Archive for the ‘Lindsey Graham’ Category

If there’s anything that’s predictable, it’s that the Swamp protects its own. Nowhere is that more visible today than with the faux whistleblower, whose name (allegedly Eric Ciaramella) was disclosed by Donald Trump Jr. today. According to this article, “current and former intelligence officials tell NBC News” that “pressure is building on the spy agency’s director, Gina Haspel, to take a stand on the matter.”

Fine. Here’s a stand that these Swamp critters won’t like. Haspel should side with the Constitution. Specifically, Haspel should side with the Sixth Amendment, which says “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

TRANSLATION: Anyone accused of a crime has the right to cross-examine his accusers, just like he has a right to accuse those accusers. The standard is that defendants shall have the right to confront their accusers. It doesn’t say that defendants might have that right if the wind is out of the west and if we’ve just had a full moon. It says that, in all situations, the defendant shall have that right. Predictably, the faux whistleblower’s attorney isn’t fond of the idea of his client’s name getting outed:

Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower’s lead lawyer, has said that disclosure of his client’s name would deter future whistleblowers and he has threatened legal action against anyone who reveals the name. In a statement Wednesday, the whistleblower’s lawyers said “identifying any suspected name … will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm.”

First, it isn’t known if this person qualifies as a whistleblower. Just because his/her attorney says the person is a whistleblower doesn’t make it Gospel fact. Next, if the alleged whistleblower has a partisan political agenda that includes removing the president from office, then exposing the alleged whistleblower’s identity is a patriotic thing. I want people who gossip about things that they heard to not be protected. If this person didn’t abide by the laws of integrity, they don’t deserve protection.

The inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, found the whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s alleged pressure campaign on Ukraine to be credible. The description of events in the complaint, which has been public for weeks, has largely been confirmed by the transcript of Trump’s July phone call with the Ukrainian president and by the publicly available testimony of other witnesses in recent weeks.

Michael Atkinson should testify when the House Impeachment Committee, chaired by hyperpartisan Democrat Adam Schiff, conducts public hearings. What made the whistleblower’s testimony credible? Was it the fact that none of it was first-hand information? Was it the fact that no court in the nation would’ve admitted this information into a court because it’s hearsay, which is inadmissible except in a few exceptions?

“Since the affiliation of the whistleblower is unacknowledged, it is up to the Acting DNI Joe McGuire to take a firm public and private stance against any effort to expose the whistleblower,” Brennan told NBC News. “Other leaders of the Intelligence Community should privately oppose any attempt to name the whistleblower. Senator Paul’s appalling call for the naming of the whistleblower by the media should be denounced in the strongest terms possible; a statement signed by the heads of all the intelligence agencies would be most appropriate.”

Based on what, Mr. Brennan? Why should partisan snitches peddling gossip get protection? This isn’t the case of a patriot saving the nation from a madman. This is the case of a renegade madman trying to save a nation from a patriot.

It isn’t often that Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul agree so I’d better record this for history’s sake:

Just 2 months ago, I didn’t know who Bill Taylor was. Now I know that he’s another career diplomat who doesn’t like it that President Trump is implementing the foreign policy that the American people elected him to implement. Tuesday, Taylor testified that “President Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate both election interference and a company linked to former Vice President Joe Biden’s son — and was willing to hold up military aid and a White House meeting to get a public announcement from the country that the probes were underway.”

Even if that’s true, that’s still a nothingburger. Unfortunately for Taylor, there was a man of integrity in the room during Taylor’s testimony. That man’s name is John Ratcliffe. Ratcliffe is a former US attorney who now represents TX-04. Tonight, Ratcliffe appeared on The Story to be interviewed by Martha McCallum. After Ratcliffe said that he couldn’t repeat what he said in the secret room, Ratcliffe figured out a legal way to say what happened during his cross-examination of Taylor. Here’s the video of that interview:

Predictably, Democrats described today’s testimony as “the most damning they’ve heard.” Ratcliffe had a different perspective. First, though, is part of what Taylor testified to:

“I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance, not just the White House meeting, was conditioned on the investigations.”

