Two New Citizen Tigers

During a pre-game ceremony at Comerica Park, twenty five people including two Detroit Tigers took their oath of citizenship. 

Leonys Martin Tapanes, a 30 year old Center Fielder, played on the 2009 Cuban National team before defecting while paying in Taiwan.  Martin then signed with Texas Rangers in 2011 and later played for the Seattle Mariners and Chicago Cubs.  This is the first year that Martin is playing for the Detroit Tigers.


After the ceremony, Martin mused: 

"I will never forget about my country but it's amazing to be part of the United States.  Being able to do this here at the ballpark, in front of fans, that was really emotional."

Jose Antonio Inglesias Aleman is a 28 year old shortstop, who was in the Cuban National Series in 2008 but defected when the Cuban National team visited Canada in 2009.  He came to America with a pair of shorts, a tee shirt and a dream. Iglesias played for the Boston Red Sox  before being traded to the Detroit Tigers in 2013. 

Iglesias admitted that adjusting to America has been daunting as he observed:

"It's hard man, you came. You face a new culture, face a new language, facing new food, new everything. Still learning. I've been here ten years and I'm still learning."

One thing Iglesias learned well was to not alienate fans.  He was happy to be a newly naturalized citizen and be able to vote, but he deflected from questions about commenting on President Trump's immigration policies.

Now that they are naturalized citizens, Martin and Iglesias will be able to join the rest of the Tigers on a road trip to Toronto for a series with the Blue Jays. 

It is inspiring to see two immigrants who sought freedom to live their dreams in America who worked within the system and and embrace their new country rather than treat it like a meal ticket.

President Trump on Immigration Bills

Donny Deutsch: Label Half of American Voters as Nazis

Todd Starnes on Immigration

Sarah Huckabee Sanders on MS-13

On Constitutional Push Back to California's Sanctuary State Law

San Diego County voted in with a 3-1 margin to defy California's Sanctuary State law.  In October 2017, Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) signed SB-54, which was passed by the Democrat majority in the California legislature, which vastly limited who state and local law enforcement can hold, question and transfer at the request of federal immigration authorities.  Basically, the Sanctuary State law mandates that California's law enforcement officials defy federal immigration law. 

When appearing at the National Press Club, Governor Brown highlighted his intractability to enforcing existing federal immigration law as he proclaimed that California National Guard troops would not perform immigration enforcement activities, including vehicle repair or monitoring security cameras.

Some California municipalities and local governments have formally voted to follow federal law, which is contrary to SB-54.  Many of these jurisdictions have joined in the Sessions Justice Departments lawsuits regarding SB-54, AB 450 which prohibits employers from allowing warrant-less access to non public workplace areas and AB 103 which enjoins local governments from expanding or making new contracts for new civil immigration detention centers.

President Trump on Guarding the Southern Border

Revisiting the Loyalty from the So-Called Basket of Deplorables

Social media reaction to President Donald Trump signing the 2,200 page $1.3 Trillion Omnibus spending bill for the remaining six months of FY 18 has been swift and sharp.  Many who want to Drain the Swamp lamented that Mr. Trump caved in on a spending boondoggle which made Democrat leaders like House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 11th) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer quite happy.   But in the wake of this spending spree, Trump loyalists took to Twitter as “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their leader (sic)” with a tenacious and acrimonious approach.

Basically, Deplorables dictated that you are either with him or against him. No criticisms could be countenanced. Agreeing to the Omnibus may have been a bad choice, but what did you expect him to do when everything is arrayed against him. Wondering whether President Trump lost his legislative leverage was considered heresy and such nay sayers were implored to “Stop bitchin’ and get crackin!”.

Reflecting upon the irrational response of Deplorables, it was reminiscent of trepidations of a Troll Party takeover of the GOP as Mr. Trump entered the Republican run for the White House.  That analysis did not anticipate that Mr. Trump would be the last man standing after the Republican 2016 Presidential primaries, much less that he would win the White House that November .

