Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Wednesday, February 12, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 545)

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign stop, Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at Alumisource, a metals recycling facility in Monessen, Pa. (Photo: AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign stop, Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at Alumisource, a metals recycling facility in Monessen, Pa. (Photo: AP)

Donald Trump, during his economic policy speech Tuesday at the Alumisource Factory in Monessen, Pennsylvania, slammed politicians for promoting globalization at the expense of American workers. He vowed to rebuild the U.S. economy by fighting for fair trade.

He detailed his plan to renegotiate global trade rules and revitalize the American economy.

“Hillary Clinton unleashed a trade war against the American worker when she supported one terrible trade deal after another – from NAFTA to China to South Korea,” Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee said. “A Trump Administration will end that war by getting a fair deal for the American people. The era of economic surrender will finally be over.”

Mr. Trump said the middle class collapsed because of failed policies from Washington, D.C. that only benefit politicians, not the American people. It’s a message that has put the Keystone State, among other Rust Belt states once the center of a manufacturing giant, in play for the first time since 1984 and 1988. For instance, in Luzerne County, which has closely tracked with the statewide vote in the last four presidential elections, Mr. Trump leads Mrs. Clinton by 17 points.

“Skilled craftsmen and tradespeople and factory workers have seen the jobs they loved shipped thousands of miles away,” he said. “Many Pennsylvania towns once thriving and humming are now in a state despair. This wave of globalization has wiped out our middle class.”

During the primaries, voters on both sides of the aisle said free trade hurt the U.S. economy and took more jobs away from than it provided to American workers. Mr. Trump, who championed fair trade over free trade, said “TPP would be the death blow” to the American worker.

“Not only will the TPP undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence,” he added, citing the bureacracies and commissions that would override American legislation. “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.”

Mrs. Clinton was an adamant supporter of the TPP for years until the politics turned South during the primary season.

WATCH: Donald Trump’s Economic Speech in Monessen, Pennsylvania

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.

During his economic policy speech in Monessen,

florida health care plans

Source: ADAM/WHO (Photo: BBC)

Gainesville, Fla. – The Florida Department of Health confirmed a Haitian national who immigrated solely to give birth did so to the first baby born with Zika-related microcephaly in the state. The mother was infected with the Zika virus in Haiti before she was allowed to travel to the United States, specifically the state of Florida.

While officials would not disclose the hospital or location where the woman gave birth. Gov. Rick Scott and Florida Surgeon General Celeste Philip were at a Zika roundtable discussion in Palm Beach County on Tuesday. However, the Department of Health confirmed there were previously two other Zika-related microcephaly births already in the U.S., one occurring in Hawaii and another in New Jersey.

“I’ve asked the CDC to do another phone call with all of our health care providers so they can continue to educate the public,” Gov. Scott said. “You heard just in our conversation here: the most important thing is all of us are responsible. We’ve got to get rid of the standing water so we don’t have these mosquitoes breed in our yard or anywhere we are. If we can stop the mosquitoes, we can make sure that we don’t have an expansion of more Zika cases in our state.”

But a growing number of citizens and groups are arguing the wrong conversation is taking place. The Zika Virus cases in dispute, and related symptoms and conditions, aren’t being contracted locally or within the Continental United States (CONUS).

There are zero locally acquired mosquito-borne cases reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Travel-associated cases reported account for 819 of the 820 total, including 11 being sexually transmitted, with the other being laboratory acquired. Locally acquired cases reported in U.S. territories have now reached 1,854.

Microcephaly is a neurological condition where a baby’s head is much smaller than expected and can occur because a baby’s brain has not developed properly during pregnancy or has stopped growing after birth, which results in a smaller head size. As a lifelong condition, there is no known cure or standard treatment for microcephaly.

Babies born with the disease have a series of lifelong problems, including developmental delay, intellectual disability, problems with movement and balance, hearing loss and vision problems. All of the problems require significant treatments as it relates to the cost of health care, which the U.S. taxpayer will have to pick up.

Meanwhile, the Zika virus typically causes a mild rash, fever and joint pain. While only one in five people infected with the virus are symptomatic, the virus can cause serious problems for pregnant women. Florida health officials said Tuesday there have been 227 confirmed travel-related Zika virus cases in the state, including 40 pregnant women. Miami-Dade County leads the state with 65 confirmed cases.

