Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Chuck Schumer category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Chuck Schumer’ Category

It isn’t a secret that I don’t buy into the Twin Cities media’s depiction of the DFL as one big happy family but with a couple minor differences that aren’t worth talking about. Frankly, I think that storyline is about as dishonest as Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.

If I got $10 for every person that’s read one of my ‘the DFL is totally nuts’ posts, I’d own an island in the Caribbean. I’ve written how the DFL has essentially rejected blue collar Minnesota. If I can highlight anything or re-inforce anything, that’s what I’d highlight or re-inforce. The differences are real and growing.

I think I’m the only Minnesota journalist that predicted that Republicans would flip the Minnesota Senate to a GOP majority. The reason I made that prediction is because the DFL rift between white collar Minnesota and blue collar Minnesota is getting bigger. Attitudes are getting more hostile towards each other, too.

Harold Hamilton has his finger on Minnesota’s pulse. Each Friday, Harold writes a commentary. This week’s commentary is on this exact subject. What’s most entertaining about Harold’s commentary is when he wrote “The arrogance of the urban liberal is a sight to behold. It’s also been somewhat amusing to watch DFL leaders dance on the head of a pin trying to explain away the civil war as a mere squabble between two key constituencies of the DFL. More importantly, it’s more than presumptuous to call the construction trades a ‘DFL constituency.'”

The thought that the DFL isn’t fighting a civil war is laughable. Harold highlights it with DFL activists’ quotes:

“Resentment is the primary driver of the pro-mining crowd here – they are resentful that other people have come here and been successful while they were sitting around waiting for a big mining company. They want somebody to just give them a job so they can all drink beer with their buddies and go four-wheeling and snowmobiling with their buddies, not have to think about anything except punching a clock.” – Reid Carron, Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters

“Danny Forsman drives to the mine in his truck, comes home and watches TV, and he doesn’t know this world exists.” – Becky Rom, Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, speaking of pro-mining Ely city councilman Dan Forsman

“I’m not saying we are writing off the Iron Range. But you don’t need the Iron Range to win statewide.” – DFL Chairman Ken Martin

[Editor’s note: Reid Carron is married to Becky Rom.] Ken Martin isn’t trying to hide the fact that he knows the DFL can all but officially write off the Range. There’s a reason why President Trump defeated Hillary by 15 points on the Range. This is my favorite part of Harold’s commentary:

DFL happy talk of “uniting” around common issues in 2018 is fantasy. And just what are those “unifying” issues, pray tell? Mining? Pipelines? Transgender bathrooms? Gun grabbing? Abortion on demand? Banning menthol cigarettes? Banning plastic bags? Trigger words? Safe spaces? Sanctuary cities? Re-naming Asian Carp so as not to offend?

Does this hearing look like a search for common ground?

Let’s get serious. That looks like the undercard for a mixed martial arts championship fight.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

It’s increasingly likely that President Trump will finally notch his first major legislative victory. Reuters is reporting that “U.S. Republican senator Rand Paul on Friday appeared to back the Trump administration’s sweeping tax cut plan, saying he was ‘all in’ for massive tax cuts even as the Senate passed a key budget measure without his support one day earlier.”

Reuters then quoted President Trump’s tweet that said “The Budget passed late last night, 51 to 49. We got ZERO Democrat votes with only Rand Paul (he will vote for Tax Cuts) voting against.” Then President Trump tweeted “This now allows for the passage of large scale Tax Cuts (and Reform), which will be the biggest in the history of our country!” Still later, Sen. “Paul responded with his own tweet, saying, ‘I’m all in for tax cuts @realDonaldTrump. The biggest, boldest cuts possible – and soon!'”

As momentum builds for President Trump’s tax reform legislation, Democrats’ criticism will increase. Here’s what some Democrat senators are saying:

Tim Kaine (VA): “Senate Republicans held this vote on a sham budget to pave the way for their partisan tax plan. Based on what little we know about it, their tax plan could increase taxes on many hardworking Virginia families, put Medicare and Medicaid at risk, and increase the debt by $1.5 trillion. And I’m not okay with that.”

Cory Booker (NJ): “The Senate Republican budget resolution is an abomination. It threatens huge cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and essential programs that help poor families and people with disabilities — all to pay for President Trump’s effort to give massive tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy and well-connected.”

