November 20, 2017

Another Massacre – Is Gun Control the Answer?

Minutes after the Sunday night massacre on the Las Vegas strip we were hearing calls for legislation that will curtail citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms.

Is this reasonable? If we pass tighter gun control laws, will it solve the problem? Will it prevent a similar massacre in the future?

Unfortunately, no amount of legislation can prevent this type of cowardly attack on innocent victims. In the present case, the perpetrator passed rigorous background checks and took legal, single-shot rifles and modified them into automatic weapons, with the specific intent to wipe out as many concert goers as possible.

For those who don’t know this: The weapons used by the perpetrator (I will not immortalize his name by publishing it), were unlawful. Outlawed weapons. It is that simple. There are already laws in place preventing this very activity. As we can see, these laws entirely fail to prevent these attacks.

Here is the reality about guns. Most rifles are not “assault” weapons. Very few of these fully-automatic weapons are in existence, and they are simply not available to the general public. When I was a young university student, I worked my way through college working as a machinist. One job was with a fledgling Australian rifle manufacturer who had just set up a very small shop in my small American town–Kimber Rifles. Kimber is now a very respected brand, but it was barely known in the states at the time. As a machinist working for Kimber, I learned all about the working mechanics of rifles. One thing I learned was how simple it is to convert a semi-automatic rifle to a fully automatic weapon. It is a very simple modification. It is also a federal felony–and if you make that small modification, you will spend many years in a federal prison. It’s that simple.

If making the possession and use of automatic weapons unlawful fails to prevent this massacre, what law could possibly prevent it? The only possible way to legislate such a thing is to entirely eliminate the existence of all firearms.

Is eliminating all firearms doable? Even if we could, which we cannot, would it be a good idea? Why did our founders preserve our natural right to keep and bear arms in our Constitution?

Answer: because they KNEW that without this particular right enshrined and forever protected, all of the other rights enumerated in the Constitution would eventually be obliterated by overreaching government. The right to keep and bear arms is fundamentally the citizens’ protection from government. I would submit that any totalitarian government that has ever come to control and enslave its people, first disarmed them. Undisputed. So if you hear people talking about gun control, stop and realize who they are, and the natural conclusion of the path they espouse.

So if we cannot legislate away cowardly attacks on innocent citizens, what is the answer? I will tell you this–we live in a world where self-indulgence is fostered without limitation, and where violence is an everyday experience. The Great Society enclaves of the left–Detroit, Chicago, Oakland–these are killing zones. Minority citizens are murdering one another in droves. Thousands are victims of murderous violence, every year. Our society has devolved to a point where thousands of minority babies are culled in abortion clinics daily, and so many of those who survive the butcher’s knife are destined to fatherless homes, prison, and violent death. These are the problems that plague this nation.

Our crisis is one of Character, not gun control.

Until this nation reconsiders its move toward selfishness and self-indulgence, our natural instincts of community and protecting those around us will continue to decline. All of these maniacs who suddenly decide to end it all in a blaze of infamous glory are sick products of a sick society. We need to begin healing the sickness that is overtaking our people if we want to end the wanton violence that is becoming epidemic. That is the only possible answer.

James Thompson is a noted ghostwriter and political commentator.

Tax Reform by the Numbers

Gary Cohn breaks down the details of Trump’s tax reform framework

Chief White House economic adviser Gary Cohn discussed details of the recently-announced Republican tax reform framework Sunday during an exclusive interview on “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Cohn, who serves as the director of the National Economic Council, explained the repatriation tax rate and how it will impact companies and the U.S. economy.

“They’re going to pay the rate if they have money overseas. That’s how we catch up from the ‘worldwide system’ to the ‘territorial system,’” Cohn told Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Currently, under the worldwide system companies are taxed 35 percent on all income, whether it is earned in the U.S. or overseas. Moving to a territorial system would then encourage some of the profits overseas—which could be as much as $3 trillion, according to Cohn—to return to the U.S.

“We will end up with a bifurcated rate,” he explained. “We will charge you one rate if you have liquid assets offshore. We will charge you a different rate if you’ve got bricks-and-mortar and you’ve turned those earnings into bricks-and-mortar or investments offshore. We will give you some period of time to pay it, but you will incur the tax liability the minute the tax referendum goes through.”

President Donald Trump pushed for a 15 percent corporate tax rate, though settled for 20 percent, still significantly lower than the present rate. Trump’s tax plan calls for reducing the number of tax brackets for individuals from seven to three.

“What people are forgetting is we really enlarged the zero rate. We doubled the zero rate so if you’re a family today, you now get the first $24,000 of your income at a zero rate. You then kick into the 12 percent rate, then you go to the 25 percent rate, then you go to the 35 percent rate,” Cohn said.

In addition to lessening the amount of tax brackets on the individual side, the tax plan would also eliminate the estate tax—also known as the “death tax”—which Cohn said has been most burdensome on farmers and small businesses.

“Death should not become a taxable event if you’re in a small business. Death should not become a taxable event if you’re a farmer. If you’re a farmer you should be able to pass it on to your families,” he said.

As for the timing of the GOP’s plan for a business and middle-class friendly tax overhaul, Cohn said it is now in the hands of tax writers in the House and Senate and hopes to have a bill done “in this calendar year.”

“To do that we’ve got to get out of the House relatively soon,” he said. “To get out of the House we’re going to have to have real details. This bill is going to be in markup hopefully in October.”

By FOXBusiness

Walter E.Williams: Not a Day Care

Our college-age population consists mostly of 18- to 30-year-olds, and likewise our armed forces. I wonder whether they shared common responses to the 2016 presidential election. Many college administrators provided students with therapy dogs, play dough, coloring books, bubbles, videos of frolicking kittens and puppies, and soft music. They even canceled classes and postponed exams so that their 18- to 30-year-old snowflakes could better cope with the election results. There are numerous internet photos and videos of these youngsters screaming and in outright grief and panic. Here’s my question: Were our military leaders as accommodating as college administrators? Did commanding officers of our aircraft carriers provide their young people with therapy dogs, play dough, crayons and coloring books, and soft music? Were sea training exercises canceled? Were similar accommodations ordered by commanders of our special forces, such as the Army Rangers, Navy SEALs and Delta Force?

I’m guessing and hoping that our military leaders, unlike many college administrators, have not lost their minds. That brings me to this column’s title: “Not a Day Care.” That’s the title of a new book written by Dr. Everett Piper, president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University. Piper reminds us that today’s law students are tomorrow’s lawyers and judges. Based on what they are taught, there’s no mystery why lawyers and judges seek to legislate from the bench. Students who want to rid college curricula of dead old white men such as Plato, Aristotle, Voltaire and Kant will be on tomorrow’s school boards or be professors. This doesn’t bode well for our nation’s future.

Many colleges have become hotbeds of what might be labeled as enlightened racism. Students at the University of California, Berkeley created “safe spaces” for people of color. Resident advisers at Scripps College posted two signs to educate students about “emotional labor,” one aimed at white students and one for “people of color and marginalized backgrounds.” University of Michigan students demanded a “designated space on central campus for Black students and students of color to organize and do social justice work.” That was after the university caved to student demands and spent $10 million to build a multicultural center.

In Chapter 6, Piper discusses an attack by a Muslim Somali student at Ohio State University. Fortunately, he was shot dead by police officers before he could add to his toll of 11 injured students. The Islamic State group praised him and called him one of its soldiers. The administration responded to the incident by inviting Nathan Lean, author of “The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims,” to lecture about Islamophobia. A few days after the attack, protesters gathered on campus to read the names of people of color killed by police in the previous two months. The Muslim Somali student made the list, going from a terrorist to a victim virtually overnight. Piper asks whether it is possible to imagine President Franklin D. Roosevelt taking to the radio waves after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to announce a forum on diversity and prejudice.