“CDC recommends that women who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant postpone travel to Zika affected areas,” the DOH said in a statement Tuesday. “According to CDC guidance, providers should consider testing all pregnant women with a history of travel to a Zika affected area for the virus. CDC also recommends that a pregnant woman with a history of Zika virus and her provider should consider additional ultrasounds.”

As PPD has previously reported, multiple Democratic lawmakers in Congress have attempted to hold up the Zika Virus bill in the House and Senate in order to force a vote on gun control or an amendment providing more funding for immigrant and refugee settlement in the state. Gov. Scott has attempted to block the Syrian refugee program on national security grounds.

The Florida Department of Health confirmed a

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

In a press conference on June 28, 2016, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Hillary Clinton deliberately misled the public on Benghazi. While explaining his view of what happened leading up to, during and after the night of September 11, 2012 when four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi, Libya from a terrorist attack, Rep. Jordan explained how Mrs. Clinton knew the YouTube story was a fabrication.

“At 10:08 that night with Tyrone Woods still on the roof of the annex fighting for his life, Secretary Clinton issues this statement; the official statement on Benghazi; the official statement of our government,” Rep. Jordan said. “‘Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to this inflammatory material on the Internet.’ We know that statement was misleading because an hour later she told her daughter ‘terrorists killed two of our people today’.”

Rep. Jordan’s joint report with Rep. Mike Pompeo released a 48-page report further slamming the Obama administration, including the former secretary, for putting electoral politics above truth and honesty.

In the end, the administration’s efforts to impede the investigation succeeded, but only in part. The minority members’ and their staff’s efforts to impede the investigation succeeded also, but again only in part. And although we answered many questions, we could not do so completely. What we did find was a tragic failure of leadership—in the run up to the attack and the night of—and an administration that, so blinded by politics and its desire to win an election, disregarded a basic duty of government: Tell the people the truth. And for those reasons Benghazi is, and always will be, an American tragedy.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi for the report interviewed more than 80 witnesses not previously called before Congress to testify or the State Department Accountability Review Board, including Ben Rhodes, the president’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. Rhodes, who with political adviser David Plouffe, prepped then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for her shameful national TV appearances claiming the YouTube video was responsible for the terrorist attack.

As PPD previously reported, a Sept. 14, 2012 memo from Rhodes included the subject line: “RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.”

The Rhodes email served as a catalyst for the House Select Committee on Benghazi. It was first obtained by Judicial Watch through a federal court lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, but withheld when requested by Congress outside a federal judge’s power and jurisdiction.

In a press conference on June 28,

Gross-Domestic-Product-GDP-Reuters

File photo: Shipping cranes and containers at a U.S. port representing exports and imports factored in overall gross domestic product, or GDP. (Photo: REUTERS)

The Commerce Department said Tuesday its final reading on first-quarter gross domestic product (GDP) came in at a meager 1.1%, up slightly from previous estimates. The upward revision showed the U.S. economy grew at slightly more than the previously reported reading of 0.8%, and follows a meager growth rate of 1.4% in the fourth quarter.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected first-quarter GDP growth in the world’s largest economy would be revised up to a 1.0% rate. Despite repeated revisions to the methodology to calculate GDP, which is an effort by the government to paint a rosier economic picture, the economy has underperformed in the first quarter in five of the last six years. In fact, President Barack Obama is on track to become the weakest GDP president in modern history.

The Commerce Department said its final reading

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.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi report investigating the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attack finds fault with the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton. During the attack four Americans, two belonging to the diplomatic staff and two CIA contractors tasked with security–were killed.

The committee, which was headed up by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., blamed a “rusty bureaucratic process” that focused on crafting a public response to the attack rather than actually taking action to resolve the crisis. In a finding that directly questions the judgement of the former secretary of state, who is now the likely Democratic nominee, the Benghazi report slammed the repeated calls for additional security that went unanswered.

“Security deficiencies plagued the Benghazi Mission compound in the lead-up to September 2012.”

