Show sheet for the Mark Levin show 2/21

Parkland revisited - for February 20th - Part 1 – Facts in the face of the Parkland Shooting

Bottom Line: I wanted to revisit this conversation. I've received passionate notes, discussion and politicking around the Parkland shooting, the efforts of many to politicize it and my commentary from Thursday, Friday and my abbreviated segment on Fox News Saturday. So, let's visit my big picture points from last week.

Education Outcomes & Social media influence: What does this have to do with a school shooting? I think potentially plenty. Why didn't we have these shootings at schools prior to Columbine? What's changed in our society, in our schools? Mental illness isn't new. Guns aren't new. So, what is it? Here a few differences. As recently as the 1980's the US ranked 2nd in the world in education. Today we're 17th and have been in a steady 30-year decline. Doing what we've been doing the way we've been doing it has been progressively failing generations of children for a few decades now. Among the changes...A move away from God/faith and related values in the classroom and society generally. The impact of social media and the 24/7 stress it provides in the lives of many.

Guns: If guns were the issue answer this question. Why have all of the mass shootings at schools taken place in states with below average gun ownership rates?

Colorado: 33rd
Connecticut: 46th
Florida: 41st

There are over ten states with gun ownership rates that are well over double what they are in Florida. If guns, rather than people, were the problem why wouldn't this be happening frequently in the states with the highest rates of gun ownership. Conversely, why is it happening in the states among the least armed? That's not to say that there isn't an opportunity for reforms, but any argument focused on the guns rather than the people behind them misses the big picture unless one's only purpose is to push an agenda.

FBI failures: Once again if the FBI did its job to completion we're not having this conversation right now. Ever since 9-11 we've been told that if you see something say something yet that happened numerous times prior to the Pulse shooting and what happened? Here again the FBI was notified – briefly looked into the matter of a person saying quote "I want to become a professional school shooter" and dismissed it. Credible additional tips within a month of the shooting and nothing. 39 different police calls to a home within six years and nothing. "If you see something, say something" sounds nice but is a complete crock based on the way concerns aren't addressed. The bottom line is that if the FBI did its job before Pulse - 49 people wouldn't have did in that nightclub. If the FBI did its job this time - 17 people have their lives at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school. Therefore, I emphasize that there are two sides to stories but one side to facts. Go ahead with tougher gun laws if you care more about an agenda that dealing with the actual failures - in education, society, and at the FBI. As for me I'd rather seek solutions - as complicated as they may be. Our education system, society and FBI didn't deteriorate overnight, and they won't be fixed overnight either.

The answers aren't easy, but problems are clear.

Parkland revisited for February 20th - Part 2 – Questions in the wake of the Parkland Shooting

Bottom Line: Today's headlines are a deviation from the important and hysterical headlines. I want to address two ideas advanced by Gov. Rick Scott and Broward Sheriff Scott Israel.

In Thursday's presser Governor Scott advanced the idea that action should be taken to restrict access for firearms for those with mental illness. He mentioned that he's reached out to the state legislature to being to process to act. What does that specifically entail? Remains to be scene but the details will obviously be critical to advancing this conversation in addition, to legislative action. This was attempted in New York State but came to a halt when those who'd been prescribed certain drugs suddenly have people coming to their door looking to take away legally owned guns. So, what's the answer? We'll wait, and we'll see.

Second, Broward Sheriff Scott Israel called for the expanded use of the Baker Act in Florida. Within the spectrum of the Baker Act law enforcement has the ability to take action to detain one without consent. It's simply not carried out that way unless officers have personal encounters. Sheriff Israel was suggesting that social media and online postings should be used by law enforcement to carry out detaining, beyond their will, those they're concerned about for mental health evaluation. A good idea? I'm sure many have civil liberty concerns about that notion. In fact, my wife Ashley was quick to wonder if it might be used against someone like me who might addresses provocative topics in a way that's undesired by some with political agendas.

So, what's next? We watch & wait.

Gun control - More of it was wanted before Parkland - you can be certain more of it will be desired after...

