Statement from President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump on the Passing of Former President George H.W. Bush

December 1, 2018

Melania and I join with a grieving Nation to mourn the loss of former President George H.W. Bush, who passed away last night.

Through his essential authenticity, disarming wit, and unwavering commitment to faith, family, and country, President Bush inspired generations of his fellow Americans to public service—to be, in his words, “a thousand points of light” illuminating the greatness, hope, and opportunity of America to the world.

President Bush always found a way to set the bar higher.  As a young man, he captained the Yale baseball team, and then went on to serve as the youngest aviator in the United States Navy during the Second World War.  Later in life, he rose to the pinnacle of American politics as a Congressman from Texas, envoy to China, Director of Central Intelligence, Vice President of eight years to President Ronald Reagan, and finally President of the United States.

With sound judgement, common sense, and unflappable leadership, President Bush guided our Nation, and the world, to a peaceful and victorious conclusion of the Cold War.  As President, he set the stage for the decades of prosperity that have followed.  And through all that he accomplished, he remained humble, following the quiet call to service that gave him a clear sense of direction.

Along with his full life of service to country, we will remember President Bush for his devotion to family—especially the love of his life, Barbara.  His example lives on, and will continue to stir future Americans to pursue a greater cause.  Our hearts ache with his loss, and we, with the American people, send our prayers to the entire Bush family, as we honor the life and legacy of 41.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of the White House.

A Marriage Message Made in Taiwan

Taiwan was supposed to be the first place in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage. Then, they asked voters. And like countries the world over, the island’s leaders got the same answer: No.

Of the 10 questions on the Taiwanese ballot, none got more attention than the five dealing with LGBT “rights.” “Do you agree that marriage defined in The Civil Code should be restricted to the union between one man and one woman?” voters were asked. An overwhelming portion of the country — 70.1 percent — said yes. Of course, you’ll have a hard time finding the actual number in American newspapers, since our media is doing its best to ignore the landslide. But the message from the country off the east coast of China could not be clearer: there is no significant international movement toward same-sex marriage.

Some people might see the results and think the island has a massive Christian population. They’d be wrong. Less than five percent of the country are Protestants or Catholics. And although they were vocal about their opinion on the issue, the fact of the matter is, most of the world’s population knows how unnatural the idea is. Until 2015, when the Supreme Court forced same-sex on America, LGBT activists here at home insisted the U.S. was outside the mainstream. But the irony is, we’re only outside of the mainstream now that it’s legal! There are 195 countries on this planet, and only 27 of them allow same-sex marriage. That’s 13 percent — hardly the stuff of global consensus.

Besides, not even global consensus is a substitute for truth. And as the Archbishop John Hung Shan-chuan of Taipei told his church’s leaders, no law can change God’s design for marriage. While the Church does not condone discrimination, he said, “We cannot support same-sex ‘marriage’ and same-sex unions,” he insisted. “The legalization is… not in line with our teachings.”

Seven thousand miles away in America, the vote is having an interesting effect on our own debate. In a country where natural marriage is still the popular view, it’s become difficult — if not impossible — to voice those views without backlash. Scott Chen, who was educated in Taiwan, found that out when he posted a message about the vote in Chinese. “Some people think that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman, I think so too, but that’s your own business.” You can imagine how well that would be taken by the LGBT movement if Chen were an average businessman. They’d demand his resignation. The problem is, Chen isn’t just an average businessman. Three months ago, he was named president of an app facilitating same-sex dating. For how much longer, after this backlash, no one knows.

Chen tried to defend himself. “I said marriage is a holy matrimony between a man and a woman is based on my own personal experience,” he said. “I am a straight man married to a woman I love and I have two beautiful daughters I love from the marriage. This is how I feel about my marriage. Different people have their different feelings about their marriages. You can’t deny my feelings about my marriage.”

Now, we expect that kind of backtracking from a lot of people in corporate America. The problem for believers, however, is that some Christians are doing the same thing. They become so intimidated by the cultural bullies that they put the fear of man above the fear of God. They shrink back and go silent on truth that is found not only in the Bible, but history and science as well. If Christians, who know the truth and are called to speak the truth ignore the truth, then what hope do we have? As a church in this country, we need a clarion call for courage. In a culture where 62 percent of student conservatives are too afraid to share their ideas in class, America is in a crisis situation.

Fortunately, this country has a president who, when it comes to doing and saying the tough things, refuses to be intimidated. That kind of courage breeds courage. It only takes one person — an Isabella Chow — doing something radically brave, to help others find their voice. And before you know it, people like Isabella won’t be standing alone, because tens of thousands of people will be standing with them and behind them, inspired by their bravery. We need more Isabellas in this country — and if we’re going to change anything, we need them now.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Bathroom Policy Needs Some Remodeling

The Skype’s the Limit for Abortion

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

Anti-Gun Researchers Undermine the Anti-Gun Narrative

We have good news from a joint effort between the Violence Prevention Research Program at the UC Davis School of Medicine and the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins University.

Comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors had no effect on homicide rates in California.

The latest study published by the highly-credentialed researchers in these well-funded programs, “California’s comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality,” was designed to evaluate the effect of California’s 1991 comprehensive background check and prohibiting those convicted of violent misdemeanors policies on firearm homicide and suicide. The study period was 1981-2000, with secondary analysis up to 2005.

Using a synthetic control methodology, the researchers found that the comprehensive background check and violent misdemeanor prohibitions were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.

In conversational language, the two policies had no effect.

We credit the researchers for publishing these findings that run contrary to their own established opinions regarding firearms. There are, naturally, some methodological questions. For instance, the violent crime index only had a low predictive value and so was not included in the final model. The variables that did make the cut included specific age groups, race, gender, poverty level, veteran population, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and the proxy for gun ownership rates. Violent crime is often associated with homicide rates in other studies, yet was not included here.

The general design of the synthetic control model also raises questions. In this methodology, other states were combined and weighted to match California before the new policies were implemented. Eleven states were used to create this “synthetic” California but the contributions each of these states made to the synthetic California are not presented in the paper. The donor pool of states was limited to those that did not have policies similar to the comprehensive background check or prohibiting violent misdemeanor at the start of the study period and did not enact major firearm policy changes during that period, but…the differences between California and Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin are not limited to the social and demographic variables included in the model.