Those calls went unanswered. The full report released Tuesday follows another report put out by the Democrats on the committee that said security at the Benghazi, Libya facility was “woefully inadequate” but pardoned former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton personally. It denied her role in ignoring the requests from diplomats for additional protection. However, those requests were personally sent to her.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans–foreign service officer Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty–were killed in the attacks. The families of the victims have been publicly criticizing Mrs. Clinton, among other administration officials, for lying to them about the cause of the attack (the YouTube video) and the events that transpired over the 13 hours.

In response, Mrs. Clinton said during an interview with her former employee-turned-journalist George Stephanopolous that the families were lying about her statements in the days after the attack. She later walked back her claims, instead blaming the “fog of war” for her statements, which she now again denies making.

Nevertheless, the committee’s report took aim at the entire administration as it relates to pushing a narrative about the YouTube video. The report also found that the narrative surrounding a protest in the area mirroring events in the region was also falsely pushed and contrary to the evidence, including eyewitness testimony and accounts.

“None of the information coming directly from the agents on the ground in Benghazi during the attacks mentioned anything about a video or a protest. The firsthand accounts made their way to the office of the Secretary through multiple channels quickly,” the report found.

The report interviewed more than 80 witnesses not previously called before Congress to testify or the State Department Accountability Review Board, including Ben Rhodes, the president’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. Rhodes, who with political adviser David Plouffe, prepped then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for her shameful national TV appearances claiming the YouTube video was responsible for the terrorist attack.

As PPD previously reported, a Sept. 14, 2012 memo from Rhodes included the subject line: “RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.”

The Rhodes email served as a catalyst for the House Select Committee on Benghazi. It was first obtained by Judicial Watch through a federal court lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, but withheld when requested by Congress outside a federal judge’s power and jurisdiction.

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

The House Select Committee on Benghazi investigating

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump speaks in front of a lighthouse at Turnberry during a news conference. (Photo: Reuters)

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump speaks in front of a lighthouse at Turnberry during a news conference. (Photo: Reuters)

It is hard to deny that there is a worldwide impulse against elitism, globalism, unaccountable regulatory bureaucracies and illegal immigration that is powerfully present in the United States and transcends the Donald Trump candidacy.

The vote to leave the European Union won decisively in Britain, which doubtlessly shocked the elites and political forecasters. Populist forces have also gained ground against former leftist strongholds in other parts of Europe.

Many attribute this trend to an uprising of working-class voters, who have been damaged by the global economy and ignored by elites. That certainly proved true in the Brexit vote, in which working-class areas voted to leave the EU while the establishment and mostly affluent voted to remain. Likewise, in the recent elections in Austria, conservatives gained ground among working-class voters who had aligned with Social Democrats a mere decade previously. The same patterns have emerged in Denmark and Germany.

So what does the Brexit vote portend for the 2016 presidential race in the United States?

It’s hard to deny that it’s relevant; there is simply too much evidence that there is a worldwide populist movement afoot. And though this by no means ensures a Trump victory in November, it is nevertheless encouraging news for him. Trump is still Trump, and his negatives are currently off the charts. But people would be foolish to count him out, for a host of reasons — including that he has a better chance in some of the battleground states than recent GOP candidates did, precisely because of his populist appeal.

Some say the GOP may have an even greater advantage with working-class voters here in the United States than conservative parties have with those voters in more secular nations, because social conservatism has long been a driving force with working-class evangelicals, especially in the South.

Now the additional concerns over declining national sovereignty and democratic rights could lead to a greater shift of working-class voters toward the right, even in the northern states. This could be more significant than one might imagine, considering recent evidence that northern working-class whites represent a larger share of the electorate than analysts of 2012 exit polls surmised. Even if social issues are losing some of their appeal nationwide, the growth of the populist movement more than counterbalances that.

One theory for this worldwide populist upheaval is that there is a disconnect between economic forces, which are global, and political processes, which are largely national. Economic pressures and coalitions (such as the EU) have effectively undermined the people’s political will, and people are now fighting back.

Some say parallels in the populist movements of Europe and the United States are overstated. They maintain that the populist movement in the United States is shaking its fist not at some foreign entity (at least not directly) but at a bipartisan elite in Congress, which is democratically elected. With Brexit, on the other hand, the British people flexed their muscles in favor of their national sovereignty and democratic self-governance and against the distant, unaccountable bureaucracy of the EU.

But I think these narrowly focused analysts are missing that the motivating force behind the populist movements in the United States and Europe is about liberty and self-governance, regardless of whether their respective adversaries are international bodies or domestic ones.

