Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Wednesday, February 12, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 544)

Passengers embrace each other at the entrance to Istanbul's Ataturk airport, early Wednesday, June 29, 2016 following their evacuation after a blast. Suspected Islamic State group extremists have hit the international terminal of Istanbul's Ataturk airport, killing dozens of people and wounding many others, Turkish officials said Tuesday. Turkish authorities have banned distribution of images relating to the Ataturk airport attack within Turkey. (AP Photo/Emrah Gurel)

Passengers embrace each other at the entrance to Istanbul’s Ataturk airport, early Wednesday, June 29, 2016 following their evacuation after a blast. Suspected Islamic State group extremists have hit the international terminal of Istanbul’s Ataturk airport, killing dozens of people and wounding many others, Turkish officials said Tuesday. Turkish authorities have banned distribution of images relating to the Ataturk airport attack within Turkey. (AP Photo/Emrah Gurel)

Turkish officials claim to have “strong evidence” that the terrorists behind the Istanbul airport attack came to the country from the Islamic State (ISIS) stronghold of Raqqa, Syria. Multiple sources claim that the group’s leadership, including a Chechen terrorist responsible for training Russian-speaking militants for ISIS, was involved in the planning of the attack that killed at least 43 and wounded an estimated 230 more.

Turkish government officials publicly announced Thursday they arrested 22 people in connection with the terrorist attack on the Istanbul airport. An official told PPD that “the attackers behind Tuesday’s shootings and suicide bombings were from Russia, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan.” Akhmed Chatayev was identified on a U.N. sanctions list as an ISIS leader and was wanted by Russian authorities. Chatayev had been wanted for links to terrorism since 2008.

Still, the nationality of the attackers does not disprove Turkish officials’ claims. Former Soviet satellite states, particularly Chechnya and Uzbekistan, have produced some of the most dangerous and well-trained battalions in the ISIS army, one of which is called the Uzbek battalion.

Sources told PPD that the attackers rented an apartment in the Fatih district of Istanbul and one of them left his passport behind before the attack. They said the evidence shows the attackers entered Turkey roughly a month ago from Raqqa, though strangely claimed they did so with the suicide vests and bombs used in the Istanbul airport attack.

ISIS previously jumped to claim responsibility for the attacks like the one that killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, which was out of character for the group. That raises the question as to why has the group stayed silent on the attack in Istanbul? By avoiding any claim of responsibility, ISIS forces Ankara to consider the possibility that its longtime Kurdish adversaries are responsible.

That could lead to Turkey’s ramping up its military campaign against the Kurds who are fighting — and making gains against — the Islamic State in northern Syria. The Islamic State seeks to exploit this fissure between Kurds and Turks to advance its agenda, said a U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a statement following the terror attack that it “will not divide or split our country,” adding the attackers committing the act proved they are not really Muslims by conducting it during the final days of the holy month of Ramadan shows the terrorists had no regard for faith or values.

“This is not Islamic. Taking one person’s life means going straight to hell,” he added. “No terrorist organization will come between what we are.”

However, the truth is that Turkey, a NATO member and once staunch ally in the War on Terror, has moved markedly toward Islamic supremacy in recent years. Following the Paris terror attacks, Turkish citizens attending a soccer game booed during a moment of silence for the victims, following up their boos with shouts of “Allah Akbar.”

Meanwhile, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Brennan said the attack in Istanbul “certainly bears the hallmarks of ISIL’s depravity.” However, he would “be surprised if Daesh is not trying to carry out that kind of attack in the United States,” using an alternate name for ISIS commonly and tellingly used by members of the Obama administration.

Turkish officials claim to have "strong evidence"

London-Mayor-Boris-Johnson

London Mayor Boris Johnson talks to journalists about his decision to oppose Prime Minister David Cameron on EU plan. (Photo: Chris Ratcliffe/Getty Images)

Boris Johnson, the former London mayor and leader of the successful Leave campaign (Brexit) in the United Kingdom, has decided not to run for prime minister. Mr. Johnson removed himself from the running for the prime ministership Thursday, the top position in the Conservative party.

The contest was sparked after Prime Minister David Cameron, an opponent of Brexit, announced he would resign following the UK European Union referendum result. Despite the polls, the British people voted 52% to 48% to leave the EU.

“Having consulted colleagues and in view of the circumstances in parliament, I have concluded that person cannot be me,” Johnson said, speaking from a London hotel. “My role will be to give every possible support to the next Conservative administration to make sure that we properly fulfil the mandate of the people that was delivered at the referendum and to champion the agenda that I believe in, to stick up for the forgotten people of this country.”

The decision leaves Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom and former Defense Secretary Liam Fox–who campaigned to leave the EU–and Work and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabb, who was for the Remain side. Nigel Farage, the leader of the UKIP and long-standing leader of the Brexit movement, obviously is not in the race.

Here’s the full list of candidates below, via the BBC:

Home Secretary Theresa May: The 59-year-old is the bookies’ favourite to win the contest. She’s held the Home Office brief – often something of a poisoned chalice – since 2010, and is a former Tory party chairman. She says she can offer the “strong leadership” and unity the UK needs, and promised a “positive vision” for the country’s future. She backed staying in the EU.

Justice Secretary Michael Gove: The 48-year-old former newspaper columnist was a key figure in the party’s modernisation that led to its return to power in 2010. He was a reforming, if controversial, education secretary between 2010 and 2014, and now holds the Ministry of Justice brief. He was a leading player in the Brexit campaign – which put a strain on his close friendship with David Cameron. He has pitched himself as the candidate that can provide “unity and change.”

Work and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabb: The 43-year-old was promoted to the cabinet in 2014 as Welsh secretary, and boosted his profile earlier this year when he took over as work and pensions secretary. A rising star of the Tory party he has promised to unite the party and country following the referendum result and provide stability. Raised on a council estate by a single mother, he has a back story to which many Tory MPs are attracted. Backed Remain.

Energy minister Andrea Leadsom: The 53-year-old former banker and fund manager was one of the stars of the Leave campaign. A former district councillor, she became MP for South Northamptonshire in 2010 and – after serving as a junior Treasury minister and as a member of the Treasury select committee – she was made a junior minister in the energy and climate change department in May last year.