If one were to try to characterize these voters, one would presume that they are previously dis-affected with the political process. Consequently, they seem to dismiss the present political process or are ignorant of the workings of the system.  The Trump phenomenon points to a charismatic ordinary man who is a successful non politician who is poised to shake up the system.

It is easy to appreciate Deplorables’  exasperation over how the political system is not working well, but when one dialogs with them about details of how to change, it devolves into populist platitudes or invincible ignorance about governance of our constitutional Republic.  Tellingly, one colloquy with such a Trump-eteer was summarized as: “pugnacious, smearing and ambiguous”, which seems consistent with contemporary experience. 

Sen. Rand Paul

When pressing for practical policies aside from the ambiguous “stand by your man”, there is a tendency of deflection.  It was surprising that one interlocutor tried to shut down realpolitik post Omnibus analysis by insisting one had no right to comment unless one had a PhD in Political Science.  

Rep. David Brat 

Yet a few exchanges later, the tenor had changed to insist that you have to do your own homework and you didn’t read the Omnibus bill.  Well, neither did Congress, but trusted sources like Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Representative David Brat (R-VA 7th) had highlighted egregious examples, but then those pearls of wisdom were suspect because it was mouthing others’ opinions.

For a political junkie who is not part of the Establishment, it can be vexing to have what could be characterized as a dialog with the deaf.

In many ways, this voter segment was an able army in the 2016 election cycle, especially when the opposition was so antithetical. Viscerally, they were probably aligned with Steve Bannon’s “burn down the house” approach to politics.



With the benefit of hindsight, it is easier to see this nascent Troll Party (ironically nicknamed “The Basket of Deplorables) by Hillary Clinton, as being praetorian populists, who are inclined to advocate any line from their dear leader. While it would seem that Deplorables tend to be individuals previously alienated from the political process and who are oriented toward an instinct to "Drain the Swamp", this must take place with conventional politics under our rule of law system. It may be appealing for a President to rail against earmarks, but unless there is a constitutional amendment for the Line Item Veto, these obtuse budgetary battles carry the day. 

Ex Speaker John Boehner

Others who want to Drain the Swamp may well be the rump of Constitutional Conservatives who were instrumental in sweeping the GOP back into power in the House in 2011 and the Senate in 2014.  Despite their tenure on Capitol Hill, they have not successfully infiltrated Republican leadership (though they were decisive in declaring the chair vacant and ousting Speaker John Boehner from power in 2015). 

There have been other prospective rifts in the alliance between Deplorables and Tea Party types, most notably prior to the Schumer shutdown in February 2018, in which President Trump called the Democrats’ bluff about DACA and there was a brief budgetary shut down. Those of a conservative bent expressed consternation that Trump had abandoned his mantra to “Build the Wall” to regularize a large swath of illegal immigrants. Because Schumer was blamed, this did not cause a serious split among those who want to shake up the system. 

It is my supposition that President Trump’s acquiescence on the Omnibus cram down spending spree may precipitate a waning of enthusiasm among the conservative base. This six month funding of the federal government increased domestic spending by 13% while busting the sequester caps on military spending.  Fiscal conservatives wonder if the Federal government will ever really reduce its spending willingly and adding over a trillion in half a year is unsustainable and virtually indistinguishable from the Obama era.

Big “Build the Wall” backers will be chagrined at how President Trump’s primary election promise has been thwarted.  Sure, the Trump Administration brags that $1.6 Billion has been allocated and work will start the next business day.  But if one looks at the specifics, it’s half that amount and there are provisions that the funds can not be spent on any of the Wall prototypes that President Trump traveled to California to inspect. Of course, building the wall is currently estimated to cost $26 Billion, so the allocation is a drop in the bucket.  Maybe Mexico will pick up the rest of the tab. Moreover, despite the pugilistic rhetoric about fighting jurisdictions which thwart immigration laws, Sanctuary Cities received full funding in the Omnibus.