Though the American people elect their congressmen and president and these two branches appoint Supreme Court justices, there is an increasing decline in accountability. We have an unbridled regulatory state, which consolidates executive, legislative and judicial power and accounts to no one. We have a lawless president who does what he pleases, in direct contravention of Congress (and the people’s will). We have a Supreme Court that too often rubber-stamps these usurpations and judicially rewrites the Constitution, and we see far too much collusion among establishment members of both parties in Congress. Though the populist movement here is against Washington and not some foreign body, the governing elites are themselves undermining our national sovereignty and the American idea.

Far before the Brexit vote, we saw an uprising in the United States against an out-of-control federal government, establishment politicians and an unchecked federal regulatory state. The tea party and the Trump phenomenon, in similar and different ways, are manifestations of this public angst.

We are witnessing both a domestic and a worldwide popular uprising against the globalist left, and Donald Trump is the political beneficiary of that movement in the United States. He did not, however, initiate this movement in the United States, and whether or not he wins in November, this real and powerful force will survive the election.

I just pray that we can harness this angst in the right direction — pun intended — against tyranny and for limited government.
[mybooktable book=”the-emmaus-code-finding-jesus-in-the-old-testament” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

The populist vote to leave the European

Demonstrators hold up tents during a protest to demand city officials do more to help homeless people outside Super Bowl City, a pro-football's weeklong theme park near the famed Ferry Building in San Francisco on Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2016. Dozens protested what they say is San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee's plan to push homeless people out of the scenic bay-front Embarcadero, where Super Bowl festivities are being held. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

Demonstrators hold up tents during a protest to demand city officials do more to help homeless people outside the famed Ferry Building in San Francisco on Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2016.. (Photo: AP)

The homeless can be scary people. They may block sidewalks, curse passers-by and aggressively demand money. Or they can be just sad.

Growing homeless encampments are stressing cities across the country. Honolulu and Sarasota responded with stiff laws taking “vagrants” off the streets and out of public parks. South Carolina’s capital, Columbia, decided to give the homeless three choices. They can go to a shelter, get arrested or leave town.

Several approaches to dealing with this tough population are being tried. The wisest combine humane treatment with respect for the public’s right to use public space without having to step around bodies.
Some “advocates” oppose forcing the homeless off the streets. They accuse the new laws of “criminalizing homelessness” and trying to “hide poverty.”

What the advocates are doing, though, is turning the homeless into spectacle. Many are mentally ill, are addicted or have criminal records. They are not street theater.

One can’t ignore the reality that rising costs in hot housing markets have priced many locals out of their rentals. But as suggested above, the inability to find other accommodations is usually part of a larger constellation of personal problems.

Enlightened advocates applaud removing the homeless from the streets as a means of directing them to the services they need. Governments have an obligation to support such services.

An example. While recently waiting in a line at New York’s Port Authority Bus Terminal, I was hit by a harsh smell. Standing next to me was a disheveled man smiling sweetly. A social worker came by. She gently asked him whether he’d like to go with her and get cleaned up. He nodded, and they left together.

Of course, many of the homeless are far less docile. The infamous Jungle encampment in Seattle has become a scene of violence and other social mayhem. Law enforcement dreads going there.

That the homeless often prefer to live on the streets, as opposed to shelters, is not a reason to let them. Their objections range from hatred of rules to the inconvenience of being sent away every morning.

San Francisco has developed an interesting program to address some flaws in the shelter system. It created the Navigation Center as a kind of halfway house between a shelter and permanent housing. The “guests” can keep pets, store possessions and take showers. Case managers try to transition the residents into permanent housing while connecting them with health services, driver’s licenses and food stamps.

The Navigation Center has not been the perfect solution to the enormous challenge. Because its residents have been allowed to cut in line for permanent subsidized housing, the center has become wildly popular. The waiting list for admission is very long, and the most vulnerable people have the hardest time pushing their way in.

But this is how the homeless should be treated — with dignity and care but direction. Letting obviously dysfunctional humans live in their filth as a nod to some civil right is perverse. The Navigation Center concept is now being tried in Seattle, in New York and elsewhere.

There’s no point turning this into a class issue. Gentrification creates its own dislocations, for sure. But bringing jobs and tax dollars to downtowns with public transportation can’t help but provide a net benefit to those hurting economically.

For decades, urban neglect has left the poor isolated in rotting inner cities. Healthy city centers make the economic mainstream far more accessible to city dwellers.

Letting clusters — or virtual armies — of homeless people degrade the quality of civic life clearly serves no one. Fortunately, this is a problem that money can go a long way toward fixing. And that money must be found.

The homeless can be scary people, block

Abigail Fisher, right, with Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, left the Supreme Court in Washington after oral arguments in her case last December. Her case argued the University of Texas, Austin, had denied her admission based on her race. Credit J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

Abigail Fisher, right, with Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, left the Supreme Court in Washington after oral arguments in her case last December. Her case argued the University of Texas, Austin, had denied her admission based on her race. (Photo: Associated Press)

Last week the Supreme Court of the United States voted that President Obama exceeded his authority when he granted exemptions from the immigration laws passed by Congress.

But the Supreme Court also exceeded its own authority by granting the University of Texas an exemption from the Constitution’s requirement of “equal protection of the laws,” by voting that racial preferences for student admissions were legal.

Supreme Court decisions in affirmative action cases are the longest running fraud since the 1896 decision upholding racial segregation laws in the Jim Crow South, on grounds that “separate but equal” facilities were consistent with the Constitution. Everybody knew that those facilities were separate but by no means equal. Nevertheless, this charade lasted until 1954.

The Supreme Court’s affirmative action cases have now lasted since 1974 when, in the case of “DeFunis v. Odegaard,” the Court voted 5 to 4 that this particular case was moot, which spared the justices from having to vote on its merits.

While the 1896 “separate but equal” decision lasted 58 years, the Supreme Court’s affirmative action cases have now had 42 years of evasion, sophistry and fraud, with no end in sight.

One sign of the erosion of principles over the years is that even one of the Court’s most liberal judicial activists, Justice William O. Douglas, could not stomach affirmative action in 1974, and voted to condemn it, rather than declare the issue moot.

But now, in 2016, the supposedly conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the University of Texas’ racial preferences. Perhaps the atmosphere inside the Washington Beltway wears down opposition to affirmative action, much as water can eventually wear down rock and create the Grand Canyon.

We have heard much this year about the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of the great Justice Antonin Scalia — and rightly so. But there are two vacancies on the Supreme Court. The other vacancy is Anthony Kennedy.

The human tragedy, amid all the legal evasions and frauds is that, while many laws and policies sacrifice some people for the sake of other people, affirmative action manages to harm blacks, whites, Asians and others, even if in different ways.

Students who are kept out of a college because other students are admitted instead, under racial quotas, obviously lose opportunities they would otherwise have had.

But minority students admitted to institutions whose academic standards they do not meet are all too often needlessly turned into failures, even when they have the prerequisites for success in some other institution whose normal standards they do meet.

When black students who scored at the 90th percentile in math were admitted to M.I.T., where the other students scored at the 99th percentile, a significant number of black students failed to graduate there, even though they could have graduated with honors at most other academic institutions.

We do not have so many students with that kind of ability that we can afford to sacrifice them on the altar to political correctness.

Such negative consequences of mismatching minority students with institutions, for the sake of racial body count, have been documented in a number of studies, most notably “Mismatch,” a book by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., whose sub-title is: “How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It.”

When racial preferences in student admissions in the University of California system were banned, the number of black and Hispanic students in the system declined slightly, but the number actually graduating rose substantially. So did the number graduating with degrees in tough subjects like math, science and engineering.

But hard facts carry no such weight among politicians as magic words like “diversity” — a word repeated endlessly, without one speck of evidence to back up its sweeping claims of benefits. It too is part of the Supreme Court fraud, going back to a 1978 decision that seemingly banned racial quotas — unless the word “diversity” was used instead of “quotas.”

Seeming to ban racial preferences, while letting them continue under another name, was clever politically. But the last thing we need in Washington are nine more politicians, wearing judicial robes.
[mybooktable book=”wealth-poverty-and-politics-an-international-perspective” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action are

Francois Hollande

French television pool shows French President, Francois Hollande making an emergency broadcast Friday evening, Nov. 13, 2015.

