Three Things You Need to Know - December 5, 2017

Finally Banned... Maybe?

The US Supreme Court has finally, definitely, possibly… ok maybe temporarily Greenlit the travel ban. Are we ever going to get some kind of finality on this? This version of the ban - the third if anyone’s still counting - was issued FOUR months ago. It’s currently facing ongoing opposition from two lower courts in two separate challenges. Those cases will be heard this week, so that temporary win for the administration might end up be a short celebration.

You’ve really gotta give it to the Social Justice Warrior activists, media AND politicians. It’s pretty impressive how they can take any issue AT ALL, and turn it into Social Justice jihad. Are you Pro-Life? Well then you somehow hate women. Are you pro-religious liberty? Wow… what a fascist bigot you are. I would’ve loved to be a fly on the wall at the strategy table for when they began to strategize how to spin the travel ban.

“Quick guys what do all these countries have in common?”

Nerdy guy in the back raises his hand… “umm, they all have a lot of sand? Trump hates desert climates!”

“Nice thought! Maybe we could spin a climate change argument here. Quick! More ideas!”

Brainy girl with glasses stands up… “Uh, all these areas are conflict zones?”

“YOU IDIOT! That’s the stupidest idea we’ve heard. You can’t just say that and not follow it up with an agenda. Here, let me do the work for you… ‘these are unstable areas. A prime example of the effects of global colonialism.’ Boom.”

“Wait a minute. Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and Chad. There’s a lot of Muslims in these areas! Change the wording from ‘Trump’s Travel Ban’ to ‘A Travel Ban On Muslim Majority Countries.’ Of course there is that small issue of North Korea and Venezuela, but screw it. Done and done!”

Back to reality here for a second. If this truly were a Muslim ban then why the addition of North Korea and Venezuela? Why wouldn’t you add in the most populous Muslim countries in the world? Indonesia has 13% of the world’s Muslim population and thus the largest. India’s number 2 and Pakistan is number 3. The only country in the travel ban the breaks the top 10 is Iran.

Why are people so comfortable with putting a false Social Justice agenda ahead of National Security? Maybe it’s because the people pushing this will never have to live with the consequences? How many of them live in neighborhoods that will be overrun by illegal immigrants or refugee resettlements? I’m going to wager very few. Look at Hawaii. The state that has become famous for overruling the Travel ban. Since 2010 Hawaii has accepted a grand total of TEN refugees. That’s less than 1%. And non of their legal immigrants come anywhere close to the conflict areas listed on the Travel Ban… oh, but they’re all about allowing North Korea to stay on the ban list. So here’s to a little safety...well, for the next few days at least.

Conservative Principle Put Into Practice

After eight years of progressivism gone wild under President Obama, it’s startling when something conservative actually happens in government.

Yesterday, President Trump was in Utah to sign proclamations that reduce the size of two National Monuments – Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. The monuments were created by Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Keep in mind, all that Trump did yesterday was reduce the size of these monuments, he did not abolish them altogether.

However, Trump clearly hates the environment. At least that’s the predictable mainstream media take on his action. He doesn’t care about nature, he just wants to open protected lands so evil developers can swoop in and build condos.

The kind of national monument I’m talking about isn’t a statue, it’s land that Congress, or a president, is allowed to set aside and protect as a “historic landmark” of some kind. Once the land is declared a national monument, it’s closed to ranching, mining, recreation, or development of any kind – even if the local community doesn’t want the land to be protected as a national monument. In fact, often the local community actually needs the land for things like making a living.

This power to create national monuments comes from a provision in the 1906 Antiquities Act. That kind of provision is like giving crack to a Progressive. Bill Clinton, and then especially Barack Obama went crazy during their presidencies, scooping up ridiculous amounts of land for the federal government as national monuments. Obama declared more national monuments than any president in history. Congress has only declared 30 monuments in the 111 years since the Act – Barack Obama and Bill Clinton declared 41 monuments just between the two of them.

Trump has already been criticized for his “unprecedented use of presidential power” yesterday to reduce the size of Bears Ears by 85% and Grand Staircase by 50%. But where was the criticism of Barack Obama’s “unprecedented use of presidential power” to create 265 million acres of new National Monuments? The Left didn’t care, they thought it was heroic.

President Trump is not a true conservative, but this should be applauded for the rare thing it is – a conservative principle actually put into practice. Local control of land usage makes sense. Obama’s federal land grabs were an absolute overreach. There’s nothing wrong with Trump trying to fix those abuses.

Charitable Slushfund

A $750 birthday cake.

$13,582 for a Beyonce concert.

$15,000 on a Jaguars box.

