In Case You Missed it (v119)

Here's your recap of last week's posts, in case you missed anything.  

As usual, we started the week in the Sunday School classrooms, where I focused on immigration. Here's a bit of Margaret Brennan's conversation with Sen. Jim Lankford (R-OK), who helped negotiate the immigration bill we heard so much about last week. 

Lankford said they've been working on the bill for "about four months" and they're trying to get it wrapped up so they can get into people's hands and put false rumors to bed.

So people want to be able to just see it, read it and go through it, and to be able to see the dramatic change that this really makes in how we handle our immigration system and how we work to be able to secure our border completely. That's been the simple request of Americans, whether you're Republican, Democrat, or Independent. People just want a secure border, where we have legal immigration, but we're not promoting illegal immigration. And that's what we've seen in the last three years.

He said some of the language is similar to our pandemic-era Title 42, which allowed the border to be closed when we couldn't process the number of people who were crossing. Right now, he said, when we can't process them, they're just being released into the country.

That's what's driving the mayors in Denver, in Chicago, in New York City, and other places around the country crazy to say, when the border gets crowded, you just release them to our cities, and it causes all the chaos... 

It was interesting that Lankford mentioned some of the country's mayors; so did Bakari Sellers. Here's a highlight in this snip from your Extra Credit.

He chastised the Ds who "have refused to pay attention to immigration and crime in this country, saying it really didn't exist, it wasn't a problem." What's needed now is the folks who have complained,

we need our good mayors, like Frank Scott from Little Rock, like Chokwe from Jackson, Mississippi, we need Randall Woodfin from Birmingham, Alabama, and we even need mayors who don't know what they're doing, like Eric Adams in New York City, to now simply stand up for this piece of legislation and say, 'this is what we need done.'

This has to be the messaging and the messengers who can get this done for the country. This is not a problem that you kick down the road... This is something you fix right now. This is a problem. Fix it.

That sure beats merely complaining about the other side, doesn't it?

Lankford was mentioned again in a Sidebar post, in which we learned that he had been censured by Oklahoma's State Republican Party... at least, that's what it looked like in the beginning. Here's a snip.

According to the censure resolution, 

Senator Lankford playing fast and loose with Democrats on our border policy not only disenfranchises legal immigrants seeking citizenship but it also puts the safety and security of Americans in great danger. 

I'm not sure he's "playing fast and loose" with the Dems; I mean, leading the bipartisan negotiations doesn't sound like he was behaving in a clever and dishonest way with them, does it? 

After news of the censure broke, things started to unravel for what we all thought was the OKGOP.

Interestingly, there are complaints that the Committee's vote to censure Lankford may not have been legitimate, as some members with voting rights weren't invited to the meeting. 

More interestingly, or perhaps comically is the better word, the OKGOP released a new statement today:

The meeting held by certain Republicans on January 27th was an illegitimate meeting. Proper notice was not provided to all members of the State Committee meeting. None of the actions done at the meeting are the official position of the OKGOP and the media is advised to refrain from reporting or suggesting that this was an official action of the 'OKGOP' or 'Oklahoma Republican party' regarding the motions, resolutions, or procedures done at this illegitimate meeting.

Someone's got some 'splaining to do.

Three immigration-related posts in three days - and by then, I was more than ready for some Wondering on Wednesday. I won't lie - the Lankford censure popped up there, too, as did the Florida legislature. That group seems a bit unsettled by what's happening on the book-banning front.

Most of us are aware of the penchant for book banning in Florida. This article by Judd Legum reminds us that the whole mess started when the Rs in FLA attacked alleged "grooming" by school librarians pushing "pornographic" materials in their bookshelves.

Florida's Republican legislature passed — and Ron DeSantis signed — several pieces of legislation that made it easier to take books off the shelves of the state's public schools. This was all seen as smart politics, appealing to parents seeking to protect their children from inappropriate content.