If the conservative base is less than enthused about supporting the Administration, things may become bleak for Republican majorities in the House and the Senate.  In the Senate, the 2018 cycle should be challenging for Democrats to achieve a majority, as they have to defend 25 of 33 seats up for election. But Republicans hold a slim one vote majority, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has spent lots of time back in his home state convalescing from acute cancer.

In the House of Representatives , a shift of two dozen seats will bring Democrats back to power. Considering the court imposed redrawing of districts in Pennsylvania, the GOP is likely to lose up to five seats. If Democrats take over the House, they are more likely to impeach President Trump on nearly any grounds rather than work with him.

Despite the apparent depressing of conservative enthusiasm because of President Trump signing the Omnibus bill, the Democrat National Committee and the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee are dead broke whereas the RNC and the RNCC are flush with cash. Perhaps the smart money is voting with campaign contributions.  However, as the 2016 cycle showed, money is not everything, otherwise it would be Madam President Hillary Clinton.

Some Deplorables are insisting on social media that President Trump has more cards up his sleeve about the budget, and proffer a prediction that Omnibus language is only a suggestion and that the Chief Executive will do what he wants, such as using the military to build the border wall.  If this novel approach was actually pursued, it would be enjoined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a nanosecond and would give substance to Democrats filing new articles of impeachment. But it would gladden the heart of the Basket of Deplorables for a bit. 

Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions on California's Immigration Sanctuary Laws

Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke before the California Peace Officers Association in Sacramento and made clear the Federal intention to protect the Supremacy Clause, particularly regarding the issue of Immigration Law. 

Luis Gutierrez on Democrats' Priorities

Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL 4th) allegedly was so incensed that Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 12th) is willing to de-link DACA from budget negotiations that he has threatened to walk out of the Democrat Caucus.  Mainstream media pundits presume that Republicans will have trouble retaining control of Congress because of disgruntled members exposing fractures in party unity.   Gutierrez's threat indicates that trouble in getting out the vote and maintaining party unity also is applicable for Democrats. 

Wags wonder if this threat is as believable as Gutierrez excuse for walking out of President Trump's State of the Union to be positioned for post SOTU standups rather than reacting to the chamber resounding in chants of "USA". 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Persisting in Pink Pussy Hats

A year after the enormous post Inaugural Women Who Hate Trump March, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) tried to rally the troops by insisting that women politically persist in pink pussy hats.




This exhortation reveals Senator Warren's long-term political strategy and intimates one direction the Democrat party is being pushed.  In 2017, "the Resistance" seemed organized to appeal to agitating identity groups.  There were attempts to have various constituency groups demonstrating against the Trump Administration and highlighting their priorities.  There was even a Scientists March on Washington.  But this impetus seems to have fizzled out and American politics was not transformed into  a balkanized European Democratic socialist schema.

Between the Beltways, it has long been understood that Senator Elizabeth Warren hopes to make a run for the White House.  This "Persist in Pussy Hats" speech gives indication that she is hitching her wagon on women power with elements of  "the Resistance" but not harping on Trump hate.  But this plan depends upon Warren being re-elected to the Senate in 2018 and that is not a sure thing.

The meta-strategy of rallying identity groups for victory is facile.  Women showed up for a one day big rally, but did not remain organized throughout the year. And besides, Democrats seem more keen on catering to illegal immigrants for DACA than using feminist politics as a harbinger for change. The question is how identity politics will further reshape the Democrat party. Joe Kennedy III's State of the Union rebuttal leaned south, by championing transgendered rights and assisting "undocumented citizens".

On Behind the Lines Flanks From the Left

Two term Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) reluctantly announced his re-election effort for the 2018 election cycle. His candidacy is the strongest of the nine Democrat incumbents who are defending in states which voted for President Donald Trump.  But Machin's blunt talk to fellow Democrats reveals a rift in the Democrat party.  Manchin will likely have a challenger from the left, coming from the "Feel the Bern" wing of the party.

Even Democrats in the leadership are at risk from flanks from the left.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who was the face of the "Schumer Shutdown" supposedly to advance the DACA Deal, had protests staged around his residence by leftists who thought the Democrats wimped out for only having a three day government shutdown. These are indications that the far left is asserting its authority over the Democrat Party and it is not just centrists like Senator Manchin who will be scorned if they do not dance their progressive tarantella. 