And $89,852 on a bus trip from Jacksonville in 2013 for President Barack Obama's second inauguration.

Those are just some of the ways former U.S. Representative Corrine Brown used the funds from her charity “One Door for Education.”

The $800,000 that was donated to the charity under the pretense that it would be used for scholarships was actually used as Brown’s personal slush fund.

Of the $800,000, only two scholarships were ever awarded. They amounted to a paltry $1,200.

After serving nearly 25 years in Congress, Brown received her punishment for this disgusting fraud. On Monday, a federal judge sentenced her to five years in prison.

During sentencing, the federal judge called Brown actions “especially shameless.” He continued, “This was a crime born out of entitlement and greed committed to ensure a lifestyle that was beyond her means.”

Just think of the good that Corrine Brown could have been done with that money instead of throwing lavish parties and going shopping. Think of all the children she could have helped. Now, Brown’s legacy is one of avarice and greed and unnecessary Beyoncé concerts. A legacy far worse than that of even Ebenezer Scrooge.

MORE 3 THINGS

VP debate recap: A Vance victory

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This might have been the most consequential VP debate in recent memory.

For those of you who missed the debate, it was a decisive victory for J.D. Vance and the Trump-Vance team as a whole. Vance presented a calm, collected, and considerate side of the Republican party that compliments Trump and helps to make their platform more palatable. Meanwhile, Tim Walz had a lackluster, though certainly not catastrophic, night. He had a few embarrassing gaffes and came across as overly nervous, but like Vance, kept it civil.

Both VP candidates entered the stage as relative unknowns to most Americans, and by the end, both men had given an accurate representation of their characters. Here is a brief recap just in case you missed the debate:

J.D. Vance looked great

ANGELA WEISS / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance came out of the gate swinging, with a stellar opening statement that helped set the stage for the rest of the debate. He delivered a concise yet compelling recap of his life, which framed him as everything Walz claims to be: a relatable veteran from humble beginnings who earned his position through hard work and service. He then went on to deliver a clear and palatable defense of Trump's platform and mission while cooly drawing attention to the failures of the Biden-Harris administration.

Overall, J.D. Vance looked incredibly presidential. He presented himself not just as a capable vice president, but as a strong successor to Trump and as a valid replacement if anything should happen to the former president between now and the end of his hypothetical second term. Vance also successfully dispelled the notion that he is "weird" as Walz called him, and if anyone looked strange during the debate, it certainly wasnot Vance.

Tim Walz's gaffes

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

While Tim Walz certainly didn't have an awful night, he did not stack up well against Vance. Walz had a major gaffe around halfway through the debate when asked to explain the change in his position on assault weapon bans. Walz then claimed that he had befriended school shooters during his time in office. While that was clearly not the intention of what he was saying, it was embarrassing nonetheless.

Another weak moment was when the moderators asked Walz to explain a claim he had made regarding being in Hong Kong during the infamous Tiananmen Square protest in 1989, which has since been proven false. Walz gave a long-winded, rambling answer about taking students to visit China and how Trump should have joined in on those trips, before being called out by the moderator for dodging the question.

Vance fact-checked the fact-checkers

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

One of the conditions of the CBS debate was that the moderators would not fact-check the debaters live, but instead rely on after-the-matter fact-checking. But, CBS couldn't keep to its own rules. While Vance was describing the migrant crisis that has swelled during the Biden-Harris administration, one of the CBS moderators, Margaret Brennan, chimed in with a "fact check." She claimed that the Haitian migrants in Ohio have legal status, to which Vance clapped back by calling Brennan out for breaking the rules of the debate, then proceeded to correct her, explaining that they only had legal status due to overreach by the Biden-Harris administration.

Dockworker strike: Everything you need to know

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

At midnight on September 30th, dockworkers across the East Coast went on strike, effectively cutting the country's import and export capabilities in half.

Don't go out and panic buy a pallet of toilet paper and instant ramen just yet. It's going to take some time for the full effects of the strike to be felt and hopefully, the strike will be good and over by then. But there are no guarantees, and this election cycle could get significantly more insane as we draw near to the election. And even if the strike is settled quickly, it shows growing cracks in our infrastructure and industrial capacity that needs to be addressed if America wants to maintain its global dominance.

Here is everything you need to know about the dockworker strike:

What do the dockworkers want?

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

As with most strikes, pay is the driving factor behind this situation the country now finds itself in. The longshoremen want more pay, and with rising inflation who can blame them? After all, working the docks is hard and dangerous business, and fair compensation only seems... fair. But when you compare the wage of a dockworker, which is around $100,000 to $200,00 a year to the average income in America of $56,000, suddenly they seem significantly less sympathetic.