Some of the Rs are getting tired of taking the heat for the ridiculous bans; even noted conservative Bill O'Reilly's books were pulled from the shelves. Legislation is moving along that would "make it more difficult for people to challenge books en masse." That's happened in at least one Florida county, where every book in the library was pulled for review. Legum says the legislation

is an implicit acknowledgment that book banning in Florida schools has gone too far. It also suggests that the enormous number of books being taken off the shelves of Florida schools has become a political problem for Florida Republicans. 

Check the post to see what had me scratching my head on these topics, and a few others.  

I wrapped the week with a Meanwhile, Back in Albany entry on one of my favorite subjects, NY politicians and their gambling revenue addiction. 

And now, it's online casino gaming; here's some info from a Spectrum News report from October 2023.

Lawmakers are working to amend legislation to legalize a new form of online gambling in the state officials say could bring upwards of $1 billion in revenue to New York and help close budget gaps expected over the next few years...

In addition to the revenue, it's flat-out altruistic, too, especially for the New Yorkers who are forced to do their online gambling on apps registered in other states.

We can't help someone with an addiction because we don't know who they are, and once we regulate it in New York, iGaming, we then can help those that might be in need are on their pathway to addiction. We'll put in statutory language in this bill to address that.

Now that the Legislature is back in session, we can see what's up for discussion.

The bill would allow for mobile or online betting on various types of interactive gaming, referred to as iGaming, and iLottery. I'm pretty sure those names are not affiliated with the giant fruit vendor known for selling all the other iThings, or with iCarly, an old Nickelodeon TV show, but there's a chance we could see some kind of copyright lawsuit, right? What are the odds?  

There's a lot in the proposed bill to get riled up about, and I can assure you, riled I was.  

And just like that, you're up to date. Stay tuned for this week's posts - regular features, and more.

Wondering on Wednesday 1/31/24

 Ready... set... wonder!

It's rare for me to update my wondering a mere seven days later, but that's where I find myself today. Last week I wondered about the stock market, what Trump thought of it when he was president, and how his thinking has changed.

That was then, but this is now, and with Joe Biden in the White House, Trump is no longer excited about the market's success. Rather, he's telling his supporters that "the stock market is making rich people richer" - as if that's ever been a bad thing for an alleged billionaire. 

So, why am I wondering about this again, you might be asking?  Well, he apparently has changed his mind - again.  Not only is a booming market great again, it's all because of him! Because of his polls! Because everyone loves him and can't wait for him to be president again!

And I have to wonder, was he lying to me while he was in office, or was he lying to me over the past several weeks, or is he lying to me now?

I learned today that a judge in Delaware's Court of Chancery has tossed Elon Musk's Tesla compensation package, saying that $56 billion was an "unfathomable sum."  Kathaleen McCormick wrote in her decision, which is appealable, of course,

Swept up by the rhetoric of 'all upside,' or perhaps starry-eyed by Musk’s superstar appeal, the board never asked the $55.8 billion question: Was the plan even necessary for Tesla to retain Musk and achieve its goals?

The article I linked above has some interesting information of the corporate intrigue kind, including board members beholden to the CEO and shirking their responsibilities, angry shareholders (that's how the suit came to be), and my favorite piece of information, to which I've added the emphasis:

Amit Batish at Equilar, an executive pay research firm, estimated in 2022 that Musk's package was around six times larger than the combined pay of the 200 highest-paid executives in 2021.

I'm wondering, as I re-read that last part for the umpteenth time today, whether incentive-only compensation packages - according to the article, Musk didn't draw a Tesla salary - should have limits? And I also can't help wondering what a less Musk-friendly board would have done in the compensation negotiations.

In a Sidebar yesterday, I talked about the Oklahoma Republican Party voting to censure Sen. James Lankford, and how the meeting was subsequently deemed illegitimate by the 'real' OKGOP.  And what I'm wondering about here is simply this: how many other GOP organizations are at risk for this same kind of thing, where a cabal is bold enough, willing, and able to take over the party, even temporarily, and create this kind of havoc? And how long before we figure out they exist?