Bottom Line: Putting aside the causation behind mass shootings for a moment (again mental illness and guns aren't new) and squarely looking at gun control - we see that the appetite for greater restrictions were there well before Parkland. Gallup has surveyed on this question with its regular polling since 1991. It's useful as a baseline for the average adult's wishes before the Parkland shooting.

In January, an average of 60% of adults wanted stricter gun control federally

What's more is that the trend has been rapidly moving in favor of more gun control. In 2014, 47% wanted more gun control. In 2015 & 2016 it was up to 55% and as mentioned we were up to 60% prior to Parkland. It's clear that the increase in mass shootings in the US - regardless of circumstances - has led to an increase in the collective's desire for gun control. The first related post-Parkland poll from ABC/Washington Post indicated that 58% think stricter gun control might have prevented the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas. With thoughts like that it's clear that the momentum will continue to build for additional gun control measures to take place. What's the most desired action in the wake of the Parkland shooting?

77% additional/more effective mental health evaluation
58% further restriction on ownership
42% allowing teachers to carry on campus

The concern for many lawful gun owners is what the goal is of gun control advocates. According to Gallup's most recent work from January, 28% wanted to ban private ownership of guns (allowing only law enforcement access). That gives you an idea about how many are motivated above and behind what they're indicating publicly. With public opinion as strong as it currently is and elected officials from Tallahassee to Washington D.C. considering action - it's likely change is coming. The question is simply what it looks like.

Important headlines for February 21st

Bottom Line: These are stories you don't want to miss and my hot takes on them...

Banning Assault Weapons Could Prevent School Shootings Sun Sentinel

Excerpt: There’s no silver bullet for stopping people with miserable lives from killing people in places where they congregate. But do we have to sell them weapons of war to mow us down so fast? AR-15s aren’t designed for hunting or self defense. They’re designed to quickly kill a lot of people.

Hot Take: This could just as easily be relegated to the hysterical headlines but the point is too important. The first sentence of this excerpt is on point. As I've also been indicating we're likely to have stricter gun laws - whether it would be effectual for preventing this in the future or not. Public sentiment is solidly in favor of additional gun policy. We then get into hyperbole. Semi-automatic AR-15's aren't weapons of war for starters. Every person who makes that assertion is being blatantly dishonest - whether knowingly or out of ignorance. Regarding hunting. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It has everything to do with protecting yourself and your liberty. The reason why the 2nd highest priority of the founders was the ability to bear arms was out of context. Though I understand we don't effectively teach American history in our schools any longer, it was granted exceptional consideration because the people who wrote the constitution revolted against a repressive government and killed a bunch of the British until they gave up. It might be uncomfortable today in context but it's also an undeniable fact. If we're going to have a debate about further gun control, what I ask for at a minimum is integrity, acknowledgment of facts, and open debate of those facts. If the debate is supposed ensue based on blatantly false statements it's evident that one's ambitions are far from over with AR-15's. And to the headline. What gun isn't potentially an "assault weapon" if one's to embrace that open ended and dishonest premise?

Outrageous Bungling at the FBI Washington Times

Excerpt: Citing Gov. Rick Scott...

“We constantly promote ‘see something, say something,’ and a courageous person did just that to the FBI, and the FBIfailed to act. ‘See something, say something’ is an incredibly important tool, and people must have confidence in the follow-through from law enforcement. The FBI director needs to resign.”

Hot Take: I don't know if Wray's resignation is the answer or not. What I do know is that there needs to be accountability. To the governor's point... "If you see something say something" is a pile of B.S. In Florida's two mass shootings the FBI was notified on multiple occasions and still the attacks happened. If the FBI was to do its job and if seeing and saying something mattered there'd be 49 folks in Orlando that'd still be alive today and 17 more in Parkland. When does accountability come into play?

Is the Second Amendment Worth Dying For? John Davidson, The Federalist

Hot Take: There were a lot of colonists who died so that Americans today could be free. I'd imagine they'd say yes. They did die for it.

Until tomorrow...