In this instance, Taylor’s testimony was third-hand information at best. Third-hand testimony heard behind closed doors and which doesn’t come with a transcript of Congressman Ratcliffe’s cross-examination is virtually worthless.

Congressman Ratcliffe noted that “At the end of the day, this was about quid pro quo and whether the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld and on that most important issue, neither this witness nor any other witness has provided any evidence that there was a quid pro quo, any evidence that the Ukrainians were aware that any military aid was being withheld on July 25th. Unless and until they can bring in a witness who is willing to say that there was knowledge by someone who speaks Ukrainian to that fact, a legal quid pro quo is impossible.”

Ratcliffe also noted that “[Schiff] keeps trotting in career ambassadors who are alarmed at Donald Trump’s unconventional approach to foreign policy. Who’s surprised at that? And again, today, I found Ambassador Taylor to be very forthright. He had very strong opinions about Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy, but again, the MSM keeps reporting that he provided evidence of a quid pro quo involving military aid is false. I questioned him on that and, under Adam Schiff’s rules, I can’t tell you what he said but I can tell you what he didn’t say. And he nor any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You have a quid pro quo without the quo.”

Ratcliffe’s final major contribution of the interview came when he said this:

Martha, if this was a court case, the lawyers for the defense would be moving for a directed verdict. They’d be saying ‘this case isn’t allowed to go to a jury because the prosecution is missing an essential element of their case.’ There is no quid pro quo until someone from the Ukraine says ‘We knew that military aid was being withheld during that July 25th call and that testimony hasn’t come and it isn’t going to come.”

This impeachment case is collapsing, albeit behind closed doors. It isn’t just that the case is weak. It’s that the Senate is about to vote on Lindsey Graham’s resolution that essentially says that the House process has been a travesty:

Sen. Graham is right in pushing that the impeachment trial be dismissed without a trial if the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, aka Adam Schiff, isn’t willing to afford to President Trump the same rights that were granted to President Nixon and President Clinton. The House Democrats’ impeachment process is a travesty. It shouldn’t be treated like it was an honest investigation based on constitutional rights.

If people needed additional proof that today’s Democrats are hate-filled and fact-deprived, they need only check out E.J. Dionne’s latest fact-deprived column. Included in Dionne’s scribbling is this BS, which says “The costs of this approach were underscored this weekend by a New York Times report that offers new corroboration for charges by Deborah Ramirez that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her when both were undergraduates at Yale. In denying the charge, Kavanaugh told the Senate that had it been true, the incident would have been ‘the talk of the campus.’ Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly — drawing on their new book, ‘The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation’, write tellingly: ‘Our reporting suggests that it was.'”

I’d love hearing Dionne’s explanation for this column after this information came to light:

In a major revision late Sunday, a Times editor’s note added a significant detail — that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the purported sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim had refused to be interviewed and has made no comment about the episode.

“Significant detail”, my arse. That’s a bombshell that just dropped in the middle of the NYTimes’ building. That begs the question of where these ‘authors’ got this information from. Did they make it up? Did a third party spoon-feed them this allegation? Wherever it came from, it certainly isn’t truth-based.

Check this out:

Here is the institutionally devastating part of their story: Ramirez’s legal team gave the FBI a list of “at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence” of her story. The bureau, the authors report, “interviewed none of them.” Nor did the FBI look into Stier’s account.

It’s worth noting that “Stier” is a Clinton lawyer:

The Times did not mention Stier’s work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier’s legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a “respected thought leader.”

Keep that in mind when reading this from E.J. Dionne’s column:

Stier is president of the thoroughly bipartisan and widely respected Partnership for Public Service. From my experience, he is the last person who would want to get into the middle of an ideological fight — unless his conscience required him to.