But back to the findings. You will recall, from just a few short paragraphs ago, that the notable anti-gun researchers – at least one of whom joined the anti-gun march on Washington this past March – found the comprehensive background check and prohibiting violent misdemeanor policies had no effect on firearm homicides or suicides in California.

The article about the study on the UC Davis website presents that finding with some spin: “Study does not find population-level changes in firearm homicide or suicide rates…” Maybe our understanding of the anti-gun bias driving this research colors our perception, but “does not find” and “were not associated with” seem like two sides of two different coins.

The discussion section of the study itself is dedicated to explanations for the lack of an association.  The authors suggest that the problem may have been limited records in the background check system, a lack of enforcement, or maybe that there were just too few purchase denials.

Their first explanation is not enough gun control. The authors note their findings conflict with some of their own prior research on other states. They claim the difference is that the other states’ comprehensive background check policies included a permit to purchase component. That must be the key difference, right?

Ignore the fact that all three studies to which they point were reviewed by the Rand Corporation for The Science of Gun Policy. In fact, two of these three studies were the only studies considered in the section for the effect of licensing and permitting requirements on violent crime. Rand found, based on these two studies alone, that licensing and permitting requirements have uncertain effects on total homicides and firearms homicides because the evidence is inconclusive. The third study was focused exclusively on suicide rates, and was one of two studies included in that section in the Rand review. Rand also found that licensing and permitting requirement have uncertain effects on total suicides and firearm suicides, due to inconclusive evidence.

So, yes, ignore that and let’s get back to the point the authors make about permit to purchase. They fail to consider that California enacted a permit-to-purchase system, the Basic Firearms Safety Certificate, in 1994 – right in the middle of their study’s postintervention period.

Still, we credit the researchers for sharing these results and we look forward to sharing their evidence when anti-gun organizations demand further obstacles to law-abiding gun owners.

We’d like to thank the Joyce Foundation and, perhaps unwittingly, California taxpayers for making this study possible.


Retired Anti-Gun Justice Reveals Attempts to Thwart Landmark Heller Decision

Engineering Professor Shares Thoughts on Constitutional Law, Calls for Handgun Ban

House Democrats Outline Gun Control Agenda for 116th Congress

Levi’s Teams with Billionaire Michael Bloomberg to Attack Gun Rights

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

On The Passing Of President George H. W. Bush.

He stood at the White House steps on January 20, 1989, flanked by his wife, Barbara.  He was dressed impeccably, of course, as the occasion of the peaceful transition of power in the most powerful nation of the world calls for a certain degree of regality. He was bidding goodbye to arguably the most colorful couple to have inhabited the White House, Ronald and Nancy Reagan, and with that, acknowledging that an era had ended and that a new one would begin.

That is my most vivid image of George H. W. Bush. Undoubtedly, there were others, like when I read his lips saying that there would be no new taxes and when he proclaimed his disdain for broccoli.  But that moment when he accepted the helm of the greatest vessel ever assembled was particularly poignant.  Even then, we all knew that Reagan was going to be a monumental twentieth-century figure, but as we watched the outgoing couple bid adieux to the new we felt reassured because of the steadfastness and decency exuded by the incoming president.

Last night, just short of thirty years later, the man who led us through life after Reagan, the man who acted against the oppressive actions of tyrannical regimes, the man who helped decrease the nation’s deficit despite having to break his word to the American people, passed away.  And sadness consumed me.

George H. W. Bush had all the makings of a great president.  Armed with the experience of having served as a naval officer in World War II, having been the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, United States Ambassador to the United Nations and a member of the House of Representatives, there appeared to be no battle he could not handle.  He was humble, mild-mannered, and respectful, all qualities that America would want in its President.  Most characteristic of his reverential and reserved style was when he refused to “spike the football” on the Soviet Union in the aftermath of the falling of the Berlin Wall.  The negotiations were amongst the most delicate in history, but Bush, despite criticisms from both of his domestic flanks, maneuvered the process to a successful conclusion.  His actions with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev brought about the unification of Germany and signaled the end of the Cold War.

And when Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian dictator, was using his platform to traffic drugs into the United States, it was H.W. who put a stop to it.  Bush sent 26,000 American troops to topple and capture Noriega, ultimately forcing the maligned dictator to stand trial in the United States.

On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait in what many perceived to be a local skirmish.  Herbert Walker Bush led the nation again.  Bush would not let Iraq’s aggressive posture stand unchallenged.  He would singlehandedly assemble a coalition of 35 nations to stampede into Kuwait and oust Saddam Hussein from the boundaries of its oil-producing neighbor.  It was also Bush who made the decision, despite the undefended state of the road to Baghdad, not to chase the retreating Iraqi forces to their capital and send the region into a sea of uncertainty.

This is when we got to know President H. W. Bush, as his presidency was the first to be scrutinized by the unyielding eye of 24-7 media coverage.  It was also at this time that I had my closest, yet incredibly removed association with H.W.  He was my Commander in Chief when we mobilized into war for the first time since Vietnam.

It somehow defies reality that President Bush would have only served one term.  Despite his great judgment on foreign matters and even some success in the domestic front with the Americans With Disabilities Act, Bush would come face to face with a political firestorm that would ultimately lead to his downfall.

If Donald Trump was revolutionary in the twenty-first century, Bill Clinton was equally so at the end of the twentieth.  Unquestionably, H.W., who at one time saw an 89% approval rating, opened the door to distrust and a presidential challenge when he reneged on his emphatic promise not to raise taxes.  Although historical analysis and retrospect acknowledge that the decision made in the face of a mounting deficit was not unwarranted, the political consequences were devastating.  Rightly or wrongly, Bush was viewed with mistrust, and the nation’s right wing flirted with the possibility of another Republican candidate.  Of course, a lackluster economy with a high unemployment rate would not help his cause.  And the morally challenged, saxophone playing, sunglass-bespectacled, youthful, and hip Bill Clinton received a great uplift from the rogue business tycoon, Ross Perot, who once again proved that the presence of a third party candidate in a presidential race will only serve to harm the candidate he is most like. Bush earned a mere 37.5 of the vote in his 1992 reelection bid, the least for any major party candidate in recent history.

