Breaking Fake News Update (v26)

 Fake News Broke on November 16, 2025!

I have to say, no one is more shocked than I am, seeing two consecutive breaking fake news reports related to professional sports! Last week, it was the NFL's Dynamic Kickoff, and today, it's the NBA All-Star Game? Who had that on their bingo cards for 2025? 

The NBA, for unknown reasons, has decided to totally revamp the format for its mid-season celebration, which will be played during the same time as the Winter Olympics. I'm guessing that might be one reason for the change to the 'USA against the World' team alignment, outlined in the bulletin above. 

I understand from my fake news sources that, if two or more teams end up with the same record after the seven rounds, a draft of the tie-breaker indicates that bonus points will be awarded to the team with the most Americans, but they haven't seen the final plan.

In a 'we thought of everything' move, the league has even devised a way to make sure they can field the teams they want if the voters don't pick enough of the right players. After all, it would be horrible if folks did a little too much America First-ing when they voted. 

If NBA All-Star voting does not result in the selection of 16 U.S. players and eight international players (which can include American players with ties to other countries if necessary), then NBA Commissioner Adam Silver will select additional All-Stars to join either group to reach that minimum.  In that case, at least one team would have more than eight players.

One would hope that they'd do a whole lot of  'splaining on the new process so that they won't have to resort to the backup plan - especially now that there are four fake teams in the mix. And one would hope that the league's betting partners are well-versed on all of the changes so they can adjust their plans accordingly, too.

As always, if fake news is breaking, I've got you covered. And if you have a fake news tip for me, let me know!

Breaking Fake News Update (v14)

Fake News Broke on August 22, 2025! 

Can you imagine 25,000 spectators at a UFC event at the White House? Can you imagine a weirder way to celebrate our 250th birthday? Those things are real, I can assure you.

And can you think of anyone other than Kristi Noem that would step up so eagerly to help complete the mission? That part is fake, at least so far. We got out in front with the fake news so fast, we may have to wait a little longer for the real news to catch up!

As always, if there's fake news, we'll be all over it.

Wondering on Wednesday 1/15/25

Ready... Set... Wonder!

The Once and Future President (OAFP) wants to make our government smaller. And that's just one reason why I can't help wondering whether we really need a new External Revenue Service to collect tariffs from foreign countries. Separate from the fact that tariffs aren't paid by foreign governments, they're paid by the importers of goods from foreign countries, who typically will pass them on to customers, we already have the good folks at Customs and Border Protection who are responsible for collecting money from foreign governments. Why do we need another team to do the same thing?

You might wonder, as I did, whether the creation of the new department is a suggestion that they're not doing a good job. That doesn't appear to be the case. Rather, the ERS is a way to help us all - even the donor class! Take a look at these comments from MAGAist Steve Bannon, speaking with Dasha Burns of Politico.

Tariffs paid for everything up until the early 20th century. But you wouldn't just look at tariffs, you look at everything about how you can charge fees essentially, whether that's on investment, whether that's on other things of access to this country. America's behind the golden door, OK? And this market is the most robust, lucrative market in the world, and we shouldn't just let people have access, we shouldn't let foreigners have access to this market and to the American people and American citizens for free.

And he said, the ERS, which he envisions fitting under the Treasury Department,  

should eventually take the “burden off people on Internal Revenue Services — no reason the American people, American corporations, even the donor class has to pay for everything.” (emphasis added)

I have to wonder how many Americans woke up this morning worried about the donor class?  

We know who they are, right? The tech billionaires, media billionaires, pharma billionaires, think tank billionaires, and so on. My first thought? Most of us regular folks are pretty sick of hearing about - and from - 'the donor class.' And it seems no one's more sick of one of them -Elon Musk, the First Buddy - than Bannon himself. 

What could be going wrong between these two, you're wondering? Bannon and other MAGA 'originalists' have been publicly bickering with Musk over the coveted H1-B visas, which give foreigners up to six years to work in the US in mostly high-paying jobs that could go to Americans, thinking that supporting those visas goes against the MAGA goal of reducing all immigration, and against America First principles.

Speaking with an Italian newspaper, Bannon proclaimed

I will get Elon Musk kicked out by the time (Trump's) inaugurated. He won’t have a blue pass with full access to the White House. He’ll be like everyone else.

He’s a truly evil person. Stopping him has become a personal issue for me. Before, since he’s put in so much money, I was prepared to tolerate it. Not anymore.