Former cabinet minister Liam Fox: It’s second time around for the 54-year-old ex-defence secretary and GP, who came a close third in the 2005 leadership contest. His cabinet career was cut short in 2011 when he resigned following a lobbying row. A Brexit campaigner, and on the right of the party, he has said whoever becomes PM must accept “the instruction” of the British people and not “try to backslide” over EU membership.


Worth noting, Mr. Gove–who is painting himself as the candidate that will offer “unity and change” and helped deliver the Brexit result–was expected to back Mr. Johnson for the post. But he surprisingly said he decided concluded that “Boris cannot provide the leadership or build the team for the task ahead.”

Also worth noting, David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and George Osborne all grew up together–personally and politically–and their families were all very close. However, the EU referendum ripped some of those old loyalties, particularly when Mr. Johnson decided to back Brexit despite Prime Minister Cameron’s objections.

Boris Johnson, the former London mayor and

gowdy-clinton-emails

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, says he doesn’t trust Hillary Clinton, right, and her lawyers to delete private emails.

When Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, her approval ratings hit an all-time high. Republican luminaries Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, John McCain — the list goes on — all sang her praises.

Then she ran for president.

The applause stopped, and the Republican opposition searched for a scandal, real or made-up, to pin on her. They landed on the terrorist attacks that cost the lives of an ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Clinton was to be blamed for the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2012.

As Democrats have noted, the Republican-run probes into the Benghazi fiasco have gone on longer than did the inquiries into the Sept. 11, 2001, assault, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the assassination of John F. Kennedy. But they’re meant to go on. That’s the whole point of them.

The House Republicans’ “final” report on Benghazi contains no new dope on Clinton, but the authors don’t need “new.” They’re looking for repetition. Spread the innuendo often and thick enough and a good chunk of the public will believe it.

Thanks to their efforts, the word “Benghazi” has become an incantation no longer attached to details. Even some Bernie Sanders liberals picked up on it, using “What about Benghazi?” as a talking point against Clinton. (Sanders himself did not.)

The latest report has about 800 pages of almost nothing not already reported. That did not preclude two Republican reps, Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mike Pompeo of Kansas, from writing a 48-page addendum taking extra swipes at the Obama administration.

The report failed to counter the most salient fact in Clinton’s defense. The U.S. military in Europe could not have reached Benghazi in time to save the Americans.

Was there adequate security at the American compound in Benghazi? Obviously not. That was the conclusion of an independent report led by retired diplomat Thomas Pickering and Adm. Michael Mullen. Though highly critical of the State Department’s security arrangements, they laid blame on lower-level officials rather than on Clinton. That wasn’t what the partisans wanted. Not at all.

They were peddling the ludicrous notion that the secretary of state personally manages the security of every U.S. embassy and consulate in the world. That’s like saying the CEO of Wal-Mart was to blame for two deaths when a tornado hit a store in Joplin, Missouri. (Wal-Mart was sued over that, by the way.)

American diplomats operate in the more unstable corners of the earth. That’s their job. The brave men and women who take on these dangerous assignments accept the risks. They are a lot like soldiers, except they generally don’t get to sleep in defended military bases.

Such harsh realities were swept aside, for there were politics to be played. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy spilled the beans in a regrettable interview last September. “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?” the California Republican said. “But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today?”
Hillary Clinton is not a Teflon politician. Things stick to her. But what Clinton lacks in Teflon, she has in cast iron.

Last October, her Benghazi tormentors subjected her to eight hours of televised hearings. This followed seven previous investigations. Point is, Clinton never cracked. The latest report may have taken a bite out of the U.S. paper supply, but one doubts it will put another dent in Clinton.

Will House Republicans ever stop flogging their conspiracy theories about Clinton and Benghazi? They most definitely will, and we know the date. It will be Nov. 9, the day after the election.

Read the other side’s case with the argument made by Judge Andrew Napolitano

Read the latest on the story

Last October, her Benghazi tormentors subjected her

Hillary-Clinton-Benghazi-hearing

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton listens to a question as she testifies before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, in Washington, D.C., Oct. 22, 2015. Reuters

The 800-plus-page report of the House Select Committee on Benghazi was released earlier this week. It slams former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her willful indifference to her obligation to repel military-style attacks on American interests and personnel at the U.S. Consulate and a nearby CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya. She particularly failed to save the lives of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues, all under her care and control while she was secretary of state.

The report also slams Clinton for her repeated lies about the cause of the attacks. After she told her daughter in an email that the Benghazi consulate had been attacked by an organized terrorist group using heavy military hardware, she told her colleagues at the State Department that the attacks were a spontaneous overreaction by locals to an American-made internet video about the Prophet Muhammad.

After telling that lie, she sent another email, this one to the Egyptian foreign minister, repeating what she had truthfully told her daughter.

The Obama administration then spread the “internet video-inspired” myth by dispatching Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., to repeat it to five Sunday morning American television talk shows. This was met with profound disbelief in the diplomatic and intelligence communities. Yet, still unwilling to acknowledge the truth publicly, Clinton then retold the myth to the families of the four dead Americans in the presence of their loved ones’ bodies as the bodies were being reverently removed from a U.S. transfer plane at Joint Base Andrews.

What does all this say of the character of Clinton? How cold and heartless is she? How can she expect voters to reward her with the presidency when she failed to lift a finger to save Americans and then she repeatedly lied in public about her failures — while being truthful about them in private?

Yet the committee’s report is incomplete and has aroused dissent from some Republican members of the committee. The essence of their dissent is that the unstated and unacknowledged but true mission of the committee was not to reveal facts but to conceal them. There is ample evidence to support their argument that Benghazi was the unintended consequence of Clinton’s private war against Libyan strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

Yet the report does not delve into that.

The war against Gadhafi was, of course, never declared by Congress. It was conceived by Clinton, approved by President Barack Obama and agreed to by leadership in both houses of Congress and from both major political parties. It was supposed to be the crown jewel of Clinton’s foreign policy stewardship — ousting the dictator, replacing him with a democracy, putting no American boots on the ground and avoiding American bloodshed.

