for it. Words don't mean much without actions.
Posted Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:36 PM
No comments.
Democrats' racism accusations
William McGurn's column , titled "Wanted: An Honest FBI", perfectly puts on display the difference between how Republicans see law enforcement and how Democrats talk about law enforcement.
McGurn's column starts by talking about James Kallstrom. Kallstrom is described as coming "up through the FBI ranks, eventually becoming an assistant director and heading the bureau's largest field office in New York. Over his career Mr. Kallstrom is credited with revolutionizing the bureau's electronic surveillance, as well as leading big cases ranging from the probe into the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 to mob investigations such as the one that helped send the 'Teflon Don - Gambino crime boss John Gotti - to prison."
In McGurn's article, Kallstrom said that he doesn't recognize the FBI he worked in for 28 years. Kallstrom said that "99% of FBI agents are dedicated professionals. But the leadership in Washington has harmed the bureau's reputation." That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans have expressed clearly that they're upset with the political leadership within the FBI and the DOJ. By comparison, Democrats have branded officers on the streets as racists:
[Video no longer available]
Picture that. Gov. Dayton said that the police officer that shot Philando Castile wouldn't have shot him if he was white. First, that's insulting to that officer's professionalism, training and willingness to put himself in harm's way. Second, notice that Gov. Dayton didn't question the police chief. He criticized an officer on the street. How disgusting.
The problem started, [Kallstrom] suggests, when Mr. Comey allowed then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch to ensure the FBI investigation into Mrs. Clinton's emails would go nowhere. He rattles off a list of irregularities disturbing to any investigator: the reluctance to go to a grand jury for subpoenas, the immunity deals granted Clinton associates, the farce of an FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton that had a dozen people in the room, including Cheryl Mills, who was permitted to attend as counsel when she was a potential co-conspirator, etc.
While the Justice Department, not the FBI, makes these decisions, Mr. Kallstrom says Mr. Comey did have an option: "That was the moment he should have held a press conference, to announce his resignation - and then explain to the American people why he would not stay and preside over a sham investigation."
Let's be perfectly clear. There's nothing right about not impanelling a grand jury and not insisting that materials be turned over.
Kallstrom is right. The Lynch-Comey investigation was a sham from start to finish. The political leadership of the FBI is compromised by its partisanship. Republicans have taken great pains to not question the rank-and-file investigators. They've focused on the top brass.
By comparison, Democrats have frequently questioned whether rank-and-file police officers are racists. If Democrats can't stop thinking of rank-and-file police officers as racist, then we're at a tipping point.
Posted Tuesday, January 16, 2018 3:08 PM
No comments.
Sen. Graham's DACA negotiations
Thank God that Lindsey Graham isn't doing the negotiating on DACA for the Republicans. Thank God that President Trump is the negotiator, instead. First, according to Ed Henry, "the White House is planning on taking a hard line" on DACA negotiations. Henry also reported that ICE is stepping up enforcement activities at businesses like 7-11s in an attempt to put greater pressure on Democrats to negotiate a better deal for the White House. But I digress. Back to Sen. Graham.
Sen. Graham is stuck in a Gang of Eight rut. Tuesday, Sen. Graham implored President Trump to "close this deal." Next, Sen. Graham explains his plan, saying "So here's what I would suggest to you. Phase one: To expect my friends on the other side to go comprehensive for us, and DACA for them, is not going to happen. I'm telling my friends on the other side, DACA and nothing else is not going to happen. The sweet spot is DACA-plus, more than the DACA kids. And making down payments on border security. Moving slowly but surely towards a merit-based immigration system, to be followed by Phase Two."
With all due respect to Sen. Graham, in this instance, slow and steady lets too many illegal immigrants into the U.S. It doesn't win a race. With this administration putting pressure on Democrats and with the Democrats' special interests freaking out, don't be surprised if President Trump's pressure isn't a game-changer.
Last week, Rep. Martha McSally, (R-AZ), made things exceptionally clear that the Democrats' clean DACA bill was essentially dead and buried:
This wasn't communicated in gentle speak. Rep. McSally laid down the law on immigration. Don't be surprised if McSally's star doesn't rise during the DACA negotiations. Footnote: If that happens, the likelihood that she replaces Jeff Flake as Arizona's junior senator would increase significantly.
The Democrats are facing tons of pressure from immigration special interest groups, though they've been pressuring Democrats to hold to a hard line on DACA. Now that ICE is stepping up raids, don't be surprised if these special interest organizations don't experience a change of heart.
