Search
Archives
Categories

The Lourey family name has certainly hit tough times in Minnesota recently. First, Sen. Lourey resigned his Senate seat to become the commissioner of the Department of Human Services. Next, his brother lost a special election for the seat that’s been in the Lourey family literally for decades. Today is another hit against the Lourey family legacy.

Today, Commissioner Lourey resigned from that position thanks to Commissioner Lourey’s corruption and/or incompetence. State Sen. Jim Abeler, (R-Anoka), rightfully criticized the Department, saying “This is now an agency in crisis. And the confidence of the million people who need the services from DHS … (is) at risk.”

Apparently, that’s just the tip of a nasty iceberg. The Pioneer Press article mentions that “deputy commissioners Chuck Johnson and Claire Wilson” resigned last week without saying why they were resigning. That’s without factoring this in:

This past week has seen criticism of the DHS by Inspector General Carolyn Ham, who was placed on paid leave in March so a complaint could be investigated against her, shortly after a report critical of the DHS’ handling of child care fraud was released.

The top 3 people at DHS have left in the last 3 business days. The DHS Inspector General hasn’t looked into the child care fraud scandal that was reported months ago. That still isn’t the entire turmoil within DHS. Check this out:

And another DHS official was ousted last month. Dr. Jeff Schiff, the longtime medical director of Minnesota’s Medicaid program, said his elimination was sudden and done without clear explanation.

These resignations and terminations make the Trump administration look downright placid. I’m still waiting for Gov. Walz’s statement to see what he’s got to say about this crisis. Thus far, his explanation has been virtually nonexistent:

9:46 a.m.
Gov. Tim Walz’s Human Services commissioner has resigned just six months after being appointed. The governor’s office announced Tony Lourey’s resignation on Monday without explanation. He leaves just days after two deputy commissioners announced their departures — also without explanation.

How many of these resignations are related to the child care fraud investigation scandal? Did Lourey’s deputy commissioners resign out of frustration with Lourey’s mishandling of that fraud investigation? Gov. Walz is a politician, not an executive. It’s still anybody’s guess as to how he’ll handle this first crisis.

David Avella, one of the most astute political observers out there, made some shocking statements in this article. According to Avella, Steyer’s entry likely ends Joe Biden’s chances of winning the nomination. Steyer has promised to spend $100,000,000 of his own money on the race.

That won’t get him closer to winning the nomination. It just means that he’ll be one of the loudest complainers on stage and campaign trail. I’m betting that he’ll be Nancy Pelosi’s worst nightmare. While she’s insisting that impeachment is foolish politically, Steyer insists that it’s the only moral choice for anti-American progressives. How that fight will end is anyone’s guess. Let me modify that last statement. The winner will be President Trump.

This infighting won’t stop anytime soon. This isn’t just about dumping Trump. Already, these carnivores are starting to devour themselves:

The progressive-socialist party has absorbed what is left of the old Democratic Party. Its iconoclasts are not satisfied with erasing the images or commemorations of old white public enemies of the past—Father Serra, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson—but have quite logically turned their identity politics venom on all old white people of the present, including some of their own left-wing brethren.

At first, the progressive Old Guard in Congress, like good Girondists, found the revolutionary carnivores useful in reducing the ranks of the Trumpians, the Tea Party, Reagan Democrats, old Perot voters, and the white working class to the inanimate status of “deplorables,” “irredeemables,” “clingers,” and “dregs”—and with them, the bigoted, racist, sexist, nativist, classist, homophobic, and xenophobic Republican Party. Certainly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and a few geriatric sympathizers, such as Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), enjoyed the progressive feasting on the Ancien Regime—especially the unity offered by shared hatred of the obviously soon to be impeached, deposed, exiled and discredited Donald J. Trump.

This story most likely is about who gets eaten last. If anyone thinks that AOC and Ilhan Omar will be satisfied with taking down old farts like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, I’d offer members of the CBC as proof that the Justice Democrats have a lengthy target list.