Senator Tom Cotton on the DACA Deal

On Illegal Immigration and the Schumer Shutdown

Martha McSally on Courage

Today Rep. Martha McSally (R-AZ 2nd) announces her candidacy for the U.S. Senate to replace Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ). 

The Republican field is already populated by Dr. Kelli Ward, a candidate endorsed by Steve Bannon, and Joe Arpaio, the 85 year old long-time ex Maricopa County sheriff renowned for his tough treatment of criminal aliens who was recently pardoned by President Trump.

[L] Dr. Kelli Ward [R] Ex Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Arizona GOP candidates for US Senate

Although Democrats need to defend 25 of 33 Senate seats in the 2018 election cycle, including in 10 states in which President Trump carried in 2016, Republicans are worried about losing their slender control of the Senate.  Senator Jeff Flake's (R-AZ) decision not to stand for re-election puts another "safe" GOP seat up for grabs.

In some respects, the GOP primary might be made up of voters with trollish Trump-eteer tendencies (infamously redubbed by Hillary Clinton as the "Basket of Deplorables") who think that strong immigration stances are the way to win via Arpaio's reputation and rhetoric.  Kelli Ward had positioned herself to be a Bannon disruptor of the GOP Establishment,  but now is backing away from "Sloppy Steve" after his fall from grace in the "Fire and Fury" fiasco.  

Establishment Republicans hoping to avoid a repeat defeat akin to the Alabama special election, seem to favor McSally to keep the seat as she has legislative experience and is not an agitating lightning rod. However, when an ex fighter pilot urged her colleagues to "grow a pair of ovaries and get the job done", such a candidate might not be exactly safe for the go along to get along in the so called Senate country club in the District of Calamity (sic).

President Trump on the Overreach of the Federal Courts

Ninth Circuit District Judge William Alsup issued an injunction from his San Francisco courtroom to block the Trump Administration's decision to let the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Executive Order lapse.  This occurred at the same time that President Trump indicated that he would sign any legislation over DACA that Congress passes.  The Trump Administration has waited six months before seeking to impose the policy in order for the legislative branch to do their job.




This ruling strains credulity.  Firstly, DACA may well not be constitutional. In 2011, President Barack Obama insisted that he did not have the authority to impose the DREAM Act without the legislature passing it.  Yet in 2012, Mr. Obama offered an Executive Order which halted deportations of this class of illegal immigrants while also granting the ability to apply for "temporary" work permits. So  a Chief Executive issues an edit not to apply the immigration and employment laws without receiving legislative approbation but it must be upheld because a District Court Judge's judgement on its constitutionality. 

But before the Trump Administration allowed DACA to lapse or for Congress to rectify the situation by actually passing a DACA bill, the Ninth Circuit (a.k.a. the 9th Circus) supposedly overrides the Trump Administration's Executive decisions. This is because  Judge Alsup's  believes that Mr. Trump's rational for exerting Executive will to end DACA was flawed because DACA was constitutional

This follows a trend in Federal Circuit Courts to countermand the Trump travel ban, as well as prohibiting transsexuals in the military. Obviously, Democrats are pursuing progressive politics through sympathetic courts. But these cases infringe on the constitutional authority of the Executive Branch while simultaneously assuming the proper role of the Legislative Branch.  The Supreme Court dismissed several claims against the travel ban and allowed the third iteration of the immigration order to go into effect. It is interesting that the Commander in Chief is supposed to have no authority over the troops which he commands, per these activist courts. 

Perhaps there needs to be a progressive re-education about our constitutional system and the division of power.

But that presupposes that they care about the rule of law rather than just favorable results for their cause-du-jour.

Senator Tim Kaine on Iran

Chuck Schumer on American Symbols

Hispanic Caucus Chair Luis Gutierrez Slanderously Strafes Trump Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly

Geert Wilders on Immigration Jihad