Posted Wednesday, January 17, 2018 1:21 AM
No comments.
BS environmental lawsuits
Anyone thinking that environmental organizations care about public opinion or common sense should read this article .
I took notice when it said "The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals announced Tuesday it will hear an oral argument in March over the lawsuit, brought by the Western Organization of Resource Councils and Friends of the Earth against Interior Department Secretary Ryan Zinke. The suit challenges that the federal government is underplaying the impact of mining coal on the land it leases."
I was especially stunned when Interior replied "In a response to the request for appeal, the defendant said, "Although the Plaintiffs' brief, in this case, goes into great detail about the science of global climate change, plaintiffs do not challenge any substantive agency action or allege a failure to carry out ."
This lawsuit shouldn't get taken seriously. Here's why:
Interior added: "This case, therefore, is like any other in which a plaintiff claims to identify a new environmental impact that the agency must take into account in its decision making."
The lawsuit against the Interior Department was initially dismissed by a federal court in 2015.
In other words, organizations like the Western Organization of Resource Councils and Friends of the Earth apparently exist to file trivial lawsuits. This video explains Friends of the Earth International's mission:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Wednesday, January 17, 2018 6:43 AM
No comments.
The Democrats' shutdown
If there is a government shutdown, it should be known as the Democrats' Shutdown'. It should be called the Democrats' Shutdown because they aren't hiding the fact that they're putting a higher priority on protecting adult illegal immigrants than they put on funding the military.
Democrats might be spared because "there may be enough moderate Democrats in the Senate who are not eager to shut down the government over the issue." Then again, the thought of Democrat moderates is quaint but it's living in the past.
Steny Hoyer, the House Minority Whip, is sounding a hardline note, saying "Time's up. We want to keep the government open. But I will repeat, we're not going to be held hostage to do things that we think are contrary to the best interests of the American people because we will do the right thing and [Republicans] don't care."
Actually, I'm betting against a government shutdown because Democrats know that they're in an impossible position. They're fighting for DACA illegal immigrants. Republicans are fighting to rebuild the military. That's a fight Democrats can't win. In a fight between sympathetic figures and legitimate American heroes, heroes win every time in a rout. This is rather telling:
Democratic leaders and centrists fear they'll be blamed for shuttering federal agencies - and that President Donald Trump's accusation that they're doing so to protect undocumented immigrants will backfire.
Democrats are in God's little acre -- east of the rock, west of the hard place. Good luck with that.
Posted Wednesday, January 17, 2018 7:43 AM
No comments.
Minnesota's regulators gone wild
After reading this article , I thought that this was another instance of regulators running wild. First, let's establish what happened.
According to the article, it "started in February with some bicycle wheels under a slide, right where they were supposed to be. "They were tucked underneath the slide in my front yard so the kids could access them, because they do things like experiment with physics and roll them down the hill," Giuliani said. It ended with the first correction orders she had received in 17 years of providing family child care. On top of the 55-hour weeks, the need to pursue training and do paperwork outside of that window and the emotional heft of helping children grow, there's now a green letter posted at the entrance to Giuliani's home, where it will echo her faults until 2019."
Seriously? This is proof that regulators either have too much time on their hands or they have a God complex. The other possibility is that this regulator is trying to pay in-home child care providers for humiliating the union by rejecting union representation. Whatever the regulator's motivation, this isn't acceptable. Here's the 'scene of the crime':
That certainly looks dangerous. It's a good thing that regulators wrote Giuliani up for being a threat to the children she takes care of.
Seriously, what's required is a culture change amongst regulators. There's no doubt that Minnesota is overregulated. That's why companies have either left Minnesota or they've expanded elsewhere. That's why Minnesota will lose a congressional district in the next round of reapportionment in 2021. It's that simple.
"Guilty until proven innocent,' testified Julie Seidel, membership director of the Minnesota Association of Child Care Professionals, who added the regulatory environment is 'burdensome and often unattainable ... and is discouraging providers from continuing child care."
It isn't just that laws need to be rewritten. It's that a total culture change is required. Common sense rules have been replaced by God-like declarations. Rather than just writing Ms. Giuliani a fix-it ticket, the regulator insisted on making an example of her.
County licensors also will be required to get additional training on licensing standards, with the goal of shifting from punitive to more constructive and educational licensing inspections. Giuliani countered that's like "sending a bully at school to sensitivity training and expecting that because they have 90 minutes of training they're not going to go back and do what they did before."
It'd be better to just throw out the people who've abused their power.
Posted Wednesday, January 17, 2018 4:58 PM
No comments.