The bloodbath has started. What stops it is anyone’s guess. What’s most likely to happen is to have Steyer’s ego trigger a definitive Trump victory in 2020. Steyer isn’t a serious presidential candidate. He’s a serious fundraiser but he isn’t a serious policymaker. Possibly the best description of him is that he’s a wealthy back-bench bomb-thrower. BTW, he’s got tons of liabilities:

Steyer’s notoriety comes from donating the billions he has made investing in fossil fuels, private prisons and subprime lending companies into progressive activism for impeaching President Trump and reckless environmental policies.

The minute he steps onto the stage is the minute he becomes a piñata for self-righteous lefties like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. He’s a hardline lefty environmentalist who made his money investing in fossil fuels and as a subprime lender. What Democrat (other than Hillary) will put up with that? Can anyone picture AOC giving him a pass? At minimum, Jonathan Karl didn’t give him a pass in this interview:

I’m being charitable when I say that Steyer’s argument is ridiculous. Don’t bet that Nancy Pelosi won’t convince the moderators to attack Steyer, with the argument being that she needs impeachment off the table to maintain the Democrat House majority.

Democrats have insisted that Nancy Pelosi is a great politician, something that I’ve often disagreed with. Now that her congressional career is winding to a halt, Speaker Pelosi appears to want to become a biblical theologian. In reality, she’s just another Democrat politician that won’t hesitate to use the Bible for political gain. Frankly, that practice is disgusting to real Christians.

According to the article, Pelosi tweeted “It should be a sign to us that today’s Catholic Gospel reading is the Good Samaritan, where Jesus teaches us to love our neighbors as ourselves and treat them with mercy. Trump’s ICE raids today tear families apart -the opposite of mercy.” While there’s no doubt that Jesus is a loving God, it’s apparent that holiness is important to the Lord, too. According to the search I did through BibleGateway.com, the word holy is used almost 600 times (576 times, to be precise) in the Bible.

I’d love hearing Pelosi explain how protecting criminal aliens is an act of holiness. Ms. Pelosi, do you really think that it’s holy to protect violent criminals from law enforcement? I’m betting that God doesn’t think that’s an act of holiness. I also searched the word justice. According to the same search engine, justice is used almost 200 times. One of those times, the word justice is used in the ‘Hebrew Hymnal’, aka the Book of Psalms, where it says “For the Lord loves justice, And does not forsake His saints; They are preserved forever, But the descendants of the wicked shall be cut off.”

I’d prefer that Ms. Pelosi stick to being a politician rather than thinking of herself as a qualified theologian. It’s more than a little galling to hear Ms. Pelosi talking about morality when she’s the one who hasn’t lifted a finger legislatively to stop sex trafficking and the meth and opioid epidemics. I’m tired of Democrats like Pelosi cherry-pick their way through God’s Word, emphasizing God’s love but utterly ignoring other Godly traits like justice and loving order over chaos. The Democrats’ selective theology is a bit frustrating.

Yesterday, it was pretty much ‘Open Warfare Day’ within the Democratic Party. It turns out that Justice Democrats are interested in handing the House majority to Republicans on a silver platter. During the open warfare on Twitter, shots were fired in both directions pretty much all day long.

Later in the day, things started getting nasty. AOC’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, fired a shot, saying “I think the point still stands. I don’t think that people have to be personally racist to enable a racist system.” That tweet opened the floodgates. Shortly thereafter, someone with personal access to the official House Democrat Twitter account tweeted “Who is this guy and why is he explicitly singling out a Native American woman of color? Her name is Congresswoman Davids, not Sharice. She is a phenomenal new member who flipped a red seat blue.” Later in the day, the gloves came off, with Chakrabarti tweeting this:


Ouch. “I’d challenge you to find voters that can name a single thing House Democrats have done for their kitchen table this year.” Chakrabarti just handed the NRCC an industrial-strength jackhammer to beat Democrats over the head with from now through Election Day, 2020. When Democrats admit that Democrats haven’t done anything to help voters with kitchen-table issues, that isn’t the way to preserve the Democrats’ majority. That’s a lesson on how to give Republicans their majority back on a silver platter.

If Democrats insist on fighting amongst themselves, Republicans should shut up and get out of the way. The first rule of your opponent demolishing themselves is to step out of the way and let them.