Most of us are aware of the penchant for book banning in Florida. This article by Judd Legum reminds us that the whole mess started when the Rs in FLA attacked alleged "grooming" by school librarians pushing "pornographic" materials in their bookshelves.

Florida's Republican legislature passed — and Ron DeSantis signed — several pieces of legislation that made it easier to take books off the shelves of the state's public schools. This was all seen as smart politics, appealing to parents seeking to protect their children from inappropriate content.

Some of the Rs are getting tired of taking the heat for the ridiculous bans; even noted conservative Bill O'Reilly's books were pulled from the shelves. Legislation is moving along that would "make it more difficult for people to challenge books en masse." That's happened in at least one Florida county, where every book in the library was pulled for review. Legum says the legislation

is an implicit acknowledgment that book banning in Florida schools has gone too far. It also suggests that the enormous number of books being taken off the shelves of Florida schools has become a political problem for Florida Republicans. 

I'm not surprised pols are upset about the consequences of their anti-woke, anti-LGBTQ, anti-everything approach to school libraries; here's what really got to me in Legum's article.

The majority of book challenges in the United States came from 11 people. Two of the most prolific, Bruce Friedman and Vicki Baggett, hail from Florida.

Eleven people are responsible for the majority of book challenges in the United States? How can you not wonder with me how that's even possible?  Eleven people, out of a country of over 334,000,000? How does this even happen?

And finally, Rep. Rob Menendez (D-NJ) pulled less than zero punches in comments directed towards GOP members of the House Homeland Security Committee as they considered impeachment charges against Alejandro Mayorkas.

According to the article, Menendez noted there've been plenty of hearings on the border, but none on things like "emergency preparedness, cyber threats, infrastructure protection, and more," all of which would be in the Committee's portfolio.

We have not lived up to our oversight obligation here on this committee because you all are obsessed with the border. Because you bend the knee to the ‘Orange Jesus’ as you refer to him across the aisle. 

You can watch the video of his comments here, and maybe wonder, as I often do, how much longer the folks in the House will keep it together.

What's on your wondering mind these days?

Sidebar: Sunday School 1/28/24

One more thing before I leave the immigration discussion and move to greener pastures: it's been reported that the Oklahoma Republican Party (OKGOP) has voted to censure US Sen. Jim Lankford, one of their own, for his efforts on the bipartisan bill we've heard so much about recently. 

(I didn't have room for Lankford in the recaps you can read here and here.)

Lankford has represented Oklahoma in the Senate since 2015, but apparently collaborating with the Dems and trying to solve a problem that legislators have either failed or refused to solve in decades is too much for them to take.  

According to the censure resolution, 

Senator Lankford playing fast and loose with Democrats on our border policy not only disenfranchises legal immigrants seeking citizenship but it also puts the safety and security of Americans in great danger. 

I'm not sure he's "playing fast and loose" with the Dems; I mean, leading the bipartisan negotiations doesn't sound like he was behaving in a clever and dishonest way with them, does it? 

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Lankford noted

It is interesting, Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. So we actually locked arms together and said, ‘We’re not going to give money for this. We want a change in law. And now, it's interesting a few months later, when we're finally getting to the end, they're like, 'Oh, just kidding, I actually don't want a change in law.'

Other comments about the resolution were reported by KOKH, a Fox affiliate in Oklahoma City. The station's report noted the resolution said

Lankford's 'open border deal' directly conflicts with the GOP's values... We oppose a 'path to citizenship' that would grant citizenship to illegal aliens faster than to immigrants who have come to the United States through legal means.

And, it included a statement from the (We're Not) OKGOP, signed by Wayne Hill, the party's Vice Chairman, which had this to say about the censure.