Let’s speculate a little. It’s possible that Mr. Dionne’s perspective on Stier is shaded by what I’d call Washingtonitis, sometimes known as DCitis. Remember how often the DC media told us that Robert Mueller was a straight shooter and how Jim Comey was a “boy scout”? How many people still think that?

Like the NYTimes, I’m betting that E.J. Dionne is wiping egg off his face. This is pretty much the only thing in Dionne’s article that I agree with:

But it was such a sharply constrained investigation that neither Kavanaugh nor Ford was questioned, and the other allegations against Kavanaugh were ignored. “The process was a sham,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a member of the Judiciary Committee who is seeking her party’s presidential nomination, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” She was not being hyperbolic. In the wake of the new revelations, three other Democratic contenders quickly called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment.

There’s no question that the process was a sham. At the last minute, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats brought forth one unsubstantiated allegation after another. What’s most disgusting is that they’re still bringing forth unsubstantiated hate-filled allegations after Justice Kavanaugh has been confirmed.

Initially, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats wanted to disqualify then-Judge Kavanaugh the ‘normal way’. When it became apparent that wouldn’t work, Democrats chose the unsubstantiated allegations path. This is a slimy path only used by hate-filled ideologues. Thank God for Lindsey Graham’s speech:

Lindsey Graham laid out the crap that Justice Kavanaugh and his family went through. That’s the real sham. Democrats should be obliterated for their vicious conduct. May E.J. Dionne and Senate Judiciary Democrats rot in hell together.

While campaigning, then-Candidate Trump would say that Americans would get tired of all the winning if they elected him. As the 2020 election nears, Victor Davis Hanson has written this article that’s appropriately titled “Trumped Out?” I’m not. Give me 4 more years of this. I’m loving it.

Hanson is apparently loving it, too:

The August jobs report “unexpectedly” reminds us that never have so many Americans been at work. The 3.7 percent unemployment rate continues to be the lowest peacetime unemployment figure in 50 years. Black and Hispanic unemployment remain at record lows. Workers’ wages continue to rise. Talk of recession is belied by low interest, low inflation, low unemployment and a strong stock market. The result is that millions of Americans enjoy far better lives than they had in 2016.

If President Trump isn’t re-elected, what will happen? Here’s Hanson’s opinion into that:

When we look to alternatives, all we seem to hear is multi-trillion-dollar hare-brained schemes from radical progressives and socialists masquerading as Democrats at a time of record national debt. The Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free healthcare for illegal aliens, reparations, the abolition of $1.5 trillion in student loan debt, and free tuition for all—are the stuff of fantasies and either would have to be repudiated by any of the Democratic nominees who actually was elected, or would destroy an already indebted nation.

That doesn’t sound attractive. That’s what would likely happen with a Democrat president. Democrats control the House. The woman who really runs the House is so radical that she thinks this isn’t radical enough. I’m not talking about Nancy Pelosi. I’m talking about AOC. This is what awaits us if AOC ever assumes total control:

But these are not normal times. There is (for now) no longer a Democratic Party. Instead, it is a revolutionary Jacobin movement that believes socialism is our salvation, that identity politics is our creed, that gun confiscation is our duty, that the abrupt end of fossil fuels is coming very soon, that open borders is our new demography, and that the archetypical unmarried, childless, urban hipster is our model woke citizen.

Over my dead body. President Trump has had quite the effect on otherwise timid Republicans. Check out the ‘Trump effect’ on Lindsey Graham:

It’s important that traditional-thinking people decimate today’s AOC Democrats. They’re despicable. They’re the antithesis of fair-minded. Today’s AOC Democrats don’t see the United States as the greatest protector of human rights or civil rights. Check out what Robert Francis O’Rourke thinks of your right to protect your family:

Prof. Hanson is a historian by trade. When he makes statements about history, I pay attention. That’s why I paid attention to this statement:

I cannot remember a moment in U.S. history when a presidential candidate conspired with the intelligence community of the lame-duck administration of the same party to destroy a presidential rival.