The serious point in all this that isn’t getting much attention is this: Democrats really haven’t gotten anything done since regaining the House majority. They’ve passed legislation but that legislation doesn’t fix any problems. It’s mostly been highly ideological stuff that doesn’t have a chance of getting a hearing in the Senate. House Democrats will complain about this during the campaign but I don’t see that having much of an impact.

Democrats have been badly wrong on 3 major immigration-related issues. Democrats are wrong about decriminalizing illegal border crossings. Democrats are certainly wrong with giving free health care to illegal aliens. Finally, Democrats are wrong in vilifying border patrol agents as the heartless people that AOC has characterized them as.

Sunday night on The Next Revolution, host Steve Hilton focused virtually the entire show on immigration-related issues:

It isn’t hyperbole to say that this was a spirited debate for virtually the entire hour. Rep. Harley Rouda, (D-Calif.), got asked some rather pointed questions about immigration. At one point, a questioned noted that Rep. Rouda mentioned some legislation from 2013. The questioner asked him if he thought that the bill would be a good bill. Rouda said it would be. The questioner then immediately asked him if he’d talk to Speaker Pelosi to get the bill a hearing.

Rouda dodged, saying that he’s just one vote so he couldn’t get the bill passed by himself. With all due respect, that isn’t what the questioner asked. The questioner asked if he’d introduce the bill for consideration. It’s my contention that Rouda knows that the fight between Pelosi and AOC is just window-dressing. Democrats know that the Resist Movement controls the Democrats’ agenda in the House.

These things will get exposed during the campaign. That’s when ths food fight will intensify.

With ICE planning on arresting illegal aliens who’ve tried gaming US asylum laws starting today, the Democrats ‘solution’ is laughable. If Greg Sargent’s article is accurate, which I think it is since the DNC and Senate Democrats spoonfeed him lots of his articles, Democrats will give President Trump more ammunition proving that Democrats aren’t for securing the border.

According to the article, “Senate Democrats are now set to introduce a major new proposal that will offer another way: It would make family separations illegal; invest much more in legal support for asylum seekers; and beef up humanitarian standards for the treatment of families and children.” In other words, the Democrats’ ‘solution’ is to provide legal aid to help asylum seekers game the system? Seriously? Here at LFR, I’ve spoken about the role incentives play in increasing illegal aliens crossing into the US in this post:

The next time a Democrat tells you that they’re for securing the border, ask them what they’re doing to increase the risk to traffickers. Then ask those Democrats to tell you what they’re doing to shrink the incentives for attempting to illegally enter the United States. If their plans don’t include creating chokepoints and increasing the efficiency for border patrol agents, then tell them to contact you when they put together a serious plan.

The Senate Democrats’ plan doesn’t include anything to shrink the illegal aliens’ incentives to try and game the system. That alone makes this proposal unserious. Further, making “family separations illegal” is another way for traffickers to continue buying children to game the system. Will Democrats beef up asylum fraud detection systems? Will Democrats close the loopholes that traffickers are currently using?

If those things aren’t part of their legislation, Republicans should reject the Democrats’ plan as being a PR stunt. Republicans should also highlight the fact that this legislation isn’t serious. I’d also use the Democrats’ words against them:

“The strategy of treating refugees deliberately in a fashion that injures them to discourage additional immigration is unacceptable under any moral code or religious tradition,” Merkley told me.

“This legislation is a necessary step to restore America’s moral credibility, and an example of how we can deal with our immigration issues with dignity and common sense,” Schumer said in a statement sent my way.

Then there’s this incentive for increasing illegal immigration:

The Merkley-Schumer bill would make all such separations illegal, and reaffirm the court settlement limiting child detention. Functionally, this would mean the administration must release families after 20 days.

If Democrats were serious about enforcing the border, they’d increase child detention to 150 days rather than keeping it at 20 days. There’s an important question that hasn’t gotten asked. Why do Democrats want illegal aliens to go free after 3 weeks?

This is proof that Democrats are the ‘Open Borders Party’. They can’t be seen as the party of enforcing laws. This legislation is proof that Democrats are the party of leniency. They should be punished at the polls for that in 2020. This information needs to be part of this discussion:

This article highlights the predicament that Democrats are in on immigration. Recently, Kamala Harris appeared on The View to be interviewed by the ladies there. It didn’t go well for her, though you wouldn’t know that from the silence of the MSM, aka Agenda Media.