Heidi Heitkamp (ND): “Simply, this bill hurts rural America and that’s why I can’t support it. I’ve long said I want to work on comprehensive, smart tax reforms that help rural economies, and voting against this budget doesn’t change that. But for tax reform to work, Republicans and Democrats need to be at the table as it’s drafted, and any proposal must support workers, families, and retirees.”

Of course, Chuck Schumer wants to paint the tax reform as tax cuts for the wealthy:

“We’re going to also make our Republican colleagues vote on whether they want to raise taxes on the middle class,” Schumer said. “The President claims his tax plan will cut taxes, but it actually will raise them on millions of hard working families. Today, our Republican colleagues will decide whether they want to support those tax increases, or protect the middle class from paying more taxes.”

This show of solidarity will help bring President Trump’s tax reform initiative to a successful conclusion:

Kimberley Strassel’s latest Potomac Watch article is a devastating indictment of the Democratic Party and opposition research firm Fusion GPS. Strassel’s indictment starts with her writing “To read the headlines, a poor, beleaguered opposition-research firm was humiliated and constitutionally abused this week by partisan Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee. Fusion’s lawyers sent a 17-page letter to the committee’s chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes, accusing him of misdeeds, declaring his subpoenas invalid, and invoking a supposed First Amendment right to silence. Yet the firm’s founders, the story went, were hauled in nonetheless and forced to plead the Fifth. ‘No American should experience the indignity that occurred today,’ Fusion’s lawyer, Joshua Levy, declared.”

Saying that the Democrats are neck-deep in GPS troubles is understatement. What other explanation is there for the Democrats’ recent behavior? Ms. Strassel reported “But Fusion’s secret weapon in its latest operation is the Democratic Party, whose most powerful members have made protecting Fusion’s secrets their highest priority. Senate Democrats invoked a parliamentary maneuver in July to block temporarily Mr. Browder’s public testimony. Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democratic ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, has been engineering flaps to undercut and obstruct Mr. Nunes’s investigation. Democrats on the House Ethics Committee have deep-sixed what was meant to be a brief inquiry to clear Mr. Nunes so as to keep him sidelined.”

Those aren’t the actions of people wanting to find the truth. They’re the actions of people wishing to hide their evil actions.

This is telling:

The untold story is the Democrats’ unprecedented behavior. Mr. Rooney had barely started when committee staffers for Mr. Schiff interrupted, accused him of badgering witnesses, and suggested he was acting unethically. Staff do not interrupt congressmen. They do not accuse them of misbehavior. And they certainly do not act as defense attorneys for witnesses. No Democratic lawmakers had bothered to come to the hearing to police this circus.

It’s obvious that Democrats want to benefit from Fusion GPS’s nastiness but they don’t want to get tied to Fusion GPS’s tactics. Ethics charges should be brought against Schiff for not policing his staffers during the hearing. Rep. Schiff’s staffers were the ones that interrupted a sitting Republican congressman while he questioned the witnesses from Fusion GPS. Those staffers should be thrown out of that hearing if they pull another stunt like this.

Finally, there’s this:

Private-sector lawyers also tend not to accuse congressmen of unethical behavior, as Mr. Levy did in his letter to Mr. Nunes. But Fusion’s legal eagle must feel safe. He’s former general counsel to the Senate’s minority leader, Chuck Schumer. He has also, I’m told by people familiar with the committee’s activities, more than once possessed information that he would have had no earthly means of knowing, since it was secret committee business. Consider that: Democratic members of Congress or their staff providing sensitive details of an investigation to a company to which the committee has given subpoenas.

Democrats are acting unethically. It’s time that they get sanctioned for their actions. Finally, it’s time to put a tape together that highlights Fusion GPS’s and Rep. Schiff’s staffers’ actions.

It’s becoming clear that DC Democrats don’t have any intention of offering anything constructive or substantive that will Americans’ lives. It’s obvious because they’re even opposing the Trump tax cuts. It wasn’t difficult to figure out that they’d oppose major repairs to the ACA. I would’ve been surprised if that got a single DC Democrat vote.