With only a handful of days til the inauguration, is anyone else wondering who'll be the last man standing? I'm guessing it's Musk, with whom the OAFP has sided on the visa issue, but we'll see... that 'co-president' stuff will get to Trump sooner than later, I think.

Sticking with the monied people a bit longer, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump's nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted revised financial disclosure documents. It seems he was unaware that, when asked to state his income, the correct number to submit is the gross amount, not the net amount. And, I think he's also learned that any positive gross amount would be greater than zero. 

Now, you may be wondering why this matters. After all, there are many concerns with RFK's nomination and his positions on a whole host of issues, from the healthiest way to travel with and dispose of dead animals, to whether having part of his brain eaten by a worm is still detrimental to his mental function, or if it was only an issue during a divorce proceeding, to his wide-ranging controversial comments on vaccines and fluoridated water, to whether he would have been chosen by Trump at all if he weren't a Kennedy and a former Democrat, to why his family is so adamantly against him getting any government job... 

But here's the thing I'm wondering: now that we know he not only didn't work for free, as he has stated in interviews, but he was paid a whole lotta money from his anti-vax stuff, has anyone checked his tax returns? Did he report gross income then, or net? 

Speaking of health and stuff, the FDA today banned red dye 3 from food and beverages by January 2027, and from the medications we ingest by January 2028, due to its cancer risk. It's important to note that it was removed from cosmetics over thirty years ago. Think about that for a minute: we haven't been able to put it on our faces for almost half my lifetime, but we can continue eating, drinking, and ingesting it for at least another two years? I can't help wondering the logic of all of that, and I also have to wonder why Big Pharma gets a whole year longer than the food industry to protect us. 

And news is officially breaking today that there's a ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel, which if all goes well should get at least some of the American hostages released soon. President Biden noted in his remarks that members of the OAFP's administration were engaged in the talks that led to the agreement, which is what would normally be expected in a well-functioning government in transition between administrations. I wonder, as we wait for word of Israel's formal acceptance, if this will be the deal that finally brings this nightmare to an end. 

There was no wondering at all on whether the OAFP would take credit for the deal; of course, he did. Similarly, I didn't wonder for a second whether the reporters covering the White House would throw a 'credit' question into the mix; of course, they did. Why? Because they simply can't help making fools of themselves at times like this. 

And they wonder why people don't trust them. 

There's always more to wonder about than I can ever fit in a single post... drop a comment if there's something on your mind.

Sunday School 2/25/24: Extra Credit

For your Extra Credit this week, I spent time with Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Mar-a-Lago) and Kristen Welker in the Meet the Press classroom. 

Donalds, who was among the people receiving votes for House Speaker last fall, is on former president Donald Trump's VP shortlist. 

Topic #1: Trump's Black Conservative Federation Gala comments

Welker played a video clip of Trump talking about his indictments, and asked if he was "implying that he can win Black voters because they get indicted all the time, too." Donalds said "it's part of it," and said that Trump also mentioned issues - the border, the economy - that cause concern for Black voters. 

But then when you layer on the fact that, yes, this is political persecution from the Department of Justice and from radical DAs throughout our country, this is something similar that Black people had to deal with – with the justice system themselves. And so their look – their look of it is real simple: "Well, dang, if the government's going after him with foolishness, he can't be that bad." Especially considering the fact that Joe Biden is terrible at his job.

Welker noted that grand juries brought the indictments against Trump and that there's "no evidence the indictments are political in nature," and asked for his thoughts on former Rep. Cedric Richmond's opinion that Trump's comments were "just plain racist." 

Number one, Richmond's "trying to play politics and use racial politics," Donalds said. And number two, he continued (with my emphasis added)

like I said at the top, the number one reason why minority voters in our country want to support Donald Trump is because he did the job of president. He did a great job... Our country was secure. The economy was great. These are all things that Donald Trump talked about Friday night.

And yes, he also talked about the indictments. 

What Americans don't want to see, especially Black Americans and anybody else, they don't want to see a politicized Justice Department. They don't want to see a two-tier system of justice. They want justice to be followed. They want Lady Justice to be blind. That's what the American people want. That's what Black voters want. That's what everybody wants.

Welker, who clearly can't help herself, came back again, asking if Donalds was "offended at all" by the comments.

No, I wasn't. Because I understood what the president was talking about. And like I said now for the third time, he talked about all the reasons why minority voters want to support him.

Topic #2: The Hur Report

Donalds segued into Biden not being indicted by Special Counsel Robert Hur as indicative of that two-tiered justice system.  

