There's just too much to keep up!

The level of activity so far has been awesome! Tired of winning? Not by a long shot. Keep it up Mr. president.

Paris Climate Accords; 

Border wall;

AI investment;

DEI shut down;

Elon Musk backs border wall

Well...yeah.

Border Wall Update

Via Fox News, a summary of the border wall status:

Border wall hammer time

President Trump is going to drop the tariff hammer on Mexico for not stopping the illegal immigrant flow.

Emergency Funding for the border wall

The path to this outcome was inevitable and the president's end game was well thought through. More on that later.

President Trump's televised address

Last night the president made a televised address and if I recall correctly this is the first time he's done it (I'm not including his State of The Nation speeches to congress).  Given the government partial shutdown over the impasse on the border wall, the administration must have felt there was some urgency to address the issue and share the president's side of the story. Otherwise the president could have remained with Twitter as the primary source of his arguments.

I've maintained that the president should be doing this type of address more often.  Yes, it's scripted which is not his forte.  It's also true that it gives the Democrats a last word rebuttal and the networks a chance to claim he's lying again (and yes that happened).  But it is an opportunity for the president to talk, unfiltered and uninterrupted by the media (I'm looking at you Fake Jim Acosta), and at 9 or so minutes, highly focused and specific.  It's a golden opportunity that's been underutilized by the president so far.

Maybe the president was holding this in reserve and had always planned on shifting the battlefront in order to keep Democrats and the media off balance.  That would be a smart reason for holding off.  You can see that when you see the response by Pelosi and Schumer who looked like a pair of aliens just discovering life on earth in their response.  Or perhaps, the president felt that by holding addresses in abeyance that when he does it, it carries added weight resulting from the rarity of it's use.  Both are good reasons, and even if it was just a preference for Twitter, the timeliness of the change serves both those points and does so in regards to probably his signature campaign issue.

Here's the president's address:

And how did the Democrats respond? With lies and a cringe-worthy lack of charisma and empathetic engagement.

I know a lot of people looking at that were thinking of the painting American Gothic, but in a comic vein, I see it more as this:

Nancy Pelosi's own border consists of underlings

The guy who set up the GoFundMe page for the public to provide private, non-governmental funding for a border wall went to collect a buck from Nancy Pelosi who jokingly said she'd accept a buck for the wall.

Ironicaly, he ran into a gatekeeper, because Nancy Pelosi just can't allow anyone coming into her office, she has to choose who is allowed in to speak to her. That's hilarious.

In case you missed the irony, she's using a wall of associates to block entry.  Apparently Nancy Pelosi is irony impaired. 

ABC News caught lying about president Trump's position on the shutdown and wall

ABC News, like CNN, is fake news.  By fake news I am using it as shorthand for not factual, just the way the media malformed the term alt-right to equate to Nazis (who by nature are socialists, therefore anathema to conservative positions). 

Watch this video and tell me truthfully that you don't see any ill-intent in the news piece discussed.  And if you truly believe that, then you have to admit at least, that these journalists are really, really incompetent.  If you the believe the latter, that too should raise alarm bells for you.

How can you make smart decisions when you are badly (and in all likelihood, deliberately) misinformed?

Parsing the president on the border wall

A lot of conservatives are distraught that the president is sounding like he's caving on the border wall.  There has been indication that he might cave.  Last time he caved on something he said he would never sign bad legislation again.  But he's seemingly been very bi-partisan in lame duck legislation signing so far this year. He's even been conciliatory, at times.  But seemingly he's going to capitulate now.

But less than an hour ago the president tweeted this:

The Democrats, who know Steel Slats (Wall) are necessary for Border Security, are putting politics over Country. What they are just beginning to realize is that I will not sign any of their legislation, including infrastructure, unless it has perfect Border Security. U.S.A. WINS!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 20, 2018

Seems like even though Mitch McConnell caved in the senate, the president will not sign a continuing resolution to keep the partial government shut down from happening until at least February (when the Democrats will control congress).  I don't get McConnell except to say that clearly border security is not a priority for him.  But you'd think since he's supposedly a shrewd political tactician he'd understand the value of a win, the value of the base and the value of using the lame duck session to maximize what Republicans can achieve over the next two years.  Apparently not.

But look back at what the president just tweeted.  It seems when he says "sign any of their legislation" he is referring yo Democrat legislation, not what Mitch McConnell just passed.  That's a possible interpretation.

If that's the case, the president could be gearing up for 2020 as a referendum on the feckless, fake border security stance of Democrats.  It's a good issue for him.  But it relies on border security voters not caring or forgetting that he did not stand up to feckless, fake border security Republicans this year.  That might turn out to be a political miscalculation by the president, not his first, but by far his most egregious. 

It could be some other calculus, but if that's the case, I cannot see the angle.  Then again, perhaps the president will indeed veto the legislation.  That would be a sign to his supporters that he has not given up the fight, and what we are seeing is just tactics with some design.

Time will tell.

Quick Hit: Factual History vs. Frantic Hysteria on Military Border Patrols

CNN is no doubt definitely panicking over president Trump's decision to treat the Mexican border as a national security issue and use the military to patrol the border.  One analyst went so far as to describe it as the military taking to the streets.  Um, no.  Military at the border is a real thing.  Not just on the Mexican border, but throughout history. The Berlin Wall.  The DMZ in Korea.  Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.  Countless other examples exist.

When faced with factual history, apparently left prefers frantic hysteria.  But that's not news, and neither is CNN.