As is often the case in war, particularly illegal ones and especially secret ones, there were unintended consequences. Here the consequences have been the destruction of the government of an American ally, the imposition of mob-ruled chaos in Libya, the empowerment of terror groups in the Middle East, the deaths of innocent American civilians, the rejection of the rule of law and the obfuscation of the truth.

One of those who signed off on this secret war was the person who appointed the committee and its senior staff with personal loyalists — former House Speaker John Boehner. Another is a former congressman whose wife personally prospered from all this by serving as the go-between in the delivery of military hardware from Western sources to terror groups on the ground.

The method of those who authorized the secret war was for Clinton to issue waivers — as the secretary of state may do — to the U.S., NATO and U.N. embargo of arms sales to Libya. What did this do? Instead of issuing waivers so as to permit arms to be sold to a friendly government, Clinton and her colleagues conspired to get arms into the hands of terrorist organizations masquerading as local militias. The CIA warned her about this, but she was indifferent to the warnings.

Those who signed off on this war and its methodology were arguably conspirators in an effort to provide material support to terrorist organizations by supplying them with military equipment, allegedly to be used to topple the Gadhafi government. That is a felony — and the beneficial or strategic use of the weapons is not a defense to the charge of providing them to terror groups.

How dangerous and reckless was Clinton? She ignored the CIA’s advice and let the weapons spread among deranged madmen and committed killers. Who in the intelligence community would work for her in light of this behavior? Ambassador Stevens and the others were killed by heavy military hardware that Clinton and her colleagues permitted to make its way into the hands of terror groups.

Though Clinton was the creator of the conspiracy and remained at its heart and hoped to ride it triumphantly into the White House — and though she bears more blame than any other conspirator — the committee’s work fails as a seeker of the whole truth.

The truth is that some of the committee’s congressional allies set in motion the awful events that led to the tragedy in Benghazi. The truth is that these people will probably escape accountability for their lawless behavior. The truth is that Congress knows that the president wages secret wars and it does nothing to stop them. The truth is that Hillary Clinton put her own political ambitions above fidelity to the rule of law and properly doing her job.

The truth is that the House Select Committee on Benghazi concealed more truth than it revealed. Yet the government is supposed to work for us. Aren’t we entitled to know what the government has done in our names?

[brid video=”43806″ player=”2077″ title=”Rep. Jim Jordan (ROH) explains what happened in Benghazi”]

There is ample evidence in the House

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, left, and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, right, give economic policy speeches in Pennsylvania and Ohio, respectively. (Photos: AP)

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, left, and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, right, give economic policy speeches in Pennsylvania and Ohio, respectively. (Photos: AP)

Democrat Hillary Clinton has lost her national lead against Republican Donald Trump in the latest [content_tooltip id=”38038″ title=”Quinnipiac University (Q-Poll)”] released Wednesday. Mrs. Clinton has 42% to Mr. Trump’s 40% – “too close to call – “as American voters say neither candidate would be a good president and that the campaign has increased hatred and prejudice in the nation (61%),” according to Quinnipiac University.

Women back Mrs. Clinton by a 50% – 33% margin while men back Trump 47% – 34%. White voters back Mr. Trump 47% – 34%; black voters go for Mrs. Clinton 91% – 1% and Hispanic voters back her 50% – 33%. That latter margin among Hispanics is actually showing Mr. Trump performing better than Gov. Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee and vocal critic.

“It would be difficult to imagine a less flattering from-the-gut reaction to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. “This is where we are. Voters find themselves in the middle of a mean-spirited, scorched earth campaign between two candidates they don’t like. And they don’t think either candidate would be a good president.”

Looking at who would best handle important issues, American voters say:

  • 52 – 40 percent that Trump would be better creating jobs;
  • 50 – 45 percent that Clinton would be better handling immigration;
  • 52 – 39 percent that Trump would be more effective handling ISIS;
  • 51 – 42 percent that Clinton would better respond to an international crisis;
  • 46 percent would trust Clinton more on sending U.S. troops overseas, while 44 percent would trust Trump more;
  • 54 – 35 percent would trust Clinton more to make the right decisions regarding nuclear weapons;
  • 46 – 43 percent that Clinton would do a better job getting things done in Washington.

Registered voters say 58% to 33% that Mrs. Clinton is better prepared to be president than Mr. Trump. But voters also say 45% to 37% that Mr. Trump is more honest and trustworthy and 49% to 43% that he is a stronger leader.

“The matchup numbers say ‘tie’ and Trump is perceived as a job creator. But Clinton is seen as better prepared for the top job, better in an international crisis, managing immigration, making Washington functional, and keeping the nuclear codes under lock and key,” Malloy said.

Worth noting, the poll is of registered voters and, according to aggregate data, likely voters are more inclined to back Mr. Trump, who enjoys a significant excitement edge. Still, PPD’s senior political analyst said neither side should put too much stock in early numbers.

“Pre-Labor Day polls have little predictive value,” said R. D. Baris, who also heads up PPD’s election projection model. “There are findings both sides can tout and boast about, but what is notable is Mrs. Clinton’s continued weakness among white voters following a month that was not at all favorable to Mr. Trump. The conversation usually surrounds a Republican candidate’s support among minorities, but Mr. Trump is doing well enough among Hispanics that Mrs. Clinton needs to win more than 34% of the white vote, or she will lose. Plain and simple.”

Nevertheless, he also noted that Mr. Trump has got to consolidate Republicans in the suburbs if he hopes to win, too many of which polling data indicates are still questioning his ability to handle the job. Mrs. Clinton still holds a 5-point lead on the PPD average of three-way match-ups between her, Mr. Trump and Libertarian nominee Gov. Gary Johnson.

From June 21 – 27, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,610 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.4 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.

Democrat Hillary Clinton has lost her national

Presumptive nominees Donald J. Trump, left, and Hillary R. Clinton in New York AP

Presumptive nominees Donald J. Trump, left, and Hillary R. Clinton, right, give victory speeches on Tuesday, June 7, 2016, in New York. (Photos: AP)

It’s not easy being a libertarian, especially in election years.

  • Do you choose not to vote because you either reject your choices or even the entire principle of majoritarianism?
  • Do you vote for the Libertarian Party even though that historically is nothing more than an ineffective way of sending a message?
  • Or do you strategically cast a vote for a major-party candidate, fully aware that such a person inevitably will be a disappointment in office?