You have to acknowledge the fact that now that the Robert Hur report has come out about Joe Biden's misuse of classified information, which is a violation of the Espionage Act, he had no rights to any of those documents when he was a senator or vice president, yet there are no charges... While President Trump is under prosecution. Come on now. You know that doesn't make any sense at all.

Then they talked over each other, and argued about what the report actually said (open to interpretation, it seems), and then he said

The Espionage Act is clear - you cannot possess those documents as a senator or vice president. You have no rights to those documents as a senator or a vice president. They must remain in a secure facility. Joe Biden took them from a SCIF. That's a violation of the Espionage Act, period.

Welker gave up arguing but before moving on, she said the Hur report said there wasn't enough evidence to bring charges.

Topic #3: IVF (and shouted questions)

Welker brought up Donalds saying he agreed with the Alabama ruling that embryos are children, and she wanted to know if he supported IVF as we know it here, which sometimes ends with donated or destroyed embryos. 

Donalds said he does support IVF, he's got several friends who have been through it, and have beautiful and wonderful children, and said "I totally support the procedure." He also noted he responded to a question as he was "in the middle of a hallway," that he "heard the tail end" of the question, and that he wasn't aware of the Alabama decision when he answered.

By way of explaining his position - that he fully supports IVF - he said

Look, embryos are important to the production of life. We all come from embryos. That's what I said because I heard half her question. But do I support the IVF procedure? 100% I do. It should be made available. And I believe, as President Trump has also said, we really want the Alabama legislature to make sure that that procedure is protected for families who do struggle with having children. That helps them actually create great families, which is what our country desperately needs.

And so Welker, after hearing him state twice that he 100% supports IVF, how important it is, and how he supports legislation protecting it, asked this:

So just to be very clear, though, if you believe that embryos are children, do you think they should be treated as people with all the same legal rights as people?

He should have said, "Are the answers I've given you twice insufficient in some way?" Instead, he said she was "getting into a personhood argument" and that's where legislation - and how legislators put it together - would be critical. And he said - again - 

The IVF procedure is very important to a lot of couples in our country. It should be protected. I agree with President Trump on that. 

And so, 'to put a fine point on it,' as Welker likes to say, she asked if he'd support federal legislative protection for IVF. He said he'd need to see "the devil in the details," but

I feel I could broadly support that. Because, like I said, IVF is something that is so critical to a lot of couples. It helps them breed great families. Our country needs that.

Topic #4: Ukraine, the border, and government funding

Welker played a clip of a 2022 town hall where Donalds said we "needed to be engaged in Ukraine because, quote, "If you essentially allow the bully to bully, you're going to be drawn into a broader conflict you do not want to be a part of."  She wondered what changed since he made those comments. It's really simple, he explained: Biden's failure to secure our country, which is "the first job of the federal government."

...many citizens are saying, "Why are we sending billions of dollars to protect Ukraine while our country remains open?" So my message has been clear. I agree with the Speaker. You want to talk Ukraine funding? Let's talk about it. But you've got to secure America first.

She suggested the House failed to do its job when it refused to take up the Senate border bill; Donalds said it was "a terrible bill," and reminded her that the Senate didn't even pass it. Welker then asked, "So can you really say... you have done everything possible for the border when you've opposed that deal?" 

He pointed to H.R.2, the House bill, which is "the most robust border security package ever to pass a chamber of Congress.," again noting that the Senate did not pass its own bill. And, he said, 

Joe Biden doesn't even need legislation to secure the country. He could do that right now. He can undo all of his executive orders that he put into place when he became president... That's what created the crisis that we have today.

Welker countered with this statement: "Congressman, as you know, executive orders often get tied up in the courts. That's what happened under former President Trump." Have any of Biden's EOs been challenged? If yes, she didn't mention it.

But let me ask you, big picture, because the government is careening toward another potential shutdown in just days. Are you willing to shut down the government over border security?

When he finally got her to listen to him, he said he is "willing to fund the government as long as our border is secure." Welker pressed him again, saying "and of course, the Biden administration's working on executive actions as we speak," and demanded a yes or no answer on whether he'd vote to shut down the government.

I will not be voting for any funding if the border is not secured. Anything I vote for has to secure our border. And the president should agree to that. That's common sense for a nation like America.

As I reviewed the video and the transcript of their conversation for this post, one question stuck in my mind: When did Kristen Welker start working for the Biden campaign? 

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v121)

Ready for a recap of last week's posts? Let's dive in!

As usual, Sunday School was first up, and the Jon Karl/Benjamin Netanyahu interview on This Week was the only lesson of the post. One of the highlights for me was the exchange about how Israel was being mindful of Palestinian civilians and the various ways they tried to keep them safe. Here's a bit of that part of the discussion.