The State Committee of the Oklahoma Republican party, the Supreme Authority of the OKGOP, has condemned the actions of Senator James Lankford. The resolution calls on Senator Lankford to "cease and desist jeopardizing the security and liberty of the people of Oklahoma and of these United States." Further, "until Senator Lankford ceases from these actions, the Oklahoma Republican Party will cease all support for him.

Today's meeting was attended by 172 active Republicans from all across Oklahoma. the 124 voting members of the State Committee resoundingly approved this resolution and others as their first official act of the 2024 election year.

The OKGOP State Committee is committed to holding elected Republicans accountable to the standards set forth in the OKGOP Platform which supports limited legal immigration. It is our hope that Senator Lankford will acknowledge the direction of the State Committee and do all in his power to defend our border from the current invasion.

Interestingly. there are complaints that the Committee's vote to censure Lankford may not have been legitimate, as some members with voting rights weren't invited to the meeting. 

More interestingly, or perhaps comically is the better word, the OKGOP released a new statement today:

The meeting held by certain Republicans on January 27th was an illegitimate meeting. Proper notice was not provided to all members of the State Committee meeting. None of the actions done at the meeting are the official position of the OKGOP and the media is advised to refrain from reporting or suggesting that this was an official action of the 'OKGOP' or 'Oklahoma Republican party' regarding the motions, resolutions, or procedures done at this illegitimate meeting.

Someone's got some 'splaining to do.

Sunday School 1/28/24

For your Sunday School this week, I'm focusing on the immigration conversations in the classrooms.

Donald Trump doesn't want Senate Republicans to help get a bill to the House, and he doesn't want the House to pass a bill if one makes it to them. We know that because Mitch McConnell said the first part, and Trump himself has made the second part clear. 

We'll start with Face the Nation where Margaret Brennan (Interrupter-in-Chief, CBS) talked with Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), one of the negotiators of the Senate bill. Lankford said they've been working on the bill for "about four months" and they're trying to get it wrapped up so they can get into people's hands and put false rumors to bed.

So people want to be able to just see it, read it and go through it, and to be able to see the dramatic change that this really makes in how we handle our immigration system and how we work to be able to secure our border completely. That's been the simple request of Americans, whether you're Republican, Democrat, or independent. People just want a secure border, where we have legal immigration, but we're not promoting illegal immigration. And that's what we've seen in the last three years.

He said some of the language is similar to our pandemic-era Title 42, which allowed the border to be closed when we couldn't process the number of people who were crossing. Right now, he said, when we can't process them, they're just being released into the country.

That's what's driving the mayors in Denver, in Chicago, in New York City, and other places around the country crazy to say, when the border gets crowded, you just release them to our cities, and it causes all the chaos... 

With this bill, we can "turn those folks back around to Mexico," he said, which "gives the authority to the United States and to law enforcement, rather than...the criminal cartels." He said 'humanitarian parole' remains an issue, because it's "attracting more people" here, and we end up turning them loose without knowing if they even qualify for asylum.

Brennan wondered if the bill would pass without Trump's support. Lankford said he's looking forward to Trump being able to read the bill before he makes a decision, adding

... there is no question, no matter what your political persuasion is, we would not have had the immigration crisis we're experiencing right now if President Trump would have been president the last three years...

But even Trump wanted more authority on immigration, and what "he was specifically asking Congress to change" on asylum, and deportation funding, are included in the bill. 

 So, if he were to be president, this would be new authorities that he had actually asked for when he was president before.

Eventually, the interview turned to the obligatory talk of endorsing Trump. I believe there's a rule - think I saw it on Walter Cronkite's Facebook page - that every Republican must be asked the question.  

Lankford said he hasn't endorsed anyone, but Trump would "be a much better president than what we're dealing with right now, definitely on national security." Brennan asked if the $83M verdict in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case gives him "any pause about (Trump) returning to office?" Nope.

I don't want to jump in the middle of a legal case. It's been interesting the number of legal cases that have come up against President Trump and then have failed and have been dropped or have been kicked out of the courts on it. This one has actually went through. He's already said he's going to challenge it. So let the courts actually make their decisions and let the American people make their decisions.

