← 10 Minute Drill
10 Minute Drill
DHS Shutdown Deal Explained | Sanctuary Policy Backlash | Minnesota Green Proposal Controversy
00:14:12
Loading summary
Transcript9 lines
- [00:00]
Host
Is there light at the end of the shutdown tunnel? What one publication thinks Democrats need to do to win. And a Democrat Senate candidate caught in a major scandal. All of that and so much more. Today on another special Wednesday 10 minute drill. Everybody get up. Get up. The story of America is the story of an adventure. I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. We are a nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free. Over the last few days, we've seen ICE agents deployed in airports around the country trying to provide relief to the unpaid TSA agents. Now, some Democrats have thought this would be a bad look, but ICE agents appear to be helping their own brand quite a bit by simply being helpful at a time of terrible chaos. And as we're hearing reports around the country of people still having to wait in lines as long as four to even eight hours to get through security. Meanwhile, Democrats continue to hold out, but there may be light at the end of the tunnel. Yesterday we heard the proposal of a deal. Now, the contours of this deal mean that all of the Department of Homeland Security will be funded apart from ice, Immigration Customs Enforcement, Enforcement Operations, meaning that Customs and Border Patrol investigations, all the different things we've been talking about, will be funded. Now, ICE already has, as we've discussed here extensively, considerable funding to stay in operation through through 2029. Now, there are some operating budgetary pieces of that that would be considered in a future bill. I'll get to that in just a second. But the key part of this is this deal would likely not include the demands that Democrats made that started this shutdown, which included things like unmasking ICE agents so they could be doxed, or a new warrant system that required people to go to federal judges to get warrants to arrest criminal illegal immigrants, which has never been done before, but would have, in effect stopped all ICE enforcement in the country. The deal is moving forward without any of those conditions, meaning, in large part, Democrats caved on the biggest demands they had when they launched this shutdown. Now, a key part of this deal also includes a discussion about reconciliation. Reconciliation is the tool by which the party in the majority can pass budgetary issues on a simple majority vote. You only need 51 for that. That's how Republicans pass the big beautiful bill. They would use a second reconciliation bill to advance funding for things like ICE enforcement to Bolst the funding that they already have from the previous big beautiful bill. The other condition that President Trump is pushing for in this is including the SAVE act, the voter ID bill that we've been talking about also in that reconciliation package that is unlikely to be successful because the rule for reconciliation is the only things that can pass through that are budgetary in nature, meaning they deal with funding. You can't pass new policy through through reconciliation. That's something that has been run into in the past on issues like Democrats trying to include a new national minimum wage. The Senate parliamentarian, the person who has the power through the Senate to call balls and strikes on what passes through reconciliation and what needs to be stripped from it, said that that national minimum wage couldn't pass. And so that's how this has been done. And I believe that everything in the SAVE act that has to do with policy would not pass through reconciliation. But this debate could likely still move us towards in the near term ending this outrageous sh. But one other thing that I wanted to highlight was a part of the debate from over the weekend. Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana went to the Senate floor and said, I propose a resolution that will prevent senators from getting paid during a government shutdown. Because if we can't even fund the government and keep the government operating, why should we be getting paid? We're failing to do our jobs. He proposed this resolution. I think it's a very common sense resolution. But Senator Brian Schatz from Hawaii poked his head into the room to object, meaning that this bill couldn't pass by unanimous consent. Usually if things are totally non controversial and everyone agrees to them, they pass through unanimous consent. Senator Schatz poked his head in just long enough to say I object and then ran away. Watch this very strange moment on the
- [04:16]
Senate Floor Announcer
Senate floor and the motion to reconsider be considered, made and laid upon the table.
- [04:23]
Commentator
Is there an objection?
- [04:26]
Senate Floor Announcer
I want to give my senator, my colleague, Senator Shatz, more time. Has he objected and left the chamber? Would he? Is he coming back now?