Netanyahu said civilian losses are "a tragedy" of Hamas' making, and that Gazan Health Ministry statistics are unreliable. He also said, "according to these urban warfare experts and other commentators, we've brought down the civilian-to-terrorist casualties, the ratio, down below 1-1, which is considerably less than in any other theater of similar warfare."

Karl was incredulous, but Netanyahu said it was true.

... we've killed and wounded over 20,000 Hamas terrorists, out of that about 12,000 -- 12,000 fighters. And we're doing everything we can to minimize civilian casualties and continue to do so. 

I was incredulous with Karl's apparent lack of curiosity about Netanyahu's response.

Again, no follow-up questions: where did he get the 20,000/12,000 figures? What's the difference between a "Hamas terrorist" and a "fighter"? And what about the tens of thousands of wounded Gazans? It's unconscionable there was no challenge to Netanyahu's statement.

For your Extra Credit, I again only offered one lesson: Sen. Marco Rubio's discussion with Jake Tapper in the State of the Union classroom, which focused on immigration and the so-called border crisis which is so important the Senate couldn't pass a tripartisan bill that folks had worked on for four months -  or wouldn't pass it because the House had declared it DOA. Here's a snippet of the conversation on changes to how we would have handled asylum claims under the failed bill.

Rubio agreed changing the asylum standard is good, but "it's ultimately going to be applied by an administration that has proven its unwillingness to enforce our immigration laws." No matter what he was asked, his answers were consistent: from his perspective, bad liberals were going to be making bad decisions at the border - period.

Now, in the hands of another administration, perhaps that asylum standard could be applied differently. But, ultimately, once you have this asylum corps hired by Mayorkas, hired by Biden, put at the border, they are going to be -- they will have the power...

That got me thinking... 

Given the whole process that occurs after a bill passes - funding allocations, regulation-writing, job classification, hiring, background checks to complete... does he really think all that would happen before January 20, 2025 - or does he think Biden's going to be re-elected?

When it came time for Wednesday's Wondering, I was thinking a lot about President Biden and former president Trump, their ages, and their memories. And, about this.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not giving either of them a pass. I believe they are both the wrong people to be running for president. But if 'we' - the media, the punditry, the keyboard warriors - are going to make the age and mental failings of one of them an issue in the 2024 race, I can't help wondering what it's going to take to get 'us' talking about the other guy, too, with the same level of breathless panic.

I managed to hit another of my old weekly features - TGIF - in which I make somewhat random, definitely opinionated good week/bad week lists. Here's a sampling of what that looks like. The topic? Democrat Tom Suozzi's win in the race to replace George Santos.

About that loss, many House Republicans are venting their frustrations about the decision to expel Santos back in December. Ethically challenged Matt Gaetz is one of course; and so is Texas Rep. Troy Nehls, who declared "...the only way you can win elections, is that you have to get into the slop with the pigs," or at least don't kick them out of the House.

Speaking of pigs, Colorado's Rep. Ken Buck referenced the same hoofed mammal as Nehls did when he explained his 'no' vote on the Mayorkas impeachment.

You can try to put lipstick on this pig, but it's still a pig...

 The rest of that comment is important, too. 

I closed the week with a Sidebar on the TGIF. I had Jon Stewart on my good week list, for his return to the host's desk on The Daily Show.  I appreciated what he said, and how he said it, even though I had seen several critical articles about it - including one from a certain someone's famous relative. I was surprised with her take on it, and on Stewart's power.

 Lots of people, including the former president's niece, Mary Trump, were beside themselves after the show. For example, Ms. Trump tweeted  "Not only is Stewart's 'both sides are the same' rhetoric not funny, it's a potential disaster for democracy." And, she added, "I know Donald, and the media has to stop with the both sides bullshit."

She also penned an email newsletter titled Jon Stewart's Danger To Democracy, in which she blamed him for low voter turnout in 2012 and 2016 - and for helping her uncle get elected. 

And just like that, you're all caught up on the latest pastiche. I hope to see you for this week's posts.

Sunday School 2/11/24: Extra Credit

Little Marco Rubio (R-Florida Man) was in the State of the Union classroom on Sunday, and Jake Tapper was hosting, so I figured, why not drop in? 

Rubio, who sponsored legislation back in December requiring any American president to get the advice and consent of the Senate, or an Act of Congress, before pulling the US out of NATO or messing with our membership, was asked if he was "comfortable" with Trump's recent comments on Russia, NATO, and us potentially not supporting our allies. Here's his 264-word response.