Robert Mueller forever discredited the idea of a special counsel, given his unprofessionalism, bias, and apparent incompetence that ate up 22 months of the Trump presidency. Even in the crude post-1960s, we have never seen anything like the current assassination rhetoric of Hollywood celebrities and the boasts of doing bodily harm to the president by his political opponents.

That’s what AOC’s Democratic Party is about. They’re mostly interested in trampling anyone, whether it’s a Republican, a Democrat who isn’t sufficiently woke or an apolitical person, who doesn’t march in lockstep with them. I don’t agree with each of President Trump’s tweets. I certainly disagreed with his idea of bringing the Taliban to Camp David. But I’ve literally thanked God that he’s our president. I thank God because he’s a fighter. As Prof. Hanson said, “After all that, the strange thing is not that Trump can be occasionally wearisome, but that he is even still breathing.”

Andy McCarthy’s op-ed unintentionally highlights the difference between Lindsey Graham and Jerry Nadler. They chair the Judiciary committees in the Senate and the House, respectively.

Here’s what Nadler is doing:

Elections have consequences. This was a point we tried to make many times in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections. The Democrats won control of the House fair and square. That means they get to drive the agenda.

Their agenda, kinda sorta, is the impeachment of President Trump — which is to say, the quixotic quest to build political support for it. According to the Washington Post, that effort is about to sink deeper into farce: Hearings on Stormy Daniels and the hush-money payments to conceal trysts that Donald Trump had — allegedly, of course — a decade before he ran for president.

Here’s what the Constitution says about impeachment:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Simply put, campaign finance transactions from before a candidate is elected doesn’t rise to the level of treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors. In fact, it isn’t even close. Nadler knows this. Still, he insists on wasting the people’s time on this charade.

While Nadler wastes time and money on this charade, Lindsey Graham is working on something substantive that would make people safer and improve their lives:

Co-host Steve Doocy asked Graham, R-S.C., why the Flores agreement has been politicized. Graham repeated “they hate Trump” in response, arguing Washington needs people who don’t share such hatred of the president. “I have been working on immigration for 10 years. I’m willing to deal with a DACA population… I’m willing to spend money in Central America to make life better. I’ve done everything I know to do… I can’t get one Democrat to agree with me that you should apply for asylum in Central America, or Mexico, not the United States.”

Sen. Graham’s bill would address the Flores Agreement, which essentially is where the practice of catch and release starts. That’s the cornerstone of the Democrats’ open borders policies.

Graham’s bill would also change the US’s asylum laws. The biggest change would be to force asylum seekers to apply in their country of origin at a US embassy or consulate. It would also increase the burden for getting an asylum hearing. Most people seeking asylum (upwards of 90%) pass the initial test. Few pass the court test. (That’s in the 10-15% range.) Those that pass the first test get assigned a court date that’s often 2 years off.

The comparison couldn’t be clearer. Jerry Nadler hasn’t worked on a single substantive piece of legislation since becoming the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Instead, he’s pushed an impeachment charade to appease the Democrats’ looney tune base.

Sen. Graham has spent time confirming judges to district and appellate courts. He’s written legislation to reform out-of-date immigration laws intended to keep Americans safe. He’s worked hard on building bipartisan agreement to fix our broken immigration laws.

Sen. Graham’s legislation should gain bipartisan support because protecting our citizens shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Rep. Nadler’s investigation shouldn’t get bipartisan support because he’s conducting a purely partisan investigation into something that doesn’t rise to an impeachable offense.

In 2020, the American people need to decide whether they want to vote for Republicans who are trying to get things done or whether they want to vote for Democrats who have spent their time conducting sham investigations that do nothing except employ lots of lawyers. I’ll vote for Republicans who want to get important things done. I won’t vote for Do-Nothing Democrats. I won’t vote for Do-Nothing Democrats who’ve voted for extremist health care legislation that’s expensive and that would eliminate private health insurance. Pelosi keeps asking for a Senate vote on the bills her House has passed. Sen. McConnell is right in not giving these bills a vote because they aren’t bills that would fix anything.