Sen. Ron Wyden, (D-OR), said “The bottom line on this budget is that it’s a right-wing fantasy document that paves the way for a hyper-partisan process on tax reform and trillions of dollars in handouts to big corporations and the wealthy.” Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said “The more people learn about this tax bill, the less they will like it. That’s what led to the demise of health care, ultimately, is that it was unpopular with the American people.” Sen. Bob Casey chimed in, saying “I told the president, I said it was a giveaway to the rich, and there are a series of analyses that prove that. One is from the Center of Budget Priorities that after 10 years of implementation 80 percent of the tax cuts go to the top 1 percent.”

Apparently, Democrats oppose everything proposed by President Trump and the Republicans. There isn’t a single thing that they’ve supported since President Trump took office. They haven’t proposed any substantive alternatives to President Trump’s agenda, either, offering only platitudes and criticisms.

That avalanche of criticism has hurt the Democrats’ reputation. “According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll, more than half of Americans think Democrats don’t stand for anything other than being against Trump.” There’s a simple message radiating from that poll question. That message is Democrats care about their base, which cares about regaining power. The Democrats’ message doesn’t say they’re for policies that make people’s lives better.

This video of a Schumer press availability sounds like he’s gone full socialist:

If Democrats want to run on being full-blown socialists who haven’t supported anything positive, that’s their option. Here’s a warning to them, though. If Democrats run as the party that opposes everything and supports nothing, they’d better have their candidates write their concession speeches now because losing frequently is what they’ll be famous for this time next year.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are upset that President Trump has them over a proverbial barrel as they start negotiations on DACA legislation. They’re upset because they’ll lose politically if they agree to President Trump’s demands. If they don’t agree to his demands, they’ll lose politically, too. The biggest of President Trump’s demands is funding to build his border wall.

When Schumer and Pelosi got the news that this was part of President Trump’s demands, they went ballistic, saying “We told the President at our meeting that we were open to reasonable border security measures alongside the DREAM Act, but this list goes so far beyond what is reasonable. This proposal fails to represent any attempt at compromise.” The definition of reasonable is “agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical.” Just because the Democrats’ pro-amnesty special interests don’t think building the border wall is reasonable doesn’t mean it isn’t reasonable. Building the wall is exercising sound judgment. Not only that, the American people agree with most of President Trump’s list of demands, often by overwhelming margins. If Pelosi and Schumer want to argue that more than two-thirds of the American people aren’t reasonable, that’s their choice.

Ms. Pelosi’s hinting publicly that Democrats might be willing to shut down the government if they don’t get what they want:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Monday wouldn’t rule out withholding support for end-of-the-year budget bills, and risk a government shutdown, if President Trump and the Republicans don’t agree to protections for immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. “We have to do it before Christmas, that’s just the way it is,” she said Monday in an interview with The Washington Post.

That’s a major political loser for Democrats on multiple platforms. First, this will alienate blue collar America districts. If the Democrats don’t flip those districts and/or states, they can’t win majorities in either the House or Senate. In fact, it will likely cause them to lose seats in both the House and Senate if Pelosi shuts down the government. Even if they don’t shut the government down, this strategy is foolish. It isn’t difficult seeing every vulnerable Democrat in the House get tied to Pelosi’s statement. Do they really think that they can hide from Pelosi’s statements?

There’s another part of the Democrats’ threats that’s a political loser. By threatening shutting down the government over building the wall, Democrats are essentially admitting that they’re the open borders political party. They can issue statement after statement that they’re for reasonable border security measures. It won’t matter because people think of the wall as true border security. This video should be part of the Trump administration’s campaign to build the wall:

I’d love seeing Schumer and Pelosi fight against that video. It isn’t that they’d win. It’s that it’d be fun watching them attempt to tell people that the wall hasn’t had a positive public safety/national security impact. The statistics speak for themselves. If Democrats want to fight that, that’s their decision.

It just isn’t a reasonable decision.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

President Trump outlined his principles for an immigration compromise Sunday night. Saying that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi weren’t pleased with President Trump’s immigration principles is understatement. In their joint statement, Pelosi and Schumer said “the administration can’t be serious about compromise or helping the Dreamers if they begin with a list that is anathema to the Dreamers, the immigrant community and the vast majority of Americans.”