Well, that's not what happened. And that's not how I view that statement. I mean, he was talking about something, a story that he talked about happened in the past. By the way, Donald Trump was president, and he didn't pull (us out of) NATO. In fact, American troops were stationed throughout Europe. As they are today, they were then as well. But he's telling a story. And, frankly, look, Donald Trump is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He doesn't talk like a traditional politician. And we have already been through this now. You would think people had figured it out by now. What he's basically saying is, if you see the comments, he said NATO was broke or busted until he took over because people weren't paying their dues. And then he told the story about how he used leverage to get people to step up to the plate and become more active in NATO. He's not the first American president. In fact, virtually every American president at some point in some way has complained about other countries in NATO not doing enough. Trump's just the first one to express it in these terms. But I have zero concern, because he's been president before. I know exactly what he has done and will do with the NATO alliance. But there has to be an alliance. It's not America's defense with a bunch of small junior partners. Some of these are big countries with big economies. Many of them are doing more. The Germans are doing a lot right now.

He didn't, but Tapper should have asked why that legislation was so important if Trump's only blowing smoke. He did ask how Rubio'd explain to Israel and Ukraine why he's going to deny them aid. Here's his 333-word explanation; I've broken it into themes for clarity. 

First: "I'd do anything for you, dear, Israel."

I don't oppose giving them the help that they need, especially in the case of Israel. And if you put the Israel thing up to a -- if you put Israel aid up to a vote right now, it would pass. I don't even know -- maybe a couple of people would vote against it. But, basically, it would pass very quickly. The problem is, Israel is being held hostage so they could get Ukraine.

Second: "I'm An American, and I might miss the Super Bowl." 

As far as how do I explain it to them, before I explain anything to them, I have to explain to my constituents, I have to explain to the people of Florida, I have to explain to the American people because I'm a US senator. And my number one obligation is America. If America is not strong, we can't help any of our allies. And I will have to explain to them why the Senate is going to work all through Super Bowl weekend, which is fine with me.

 Third: "We're being invaded!"

We're going to make a big priority, except on something that's critical to this country, which is the invasion that's going on, on our own border, on our own border. We're over -- according to a House committee and the documents and the statistics they put out -- I think these numbers are low, but let's just use them -- 3.3 million people have been released into the country who arrived here illegally. Over 600,000 of them either have criminal convictions or pending criminal charges against them.

And, fourth: "We don't need no stinking bill." 

I mean, this is a huge problem and it has to be addressed and they put out a bill. They can call it whatever they want. It wasn't a border security bill. It wasn't tough. And, frankly, it was negotiated by three people. I don't begrudge it, but I wasn't involved in that negotiation. I didn't even ask for a bill. I asked for the president to reverse the executive orders that created this crisis when he took over in January 2021.

Tapper asked directly if Rubio supported aid to Ukraine. 

I think, if we secure our own border here in the United States, I have said that we should do -- we should help Ukraine. Look, half the money that's going to Ukraine is not going to Ukraine. It's to buy back our own weapons that we gave them to restock our own shelves. And, obviously, Taiwan is included there as well. My problem is this: Before we do these things, we have to make America and Americans a priority again...

Besides, the current migrant crisis, he said, is causing "a crime wave," and

Why are we spending all of this taxpayer money to house migrants, feed migrants, accommodate migrants? We have a bunch of needs in our own country for Americans. How is that not our priority? Americans have to be our priority, and then we can help our allies.

Tapper played a clip of Brandon Judd, the head of the Border Patrol union, saying the bill Rubio helped defeat "absolutely is" better than the status quo, and

Nobody can argue that it's not better than what we currently have. Although it's not perfect, it is a step in the right direction. And I would rather have the step in the right direction than nothing. 

Rubio thinks the union's wrong, saying "It's not better than nothing."

Look, there are some things in that bill that we should do, change the asylum standard and the like. Here's what else the bill did. The bill basically creates an asylum corps, OK? It creates a bunch of -- thousands of bureaucrats, basically agents, asylum agents, that would be empowered right at the border to either allow people into the country with an immediate work permit. Today, they have to wait six months. You give them an immediate work permit, you're going to have more people coming. That's a huge magnet. Or they have the power to immediately release them and grant them asylum, which now puts them on a five-year path to citizenship, which is what a lot of Democrats want. They want to turn a bunch of illegal immigrants into voters, into citizens, into voters, in the hopes that those people will then turn around and vote for them in future elections, grateful because they will know who let them in. That's a huge problem. That doesn't solve the border. It makes it worse.