Attention Lindsey Graham: you’ve got to beat your Democrat friends over the head with the information from this article. You know who I’m talking about. You told us that you couldn’t find a single Democrat in the Senate willing to co-sponsor your legislation that fixes our asylum laws, fixes the Flores Agreement and closes the gaping loopholes in our immigration laws. We believed you, too.

Sen. Graham, what’s in that article is disgusting. It’s the type of stuff that Democrats should be forced to defend. Daily. When the crew at Fox & Friends asked you what it would take to pass your legislation, you were right in saying that we need fewer Democrats and more Republicans. I couldn’t agree more. Especially after reading this:

Border Patrol agents at the FOB were contacted by Mexican government officials in July regarding two subjects wanted on kidnapping and homicide charges. One of the men was apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol in November 2018 near Eagle Pass, while the other surrendered to Customs and Border Protection Officers at the Eagle Pass Port of Entry in December 2018. Both men made credible fear claims, and were ordered removed by an immigration judge after those claims were denied.

Had those criminals not been rejected for asylum, they would’ve gotten released into the US, where they likely would’ve preyed on immigrant populations. That’s totally unacceptable. Those asylum laws must be fixed. If Democrats won’t participate in fixing them, then their decisions need to become the subject of negative ads against them the next time they run for re-election.

If Democrats think that security moms want these types of predators meandering through their streets, Democrats should think again. If Democrats don’t get serious about fixing the border, they should expect a thumping next November. It won’t be pretty.

The people know that the porous US border is where tons of illegal drugs that kill US citizens come from. They know that the porous US border is also where criminals enter the US. Anyone thinking that we’re ok with this broken system must be a thick-headed Democrat.

If I hear another Democrat insist that “this isn’t who we are” if we don’t enforce the laws that Congress has passed and that the president has signed, I’ll punch that Democrat. Ignoring laws that we don’t like isn’t who we are. Further, telling me that we don’t have the resources to prosecute criminals tells me that those offices aren’t run efficiently or that those people are lying to us.

Thankfully, President Trump’s wall is getting built. That isn’t the total answer but it’s sure to help CBP. There’s already reporting out there that the new wall is a force multiplier. That’s because walls help funnel coyotes, drug smugglers and human traffickers into chokepoints, which increase agents’ efficiency.

If the Democrats don’t do anything to fix our immigration and asylum laws, they’ll pay the price in states like Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Democrats are salivating at the possibility of flipping the Senate seat that Martha McSally currently holds in Arizona. Rest assured that a broken immigration system helps Sen. McSally.

Since Democrats took over the US House this past January, essentially nothing has gotten done. That’s because this batch of Democrats are totally beholden to the Resist movement. Resist Democrats aren’t interested in doing what’s right for America. Resist Democrats only want to hate President Trump. Lindsey Graham is right. It’s time to elect people that don’t hate President Trump so we can fix this nation’s existing problems.

According to Sen. Graham, not a single Democrat will co-sponsor his immigration bill. If you think there are moderates Democrats in the Senate, you’re totally wrong. The LFR definition of a moderate Democrat is one that’s campaigning. The minute they get their election certificate, they turn into Schumer’s shills or Durbin’s dupes.

Co-host Steve Doocy asked Graham why the Flores agreement has been politicized. Graham repeated “they hate Trump” in response, arguing Washington needs people who don’t share such hatred of the president.

“I have been working on immigration for 10 years. I’m willing to deal with a DACA population… I’m willing to spend money in Central America to make life better. I’ve done everything I know to do… I can’t get one Democrat to agree with me that you should apply for asylum in Central America, or Mexico, not the United States.”