Pelosi and Schumer must stick to that line because their base requires it. That doesn’t mean that their base is representative of a majority of Americans, though. I was thrilled when I read the “agreement goes far beyond an outline of a deal with the White House announced by Schumer and Pelosi last month, after their meeting with Trump. The two Democrats said the president had agreed to attach a DACA fix to a border security package that would not include wall funding. They reiterated on Sunday night that their agreement ‘explicitly ruled out’ the border wall, a key Trump campaign promise. ‘We told the President at our meeting that we were open to reasonable border security measures alongside the DREAM Act, but this list goes so far beyond what is reasonable. This proposal fails to represent any attempt at compromise,’ Schumer and Pelosi added.”

There’s little doubt that backstabbers like Sen. McCain and Sen. Collins would agree with Schumer and Pelosi. That’s their decision. If they vote against the border wall, Republicans will simply wait until the new Senate is sworn in, then tell the backstabbers they can either do the right thing or get primaried. That’s their choice.

As for Schumer and Pelosi, their choice is whether they’ll support real border security, including the wall or whether they want to have this issue used against their vulnerable incumbents in red states next November. President Trump should tell them that funding for the Wall isn’t negotiable. Period. Point out to them how popular the wall is in blue collar districts that Democrats have to flip or hold to retake the majority. If they don’t moderate their position, then they’ll have to pay the price for their intransigence.

Finally, this is the perfect issue to tee up for 2020 if you’re President Trump. Blue collar workers know how much this has hurt their wages. If Democrats want to flip Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan in 2020, getting on the right side of this issue is essential for them.

Appearing on Dana Perino’s new show (The Daily Briefing), Rep. Trey Gowdy was asked about his position on potential new gun legislation. His reply was thoughtful and the last thing Democrats wanted to hear. It started with Perino quoting from Leah Libresco’s op-ed in the Washington Post. Ms. Libresco’s op-ed said “My colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States and I became frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people and the case for the policies that I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence.”

Next, Ms. Perino asked “I think there might be some people who might be persuadable on gun control legislation if there was any way to point to what could’ve been done to prevent this if there was a way to not infringe upon people’s Second Amendment rights. Maybe we would do that. Where do you see the debate on Capitol Hill after this?”

Chairman Gowdy replied “Well, Dana, I think it’s important for your viewers to know that we already have controls on what types of guns you can have and where you can have them, when you can use them and which individuals can even possess a single bullet so the question for me is whether the current controls are adequate and there’s 2 fundamental questions you just put your finger on. What law, had it existed at the time, would’ve prevented this mass killing or another mass killing? What law, but for its lack of implementation, could have prevented this? So that’s one question. The other question I want answered is, among the other panoply of gun laws, how are we doing in enforcing them? It is currently illegal for someone who’s already been adjudicated as being mentally ill to possess a single bullet. But if you look at DOJ’s statistics, you will see very few prosecutions under those laws. So I would ask this Department of Justice the very same questions that I asked of the Department of Justice the last 8 years under President Obama. Before you ask for new tools, convince me that the tools you have now are being fully used and are inadequate. I’ll be open to a piece of legislation that tells me ‘this won’t happen again’ but you’ve got to tell me how you’re using the current gun statutes and I was really underwhelmed at the level of prosecutions the last 8 years.”

Ms. Libresco’s op-ed offers these important insights into the gun control issue:

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

The depraved domestic terrorist that killed 59 and wounded over 500 others was a skilled rifleman. It’s apparent that he’d meticulously pre-planned this attack. I’d be surprised if he hadn’t trained extensively for his killing spree. Nothing about this horrific event sounds like the work of an amateur.

Republicans should tell Democrats the things that Chairman Gowdy told Dana Perino. If they did that, they’d silence the gun control debate in minutes.

Technorati: , , , ,

Nothing verifies the fact that Sen. Franken is owned by leftist special interest organizations than a letter from 27 special interest organizations praising him for blocking David Stras’s confirmation.

Until recently, PFAW, aka People for the American Way, has been significantly to the left of the Democratic Party for years. When Ralph Neas was PFAW’s president, he was known for hyperbole. For instance, Neas once said “that if the views of Scalia and Thomas were to become the majority on the Court, ‘the result on issue after issue would be a radical, reactionary shift in U.S. law.’ Specifically: ‘religious liberty would suffer’; ‘church-state separation’ would be compromised; ‘the right to strike and bargain collectively’ would be weakened; ‘laws that protect workers from sexual harassment’ would be overturned; ‘the federal government would be barred from stopping the destruction of endangered species on private land’; ‘local governments’ power to protect the environment would be restricted’; and ‘sensible gun-control legislation would be struck down.'”