Many say that adding to his woes was a poorly selected plank of family values as the centerpiece of his campaign when Americans were concerned about jobs.  That may be so.  But as we moved across the Clinton presidency with its sex scandals and witnessed the nation’s continued moral decay, many of us reflecting upon that message recognize that H. W. Bush was right.

Of course, H.W.’s legacies would not be limited to his contributions in international relations and politics.  He and his wife Barbara raised another president and a governor, and their grandchildren may accomplish even more.


But perhaps the greatest single testament to H.W.’s character and the standards he upheld was a holographic letter he penned to incoming President Bill Clinton, the man who painfully unseated him. Within it is this sentence:

“There will be very tough times, made even more difficult by criticism you may not think is fair.  I’m not a very good one to give advice; but just don’t let the critics discourage you or push you off course.”

Sage advice, not just for an incoming President, but also for every one of us.

Thank you for your service, Mr. President, and may God keep you close.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. It is republished with permission.

VIDEO: How the State Dept. Outsources YOUR Tax Dollars to George Soros Front Groups

On November 29, Judicial Watch Director of Investigations and Research Chris Farrell appeared on “No Spin News” on to discuss the caravan and its potential source of funding.

As the migrant caravan has been developing in the news for the past few months, Bill O’Reilly has set his focus on the funding that is allowing this highly orchestrated caravan to operate. As we have reported, the money trail seems to lead back to George Soros. On today’s No Spin News, Judicial Watch Director of Investigations and Research Chris Farrell gives his expertise on Soros and specifies exactly how George Soros is operating and how it is directly impacting the American taxpayers.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with video courtesy of No Spin News is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Aidan Bartos on Unsplash.

The Gospel of Marx? Religious Leaders Call for ‘Redistribution,’ Denounce ‘Pathology of War’

Last month, several dozen religious leaders reaffirmed a number of radical economic propositions contained within the 1973 Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern.

“Before God and a billion hungry neighbors, we must rethink our values regarding our present standard of living,” proclaims the document. The document goes on to lament the “materialism of our culture and the maldistribution of the nation’s wealth and services.”

According to these leaders, the United States holds a “crucial role in the balance and injustice of international trade and development.” To secure an “abundant life for all of God’s children,” these activists propose “a more just acquisition and redistribution of the world’s resources.”

Good intentions notwithstanding, enactment of their economic agenda would actually stifle the widespread abundance produced by free market capitalism.

This thinly veiled embrace of Marxism initially occurred at the height of the Cold War. In the half-century prior to 1973, many governments elsewhere forcefully enacted a “more just” redistribution. The Soviets outright confiscated private farmland upon coming to power in Russia in 1917. Likewise, China’s communist regime under Mao Zedong began redistributing private land holdings upon coming to power in 1949. In 1959, the regime of Cuba’s Fidel Castro nationalized private businesses and property in the aftermath of the revolution.

Far from being an abstract dispute, the physical and intellectual war between free market capitalism and socialism was intensely raging by 1973.

To affirm the economic pronouncements in the Chicago Declaration would be to reject the reality of the last 45 years. Consider the turnaround the United Kingdom has made following broad privatization in the 1980s, or the booms that came to Vietnam and China as capitalism was adopted. Look at the wealth of Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea—some of the freest economies in the world.

Meanwhile, the socialist economies of Spain and Greece continue to flounder while Venezuela degenerates under the burden of Bolivarian revolution.

Far from perpetuating injustice, the expansion of international trade has coincided with a surge in the quality of life for many millions of people. In the words of World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim, “Over the last 25 years, more than a billion people have lifted themselves out of extreme poverty, and the global poverty rate is now lower than it has ever been in recorded history. This is one of the greatest human achievements of our time.”

Of course, wages in the developing world remain lower than those in more advanced economies. But these wages represent a marked improvement from yesteryear. The transformation in living standards today is eclipsing even the rapid pace of improvement that the West experienced during the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago.

The signatories of this statement decry “a national pathology of war and violence which victimizes our neighbors at home and abroad.”

Yet the United States has sacrificed greatly to defeat Nazism, communism, fascism, terrorism, and imperialism over the past century. We’ve rebuilt war-ravaged countries—including those of former enemies such as Germany and Japan. We’ve made seas across the globe safe for trade. Our investments overseas in countries that welcome foreign capital have directly expanded prosperity across the globe.

And beyond this, our nation liberally shares the concepts that continue to make us an economic powerhouse—notions such as private property rights and the rule of law.

Central planning, a capping of consumer demand, and a redistribution of resources are not the keys to economic “justice.” After years of travelling to impoverished parts of the globe, U2’s Bono bravely shared his altered take on capitalism:

Rock star preaches capitalism—wow. Sometimes I hear myself and I just cannot believe it. But commerce is real … aid is just a stop-gap. Commerce, entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid—of course, we know that.

In light of recent history, perhaps now is the time for the heirs of the 1973 declaration to graciously admit their misdiagnosis.


Portrait of Joel Griffith

Joel Griffith is a research fellow in the Roe Institute at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .


Radical Female Lutheran Pastor Plans on Melting Down Purity Rings to Make Vagina Statue

The Catholic Church’s Biggest Crisis Since the Reformation

The Populist Wave Hits the Catholic Church

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Gift Habeshaw on Unsplash.

California Democratic Chair Resigns After Sexual Misconduct Allegations

California Democratic Party Chairman Eric Bauman announced his resignation Thursday after allegations of sexual misconduct and inappropriate workplace behavior.

Los Angeles Times report surfaced Wednesday that said 10 California Democratic Party staffers and political activists had accused him of making lewd, sexual comments to them in the workplace or that Bauman had touched them without their permission.

Bauman, 59, said in response to this report that he’d be seeking treatment for health issues and alcohol abuse.