Hysterical Headlines (Funny or Absurd) for February 21st

Bottom Line: These are the daily doses of nonsense in the media and my hot takes on them...

Miami Herald's many headlines:

Hot Take: Four headlines all pointed in one direction. Not one reference of the FBI or the failures that led to the attack occurring. As I've stated in a separate story today - gun control is likely coming - it's just a matter of what it looks like but is anyone else concerned that if the FBI had done their damn job we're not having these headlines? That 17 people would still have their lives in Parkland? That 49 people would have lived in the Pulse night club? The more one dimensional the focus has become on simply gun control in the wake of the shooting - the more it appears that many are more interested in politics than solutions.

How You'd Die from an Asteroid Strike - Brian Resnick, Vox

Hot Take: Just in case you were wondering...

For Dems, It's Impeachment or Bust! William McGurn, Wall Street Journal

Hot Take: And there it is. What has Donald Trump done that'd potentially rise to high crimes and misdemeanors? Never mind that 15+ months of nonstop efforts to produce, illegally even, evidence has produced not even a credible claim against him let alone actual charges and you have a political party attempting to run on it in the midterms nevertheless. What does it say about a political party, it's base and the media covering it all when there's not even a charge brought against the President and it's acceptable to assert that you'd impeach him? How'd you like to be on trial (with no evidence of wrong doing) with a jury of similarity minded people looking to get you?

Until tomorrow...

One year later - What's changed with illegal immigration enforcement & what's happening in SFL...

Bottom Line: With the DACA deadline looming and everything from a "DACA" fix to comprehensive reform being debated in Congress - we do now have a full year worth of immigration enforcement information from the Trump administration. So, what's real and what's political noise? Here are some of the highlights:

74% of all ICE arrests had previous criminal records
An additional 11% had pending charges/cases in the legal system
Only 11% had no prior legal history

The President claimed that the priority was to identify and act against known offenders who also happen to be here illegally. Based on the facts from the first year - it's clear that was absolutely the focus. Here's the next round of relevant info...

143,470 arrests made in 2017 (+30% over 2016)

So, there was a significant increase in overall enforcement during President Trump's first year in office but it's still much lower than just a few years ago. During the Obama administration ICE arrests had declined 63% from 297,898 in 2009 to 110,104 in 2016. So where are they happening?

Three of the top five cities for arrests over the past year were in Texas. Here are the top five:

#5 San Antonio

#4 Chicago

#3 Atlanta

#2 Houston

#1 Dallas

The only Florida city to show up in the top 25 was Miami at #10. 6,192 ICE arrests, or an average of 17 per day, have taken place in Miami over the past year.

Midweek midterm elections update for February 21st - Who Would Control Congress today?

Bottom Line: We're up to our 6th midterm election update & there are big changes again this week. Here's what history tells us about midterm elections:

Since the advent of the current two-party system (39 midterm elections) we've averaged the President's party losing 4 Senate seats and 30 seats in the House. If that happens this year Democrats would retake control of both chambers of Congress. Democrats only need to flip two Senate seats to retake control and they need 24 seats in the House. History is on the side of the Democrats reclaiming control going into this cycle.

There are only three times that the incumbent President's party has gained seats (1934 during FDR's first term, 1998 during Bill Clinton's second term and 2002 during George W. Bush's first term) thus only 3 out of 39 midterm elections have resulted in the President's party gaining seats. Here's another way of looking at it... History suggests there's a 92% chance Democrats will gain Congressional seats this year. The question becomes how many. That's where it's helpful to look at the history of generic ballot polls and outcomes. These are the past four cycles:

The first number is the average generic ballot polling on Election Day and the second is the actual result:

2014: GOP +2.4 - GOP +5.7 = GOP+3.3%
2010: GOP +9.4 - GOP +6.8 = GOP -2.6%
2006: DEM +11.5 - DEM +7.9 = DEM -3.6%
2002: GOP +1.7 - GOP +4.6 = GOP +2.9%

The first takeaway is that the polls average being off by about 3%. There's no rhyme or reason politically (polls were overly representative of both parties twice). So next let's try to see what cycle this one most resembles. As of today, the generic ballot says...