And then, of course, because he couldn't help himself, he added

We got states like Colorado that are trying to be able to block the people of Colorado from being able to choose who they vote for. Let the American people decide this in November.

Brennan didn't mention the 60-odd election fraud cases that Trump lost or that were tossed, but she did point out that the Supremes might be making the decision on the ballot case.

Next up? Dana Bash and her State of the Union classroom conversation with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), another senator crafting the bill She asked Murphy if they have a deal. He said the same as Lankford: there's a bipartisan deal, they're working on the text, and

the question is whether Republicans are going to listen to Donald Trump, who wants to preserve chaos at the border because he thinks that it's a winning political issue for him, or whether we are going to pass legislation which would be the biggest bipartisan reform of our border immigration laws in 40 years.

He said the bill gives whoever is president "new, important power to be able to better manage the flow" of people crossing the border. He's glad Biden came out "forcefully in favor" of the bill, and noted that "Republicans have said they will let - they will let Vladimir Putin march his army in and through Ukraine if we don't pass a bill that includes border provisions and Ukraine funding."

That would be "catastrophic" not just for the US but for the "whole world." The stakes are high, and

The consequences of failure are enormous. And I do have confidence that enough Republicans in the Senate are going to join us to pass this bipartisan legislation, potentially as early as the next week or two, and we can show that Washington can still stand up and work on these big problems, even if Donald Trump is rooting for chaos.

He confirmed some of the bill's provisions, including the ability to temporarily close the border when crossings "reach catastrophically high levels." It also shortens the timeframe for hearing asylum cases from "sometimes five to ten years" to "six months in some cases." It also speeds up the process for getting people work permits.

Murphy disagrees that Biden already has the necessary authority, calling that "a political talking point." The people who say that are the people who introduced those same tools in HR2, their "massive border reform bill." And now?

...they want to keep the border in a chaotic situation for political purposes. Remember, Donald Trump didn't do a much better job. Presentations reached a 10-year high ... The only reason that fewer people started to show up was because COVID hit... So, when Donald Trump says,' I didn't need any new powers,' that's just not true. 

Also in the classroom with Bash? Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD but I really want to be VP). Noem thinks Texas should defy the Supreme Court's ruling that the federal government can cut down Gov. Greg Abbott's razor wire, and enforce their state rights to control their border.

She told a story she heard when she was in Texas, about a mom from Nicaragua who "had been told that America is open, please come." 

She brought her daughter, her 6-year-old daughter, and was facilitated through by cartels and said where she was so mistreated was in Mexico, that she sat in Mexico for three months and was put through horrific work conditions and terrible conditions for her and her daughter for three months before they then brought her across the river and forced her across into a dangerous situation.

Later in the interview, though, here's what she said about keeping people in Mexico.

Why doesn't President Biden take action today? I mean, today can be 'day one'. He can immediately announce that he's reinstating the stay-in-Mexico policy...We have a president that has all the tools that he needs to protect our country today, and he's refusing to do that.

So, do we make them stay in Mexico, or no? I'm so confused. 

And what does Noem think of some of the comments in a video Bash played?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): The question is, do you want to get something that will help us stem the tide of humanity coming across the border and drugs, or do you want to get nothing? SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): I just reject the idea that we should reserve a crisis for a better time to solve it. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I think the best thing for the Republican Party to do right now is try to work with Democrats. 

Noem thumped her chest and accused the senators of "casting aspersions that they do not have the knowledge and the facts to speak to." 

Because they weren't around when Trump was president? Because they didn't support his border policies? Because she wants to be Trump's VP so badly, she can taste it? 

She also this about the esteemed Republicans:

So you can say a lot of things and talk a lot of talk. And U.S. senators are really good at spinning a story to make themselves look good. 

Not that job-hunting governors would ever do that.

See you around campus.