“I have made the realization that in order for those to whom I may have caused pain and who need to heal, for my own health, and in the best interest of the Party that I love and to which I have dedicated myself for more than 25 years, it is in everyone’s best interest for me to resign my position as chair of the California Democratic Party,” Bauman said in a statement, according to the Times.

The sexual misconduct allegations came after Bauman, the Democratic Party’s first openly gay chairman, was accused of unspecified misconduct and had taken a leave of absence.

One female staffer recalled obscene comments Bauman made to her at a dinner in 2007, while a gay male staffer said Bauman asked about his sex life with his partner during professional interactions.

Staffers claimed they saw the chairman drink alcohol frequently during the work day, even though California Democratic Party rules prohibit alcohol consumption in the workplace or on official duties, the Times reported.

Other accusations include the chairman discussing which men he had sex with and mocking staff members about their sexual orientations and physical appearances numerous times.

The party’s vice chair, Daraka Larimore-Hall, referred to “a clear and escalating pattern of Chairman Bauman’s horrific and dehumanizing behavior” in a letter calling for Bauman’s resignation, the Times reported.

Bauman led the Los Angeles County Democratic Party from 2000 to 2017 before becoming the state’s party chairman.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Keith Birmingham/ZUMA Press/Newscom. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content,

VIDEO: Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% of the Time in Active-Shooter Events

FBI Inadvertently admits that good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns.

President of the Crime Prevention Research Center John Lott joins Dana Loesch with more on the study.


Kerry Picket: These 15 States Put the Most Illegal Guns on New Jersey’s Streets This Year

Mark Olivia: National Shooting Sports Foundation Pledges $100,000 For Program Aimed At Recruiting New Shooters

The Incoming Congress May Look Diverse, but Diversity of Thought Is Dwindling

The headlines about the incoming 116th Congress scream that our representation has never been so “young,” so “blue,” so “diverse.”

If diversity is about how people look, this Congress is very diverse. It’s a fact that there has never been so great a number of representatives who are women and people of color. There are 124 women, 55 blacks, 43 Latinos, and 15 Asians.

But if diversity means diversity of thought, it’s practically nonexistent.

Of the 124 women, 105 are Democrats. Of the 55 blacks, all are Democrats. Of the 43 Latinos, 34 are Democrats. Of the 15 Asians, 14 are Democrats.

The celebration about alleged diversity is really a celebration of one, uniform voice on the left, dressed in different colors, calling in unison for moving America further toward socialism and secular humanism.

All the politics of today’s Democratic Party, which is as far left as it has ever been, is about how people look and where they come from. Once we called this prejudice or stereotyping. Now we call it progressivism.

This is anything but Martin Luther King’s famous dream that his children would one day be judged by “the content of their character and not the color of their skin.”

It takes a certain blindness to miss the irony in these politicians of the left, who call for honoring and empowering individuals, and choose to do this by making them less free.

They claim to enhance individual dignity by expanding government to dictate our health care, how we save and retire, our relationship with our employer, how and what we can say to others and what they can say to us, and just about every detail of our private lives and decisions.

How has it become so lost in our country that the way we dignify individuals is by believing in them, by granting them freedom to take responsibility for their own life?

In this election, Republicans won a national majority only from white voters. Hispanics voted 69 percent for Democrats; blacks, 90 percent; and Asians, 77 percent.

Minority Americans have bought the lie that personal freedom is not in their interest—that government should run their lives. This is meaningful to us all because they represent the growth demographics of the nation.

According to recent analysis from the Brookings Institution, white America will be in the minority by 2045. However, by 2027, just eight years from now, the majority of Americans 29 and under will be non-white.

The socialists, the secular humanists, know time is on their side. It’s a waiting game for them.

The new Democrat House has only one thing in mind—biding its time to inflict maximum damage on President Donald Trump in order to lay the groundwork for whomever it nominates for president in 2020. So expect a very noisy two years.

What can Republicans do? Get far more aggressive in reaching into these minority communities about what losing or gaining freedom will mean to them. Republicans have a very important story to tell that is not reaching these communities.

Countries that are not free don’t grow, because all the activity is about transferring wealth—not creating it.

The progressive politics of blame, dependence, and envy make the well-connected rich and keep impoverished people poor. It’s why over the last 50 years, many black politicians have gotten wealthy while the gap in average household income between whites and blacks is 50 percent greater today than it was in 1970.

Republicans and all Americans who care about bequeathing a free nation to their children and grandchildren need to think long and hard about how to communicate the importance of freedom to Americans of color.

It’s our only hope of not losing our country to the left forever.



Portrait of Star Parker

Star Parker is a columnist for The Daily Signal and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Religion of Leftism

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/Newscom.

Mr. Trump, Shut Down That Government!

Once again, we find ourselves in the midst of a political game of chicken between competing views for the future of our country.  And once again, the ones who are stuck in the middle are the American people.

This time, the battle of wills is over the funding of the wall to our southern border.  President Trump wants $5 billion allocated to the wall’s construction.  The Democrats, on the other hand, have said they are wiling to commit $1.6 billion to the wall, and not a penny more.

In the meantime, the nation is being exposed to the reality of an immigration crisis Democrats and the mainstream media said did not exist and now vainly argue is due to the President’s new policies on immigration.

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear; the only reason we find ourselves in the midst of an immigration crisis of this magnitude is because of the decades of ineptitude and incompetence by Congress in not providing the resources and personnel needed to definitively seal the border.

Enter President Donald J. Trump.  President Trump has been one of the few ferocious advocates for border control.  One of his central and most important planks to his platform is the building of the border wall and the definitive eradication of illegal immigration.  In fact, a Harvard/Harris poll from August 1, 2018, showed that 76% of the American people want border security, and with the impact of the images and goings-on related to the Central American caravan, that number has likely crept up even higher.

Amazingly, the Republican members of Congress who are now entering the waning days of their control of all three steeples of power do not seem to have the resolve to push a $5 billion allocation for border wall funding to the president’s desk. The purported reasons are as varied as they are hollow.  We can’t afford it they say.  Walls are a terrible way to maintain security, and there are other, more effective ways of securing our border.