Tapper argued the bill didn't have a path to citizenship, but Rubio said it did - a green card in a year, and citizenship in four, he said, for people who are granted asylum. And, he added,

And these bureaucrats would have the power to grant you asylum, not even a judge, a bureaucrat.

Tapper pointed out that "immigration judges" aren't judges either, they're immigration attorneys. He also noted the bill is "by far the most conservative border security bill in four decades," according to Sen. Jim Lankford - even more conservative than the bill Rubio helped negotiate in 2013, and that it didn't include much of what the Ds wanted. He asked why this wasn't a win for the Rs.

Rubio's response? Let me count the ways: the president doesn't have to shut down the border; 1,400 migrants still need to be processed during a shutdown; it sunsets in three years; it doesn't touch the 'parole' system; and decisions made by immigration judges can be overruled by the Attorney General, but the decisions made by these new asylum officers can't be. 

Hmm... the AG is an unelected bureaucrat; couldn't he overturn every denied asylum request, to create those brown voters Rubio mentioned? It sure would have been fun if Jake asked that.  

Rubio agreed changing the asylum standard is good, but "it's ultimately going to be applied by an administration that has proven its unwillingness to enforce our immigration laws." No matter what he was asked, his answers were consistent: from his perspective, bad liberals were going to be making bad decisions at the border - period.

Now, in the hands of another administration, perhaps that asylum standard could be applied differently. But, ultimately, once you have this asylum corps hired by Mayorkas, hired by Biden, put at the border, they are going to be -- they will have the power...

Given the whole process that occurs after a bill passes - funding allocations, regulation-writing, job classification, hiring, background checks to complete... does he really think all that would happen before January 20, 2025 - or does he think Biden's going to be re-elected?

Tapper moved on to Trump's bizarre comments about Nikki Haley's 'missing' husband Michael, who's on a year-long deployment with the SC National Guard. Everyone knows that, including Trump, and asked what Rubio thought about that. He thinks "they're part of the increasing nastiness of this campaign and every campaign in American politics."

I mean, they're calling him a grumpy old man. They're attacking Donald Trump.  

"A Grumpy old man?" The horror! He shared other 'nasty' comments and then said

But at the end of the day, I think one of the things I'm not going to do any longer is, like, respond to every comment Donald Trump makes and say, oh, you still support him? I do. And I support him because Joe Biden's a disaster, because Joe Biden is a disaster. He's done tremendous damage to this country. America is less prosperous and the world is less safe because Joe Biden became president.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 2/4/24

The classrooms were rocking yesterday. Let's dive in, starting with Kristen Welker and her catfight with House Speaker Mike I'm Calling the Shots Here Johnson (R-LA) on Meet the Press.

The two repeated themselves multiple times and often spoke condescendingly to each other; here's what I gleaned from the interview on the hot topics of the day.

Johnson thinks we need to take a Reaganesque/Trumpesque approach with Iran - peace through strength - and he said "We should not be appeasing Iran..."

We need to act to decimate the Iran Central Bank, the assets that they've held there. We need to lean on international banks to seize the assets of Iranian proxies. We need to – to put big-time pressure, maximum pressure, on their oil exports. There's a lot that we could do to Iran to send a message instead of this appeasement strategy. 

We need to 'Soleimani' them, like under Trump, when "we used a drone and three missiles" to take out a single bad guy, instead of "using potentially hundreds of munitions to strike close to 100 targets so far." I guess he thinks we're using too much ammo or something.

The House proposed a separate Israeli funding bill because the Senate isn't doing anything; in fact, HR2, "which is our signature bill right out of the beginning, right out of the block" could have solved the border problem if it hadn't "been sitting on Chuck Schumer's desk collecting dust..." And, if you didn't know, Senate bills are DOA in the House, and vice versa.

Johnson hasn't been briefed by his Senate counterparts, and to date he's only heard the same rumors as everyone else. I get the sense that he thinks the bill doesn't matter. 

But here's the essential point... We documented 64 specific actions that Joe Biden and his agencies have taken to create this catastrophe. They did it intentionally... The American people are done with this. The border has to be secured. The president has the authority right now. He doesn't need another act of Congress. He could do it right now. But he's unwilling to do it.

At some point, I stopped listening, but I perked up when I heard them mention Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and his impeachment. Johnson previously said he's very much against a one-party impeachment, as we saw in a clip. He said three times, "The founders of this country warned against single-party impeachments. 

You guys know why. Because they feared it would bitterly and perhaps irreparably divide our nation.

