The Rushmore Report – The Border Wall: Dems Were for It Before They Were Against It

According to the media, the government shutdown is President Trump’s fault because he won’t give the Democrats what they want. Of course, if the Democrats would give Trump what he wants, the government would open tomorrow. And while Trump is back in Washington waiting to negotiate, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is vacationing in Hawaii. But the crazy thing is that these same Democrats were actually for the border wall – until they were against it.

The President’s new acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, was clear in an interview Friday. He blasted Democrats, including Senate leader Chuck Schumer, for supporting border security measures – including a wall – in 2006 and 2011, before abandoning the position when Trump took office.

Mulvaney said, “This is a crazy discussion to be having. It seems like Democrats really like border security when there’s a Democrat in office, and don’t like it when Donald Trump is in office.”

Still serving as White House budget director, Mulvaney said he believes Schumer is willing to come to an agreement on border security funds, but Pelosi is holding up a deal. He said Pelosi will soon face a vote on becoming Speaker of the House and she does not want to be seen as caving to Trump’s demands.

“Nancy Pelosi cannot be seen by her party as being weak on negotiating with Donald Trump. So we fully expect that until she’s elected Speaker and has locked that vote up, we won’t hear from the Democrats again. They told us last night that they were not countering our last offer,” he explained.

Mulvaney called on Democrats to come back to the negotiating table to see if a deal can be reached at a number between their $1.3 billion offer and Trump’s $5 billion demand.

So we have two issues here, both lost – as usual – on the mainstream media.

First, as Mulvaney points out, Democratic leaders are balking at the very thing they voted for twice already.

Second, although the Executive Branch (president), House of Representatives, and Senate are all in agreement on the border wall, it takes 60 Senate votes to pass legislation. That means eight Democratic senators must vote with the Republican majority in order for the bill to pass. So, essentially, eight Democrats are holding up a bill that has the support of the White House, House of Representatives, and the majority of the Senate. Still, according to the media, the president alone is responsible for the shutdown.

Until the majority caves to the minority, the majority will be seen as obstructionists. Only in Washington.

The Rushmore Report – Border Patrol Chief Speaks: ‘We Need a Wall’

Everyone has an opinion on the border wall. Democrats claim a wall won’t help secure the border – despite their own votes to the contrary in 2006 and 2011, not to mention the 100 percent success rate of the Israeli border wall. Republicans claim the wall will work. So who’s right? Enter Carla Provost, the Border Patrol Chief. In a recent interview on Fox News, she was clear. “We certainly do need a wall. Talk to any border agent and they will tell you that,” she said on “Your World.”

Provost said Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Nancy Pelosi are simply wrong when they contend that the border wall (a) will not work, and (b) will be a waste of tax payer money. She said the $5 billion appropriation has already been “prioritized” to locations where walls should be built along the 1,954-mile border with Mexico.

Provost didn’t stop there. She contends that more billions of dollars are needed to sufficiently secure the border, which would fund new “anti-dig” and other technologies with any new wall construction to further optimize border security. She said, “The president has been extremely supportive,” touting the fact that apprehensions are up 88 percent over last year.

The debate on the wall will continue. Unfortunately, leaders such as the Border Patrol Chief – whose opinions should matter most – will be largely ignored in the process.

The Rushmore Report – 2019 Predictions Sure to Go Wrong

Another year has passed and you know what that means. A new year is upon us. In this space, 365 days ago, I made several predictions for 2018. I’m not going to bother to review them. Let’s just assume I got ’em all right. But this is a time to look forward, not back. So here are a few predictions – some important (sports), some not (politics). But I’ll cover it all. Here we go . . .

1. Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will not retire in 2019. The 85-year-old jurist, who has recently suffered from cancer, a heart stent, and three broken ribs, will try to hang on until a Democrat is in the White House, so her replacement will share her liberal views.

2. Clarence Thomas, and possibly Samuel Alito, will announce surprise resignations from the High Court, in order to place their conservative seats in the hands of Trump appointees, who will be 20 years younger. Thomas (age 71) and Alito (age 69) could both serve for another ten years or more, but they will yield to pressure to step aside. At least one of them will.