No one is saying that the border wall should be built at the expense of not funding other complementary measures of promoting border security.  Quite the opposite, Congress should be funding every possible avenue designed to help ensure the security and safety of America’s borders.  Why the Republican-led Congress cannot get a bill to the president’s desk designing and funding a permanent, virtually impenetrable solution for our border security inclusive of the construction of an effective wall against southern migrants defies reality.

In the meantime, President Trump, who is one of the few who understands the gravity of this situation, has demonstrated his resolve to see the implementation of effective border security policy by expressing his willingness shutdown the government if the wall is not funded.  The response by some has been to dare him to do it.

Just like during the Obama administration, opponents and members of the swamp have predicted that the earth will end and the skies will rain down fire and fury if the federal government is allowed to go unfunded even for ten minutes. Unfortunately for the doomsayers, we have already seen that the negative effects of shutting down the federal government are not that terrible.  As a matter of fact, about the most visible consequence of the last shutdown was President Obama’s vengeful closure of the World War II memorial in Washington, D.C., at the same time that a group of Honor Flight participants arrived to be honored for their incredible, patriotic service during World War II.

Recognizing that the consequences of a government shutdown are not as harrowing as the swamp and the mainstream media would like us to believe, the next fear-mongering argument to be made is the threat of a political meltdown.  Here again, the doomsayers are wrong.

First, let us recall that the one who closed the government during the Obama era was the Republican Congress.  If anything, even if we were to accept the doomsayers’ political fallout prediction, it was Congress that lost against the President, a fact that actually favors President Trump.

Moreover, as opposed to the shutdown during the Obama administration where the issue was spending, the overwhelming majority of the American public side with the President on immigration reform, and enthusiastically so.  No reasonable observer can cast aspersions to the President’s position on immigration and the urgency with which the issue needs to be definitively resolved.  If a confrontation were to take place, it is the President who is in the position of strength on this issue and positioned to gain.

President Trump is right on immigration, and he should demand cooperation from the Congress, even if enforcing his demand results in a government shutdown.  In the end, he will win, and more importantly, so will the American people.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Won’t Be the One to Finally Make Socialism Work

The recently elected lawmaker supposedly has the capabilities to team up with Bernie Sanders and bring about socialism that will not result in a loss of liberties or drive whole societies into poverty—or at least, that is what progressives believe.

I receive near-daily emails from The Nation, the hard-left publication that has never acknowledged a communist atrocity nor recognized any socialist failure. From what I can tell, the editors are downright giddy, as they see socialism in the USA on the rise, with the bookends of the elderly Bernie Sanders on one side and the camera-friendly Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the other, both ably promoting socialism to a new generation of people ready to overthrow the alleged chains of capitalism.

My many writings on Bernie Sanders do not need anything new to add. If his past association with groups supporting the murderous and violent Leon Trotsky and Che Guevera do not discredit him with the modern media, then nothing will, and no further exposé of his utterly flawed worldview will change any minds or educate an adoring media that refuses to recognize the evils of totalitarianism.

In the end, however, Ocasio-Cortez presents a different challenge. First, and most important in this media age, she is photogenic, and that matters in a media-dominated world. Second, and even more important, she is photogenic and is a leftist, which means the media will not give her the Sarah Palin treatment for being both pretty and ditzy—even as she makes claims such as the unemployment rate is low “because everyone is working two jobs.” (Yes, she really said that.) Palin, as one might remember, was a popular governor in Alaska before her fateful plunge into the John McCain shark tank, which means she at least had some previous success in governing, unlike Ocasio-Cortez, who is a political neophyte. That means she can appear on The Late Show with Stephen Colbertsay something utterly inane, and still garner applause and not have to face much media scrutiny for her remarks. Palin never had that luxury.

The lack of media accountability for Ocasio-Cortez is not due to temporary amnesia among American journalists; these people are true believers when it comes to socialism, and especially its political cousin: democratic socialism. As I have written before, electing economic “planners” via majority votes solves none of the intractable problems of economic calculation that Ludwig von Mises pointed out nearly a century ago. The term “democratic” does not suddenly allow the moribund doctrines of socialism to come alive and actually make sense. However, to most American journalists, “democratic” covers a multitude of errors and magically transforms socialism into something it never has been.

When one steps back and takes a broader look at the Ocasio-Cortez phenomenon—the belief that a political rookie somehow can transform socialism, a system known for failure and repression, into paradise just by her sheer force of presence—one must better understand the current intellectual landscape that progressives have created. We are seeing a huge clash of visions and worldviews, not to mention a difference in the interpretation of what we see (or don’t see) in front of us.

As one who has been part of the libertarian and free-market world for nearly four decades (my first Freeman article was published in 1981), I have adopted the economic viewpoint that a market economy is a marvel of interdependent actions involving millions of people and billions of prices that produce goods that meet our needs and make our lives better. What people have been able to accomplish in the pursuit of profit truly is amazing, and one of the results—lifting billions of people out of absolute poverty—is an accomplishment that no one who took part actually intended to happen. I see how a price system works and agree with F.A. Hayek that it cannot be the result of “deliberate human design,” but rather, allows humans to advance civilization while trying to advance their own interests.

That last part is utterly contradictory to progressives who believe, as did Jeremy Bentham, that there is no “natural” harmony of human interests, but rather, that human advancement only can come through the imposition of “artificial” constructs placed before us by Really Intelligent People (like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, both of whom fully accept the Benthamite paradigm). Progressives believe that civilization is advanced—and also retreats—through abrupt changes brought about by leaders, both good and bad.

Stiglitz and Krugman, for example, believe that through the New Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt crafted a near-magical economic system that “created the middle class,” reduced economic inequality (which supposedly eliminates a “cause” of boom and bust cycles), and raised the overall standard of living. Not surprisingly, Stiglitz taught for many years at Columbia University, which had also employed many members of the FDR “Brain Trust” of Really Intelligent People who allegedly had all (or most) of the answers on how to organize the world.