When it was her turn, Meghan McCain “pressed Harris on her hand-raising at the first Democrat debate, which appeared to indicate that she was in favor of ‘decriminalizing border crossings.’ McCain also asked if the candidate stood in solidarity with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s idea of abolishing the Department of Homeland Security.” Those are a pair of fairly straightforward questions that a polished presidential candidate should be able to handle in her sleep.

Apparently, Sen. Harris isn’t coherent when she’s asleep. According to the article, there were more questions at the end of her explanation than there were at the start of Sen. Harris’s explanation:

What the hell is she babbling about? Here’s the transcript from that little exchange:

“We have to have a secure border, but I am in favor of saying that we’re not going to treat people who are undocumented across the border as criminals. That’s correct. That is correct. And what we have got to do is we cannot have anymore policy like we have under this current President that is about inhumane conduct, that is about putting babies in cages, that is about separating children from their parents, and we have got to have policy that is about passing comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway towards citizenship, shutting down these private detention facilities-“

Please tell me if you know what she’s talking about. I got whiplash half a dozen times listening to that short piece of the interview. That’s worse than word salad. That’s like word salad that’s sat on the counter the entire week and is now rotten. I wouldn’t want it.

Democrats apparently want new immigration laws. They just don’t want those laws enforced. Today is the start of ICE’s sweep through 10 major cities while rounding up illegal aliens who applied for asylum, had their day in court, got rejected, then exhausted their appeals. Last week, Nancy Pelosi explained to illegal aliens how to avoid deportation:

There’s only one thing to do with lawmakers who don’t want the laws they passed enforced. That solution is to throw them out of office so that law-abiding lawmakers can take their place. Democrats are famous for talking about cherry-picking through evidence and taking things out of context. This is simple. Families broke the law in coming here or overstaying their visas. After they applied for asylum, a judge ruled against them. They then appealed their ruling, only to be rejected again.

There’s only one legitimate option left. That option is to enforce the law. That’s what ICE took an oath to do. If Speaker Pelosi thinks that illegal aliens should be allowed to stay as long as they’d like, let her write that legislation, then get it a committee hearing. Here’s my prediction on that — Good luck selling that one.

Donald Trump Jr.’s op-ed insists that President Trump, his father, will be the biggest beneficiary of the Democrats’ escalating civil war. The Democrats’ escalating civil war is also known as the Democrats’ circular firing squad.

While the media pontificates over the moderates vs. the Squad, Americans have noticed that the House Democrats’ list of accomplishments isn’t lengthy or impressive. As Donald Jr. highlights, the Squad, aka AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, isn’t that interested in legislative accomplishments. At this point, they’re mostly interested in getting lots of air time on CNN and MSNBC or increasing their followers on social media.

That’s a stupid decision. People want Congress to do things that improve their lives. In his op-ed, Trump Jr. made an astute observation when he said “Democrats are more beholden to their activist class than to the majority of the American people. Whether voters like it or not, extremists such as Ocasio-Cortez, not Pelosi, are in charge of setting the party agenda.”

The pundits won’t admit this but the AstroTurf activists have run the Democrats’ agenda since, at minimum, 2011. Currently, the Democrats’ agenda is mostly driven by hate. It isn’t a secret that the Resist Movement is calling the shots. Their hatred of President Trump has driven them crazy. That’s what’s known as Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Although Democratic leaders may take issue with the left wing of the party, the mainstream media and the 2020 presidential candidates have fully embraced the liberal agenda. In the most recent primary debate, all the Democratic candidates on stage supported providing ‘free’ health care for undocumented immigrants. Several candidates also support decriminalizing illegally crossing the border. Reparations for slavery and late term abortion are now considered the litmus test thresholds by the Democratic base as well. When far left Democrats are not calling their centrist members racist, they show off their ability to pander in Spanish.

Meanwhile, President Trump has a lengthy list of accomplishments to run. That’s in addition to his America First agenda items still to accomplish. When people watch the Squad say no to virtually everything on President Trump’s America First agenda, especially on immigration, they’ll notice that Democrats haven’t shown an interest in fixing problems.