3. The Democratic presidential field will start with enough candidates to fill a small stadium, but quickly fizzle to four: Joe Biden, Beto O’Rourke, Kamala Harris, and a player to be named later. (Biden will win the nomination, but that is 2020 fodder.)

4. Two Democratic candidates will fail early and surprisingly – Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker.

5. Hillary Clinton will not run for president. (Her hope is that no one will emerge from the huge field, and that the party will eventually turn to her as their Savior. This will not happen.)

6. Robert Mueller’s report will finally come out. It will not conclude there was Trump-Russian collusion, but will cite enough questionable activities by the president to raise the specter of impeachment among House Democrats.

7. The Democratic House will narrowly decide against impeaching the president, but the process will still keep Congress at a stalemate for much of the year.

8. The stock market will continue a wild ride, finishing flat for 2019.

9. President Trump will initiate a major withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

10. The Golden State Warriors will beat whoever the Eastern Conference props up to be swept in four games.

11. The New Orleans Saints will defeat the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl, with Saints quarterback Drew Brees earning his second Super Bowl MVP award.

12. The Houston Astros will defeat the Chicago Cubs for the World Series in seven games. Fox’s television coverage will be dominated by extensive shots of Kate Upton (wife of Astros’ pitcher Justin Verlander) in the stands with intermittent images of baseball mixed in.

The Rushmore Report – The Moral Bankruptcy of ‘Progressive’ Christianity

So-called “progressive” Christians love to bash conservative Christians. They call us dinosaurs. They mock us as outdated fundamentalists. They taunt us as “Bible bashers.” They claim to be the enlightened ones, and they celebrate their departure from the “traditional church.” But the reality is that they are simply following the spirit of the age, swimming with the current cultural tide rather than against it. In the name of conformity to Jesus, they are being conformed to the world. How ironic.

On Saturday night, while working on a major book project at my computer, I noticed a tweet from a “progressive” pastor. I had reached out him to several times before, but always without response. He wrote, quite out of the blue, “When hopelessly phobic people of faith like @DrMichaelLBrown claim that God is against ‘homosexual practice.’ #ThatsNotAThing”

As soon as I spotted the tweet, I replied, “Hey John, I’ve reached out to you on several occasions, always without response. Rather than engage in baseless (and silly) name-calling, let’s a have a mature, scripture-based, minister-to-minister dialog. You’re welcome on my show any time. Why not?”

For the record, he still has not replied to my invitations – not once, ever – and I continue to reach out to him. But despite his lack of response, I decided to engage some of his followers. Talk about enlightening!

The first thing that became immediately evident was this. There was virtually no substantive interaction. Instead, there was mockery and insult and misrepresentation, making me wonder out loud, “What’s so scary about the truth?”

It started out of the gate with this pastor maligning me as hopelessly phobic (for reaching out to the LGBT community with the truth of the gospel while opposing radical LGBT activism). And, remarkably, while the Bible consistently and categorically opposes homosexual practice (meaning, same-sex relationships and sexual acts) a pastor – yes, a pastor – came against me for standing with God’s Word.

How dare I – how dare you – do such a thing. How dare you agree with Scripture. How dare you affirm that the Lord’s ways are best. That is so 1950s!

Rather than interact with a single thing I said, he later posted, “Michael thinks LGBTQ people can NOT be LGBTQ. Michael thinks you can pray the gay away. Michael preys upon already marginalized people. Michael thinks other people’s bedrooms and body parts are his business. Don’t be like Michael.”

Now, you would think it would trouble a pastor to post blatant falsehoods about other people, but when you’re “progressive,” you’re morally superior, which means you are the judge of the motives of others. You determine what they really think and believe, despite what they say and do. In the name of not judging, you are now the judge!

Of course, the issue is not what “Michael” thinks but what God says. That’s why, later in the night, I posted this: “To all professing LGBT Christians and their allies: Please give me just ONE explicit verse in the Bible where God sanctions same-sex relationships. Just one. You know already there are clear verses saying the opposite.”