According to the progressives, the New Deal, with its organization of much of the economy into a series of regulated cartels and emphasis on organizing labor, brought the nation into ever-increasing circles of prosperity. (That unemployment remained well in double-digits all through the 1930s is irrelevant to progressives.) The FDR-created economic success steamed nearly unabated through the 1970s. Suddenly out of nowhere, they argue, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher leaped onto the scene and shattered the ring of prosperity, peddling the snake oil of “free markets.” The masses believed this nonsense (despite the fact, at least according to progressives, that the economies of the USA and UK were doing just fine) and elected these charlatans who then imposed total, untrammeled free enterprise and got rid of the entire regulatory structure. The results, claim Stiglitz and Krugman, were obvious: economic inequality, a declining standard of living, and a general worsening of life for all but the 1 percent who actually benefited from capital accumulation.

It does no good to present the statistics that say otherwise, that point out how living standards in this country have risen greatly in the past four decades, that consumer choices have exploded, and that billions of people worldwide have risen from absolute poverty because of the growth of private enterprise. Narratives are narratives. Either progressives deny there has been progress, or they claim that any progress is due to pockets of socialism and government planning. A price system, according to Stiglitz, works only under “perfect competition,” and, as everyone knows, there is no such thing as perfect competition. Thus, by definition, only government by Really Intelligent People and sheer force can make an economy work correctly.

That is the progressive world that supports Ocasio-Cortez. It is a narrative-driven world that holds that if the people in power exert enough political will, they can impose a socialist regime that will perform better than what we see in places like Cuba, North Korea, or Venezuela. (And I should point out that progressives over the years have held up these very places as regimes to emulate.) If one brings up the requirement of profits and losses, free prices, and private property that are necessary for economic calculation, they simply reply that they have a better path and that that relies on democratic election, putting Really Intelligent People into power, determining the “needs of society,” and then using “incentives” (negative and positive) to direct people toward the actions deemed necessary by the Really Intelligent People to meet social needs. In the process of directing resources toward their highest social values (as determined by the Really Intelligent People), all workers will be well-paid and be employed in socially meaningful work that gives them significance and is non-exploitative. All it takes is political will to implement paradise.

Because Ocasio-Cortez is relatively young and attractive and is also committed to socialism, she supposedly has the capabilities to team up with Bernie Sanders and bring about socialism that will not result in a loss of liberties or drive whole societies into poverty—or at least, that is what progressives believe. The reason she can do this is that she is young, attractive, connects with her audiences, and is committed to socialism. Oh, and despite her inane statement on why unemployment is low, she is a Really Intelligent Person, something that is obvious because she is young, photogenic, and committed to the socialist cause.

The other world characterized by scarcity, incomplete knowledge, uncertainty, and opportunity cost is nonexistent in Ocasio-Cortez’s world. These terms are mere ruses invented by capitalists in order to trick workers into being exploited. Scarcity is an artificial construct created by monopolies to impose predatory capitalism and force people into poverty. Progressives believe that we are not lacking resources or the means to use them toward productive ends, but rather, our society—and especially our political institutions—lack the necessary political will, and that is because the economists who have supported the plutocrats have painted a false picture of the economy.

Trying to explain economics to progressives is like trying to explain how a satellite orbits the planet to a flat-earth believer. Someone who believes that the Diamond-Water Paradox is nothing more than a rhetorical trick is not going to believe that economic calculation has a role to play in the production and distribution of medical care, housing, food, or anything else a progressive claims to be a human right—or believe that an entire economy cannot be directed from a single office in Washington, DC.

It is doubly ironic that Ocasio-Cortez was an economics major at Boston University, although one doubts that the economics taught there would differ from the usual statism that dominates most college economics programs. One doubts that she intellectually internalized anything that would resemble price theory and certainly would not be able to identify anything resembling a shortage or surplus. That she will advocate for government intervention and the establishment of programs that almost certainly will lead to shortages should not be lost on anyone.

The editors of The Nation and The New York Times may have convinced themselves that a young woman with a pretty face can,  through sheer force of will, solve the problems that have bedeviled central planners for a century, but even though progressives may sincerely believe that economic laws don’t exist, that changes nothing. It is nothing more than another exercise in progressive arrogance. Bernie Sanders is not the “Keeper of the Secret” who can make socialism work. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not the “Keeper of the Secret” who can make socialism work. Joseph Stiglitz is not the “Keeper of the Secret” who can make socialism work. Paul Krugman is not the “Keeper of the Secret” who can make socialism work. There is no Keeper, no matter what American journalists tell us we are supposed to believe.

This article was reprinted from the Mises Institute.


William L. Anderson

William L. Anderson

Dr. William Anderson is Professor of Economics at Frostburg State University. He holds a Ph.D in Economics from, Auburn University, Economics. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

France’s Tax Revolt: What Separates the Yellow Vests from America’s Tea Party

At first glance, the French yellow vests and American Tea Party seem quite similar, but once you look closely, the resemblance disappears.

France is seeing large-scale protests against massive hikes in petrol prices, sparked by tax increases. Is the anti-tax uprising sustainable or bound to disappear?

In an effort to make its case on climate change, the government under French president Emmanuel Macron has significantly increased the TICPE, an acronym which stands for “interior tax on the consumption of energy products.” An increase of up to 12 percent is supposed to curb CO2 emissions and get the country on target to fulfill its objectives, set out in the Paris Climate Accord (which the United States has pulled out of under President Trump).

Petrol prices in the République, which were already much higher than in its neighboring countries, skyrocketed despite the current level of cheap oil. On a website set up by the French government in an effort to help consumers compare prices, this becomes very visible: in the Paris region, a liter of petrol can cost up to €1.90 ($2.15). For my American friends who may be less familiar with the metric system, that’s $8.13 per gallon.

As a result, the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) arose out of civil society. They aren’t associated with any political party, but they are surely angry, contesting sky-high taxation in France, and the political class is unwilling to listen to them. Protest marches often occur on motorways, where the yellow vests block the streets to get attention for their cause. The high-visibility security vests they wear are symbolic for a cry for help and a desperate attempt to gain attention. However, unannounced protests on motorways also had their price: one woman was killed, and hundreds injured in protests that were held on motorways not closed down by police.

Some protests have turned violent in city centers, where particularly large crowds are clashing with police forces.