If you’re normally in the last category, 2016 will be especially difficult.

Let’s start with Trump. On the positive side, he’s proposed a good package of tax cuts. And he’s…….ummm……..errrr……well……(scratch head)……

Actually, in terms of specifics rather than rhetoric, the tax cut is about the only market-oriented policy he’s embraced.

On the negative side, he’s a big fan of protectionism, and that’s definitely not a recipe for prosperity. And he’s rejected much-need reforms to entitlement programs, which therefore makes his big tax cut totally unrealistic.

But mostly it’s impossible to know what he really thinks for the simple reason that he probably doesn’t have deep thoughts about public policy (look at his flailing response to the question of debt). Even when he’s been specific, does anyone think he’s philosophically committed to what he has said while campaigning?

So, my assessment, as explained in this interview with Neil Cavuto, is that Trump is a grenade that will explode in an unpredictable fashion.

[brid video=”43917″ player=”2077″ title=”Dan Mitchell Commenting on the Political Meaning of Trump”]

So if you’re a libertarian and you choose to vote for Trump, just be forewarned that you’ll probably be standing next to the grenade when it explodes.

So what about the alternative? Is there a libertarian argument for Hillary Clinton (other than the fact that she’s not Trump)? Can a politician who has spent decades promoting cronyism and redistributionism actually deliver good policy?

Her husband actually did a good job when he was in the White House, but you can probably sense from this debate with Juan Williams on the Stossel show, I’m not overflowing with optimism that she also would preside over a shift to better policy.

[brid video=”43919″ player=”2077″ title=”Dan Mitchell Debating Hillarynomics on Stossel”]

Here are a few additional thoughts on my debate with Juan.

Keynesian economics doesn’t work, either in theory or in reality. And it’s laughable that the excuse for Keynesian failure is always that politicians should have spent more money.

Entitlements will cripple America’s economy if left on auto-pilot. I’ve repeatedly made the point that we’re like Greece 10 or 15 years ago. By claiming at the time that there was no crisis, Greek politicians ensured that a crisis eventually would occur. The same thing is happening here.

I’m skeptical about the claim that climate change is a crisis, but a revenue-neutral carbon tax is the most sensible approach if action genuinely is required. But the left prefers sure-to-fail (but very lucrative to cronies)industrial policy.

Government can help create conditions for prosperity by providing core public goods like rule of law, but that only requires a very small public sector, not the bloated Leviathans that exist today.

I’d be delighted to have a woman as President if she had the same principles and judgement as Margaret Thatcher. To be colloquial, that ain’t a description of Hillary Clinton.

Last but not least, I was rhetorically correct but technically wrong about welfare dependency in Hong Kong. I said fewer than 3 percent of Hong Kong residents get public assistance when I should have said that Hong Kong spends less than 3 percent of GDP on redistribution. That’s an amazingly small welfare state, but it does ensnare about 5.5 percent of the population. Which if far lower than the share of the population getting handouts in America, so my point was still very much correct.

Not that any of this matters in the short run since there’s a 99.9 percent probability that America’s next President will be perfectly content to let the country sink further into the swamp of statism.

Are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton the

California's gun-buying capital

Redding Vice mayor and the owner of a gun shop Patrick Jones, right, shows a customer, John Robinson of Redding a shotgun in his store, February 19, 2013. Shasta County has the highest per-capita rate of gun background checks, indicating attempts to buy firearms, of any county in California, which has some of the nation’s strictest gun laws. (Photo: Dai Sugano/San Jose Mercury News/MCT)

While I dismiss conspiracy theories that presume there’s a plan in Washington to strip away our rights, I do think there’s a natural “public choice” explanation for ever-growing, ever-more powerful government. And that can lead to ever-expanding examples of abusive mistreatment of citizens.

If you don’t believe me, just ask people like Andy Johnson, Anthony Smelley, the Hammond family, Charlie Engle, Tammy Cooper, Nancy Black, Russ Caswell, Jacques Wajsfelner, Jeff Councelller, Eric Garner,Martha Boneta, Carole Hinders, Salvatore Culosi, and James Lieto, as well as the Sierra Pacific Company and the entire Meitev family.

Here’s something else to worry about, especially considering the way citizens are increasingly mistreated by callous officials.

Former Senator Tom Coburn, along with Adam Andrzejewski of OpenTheBooks.com, wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal about the militarization of the bureaucracy.

Special agents at the IRS equipped with AR-15 military-style rifles? Health and Human Services “Special Office of Inspector General Agents” being trained by the Army’s Special Forces contractors? The Department of Veterans Affairs arming 3,700 employees? The number of non-Defense Department federal officers authorized to make arrests and carry firearms (200,000) now exceeds the number of U.S. Marines (182,000). In its escalating arms and ammo stockpiling, this federal arms race is unlike anything in history. Over the last 20 years, the number of these federal officers with arrest-and-firearm authority has nearly tripled to over 200,000 today, from 74,500 in 1996. …During a nine-year period through 2014, we found, 67 agencies unaffiliated with the Department of Defense spent $1.48 billion on guns and ammo. Of that total, $335.1 million was spent by agencies traditionally viewed as regulatory or administrative, such as the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Mint.

Here are some of the strange example of militarized bureaucracy, along with my speculation as to why the paper pushers ostensibly need heavy weapons.

The Internal Revenue Service, which has 2,316 special agents, spent nearly $11 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment. That’s nearly $5,000 in gear for each agent.

Perhaps the IRS bureaucrats expected Tea Party groups to fight back after they were suppressed to help Obama’s reelection?

The Department of Veterans Affairs, which has 3,700 law-enforcement officers guarding and securing VA medical centers, spent $11.66 million. It spent more than $200,000 on night-vision equipment, $2.3 million for body armor, more than $2 million on guns, and $3.6 million for ammunition. The VA employed no officers with firearm authorization as recently as 1995.

Were the VA bureaucrats worried that angry veterans who were put on secret waiting lists might get violent instead of simply dying?

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service spent $4.77 million purchasing shotguns, .308 caliber rifles, night-vision goggles, propane cannons, liquid explosives, pyro supplies, buckshot, LP gas cannons, drones, remote-control helicopters, thermal cameras, military waterproof thermal infrared scopes and more.