This is proof that Democrats hate President Trump more than they love this country. Think about this: think that Democrats voted unanimously against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Thanks to those tax cuts, the US economy is the envy of the world. Democrats said no to these low unemployment rates, these rising wages, this prosperity.

The 2 most important things to the average person are peace and prosperity. Unemployment is at a 50-year low. Wages are rising. Minority unemployment rates are the lowest they’ve ever been. That’s what’s called prosperity by everyone that isn’t a Democrat. Democrats keep talking about the impending recession.

On national security, it’s impossible to think that Democrats are serious. Democrats want asylum seekers to appear in court, then released. Democrats know that the vast majority of these people will never set foot in a court again. If that isn’t the definition of open borders, then that definition doesn’t exist.

Graham further chastised Democrats for refusing to work with him across the aisle on illegal immigration and said he can’t find one lawmaker from the opposing party who will agree to reform Flores. “I can’t get one Democrat to agree to allow children to be held with their families humanely for, 40, 50, or 100 days so we can process their claims,” he said.

“They literally want them released in the United States… They will not work with me. They will not work with President Trump. I am dumbfounded as to why we can’t find [a] compromise.”

When Democrats won’t work with Lindsey Graham on immigration, that’s proof positive that they aren’t interested in fixing things. It’s time to throw a bunch of Democrats overboard by electing people who will actually fix things.

When Democrats unanimously vote against fixing illegal immigration after they voted unanimously against the Trump/GOP tax cuts, that’s proof that Democrats are the definition of do-nothing politicians.

The US Senate used to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. Today, it’s the embodiment of the Swamp, thanks mostly to these Do-Nothing Democrats.

What a shock! Supposedly pro-border security Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee boycotted a hearing that would fix most of the problems with the US-Mexico border. Once again, this proves how unserious Democrats are on the subject of border security. What these Democrats are quite skilled at is complaining about Republicans’ bills.

The article notices that “Ms. Feinstein said Mr. Graham’s bill went too far to eliminate the Flores Settlement, which she said included important protections for migrants when they are in custody. She also complained that he hadn’t worked hard enough to make his bill bipartisan. ‘We believe that the solution on the immigration issue can and should be done on a bipartisan basis,’ the California Democrat said.”

This is a political stunt. Anyone that complains about the minor details in a bill without offering an amendment to fix that detail isn’t interested in bipartisanship. They’re interested in signaling to the media to cover, then criticize, the Democrats’ PR stunt.

Sen. Josh Hawley, (R-MO), nailed it with this analysis:

I triple-dog dare a Democrat to tell me what serious bills Democrats have submitted in either the House or Senate. I’m not worried about the results because Democrats aren’t serious about border security. Yesterday’s stunt was proof that Democrats care more about the optics of the issue than they care about fixing the problem.

In 2020, Americans will need to decide whether they’d rather have a president and a unified congress that wants to fix problems or whether they’d rather have a congress that’s mostly interested in obstructing. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for obstruction. In the House, Democrats haven’t written a single serious bill that would fix our asylum laws or would fix the Flores Decision.

Last night, I watched President Trump’s re-election kickoff speech. Saying it was President Trump’s finest speech is understatement in my estimation. He connected with the forever-adoring audience. He tied his accomplishments together to tell a compelling story for why he needs to be re-elected. He took shots at congressional Democrats and Democrat presidential candidates.

From a technical standpoint, the speech felt like it was half SOTU Address, half campaign speech. From the standpoint of rallying the faithful, it couldn’t have gone better.

One of the best applause lines came when President Trump talked about how Democrats attempted to demolish Justice Kavanaugh:

“[Democrats] tried to ruin the family of now-Justice Kavanaugh,” Trump says. “They tried to ruin his career. They tried to ruin his life … all in the pursuit of political domination and control.”

I’ll just add that Democrats tried destroying Justice Kavanaugh’s daughters, too. Remember this?