Since then, PFAW has moved left. It’s worth noting that PFAW is one of the 27 organizations that is praising Sen. Franken. Here’s the opening paragraph of the special interests’ letter to Sen. Franken:

We, the undersigned civil rights, labor, and other public interest organizations, write to thank you for your commitment to preserving a fair-minded and independent judiciary. Now more than ever, our courts must serve as a check on the president, whose executive actions repeatedly disregard the law and the Constitution, and your recent, principled decision not to return your blue slip on the nomination of Justice David Stras to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit helps ensure that our courts can fulfill this essential role.

When they write that the “courts must serve as a check on the president”, they’re admitting that they’re worried about President Trump. Remember that the left sees Scalia as evil. He actually ruled according to the Constitution. They want a jurist who will implement their policy preferences without questioning.

As former Vice President Mondale has pointed out, in supporting your decision on Justice Stras, the blue slip tradition also has been vital in helping to promote bipartisan cooperation and prevent “overt partisanship” in judicial nominations. Indeed, it is a manifestation of the Constitution’s Advice and Consent process. The blue slip practice is one of the constitutional checks and balances that helps maintain equilibrium among the branches of government. When the Senate majority places partisan loyalty to the president over the Senate’s institutional interests in independently carrying out its constitutional responsibilities, the blue slip serves as a vital corrective.

Under normal circumstances, “the blue slip tradition” is vital to building bipartisan consensus. Democrats have shown, though, that they aren’t even slightly interested in building bipartisan consensus. This website sums up what Sen. Franken and the Democrats are about:

Our mission is to fuel a progressive grassroots network of local groups to resist the Trump agenda.

Thus far this session, Democrats have used every tool to prevent the installation of President Trump’s government. They’ve repeatedly used arcane rules to delay committee hearings on cabinet appointees. They’ve voted in lockstep with Sen. Schumer virtually all the time. Sen. Franken isn’t representing Minnesota. He’s representing Sen. Schumer and the Democrats’ special interest allies.

This is laughable:

You could have followed the examples of Senators McConnell, Sessions, Shelby, and Coats and not reviewed Justice Stras’ record, withholding your blue slip based solely on the lack of meaningful consultation. However, you went beyond process to evaluate extensively his record. Those of us who wrote the Committee on August 31 very much agree with your conclusion that rather than demonstrating fairness and open-mindedness, his record demonstrates that he would reliably rule in favor of powerful corporate interests over working people, and that he would place a high bar before plaintiffs seeking justice at work, at school, and at the ballot box.

That could’ve been written by Ralph Neas. It sounds that paranoid. What’s obvious is that Sen. Franken won’t vote for anyone who doesn’t get PFAW’s stamp of approval.

Sen. Franken isn’t a patriot. Apparently, Sen. Franken doesn’t know that it’s unconstitutional to demand that a nominee pass a ‘religious test’. Watch this video, then tell me that this is a patriot, an honorable man:

Frankly, I’d love to see Sen. Franken, Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Durbin get censured for questioning a judicial nominee’s religious beliefs. It’s immoral. More importantly, it’s unconstitutional. Finally, here’s the list of special interest organizations that signed the letter to Sen. Franken:

African American Ministers In Action
Alliance for Justice
American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Unions
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees
Center for American Progress
Committee for a Fair Judiciary
Courage Campaign
Earthjustice
Every Voice
Family Equality Council
Human Rights Campaign
Lambda Legal
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
MALDEF
MoveOn.org
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Council of Jewish Women
National Education Association
National Employment Lawyers Association
National Women’s Law Center
People For the American Way
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Voting Rights Forward

These are the organizations that Sen. Franken represents. He doesn’t represent all Minnesotans. He’s a disgrace.

Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp are 3 of the most vulnerable Democrats in the US Senate that are up for re-election in 2018. They’ve tried portraying themselves as moderates. The importance of Paul Mirengoff’s post is that it provides proof that this trio are phonies.