Current: DEM: +6.5%

We're continuing to see a lot of volatility in the generic ballot question. Democrats are still showing a nice overall advantage - however this week 1.5% fewer voters said they'd prefer a Democrat, all else being equal. Democrats have lost support on the generic ballot in four of the past five weeks. The difference is that rather than a wave election, as it appeared Democrats were on track for to start 2018, we're looking at gains but potentially not enough to win control of Congress.

Last week Democrats were on pace to add 15 seats in the House and 5 in the Senate. This week Democrats are positioned to gain 11 seats in the House and 3 seats in the Senate.

The major caveat is that the Senate map is highly unfavorable for Democrats this year. We'll need to wait until we're past the primaries and can track individual races to have a clearer picture of what the playing field looks like... Under that scenario Republicans would retain slight control of the House and Democrats would gain control of the Senate.

Until next week...

Tracking Trump for February 21st - What the President has been up to...

Bottom Line: The President had 222 executive actions, a Supreme Court Justice and tax reform to show for his Presidency through Tuesday. Here's what's happened since...

In tweet related activity:

Thank you to @foxandfriends for the great timeline on all of the failures the Obama Administration had against Russia, including Crimea, Syria and so much more. We are now starting to win again!
“There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections, there’s no evidence that that has happened in the past or that it will happen this time, and so I’d invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and make his case to get votes.” .........The President Obama quote just before election. That’s because he thought Crooked Hillary was going to win and he didn’t want to “rock the boat.” When I easily won the Electoral College, the whole game changed and the Russian excuse became the narrative of the Dems.
Republicans are now leading the Generic Poll, perhaps because of the popular Tax Cuts which the Dems want to take away. Actually, they want to raise you taxes, substantially. Also, they want to do nothing on DACA, R’s want to fix!
Matt Schlapp and CPAC are getting ready for another exciting event. Big difference from those days when President Obama held the White House. You’ve come a long way Matt!
Hope Republicans in the Great State of Pennsylvania challenge the new “pushed” Congressional Map, all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Your Original was correct! Don’t let the Dems take elections away from you so that they can raise taxes & waste money!
I have been much tougher on Russia than Obama, just look at the facts. Total Fake News!
A woman I don’t know and, to the best of my knowledge, never met, is on the FRONT PAGE of the Fake News Washington Post saying I kissed her (for two minutes yet) in the lobby of Trump Tower 12 years ago. Never happened! Who would do this in a public space with live security..........cameras running. Another False Accusation. Why doesn’t @washingtonpost report the story of the women taking money to make up stories about me? One had her home mortgage paid off. Only @FoxNews so reported...doesn’t fit the Mainstream Media narrative.
Main Street is BOOMING thanks to our incredible TAX CUT and Reform law. "This shows small-business owners are more than just optimistic, they are ready to grow their businesses."
Bad ratings @CNN & @MSNBC got scammed when they covered the anti-Trump Russia rally wall-to-wall. They probably knew it was Fake News but, because it was a rally against me, they pushed it hard anyway. Two really dishonest newscasters, but the public is wise!
Whether we are Republican or Democrat, we must now focus on strengthening Background Checks!

In non-tweet related activity:

Signed executive action related to gun control: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices: Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.
Issued a delegation memo under the national defense act
Met with VP Mike Pense and Defense Secretary James Mattis
Met with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin
Hosted a public safety Medal of Valor ceremony

Do federal deficits and the debt really matter? Yes, and you're actually already paying for it

Bottom Line: In light of the recent two-year budget deal that's increasing spending by about 20%, many conservatives (and even many Democrats looking to score political points) have expressed concern about our ever-growing national debt. This is the on again off again debate that never really seems to go anywhere while our debt continues to go up. So, does it really matter? In an intellectual sense you know the answer is yes. There comes a point when only so much debt can be accrued without bigger problems...but in the practical realm we've had the same debt debate seemingly forever but nothing really seemed to impact us. Or has it and is it?