Not a single one gave me a single supporting verse. How telling!

In direct response to the pastor’s tweet, I wrote, “John, by God’s grace, I know MANY ex-gays and lesbians who are so thankful for new life in Jesus. And I continue to have fruitful ministry around the world, NOT focused on LGBT issues. I have simply responded to biblical deception and radical activism. You have accommodated sin.”

How did he reply? He tweeted, “No you don’t. You know people who you and others have badgered into modifying their behavior to stay in community. You’ve squandered your time here and you’ve caused irreparable harm to already marginalized people. That’s on you.”

Are you detecting a pattern? This “progressive” pastor has the right to misrepresent me publicly because, well, he’s progressive, so it must be right. He has the right to put words into my mouth (like “pray away the gay”) and make inane and ridiculous comments (such as the bedroom remarks), no matter how farfetched they may be.

But since, in his eyes, I’m a Bible-bashing religious fundamentalist and he’s a liberated progressive, his perceptions are the truth. Who cares about facts? Who cares about Scripture?

Not only so, he claims the right to deny the very real stories of thousands of ex-gays, people who, with God’s help, have left homosexual practice and gay identity behind. They do not exist. They cannot exist. If they did, it would cause his house of sand to collapse in an instant. It would mean that Jesus can change anyone.

So, in the name of standing with the marginalized, he casts out and mocks the most marginalized group in America today: ex-gays. This is the heart of Jesus? This is pursuing righteousness? This is practicing mercy?

The “progressives” also fail to realize that they are joining forces with those who want to take away rights, who want to silence Christians, who want to impose their ideology, who want to penalize all dissenters. (Yes, I’m talking about LGBT extremists and their allies, sometimes known as the pink mafia for a reason. I and many others have documented this steadily for years.)

And when it comes to fealty to the Word of God, the Twitter interaction proved extremely interesting.

A professing gay Christian tweeted with joy about his upcoming wedding to his partner, telling me the Scripture he would use at the event. When I came back to him with other scriptures about same-sex relationships, he told me plainly that the Bible was not his final authority and that God was bigger than a book. Fascinating!

When I challenged a zealous supporter of “gay Christianity” when she simply repeated the standard, LGBT theological talking points, she told me I was obviously not a scholar. How dare I set the record straight. How dare I share the fruit of decades of serious academic study of the Scriptures (in their cultural context and in their original languages, with due attention to the Spirit’s intent). How dare I rely on the best research by the best scholars. How dare I burst her bubble.

Of course, when I asked her for a verse to back her points, she had none. When I presented her with verses that rebutted hers, she had vacuous talking points and nothing more.

But she was progressive, and I was not. Of course she was right. Of course I was not a scholar.

What I experienced over the course of hours of interaction with scores of different people was a steady tide of condescending, name-calling, biblically-bankrupt, and morally-hypocritical rhetoric, and all of it devoid of a single substantive response.

So, these folks can have their “progressive” religion (although I pray they’ll see the light). I’ll stay with the Jesus of the Bible, the Jesus who liberates and transforms, the Jesus who doesn’t affirm us in our sin but delivers us out of it.

He was good enough for the last 2,000 years. He’ll be good enough for eternity.

About the Author

Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Donald Trump Is Not My Savior: An Evangelical Leader Speaks His Mind About the Man He Supports As President.

The Rushmore Report – Dems: Trump Wall Is ‘Immoral,’ Our Plan Will Keep More Immigrants Out . . . Huh?

Democrats sold it and the media bought it. The government shutdown is all President Trump’s fault. But here’s the inconvenient truth. Trump would rather shut the government down than cave on the wall. And Democrats would rather shut the government down than build the wall. But this is where it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have labeled Trump’s wall “immoral,” while at the very same time claiming their plan would actually keep more immigrants out than the wall. So Trump is immoral for keeping illegals out of the country, while they are presumably moral for keeping more illegals out of the country.