What they're doing with Mayorkas is not that, and it's not a 'policy disagreement,' either. "It's very different, Kristen, in many ways." Let me mansplain "the many ways."

For one, the House has methodically, slowly, deliberately gone through the impeachment process, impeachment inquiry, impeachment investigation on Mayorkas and – and President Biden himself. We've involved three different committees of jurisdiction: Judiciary, Oversight, Ways and Means. We –we have followed the facts where they have led. Not for political purposes. Not because we take pleasure in this. It's, again, a heavy thing to look at the impeachment of a president or a Cabinet secretary. But these facts require it.

I snickered - I mean, wasn't that the same speech Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi gave? Johnson says his GOP team has done a very careful, methodic, nonpartisan investigation.

And it is exactly the opposite of what the House Democrats did in the previous administration. That is a fact, and we can follow those facts and understand them for what they are.

"And that's the truth," said Edith Ann.  

Moving down the hall, George Stephanopoulos was in the chair for his own show; one of his guests was Sen. JD Vance (R-OH YEAH, I'm in the Cult!). Vance is unofficially campaigning to move into Number One Observatory Circle, but he'll have to outlast dozens of others in the Donald J. Trump VP Hunger Games to get the keys.

George opened the interview by playing a video clip of Vance acting very RINO-y back in 2016 when he said he was "a Never Trump guy." George wanted to know why he had changed his mind. 

When you compare Trump's term and Biden's term, Vance says there's a clear difference, and

... It's hard not to conclude that I was wrong and so many were wrong about Donald Trump back in 2015. He delivered, George, he did a good job. And I think it's why we ought to give him another run at it.

George countered with some positive Bidenomics data, then turned to what's happened since then: Trump's 2020 loss, January 6th, the indictments, and the verdicts in the E. Jean Carroll sexual assault and defamation cases. And he asked if being a Trump supporter means that he's "sanctioning that kind of behavior, sexual assault, and defamation?"

Well, I think it's actually very unfair to the victims of sexual assault, to say that somehow their lives are being worse by electing Donald Trump for president, when what he's trying to do, I think is restore prosperity. So, I think it's insulting to victim -- victims of sexual assault.

Wait, what? What the actual hell?  

Trump is trying to restore prosperity, and damn those pesky sexual assault victims for being insulted that so many people are willing to look past not only how Trump talks about sexually assaulting women, but the actual sexual assault he was found guilty of committing. Can't they just be happy he's trying to make them more prosperous? 

Honestly, that's preposterous, and insulting to pretty much anyone other than a MAGA Camper. Vance went on to say most of the cases are "not about prosecuting Trump for something that he did, it's about throwing him off the ballot because Democrats feel that they can't beat him at the ballot box. And so, they're trying to defeat them in court."

That's exactly what Trump did in 2020, with five-dozen-some-odd losing court cases, his Kraken legal team, and the presser at Four Seasons Total Landscaping. Vance didn't mention those, but he argued that fighting an alleged criminal in the courts isn't the right way to go - we should fight over policy in the election.

When George pointed out that it was juries making the decisions, Vance noted

George, if you look at all of these cases, the through line, two-fold. Number one, they’re funded by Donald Trump’s political opponents, and the goal here is not to help us actually have a real conversation about how to advance the country forward. Their goal is to defeat Trump at the courts because these people know they can’t defeat him at the ballot box. 

There was no second fold in "the through line," and George moved on - or, I should say, moved backward - and asked if Vance would have certified the election had he been VP on January 6th. Vance said it was "such a ridiculous question," which it was. George reiterated he wasn't looking forward, he was looking over his shoulder, which prompted Vance to say

I have to make a point here. You constantly say to people like me, 'why do you talk about January the 6th, why do you talk about the election of 2020,' and then you ask about this multiple times during a six-minute interview.

After listing his concerns with the 2020 election, Vance said there was a "political solution" to the problems, and "litigating which slate of electors were legitimate I think is fundamentally the political solution to the problems that existed in 2020."

And I find it weird, George, that people like you obsess with what I call 'what happened in 2020,' you're so incurious about what actually happened in 2020, which is why so many people mistrust our elections in this country. We’ve got to do better, George.

George pushed the 'you'd do what Trump said' point a few times, while Vance maintained that wasn't why he'd have done it - and he continued to hit on the media's obsession. He thinks what's happened since 2020 - instability, the border, and so on - is more important, and said

We need to litigate the 2024 election about those issues. You guys are obsessed with talking about 2020. I'm happy to answer the questions, but I think it's a disservice to the American people that you're so preoccupied with it.

