Red Cell: Wargaming the border crisis

Below is a transcript of this segment

Buck: There’s no doubt that the situation at the border is a total mess right now, which means that the unexpected is likely to happen. The president is going to do something, we’re not clear on what that is, and we’re going to have to take a look at what the possibilities are if we’re going to anticipate them. So with that in mind, I want to introduce you to a concept. It’s something that I learned from my days in the CIA. I want to apply that to the border. Now, it’s called Red Cell.

Red Cell is basically a wargaming exercise, but it looks specifically at high-impact, low-probability scenarios, things that could happen and if they did happen would really make a very big difference. It also looks at things that are likely and tries to then give us a sense, an analytic sense, of where all of this is going. It’s a way of viewing potential outcomes without actually knowing the future.

So joining me to hash this out and Red Cell the border with me is Dan Stein. He’s the President of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Dan, thank you for your time.

Dan: Good to be here.

Buck: So one possibility as we see it now is that there could be a show of force. Now, this is based upon the reporting that the federal agents are going to be showing up now with batons and with riot shields prepared for less than lethal force usage against American citizens who protest these busing policies of taking illegal immigrants who are caught at or near the border and moving them into cities or towns far away from the border.

First of all, do you see this as a high likelihood, and then, more importantly, if this were to happen, do you think that this would dramatically change the immigration debate if there was some sort of clash between citizens and federal agencies on how this whole thing is playing out?

Dan: Well, at fair, we think the American people have had enough, and they’re drawing a line in the sand when it appears as if the executive branch has abandoned its commitment to enforce U.S. borders and taxpayers are expected to pick up the tab for people who may not have been properly inspected when they come across the border without limit. It’s not surprising to see American citizens stand up and protest what seems to be just patently illegal activity by the president.

Now, there are all kinds of evidence that the executive branch and this administration has backed itself into a corner. Politically speaking, they have undermined U.S. immigration law enforcement by repeatedly adopting policies nationally calculated to send a message all around the world that our borders are not going to be enforced and that if you get here illegally you’re never going to be removed.

As a result, you know, ICE, border patrol, and others have been transformed into a welcoming center and a diaper changing service and not doing the jobs they were hired to do. And ICE officials have been warning us for years that this administration was dismantling them and their core mission.

Buck:Do you believe that federal agents would use force though to move these protesters out of the way? Do you think we could see an ugly incident if these protests continue?

Dan: There’s no question that we could see an incident depending on how the protests unfold, and there’s no question that it would set up a scenario where the average American would see confirming in his or her mind that the federal government has set itself directly at variance with the interests of the American people.

Buck: Now Dan, let me move on really quickly because we’re going to run short on time.

Dan: Sure.

Buck: The second scenario we’re talking about here is the possibility that President Obama decides to expand deferred action categories. This is the pen and the phone situation where he just on his own says you know what, we’re not going to send back whole sections of people, whole different groups of people because I say so. Do you think the president might actually do that, and also, what would that do to hope for comprehensive immigration reform as they call it? And you think it would have an impact politically?

Dan: Well, at fair, we have every indication the president is planning to expand this illegal use of parole power to include five, six, ten million people, no doubt about it that since he’s already usurped the Congress’s role and taken control of who gets to come into this country, nothing will prevent him from expanding that. And politically speaking, it sounds like based on what he said in the meeting last week that that’s what he’s going to do.

Buck: Now, what about the possibility of an outlier scenario here, something, although we have seen some cases of infectious disease already crossing over the borders, but perhaps a swine flu outbreak, something of a public health crisis that comes out of this? Do you think that that would force Democrats to take border security more seriously or would they just say well, we need to give HHS more money and somehow the bureaucracy will handle this? Do you think that they would be in a position where they would have to change their basic position which seems to be amnesty in different ways and different means?

Dan: Well look, the Democratic Party, Joe Biden, Senator Feinstein, I mean, they own this border crisis, and when border patrol agents are busy with young people, they’re not patrolling the border, so cartels are smuggling people in. We don’t know what their motives are, obviously people who haven’t been properly inspected for health screening and other things. And in the end, the Democratic Party has said look, we don’t care whether people come in legally or illegally, actively encouraging them, state after state now encouraging them.

What will it take to get the Democratic Party to once again assume that there is political risk to what they’re doing? Maybe a major contagious disease outbreak, maybe a major terror incident, but I’ll tell you that the administration is playing with fire. They’ve backed themselves into a very dangerous corner politically just to try to take advantage of this demonizing agenda they have with the Latino vote and the Republican Party, and the American people are seriously at risk.

Buck: Dan Stein, President of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, we appreciate your time very much. Thank you for joining us.

Dan: Thank you.

Science did it again. It only took 270 million years, but this week, scientists finally solved the mystery that has kept the world up at night. We finally know where octopuses come from: outer space. That explains why they look like the aliens in just about every alien movie ever made.

RELATED: Changes in technology can be cause for concern, but THIS is amazing

It turns out octopuses were aliens that evolved on another planet. Scientists haven't determined which one yet, but they've definitely narrowed it down to one of the planets in one of the galaxies. Hundreds of millions of years ago (give or take a hundred), these evolved octopus aliens arrived on Earth in the form of cryopreserved eggs. Now, this part is just speculation, but it's possible their alien planet was on the verge of destruction, so Mom and Dad Octopus self-sacrificially placed Junior in one of these cryopreserved eggs and blasted him off the planet to save their kind.

This alien-octopus research, co-authored by a group of 33 scientists, was published in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal. I'm sure you keep that on your nightstand like I do.

Anyway, these scientists say octopuses evolved very rapidly over 270 million years. Which sounds slow, but in evolutionary terms, 270 million years is like light speed. And the only explanation for their breakneck evolution is that they're aliens. The report says, “The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes — more than is present in Homo sapiens."

Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

They mention that the octopus' large brain, sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies and ability to change color and shape all point to its alien nature. Octopuses developed those capabilities rather suddenly in evolution, whereas we're still trying to figure out the TV remote.

These biological enhancements are so far ahead of regular evolution that the octopuses must have either time-traveled from the future, or “more realistically" according to scientists, crash-landed on earth in those cryopreserved egg thingies. The report says the eggs arrived here in “icy bolides." I had to look up what a “bolide" is, and turns out it's a fancy word for a meteor.

So, to recap: a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, an alien race of octopuses packed their sperm-bank samples in some meteors and shot them toward Earth. Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

President Trump's approval rating is rising, and Democrats — hilariously — can't seem to figure out what's going on. A few months ago Democrats enjoyed a sixteen point lead over Republicans, but now — according to CNN's recent national survey — that lead is down to just THREE points. National data from Reuters shows it as being even worse.

The Democratic advantage moving towards the halfway mark into 2018 shows that Republicans are only ONE point behind. The president's public approval rating is rising, and Democrats are nervously looking at each other like… “umm guys, what are we doing wrong here?"

I'm going to give Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi a little hint. We know that the Left has enjoyed a “special relationship" with the media, but they might want to have a sit down with their propaganda machine. The mainstream media is completely out of control, and Americans are sick of it. We're DONE with the media.

RELATED: The mainstream media wants you to believe Trump is waging war on immigrants — here's the truth

Look what has been going on just this week. The president called MS-13 gang members animals, but that's not the story the media jumped on. They thought it was more clickable to say that Trump was calling all immigrants animals instead. In the Middle East, the media rushed to vilify Israel instead of Hamas. They chose to defend a terror organization rather than one of our oldest allies.

Think about that. The media is so anti-Trump that they've chosen a violent street gang AND A GLOBAL TERROR ORGANIZATION as their torch-bearing heroes. Come on, Democrats. Are you seriously baffled why the American people are turning their backs on you?

Still not enough evidence? Here's the New York Times just yesterday. Charles Blow wrote a piece called "A Blue Wave of Moral Restoration" where he tried to make the case that the president and Republicans were the enemy, but — fear not — Democrat morality was here to save the day.

Here are some of these cases Blow tries to make for why Trump is unfit to be President:

No person who treats women the way Trump does and brags on tape about sexually assaulting them should be president.

Ok, fine. You can make that argument if you want to, but why weren't you making this same argument for Bill Clinton? Never mind, I actually know the reason. Because you were too busy trying to bury the Juanita Broaddrick story.

Let's move on:

No person who has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar should be president.

Do the words, “You can keep your doctor" mean anything to the New York Times or Charles Blow? I might have saved the best for last:

No person enveloped by a cloud of corruption should be president.

I can only think of three words for a response to this: Hillary Frigging Clinton.

Try displaying a little consistency.

If the media really wants Donald Trump gone and the Democrats to take over, they might want to try displaying a little consistency. But hey, maybe that's just too much to ask.

How about starting with not glorifying terrorist organizations and murderous street gangs. Could we at least begin there?

If not… good luck in the midterms.

In the weeks following President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the mainstream media was quick to criticize the president's pro-Israel stance and make dire predictions of violent backlash in the Middle East. Fast forward to this week's opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem and the simultaneous Palestinian “protests" in Gaza.

RELATED: Just another day in Iran: Parliment chants death to America after Trump pulls out of nuclear deal

Predictably, the mainstream media chastised Israel for what they called “state-sanctioned terrorism" when the IDF stepped in to protect their country from so-called peaceful Palestinian protesters. Hamas leaders later admitted that at least 50 of the 62 Palestinians killed in the clashes were Hamas terrorists.

“In our post-modern media age, there is no truth and nobody even seems to be looking for it …. This is shamefully clear in the media especially this week with their coverage of the conflict between the border of Israel and the Gaza strip," said Glenn on today's show. He added, “The main media narrative this week is about how the IDF is just killing innocent protesters, while Hamas officials have confirmed on TV that 50 of the 62 people killed were working for Hamas."

The mainstream media views the Palestinians as the oppressed people who just want to share the land and peacefully coexist with the people of Israel. “They can't seem to comprehend that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only one side is actively trying to destroy the other," surmised Glenn.

Watch the video above to hear Glenn debunk the “peaceful Palestinian protest" fallacy.

Here are a few headlines regarding the protests in Israel: 'Global protests grow after Israeli killing of Palestinian demonstrators,' the Guardian. 'Israel kills dozens at Gaza Border,' the New York Times. 'Palestinians mourn dead in Gaza as protests continue,' CNN. 'Over 50 Palestinians in massive protest are killed by Israeli military, bloodiest day in Gaza since 2014 war,' ABC News. 'Gaza begins to bury its dead after deadliest day in years,' BBC.

RELATED: Here's why Israel used lethal force during mass protests in Gaza yesterday

In each, the spoken or unspoken subject of the sentence and villain of the story is Israel. Innocent Palestinians murdered by the cruel Israelis. This is the narrative that the mainstream media has promulgated. Few have mentioned that the majority of the “protestors" that died were members of Hamas, the militant (and highly anti-Semetic) Sunni-Islamist organization that has been labeled a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

A senior Hamas official told reporters that 50 of the 59 people killed in Monday's protests were members of Hamas, and the remainder were “from the people." So…they were all Hamas.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative. Maybe they think of Palestinians as underdogs and they love a good scrap. Well, they aren't underdogs. But their outburst have been glorified for so long that it's near impossible to disagree with that narrative.