I don’t even know what propane cannons and LP gas cannons are, but they sound almost as awesome as a tank, so why not get them if taxpayers are footing the bill?

The Environmental Protection Agency spent $3.1 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment. The EPA has put nearly $800 million since 2005 into its “Criminal Enforcement Division.”

Is the EPA’s assault on illegal ponds really that dangerous?

The Food and Drug Administration employs 183 heavily armed “special agents.”

What’s the point of having milk police if they aren’t well armed?

The University of California, Berkeley acquired 14 5.56mm assault rifles and Yale University police accepted 20 5.56mm assault rifles from the Defense Department. Texas Southern University and Saddleback College police even acquired Mine Resistant Vehicles (MRVs).

There are rumors that very dodgy characters sometimes show up on campuses, so who am I to question the need for heavy weapons?

And there are other bureaucracies to add to this list, which doesn’t make Corburn and Andrzejewski very happy.

Other paper-pushing federal agencies with firearm-and-arrest authority that have expanded their arsenals since 2006 include the Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, National Institute of Standards and Technology and many others. …the federal government has become a gun show that never adjourns. Taxpayers need to tell Washington that police powers belong primarily to cities and states, not the feds.

By the way, I have no objection to armed guards stationed at federal buildings. There are wackos out there. And I’m completely in favor of armed Energy Department officials guarding nuclear facilities.

But do we really need armed regulators interacting with the public?

Yes, bureaucrats occasionally have to deal with potentially dangerous people. And even if they’re enforcing rules that shouldn’t exist, I think they have every right to be protected. But in those rare instances, why not simply call up the local cops and ask for an escort? Would that really be asking too much?

Jeff Jacoby is similarly irked by the militarization of the bureaucracy. Here’s some of what he wrote for the Boston Globe.

…consider one domestic organization’s fearsome arsenal of military-style equipment. In the space of eight years, the group amassed a stockpile of pistols, shotguns, and semiautomatic rifles, along with ample supplies of ammunition, liquid explosives, gun scopes, and suppressors. In its cache as well are night-vision goggles, gas cannons, plus armored vests, drones, and surveillance equipment. Between 2006 and 2014, this organization spent nearly $4.8 million to arm itself. Yet its aggressive weapons buildup has drawn almost no public attention. …It is the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, an agency of the US Department of Agriculture, that has built up such a formidable collection of munitions. And far from being an outlier, it is one of dozens of federal agencies that spends lavishly on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment.

I guess the APHIS bureaucrats must run into ISIS terrorists. Or something like that.

But the more serious point, which Jeff astutely addresses, is whether militarized bureaucrats send the wrong message.

Between 2006 and 2014, the report shows, 67 federal bureaus, departments, offices, and services spent at least $1.48 billion on ammunition and materiel one might expect to find in the hands of SWAT teams, Special Forces soldiers — or terrorists. …the arms race has metastasized to federal agencies with strictly regulatory or administrative functions. The Internal Revenue Service, for example, now spends more than $1 million annually on firearms, ammunition, and military gear, double what it was spending a decade ago. Since 2006, the Department of Veterans Affairs — which has been sharply criticized for episodes of fatal incompetence in patient care — has poured nearly $11.7 million into guns and ammo. …Incredibly, there are now fewer US Marines than there are officers at federal administrative agencies with the authority to carry weapons and make arrests. …this federal arsenal alarms Adam Andrzejewski, the head of American Transparency’s OpenTheBooks.com, which researched and assembled the new report. “Just who,” he asks, “are the feds planning to battle?”

As I said at the start of this column, I don’t think bureaucrats are “planning to battle” anyone.

But I am concerned that a bloated government with vast and growing powers is a recipe for an ugly and unfortunate encounters.

Especially when we have a tax code and regulatory apparatus that make all of us criminals even when we’re trying to obey.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Dismissing conspiracy theories that presume there’s a

Movements such as Ban the Box are helping ex-convicts find jobs upon their release from prison. (Photo: AP)

Movements such as Ban the Box are helping ex-convicts find jobs upon their release from prison. (Photo: AP)

Just got out of jail? Odds are that within five years, you’ll get caught doing something illegal and go back to jail. This is bad for ex-cons, their victims, their families and America.

Some of these people, of course, are career criminals who ought to stay in jail. But most are people who deserve another chance. They are more likely to stay straight if they find work. Work gives people purpose. It fills the idle hours that get many people into trouble.

But America makes it extra hard for ex-cons to find work. Some states make it illegal.

Illinois bans ex-convicts from more than 118 professions.

I understand why people might not want ex-cons to be bank security guards or cops, but in many states (Illinois isn’t unusual) the list of forbidden jobs goes way beyond that.

The Illinois Policy Institute, a free-market group that tries to get these laws tossed out, reports that ex-cons must give up on trying to become a nurse, architect, interior designer, dancehall operator, teacher, dietician, acupuncturist, cosmetologist, buyer of slaughtered livestock, geologist, etc.

Why? Who cares if a livestock buyer or geologist once served time? If employers want to hire him, why tell them, “No”?

When Lisa Creason was 19, she tried to steal from a cash register at a Subway sandwich shop. She says she only stole because she needed food for her baby. Creason was caught and arrested, and she served a year in jail.

Twenty years later, Creason graduated from nursing school. But when she went to take the test that would allow her to get a nursing license, she learned that because she was once convicted of a “forcible felony,” her career path was impossible.

She said it felt as if the bureaucrats had told her: “I was meant to be in the ‘hood, meant to be on government assistance.”

This is not a good message.

“Lisa is a great example of someone who has changed her life,” said the Institute’s Kristina Rasmussen this week. “She is reformed. She wants to be a productive member of society.” It has been 20 years since Lisa committed her crime, “but government gets in the way of her pursuing her profession.”

The good news is “this year we got a bill passed and it will go to the governor. So there is hope for Lisa Creason.”

It’s hard to get rid of bad laws. It happens one reform at a time.

No one says that crimes these convicts committed don’t matter, but punishing them forever doesn’t help. Rasmussen said, “You went to jail, you paid your debt to society. Coming out, how are we going to treat you? Are we going to deny you work that keeps you and your family out of trouble … deny you that opportunity, and you turn either to a life of crime again or dependency?”

