The fastest growing cities in the country are in the South and West, according to new data released by the Census Bureau. Cities in the South and West held 14 of the 15 cities with the largest population gains in 2018.
“The South and West currently seem to be attractive places to move,” Adam McCann, financial writer at WalletHub, writes. “As the U.S. Census Bureau reports eight of the 15 cities with the largest population gains in 2018 were located in the South and six were in the West.”
The personal-finance website WalletHub analyzed the findings in its 2019’s Fastest-Growing Cities in America report. The report identifies where the most rapid local economic growth occurred over a period of seven years. It compared 515 cities across 17 key metrics within two key dimensions, “Sociodemographics” and “Jobs & Economy.” Some of the metrics include population growth, education level, unemployment rates, and growth in regional GDP per capita.
The report categorized each city according to population size guidelines. A large city represents more than 300,000 people; a midsize city, 100,000 to 300,000 people, and a small city is comprised of less than 100,000 people.
WalletHub also produced a separate ranking by city size. Of the ten fastest growing cities overall, regardless of population, only Florida and Texas had more than one city make the list.
Lehigh Acres, Florida, recorded the fastest growing population in the U.S. last year. It was followed by Mount Pleasant, South Carolina; Bend, Oregon; Enterprise, Nevada; Frisco, Texas; Fort Myers, Florida; Meridian, Idaho; St. George, Utah; Cape Coral, Florida; and Round Rock, Texas.
Enterprise, Nevada, experienced the highest population growth, at 7.4 percent, having also made the same list last year. Frisco, Texas, recorded the highest job growth of 6.88 percent.
“Accommodating fast growth often requires cities to invest in infrastructure (long-lived assets) or increased municipal services (long-run commitments to municipal operating budgets),” says Russell R. Evans, associate professor of Economics at Oklahoma City University. “It’s a challenge for cities to trust that population and economic growth, so often they wait too long before committing to expanding infrastructure and services. As a result, fast growing cities are often trying to catch up to past growth rather than accommodate current growth.”
For large cities, Austin, Texas, saw the highest growth, followed by Miami, Seattle, Henderson, Nevada, and Denver.
Ten locations recording the slowest population growth were Portsmouth, Virginia, Waterloo, Iowa, Anchorage, Alaska, Albany, Georgia, Springfield, Illinois, Decatur, Illinois, Davenport, Iowa, Erie, Pennsylvania, Canton, Ohio, and Shreveport, Louisiana.
The slowest-growing city, Shreveport, recorded a $1 billion debt last fiscal year, according to the Louisiana State Legislative Auditor’s Office.
Albany, Georgia, experienced the highest population decrease, of 1.59 percent, WalletHub notes.
Five cities in California – Milpitas, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, San Jose and Mountain View – recorded the highest population growth according to real GDP per capita of 6.41 percent, according to the report.
Entrepreneurship and employment opportunities are disproportionately better in cities that are growing quickly, Evans adds, especially if the cities “are experiencing technological driven growth.” He also notes that employment growth and wage differentials “extend beyond the primary technology industry and into support and services sectors.”
Lafayette, Louisiana, saw the highest decrease in real GDP per capita, at 5.76 percent, while Peoria, Illinois, recorded the highest jobs decrease of 1.12 percent, according to the report.
Data used to create the ranking came from the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the National Venture Capital Association, and Renwood RealtyTrac.
The Center Square
What happens when democracy fails to deliver? What happens when people give up on democracy? What happens when a majority or militant minority decide that the constitutional rights of free speech, free elections, peaceful assembly and petition are inadequate and take to the streets to force democracy to submit to their demands?
Our world may be about to find out.
Chile is the most stable and prosperous country in Latin America.
Yet when its capital, Santiago, recently raised subway fares by 5%, thousands poured into the streets. Rioting, looting, arson followed. The Metro system was utterly trashed. Police were assaulted. People died. The rioting spread to six other cities. Troops were called out.
President Sebastian Pinera repealed the fare hike and declared a national emergency, stating, "Chile is at war against a powerful, implacable enemy who does not respect anything or anyone and is willing to use violence and crime without any limits."
How does a democracy that has spawned within itself a powerful and implacable enemy deal with it?
Last week, tens of thousands of Lebanese of all faiths and political associations rioted in Beirut and Tripoli to demand the overthrow of the regime and the ouster of its president, speaker of parliament and Prime Minister Saad Hariri. All must go, the masses demand.
In Barcelona, Friday, half a million people surged into the streets in protest after the sentencing in Madrid of the secessionists who sought to bring about the independence of Catalonia from Spain in 2017.
In all of China, few enjoy the freedoms of the 7 million in Hong Kong. Yet, for five months, these fortunate and free Chinese, to protest a proposal that would have allowed Hong Kong residents to be extradited to China, stormed into the streets to defy the regime and denounce the conditions under which they live.
These protests have been marked by riots, vandalism, arson and clashes with police. "Hong Kong streets descended into chaos following an unauthorized pro-democracy rally Sunday," writes the Associated Press. Protesters "set up roadblocks and torched businesses, and police responded with tear gas and a water cannon. Protesters tossed firebombs and took their anger out on shops with mainland Chinese ties."
What are the Hong Kong residents denouncing and demanding?
They are protesting both present and future limitations on their freedom. The appearance of American flags in the protests suggests that what they seek is what the agitators behind the
Boston Tea Party and the boys and men at Concord Bridge sought -- independence, liberty and a severing of the ties to the mother country.
Yet, because the Communist regime of Xi Jinping could not survive such an amputation, the liberation of Hong Kong is not in the cards. The end to these months of protest will likely be frustration, futility and failure.
Perhaps it is that realization that explains the vehemence and violence. But the rage is also what kills the support they initially received.
In 1960s America, the first civil rights demonstrations attracted widespread sympathy. But the outburst of urban riots that followed in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and 100 cities after Martin Luther King's assassination sent millions streaming to the banners of Gov. George Wallace in the campaigns of 1968 and 1972.
When the "yellow vest" protests broke out in 2018 in Paris, over a fuel tax, the demonstrators had the support of millions of Frenchmen.
But that support dissipated when protesters began smashing windows of boutique shops on the Champs-Elysee, assaulting police and desecrating monuments and memorials.
This reversion to violence, ransacking of stores and showering of police with bricks, bottles and debris, is costing the protesters much of the backing they enjoyed. In the trade-off between freedom and order, people will ultimately opt for order.
Yet, one wonders: Why are these outbursts of violent protests and rioting taking place in stable, free and prosperous societies?
Chile is the most stable and wealthy country in South America. Catalonia is the most prosperous part of Spain. Paris is hardly a hellhole of repression. And Hong Kong is the freest city of China.
If the beneficiaries of freedoms and democratic rights come to regard them as insufficient to produce the political, economic and social results they demand, what does that portend for democracy's future?
For, despite the looting, arson and attacks on cops in Hong Kong, Xi Jinping is not going to order his satraps to yield to popular demands for autonomy or independence. Nor is Madrid going to accept the loss of Barcelona and secession of Catalonia. Nor is the conservative Chilean government going to yield to the street rebels and revolutionaries. Nor is Paris going to back down to the "yellow vests."
Yet, one wonders: If the "end of history" and worldwide triumph of democratic capitalism thesis has, as most agree, been disproven, is it possible that the Age of Democracy is itself a passing phase in the history of the West and the world?
Patrick J. Buchanan
The construction industry plays a vital role in the national economy. As of 2019, the total annualized value of construction work in the U.S. was approximately $1.3 trillion, making construction one of the nation’s largest industries. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), there were 5,962,640 employed construction workers in 2018 (not including self-employed), representing 4.1 percent of total employment in U.S. firms.
Like most other sectors of the economy, construction spending retracts during economic downturns. In particular, the construction industry suffered a major blow during the Great Recession. Employment for construction workers (including the self-employed) dipped from a peak of 9,785,000 in July 2007 to 6,734,000 in April 2012. As of August 2019, the total number of employed and self-employed construction workers was about 8,415,000. An estimated 23 percent of all construction workers are self-employed.
Due to the boom or bust nature of construction, the unemployment rate for construction workers tends to be higher than the overall unemployment rate. In 2018, the construction was 5.1 percent, compared to the overall unemployment rate of 3.9 percent. In 2010, the unemployment rate gap was even larger: 20.6 percent for construction workers and 10.5 percent overall.
Even though employment in the construction industry is still below pre-recession levels, it has grown rapidly in recent years. Between 2015 to 2018, employment in construction occupations grew by 8 percent, higher than the 5 percent average employment growth across all occupations. Furthermore, the BLS predicts that employment growth for construction workers will outpace the national average growth rate for all occupations between 2016 and 2026. In this time frame, construction jobs are expected to grow 11 percent compared to 7.4 percent across all occupations.
Since bottoming out in 2011, construction spending has increased 64 percent. During that time, growth in residential construction outpaced that of nonresidential, a reflection of a stronger real estate market and increased demand for affordable housing. In 2018, 42.2 percent of construction spending was in residential, up from 34.0 percent 10 years earlier. New residential construction spending per construction worker amounts to $45,060 per construction worker per year.
Amid rapid growth, the construction industry provides above average wages but doesn’t require a college degree, making it an attractive option for many workers. Nationwide, the median hourly wage for a construction worker is $22.12, compared to the $18.58 median wage across all occupations. However, certain locations offer better conditions for construction workers than others. At the state level, the highest concentration of construction jobs are in the Southwest and Mountain-Plains regions rather than coastal states. Unemployment rates, hourly wages, construction spending, and cost of living also vary from location to location.
Narrowing down to the city level paints an even more specific picture of how location affects conditions for construction workers. To identify the best metropolitan areas for construction workers, researchers at Construction Coverage analyzed data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau to calculate a composite score based on the following metrics:
• Median hourly wage for construction workers
• Employment growth for construction workers
• Construction spending per construction worker
• Cost of living
• Unemployment rate for all workers
Only the 100 most populous metropolitan areas were included in the analysis. Most of the metro areas that scored highest are located in the West, Midwest, or South. None are located in the Northeast. Here are the 10 best cities for construction workers in 2019.
The 10 Best Metros for Construction Workers
10. Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
• Median hourly wage for construction workers: $26.34
• Employment growth for construction workers: 29.5%
• New residential construction spending per worker: $53,486
• Cost of living: 1.7% above average
• Unemployment rate for all workers: 3.9%
• Concentration of construction workers: 14% above average
9. Colorado Springs, CO
• Median hourly wage for construction workers: $20.58
• Employment growth for construction workers: 16.7%
• New residential construction spending per worker: $143,236
• Cost of living: -0.4% below average
• Unemployment rate for all workers: 3.9%
• Concentration of construction workers: 10% above average
8. Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN
• Median hourly wage for construction workers: $18.95
• Employment growth for construction workers: 22.5%
• New residential construction spending per worker: $113,675
• Cost of living: -4.7% below average
• Unemployment rate for all workers: 2.5%
• Concentration of construction workers: -19% below average
7. Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
• Median hourly wage for construction workers: $19.11
• Employment growth for construction workers: 12.2%
• New residential construction spending per worker: $148,713
• Cost of living: -4.8% below average
• Unemployment rate for all workers: 3.6%
• Concentration of construction workers: -48% below average
6. Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL
• Median hourly wage for construction workers: $17.68
• Employment growth for construction workers: 50.9%
• New residential construction spending per worker: $87,258
• Cost of living: -3.3% below average
• Unemployment rate for all workers: 3.3%
• Concentration of construction workers: 99% above average
5. Boise City, ID
• Median hourly wage for construction workers: $18.46
• Employment growth for construction workers: 31.8%
• New residential construction spending per worker: $99,286
• Cost of living: -5.8% below average
• Unemployment rate for all workers: 2.6%
• Concentration of construction workers: 39% above average
4. St. Louis, MO-IL
• Median hourly wage for construction workers: $29.80
• Employment growth for construction workers: 5.4%
• New residential construction spending per worker: $29,414
• Cost of living: -8.6% below average
• Unemployment rate for all workers: 3.6%
• Concentration of construction workers: -4% below average
3. Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI
• Median hourly wage for construction workers: $36.31
• Employment growth for construction workers: 5.5%
• New residential construction spending per worker: $25,197
• Cost of living: 3.4% above average
• Unemployment rate for all workers: 4.0%
• Concentration of construction workers: -27% below average
2. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI
• Median hourly wage for construction workers: $30.39
• Employment growth for construction workers: 9.0%
• New residential construction spending per worker: $65,813
• Cost of living: 2.2% above average
• Unemployment rate for all workers: 3.0%
• Concentration of construction workers: -21% below average
1. Provo-Orem, UT
• Median hourly wage for construction workers: $21.25
• Employment growth for construction workers: 36.3%
• New residential construction spending per worker: $84,690
• Cost of living: -3.1% below average
• Unemployment rate for all workers: 2.7%
• Concentration of construction workers: 98% above average
Median wage and employment data are from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics Survey. Employment growth is the percent change in construction worker employment between 2015 and 2018. Unemployment rates (for all workers) are from April 2019.
Construction spending per construction worker is the total valuation of all new privately owned housing units authorized in 2018 divided by the number of construction workers employed in 2018. Construction spending data is from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Building Permits Survey.
Cost of living is from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Price Parities dataset. For the purpose of this analysis, construction workers include all wage and salary workers in nonfarm establishments working in Construction and Extraction Occupations.
Only the 100 most populous metropolitan areas were included in the analysis.
Data for self-employed persons are not included in the estimates.
The Center Square
Even before seeing the transcript of the July 25 call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Nancy Pelosi threw the door wide open to the impeachment of Donald Trump by the Democratic House.
Though the transcript did not remotely justify the advanced billing of a "quid pro quo," Pelosi set in motion a process that is already producing a sea change in the politics of 2020.
The great Beltway battle for the balance of this year, and perhaps next, will be over whether the Democrats can effect a coup against a president many of them have never recognized as legitimate and have sought to bring down since before he took the oath of office.
Pelosi on Tuesday started this rock rolling down the hill.
She has made impeachment, which did not even come up in the last Democratic debate, the issue of 2020. She has foreclosed bipartisan compromise on gun control, the cost of prescription drugs and infrastructure. She has just put her own and her party's fate and future on the line.
With Pelosi's assent that she is now open to impeachment, she turned what was becoming a cold case into a blazing issue. If the Democrats march up impeachment hill, fail and fall back, or if they vote impeachment only to see the Senate exonerate the president, that will be the climactic moment of Pelosi's career. She is betting the future of the House, and her party's hopes of capturing the presidency, on the belief she and her colleagues can persuade the country to support the indictment of a president for high crimes.
One wonders: Do Democrats blinded by hatred of Trump ever wonder how that 40% of the nation that sees him as the repository of their hopes will react if, rather than beat him at the ballot box, they remove him in this way?
The first casualty of Pelosi's cause is almost certain to be the front-runner for the party nomination. Joe Biden has already, this past week, fallen behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren in Iowa, New Hampshire and California. The Quinnipiac poll has her taking the lead nationally for the nomination, with Biden dropping into second place for the first time since he announced his candidacy.
By making Ukraine the focus of the impeachment drive in the House, Pelosi has also assured that the questionable conduct of Biden and son Hunter Biden will be front and center for the next four months before Iowa votes.
What did Joe do? By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president he ordered then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forgo a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee that Kiev needed to stay current on its debts.
Biden insists the Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt, that Hunter had done no wrong, that he himself was unaware of his son's business ties.
All these assertions have been contradicted or challenged.
There is another question raised by Biden's ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor or forgo the loan guarantee. Why was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to be threatened by the U.S. with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor whom all of Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt?
Whatever the truth of the charges, the problem here is that any investigation of potential corruption of Hunter Biden, and of the role of his father, the former vice president, in facilitating it, will be front and center in presidential politics between now and New Hampshire.
This is bad news for the Biden campaign. And the principal beneficiary of Pelosi's decision that put Joe and Hunter Biden at the center of an impeachment inquiry is, again, Warren.
Warren already appears to have emerged victorious in her battle with Bernie Sanders to become the progressives' first choice in 2020. And consider how, as she is rising, her remaining opposition is fast fading.
Sen. Kamala Harris has said she is moving her campaign to Iowa for a do-or-die stand in the first battleground state. Sen. Cory Booker has called on donors to raise $1.7 million in 10 days, or he will have to pack it in. As Biden, Sanders, Harris and Booker fade, and "Mayor Pete" Buttigieg hovers at 5 or 6% in national and state polls, Warren steadily emerges as the probable nominee.
One measure of how deeply Biden is in trouble, whether he is beginning to be seen as too risky, given the allegations against him and his son, will be the new endorsements his candidacy receives after this week of charges and countercharges.
If there is a significant falling off, it could be fatal.
Patrick J. Buchanan
The transcript of President Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky is yet another illustration of the rule: Never ask a question you don't know the answer to.
But on the basis of one drama queen's overreaction to a rumor she'd heard about what was said on a phone call she didn't hear (I'm assuming the whistleblower is Christine Blasey Ford), the Democrats have launched impeachment proceedings against the president.
I guess they figured it's easier than flying to South Dakota with picks and chisels and carving Trump into Mount Rushmore. But it will have the same effect.
Now that the transcript has been released, it's The New York Times that doesn't want anyone to see it.
The transcript I'd like to see is the one of Nancy Pelosi reading the Trump transcript.
F@@@@@@CK! Whose f***ing idea was it to demand this goddamn transcript? F@CK! F@@CK! F@@@CK!
The absolute worst version for Trump -- i.e. the one being repeated non-stop on MSNBC -- is that he did exactly what Obama and Biden were doing to Ukraine: intimidating an ally into giving us something in exchange for the foreign aid we were giving them.
Biden himself bragged about getting Ukraine's prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold a big fat check from them.
The Democrats' argument is: No, no, no! When WE were pressuring Ukraine, we were doing it for good! Don't you understand? We're good; they're bad.
The other reason the media are going to have to bury this transcript is that Trump brought up a few items that the media have been hoping the public would never find out about.
Trump said: "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."
Well, that's something the media haven't mentioned before. Ninety-nine percent of Americans will be hearing about the funny business with Biden's son, Hunter, for the first time with the release of this transcript.
Why did Vice President Biden order the Ukrainian president to fire the prosecutor investigating the Ukrainian company paying his son millions of dollars? Are Democrats claiming that this company was clean as a whistle and it was an absolute OUTRAGE that it was being investigated?
Ukraine was looking into the company that conveniently placed Hunter Biden on its board long before Trump came on the scene. Something must have made the Ukrainian prosecutor want to investigate Biden's company -- and it sure wasn't to curry favor with the Obama/Biden administration.
The second issue the media does not want anyone to think about is CrowdStrike.
What is CrowdStrike, you ask? That is the cybersecurity firm that is the sole source of the claim that the Russians hacked the DNC's emails -- which launched the conspiracy theories that tied our country in knots for the past three years.
The Russian collusion story was originally hatched by Hillary Clinton in the summer of 2016 to cover up the utter corruption revealed by the dump of Democratic National Committee emails on Wikileaks. As was her practice whenever a scandal threatened to engulf her, Hillary rushed out and told the press to investigate something else.
And "the great story" about the DNC email hack wasn't about a "vast right-wing conspiracy" -- as she claimed when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. No, this time, it was a vast Russian conspiracy!
At the time, the entire media laughed at Hillary's Russian conspiracy nonsense -- The New York Times, New York Newsday, the Los Angeles Times and so on. But then Trump won the election, and suddenly the Russia conspiracy seemed totally believable. What else could explain how Americans could put this boob in the White House?
The subsequent three years of breathless Russia coverage was based entirely on the word of one cybersecurity firm, CrowdStrike, that the DNC's emails had been hacked by Russia. Recall that the DNC wouldn't allow the FBI or any other U.S. government official anywhere near its computers. That's precisely why so many cybersecurity experts doubted that it was the Russians: The FBI was never allowed to perform its own investigation.
CrowdStrike was founded by Ukrainian Dmitri Alperovitch (now an American citizen apparently -- because who isn't?) and funded by the fanatically anti-Russian Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk Foundation.
Talk about interfering with our democracy! Alperovitch and Pinchuk sent one political party and nine-tenths of the American media off on a wild goose chase into Russian collusion that, after years of accusations, investigations and embarrassing conspiracy-mongering ... turned up goose eggs.
The entire Russian insanity was launched by a couple of Ukrainians. I think a lot of us would like to get to the bottom of that.
This is why Trump said to President Zelensky: "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people ... The server, they say Ukraine has it."(How'd you like to be the Ukrainian translator for a Trump conversation?)
Trump has been justly criticized for hiring his daughter and son-in-law at the White House. But at least when he pressures a foreign leader for a favor, it's to investigate corruption, not to get a prosecutor off his son's back. Maybe Biden's son was guilty, maybe he was innocent. But it is a fact that Joe Biden held up foreign aid to a desperately needy ally in exchange for their halting prosecution that implicated his son. It's not Trump's fault that Biden is now running for president.
I'll give the Democrats this: They've gotten so good at trying to remove Trump from office that, instead of three years, their insane accusations blow up in their faces within a week.
After three rounds of debates, the latest a winnowed field of 10 sharing a single stage, one thing seems clear: The Democratic Party needs a heavy hitter to enter this race, or one among the field to grasp reality. It is time to get real.