 Next question? What about this advice Vance has for Trump? Roll tape, George!

... if I was giving him one piece of advice, fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state. Replace them with our people. And when the courts -- because you will get taken to court -- and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did, and say "The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it." 

George asked if Vance really wanted to fire "everyone in the government" and if it was really "OK for the president to defy the Supreme Court?" Vance argued everyone didn't need to be fired, just that Trump should replace "the mid-level bureaucrats with people who aren't responsive to the administration's agenda. That's called democracy."

And then there was a pissing match, with George quoting Vance directly, and Vance trying to clarify that what he meant was

...the president has to be able to run the government as he thinks he should. That's the way the Constitution works...

And, the SCOTUS can make an "illegitimate ruling" and if it did, "the president would have to respond to it."

Eventually, Stephanopoulos said, in effect, "Thanks very much for playing," and closed the interview as Vance was still talking. 

Honestly, I would have sent all of them to after-school detention. 

See you around campus.

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.

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: Extra Credit

Your Sunday School lesson was all about immigration, and we're continuing that conversation for your Extra Credit. 

I want to note that the House Homeland Security Committee released two articles of impeachment against Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

In its 20-page resolution, the Republican-led committee accuses Mayorkas of high crimes and misdemeanors, including "willfully" disregarding immigration law...

Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., said the committee had "exhausted all other options to hold Secretary Mayorkas accountable" and that "Congress must exercise its constitutional duty and impeach him."

Now, back to the classrooms, starting with Meet the Press. Kristen Welker talked about the bill with Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher and Matt Gorman, who worked on Sen. Tim Scott's campaign. 

Welker referenced what I characterize as the rock - Donald Trump - and the hard place - the "best possibility of getting a deal in decades" between which the Rs sit. Gorman, who believes President Biden can act unilaterally, said the whole thing reminds him of The Sixth Sense. 

It's been dead a month. No one noticed it yet... The White House and the Senate are acting like they're the only people involved in this. They're not. 

Belcher reflected on our sad history (my words, not his) of 'doing something' about immigration, only to have politics get in the way. We've seen it before, he said,

...(in) 2007 Bush wanted to do immigration. They – they attacked it as amnesty for illegals. Obama thought he had a deal with Boehner. He took it back to the House, and the Republicans killed it...

He said Sen. Tom Tillis (R-NC) who's "not exactly a liberal," says what the Rs are doing 

may be immoral, because they're killing it because president Trump thinks it's good for his politics.

Martha Raddatz (ABC's This Week) shared a taped interview in which Jon Karl asked Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-RA) about the six million people who have been apprehended at the border. 

What ultimately should happen to all those people, you know, the people who don't qualify for asylum, or totally came in illegally?

Newsom said  "You have to deal with the cards that are dealt. You've got to deal with the reality on the ground," but that the "fundamental issue" is, we need immigration reform, not just border security. 

Biden's strategy includes a pathway to citizenship "along the lines of (the GOP's) former hero, Ronald Reagan," Newsom said, adding there's a "$14B plan, right now," that gets us judges and border agents; Congress's refusal to act is just the Rs trying to

... find a crowbar to put in the spokes of the wheels of the Biden administration to disrupt any progress on this because they don't want progress, period.

Raddatz got an interesting response from National Review Editor Ramesh Ponnuru when Sen. Lindsey Graham's name came up. He noted Graham's support doesn't matter much to many Republicans; he's long advocated for "comprehensive immigration reform," but

there are a lot of people in the Republican Party who don't see things the same way Lindsey Graham does on immigration and don't trust him on this issue because they don't agree with him.

Ponnuru also shared where opposition to the bill comes from. Paraphrasing here, some Rs seem to think the 5,000 daily limit is like the rent in NYC - it's too damn high. But that's not all.

...you've got this more basic thing, which a lot of Republicans say, 'if the problem is Biden is not enforcing the laws that are already on the books, which is what they have been saying for months, then passing a new law isn't a solution to that problem.'

I want to swing back to the State of the Union classroom. Dana Bash asked former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) if she was OK with the bill not including "a pathway to citizenship, or even protections for Dreamers." 

Well, no; the fact is, is that we need comprehensive immigration reform. That's not likely with the Congress that we have right now, so we have to move forward. This arrangement that the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have negotiated is a step forward... But we were never going to get a path to citizenship in this bill. 

I'm giving the last word to Bakari Sellers, a CNN political commentator. 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?

See you around campus, where I'm sure this will continue to be a topic through the election and beyond, if we're smart. 

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.