Why do states have so many restrictions? “There are two forces at work,” said Rasmussen. “One, government bureaucrats like being busybodies, deciding who gets to do what.” They think that makes the world safer.

But there’s another factor. “You have people who don’t welcome competition,” said Rasmussen. Existing businesses and unions don’t like newcomers on their turf. “Who’s easier to kick out of the pool of potential competitors than people just emerging out of the criminal justice system?”

Existing businesses — the insiders — fund politicians who pass rules that make it hard for newcomers to compete with them. The politicians convince themselves that their rules protect customers. But mostly, their rules protect the insiders.

But some competing businesses want to hire ex-cons, and when that works out, it’s good for the businesses, their customers and the ex-cons. A Chicago suburb diner called Felony Franks hires only ex-felons, its policy being “that once a person has paid their debt to society after being convicted of a crime, that he or she should have the same rights and opportunities as others.”

Of course, some ex-cons can be trusted while others cannot. But it’s important to let employers and customers make those calls — not a controlling, insider-protecting one-size-fits-all government.

[mybooktable book=”no-cant-government-fails-individuals-succeed” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Some convicted felons and unemployed ex-cons, of

[brid video=”43857″ player=”2077″ title=”Belgium Nigel Farage speaks to the European Parliament FULL SPEECH”]

UK Independence Party (UKIP) and Brexit leader Nigel Farage addressed the EU parliament after last week’s referendum in the U.K. to leave the European Union. Farage destroyed the globalist body for laughing at him for 17 years and slammed the bureaucratic, statist members of parliament because they “never had a proper job before.”

“When I came here 17 years ago and I said that I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the European Union, you all laughed at me – well, I have to say, you’re not laughing now, are you?” Farage mocked on Tuesday.

While he was met with boos in his 7-minute speech to the EU parliament, he also predicted the “UK would not be the last to leave the European Union.”

UK Independence Party (UKIP) and Brexit leader

[brid video=”43834″ player=”2077″ title=”Full Donald Trump Delivers Economic Policy Speech in Monessen PA (62816)”]

On Tuesday, June 28, Donald J. Trump delivered an economic policy speech at Alumisource Factory in Monessen, Pennsylvania. Mr. Trump slammed politicians for promoting globalization at the expense of American workers and vowed to rebuild the U.S. economy by fighting for fair trade.

Here are his full remarks [transcript]:

Thank you, everybody. Thank you so much. I greatly appreciate it.

And I’d like to thank the owner of the plant, Gabe and Gloria. You’re here someplace. Thank you.

I want to thank Rick Santorum, our senator, great senator for being here and for the endorsement. We really appreciate it. And I have to say, all of the amazing workers. Gabe said they are the most important. The amazing workers. And I know you have been through some very, very tough times, but we’re going to make it better and we’re going to make it better fast, OK? Just watch.

So today I’m going to talk about how to make America wealthy again. We have to do it. With 30-miles from Steel City, Pittsburgh played a central role in building our nation. The legacy of Pennsylvania steelworkers lives in the bridges, railways and skyscrapers that make up our a great American landscape.

But our workers’ loyalty was repaid, you know it better than anybody, with total betrayal. Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization, moving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas. Globalization has made the financial elite, who donate to politicians, very, very wealthy. I used to be one of them.

I hate to say it , but I used to be one. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache. When subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the politicians have proven, folks, have proven they do nothing.

For years, they watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our communities were plunged into Depression-level unemployment. Many of these areas have never recovered and never will unless I become president.

Then, they’re going to recover fast. Our politicians took away from the people their means of making a living and supporting their families. Skilled craftsmen and tradespeople and factory workers have seen the jobs they love shipped thousands and thousands of miles away.

Many Pennsylvania towns, once thriving and humming, are now in a state of total disrepair. This wave of globalization has wiped out totally, totally, our middle class. It does not have to be this way. We can turn it around and we can turn it around fast.

But if we are going to deliver real change, we’re going to have to reject the campaign of fear and intimidation being pursued by powerful corporations, media leaks and political dynasties. The people who rigged the system for their benefit will do anything and say anything to keep things exactly the way they are.

The people who rigged the system are supporting Hillary Clinton because they know as long as she is in charge, nothing is going to change. The inner cities will remain poor. The factories will remain closed. The borders will remain open. The special interests will remain firmly in control. Hillary Clinton and her friends in global finance want to scare America into thinking small.

And they want to scare the American people out of voting for the better future. And you have a great future, folks. You gave a great future. These people have given her tens of millions of dollars. My campaign has the absolute opposite message. I want you to imagine a much better life and a life where you can believe in the American dream again. Right now, you can’t do that.

I want you to imagine how much better our future can be if we declare independence from the elites who led us from one financial and foreign policy disaster to another. Our friends in Britain recently voted to take back control of their economy, politics and borders.

I was on the right side of that issue, as you know, with the people. I was there. I said it was going to happen, I felt it. While Hillary, as always, stood with the elites and both she and President Obama predicted that one, and many others, totally wrong.

Now, it’s time for the American people to take back their future. Going to take it back.

That’s the choice that we face. We can either give into Hillary Clinton’s campaign of fear or we can choose to believe again in America.

Very sadly, we lost our way when we stopped believing in our country. America became the world’s dominant economy by becoming the world’s dominant producer. You know that from right here, right in this plant.

The wealth this created was shared broadly, creating the biggest middle-class the world has ever known. But then, America changed its policy from promoting development in America — in, in, in America — to promoting development in other nations. That’s what’s happening and that’s what’s happened.

We allowed foreign countries to subsidize their goods, devalue their currencies, violate their agreements and cheat in every way imaginable, and our politicians did nothing about it. Trillions of our dollars and millions of our jobs flowed overseas as a result. I have visited cities and towns across this country where one-third or even half of manufacturing jobs have been wiped out in the last 20 years. Today, we import nearly $800 billion more in goods than we export. We can’t continue to do that. This is not some natural disaster, it’s a political and politician-made disaster. Very simple. And it can be corrected and we can correct it fast when we have people with the right thinking. Right up here. It is the consequence… It is the consequence of a leadership class that worships globalism over Americanism. This is a direct affront to our founding fathers, who — America wanted to be strong. They wanted this country to be strong. They wanted to be independent and they wanted it to be free.