Of course, this is utter nonsense. Schumer and Pelosi would come off looking ridiculous if one of two things happened: (a) they did an interview with any conservative news outlets, or (b) the mainstream media actually did their jobs for once.

To summarize, the Democrats find it immoral that Trump would keep, say 10,000 immigrants out of the country, while at the same time, proposing their own “moral” plan to keep 20,000 immigrants out of the country.

This all makes sense to those who have no sense . . . or who aren’t paying attention.

Even if Mexico paid for the wall and it cost the U.S. nothing, the wall would still be immoral, according to Pelosi. She said, on December 6, “I consider the wall immoral, expensive, and if Mexico paid for it, it would still be immoral.”

I repeat – Huh?

So what is the Democrats’ real agenda? It’s simple. Stop Trump. If the president opposes cancer, they’re for cancer. If he is for the sunrise, they are automatically against it.

Additionally, David Limbaugh points out, “Democrats will always embrace the natural progression: (a) illegals cross the border, (b) illegals are granted amnesty/citizenship, and (c) most of them presumably register as Democrats.

Of course, Schumer and Pelosi aren’t going to say, “We are against the wall because we want to score political points and we support bringing in more illegals to increase the number of Democrats in the country.” That would sound crazy. It would be truthful, but crazy.

So they will stick with their much more sensible talking points. “We are against the President’s plan because it is immoral for trying to do the same things we promise to do, but with less success than our plan.”

The funny thing is that this actually makes sense – if your name is George Stephanopoulos, Chuck Todd, Wolf Blitzer, Jake Tapper, Don Lemmon, Chris Cuomo, Jimmy Kimmel, or pretty much anybody on The View. Amazingly, there are actual accredited universities which granted degrees in journalism to these clowns.

Talk about immoral!

The Rushmore Report – The Best George H.W. Bush Story Ever

Over the past few weeks, we have read all the stories that reflect the greatness of our 41st President. George H.W. Bush was indeed a founding father from the 20th century. He was a war hero, a patriot, and a quiet man of God. But it is the story that just came to light a few days ago that takes the cake. It was the story that the president never intended to get out.

Almost 20 years ago, Mr. Bush, at the age of 75, attended a concert. At the end of the concert, Compassion International made a brief presentation. They were looking to sign up men and women willing to sponsor a child from a third world country. Moved with compassion, President Bush raised his hand so he could receive a card.

Dr. Wess Stafford, President of Compassion International, said, “I could see the security people going, ‘Is this okay?'” Stafford spoke with security and it was decided that the president’s identity should be protected if he sponsored a child.

Stafford said, “They couldn’t use his full name, so they went with George Walker.”

Thus, the unlikely relationship between the former leader of the free world and a five-year old Filipino boy began.

For 20 years, the two exchanged dozens of letters. Stafford said, “George Bush had a sense of humor and a bit of an impish spirit. So I don’t think he could help himself, and he started slipping in little hints of who he was.”

Bush wrote about his dog Sadie and how she’s met a lot of “famous people.” He wrote about visiting the White House for Christmas. Bush regularly asked the boy about his school work. He even sent the boy a calculator and art supplies, which he personally bought at the local Walmart nearest his home in Houston. When “Timothy” (the young boy) reached adulthood – and Bush’s Compassion International responsibilities went away – he continued to bless Timothy with gifts and notes of encouragement. And he never sent a gift that he had not personally picked out.

When the president’s health began to fail, Stafford commissioned his secretary, while on a trip to the Philippines, to tell Timothy why he would no longer be receiving letters and gifts. She told him who his friend really was.

Timothy was overwhelmed. He had no idea that the man who basically saved his life was the President of the United States. But more impressively, the rest of the world did not know, either. Why is that? Because George H.W. Bush was far more concerned with blessing others than getting an iota of credit himself.

That is the definition of a great American. That is the definition of George Bush.