- [04:38]
Host
This was an awkward moment because normally to object you need to be officially recognized and put your name on the objection. Schatz just kind of opened the door, said it, and then ran away. Probably because he didn't want to necessarily be tied to this terrible objection suggesting that Senate Democrats should continue to get paid even if they can't do their basic jobs of keeping the government running. But I think we all know exactly where Senator Shat ran to hide to. We talked yesterday about Sheridan Gorman and the tragic murder by a Venezuelan illegal immigrant on the lakefront in Chicago. J.B. pritzker waited a long time to say anything about this. And when he finally did, unsurprisingly, he made a lot of his response, actually about President Trump.
- [05:24]
Commentator
I agree there have been real failures. Those failures of course, extend beyond the borders of Illinois. That's their national failures. A failure to have comprehensive immigration reform. A failure of the President to follow his own edict to go after the worst of the worst.
- [05:40]
Host
Now when Pritzker says that President Trump is failing to go after the worst of the worst, you have to understand that in Chicago, their laws, their sanctuary policies prevent President Trump from being able to remove the worst of the worst because they bar their local law enforcement from giving the worst of the worst over to ice, forcing them to go out and make those at large arrests that we've been talking about. So JB Pritzker is trying to blame President Trump for something their own policies are doing. But that's not the end of this topic for today. In Washington, Stephanie Minters mom spoke to media. Now you'll remember Stephanie Minter's the 41 Year Old Mother who was murdered at a bus stop by an illegal immigrant who had been previously arrested 30 times and allowed back on the street. Here's Stephanie's mom. I'm Cheryl mentor, Stephanie's mom, and I miss her. So much. Change has got to happen with this. This is a jarring and shocking tragedy. It is a perfect storm of the failures of these Democrat policies that we're seeing in Northern Virginia and in Chicago and in so many other places where you combine sanctuary policies that prevent immigration enforcement from removing violent criminal illegal aliens, but also the soft on crime policies that let everyone out of jail. And what happened with Stephanie Minter was Steve Descano. The insane prosecutor in Fairfax county was given three written warnings about this illegal immigrant and the fact that he had a history of stabbing people and he was warned not to let him out and he did it anyways. And that is the person who went on to stab Stephanie Minter to death. And now Stephanie Minter's children are without their mother. And this is a critical conversation to continue to have. And former Virginia Attorney General Jason Miaras is gonna be on Capitol Hill testifying about this issue later today and we will likely cover that tomorrow. We've talked a lot about how the left and climate groups have tried to force money to into their own coffers through things like massive climate lawfare where they sue energy companies saying these energy companies cause massive damage and should pay us and carry out all of our political will. Sometimes that money goes towards infrastructure, sometimes it goes into a shady trial lawyer pipeline that makes its way right back into the left's political activities. But another way that the left has made war on reliable energy in the United States is through things called Superfund laws. These are laws, laws that legislators in very blue cities and states try and pass to say, if you've contributed to any kind of greenhouse effect in our state, you are forced to pay. We can extract from you large amounts of money. And guess what state has one of these bills about to be considered? Minnesota. In the Washington examiner, the next Minnesota scam comes wrapped in green. This is an op ed from American Energy Institute's Jason Isaac highlighting how a state that is awash in fraudulent money has a new plan to get more money filtered into their fraudulent schemes that eventually will probably make their way to Al Shabaab and different terrorist groups back in Somalia. But this one is using the guise of climate change. Under the proposal, any company that operated in Minnesota and allegedly contributed a billion metric tons of carbon since 1995 would owe new fees. Those payments, collected decades after lawful activity, would bankroll a grab bag of government projects and payouts. Proponents talk about sewer upgrades and drainage fees, but anyone who's watched state spending knows how that story ends. Minnesota Democrats are simply trying to reload their Somali fraud coffers by imposing a retroactive tax on energy producers and consumers. The marketing