I do. It brought me to tears. I wish Democrats had the grace that Justice Kavanaugh’s daughter has. Unfortunately, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats don’t have that much grace. But I digress. Later in the speech, President Trump said this:

“Since the very first day I walked through the doors of the White House, I have never forgotten who sent me there,” Trump says. “You did.”

President Trump also added that the people of this nation are the only special interest group he cares about. It’s especially believable in light of the fact that he isn’t listening to the lobbyists as they try changing his mind on the major issues of the day.

For instance, President Trump has ignored the Chamber of Commerce while negotiating trade deals with China, South Korea, Canada and Mexico. He certainly hasn’t catered to the pro-EU lobby. The proof is in his support for Brexit.

This was President Trump’s best zinger of the Democrats:

“Since my inauguration, we’ve added 16,000 manufacturing jobs a month,” Trump says. “… Remember the statement from the previous administration? You’d need a magic wand to bring back manufacturing. Well, tell Sleepy Joe that we found the magic wand.

That’s definitely a zinger. Obama-Biden deserve it, too, for putting the country through 7+ years of economic torture. The best substantive flourish came on immigration:

The Democrat agenda of open borders is morally reprehensible. It’s the greatest betrayal of the American middle class and, frankly, American life. Our immigration laws are a disgrace and the Democrats can get together with the Republicans and solve the problem quickly.

Democrats will howl over being called pro-open borders but it’s a fact. That’s who they are. If they cared about fixing immigration, they could sign onto Sen. Lindsey Graham’s bill tomorrow and have it signed into law before the 4th of July recess.

This was another great line:

“Republicans believe welfare, schools, hospitals and public resources should be protected for all Americans … We believe our country should be a sanctuary for law-abiding citizens, not for criminal aliens.”

The opening part of the speech was more thematic, I thought, while the last half of the speech delivered one clump of red meat for the partisans after another. All of the speech was well-delivered. The crowd ate it all up.

While #ImpeachTrump rallies held nationwide drew ‘crowds’ by the dozens, President Trump’s re-election kickoff rally attracted 150,000 RSVPs. The story that the MSM isn’t telling you is that the RNC/Trump GOTV operation is built to the max and the activists are chomping at the bit to throw Democrats out of office in 2020. If tonight is an indicator of who’s most fired up, Democrats better start worrying. Check this out:

If this article doesn’t stir Democrats to action, then they’ll be exposed as heartless politicians who only care about winning elections. Here’s a serious question for House Democrats: Why don’t you attempt to put nation ahead of political gain for a change?

I won’t pretend that the GOP is faultless on immigration. Still, I know Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has put together legislation together to fix the current crisis. That’s leaps and bounds beyond anything that House Democrats have done.

Mark Morgan, the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, didn’t pull punches in addressing the crisis:

Participating in the briefing was Sen. Chuck Grassley. Here’s what he had to say about what he’d heard:

I can’t believe that this actually happens but that people down there in Central America or Mexico are renting babies to get across the border and then sending them back and renting them again to get across the border. The public doesn’t know about it. I hope you guys will help advertise that, assuming the information that I heard yesterday was accurate because that’s a humanitarian crisis that we have to be concerned about.

What will Nancy do? What will Chuck do? Can they be bothered to give a damn? Thus far, they’ve said that it was a manufactured crisis, that the problem was caused by President Trump’s policies or simply refused to fix the asylum loopholes.

Their accomplices in the press, especially Jessica Tarlov, insist that Democrats care about border security. That’s BS. If they cared, they’d pass Sen. Graham’s 11-page bill that could fix these problems within a week. Democrats won’t do that, though. Their actions speak for themselves.

If Democrat members of the Problem Solvers Caucus don’t defy Ms. Pelosi, most of those freshmen Democrats will be one-term wonders. If Pelosi, Schumer and the Democrats listen to the Resist Movement, they’ll deserve to lose in a landslide. This is a crisis. Crises demand fixing.

Thus far, Democrats have failed miserably.