Ironic end-around on the border wall

Walls are meant to keep people from getting in  or out of something or somewhere.  So it's more than a little ironic that president Trump is considering going around the end of the legislative wall to get funding for building the wall on the Mexican border.

Trump has told advisers that he was spurned in a large spending bill last week when lawmakers appropriated only $1.6 billion for the border wall. He has suggested to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and congressional leaders that the Pentagon could fund the sprawling project, citing a "national security" risk.

After floating the notion to several advisers last week, Trump told House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., that the military should pay for the wall, according to three people familiar with the meeting last Wednesday in the White House residence. Ryan offered little reaction to the idea, these people said, but senior Capitol Hill officials later said it was an unlikely prospect.

Trump's pursuit of defense dollars to finance the U.S.-Mexico border wall underscores his determination to fulfill a campaign promise and build the barrier despite resistance in the Republican-led Congress. The administration's last-minute negotiations with lawmakers to secure billions more for the wall failed, and Trump grudgingly signed the spending bill Friday after a short-lived veto threat.

If it's a national security issue, and it kinda is, then military funding is most certainly an option. There's no Constitutional issue, even though Democrats will decry the unconstitutionality of it, and the article I quoted tries to make the case that it would require Congressional votes to make changes to the military budget (it makes no case that that's true, they just state it as fact).

As an aside, president Trump is saying he regrets signing the the Omnibus bill.  That could be a talking point or a lesson learned.  

Four days later, Trump continued to express regret over signing the $1.3 trillion package, which funded the government and averted a shutdown, saying it was a mistake and he should have followed his instincts.

We'll know in a few months when the next continuing resolution comes up, if the president is going to take a firmer stand.

Trump to veto omnibus bill?

It seems like a real possibility.

I am considering a VETO of the Omnibus Spending Bill based on the fact that the 800,000 plus DACA recipients have been totally abandoned by the Democrats (not even mentioned in Bill) and the BORDER WALL, which is desperately needed for our National Defense, is not fully funded.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 23, 2018

UPDATE:  Perhaps not. But next time... (assuming he gets another chance from his supporters).

Omnibus ouch!

Bad then, bad now.

Well, I'm forced to be consistent on this.  When Democrats introduced an omnibus bill when Obama was president I was infuriated by the debt implications of the spending.  Now that it's happening under president Trump's watch, I again have to say, ouch.

Via Hot Air, this observation:

Like most omnibus bills, this will get shoved through Congress quickly enough to keep people from noticing its worst aspects. Its 2200-page length would require several days to read in detail — well, several days and plenty of No-Doz.

I haven't had time to review it but it seems like both military and domestic spending are up. The deficit and debt will go up as a result (discounting potential tax revenue increases a la Art Laffer resulting from the tax cuts).  An increase in military spending is an unfortunate necessity given a near decade of Obama-era neglect desecration of military readiness.

But no border wall funding of which to speak.  No DACA resolution, which was the issue of the day last time around.   And increased domestic spending?  How can you drain the swamp when you keep pumping money into it?

The interesting piece will be how president Trump reacts to the bill.  Does he veto it?  He has reasons to do so but then again he's outsourced the budget discussions to congress and my suspicion is that he won't veto it. That would be a big disappointment.  Then again if he does, it will be a big win with his supporters.

Maybe president Trump should build the wall around California

California is looking at becoming a sanctuary state apparently;

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) – Over objections from sheriffs’ unions and the California Police Chiefs Association, the California Assembly Judiciary Committee took a step forward in making the Golden State a sanctuary for undocumented immigrants.

State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon, D-Los Angeles, said his measure, Senate Bill 54 or the “California Values Act,” is intended to prevent state and local law enforcement from cooperating with what he calls the “Trump Deportation Machine.”

Opponents call it a “sanctuary state measure” that goes against federal immigration law and obstructs the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to do their job.

How far this gets isn't clear, but if California policy becomes a threat to national security perhaps a border wall around the state becomes necessary.  A fence is only as good as it's weakest link and clearly California is trying to render the border wall pointless by subsuming federal immigration policy to California's state preferences. While a legal challenge might derail California's policy that could take years. Without an enforceable national policy, illegal immigrants to California could easily travel, restriction free to any other state.

This week: Democrats promising a showdown on "x"

If Democrats want to be taken seriously on the wall, maybe they should consider at least finally passing the rest of president Trump's nominees for secretaries.  

RollCall says Democrats are promising a showdown on president Trump's border wall legislation.  But they are creating a showdown on his appointments, a showdown on immigration, a showdown on Russia.  The Democrats should rename themselves the Showdown Party.  Yes they are slowing down president Trump's agenda.  The cost is their future electoral victories.

Senate Democrats are warning Republicans of a shutdown showdown if President Donald Trump insists on including funding for a wall along the Mexican border in April’s government funding bill.

“We believe it would be inappropriate to insist on the inclusion of such funding in a must-pass appropriations bill that is needed for the Republican majority in control of the Congress to avert a government shutdown so early in President Trump’s Administration,” the Senate Democratic leadership team, along with Appropriations ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, wrote in a letter to be circulated Monday.

The letter was directed to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss., but the clear audience was the Trump administration and the new president himself.

The problem with opposing everything, is that they have telegraphed  their entire agenda and can therefore be manipulated if president Trump is smart about it.  The other problem for Democrats is that by already opposing everything, they've given up all bargaining power.  The threat is hollow.  Everyone knows they are going to throw up roadblocks.  I they hope to get any measure of input they have to use the threat as a bargaining chip.  They continue to show that they cannot be bargained with and therefore the GOP doesn't need to bother trying.  As soon as the GOP realizes that, they could potentially get a lot done.