Among the many other ugly things going on at our universities is the withering attack on free speech. Diversity is the highest goal of students and professors who openly detest those with whom they disagree. The content of a man’s character is no longer as important as the color of his skin or his sex or his political loyalties. This intolerance has won such respectability that even politicians have little shame expressing it. In 2014, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo basically told people who disagreed with him to leave the state. He said people who defend traditional marriage, are pro-life and are anti-gun control “have no place in the state of New York.” That’s progressive ideological fascism that ought to be put down by freedom-loving Americans.

Dr. Everett Piper’s “Not a Day Care” is a short but powerful book by a university president who is not afraid to maintain civility and common sense, traits all too rare among today’s university administrators.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com

 

Weiner Put on Ice for 21 Months in Teen Sexting Case

Disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner was sentenced Monday to 21 months in prison, facing the most severe penalty yet in connection with the sexting scandal that drove the New York Democrat out of Congress, ruined his marriage and became a late issue in the 2016 presidential race.

U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote issued the sentence in federal court in New York.

“This is a serious crime that deserves serious punishment,” Cote said in a statement.

The former lawmaker’s sexting habits entered criminal territory with his illicit contact with a 15-year-old girl. Weiner, 53, had pleaded guilty in May to sending sexually explicit texts to the girl across state lines. Weiner agreed not to appeal any sentence between 21 and 27 months in prison.

Weiner openly wept in court on Monday as the judge announced the sentence. In addition to the prison term, he was sentenced to three years of supervised release, given a $10,000 fine, and required to forfeit his iPhone. Weiner must surrender on Nov. 6 to a yet-to-be determined prison facility.

Weiner read from a prepared statement for several minutes, describing himself as “an addict” and calling his crime “rock bottom.” He said he has a “disease,” but it is not an “excuse.”

The disgraced politician earlier had apologized in court to the teenage victim, blaming his own “destructive impulses.” Weiner also was forced to register as a sex offender.

“Anthony Weiner, a former Congressman and candidate for Mayor, asked a girl who he knew to be 15 years old to display her naked body and engage in sexually explicit behavior for him online. Justice demands that this type of conduct be prosecuted and punished with time in prison,” Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said in a statement Monday. “Today, Anthony Weiner received a just sentence that was appropriate for his crime.”

Weiner said last week that he was undergoing treatment and is profoundly sorry for subjecting the minor to what his lawyers call his “deep sickness.”

Weiner’s treatments include individual therapy once a week, group therapy once a week, and 12-step meetings four to five times a week.

“I have compulsively sought attention from women who contacted me on social media, and I engaged with many of them in both sexual and non-sexual conversation,” Weiner said in a prepared statement in May. “These destructive impulses brought great devastation to my family and friends, and destroyed my life’s dream of public service.”

Throughout the trial, defense lawyers had portrayed the girl as an aggressor, saying she wanted to generate material for a book and possibly influence the presidential election.

Weiner apologized to his now-estranged wife, longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and his family, after his admission of guilt. Abedin filed for divorce just hours after Weiner pleaded guilty in May.

The FBI began investigating Weiner in September 2016 after the 15-year-old girl in North Carolina told a tabloid news site that she and the former politician had exchanged lewd messages for several months, and accused him of asking her to undress on camera.

This relationship was hardly the first that caused public embarrassment for Weiner and his family. In 2011, Weiner resigned from Congress after an errant tweet exposed his sexting habits. He later ran for New York City mayor, but was unsuccessful.

But the criminal investigation into his relationship with the minor infamously intersected with the 2016 presidential election, when agents acquired Weiner’s electronic devices and uncovered a new batch of emails between Hillary Clinton and Abedin.

The discovery led the FBI to revisit the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while conducting official government business while secretary of state. Clinton has cited this as a factor in her 2016 presidential defeat, and most recently, recalled the series of events in her new book, “What Happened.”

Fox News’ Tamara Gitt and the Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Trump Issues Travel Restrictions on 8 Countries, Adding North Korea and Venezuela

President Trump on Sunday signed off on updated travel restrictions that would limit entry for people coming to the U.S. from eight countries, as the existing travel ban is set to expire.

The new travel restrictions, set to take effect Oct. 18, would slow or limit entry from citizens of North Korea, Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. North Korea and Venezuela were not listed in the earlier ban.

Iraqi citizens do not face the same travel restrictions, but will “be subject to additional scrutiny to determine if they pose risks” to U.S. security, the White House said.

The new policy could complicate the Supreme Court’s review of the order. The high court is scheduled to hear arguments over its legality on October 10.

Officials stressed that valid visas would not be revoked as a result of the proclamation. The order also permits, but doesn’t guarantee, case-by-case waivers.

“As President, I must act to protect the security and interested of the United States and its people,” the proclamation states. He later tweeted, “Making America Safe is my number one priority. We will not admit those into our country we cannot safely vet.”

The announcement comes the same day Trump’s temporary ban on visitors from six Muslim-majority countries is set to expire, 90 days after it went into effect.

The targeted countries are those that the Department of Homeland Security officials have said refuse to share information with the U.S., or haven’t taken necessary security precautions.

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke, in a statement released Sunday, said the new travel restrictions “will protect Americans and allow DHS to better keep terrorists and criminals from entering our country. The restrictions announced are tough and tailored, and they sent a message to foreign governments that they must work with us to enhance security.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in a statement that Trump’s proclamation is the president “carrying out his duty to protect the Ameican people.”

Tillerson added: “The State Department will coordinate with other federal agencies to implement these measures in an orderly manner. We will continue to work closely with our allies and partners who share our commitment to national and global security.”

The travel restrictions are based on a new baseline developed by DHS that includes factors such as whether countries issue electronic passports with biometric information and share information about travelers’ terror-related and criminal histories. The U.S. then shared those benchmarks with every country in the world and gave them 50 days to comply.

The eight countries the restrictions target are those that refused or were unable to comply.

Following the terrorist attack in London last week, Trump tweeted: “The travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific-but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!”

Critics have accused Trump of overstepping his presidential authority and violating the Constitution’s protections against religious bias. During his campaign, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

Fox News’ Jennifer Bowman, Shannon Bream, Kristin Brown, Rich Edson, Alexandra Rego and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Jimmy Kimmel Exposed as Schumer Shill

Jimmy Kimmel, left, attacked the Graham-Cassidy health bill using talking points from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s office, a new report claims. (AP)

Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel got talking points from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. as he prepared a series of monologues attacking the latest Republican effort to repeal ObamaCare, according to a report published Friday.

The Daily Beast reported that Schumer’s office “provided technical guidance and info” about the so-called Graham-Cassidy bill, as well as “stats from various think tanks and experts” on the bill’s effects.

“Jimmy wanted to learn more about what was going on politically and policy-wise,” The Daily Beast quoted a source as saying, “[and] he wanted to fight this thing.”

The host of ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” repeatedly attacked the bill and one of its co-authors, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., over three episodes this week. At one point, Kimmel claimed that Cassidy had “lied to my face” when the senator appeared on the show to discuss health care.

Cassidy responded Thursday morning, telling “Fox & Friends” that “Jimmy doesn’t understand.”

“He’s only heard from those on the left who are doing their best to preserve ObamaCare,’ Cassidy went on. “He’s not heard from me, because we’ve not spoken.”

There was no immediate comment on the report from Schumer or Kimmel, who took to Twitter Friday afternoon to praise Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for announcing his opposition to the bill.

Kimmel catapulted himself to the forefront of the debate over public health in America this spring when he discussed his son’s heart condition in an emotional monologue.

McCain’s opposition deals a major blow to Republican hopes of passing the bill, which Senate leaders were hoping to bring to the Senate floor next week.

FoxNews.com

Ben Shapiro: If Republicans Don’t Make a Move, They Deserve to Lose

Politics is the art of shifting the playing field.

This is an art Republicans simply don’t understand. Perhaps it’s because they spend so much time attempting to stop the Democratic snowball from running downhill too quickly, but Republicans in power have an unfortunate tendency to conserve their political capital rather than invest it. That’s unfortunate because political capital doesn’t accrue when you save it; it degrades. Just as sticking your cash in a mattress is a bad strategy when it comes to investment, inaction in power is a bad strategy when it comes to politics.

Democrats understand that political capital must be used, not to pass popular legislation but to fundamentally change the nature of the political game itself. Democrats do not see Obamacare — a piece of legislation that cost them the House, the Senate and, eventually, the presidency — as a disaster area. They see it as an investment in a leftist future: By making Americans accustomed to the idea that the government is responsible for universal coverage, they understand that any future failures will be attributed to lack of government, not an excess of it. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, understood that in 2013 when he attempted to block Obamacare funding. He quite rightly explained that once Obamacare went into effect, it would be nearly impossible to dismantle it. That became obvious this year, just four years after its full implementation, when congressional Republicans obviously have no political will to get rid of Obamacare at all.

This is the difference between Republicans and Democrats: Democrats see their radical legislative moves as building blocks for the future. Republicans, afraid that their carefully crafted tower of electability will come crumbling down, make no radical legislative moves.

That basic formula is playing out yet again with regard to former President Obama’s executive amnesty. Obama implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, knowing full well that a Republican president could get rid of it with the stroke of a pen. But he also knew that Republicans would not want to be responsible for changing the status quo — they wouldn’t want to own the political consequences of allowing the deportation of DACA recipients.

And Obama was completely right. Republicans promised for years that they would get rid of Obama’s executive amnesty if given power. Finally, President Trump has pledged to get rid of it … in six months. And everyone knows that he is willing to trade away DACA enforcement for border-wall funding. The Democratic status quo will win out, one way or another.

Now, quickly: Name the last transformational conservative change Republicans have made — a change to the field of play; any change that would redound to the detriment of Democrats. It’s pretty tough. That’s despite Republican control of the legislature and the presidency from 2002 to 2006; that’s a longer period of unified control than Democrats had from 2008 to 2010.

Republicans have unified control of government once again. But they seem less willing to use it than ever, afraid that their tenuous control will dissipate.

That must end. If Republicans hope to set a foundation for future victory, they’ll need to do more than act as an impediment to bad Democratic ideas. They’ll need to take political risks in order to shift the playing field itself. If they don’t, they’ll lose quickly. And they’ll deserve to lose.

Ben Shapiro

Sheriff David Clarke Accepts Department of Homeland Security Post

Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. will leave office next month to accept a federal appointment as an assistant secretary in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

He will work in the department’s Office of Partnership and Engagement as a liaison with state, local and tribal law enforcement and governments.

“I’m looking forward to joining that team,” Clarke said Thursday afternoon on the Vicki McKenna talk show on 1130 WISN Radio.

Clarke campaigned around the country for then-presidential candidate Donald Trump last year and has defended the first-term Republican president against critics in the early months of his administration.

The fourth-term sheriff will start the job in June.

But as is common with the sheriff, there was drama with the appointment. It appears that Clarke may have gotten ahead of the Trump administration in his interview.

In a tweet, the Department of Homeland Security said no announcement had been made on any appointment involving Clarke.

Also, the federal staffer being replaced by Clarke — Philip A. McNamara, assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs — took to Twitter to complain about his successor.

Clarke previously had not indicated whether we planned to seek re-election.

He has come under widespread criticism locally for his inflammatory rhetoric and for spending so much time on the road as a Trump surrogate and while giving talks to conservative groups.

Clarke also has been criticized for his lack of public comments on his response to four deaths in the County Jail in 2016 or any administrative changes he might have made there.

His new federal job will not require Senate confirmation.

Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele, who often crossed swords with the sheriff, said America deserves better than Clarke in this new post.

“For the country I love, the last thing America needs is another loud voice angrily and unproductively telling you who to blame and who not to trust,” Abele said in a statement.

In the new job, one of Clarke’s responsibilities would be to “take complaints of shortcomings in the Department of Homeland Security,” the sheriff said.

“They feel like they’re being ignored,” Clarke said of his counterparts in local law enforcement.

Clarke will work for Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, a retired Marine general.

The department was created in the wake of 9/11. The department’s duties range from counter-terrorism to enforcing immigration laws.

Clarke said he had informed Gov. Scott Walker of his decision to take the federal post and expected to advise Walker on the appointment of a successor to complete his term.

Tom Evenson, spokesman for Walker, said his office had not yet received a formal resignation letter from Clarke. The search for a successor, Evenson said, won’t begin until Walker’s office receives that notice.

Once that happens, the governor will seek applications, a process that usually takes a couple of weeks, and then begin interviewing candidates. Applicants must live in Milwaukee County to be appointed to the post.

“The timeline for replacing a county sheriff varies with each case,” Evenson said.

Clarke’s successor will serve until the end of the current term in 2018.

Former Milwaukee Police Capt. Earnell Lucas, now a vice president of security with Major League Baseball, said Wednesday he would submit his name to Walker for appointment to the office.

“I have a deep and abiding commitment to this community, and the right experience in law enforcement and public safety to be the next Milwaukee County sheriff,” Lucas said.

Lucas has registered as a candidate for sheriff in 2018. He plans to run in the Democratic primary.

Milwaukee County Judge John Siefert said he also plans to run as a Democrat for sheriff next year. But, unlike Lucas, he will not seek an appointment from Walker.

“I assume the governor will insist that his appointee run as a Republican,” said Siefert, whose term ends in July. “I would not run as a Republican.”

Also being mentioned as a possible candidate is U.S. Marshal Kevin Carr, who served as Clarke’s top deputy for several years. He could not be reached for comment.

Clarke, a conservative who runs as a Democrat, has been elected four times.

He was first appointed sheriff in 2002 and won election to a full four-year term later that year.

He defeated challenger Chris Moews in the August 2014 Democratic primary to ensure re-election to a fourth term. No Republican challenged Clarke for the office that year, and he enjoyed conservative support.

Clarke told McKenna that he “would miss law enforcement” after a 38-year career.

He started as a patrol officer with the Milwaukee Police Department in 1978. Clarke was promoted to detective in 1989 and became lieutenant of detectives in 1992.

In 1996, Clake was promoted to police captain and named commander of the department’s 1st District. He became commanding officer of the department’s intelligence division in 1999.

By Don Behm

Mizzou Pays a Price for Appeasing the Left

Enrollment is down more than 2,000. The campus has had to take seven dormitories out of service.

Timothy Vaughn dutifully cheered the University of Missouri for a decade, sitting in the stands with his swag, two hot dogs and a Diet Coke. He estimates he attended between 60 and 85 athletic events every year—football and basketball games and even tennis matches and gymnastics meets. But after the infamous protests of fall 2015, Missouri lost this die-hard fan.

“I pledge from this day forward NOT TO contribute to the [Tiger Scholarship Fund], buy any tickets to any University of Missouri athletic event, to attend any athletic event (even if free), to give away all my MU clothes (nearly my entire wardrobe) after I have removed any logos associated with the University of Missouri, and any cards/helmets/ice buckets/flags with the University of Missouri logo on it,” Mr. Vaughn told administrators in an email four semesters ago.

He was not alone. Thousands of pages of emails I obtained through the Missouri Freedom of Information Act show that many alumni and other supporters were disgusted with administrators’ feeble response to the disruptions. Like Mr. Vaughn, many promised they’d stop attending athletic events. Others vowed they’d never send their children or grandchildren to the university. It now appears many of them have made good on those promises.

The commotion began in October 2015, when student activists claiming that “racism lives here” sent administrators a lengthy list of demands. Among them: The president of the University of Missouri system should resign after delivering a handwritten apology acknowledging his “white male privilege”; the curriculum should include “comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion” training; and 10% of the faculty and staff should be black.

Two weeks later, a student announced he was going on a hunger strike, and the football team refused to practice or play until the university met the demands. As protesters occupied the quad, administrators bent over backward to accommodate them, even providing a power strip so they could charge phones and a generator so they could camp in comfort. A communications instructor, Melissa Click, appeared on viral video calling for “muscle” to remove a student reporter from the quad. By Nov. 9, both the president and the chancellor of Mizzou, as the flagship Columbia campus is known, had resigned.

Donors, parents, alumni, sports fans and prospective students raged against the administration’s caving in. “At breakfast this morning, my wife and I agreed that MU is NOT a school we would even consider for our three children,” wrote Victor Wirtz, a 1978 alum, adding that the university “has devolved into the Berkeley of the Midwest.”

As classes begin this week, freshmen enrollment is down 35% since the protests, according to the latest numbers the university has publicly released. Mizzou is beginning the year with the smallest incoming class since 1999. Overall enrollment is down by more than 2,000 students, to 33,200. The campus has taken seven dormitories out of service.

The plummeting support has also cost jobs. In May, Mizzou announced it would lay off as many as 100 people and eliminate 300 more positions through retirement and attrition. Last year the university reduced its library staff and cut 50 cleaning and maintenance jobs.

Mizzou’s 2016 football season drew almost 13,000 fewer attendees than in 2015, local media reported. During basketball games, one-third of the seats in the Mizzou Arena sat empty.

The university says its teams’ losing streaks have driven away fans, state budget cuts have strained its finances, and competition from other nearby universities has contributed to its lowered enrollment. But the protests were the truly catastrophic factor, compounding the other difficulties. Administrators saw it coming during the crisis, when they fretted in emails about “a PR nightmare” and “the middle of the road people we’re losing.” The past three semesters have validated their worst fears.

This phenomenon isn’t limited to Mizzou. Private institutions like Yale and Middlebury aren’t covered by public-records laws, so they can conceal the backlash. But when public universities have released emails after giving in to campus radicals, they have consistently shown administrators face the same public outrage.

Virginia Tech received numerous phone calls and more than 100 angry emails last year after it disinvited Jason Riley, a columnist for this newspaper, from speaking on campus. “While we can respond to the people who write to us, we cannot dispel the negative impression created by the media against the president, the university, the dean and the college and the department,” one administrator woefully told his colleagues.

Virginia Tech administrators also noted that news of the debacle reached millions on Twitter, where the reactions were “overwhelmingly negative toward the university and higher education in general.” Once again, a frustrated public vowed to yank support.

Universities have consistently underestimated the power of a furious public. At the same time, they’ve overestimated the power of student activists, who have only as much influence as administrators give them. Far from avoiding controversy, administrators who respond to campus radicals with cowardice and capitulation should expect to pay a steep price for years.

Dems Rewriting U.S. Racial History

I was asked by a client to help her prepare a social media post addressing the violence and racial tensions in America. My client is a wonderful American icon of African decent, and a barrier-breaker in many categories. After a brief exchange, I was surprised that her understanding of American history was so lacking, so I shared the following to assist her in formulating her response:
First, let me preface that I am a Constitutionalist, politically. That means that my personal feelings about politics start and end with the Constitution. I have a doctorate in Law, and have a good understanding of US history—especially as it relates to individual liberty.
The thing about America is that it was a British colony, and the dumping ground for every horrible practice of nations of the time. Slavery was an abomination that had been practiced for thousands of years, and nearly every nation at the time was involved—especially most of the nations of Europe, and those of Africa. Irish were being enslaved and shipped to America and the Ivory Coast, followed by the African slave trade. Warring African tribes were attacking one another, and the victor would sell off the survivors of the defeated tribes to international slave traders. Under British rule, slave labor and white indentured servants (closely akin to slavery) was promoted heavily in the American colonies, and Caribbean islands owned by European nations were utilized as clearing houses for the African slave trade.
As the American colonists rebelled against European oppression, including oppression of most British subjects as well as those trapped in the slave life, a great division formed among the colonies—those who utilized slave labor (mainly in the South) and those who opposed it (mainly in the North). The attitudes were diametrically opposed, and we even find thousands of Southern black citizens owning African slaves and thousands of Northern black citizens using the wealth they had accumulated in living the American dream to help the liberation cause.
The American Revolution and the coming forth of the US Constitution cost a lot of American blood and wealth, and many compromises were necessary to get us to that point. Let me share an example of the compromises. The Southern slave holders afforded no rights to their slaves—yet, for the purposes of representation in the US Congress, they insisted that their hundreds of thousands of slaves be counted in the census, thereby providing several additional members of the House of Representatives to Southern congressional districts. Northern politicians, who felt that slavery was vile, objected, and insisted that the slaves not be counted at all, because counting them would actually give the South an unfair voting advantage in the Congress—which they would utilize to keep the slaves in bondage. An eventual compromise was reached, for the purpose of forming a national government, and slaves were eventually counted as 2/3 of a citizen—unfortunately, still resulting in too many Congressmen being appointed by Southern states. Here is the problem—now, over 200 years later, this horrible compromise is twisted into something else. It is pointed to by the Party that tried to get the slaves counted so they could keep slavery alive in the South, as the North’s attempt to block slaves from being counted as “humans.” History is stood on its head by modern propaganda and rewriting history.

Election materials produced by Democratic Party

Abraham Lincoln was the candidate of the Republican Party, which was formed on the platform of emancipation, and an end to slavery in the US. The Democratic Party did everything in their power to block Lincoln and the Republicans. Steven Spielberg (Democrat) made an excellent movie starring Daniel Day Lewis as Lincoln, accurately depicting the efforts of the Republicans to free the slaves and empower them as US citizens, and the Democrats’ many attempts to block those efforts. More than 600,000 Americans gave their lives in the fight for freedom, to emancipate the slaves of the South. Most families were horribly affected—black and white. America won, the Constitution won, and Southern Democrats were sent home licking their wounds. They continued to treat black Americans as second class citizens for generations, forming the KKK, lynching blacks and their Republican protectors for decades.
This went on until President Eisenhower. The Republicans were trying to pass civil rights and voting rights legislation, and Southern Democrats were filibustering. If you look at the voting records of the 1950s, you will be shocked at the names voting against the Republican Civil Rights legislation (Gore, Kennedy, Fulbright, etc.). At that same time, Southern Democrats were still legislating Jim Crow laws, and standing on university steps with the National Guard, keeping young black Americans out of “white” schools.

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger preaches the gospel of Eugenics to her fellow Democrats at KKK meeting.

There came a time when certain Democratic politicians made a decision, that they could gain political power if they suddenly changed lanes and proclaimed that they, not the Republicans, were the benevolent protectors of American blacks. This was orchestrated during the presidency of JFK, and when he was murdered, President LB Johnson championed welfare state legislation, forever trapping American minorities in a permanent underclass, dependent on government handouts. His words when he signed the Great Society legislation were, “We’ll have those n___________ voting Democrat for the next 200 years.” Despicable.
Now, when I tell my children that what they are being taught at school is not historically accurate, they get this lecture. When I tell them that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, they are surprised. When I tell them that nearly all Black Americans were Republican until the Great Society legislation won them over to the Democratic Party, they are shocked. In fact, history has been so set on its ear by those seeking to rewrite it, that my children said they were told that Lincoln was a Democrat (as declared on a university plaque in Illinois), and that the KKK was started and manned by Republicans.
The Constitution is colorblind. American conservatives are colorblind. The Constitution is set in place to protect America’s citizens and the various states from federal encroachments. America’s minorities are being used as pawns by international leftists to accumulate power in the left, leaving minorities deeper in debt and more powerless with each passing year. Additionally, 3,500 minority babies are aborted in this nation every day. Who’s behind that? As Americans, we must recognize that this is a national disgrace, and I was pleased to hear Kanye West protest this fact during the election when he shouted out to American minorities to wake up to the reality of party politics and how the left is exploiting minorities without giving anything to them of value.
[Client]—what I am trying to say is that we live in a period of extreme political turmoil. The source of this turmoil is people and organizations who do not like America, and its personal liberties afforded by the US Constitution. They are doing everything they can to destroy America. The fact that you were a member of a minority, and were personally able to break racial barriers that had been in place for many years, makes you a wonderful role model—for all people, especially, though, for minority citizens, and for young ladies. My point is, that by living the American dream, and proving that the system works for everyone, through your own success, is the loudest, most positive and affirming statement you can make. I believe that if you jump into the middle of an argument that is being hyped and twisted for political purposes (yes—this is a political struggle for power, not a racial equality struggle), that the eventual fallout will have a negative impact on your stellar public persona.
History will be on the side of those who stood by America and its ideals, enshrined in the US Constitution. Those ideals do not divide Americans into any groups—not by gender, religion, race, etc. The only people who want to emphasize those distinctions and divide the people into small groups pitted against one another are people and organizations seeking to accumulate political power at the expense of those divided groups. Divide and Conquer is how they do their damage.
Most of us are members of one minority group or another. We cannot allow enemies of liberty to persuade us to turn on one another, thereby promoting their purposes. We are all Americans, and we should say nothing more than “We Are All Americans, and we have individual liberty as our common goal.” There are extremists, yes, and they want nothing more than to suck us into their sick world by spewing hate. The world is and always has been full of them—Nazis in Germany, fascists in Italy, Socialists is Russia and China, Jihadists in the Middle East. All of these groups wish to wipe out all opposition to their world domination. Their main enemy is America, because American ideals and personal liberty make it impossible for them to succeed. Therefore, they seek to conquer America by dividing Americans. They are all represented by extremist groups here in America. They take advantage of the poor, and poorly educated, and to the extent possible, they do everything in their power to keep Americans poor and ignorant.
With this in mind, do you see why I advise you to rise above the fray, and not allow your good name and great reputation to be sullied by all of this? There are tremendous powers at work in America—and we are hearing a ton of propaganda every day. Translation—you cannot count on anything the press is reporting right now. So my advice is to let others fight this propaganda war, the rewriting of history, and the rewriting of current events. I advise that your best move is to make a simple, affirmative statement . . . .
I share this letter because it is my hope that this brief explanation of race in American history serves to clarify the real issues at play in the press today. As I told my client, everything we are hearing is about power, and the politics of the accumulation of power, at the expense of the citizens of the United States–with Americans who are told they are “minorities” being manipulated to that end. Don’t be fooled by a media and press that is part of the power grab.
James Thompson is a legal scholar and political writer, and a professional ghostwriter.

Bannon Out at White House

Stephen Bannon, the chief strategist to President Trump, is expected to leave the White House, a source tells Fox News.

The New York Times also reported Friday that Trump has told aides he’s decided to remove Bannon, though it’s unclear when that might happen.

The populist Bannon formally joined Trump’s team a year ago, when the former head of Breitbart News was tapped as chief executive of the campaign. After Trump won the presidential race, Bannon was appointed to a senior adviser role at the same time Reince Priebus was named chief of staff.

The Drudge Report first reported Bannon’s exit, saying he could return to Breitbart. The New York Times then reported Trump has decided to boot Bannon.

Bannon had become increasingly isolated inside the White House following the ascension of John Kelly as chief of staff, sources inside the White House and outside advisers recently told Fox News.

Earlier this week, he gave a candid interview to a liberal magazine where he slammed some of his adversaries inside the administration.

Bannon has long been a target of mainstream Republican ire – and until now had survived even as top Trump lieutenants like Sean Spicer and Priebus have resigned.

Trump briefly addressed the speculation during a wide-ranging Q&A with reporters at Trump Tower on Tuesday afternoon, while leaving the door open as to whether Bannon would stay.

“I like Mr. Bannon, he’s a friend of mine,” Trump said, while downplaying his impact in the 2016 campaign. “I like him. He’s a good man. He’s not a racist … but we’ll see what happens with Mr. Bannon.”

Fox News’  John Roberts, Alex Pappas and Serafin Gomez contributed to this report.

Trump Slams ‘Obstructionist Democrats’ as Danger to National Security

President Trump accused “Obstructionist Democrats” on Friday of hurting national security by waging court fights against his policies, in an apparent reference to the battle over his travel ban and other measures that could get renewed attention following the terror attacks in Spain.

“The Obstructionist Democrats make Security for our country very difficult. They use the courts and associated delay at all times. Must stop!” Trump tweeted, later adding: “Radical Islamic Terrorism must be stopped by whatever means necessary! The courts must give us back our protective rights. Have to be tough!”

Moments earlier, Trump had said U.S. security officials are on the lookout for any signs of trouble, while assuring that America’s borders “are far tougher than ever before.”

The president issued the message as Spanish officials make arrests and hunt for more suspects in Thursday’s attacks that killed at least 14 in central Barcelona and the resort of Cambrils.

“Homeland Security and law enforcement are on alert & closely watching for any sign of trouble. Our borders are far tougher than ever before!” Trump tweeted.

Despite his assurance on the border, his administration remains locked in a court battle with opponents of his travel ban.

The Supreme Court plans to take up the case in the fall, while allowing portions of it to go into effect.

In June, the Supreme Court partially lifted lower court injunctions against Trump’s executive order that had temporarily banned visas for citizens of six countries. The justices’ ruling exempted applicants from the ban if they could prove a “bona fide relationship” with a U.S. person or entity, but the court offered only broad guidelines as to how that should be defined.

The Trump administration then set new criteria for new visa applicants from Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen saying they must prove a relationship with a parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the United States to be eligible. The same requirement, with some exceptions, holds for would-be refugees from all nations who are still awaiting approval for admission to the U.S.

In Spain, a fourth person was arrested on Friday in connection with the terror attacks.

The death toll rose to 14 after a woman died following an injury when a car plowed into pedestrians in Cambrils, about 80 miles south of Barcelona. She is the first fatality of the attack in the popular seaside town.

Police shot and killed five suspects who were equipped with bomb belts in Cambrils. The belts were found later to be fake. It was not immediately clear if the Barcelona van driver was among the arrested or dead suspects.

Local government confirmed the incident in Cambrils was linked to the attack in central Barcelona, which wounded more than 100.

FoxNews.com, The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Barcelona ‘Terror Attack’: Several Wounded

DEVELOPING: Several people were injured after a white van rammed into dozens of people in a popular tourism district of Barcelona Thursday in what local police described as a likely “terror attack.”

The incident took place on Las Ramblas of Barcelona, the famous main pedestrian walk way that crosses the city. Police described the incident on Twitter as a “massive crash.”

In a photograph shown by public broadcaster RTVE, three people were lying on the ground in the street and were apparently being helped by police and others.

A grisly video of the incident appeared to show at least five people lying motionless on the ground, with legs twisted and heads bloodied.

“It was real chaos, people started running, screaming. There was a loud bang,” eyewitness Ethan Spibey told Sky News.

The Spanish newspaper El Pais quoted unnamed police sources as saying the perpetrators of the crash were holed up in a bar in Tallers Street. There was no immediate police confirmation of the report.

Catalan emergency services said people should not go to the area around Placa Catalunya, according to Reuters.

Witnesses told El Pais the driver ran over several people, and there were injured people lying on the ground.

El Pais, citing a police source, said the driver of the van fled the scene after the crash

One witness said the van “has trampled people while crossing the traffic light.”

The Ministry of the Interior said on Twitter: “There has just been a massive crash on the Ramblas in Barcelona by a person with a van. There are injured.”

Emergency services in Catalonia say they have asked the Metro and train services in the area to close.

Police cordoned off the broad street and shut down its stores. They asked people to stay away from the area so as not to get in the way of the emergency services. A helicopter hovered over the scene.