How much money are they asking for? For most Americans, a three percent raise is considered high, but the unions are asking up to 15 percent, depending on location. On top of that, they are asking for a 77 percent raise over the next six years. The West Coast dock workers recently made off with a 36 percent raise and were considered lucky. These increases in costs are just going to be transferred to the end consumer, and we'll likely see a jump in prices if these terms are accepted.

The other major ticket item is protection against automation. Autonomous ports are quickly becoming a reality, with major ports in China that are capable of handling vast amounts of cargo being run by a single office, not an army of dock workers. Naturally, the longshoremen are concerned that their jobs are at risk of being replaced by machines that can work harder, longer, for cheaper, and without risk of injury.

How will it affect Americans?

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

Don't panic yet!

It is going to take some time for consumers to feel the effects of the strike and it is possible that a resolution could happen at any time.

Week one should be pretty much business as usual. It might be a good idea to stock up on fruit and other perishables, but there is no need to go COVID-lockdown-crazy yet.

Week two is when you'll first start feeling the pinch. Fresh fruits and veggies will become scarce, along with other imported goods like shoes, toys, and TVs. Prices will start to creep up as the shelves will start to look a little sparse. The supply of tools, lumber, and other hardware materials will also begin to dry up.

By week three, the cracks in the system will really start to show. Entire industries will begin to slow down, or even stop. Factory workers will get furloughed and sent home without pay. Stores will have to ration items, prices will be sky-high, and online orders will come to a standstill. At this point, the strike will have escalated into a full-blown crisis, and even if it was resolved immediately, it would still take weeks to restore everything to working order.

At the four-week mark, the situation will have developed into a national security crisis, and as Glenn describes, a poly-crisis. Small business will be closing their doors, entire brands will be out of stock, and everything that remains will be so expensive it is unaffordable. By this point, the holiday season will be drawing near and there will be a rush on any sort of gift or decor items left. At this point, irreparable damage to our economy will have occurred and it will be months if not years before it can be mended.

While that sounds bleak, with the election just around the corner, it seems unlikely that the Biden-Harris administration will let it get that bad. That being said, their administration has not been characterized by good decision-making and reasonable policy, so there are no guarantees.

What can be done?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The big question is "Why hasn't Biden already done something?"

President Biden, who ran on the image of a blue-collar, union-worker, has been uncharacteristically absent from the issue. Despite his earlier involvement in a train strike, Biden has declared that involvement in union fights is not a presidential issue unless it getsreally bad.

So where's the line? At what point will he step in? He has to understand that an economic crisis right before the election will reflect poorly on Kamala.

Join Glenn TONIGHT for BlazeTV's exclusive VP debate coverage!

Anna Moneymaker / Staff, Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Join Glenntonight for Vice Presidential debate coverage you do not want to miss!

Tonight is the first (and only) Vice Presidential debate, and it will be hosted by CBS News. But don't be reliant on CBS News or any other mainstream media channel for their biased coverage. Join the BlazeTV live stream tonight to get the uncensored truth alongside top-quality commentary from Glenn and the rest of the world-class panel.

Glenn is joined by Megyn Kelly, Liz Wheeler, Allie Beth Stuckey, Steve Deace, Jill Savage, Dave Landau, and more to cover the CBS News Vice Presidential Debate. Blaze Media subscribers gain access to live chat with the fantastic panel of hosts! If you subscribe today by visiting BlazeTV.com/debate you will get $40 off of your annual subscription with code DEBATE. This is the largest discount ever offered, so take advantage NOW!

See you TONIGHT at 8 PM ET for an event you do NOT want to miss it!

POLL: Can the VP debate affect the election?

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor, Dia Dipasupil / Staff | Getty Images

The first (and likely only) Vice President debate will be held on CBS News on Tuesday, October 1st.

The debate takes place at 9 p.m. Eastern Time and will be the first time we see J.D. Vance and Tim Walz face off in person. Typically, the VP debate is little more than a formality, and rarely does it affect the election in any significant way. But this is no ordinary election. The stakes are higher than they have been in years, and Trump and Harris are still in a razor-thin race, according to the polls. Both Vance and Walz are relative newcomers to the national stage and still have room to make an impression on the American people, and with the race as tight as it is, that might make all the difference.

So what do you think? Can this VP debate make an impact on the election? Are you going to tune in? And what sort of questions and issues need to be brought up? Let us know in the poll below:

Will this VP debate be important in the overall election?

Are you going to watch the VP debate?

Should the debaters be asked about the Biden-Harris administration's failing economy?

Should the debaters be asked about climate change and energy policy?

Should the debaters be asked about the rise of globalism?