Our founding fathers understood trade much better than our current politicians, believe me.

George Washington said that the promotion of domestic manufacturing will be among the first consequences to flow from an energetic government. Alexander Hamilton spoke frequently of the expediency of encouraging manufacturing in, in, in the United States.

And listen to this. The first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, warned that, quote, “the abandonment of the protective policy by the American government will produce want and ruin among our people.” He understood it much better than our current politicians, that’s why he was Abraham Lincoln, I guess.

Our original Constitution did not even have an income tax. Instead, it had tariffs emphasizing taxation of foreign, not domestic, production.

Yet today, 240 years after the Revolution, we’ve turned things completely upside down. We tax and regulate and restrict our companies to death and then we allow foreign countries that cheat to export their goods to us tax-free. How stupid is this? How could it happen? How stupid is this?

As a result, we have become more dependent on foreign countries than ever before. Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to declare our economic independence once again. That means…

That means voting for Donald Trump.

I’ll do it. No doubt about it. Not even a little doubt. It also means reversing two of the worst legacies of the Clinton years. America has lost nearly 1/3 of its manufacturing jobs since 1997. Even as the country has increased its population, think of this, by 50 million people. At the center of this catastrophe are two trade deals pushed by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

First, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or the disaster called NAFTA. Second, China’s entry into the World Trade Organization. NAFTA was the worst trade deal in the history – it’s like – the history of this country. And China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization has enabled the greatest job theft in the history of our country.

It was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA. People don’t remember. In 1993. And Hillary Clinton who supported it. And the havoc that it wreaked after he left office was unbelievable. It was also Bill Clinton who lobbied for China’s disastrous entry into the World Trade Organization, and Hillary Clinton who backed that terrible, terrible agreement.

Then as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton stood by idly while China cheated on its currency, added another trillion dollars to the trade deficit, and stole hundreds of billions of dollars in our intellectual property.

And I have been talking about China for many years. And you know what? Nobody listened. But they are listening now. That, I can tell you.

The city of Pittsburgh and the state of Pennsylvania have lost 1/3 of their manufacturing jobs since the Clinton’s put China into the WTO. 50,000 factories across America have shut their doors in that time. And this factory, because of your great owners, Gabe and Gloria, it’s hanging in. Hanging in. But they just told me, it is not easy.

Almost half of our entire manufacturing trade deficit in goods with the world is the result and it’s the result of trade with China. It was also Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, who shoved us into a job-killing deal with South Korea, as reported by the Economic Policy Institute in May . This deal doubled our trade deficit with South Korea and destroyed nearly 100,000 American jobs.

As Bernie Sanders said, Hillary Clinton voted for virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions, millions of jobs.

Trade reform and the negotiation of great trade deals is the quickest way to bring our jobs back to our country.

To understand why trade reform creates jobs, and it creates a lot of them, we need to understand how all nations grow and prosper. Massive trade deficits subtract directly from our gross domestic product. From 1947 to 2001, a span of over five decades, our inflation-adjusted Gross Domestic Product grew at a rate of 3.5 percent. However, since 2002, the year after we fully opened our markets to Chinese imports, the GDP growth rate has been cut in half.

But is this mean for Americans? Not good. For every 1 percent of GDP growth, we failed to generate in any given year, we failed to create over one million jobs.

What a waste, and what a sad, sad thing.

American’s job creation deficit, due to slower growth since 2002, is well over 20 million jobs. And that is just about the number of jobs our country needs right now to put America back to work at decent wages. Wages are very low, because there is no competition. And they are going to go up, because we’re going to thrive again as a country.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the greatest danger yet. The TPP, as it is known, would be the death blow for American manufacturing. It would give up all of our economic leverage to an international commission that would put the interests of foreign countries above our own. It would further open our markets to aggressive currency cheaters — cheaters, that’s what they are, cheaters.

They are not playing by the rules. They are cheating. It would make it easier for our trading competitors to ship cheap subsidized goods into United States markets, while allowing foreign countries to continue putting up barriers in front of our exports — which is what they do. It is very hard to export to their countries. They make it very difficult.

We, on the other hand — come on in, everybody. Come on in. Bad leadership.

The TPP would lower tariffs would lower tariffs on foreign cars, while leaving in place the foreign practices that keep American cars from being sold overseas.

That is not all, mark my words. China will enter the TPP through the back door at a later date. They are watching, they are studying. They are not in it now, but are going to be in it. If it is good, they will be there.

By the way, if it is no good, they’ll pass. It’s the same way, always is.

The agreement would also force American workers to compete directly against workers from Vietnam, one of the lowest wage countries on Earth. Not only will the TPP undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence.

That’s what is happening. The TPP creates a new international commission that makes decisions the American people are no longer given the right to veto. These commissions are great for Hillary’s Wall Street funders, who can spend vast amounts of money to influence the people on the commissions and the outcomes.

It should be no surprise, then, that Hillary Clinton, according to Bloomberg, took a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Please remember that, especially in November.

She praised or pushed the TPP on 45 separate occasions, and even called it the gold standard. Hillary Clinton was totally for the TPP just a short while ago.

But when she saw my stance — which is totally against — she was shamed into saying she would be against it, too. And I will tell you, it was the same shame that she had recently where she was sort of forced into saying radical “Islamic terrorism,” which she didn’t want to say, but she was shamed into that.

But have no doubt that she will immediately approve it, if it is put before her. And that is guaranteed. Guaranteed.

She will do this, just as she has betrayed American workers for Wall Street and throughout — throughout her career. Her whole career she has betrayed the American worker. She is trying to put on a good front now, she will betray you again.

Her career and her husband have signed so many disasters and never, ever forget NAFTA. Just never ever forget it, because you know what it’s done and I know what it’s done. And in touring, I’ve seen the devastation that it’s left behind.

Here’s how it would go. She would make a small token change, declare the TPP Pact fixed and ram it through and you will suffer. That is why Hillary is now only saying she has problems with TPP in its current form.