The first number that matters is the debt to GDP ratio. Historically, whether in the US or around the world this is the first number to check to see how much longer-term debt risk a country has. Simply put, countries that have larger economic output in a year than debt owed are generally considered stable (The World Bank recommends that countries not exceed 70% however). Well, we crossed that threshold several years ago and haven't looked back. 2011 was the last year that our economy outsized our debt. So, the US does have longer term debt risk. Still why does this matter and why should we care?

With ever rising debt we don't have enough money to meet our obligations, so we have to borrow just to pay our bills. That works until it doesn't. Now anyone who's had personal debt problems can easily answer that question. It works until you can't even afford to pay the minimum monthly obligations that are due. Last year a record $276 billion was spent servicing our debt. That was 6.8% of all federal spending. What does that mean? It means that at a minimum if we stopped having people buy new debt of ours about 7% of everything done by the federal government would have to stop. What's more is that the budget that just passed increases spending by around 20% over the next two years. What does that mean? It means that by 2020 an estimated 10% of all federal spending will simply go to servicing the debt we already have. You can see how this story is going. You might not see, touch, or feel it yet but it's real and eventually it has to be accounted for. There really isn't a free lunch. What's more is that you're actually already paying more personally because of it. How? Interest rates. You've noticed interest rates are rising. Yes, an improving economy is part of it but it's not the only factor. As the US's debt burden becomes bigger and riskier the level of interest demanded by those buying our debt is also higher (just as is the case for people who have a riskier credit history). That's causing the overall interest rate picture to inflate faster than it would otherwise. So, from your credit card to your next loan - you're already impacted. Over the longer run fiscal restraint will have to happen one way or another. Hopefully it won't come via insolvency - which is unlikely...however it could come via Medicare and Social Security - which is very likely.

The most conservative and the most liberal states in 2018 - you may be a bit surprised:

Bottom Line: There are a number of different ways to measure the overall political disposition of a state. Mostly commonly people view Presidential election cycles as the overall barometer. Through that prism Minnesota would actually be the most liberal. Why? How? Every state except Minnesota has voted for a Republican candidate from President as recently as 1984 except for Minnesota. The last time they voted for a Republican was 1972. Another way is through social policies like the legalization of marijuana for example. If that were the barometer Colorado and California would be the most liberal. Here's a hint though. None of those three are the most liberal and the stereo-types that exist with the south don't hold true either here for the most conservative. Gallup has research on the politicization of partisans. In other words which states have the highest percentage of conservatives and liberals - those with the strongest political views - as a percentage of the population. When you look at states through that prism here are the results:

Most conservative:

Wyoming: 33%

Mississippi: 29%

Alabama: 27%

Least conservative:

Vermont: -14%

Massachusetts: -13%

Rhode Island: -5%

Surprised yet? California is only the 6th most liberal state and Utah is only the 7th most conservative state. Btw, where's Florida? Right where you'd expect us to be. Right in the middle. Florida is 13% more conservative than liberal but ranks as the 25th state ideologically.

How close are we to energy independence? Probably closer than you think...

Bottom Line: Energy independence has been a concept that's been floated for years and sounded nice but often seemed implausible given how much energy we'd relied on from around the world. In recent years that dynamic has shifted considerably however. The growth of solar, the advent of more efficient/electric cars, greater adaptation to natural gases and the biggest impact of all - record oil production within the United States - have put the idea of American energy independence very much in play.

The proliferation of fracking dramatically enhanced US oil production which ramped up considerably between 2008 & 2012. The combination of increased regulation, and certain states/communities opposing the practice, muted the growth. Add in the lower oil prices over the past couple of years and the incentive to push forward was mitigated. That's begun to change considerably over the past year. It's no secret that the Trump administration has relaxed thousands of regulations on various businesses and the energy sector is no exception. The result was that at the start of 2017 the US was averaging about 8.8 million barrels of oil per day. By December we were at 10.1 million barrels daily. That's a huge 15% increase within one year. And the trend is still our friend, at least if you want the US to achieve independence...