“We shouldn’t underestimate the impact of these images of the Champs-Élysées […] with battle scenes that were broadcast by the media in France and abroad,” government spokesman Benjamin Griveaux told a news briefing. “Behind this anger there is obviously something deeper and which we must answer, because this anger, these anxieties have existed for a long time.”

President Macron reacted to the protest by calling for the rule of law to be protected. His government had already introduced a special energy subsidy for those in need, in order to cope with the tax. However, this hasn’t managed to stop the anger of the yellow vests, who are bound to continue their protests.

Uncoordinated and Unpolitical

The yellow vests aren’t a political movement, even though their requests are political. However, they risk being politicized by letting themselves be integrated into France’s party political movements. This isn’t new: political parties are mastering the art of undermining legitimate movements and claiming them for themselves. Both France’s far-left and far-right believe that the yellow vests could be an essential electoral boost to them before the impending European elections in this coming May.

But even if we assume that this movement manages to resist the attempts of being swallowed by either political side, what future can it have in such a tax-friendly country? The yellow vests are no Tea Party: they lack the structure and ideological backing that fueled the Tea Party.

The yellow vests are certainly fed up, but one thing would likely differentiate them from American conservatives: the Tea Party understood that in order to cut taxes, you need to cut spending. In France however, expectations to win just as many people over on the promise of cutting spending are grim.

When president Macron talked about “slackers,” “people who are nothing,” and an “unreformable country,” Politico called it an “arrogance problem.” Surely, passing an elite school and doing banking for Rothschild bears that risk. Be that as it may, the essential question is how reformable France really is. People arguing to cut taxes is a wonderful thing, but it also needs to be offset with the belief that the government isn’t here to solve all of your problems. We’re not hearing that from the yellow vests.

France’s far-right under Marine Le Pen also argues for considerable cuts in income taxes and other taxes, which has given some on the American right reason to believe Le Pen would qualify as a US conservative. There again, cutting taxes without cutting spending is just going to shift the problem to debt and inflationary policies.

If the yellow vests want to become a movement that has an actual voice in the process of reforming France, then it needs to be ideologically sound.

France should either cheer on the Paris Climate Accord for its great virtue or burn tires over sky-high petrol taxes introduced to curb carbon emissions. You can’t really have both.


Bill Wirtz

Bill Wirtz

Bill Wirtz is a Young Voices Advocate. His work has been featured in several outlets, including Newsweek, Rare, RealClear, CityAM, Le Monde and Le Figaro. He also works as a Policy Analyst for the Consumer Choice Center.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is taken from the YouTube video posted by Huffington Post France.

A Plea Against Communism From a Former Castro Lover.

Photo: Facebook

This morning, I received a message from my father-in-law.  It contained a link of a Spanish language Facebook post in a page named Habitante, which translates to “Inhabitant.”  The post appeared on April 8, 2018.  I was unable to confirm the authenticity and identity of Habitante, but his words and insights are so compelling and authentic, regardless of the author’s identity that I must share it with you today.

What follows is my translation of the post written by Habitante (In trying to stick to his message, I have, to the best of my abilities, not disturbed his grammar and paragraph structure).

Tell me if it does not fit the Democrats’ agenda.

Musings from a Cuban of 85 years of age who, at 30 years of age, adored Castro.

What is COMMUNISM and how does it function?

Here comes the overarching concept:

First, they promise you many beautiful things.  Equality, health, “free”, education, “free”, this “free”, that “free”, etc. etc.  EYE on the word FREE, this is the first lie from those communist demagogues.

After they assume power, they tell you that the opposition is your “enemy”, the gringos are your “enemies”, your family and friends on the right are your “enemies”, etc. etc.  EYE on the word ENEMIES.

They need a ghost enemy, first to polarize the people, then to divide families, and lastly to blame the “Yankee Imperialists” for every one of their failures.

Then they take your weapons with the one hand, and with the other, they give them to their sympathizers.  Then they nationalize the industries, take all the businesses, they tell you that you cannot sell your properties (your car, your house, etc.) nor may you open your own business.

Everything belongs to the state, or as they say, to “the people”.   They lower the salaries (only those of the professionals; the soldiers are “purchased” with higher salaries), because all those “free” services have to be paid and the payment comes out of your wages.  In other words, you earned 1000 now they give you 200.  The remaining 800 is for your “free” health and education. But with those 200 you can neither eat nor fix your house that time is deteriorating, nor your car, which is already old.  Then they subsidize your food and they give you a series of “accounts” where each month you can go to the grocery store and get 1 egg, 1 pound of potatoes, and . . . there is nothing else.

They cause hunger, the people no longer have time to innovate, nor money to invest, nor incentive to study.  Your time is employed “inventing”, devising ways to survive where there is famine, your children are malnourished, your buildings look like ruins, the people envy what little you can get, your brothers are exiles, your uncle is in prison because of political issues, your friends have disappeared, and you are left disillusioned.

Then comes the cruelest part.  It turns out that the government is officially “ATHEIST”.  The churches are off limits.  The bishops were expelled, the priests and the pastors were sent to a concentration camp, a type of modern day slavery.

You have spiritual needs, but there are no open temples, you cannot pray in public nor should you have a Bible in hand. Life has hit you hard (really communism was the one that knocked you out) and left you without goals or aspirations.

Communism hemorrhaged you, but worse, it took the spiritual part of you, that part which takes us beyond our ephemeral existence of flesh and bone, beyond the dust and the sad reality that surrounds us.

Everything was lost, the soul, the desires, the education, a complete corruption of all our values, of everything that makes us humans. THAT IS COMMUNISM. If you want to prove it, just study Cuban history.  Not the history that Castro tells you.  The real history without censorship.  Talk to the old people who saw the former Soviet Union, with those from East Germany.

You don’t have to go that far, ask the Venezuelans what they think of the socialist hand in the 21st century.  For that reason, my dear Latin American, I AM AND CONTINUE TO BE 100% ANTICOMMUNIST.  The problem is not the United States, the problem is your opportunistic dictator who sells you a utopic and failed philosophy.  Neither Castro, nor Che, nor Chavez are examples to be emulated.


Please do not erase this as doing so means you are bothered by having your friends read this in your wall, and in so doing becoming an accomplice of a certain reality!!!