You know what that means. That means like they will make a little two-word change and she will fix it and she will feel great. But she says in its current form, she can rush to embrace it again and she will at the earliest opportunity. If the media doesn’t believe me, I have a challenge for you and Hillary. Ask Hillary if she is willing to withdraw from the TPP her first day in office and unconditionally rule out its passage in any form.

There’s no way to fix TPP. We need bilateral trade deals. We do not need to enter into another massive international agreement that ties us up and binds us down, like TPP does.

A Trump administration will change our failed trade policies, and I mean quickly.

Thank you. Here are seven steps I would pursue right away to bring back our jobs. Number one, I am going to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has not yet been ratified.

I am going to appoint the toughest and smartest, and I know them all, trade negotiators to fight on behalf of American workers.

I am going to direct the secretary of commerce to identify every violation of trade agreements a foreign country is currently using to harm you, the American worker.

I will then direct all appropriate agencies to use every tool under American and international law to end these abuses. And abuse is the right word.

Number four. I’m going to tell our NAFTA partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal by a lot. Not just a little, by a lot for our workers.

And if they don’t agree to a renegotiation, which they might not because they are so used to having their own way — not with Trump they won’t have their own way.

Then, I will submit under Article 2205 of the NAFTA Agreement that America intends to withdraw from the deal.

Number five. I’m going to instruct my treasury secretary to label China a currency manipulator, which should have been done years ago.

Any country that devalues their currency in order to take unfair advantage of the United States, which is many countries, will be met with sharply. And that includes tariffs and taxes.

Number six, I’m going to instruct the U.S. trade representative to bring trade cases against China, both in this country and at the WTO.

China’s unfair subsidy behavior is prohibited by the terms of its entrance to the WTO and I intend to enforce those rules and regulations. And basically, I intend to enforce the agreements from all countries, including China.

Seven, if China does not stop its illegal activities, including its theft of American trade secrets, I will use every lawful — this is very easy. This is so easy. I love saying this. I will use every lawful presidential power to remedy trade disputes, including the application of tariffs consistent with Section 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

And when they say trade expansion, they’re talking about other countries, they’re not talking about us because there is no expansion. They get the expansion, we get the joblessness. That’s the way it works. It’s not going to happen anymore.

President Reagan deployed similar trade measures when motorcycle and semiconductor imports threatened U.S. industry. I remember. His tariff on Japanese motorcycles was 45 percent and his tariff to shield America’s semiconductor industry was 100 percent, and that had a big impact, folks. A big impact.

Hillary Clinton and her campaign of fear will try to spread the lie that these actions will start a trade war. You already have a trade war, and we’re losing badly. Badly.

She has it completely backwards. Hillary Clinton unleashed a trade war against the American worker when she supported one terrible deal after another, from NAFTA, to China to South Korea. It doesn’t matter. No matter where she went, the American worker was hurt and you’ll be hurt worse than ever before if she becomes president of the United States. That, I can tell you.

A Trump administration will end that war by getting a fair deal for the American people and the American worker. The era of economic surrender will finally be over. It will be over. You’re not going to see it anymore. Well, I can’t guarantee it, because after me, they’ll probably start doing it again. But we will have four and maybe eight great, great productive years and we’ll never go back and we’ll make sure we never go back.

Thank you. Thank you, very much. Thank you. Thank you very much, everyone. I appreciate it.

A new era of prosperity will finally begin. America will be independent once more. Independent once more. Doesn’t that sound great?

Under a Trump presidency, the American worker will finally have a president who will protect them and fight for them.

We will stand up to trade cheating. Cheating. Cheaters, that’s what they are. Cheaters. We will stand up to trade cheating anywhere and everywhere it threatens the American job.

We will make America the best place in the world to start a business. We’ll hire workers and we’ll open factories and we’ll get rid of these horrible regulations that make it impossible to do business in this country.

This will also include massive tax reform to lift the crushing burdens on American workers and businesses. We will also get rid of all of these rules and all of these problems and all of the bureaucracy which are destroying, absolutely destroying our job creation capacity, which we used to be the best in the world and now we’re getting close to the bottom, folks. We’re getting close to the bottom.

Many people think that these regulations are an even greater impediment than the fact that we’re one of the highest-taxed nations in the world. We’re also going to fully capture America’s tremendous energy capacity. This will create for our workers, and that’s what we want, for our workers, growth for our economy, and begin reducing our budget deficits which are massive; yearly budget deficits, massive.

Our trade deficits, we don’t even want to talk about it. Our budget deficits are massive.

Hillary Clinton wants to shut down energy production and shut down the mines — and she wants to shut down and she said it just recently — she wants to shut down the miners. I want to do exactly the opposite.

A Trump administration will also ensure that we start using American steel for American infrastructure. And aluminum.

Just like the American steel from Pennsylvania that built the Empire State Building, that’s what we’re going to do. It built the Empire State Building. It will be American steel that will fortify America’s crumbling bridges — American steel. It will be American steel.

It will be American steel that sends our skyscrapers soaring, soaring into the sky, beautiful sight, more beautiful with American steel. It will be American steel that rebuilds our inner cities. It will be American hand (ph) that remake this country, and it will American energy mined from American resources, that powers this country.

It will be American workers who are hired to do the job. Nobody else — American workers.

We are going to put American steel and aluminum back into the backbone of our country.

This alone will create massive numbers of jobs, high-paying jobs, good jobs, not the jobs we have today, which everybody agrees are bad jobs. We’re going to create massive numbers of good jobs.

On trade, on immigration, on foreign policy, we are going to put America first again.

We are going to make America wealthy again.

We are going to reject Hillary Clinton’s policy of fear and her policy of absolute nonsense, because it’s not working and it’s grossly incompetent, and we can’t take it any longer, and we’re not going to take it any longer.

We are going to embrace the possibilities of change, but real change, not Obama change, real change.

It’s time to believe in the future. It’s time to believe in each other. It’s time to believe in America again. This is how we are going to make America great again for all Americans, for all Americans.

We’re going to make America great again for everyone, greater than ever before. And I promise you if I become president, we are going to be working again. We are going to have great jobs again. You’re going to be so happy. You’re going to be proud of your president. You’re going to be proud, proud, proud of our country once again.

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much.

On Tuesday, June 28, Donald J. Trump

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial