I got a kick out of a letter to the editor I saw about my last column. It was from another bitter liberal -- Is there any other kind? -- who complained that I'm a liar. The writer argued that President Donald Trump's economy is not so great and said it's actually worse than the economy under former Presidents Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter.
This just shows that the more liberals say, the better Trump looks to voters.
The November jobs report came out Friday. Set aside the fact that Trump has produced one of the greatest stock markets in history; that gross domestic product is far above its pace during the administrations of Obama or Carter, who both produced disastrous economies that nearly destroyed the middle class; that 3.5% unemployment is the lowest in 50 years; that the highest number of Americans are working in history; and that black and Latino unemployment are the lowest in history.
The latest jobs report is better news than all of that.
There were 266,000 jobs created in November. That's 79,000 jobs more than economists expected ... in a month. The number of jobs was also revised upward by 41,000 for the two preceding months.
Manufacturing jobs soared by 54,000 in November, the biggest monthly gain since 1998.
Wages were up 3.1%. That's the 16th month in a row wages are up 3% or higher. Ask any worker if a bigger paycheck for 16 months in a row matters. I dare you.
CNBC called it "a blowout jobs report" and said, "You can't contradict that these are the best numbers of our lives." CNN said, "A couple of generations of people have not seen this kind of unemployment rate continue to be that low." Fox Business reported, "This is one of the best reports. ... What a way to end the decade, on this report. It's outstanding."
So, I ask all my readers: Who is the delusional one?
I don't need to wait for an answer. Just look at the latest Rasmussen presidential approval poll. It was already a robust 49% for Trump before the latest impeachment hearing on Wednesday. That's when Democrats trotted out a bunch of America-hating, capitalism-hating, Ivy League law school professors to testify in front of the nation.
Smart move. This group even makes Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren seem likable.
The very next day, Trump's approval soared to 52% -- just a smidge below the highest of his presidency. Those law professors made quite an impression. I'm surprised Democrats didn't trot out used car salesmen and dentists.
On Friday, Trump's approval was 51% -- significantly above where Obama was on the same day of his presidency -- even though Trump has faced overwhelmingly negative news coverage.
Among white voters, Trump's approval is positive, 53% to 46%. Among male voters, it's positive, 59% to 40%. And, most shocking, Trump's approval rating is 31% among black voters.
It's clear what voters think about President Trump and the economy. It's clear who they believe and who they think is lying. But please keep the angry, delusional liberal letters to the editor coming. You're making my job so much easier.
I'm honored to report I received an invitation from President Trump to visit the White House next week. I'll be sure to tell him congratulations and thank you from all my fans who have good jobs, higher wages and far higher retirement accounts thanks to his policies.
All I can say is the Trump economic miracle is the best revenge.
Wayne Allyn Root
Here is a chilling case of sanctuary chickens coming home to roost.
Upon being convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, home invasion and the brutal murders of two doctors on Tuesday, African criminal Bampumim Teixeira taunted the Massachusetts prosecutor who won the case and vowed to rape his wife. "You better hope I don't get out of jail," Teixeira threatened as he was dragged away in handcuffs by a quartet of court security officers. The killer appeared to greatly enjoy the media spectacle while striking fear into the hearts of innocents. He will be sentenced on Friday.
I am outraged on behalf of the victims' families and pray for the prosecutor's loved ones. But let's be clear: This homicidal beast is a beneficiary of liberal Bay State policies that coddle foreign evildoers and give them cover to wreak havoc in our homeland. The architects of open borders Boston have blood on their hands.
Teixeira was a repeat offender well-known to law enforcement and government officials before he snuck into the South Boston condo of Richard Field and Lina Bolano in 2017, bound and gagged them, slit their throats and stabbed them to death. A homeless vagrant from Guinea-Bissau in West Africa, Teixeira had been convicted of two bank robberies and was released from prison just weeks before the massacre at Field and Bolano's condo. This thieving bum's lawyer secured a deal with the Suffolk County district attorney's office to sentence him to 364 days for the second heist and downgraded the second felony crime to larceny.
Why one day shy of a year? Why the reclassification of a felony to a misdemeanor?
The soft-on-alien-crime agreement allowed him to escape deportation, which any green card holder would normally face for committing crimes of moral turpitude or crimes that result in sentences of 365 days or more. Ultimately, he served only 9 months behind bars. This evilness is part of a nationwide move by far-left Democratic prosecutors, many subsidized and supported by open borders billionaire George Soros, to minimize "collateral immigration consequences of criminal convictions" and help immigrants evade "disproportionate collateral consequences, such as deportation. All in the name of "public safety" and celebrating diversity, of course.
For those outside of New England, let me tell you about the infamous public enemy, Suffolk County DA Rachael Rollins. In March, she ordered her employees to monitor and snitch on federal ICE officers hanging around any courthouse while trying to do their jobs. She is overseeing a radical "restorative justice" agenda to decrease arrests, detentions and prosecutions for both citizens and noncitizens. Our office, she announced, "will begin to factor into all charging and sentencing decisions the potential of immigration consequences."
Let me translate that for you: If foreign adults commit crimes that would separate them from their families and lead to imprisonment and deportation, DA Rollins will drop charges or shorten sentences in the name of social justice -- the law-abiding victims of these criminal immigrants be damned.
The anarchy-promoting DA grudgingly admitted to Boston talk show legend Howie Carr earlier this year that the Teixeira case was a "horrific situation." She said she would have "no problem" deporting convicted criminal immigrants, but only after they "shoot or rape or kill somebody." In other words: Always look the other way at immigration crimes until it's too late to save the lives of innocent people sacrificed at the altar of open borders.
As the people of Boston face a crucial vote by their city council this week on whether to make their sanctuary policies even more radical and welcoming for the world's homeless, jobless, drug dealers and gangbangers, I have questions:
Why shouldn't foreign law-breakers face "immigration consequences" for every single civil and criminal law they violate?
Why are Soros-bots across the country elevating the rights of criminal immigrants above law-abiding citizens?
Why aren't more Americans rising in revolt against open borders-sponsored politicians and prosecutors turning our neighborhoods into safe spaces for foreign outlaws?
Over the past three months, thousands have joined me at rallies to Stand with ICE and defend American First in so-called sanctuary cities from Boston to Aurora to Portland to Montgomery County, Maryland? What about the rest of you? What's your excuse?
These “Democrat” Congressman, the leaders who want a socialist government, have ignored our Rule of Law to an extreme that shows the voting public what Socialism is all about! The Democrat Party wants to do away with your Constitution and then Rule by Majority, democrat/socialism. There is no Equal Rights Amendment (14th) in the new Socialist Democracy that you are observing Congressman Schiff and Pelosi exhibit. There is no Due Process (6th Amendment). The Socialist Left sets the Rule of Law!
So why hasn’t the President’s staff of Attorneys gone to a “friendly” Federal District and obtained an Injunction against the illegal, Congressional Impeachment Proceedings… like the left does with the 9th Circus when the President puts forth executive orders on Immigration or anything else?
That is just one of the many reasons why the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States, President Trump, is refusing to allow any of his staff to participate in an illegal impeachment process! There are many more reasons, like Article 2 in the Constitution…but wait we have no Constitution anymore…MAJORITY Rules…sorry…I forgot…but I though they hadn’t picked their left wing, red, commie, pinko candidate for President… hope-fools, like Warren, or Booker or Biden or Sanders or any one…take your pick, but unless you pick Trump…be careful of what you wish for, for Christmas, it will backfire!
The President is also the CEO of the Country and establishes and carries out his foreign Policy.
President Trump NEVER asked Ukraine to create dirt on an opponent, he needs NO dirt to beat a “dirt bag” like Biden. Biden carries his dirt with him and puts it on video for all to see! Dirt gathering is exactly what Hillary did with Russia, resulting in the Trump Dossier, another, Democrat, Fiction, Fabrication of Unverified, nonsense that resulted in a DEMOCRAT lead Special Counsel, Mueller.
What we now have is this…in their careless rush to impeach they have committed numerous ,serious Felony crimes…Treason, Conspiracy to Overthrow a Duly Elected Official, Espionage, and many more, by the Speaker of the House, Congressmen Schiff, Swallow, and Nadler. They are trying to overthrow this government and a duly elected President!
AND WHAT ABOUT BIDEN…WHEN IS HE SCHEDULED FOR GRAND JURY…WHERE’S THE SEARCH WARRANTS FOR THEIR HOMES…OFFICES…BANK ACCOUNTS?
J. Gary Dilaura
Conflicting alternative realities – that’s the only way to describe the Trump impeachment saga. This article is my layman’s interpretation of some things that confuse us all.
The first round of secret, then public hearings, in the House Intelligence Committee resulted in mostly hearsay evidence, interpretation and supposition by witnesses. Gordon Sondland’s first testimony described a President who withheld military aid, subject to Ukraine’s announcement of a corruption investigation. Eventually, Sondland testified that he talked to Trump who, when asked directly, stated “I want nothing……no quid-pro-quo.” By his own admission, Sondland’s earlier testimony regarding Trump requiring “quid-pro-quo” for military aid was mere presumption. Other witnesses, many of whom could trace their information and opinions back to Sondland, appear to be mostly hearsay witnesses expressing interpretations and suppositions.
Next came two days of hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. The first four witnesses were constitutional law professors. Keeping their foot on the republicans’ throat, democrats called three witnesses, allowing the republicans only one. These scholars didn’t agree whether there were impeachable offenses, nor whether charges were proven.
Trump’s executive privilege assertion for witnesses and documents led to democrat claims of obstruction. George Washington University Professor Johnathan Turley, no Trump supporter, clearly won the day by pointing out that the remedy is in the courts if they can’t agree on validity of executive privilege assertions. Trump already has gone to court, prompting Turley to state emphatically, “If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power.”
Turley referred to the evidence as “presumptions…paucity of evidence…wafer thin…” and “a case for impeachment…cannot be made on this record.” He added, “If President Trump honestly believed that there was a corrupt arrangement with Hunter Biden that was not fully investigated by the Obama administration, the request for an investigation is not corrupt.”
We’ve also had a day of testimony during which Judiciary Committee members interrogated Intelligence Committee staff counsels. Nothing changed, and it deteriorated into arguing about previous testimony and process.
As I write this, Democrats have decided on limiting impeachment charges to “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.” That’s a bit less dramatic than I expected. With all the earlier focus on quid-pro-quo/bribery and obstruction of justice, those charges have been dropped. Reasons for not pursuing them must have included those pesky rules of evidence, due process, and reasonable doubt. Fair rules finally will govern the process.
Next comes drafting articles of impeachment followed by a House vote whether to impeach the President and send it to the Senate. The process in the Republican-run Senate will be considerably different than in the House. While impeachment is a unique process, the Senate will employ more traditional rules of evidence, due process and reasonable doubt. The Chief Justice will preside, and I expect more fairness for calling witnesses and interrogation. The President will finally be effectively represented by counsel.
Some of my personal takeaways: Trump arguably had the authority to ask Ukraine to investigate prior election meddling as well as Hunter Biden’s potential conflict; the opinion, “I wouldn’t put it past Trump” doesn’t constitute evidence; most of the evidence is disputed i.e. a matter of opinion; much of the “evidence” (e.g. hearsay, speculation) will probably be inadmissible; and, Trump’s faces impeachment for arguably lawful acts.
In summary, Democrats claim the evidence is uncontested, and the President should be removed from office. In contrast, the republicans say that it’s very clear, the President has done nothing wrong. I believe the evidence for impeachment is ambiguous at best, almost to the point of being exculpatory. The democrats are being defeated by rules of evidence, due process, and reasonable doubt – all good developments
Finally, the DOJ Inspector General’s report on the FBI’s procedures in the Trump investigation doesn’t help the democrats’ cause, and time will tell how much damage Special Prosecutor Dunham’s report on the Steel Dossier and FISA warrant will bring to the democrats and the “deep state.”
As I’ve been saying for several weeks, this flimsy impeachment case has deteriorated into nothing more than a “matter of opinion,” and that won’t win the day for the democrat.
Abortion is the highest expression of feminism. It's the only concern of feminists. Just ask the first lady how many feminists came to her defense after her son's name was dragged through the mud on Capitol Hill. Ask Kellyanne Conway how many stood behind her when she was insulted as a terrifying killer clown on "Saturday Night Live." Ask Juanita Broaddrick who came to her defense when she declared that the (liberal) president of the United States had raped her.
But abortion? Anyone who dares to oppose abortion is a sexist, a racist and maybe even a Christian.
You could find these attitudes in a recent article in fashion magazine Harper's Bazaar, where legendary extremist Gloria Steinem was interviewed/celebrated by British actress and model Jameela Jamil, who stars in the NBC after-death sitcom "The Good Place."
Back in May, Jamil caused a ruckus by tweeting like a typical feminist about her awesome abortion: "I had an abortion when I was young, and it was the best decision I have ever made. Both for me, and for the baby I didn't want ... So many children will end up in foster homes. So many lives ruined. So very cruel."
Work your way through that equation: Abortion is the best thing that could happen to an unborn baby.
In the glossy pages of Harper's Bazaar, Jamil was modeling and pouting in a $3,800 blazer and $300 tights under the sugary headline "Jameela Jamil Is the Feminist-in-Progress We Need Right Now." As with her showy clothes, it's all about her. She proclaimed, "People have abortions, sometimes a woman just wants her liberty, and we have to normalize that it's okay just to make that choice for yourself, because your life is as important as a newborn life that doesn't even exist yet."
Me, me, me.
Steinem heartily agreed and turned on the pro-lifers by calling them budding authoritarians. "It took me a while to understand that the first step in every authoritarian regime is controlling reproduction, and that means controlling us," she said. "Unless we -- men and women -- have power over our own bodies and voices, there is no such thing as democracy."
To her, pro-lifers smell like Nazis. "Every authoritarian regime that I have ever read about, including Hitler's rise to power, every regime starts with controlling reproduction and that means controlling women's bodies," she said.
In other words, there's no such thing as a holocaust of tens of millions unborn babies, because they're not counted as actual human lives and they have no human dignity. Besides, those who support life for the unborn are Nazis. George Orwell, call your office.
Jamil also told Steinem that she likes her theory that whites have "a fear that not enough white women are being born." Steinem elaborated: "The white evangelicals are supporting Trump solely on the issue of abortion. Obviously, it has nothing to do with his lifestyle. It has to do with their racism."
Our friend Katie Yoder wrote up all this nonsense on Townhall.com with a headline that accurately summarizes: "Gloria Steinhem and Jameela Jamil: There's 'No Democracy' Without Abortion." Jamil responded with Hollywood sophistication, tweeting: "I SAID WHAT I F---ING SAID and you're clueless if you think I'm going to take it back. My life *is* more important to me than an unborn fetus' one. Suck on that."
L. Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham
Should U.S. citizens have input into whether their neighborhoods are fundamentally and permanently transformed into United Nations refugee camps full of welfare dependents and tax burdens?
Government-funded charities that profit mightily from the federal refugee resettlement program say: “Hell, no!”
But President Donald Trump and growing numbers of informed Americans across the heartland are raising their voices to say: “Heavens, yes!”
This week, an extraordinary revolt took place in Bismarck, North Dakota, where an overflow crowd of residents braved subzero temperatures to register their opposition to allowing the Lutheran Social Services to dump any new refugees in their backyard.
Thanks to an executive order signed by Trump in September, local communities now have explicit opt-in rights to stem the lucrative tide of refugees coming largely from Third World countries and jihadist breeding grounds. Open borders legal groups are, of course, challenging the order in court. These zealots object to states and localities exercising self-determination when it comes to rejecting refugees because it would undermine “national immigration policy,” yet they promote illegal immigrant sanctuary policies in states and localities that create uncontrollable criminal anarchy.
While GOP Gov. Doug Burgum signaled his support for increased importation of refugees, Brian Bitner, chairman of the Burleigh County Commission, echoed the concerns of his constituents. “North Dakota is already the highest per capita state for refugee resettlement in terms of number of citizens, so in the absence of any sort of number, there’s no way we could know the cost to the state or the county, and I simply can’t support that,” Bitner told local media at the Bismarck protest.
Similar outbreaks of resistance have taken place in Maine, New Hampshire, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Vermont, Wyoming and Tennessee over the years. But many Americans remain alarmingly clueless about the four-decade-old, tax-funded racket lining the pockets of nine privileged, nonprofit contractors (and scores of their subcontracting partners like Bismarck’s LSS):
Church World Service
Ethiopian Community Development Council
Episcopal Migration Ministries
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
International Rescue Committee
S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
World Relief Corporation
As I report in “Open Borders Inc.,” the U.S. State Department pays each agency $2,125 per refugee for initial reception and placement; the nonprofits can take up to a 45% cut and use the rest for the initial resettlement costs. Subsidies for management costs are negotiated separately. Unknown thousands more per head are collected for post-placement services.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg of refugee resettlement costs imposed on American taxpayers. In the 2016 annual report to Congress by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the agency reported that in the year prior, 26.7% of refugees received cash assistance from at least one federal program; 66.1% of refugees had received noncash assistance such as SNAP (food stamps). The Federation for American Immigration Reform crunched the numbers in 2018 and estimated the annual cost of refugee resettlement to U.S. taxpayers at $1.8 billion, and $8.8 billion over a five-year period. Using ORR data, FAIR estimated the cost per refugee to American taxpayers at just under $79,600 in the first five years after a refugee is resettled in the U.S. and also found that:
-In 2016, the State Department spent nearly $545 million to process and resettle refugees, including $140,389,177 on transportation costs.
-Of the $1.8 billion in resettlement costs, $867 billion was spent on welfare alone.
-$71 million will be spent to educate refugees and asylum-seekers, a majority of which will be paid by state and local governments.
Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies zeroed in on the heavy costs of resettling Middle Eastern refugees. In their first five years in the United States, he found, “each refugee from the Middle East costs taxpayers $64,370—12 times what the UN estimates it costs to care for one refugee in neighboring Middle Eastern countries. The cost of resettlement includes heavy welfare use by Middle Eastern refugees; 91 percent receive food stamps and 68 percent receive cash assistance.”
In addition to food stamps and public housing, refugees collect money from Supplemental Security Income (for the elderly and disabled), welfare cash benefits from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, the federal school lunch program, and the Women, Infants and Children program.
Under the new Trump order, the resettlement agencies must obtain and submit evidence of local, county or state consent by Jan. 21, 2020 to protect their refugee cash flow. If you live in an economically depressed area, crime-ridden city or growth-clogged suburb targeted on the refugee resettlement map, now is the time to put boots on the ground to protect your community and country. As government watchdog Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch warns:
“This is not just a bureaucratic exercise! … For us it is a referendum on state’s rights and whether local citizens will have a say in whether their communities will be changed (forever!).”
America First or America Last? Speak now or kiss our sovereignty goodbye.