The U.S consulate in Barcelona said on Twitter it was “aware of a reported incident at Las Ramblas in Barcelona. Please avoid the area and monitor local police @mossos for updates.”

“Americans in Spain: If you are safe, be sure to notify friends and loved ones. If you use social media, be sure to update your status,” the consulate tweeted.

The National Counterterrorism Center, the government hub for threat analysis, confirmed to Fox News the center is monitoring the events in Barcelona and note the use of a vehicle as a weapon.

Since July 2016, vehicles have been used to ram into crowds in terror attack across Europe, killing well over 100 people in Nice, Berlin, London, and Stockholm.

Las Ramblas is a packed tourist area in central Barcelona whose central feature is a broad promenade leading to the water. The stretch is lined with numerous shops, restaurants, a sprawling market and Gaudí architecture.

People walk down a wide, pedestrianized path in the center of the street, but cars can travel on either side of the area.

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, Judson Berger, The Associated Press contributed to this report.

FLASHBACK: Bill Clinton Justified Sen Byrd’s KKK Membership

Now that Hillary Clinton has taken it on herself to attack Donald Trump for his toleration of white supremacists, it might behoove her to attack her own husband, who rationalized the late Sen. Robert Byrd’s (D-W.V.) membership in the Ku Klux Klan by lamely allowing Byrd was simply trying to get elected.

Clinton was speaking at Byrd’s funeral in Charleston when he slammed newspapers for focusing on Byrd’s history with the KKK. He said:

They mention that he once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, and what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done, and he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that’s what a good person does. There are no perfect people. There certainly are no perfect politicians.

Byrd’s history with the KKK and racial prejudice was hardly “fleeting.” He started in 1942 by recruiting 150 people to a new chapter of the KKK in Sophia, West Virginia. He wrote later that a Klan official told him, “You have a talent for leadership, Bob … The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation.” Byrd continued, “Suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did.” Byrd was later unanimously elected the top officer in the local Klan unit.

In December 1944, Byrd wrote to Senator Theodore G. Bilbo, “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

In 1946, Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard of the KKK, stating, “The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation.” He later protested in 1952 when he was running for Congress, “After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan.”

“He was a country boy from the hills and hollows of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected.”

Bill Clinton, rationalizing Democratic Senator Robert Byrd’s KKK history

Byrd explained decades later that he joined the KKK because he “was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions,” acknowledging in 2005, “I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times … and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again. I can’t erase what happened.”

Trump: North Korea ‘Will Be Met With Fire and Fury’

North Korea ‘will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen’ if more threats emerge

President Trump has responded to reports of North Korea’s nuclear threats, saying the regime “will be met with fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which the world has never seen before.”

Speaking from New Jersey on Tuesday, Trump also said North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “has been very threatening beyond a normal state,” adding that the regime “best not make anymore threats to the United States.”

The president’s comments come after a report was published by The Washington Post claiming North Korea has produced a compact nuclear warhead that can be placed inside one of its advanced missiles – which are already believed to be capable of reaching half of the United States.

The jarring assessment was prepared in July by the Defense Intelligence Agency, according to the Post. The Post was read parts of the DIA analysis and the document was verified by other U.S. officials, the newspaper reported.

“The [intelligence community] assesses North Korea has produced nuclear weapons for ballistic missile delivery, to include delivery by ICBM-class missiles,” an excerpt of the DIA analysis states.

Further, it is now believed that dictator Kim Jong Un may control up to 60 nuclear weapons.

The DIA report echoed some of the evaluations made in a lengthy Japanese defense white paper also revealed on Tuesday.

“It is conceivable that North Korea’s nuclear weapons program has already considerably advanced and it is possible that North Korea has already achieved the miniaturization of nuclear weapons into warheads and has acquired nuclear warheads,” Japan’s defense ministry said in the 500-page report.

The miniaturization of a nuclear warhead was one of three things U.S. officials said the regime needed to do in regards to their long-range missile tests.

Officials said North Korea also needed to be able to hit a target and demonstrate the ability to “re-enter” the earth’s atmosphere.

The regime has conducted 12 tests so far this year. One of the ICBM tests conducted in late July, in which a missile traveled 2,300 miles into space and 45 minutes into the air, was the longest and farthest ballistic missile test in the history of North Korea, officials told Fox News at the time.

“North Korea CAN miniaturize nuclear weapons for use on ballistic missiles,” leading North Korea expert Mark Fitzpatrick told Fox News. “North Korea has been working on miniaturizing a war head for 30 years now.” Fitzpatrick continued, saying that the regime is “very technically competent. It is natural that they should achieve this.”

Regarding the Post’s claim that the regime has up to 60 nuclear weapons, Fitzpatrick thinks that number is high and believes the number is closer to the 20-30 that others have estimated.

Reactions to the news highlighted the stunning advancements depicted in the reports. Some of those who’ve tangled with North Korea in the past advocated throwing diplomacy to the wayside.

“We’ve been playing the diplomatic game for a long time with #NorthKorea and it’s only given them time to advance their weapons program,” former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton tweeted.

Harry Kazianis, a columnist for the Asia Times and a senior editor at the National Interest, told Fox News’ “Happening Now” on Tuesday that North Korea was a “full-fledged” nuclear power.

But the U.S. on Saturday achieved what appeared to be a remarkable diplomatic victory, securing the unanimous approval of tough new sanctions — including votes from Russia and China.

Fox News’ Greg Palkot contributed to this report.

The Smug Bigotry of Trump-Haters

They told me if I vote for Donald Trump we would be overwhelmed with bigotry the likes of which we have never seen before.

And, boy, were they right. Little did we know, however, those obsessed in their opposition to Mr. Trump were actually speaking about themselves.

Last week was a banner one for anti-Trump bigotry. During a briefing at the White House detailing President Trump’s new immigration plan giving priority to those who, among other things, speak English, Jim Acosta, CNN’s White House correspondent, responded, “This whole notion of they have to learn English before they get to the United States, are we just going to bring in people from Great Britain and Australia?”

Mr. Acosta was widely panned for the ignorance of the remark, but it’s also an example of Michael Gerson’s phrase, “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Coined when he was President George W. Bush’s speechwriter, it perfectly describes the smug attitude of the elite expecting the downtrodden to automatically fail, and their perpetual need for government to save them from themselves.

This cosmopolitan deceit proclaims The Other as infant, perpetually unable to help themselves.

Stephen Miller, the president’s aide, immediately confronted Mr. Acosta’s casual contempt. “This is an amazing moment,” he said, “that you think only people from Great Britain or Australia would speak English is so insulting to millions of hardworking immigrants who do speak English from all over the world.”

Exactly, but it was even more than that. Not only was he wrong on the fact of the matter (54 sovereign states have English as their official language), the soft bigotry comes in the form of expecting non-Western individuals to not be able to cope, adjust or deliver when a requirement is made of them. This cosmopolitan deceit proclaims The Other as infant, perpetually unable to help themselves.

Mr. Acosta is not alone when it comes to thinly-veiled contempt of those unlike society’s all-knowing benefactors. Stuart Rothenberg, a Trump hater and pollster with “Inside Elections,” which bills itself as a provider of “nonpartisan analysis,” tweeted this during President Trump’s rally in West Virginia: “Lots of people in West Virginia can’t support themselves or speak English.”

When confronted on Twitter about the true nature of the good, hardworking West Virginians, he agreed but then insisted they are also “close-minded, provincial, angry & easily misled.”

Soft bigotry isn’t the purview of liberals alone. Ironically, it appears to be an affliction of many, including those in the Republican establishment, who are the most fervent at warning people about Mr. Trump’s supposed evil, bigoted bias.

In February 2016 the National Review delivered their now infamous “Never Trump” issue. One month later Kevin Williamson, their “roving correspondent,” wrote about rust-belt, white working-class support for Trump:

“The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns… The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin.”

For millions of people in this country, it’s the overbearing and incompetent government bureaucracy that steals the future from people, sucking every ounce of hope from their lives. Mr. Williamson’s disturbing sanctimony did do one thing—exposed how disconnected even the ‘conservative’ establishment had become from the heart of this nation, and explains in part why we have President Trump and not President Jeb.

It’s no wonder we don’t want the so-called “elites” controlling our health care, managing foreign policy or determining who gets in this country and why. Americans are now partisans for the country, their own families and the future, and a vote for Trump in 2016 is the result of that commitment.

In the meantime, Trump-haters on both sides of the aisle will keep pointing at the president and his team as the problem. They are wrong and will continue to fail, reminding us every day the importance of having a President Trump.

Tammy Bruce is a radio talk-show host, New York Times best-selling author and Fox News political contributor.

Trump’s Economic Comeback – 1.29 Million Jobs

Love him or hate him, job creation is happening under President Trump – 1.29 million jobs have been created since he took office in January – helped with the addition of 209K positions in July, plus June data was revised higher by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the unemployment rate dropped to 4.3%.

Trump is just getting started…. so he said in a tweet Friday following the July jobs data.

Indeed, coincidently on Friday, Toyota (TM) and Mazda announced a plan to invest $1.6 billion in a U.S. factory, in a state yet to be named. This is expected to create 4,000 jobs. Last month, Apple (AAPL) supplier Foxconn agreed to open a factory in Wisconsin, which is expected to generate 3,000 jobs and the company indicated that number could grow.

Still, some remain skeptical of the President. Newsweek’s new cover labeled him ‘Lazy Boy’. FOX Business anchor Neil Cavuto took issue with the cover, calling it “unfair to the President of the United States” while also acknowledging that POTUS is far from perfect. He also defended the way job creation and economic progress should be covered regardless of politics. “Was that all the President? No but it happened under the President and similar good things happened under Barack Obama, all the media would naturally credit Barack Obama, it flips the other way too if it doesn’t go your way,” he points out.

Even before President Trump officially took office in January he began strong arming American CEOs, some of whom, reversed plans to move jobs overseas.

In November of last year, Carrier, a unit of United Technologies (UTX) agreed to keep 1,100 jobs in Indianapolis. While the company said in a July statement Opens a New Window. that it remains committed to these jobs, a realignment of manufacturing operations will impact “600 Indianapolis jobs over the next several months” as previously announced.

Then came Ford (F), which scrapped plans to move production of the Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico, prompting the President to give a shout out tweet to scion Bill Ford.

The President is also attempting to revive the beleaguered coal industry with the opening of the Acosta Coal Mine in Pennsylvania, the first in many years. Corsa CEO George Dethlefsen told FOX it will create 70 jobs.

Five of the six months since taking office, the economy has generated north of 200K jobs, the level economists like to see for a growing economy. These numbers have the White House in a celebratory mood.

Jobs Created in 2017

  • January:   216K
  • February:  232K
  • March:      50K
  • April:        207K
  • May:        145K
  • June:       231K
  • July:        209K

Source:Bureau of Labor Statistics 

“We now have created well over a million jobs since the Trump administration [has] come into office and since the election. The economy continues to grow. We got a GDP number last week of 2.6% for the quarter, unemployment rate down to 4.3%, back down to a 16-year low. Things are on course for the economy,” Gary Cohn, White House National Economic Advisor, told FOX Business’ Stuart Varney.

Not everything is as rosy as the White House would like. While jobs are growing the U.S. economy is still struggling to see sustained GDP growth above 3%, but there are signs of a rebound. An advance estimate for 2Q came in at 2.6% last month, stronger than the 1Q’s 1.2% showing.

And then there’s the question of stalled policies such as healthcare, which some say spells doom and gloom for tax reform, a cornerstone of the Trump administration’s pro-business push.

Still, despite those concerns investors like what they see so far. U.S. stocks continue to notch fresh records with the Dow Jones Industrial Average scoring a new milestone this week – 22K. Roughly $4 trillion in market value has been added to the stock market under President Trump with the S&P 500 averaging a 10.5% return for 2017 giving 401(K)s, pension funds and investment accounts a solid boost.

Suzanne O’Halloran is Managing Editor of FOXBusiness.com and a graduate of Boston College. Follow her on @suzohalloran  Opens a New Window. .

OBAMACARE IMPLOSION – Congress Paralyzed as Insurers Seek Massive Premium Hikes

Top health insurance companies in numerous states are looking to hike premiums by double-digits – some by roughly 30 percent or more – for ObamaCare plans in 2018, according to newly released figures that could light a fire under stalled efforts on Capitol Hill to fix the program.

“A lot of us have lost focus on the fact that the system we have doesn’t work,” White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday, referring to the proposed premium hikes.

The Wall Street Journal reported that major insurers in Idaho, West Virginia, South Carolina, Iowa and Wyoming are pitching premium hikes averaging 30 percent or higher.

Other states also could see double-digit hikes, including New Mexico, Tennessee and Texas – while elsewhere, insurers are eyeing smaller increases.

The requests are preliminary and could change before insurers strike 2018 agreements with federal officials in the fall.

But they underscore concerns about Affordable Care Act plans becoming increasingly unaffordable, as Republicans struggle to come up with an ObamaCare replacement bill that can pass Congress.

Their latest legislation – the so-called “skinny repeal” – failed by a single vote in the Senate last week, leaving lawmakers split over whether to “move on” and tackle issues like tax reform or regroup and try again. President Trump is urging Republicans not to give up, and even some Democrats have started to float ideas for shoring up the law, without scrapping it.

“I do think it’s important that they continue to work on health care,” Mulvaney said. “ObamaCare’s still broken. It was just as broken today as it was last week; in fact, more so.”

However, while the premium hikes could energize GOP efforts to upend the Affordable Care Act, they also could fuel Democrats’ criticism over how Republicans are handling to repeal/replace debate.

The Journal reported that insurers are concerned about Trump’s threat to halt payments to the industry that in turn help bring down costs, as well as whether Republicans will continue to enforce the individual mandate to buy insurance.

According to the Journal, one insurer in Montana linked the bulk of its proposed 23 percent increase to those two concerns.

FoxNews.com

REPUBLICANS STRIKE BACK – GOP Lawmakers Press for Special Counsel on Clinton, Comey, Lynch

Republicans call for second special counsel to probe Clinton, Lynch and more

Nearly two-dozen Republicans are calling on the Trump Justice Department to appoint a second special counsel to investigate the raft of 2016 campaign controversies involving Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration, warning these questions cannot “be allowed to die on the vine” amid the Russia probe firestorm.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and GOP committee colleagues made the request in a letter Thursday to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

“The American public has a right to know the facts – all of them – surrounding the election and its aftermath,” they wrote. “We urge you to appoint a second special counsel to ensure these troubling, unanswered questions are not relegated to the dustbin of history.”

‘I don’t think that the crimes of the prior administration, of Hillary Clinton, the collusion with James Comey and Loretta Lynch should be forgotten just because Hillary Clinton lost the election’

– Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., to ‘Fox & Friends’

The lawmakers want an entirely separate special counsel probe from the one Robert Mueller is leading into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible coordination with Trump associates. The crux of their argument is that numerous unanswered questions remain from the 2016 campaign cycle that have been pushed aside amid the intense Russia focus.

They delivered an extensive, 14-point request for what a second special counsel should cover, including:

  • Allegations that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch instructed then-FBI Director James Comey to downplay the nature of the Clinton email probe
  • The FBI and DOJ’s decisions in the course of the email probe, including controversial immunity deals with Clinton aide Cheryl Mills and others
  • The State Department’s involvement in deciding which Clinton emails to make public
  • Disclosures in WikiLeaks-released emails regarding the Clinton Foundation and, according to the letter, “its potentially unlawful international dealings”
  • Connections between Clinton officials and “foreign entities” including Russia and Ukraine
  • Revelations in hacked Democratic National Committee emails about “inappropriate” coordination between the DNC and Clinton campaign against Bernie Sanders’ Democratic primary campaign
  • The “unmasking” of Americans in intelligence documents and potentially related leaks of classified information
  • Comey’s admitted leak of details of his conversations with President Trump
  • The FBI’s “reliance” on controversial firm Fusion GPS, which was involved in the questionable anti-Trump “dossier”

“Our call for a special counsel is not made lightly,” the lawmakers wrote. “We have no interest in engendering more bad feelings and less confidence in the process or governmental institutions by the American people. Rather, our call is made on their behalf. It is meant to determine whether the criminal prosecution of any individual is warranted based on the solemn obligation to follow the facts wherever they lead and applying the law to those facts.”

The push comes as Sessions comes under tremendous pressure from Trump to revisit 2016 controversies concerning Clinton and Democratic officials. The president has publicly pilloried the attorney general over his decision in March to recuse himself from the Russia probe, which led to the appointment of Mueller whom Trump has also criticized.

Sessions told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson that the criticism has been “kind of hurtful” but defended his recusal and insisted he would stay on the job as long as the president allows.

Democrats have blasted the periodic GOP efforts to bring back these 2016 controversies, and maintain that Russia’s interference in the campaign is a more pressing matter. Following Trump’s criticism last week of both Sessions and Mueller, top House Intelligence Committee Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, of California, defended the importance of the current special counsel investigation.

“There is no doubt that Mueller has the authority to investigate anything that arises from his investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, including financial links, and this is spelled out in the order from the Deputy Attorney General and the law that governs the powers of the Special Counsel,” he said in a statement, while also urging Trump to “rule out categorically” the prospect of using pardons to undermine that probe.

But aside from Republican frustration over the evolving and intensifying Russia probe, recent developments have fueled their interest in revisiting 2016’s other controversies. Comey’s Capitol Hill testimony in June included a startling allegation that Lynch told him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a “matter,” which Comey said made him “queasy.”

The Fusion GPS firm also came under renewed criticism this week when a Senate hearing witness alleged the same firm was connected to Russia-backed efforts to fight U.S. sanctions on the country.

House Judiciary Republicans voted earlier this week to call an investigation into Comey’s handling of the Clinton email probe.

One of those lawmakers, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., told “Fox & Friends” on Friday that there seems to be a “double standard in justice.”

“I don’t think that the crimes of the prior administration, of Hillary Clinton, the collusion with James Comey and Loretta Lynch should be forgotten just because Hillary Clinton lost the election,” he said.

By Judson Berger 

Mueller Probe: The Lawyers Who Gave $$ to Hillary, Now Investigating Team Trump

Why are Democratic Party Donors being picked to investigate the GOP Administration?

President Trump’s tough criticism of Special Counsel Robert Mueller signals a renewed effort to challenge his investigators’ credibility over their track record of pro-Democratic political donations and other associations.

There is no shortage of examples to fuel the president’s case.

Of the 15 attorneys currently on staff for Mueller, at least seven have donated to Democratic candidates and campaigns, including Trump’s 2016 rival Hillary Clinton. The rest have not made political donations, according to federal records; and none of the attorneys on Mueller’s roster donated money to Trump.

“This is just a witch hunt—it’s all a hoax,” White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway told “Fox & Friends” last week after Trump criticized Mueller in a New York Times interview. “People should know what folks’ past motivations, and their political motivations are—these weren’t minor donations, these were significant donations by members of that team.”

Conway said the donations are “relevant information for people to have.”

Multiple reports in recent days have detailed a special counsel investigation digging deep into Trump associates’ dealings, prompting a range of public responses from the Trump administration. The president went so far over the weekend as to declare he has “complete power to pardon.” But in the near-term, expect to hear more about the political affiliation of Mueller’s attorneys.

“They clearly wanted the other person to win. Now, whether that prejudices them in one way or another remains to be seen, but it is relevant information for people to have,” Conway said.

Here’s a snapshot of some of the attorneys on Mueller’s team and their political contributions:

James Quarles

Quarles is a former partner at WilmerHale and former assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force. According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Quarles had made significant donations to Democratic candidates, including former President Barack Obama and Clinton. Most recently, in October 2016, Quarles donated $2,700 to Clinton’s presidential campaign. Quarles also donated over $7,000 to Obama over the last decade. Quarles did, however, donate $2,500 to former Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, in 2015.

Jeannie Rhee

Rhee is a former partner at WilmerHale who also served in the Office of Legal Counsel and as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. At WilmerHale, Rhee focused on representing people in government investigations including white-collar criminal probes and criminal and civil fraud matters. Rhee donated a total of $5,400 to Clinton, combining donations from 2015 and 2016. Rhee also donated a combined $4,800 to Obama in 2008 and 2011. Rhee also has contributed smaller amounts of money to the Democratic National Committee and other Democrats running for Congress.

Andrew Weissmann

Weissmann served as general counsel at the FBI and was an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Weissmann is a veteran Justice Department prosecutor. He was the deputy, and then leader, of the department’s task force that investigated and prosecuted Enron executives in the energy giant’s collapse. Weissmann donated a combined $2,300 to Obama’s campaign in 2008. In 2006, Weissmann contributed at least $2,000 to the DNC.

Andrew Goldstein

Goldstein is an attorney on detail from the Southern District of New York, where he had worked under U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara—until Bharara was fired along with other U.S. attorneys by Trump.

Goldstein’s old boss has become a prominent Trump critic since his firing and has been particularly outspoken over concerns that Trump may be gearing up to get Mueller fired. In a tweetstorm last week, Bharara openly wondered, “If Mueller is fired, how much obscene & horses-t character assassination will Trump & allies level against this honored military vet?” He added if that happens, “do Trump & allies realize he will forever appear guilty of a crime even if the Special Counsel may not have found one?”

Bharara also praised Goldstein as “Best of best in every way. Fair, tough smart,” after he was brought on by Mueller.

Goldstein contributed a combined $3,300 to Obama’s campaigns in 2008 and 2012.

Elizabeth Prelogar

Prelogar is an appellate attorney on detail from the Office of the Solicitor General. Prelogar donated $250 to Clinton in 2016 and $250 to Obama in 2012.

Brandon Van Grack

Van Grack is an attorney on detail from the National Security Division of the DOJ. Van Grack donated $286 to Obama in 2008.

Rush Atkinson

Atkinson is an attorney on detail from the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section of the DOJ. Records show that Atkinson donated $200 to Clinton’s campaign in 2016.

Zainab Ahmad

Ahmad is a U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of New York. She has worked extensively on counterterrorism cases. Records show that Ahmad has not made any political donations.

Michael Dreeben

Dreeben is an appellate attorney on detail from the Office of the Solicitor General. Records show he has made no political donations. Dreeben has represented the federal government in a range of cases — including on the police use of GPS tracking to monitor potential suspects, and whether former Republican Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell crossed the line in performing favors for a wealthy supporter who provided gifts to McDonnell and his wife.

Adam Jed

Jed is an appellate attorney on detail from the Civil Division of the DOJ. Records show he has made no political donations.

Jed’s notable casework includes arguing in defense of then-secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius in 2014 in the Supreme Court case of Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius. The case challenged the contraceptive insurance requirement under ObamaCare. Jed also argued, before the Supreme Court, to strike down the definition of marriage between a man and a woman in the Defense of Marriage Act in the United States v. Windsor.

Aaron Zebley

Zebley is a former partner at WilmerHale, who previously served with Mueller at the FBI as chief of staff. Zebley served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. Records show he has made no political donations.

Aaron Zelinsky

Zelinksy is an attorney on detail from the District of Maryland. Records show he has made no political donations.

Brooke Singman is a Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @brookefoxnews.