The Rushmore Report – How Trump Can Get His Wall in Three Steps

Last week, President Trump met with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in the Oval Office, in front of the media. They spatted over his proposed border wall. The conclusion of the meeting was clear. Both sides remained dug in. Democrats won’t agree to the $5 billion request from the president, and Trump is willing to shut down the government until they do. Here’s what’s missing for Mr. Trump – a clear strategy to get his signature campaign promise over the finish line. He doesn’t have a bad plan. It’s worse than that. He has no plan at all. But it’s not hard. The president should adopt this simple three-step plan if he really wants to secure the border.

Step 1 – Address the nation.

President Trump should request 30 minutes of prime time from the major television networks, in order to address the nation. Twitter is a poor substitute for a national, prime time address on television. The networks never turn down such a request from a president. This would allow him to take his message directly to the people, putting the maximum possible pressure on elected officials.

Step 2 – Play the Democrats’ greatest hits.

During this national address, Trump should play clips of leading democrats – including Schumer and Pelosi – voicing their support for a border wall when a Democrat was in the White House. There are plenty of videos to choose from, as Democrats’ support for a wall (pre-Trump) is well-documented. The president should not just say Pelosi and Schumer supported a wall, he should show us. Use their own words against them.

Step 3 – Address the spending issue directly.

When it comes to border security, Democrats enter the proverbial phone booth as big spenders, then exit as fiscal conservatives. They say we can’t afford the $5 billion that Trump is requesting. Never mind, these same Democrats voted to spend $10 billion when one of their own held the White House. When President Trump addresses the nation, he should point out that this $5 billion represents one percent of one percent of the federal budget. Compared to the $7 billion spent on Head Start each year, the border wall would be a bargain. According to the Cato Institute, since the Johnson Administration, the federal government has spent $15 trillion on welfare, while the poverty rate has actually inched up.

Securing our borders is a hill to die on. President Trump is to be commended for doing what so few politicians do. He is actually keeping the promises upon which he campaigned. And he is trying to do what no president has ever succeeded at doing. Of course, the Democrats – being the party of ‘No’ – will only obstruct, because that’s what they do. But that doesn’t mean the president can’t get his wall. He can. But first, he needs a plan. All humility aside, he needs my plan.

The Rushmore Report – GOP Senator Loses It

Utah Senator Orrin Hatch is a team player. Now the longest serving senator in Congress is retiring. You may have heard of the fellow who is replacing him – Mitt Romney. But before he exits the stage, Hatch fulfilled a long Senate tradition by giving a going away speech before his 99 colleagues. And the dapper, always under control Mormon did not hold back. In fact, he lost it on the Senate floor.

Hatch has rarely caused any kind of heartburn or division among the Republican caucus. He has never been the kind of senator to stray from the fold, like Jeff Flake of Arizona.

But Orrin Hatch has had enough, and he is sticking up for the President, whose policies he faithfully supports.

Hatch has had enough of the Democratic Party’s anti-Trump antics. He blasted Democrats for displaying a level of hatred never even demonstrated toward President George W. Bush. He called this a “new kind of crazy.” He said, “The Left will do anything and everything to hurt this president.”

Here’s more of his speech . . .

“I don’t care, all I can say is he’s doing a good job as president. The Democrats will do anything to hurt this president. What happened before he was elected president is one thing, but since he’s been elected the economy has done well, our country is moving ahead. We’re in better shape than we were before he became president. And I think we ought to judge him on that basis.”

What Sen. Hatch did was simply vocalize what most Republicans feel about all of the investigations into the Trump Administration, including the DOJ’s Russia investigation headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. While general practice is to identify a crime in search of a person, they seem to have found their person – President Trump – and are now in search of a crime, Hatch said.

After a long and distinguished career, Orrin Hatch is going away. But make no mistake; he isn’t going away quietly.

The Rushmore Report – First Iowa Poll Just Out!

The first poll for the 2020 Iowa caucuses has just come out. The first survey of the first state, conducted by the Des Moines Register, CNN, and Mediacom revealed which Democratic hopefuls are in the best position to challenge President Donald Trump in the 2020 general election. One of the themes of the poll is that voters favor experienced politicians over upstart candidates.