Something that Donald Trump Jr. didn’t mention that’s worth mentioning is how little the Democrats on the Problem Solvers Caucus have done. Supposedly moderate, these Democrats have been virtually worthless. When a person hasn’t been productive, it’s often said that ‘I could count on one hand his accomplishments.’ In the Problem Solvers Caucus case, their accomplishments could be counted without hands. They don’t have any accomplishments. Like the other Democrat, they’re owned by the Resist Movement. They talk a moderate game but they don’t do a thing. This video provides proof of that accusation:

I don’t doubt that they’ve written health care legislation. Has it gotten a committee hearing? The answer is ‘it hasn’t’. Democrats will lose the House because the American people have seen that Democrats are all-investigations-all-the-time. Why would independents vote for people whose only goal is to harass the most productive president in our lifetime? He’s gotten a tremendous amount of things done despite the Democrats’ obstructionism.

When it comes to the Constitution, lawyers should be relatively well-informed. John Ellenbecker is a long-time attorney in the St. Cloud area. In the interest of full disclosure, Ellenbecker and I were part of the same graduating class at Cathedral High School.

Ellenbecker’s constitutional ignorance was once again on display in this LTE’s comments when he said of Councilman Brandmire “In his Dec. 1, 2018 column in the Times Brandmire stated that he favors prohibiting additional Muslim settlement in St. Cloud (he described it as “I support the idea of closing the seemingly wide-open spigot of refugees coming here until we can assimilate those who are already here”) – which is contrary to his comment here. Closing the spigot is not a statement that you support a welcoming community. Closing the spigot is a violation of the constitutional rights of those he seeks to exclude from St. Cloud. Brandmire needs to clearly and unequivocally reverse his course and denounce efforts aimed at ‘closing the seemingly wide-open spigot of refugees coming here.'”

Having talked with Councilman Brandmire, I know that he understands that the City Council has an advisory role in the process, thanks to the Refugee Act of 1980. Saying that you support something isn’t the same as saying you’d overstep your authority. It simply means that he’d agree with that policy if that’s what the Trump administration settled on.

If Ellenbecker can’t figure out the difference between supporting something and writing an ordinance prohibiting refugees from getting settled here, then he went to the wrong law school. How is supporting a policy a violation of a refugee’s constitutional rights?

As for the statement that Councilman Brandmire’s statement isn’t “a statement that you support a welcoming community”, my questioning is ‘So what’? According to this website, the term welcoming community is kinda loaded:

The Standard will outline the policies, programs, and practices that local governments need to have in place —such as supporting new American civic participation; making services accessible; and engaging all residents, including both receiving communities and new Americans.

Apparently, conformity is required. If cities don’t conform, they don’t get certified. It’s impossible to hide the fact that WelcomingAmerica.com is about top-down, cookie-cutter government.

What part of that sounds anything like wisdom? The whole idea behind local government is to individualize policies to the greatest extent possible. WelcomingAmerica.com sounds like they operate from a federal government standpoint.

I strongly suggest that everyone read Councilman Brandmire’s op-ed. He doesn’t mince words nor does he sound unreasonable. It’s possible for people to disagree with him but it’s impossible to call him unreasonable.

As for Ellenbecker, he sounds like a Democrat who’s reading from DFL talking points. Whenever a Democrat talks about the Constitution, bet that it’s because it’s focus-group approved.

Contrary to the Democrats’ paid spinmeisters statements, Democrats favor open borders as their immigration policy. Right after Democrats took control of the House, Democrat spinmeisters told the American people that everyone was for securing the US border with Mexico.

That spin was a total lie. There’s no way to hide the fact that Democrats aren’t interested in securing the border. There’s an old economic principle that’s applicable to this. The principle says that if you want less of something, you tax it. If you want more of something, you incentivize it. Apply that principle to immigration, if you want lots of illegal immigration, change the risk/reward ratio to make the risk of getting caught minimal. Similarly, if you want to reduce illegal immigration, make it so that the cost of illegally crossing the border is extraordinarily high. Also, make the task extraordinarily difficult.

