Three Things You Need to Know – March 1, 2018

March 01, 2018

WRITER

Due Process Takes Too Long?

If you’re a fan of both President Trump and the second amendment, you might be feeling like the victim of a cheating spouse this morning. Used, manipulated, betrayed… I’m sure the NRA feels the same way you do. Yesterday, the president sat down with Congressional Democrats and Republicans to discuss ideas on how to prevent more mass shootings. Let’s see, how do I describe what proceeded? IT WAS A NIGHTMARE.

Trump took such an extreme hard left turn against the Second, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that it would have made President Obama look like Calvin Coolidge. This is an actual quote from the meeting: “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

The president then proceeded to dump on the NRA AND shoot down the idea of national concealed carry reciprocity. If you’re a gun owner, or if you’re just a fan of the constitution, this was the absolute worst thing you would expect a US president to say. You probably expected it coming out of the mouth of Obama, but he would have NEVER even dreamed of saying this in a public forum. You know why? Because every single person in the conservative media, AND every Republican Congressman would have called for his impeachment.

Some people are already making excuses for what the president said. They’re saying things like “yeah but he was talking about the mentally ill!” Remember when we all went went to bat for the President when liberal headlines started saying things like this: “Trump Just Made It Easier For Mentally Ill People To Buy Guns.”

What they were referring to was an Obama era regulation mandating that people receiving disability payments from Social Security, and receiving assistance to manage their benefits, would have to be reported to the federal gun background check system. It locked out tens of thousands of elderly people from buying guns, not based off of their mental capacity but on the basis of being classified by the government in a certain way. Now, I don’t think that was the original intention, but you can see how handling the issue of, who is mental ill and who isn’t, is a very slippery slope.

Mike Pence was absolutely right. We HAVE to figure this issue out, but eliminating due process and neutering the constitution is not the way to do it. Forget, just for a second, that this is about guns. Replace guns with literally any other issue and read back the words “Take action first, go through due process second.” That right there is how tyranny is born.

The good news is that Trump has said strange things in the past, like wanting a clean DACA bill, but it never materialized. So either Trump is pulling off some extreme master negotiating strategy combining The Art of War with his own book The Art of The Deal, OR he was just giving the Democrats in the room what they wanted to hear. Either way, we probably won’t see anything come from this. Due process can’t be waved, and the second amendment isn’t going anywhere. Everyone should be calling the President out on this today. Support him when he’s right, but call him out when he’s wrong. Yesterday, he was very very wrong.

Trump vs. Sessions Part II

President Trump is criticizing Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, again.

Yesterday, Trump wrote a memo – sorry, make that a Tweet – calling it “DISGRACEFUL!” that Sessions is using the Justice Department’s Inspector General to investigate the “potentially massive FISA abuse” in the Russia investigation.

Trump apparently did not like that Justice Department lawyers were not used for the probe instead. The Inspector General is looking into whether FISA standards were abused when the FBI first started investigating Trump campaign associates and their possible ties to Russia. The Nunes memo alleges that the FBI misled the FISA court to obtain a warrant to monitor Carter Page.

Referring to the Inspector General, Trump wrote, “Isn’t the I.G. an Obama guy?”

Later, House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy released his own statement defending the Inspector General. Gowdy says he has, “complete confidence in him and hope he is given the time, the resources and the independence to complete his work.”

Trump has taken issue with Jeff Sessions on and off almost the whole time he’s been in office. Rumors that Sessions will be fired seem to surface at least once a month. Usually, Sessions just keeps his mouth shut and absorbs the blow. But not this time. He issued a statement saying:

“We have initiated the appropriate process that will ensure complaints against this Department will be fully and fairly acted upon if necessary. As long as I am the Attorney General, I will continue to discharge my duties with integrity and honor, and this Department will continue to do its work in a fair and impartial manner according to the law and Constitution.”

You can hear a little irritation in there, like maybe Sessions is finally getting tired of the abuse.

Ever since Sessions recused himself from heading the Russia-collusion investigation, he has been Trump’s punching bag. It’s strange, because Sessions has been a staunch Trump supporter from the very beginning. It’s also weird because Sessions has even offered to resign before, but Trump hasn’t taken him up on it. Yet.

At this point in the marathon Russia investigation, what President Trump thinks he stands to gain by tweeting criticism of Sessions and the Inspector General is anyone’s guess. Regardless, it’s not helpful.

The White House Is All out of Hope

She was never a “Washington” girl.

She didn’t even care for politics.

And yet, she was one of the most powerful people in DC.

Hope Hicks, Trump’s communications director, was one of the longest-serving advisers and arguably Trump’s most trusted aide.

She often had the challenging job of talking him down from an angry tweet, redirecting his attention elsewhere.

She corralled the press department to get on message, even when they were at odds with each other—which was all the time.

And many of the staff viewed her as a protector against Trump’s outbursts…like a child shielding her little brother from her father’s wrath.

But yesterday, Hicks appeared to have enough.

She told the President that she was resigning.

Her resignation came a day after she testified for eight hours before the House Intelligence Committee. She told the panel that in her job, she had “occasionally” been required to tell “white lies” but had never lied about anything connected to the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

Her revelation to the panel is not shocking. And I don’t think it was the impetus for her leaving the White House.

She’s a 29 former model who wanted to work in fashion.

I doubt she ever had aspirations of becoming the communications director.

By all accounts it sounded like she took the job in stride, but it just didn’t seem like it was her dream to be there.

The limelight and scrutiny of the House Intelligence Committee and her relationship with Rob Porter made public, appears to have pushed her to end something she really never wanted to start.

When she leaves the White House in a couple weeks, she is going to escape relatively unscathed. She did a good job and didn’t stay to see her reputation get dragged through the dirt like so many before her.

Trump has stated that Hicks is very smart many times.

I believe he is telling the truth.

MORE 3 THINGS

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These 5 governors are refusing to send national guard troops to the border

CAITLIN O'HARA/AFP/Getty Images

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

Rachel Maddow chokes up and cries on air as she struggles to deliver news that migrant babies and toddlers have been sent to "tender age" shelters pic.twitter.com/O6crm8cvyR
— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) June 20, 2018

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Obama's tribute center in Chicago will cost taxpayers $200 million

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.

Glenn's Show Prep