According to Mirengoff’s post, “President Trump chose Noel Francisco for Solicitor General. Francisco has a distinguished background. He clerked for Judge Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and then for Justice Scalia.” Judge Luttig is J. Michael Luttig, one of the most distinguished conservative jurists of the last century or 2. Mirengoff then noted that “the Senate confirmed Francisco” by a vote of 50-47. Mirengoff noted that the vote “was strictly along party lines”, with Donnelly, Manchin and Heitkamp voting with Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Mirengoff then wondered whether this trio of so-called moderates would vote for a more moderate candidate for President Trump’s administration. This time, he talked about Rachel Brand, the Associate Attorney General. Mirengoff described her as “a center-right figure and thus, decidedly less conservative than Francisco.” Mirengoff then noted Brand’s confirmation vote, which was “52-46,” with “Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp all [voting] no.” Finally, Mirengoff compared these ‘moderates’ votes for Neil Gorsuch, the conservative jurist and the newest member of the Supreme Court. Here’s what he wrote:

Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp all voted to confirm Justice Gorsuch. What does this tell us? It tells us that in a high profile vote that might affect their reelection chances, these three Red State Democrats won’t oppose a very conservative nominee. On an under-the-radar vote, they will oppose not only a very conservative nominee, but also a center-right one.

It tells me they are phonies.

At one point, there was talk that Manchin would switch parties. It’s pretty apparent that won’t happen. The only way to get rid of these phonies is by defeating them in the 2018 midterm elections. It doesn’t bother me that they’re moderates. It’s that they’re dishonest. If people pretend that they’re moderates but then they vote with Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren, then they can’t be trusted. It’s time to throw them out if they aren’t trustworthy.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This St. Cloud Times article is about 15 students who walked out of their classes to protest President Trump’s decision to rescind DACA.

According to the article, there was a teachable moment. According to the article, “Sartell-St. Stephen Superintendent Jeff Schwiebert, who taught civics in Mount Vernon, Iowa, for 22 years, said the demonstration served as a teaching moment. ‘So we had to have a little conversation about what civil disobedience is,’ Schwiebert said. ‘And when you’re doing a protest, that’s what you’re doing. You’re disobeying or disagreeing with a law that is in place. In this particular case, they responded very, very well to it.'”

It’s indisputable that that’s a legitimate teaching moment. Unfortunately, I’m afraid, another teachable moment might’ve gotten missed. Did Superintendent Schwiebert, or any of these students’ teachers, teach the students about why DACA was unconstitutional. Did these teachers tell these students that DACA would’ve been a legitimate law if Congress had passed it and the president had signed it? Did these teachers explain to the students that the Constitution doesn’t permit a president to unilaterally create new benefits for anyone, especially illegal aliens? That’s exactly what happened.

If these students’ teachers didn’t teach them those lessons, why didn’t they? Is it because the teachers are activists first, teachers next?

The protests in Sartell weren’t the only DACA protests in Minnesota:

There’s a simple solution to this situation. Unfortunately, Democrats have nixed that solution:

A top Senate Democratic aide said that the party would be open to agreeing to items such as additional drone operations, fencing and sensors; but not a “presidential vanity project. We are open to security that makes sense,” the aide said, noting that the party had agreed to a similar exchange—albeit on a much larger scale—when it put together a comprehensive immigration reform deal in 2013. That measure included some $40 billion for border security measures.

Republicans should immediately tell Democrats that a major compromise on the Republicans’ part requires a major compromise from Democrats. The compromise that Democrats proposed represents a major compromise from Republicans. It doesn’t represent a major compromise for Democrats.

This is the sort of deal that President Trump criticized on the campaign trail. If he accepts this deal, his credibility as a great negotiator will instantly disappear. President Trump must insist that his wall gets funded in exchange for DACA. Trump should insist that the wall be built so we don’t have to worry about another batch of DREAMers 5-10 years from now.

Border Patrol agents were deployed away from the border by President Obama so they weren’t in position to prevent illegal immigration, drug smuggling or human trafficking. A serious border wall can’t be deployed away from the border once it’s been built.

That’s a politically defensible position because it strengthens Republicans’ campaigns in blue collar districts in the Midwest. If Democrats insist on getting their way with DACA, they’ll get clobbered in the 2018 midterms.