Put in practical terms, build a wall that’s difficult to climb to make the traffickers’ jobs difficult. (Also, it’s worth highlighting that building barriers forces those traffickers and cartels into chokepoints. That helps fewer agents protect more miles of border. That means the border patrol’s activities are significantly more efficient. I’d think increasing the CBP’s efficiency would be DHS’s highest priority.

At this point, it’s clear that this isn’t the Democrats’ highest priority. I’d argue that it isn’t a priority whatsoever. Katie Pavlich’s article offers proof that substantiates my hypothesis:

“Immigrants seeking refuge in our country aren’t a threat to national security. Migration shouldn’t be a criminal justice issue. It’s time to end this draconian policy and return to treating immigration as a civil, not a criminal, issue,” Democratic presidential candidate and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro wrote in an April op-ed on Medium.

Right. If you want fewer migrants to cross the US-Mexico border, tell the traffickers that the people will have to pay a tiny fine instead of getting deported. That should put the fear of God in those traffickers. Not.

“I agree with Secretary Castro. We should not be criminalizing mamas and babies trying to flee violence at home or trying to build a better future. We must pass comprehensive immigration reform that is in line with our values, creates a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants including our Dreamers, and protects our borders,” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) told HuffPost.

Notice Pocahontas’ wording:

We should not be criminalizing mamas and babies trying to flee violence at home…

Sen. Warren, should we criminalize traffickers using purchased babies to get into the US? That’s happening with increasing frequency. Read this website if you want your stomach turning in a split-second. When Democrats vote against legitimate border security measures, they’re voting for continuing the status quo. What type of sick person would vote to continue such a disgusting industry? That’s what happens when Democrats vote against the Republicans’ border security proposals.

Right. Let’s make it easier for illegal aliens to reach the United States. Let’s make it inexpensive for cartels to put these children’s lives at risk during the trip. That’s what Castro’s plan would do.

The next time a Democrat tells you that they’re for securing the border, ask them what they’re doing to increase the risk to traffickers. Then ask those Democrats to tell you what they’re doing to shrink the incentives for attempting to illegally enter the United States. If their plans don’t include creating chokepoints and increasing the efficiency for border patrol agents, then tell them to contact you when they put together a serious plan.

Speaker Pelosi has done her best to keep the turmoil within her conference a private matter. After reading this article, I’d say that train has officially left the station. This started when Pelosi tried putting AOC in her place. That didn’t sit well with the uppity socialist, who insinuated that Pelosi is a racist.

Once that happened, it was just a matter of time before this went nuclear. When Justice Democrats announced that they were primarying members of the Congressional Black Caucus, aka CBC, it was just a matter of time before the retaliation started. There’s no pretending that there’s much goodwill left between the 2 warring factions. This isn’t just politics anymore. It’s personal now. Here’s why it’s personal:

Justice Democrats is backing primary challengers to eight-term Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), a Hispanic Caucus member, and 10-term Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). The insurgent group also made noise this year about challenging Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), a CBC member seen as the heir apparent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

And CBC leaders are fretting that Justice Democrats may target other black lawmakers in the coming weeks and months, including Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) and Anthony Brown (D-Md.). Brown said the group has been making calls in his district, actively trying to recruit a challenger to run against him — something that Justice Democrats denies.

That’s caused the CBC to retaliate:

In an interview with the Daily News, Meeks fumed over Ocasio-Cortez’s recent racial beef with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and pushed back against her left-wing allies at Justice Democrats for openly backing insurgent candidates trying to unseat members of the Congressional Black Caucus. He also said the CBC can play the same game.

“Primaries go two ways,” Meeks said when asked whether his wing of the party would consider challenging progressive members next year, including Ocasio-Cortez. “If someone picks a fight with somebody else, you fight back. That’s what my parents told me.”

It’s going to get nastier than this. Check this out:

“They are going after the wrong target. Instead of fighting Republicans and defeating Trump and holding on to our majority, they find it convenient to go after their own, which is to me a bunch of B.S.,” Clay told The Hill.

I love this. I’m not alone:

I’ll sell the tickets, Ben. Who pops the popcorn? This is gonna get good.