Without someone impassioned, articulate and believable -- think Oprah Winfrey or Michelle Obama -- the Democratic field has no clear message. The 10 leading candidates cannot clearly articulate why they want the job. As explained by spiritual author and Democratic candidate Marianne Williamson, who did not make the stage Thursday, no one will beat President Donald Trump with wonky insider policy talk.
Love or hate him and what he has to say, Trump had a crystal clear message when he ran in 2016: "Make America Great Again." He will run next year on a promise to "Keep America Great." It is called marketing.
Trump's simple slogans don't promise gifts or anything specific. They mean whatever any listener cares to dream of.
Compare that to the Democratic primary talk. Candidates exchange gibberish about giving away money, health care, education and other services and goods in exchange for support. To sloganize their grand vision, one could only say "Make America Socialist, As Never Before."
Democrats plan to control the climate by phasing out fossil fuels. This appeals to fantasy visions of far-left activists but makes no sense to anyone who understands the pervasive and intractable role of fossil fuels in nearly every aspect of human life.
Construction, manufacturing, transportation, heating, cooling, agriculture, food processing, media, telecommunication and low-emission "sustainable" energy innovation depend heavily on fossil fuels.
We will not imminently replace bulldozers, tractors, cranes, planes, boats, tires, roofs, lightbulbs, phones, TVs, ovens -- pretty much everything that defines the way we live -- with replacements we will somehow manufacture and operate without fossil fuels. It is not possible in anyone's lifetime.
When Americans of average intelligence hear an entire slate of presidential candidates promise the impossible, they roll their eyes and resign themselves to another four years of Trump.
Whether they like him, he does not threaten their ability to turn on lights, drive cars, heat homes and eat. We cannot say the same for 10 leading Democratic candidates, unless and until they explain how they will eliminate fossil fuels without screwing up our lives.
They have various ideas for giving away health care on a massive scale, and no one demands they explain how to pay for it. The even bigger concern is where they will get it. This country faces a severe and growing health care shortage, and the prospect of free health care for everyone including illegal immigrants only makes young adults less interested in future medical careers.
They will give away college educations and forgive student loan debt. Of 10 leading candidates, not one has a message that does not boil down to taking from Peter to pay for Paul's vote.
Small-time millionaire lawyer Andrew Yang has taken pandering to an all-time low, paying a few randomly selected people $1,000 a month for no apparent reason. If elected, everyone who needs $1,000 will get it from government. How to pay for this? No one asks.
The moderators and candidates in all three debates have essentially ignored economic questions and answers, allowing discussions of incomprehensible fantasy.
Democrats need a candidate moored to reality. Americans will vote for Trump, even if they don't like him, if given no better option. They won't vote for any Trump opponent with a message they cannot believe.
Since when do we take serious someone whistle blowing who had no direct knowledge of the events?
There is a chain of command that is followed. After the IG reviews the complaint and decided it needs to go forward it is reviewed again by the legal staff to make sure it is valid. It failed this check and was therefore not sent along to Congress.
There is more, but what I find extremely interesting is that no one in the media is talking about how the whistle blower got access about information on a private call between the president and the leader of another country.
The fact that secret information is being distributed to people who do not have the proper security clearances to see that information is much more alarming to me then a BS whistle blower complaint when he/she clearly did not have all of the facts.
And find it even more disturbing that the Democrat run intelligence committee doesn’t find it equally disturbing.
Ann Coulter’s recent column, “”We don’t trust you”…says it all!
What a great column, except for 1 paragraph, as an OP-ED columnist, I envy her writing skills and eloquence. We, the Conservative Branch of government, need her and people like her.
I wish she would reconcile her differences with the President.
From that 1 paragraph I believe her differences are of a personal nature rather than based on the President’s ability to run the largest corporation in the world…the US of A!
This President is NOT a politically correct , polished politician.
There are two types of people, leaders and followers. Those who follow, like Schumer, Pelosi,…and all other Democraps, care what people think about their decisions…those who lead, don’t. Leaders make decisions based upon their integrity, oaths, experience and ability.
Having turned around everything Barack Hussein did in 8 long years, trying to destroy America… Trump? It only took him a short 2 years, to restore America, what no other person could have accomplished.
I’d rather Trump have my back, any day, than anybody Democrap!
J Gary DiLaura,
The Right Side
What a great actress that Gretta is!!! Wonder how many times she practiced that?
Strange though. Instead of going to India or China who produce the vast majority of the world's pollution she chose to come to the United States... Interesting. How about lecturing those countries first LMAO