says climate resilience. The record says slush fund. So again, when you consider the fact that Minnesota has lost more than $9 billion of our tax dollars in these Somali fraud schemes and you see them cook up new ways like this to extract money from private companies, you've got to recognize that it's going to make its way back into the fraud scheme and you're going to see a whole lot of people in Mogadishu get a lot richer. A Senate candidate is in a lot of trouble. Dan Osborne running in Nebraska as an independent. He's running as an independent because he knows if he ran as an actual Democrat, he would likely lose. Is coming under major scrutiny for using his campaign as a family piggy. Bank this in Fox News. Senate hopeful with deep Dem ties slapped with scathing complaint targeting alleged family payout scheme. Now this has gotten attention in the past from Fox News because the records of that campaign spending show a lot of money going back to Osborne's family members. Last month, Fox News Digital reported on Osborne's spending that's come under scrutiny, showing that north of $370,000 had been disbursed to his wife, daughter, sister in law and to himself through his campaign in a web of political action committees. A complaint filed with the FEC Monday by conservative watchdog Americans for Public Trust is now calling on the FEC to investigate Osborne's spending and lays out even more relatives receiving money from Osborne's campaign. Plus another consulting firm his wife works at that's been receiving funds. In total, the complaint says Osborne, his wife Megan, daughter Georgia, sister in law Jody, second sister in law Bridget, and brother in law James have received $434,732.42. What a racket. Now the Osbournes appear to have found a way to filter money from their campaign donors back to the family and it's making it through all of the in laws. Now if I donor to Dan Osborne, I'm thinking, wait a sec. I got into this to try and fund a guy's campaign because I thought maybe he had good ideas. I didn't get into it to necessarily buy a new car for Dan Osborne's brother in law or something like that. And so I do expect the FEC will give this a whole lot of scrutiny. But I also expect that it's not gonna look very good to voters in Nebraska that this person seems to be running for office just to make a little bit more money for the full extended family. Far you can't make it up Segment Today we are going back to the Democrat identity crisis. There was a story in the Bulwark a few days ago that I thought was particularly interesting. Thirst traps over think tanks. Dems want hotter candidates on the ballot. Now one thing that happens when a candidate who's expected to win like Kamala Harris was in 2024, loses so spectacularly, it's that every few weeks you get a new story on what Democrats need to do differently to change their fortunes. But this idea that they simply need to run hotter candidates and do less on policy and less on substance is my personal favorite. Kamala Harris did not lose in 2024 because of attractiveness. Kamala Harris is objectively an attractive person. She lost because she had no good ideas and couldn't answer basic questions. But it does seem like based on the crop of Democrat candidates we're seeing, they are leaning into more the attractiveness over the substance issue. For example, Gavin Newsom, here he is in an interview just yesterday talking about what he thinks Democrats need to do differently to win.
- [12:53]
Gavin Newsom
The other side is ruthless. And with respect, my party needs to be more ruthless about winning because if we don't win back the House of Representatives, we may not have a fair and free election in 2028. And I really believe that now Again,
- [13:05]
Host
Gavin thinks the issue is that Democrats aren't being ruthless enough. I don't think that ruthlessness is the issue. I think the issue is they have no answers, no agenda, and the only thing holding their base and energy together is hatred of Donald Trump. And if he's not on the ballot, like he's not actually going to be in the midterms, they have a real problem there. And Republicans have the ability to contrast either low substance Gavin or the other vision of Democrats out there right now, which is Zoran Mamdani and the rising radical socialist left which believes in higher taxes for a lower quality of government service. That's the contrast that voters have. And again, just to go back one more time to that Gavin interview, he uses the age old threat that if Democrats don't win, we're not gonna have free and fair elections. They might need to retire that old line if they're fighting this hard against voter ID in the SAVE Act. That is all the time we have today. Thank you so much for joining us on 10 minute drill. Please, like subscribe, leave us a review, tell your friends and have a great day.