According to research firm Rystad Energy, the United States will add another million barrels of production today ending the year with 11.1 million barrels of oil per day. Not only is that another 10% increase this year but the number is highly significant in a more conceptually meaningful way. Part of the reason we've not been able to foresee energy independence in the US previously is that we've been the biggest consumer of oil in the world but only a distant third leading producer of oil. As recently as a year ago we produced about 2.5 million fewer barrels of oil per day less than Russia and about 2 million fewer than Saudi Arabia. Not only have we been bridging that gap but if Rystad's research is correct - the US will pass Russia and Saudi Arabia in production year the end of this year. That's a massive step in the energy independence direction.

In 2012 the US was still importing more than 61% of the oil we consumed. By 2017 we were only importing 25% of the oil we consumed. It's a pretty remarkable 36% improvement in just five years. You can quickly see how an estimated 26% two-year additional improvement in oil production - along with the continued adaptation to other forms of efficient energy has the potential to make American energy independence a truly attainable goal...and one that's potentially just around the corner.

Trump's tariffs are already paying off

Bottom Line: It's an odd place for a free-market capitalist to finds one's self. Typically the notion of tariffs are counter to free-markets and rarely have proven to be in the economic interests of the country issuing them. Simply, tariffs are economic protectionism. The flip side of the argument is that the playing field has become so uneven in countries like China, that it's a leveling of the economic playing field. I'm not willing to embrace that premise entirely but we're seeing that the United States is about to benefit from the President's recently announced 30% tariff on Asian solar panels and dish washing machines.

One of the largest solar manufacture's, China's Jinko Solar, has announced that they're going to open a manufacturing plant in the United States. Better still, it's coming to Florida. Following a vote by Jinko's board to open a US facility, the company announced it's going to invest $410 million to build a solar plant in Jacksonville. The plant will employee 800 to start and will pay average salaries of $46,000.

It's unclear if this will become part of a larger trend with impacted companies but you have to hand it to the President. He didn't build a multi-national, multi-billion dollar empire by being an economic idiot. Many wondered why the tariffs was so specific, only targeting solar panels and washing machines... It's becoming clear that it was based on information that those types of companies would be willing to bring manufacturing and jobs to the United States to avoid it. That, by the way, would be a stroke of economic genius - even if not consistent with general free-market principals.

How impacted are you by the President? Most say it impacts everyday

Bottom Line: Recently I shared research showing that most people approach everyday through the prism of their political lens (whether they realize it or not). The latest from Gallup demonstrates a more specific view of the specifics. Let's start with this headline.

52% of Americans say the President affects their overall happiness

So if you're a supporter of President Trump, you probably feel pretty good in a given day, all else be equitable. Clearly, the inverse is true with those who oppose. In this regard we're allowing our personal political preferences to have a disproportionate influence on our everyday life. The truth remains that as important as the President is, for most people in any given day - the government that's closest to them is the most likely to impact their life that day. Anyone with an overactive HOA can relate but it certainly doesn't end there. How much do you pay for your property taxes? How much do you pay in sales tax every time you make a purchase? How are the roads you drive on? What about the public schools we pay for? There are a myriad of local government decisions and outcomes that are more likely to vary from day to day as compared to unilateral policy changes by the President of the United States.

What's more, and I get it, 57% say that their relationships with others are impacted by whom the President is... Distance yourself from the emotional connection for a moment and think about how polarized we've allowed ourselves to become. In a certain sense it's been instructive. While the Trump Presidency has often elicited the most extreme responses by his supporters and especially his detractors - it's been instructive to identify people who're genuinely good people worthy of your time regardless of politics. Bigots and nasty people have revealed themselves in the current environment - which while it's unpleasant when you're confronted with it...is actually instructive so you can invest your time in higher quality people and relationships that will add value to your life.

Recently I shared research showing that most people approach everyday through the prism of their political lens (whether they realize it or not). The latest from Gallup demonstrates a more specific view of the specifics. Let's start with this headline.

52% of Americans say the President affects their overall happiness

Show sheet for the Mark Levin show 2/21

Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content