Only three potential candidates sit above ten percent in this initial poll, and only one more candidate garners at least five percent. The top four prospects at this point – and this is guaranteed to change a zillion times – are as follows.

1. Joe Biden – 32%
2. Bernie Sanders – 19%
3. Beto O’Rourke – 11%
4. Elizabeth Warren – 5%

The next candidates, all polling less than five percent, are, in order . . .

5. Kamala Harris
6. Cory Booker
7. Amy Klobuchar

The firm that conducted the poll was Selzer & Co., led by J. Ann Selzer, who said, “This is obviously a warm welcome to some people who are really familiar to caucusgoers in the state. But there’s also some welcoming of newcomers who are only now starting to come to the state and get to know the people who could shape their future.”

The Iowa caucuses matter because they are the first polls of the primary season. But while they’re important, there is no guarantee that the winners will win their party’s support. In 2016, for example, Ted Cruz won the Republican caucus, but Donald Trump would win the party’s nomination. The one thing the Iowa caucuses do is to narrow the field.

Conventional wisdom – confirmed by historical results – is that the Iowa caucuses stamp the ticket for the three candidates with the most votes. So the candidates who finish out of the top three will be very unlikely to compete for the nomination. And considering the Democratic field in 2020 will be more crowded than a mall on Black Friday, jockeying for the top three positions will be critical.

So as of today, your three candidates coming out of Iowa will be Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Beto O’Rourke. But check back with us, because there is at least a 100 percent chance this will change.

The Rushmore Report – Think There Are No Dangerous Criminals Among Illegals? Guess Again!

I may gag if I hear it again. Democratic pundit Juan Williams, whom I really admire, is the latest example of a mind-numbing defense of illegal immigration. He recently said, on Fox News, “Undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a lesser rate than native born citizens.” This is an unbelievable statement for two reason – ANY crime is too much, and it’s simply not true.

Let’s start with the first argument. I don’t know why conservative on-air commentators virtually never point this out. Democrats essentially say that as long as “undocumented immigrants” (illegals) commit crimes less often than the rest of us, their crimes cannot be used to argue against the unmitigated flow of illegals. So, if it could be documented that – this is only a mathematical example – 5 percent of American citizens commit crimes, while “only” 4 percent of illegal immigrants do, the illegals must be welcomed in.

So Williams’ defense of the presence of illegals (who have already committed crimes by crossing the border in the first place) is that as long as they kill and rob fewer neighbors than other subsets of the population, we must look the other way. Their crimes are to be tolerated.

But the data actually does not stand in support of this argument, anyway. Let me give you an example.

Last week, the Associated Press reported that ICE arrested 58 illegal aliens during a five-day sweep of Massachusetts, Rhode island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, from November 30 to December 4. Dozens of these individuals either were convicted or had pending charges against them.

“Thirty of the people have prior felony convictions for serious or violent offenses, and 33 have criminal charges pending. Nine had been previously deported, and 15 had been previously released by local authorities despite the agency’s request to hold them,” the AP reported.

Further, two of the illegal aliens arrested were wanted for murders in Brazil. One of these men in question was found in Lynn, Mass., while the other was found in Putnam, Conn.

According to ICE’s Boston Field Office, “Ultimately, efforts by local politicians have shielded removable criminal aliens from immigration enforcement and created another magnet for more illegal immigration, all at the expense of the safety and security of the very people it purports to protect.”

Similar raids throughout New England this year have yielded drug dealers and violent criminals using fake identities to conduct massive welfare fraud. As reported by Townhall in July, “The Department of Justice announced charges against 25 individuals who committed fraud using Puerto Rican identities in an effort to gain government benefits and in some cases even vote. Twenty-two of the 25 charged were illegal aliens, many with records of drug dealing, violent crimes, and some previously deported.”

The AP concluded that it is unclear how many of these illegal aliens arrested will actually be deported.

So what are we saying? Two things . . .

First, ANY crime is too much.

Second, life-threatening criminal behavior by undocumented immigrants is much worse than is being reported.