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by Ross Sokolovski on Unsplash.

5 Key Themes at the First Lady’s Opioid Town Hall With Eric Bolling [+Video]

FLOTUS: ‘We Need to Change’ Arc of Opioid Crisis,

First lady Melania Trump welcomed media attention to how the administration is confronting the opioid drug crisis during her appearance Wednesday at a “town hall” on the subject at Liberty University.

That would be a change of approach, she said.

“I would like that they’re focused more on what we’re doing, and what we want to achieve, and spread awareness. It’s very important for the country and the whole world,” the first lady said of the news media.

Political commentator Eric Bolling, host of CRTV’s “America,” invited Trump to the town hall discussion, which also featured Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.

Pop singer Demi Lovato’s mother, Dianna De La Garza, was scheduled to appear but had to cancel. Lovato nearly died from an opioid overdose in July.

Family tragedy prompted Bolling to raise awareness of the opioid crisis and to look for solutions after his 19-year-old son Eric Chase died in September 2017 from an accidental overdose of Xanax laced with fentanyl.

“The fight against opioid deaths in America just took a turn for the better,” Bolling told The Daily Signal before the town hall. “There is no doubt in my mind that first lady Melania Trump joining me in this war on the deadliest health crisis to ever hit the United States will have a significant and positive effect.”

In a statement provided to The Daily Signal, the first lady’s communications director, Stephanie Grisham, said of Bolling:

The first lady has been inspired by his commitment to combating the opioid epidemic. To use his own personal family tragedy to help save lives is the epitome of strength and selflessness

Here are five big moments from Trump’s appearance and other portions of the town hall:

1. The First Family’s Compassion

After recounting the night he found out his son had died from opioids, Bolling reiterated that it was never his desire to become an “accidental expert.”

“I’ve made it my passion to talk to people, to talk to young people,” he told the students at the university n Lynchburg, Virginia.

Bolling said President Donald Trump and the first lady called him while he and his wife Adrienne were in Colorado to retrieve their son’s body.

The president, he said, told him: “I can’t imagine what you’re going through, but whatever you need we’ll take care of it.”

The Trumps called again on Thanksgiving last year to check in on the Bolling family and express their condolences.

2. The First Lady’s Motive

Melania Trump’s “Be Best” initiative aimed at American children has three prongs: general well-being, social media use, and opioid abuse.

Until recently, she has focused mainly on young mothers and babies afflicted with neonatal abstinence syndrome, which occurs when a baby is born addicted to opioids because of the mother’s use of the drugs while pregnant.

“When I took on opioid abuse as one of the pillars of my initiative Be Best, I did it with the goal of helping children of all ages,” Trump said.

The first lady commended the Bolling family for their activism in the wake of Eric Chase’s death:

It takes such a strength and grace to take the grief I know you and Adrienne deal with each day and use the loss of your son Eric as a catalyst for good. You honor him every day through the lives that you are saving. I am inspired by the work you are doing, and hope you know that my husband and his entire administration are committed to fighting the opioid epidemic.

And, Bolling asked, what about those red Christmas trees inside the White House that have drawn some criticism?

“We are in [the] 21st century, and everybody has a different taste. I think they look fantastic,” the first lady said with a laugh.

3. The Demographic Is Everybody

Azar, the president’s health and human services secretary, told the audience that addiction awareness is key.

The administration has released a series of public service ads in a campaign called “The Truth About Opioids.”

“Frankly, they ought to scare you,” Azar said of the ads.

Azar, who has a pharmaceutical background, said the targeted demographic is “everybody,” unfortunately, with nearly 133 Americans dying each day from opioids.

He did point out one optimistic statistic, saying that under the Trump administration, legal prescribing of opioids is down by 23 percent.

“The majority of people who become addicted to opioids today were prescribed a legal painkiller for wisdom teeth, a knee surgery, something like that,” Azar said.

4. A Pound of Fentanyl Can Cause 150,000 Deaths

Nielsen said the Department of Homeland Security is focused on stopping illicit drugs from coming across the border, including on ships or airplanes.

She singled out fentanyl, one of the most dangerous opioids on the streets.

“The most difficult part to get at is most of the fentanyl is still coming from China through the mail,” Nielsen said.

The president signed legislation called the Synthetics Trafficking and Overdose Prevention (STOP) Act, which gives the U.S. Postal Service the ability to prescreen international shipments for illegal substances.

To help private mail companies such as FedEx or UPS, homeland security officials use the agency’s National Targeting Center to spot shipping patterns that seem off. China also has cooperated by providing advance information about shipments so the department can better target resources.

5. Getting Rid of the Stigma

The first lady also addressed a major obstacle in the battle.

“We must commit to removing the stigma of shame that comes with addiction and helping change public opinion, so that people find evidence-based treatment before it is too late,” she cautioned.

It’s a sentiment that Bolling has shared and discussed in depth over the past year.

Addiction “is not a moral failing, it is a medical issue,” Azar said.


Portrait of Ginny Montalbano

Ginny Montalbano

Ginny Montalbano is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Ginny. Twitter: @GinnyMontalbano.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Douliery Olivier/Abaca/Sipa USA/Newscom.

Podcast: A Homeschooling Mom Shares Why, and How

Where do you begin if you’re thinking about homeschooling? Can you do it if you’re not a teacher? And how can you make sure your kids get enough socialization? We’re joined by a special guest, Colleen Trinko—yes, Kate’s mom! Colleen, who is a teacher, homeschooled her five children for many years, and now works with other homeschool families to advise. Plus: A feminist is kicked off Twitter, seemingly for saying “Men aren’t women.”

We also cover these stories:

  • President Donald Trump is now threatening additional tariffs on cars in response to General Motors Co.’s announcement of layoffs and plant closings.
  • Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says there’s no “direct reporting” linking the Saudi crown prince to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
  • In an interview, Ivanka Trump made the case for why her use of a personal email was not at all the same as what Hillary Clinton had done.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunesSoundCloudGoogle Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at Enjoy the show!


Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcast. She is also a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcastSend an email to Daniel. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and podcast is republished with permission. Photo: Ingram Publishing/Newscom.