The United Kingdom is getting a lot of attention because voters just chose to leave the European Union. I think this was the smart choice. Yes, there will be some short-run economic volatility, but the long-run benefits should make it worthwhile. Sort of like chemotherapy being painful, but still being much better than the alternative of cancer.

My main argument for Brexit was that the European Union is a sinking ship. The continent is in trouble because the bureaucrats in Brussels reflexively support centralization, bureaucratization, and harmonization.And it’s in trouble because most member governments support dirigiste policies on the national level.

Consider France. The country is so statist that even some folks from the establishment media have warnedthat government has too much power. Heck, even some of the people at the European Commission have complained that taxes are too high.

Perhaps most miraculously, there was even a column in the New York Times last month explaining how bad government policy is killing France’s job market.

It’s obvious that the current system isn’t working. …business owners are reluctant to hire employees, because it’s so complicated and expensive to fire them when times are bad. …times are pretty bad: France has 10 percent unemployment, roughly twice the levels in Germany and Britain. For young people, it’s around 24 percent. …While many other European countries have revamped their workplace rules, France has barely budged.

The most important thing to understand is that employers are extremely reluctant to hire full-time workers because it’s nearly impossible to fire them if they don’t do a good job or if the company hits hard times. And that translates into temporary jobs combined with lots of unemployment.

The Hollande government has proposed to tinker with this system.

The new labor bill — weakened after long negotiations — wouldn’t alter the bifurcated system, in which workers either get a permanent contract called a “contrat à durée indéterminée,” known as a C.D.I., or a short-term contract that can be renewed only once or twice. Almost all new jobs have the latter.

But even though the reforms are very timid, the French are protesting.

…it isn’t just unions that oppose the bill. So do more than 60 percent of the population, who fear the bill would strip workers of protections without fixing the problem. Young people took to the streets to oppose it, demanding C.D.I.s, too. Why are the French so wedded to a failing system? …they believe that a job is a basic right — guaranteed in the preamble to their Constitution — and that making it easier to fire people is an affront to that. Without a C.D.I., you’re considered naked before the indifferent forces of capitalism. …young protesters held a banner warning that they were the “génération précaire.”

Here’s the most amazing part of the story. The protesters think that a government-protected job is a rite of passage into adulthood. They want the “right to grow up,” even though their version of adulthood involves complete blindness to economic reality.

They were agitating for the right to grow up. …getting a permanent work contract is a rite of adulthood. Without one, it’s hard to get a mortgage or car loan, or rent an apartment. Mainstream economic arguments can’t compete. “Basic facts of economic science are completely dismissed,” said Étienne Wasmer, a labor economist at Sciences Po. “People don’t see that if you let employers take risks, they’ll hire more people.” Instead, many French people view the workplace as a zero-sum battle between workers and bosses.

The obvious answer is to dramatically reduce government intervention in labor markets. But since that’s a near impossibility in France, high levels of joblessness almost surely will continue and short-term employment contracts will be the norm for those who do manage to find work.

By the way, the system doesn’t even work that well for the workers with the government-protected positions.

Many workers here have permanent contracts that make it very hard to fire them. So some companies resort to an illegal strategy: They try to make someone so miserable, he’ll quit. “What happens next is, I’ll lose my team and my staff, and therefore I’ll have nothing to do,” the man predicted. “You still have to come to work every day, but you have no idea why.” …those lucky enough to have C.D.I.s can struggle at work. In one study, workers with C.D.I.s reported more stress than those with short-term contracts, in part because they felt trapped in their jobs. After all, where else would they get another permanent contract?

No wonder so many people in France want to work for the government. That way they can get lavish pay and benefits with very little pressure to perform.

In any case, the net result is that the French economy is stagnant. Potentially valuable labor (one of the two factors of production) is being sidelined or misallocated.

Writing for Market Watch, Diana Furchtgott-Roth shares her analysis of crazy French labor law.

…reforms are vital because the French economy is stagnant. GDP growth for the latest quarter was 0.6%. Over the past decade, growth has rarely risen above 1%. The unemployment rate is over 10% and the youth unemployment is 25%. Clearly tax and regulatory reform, including more labor flexibility, are needed to encourage employers to hire. …a French court this week ruled that Société Générale rogue trader Jérôme Kerviel, who lost $5.5 billion of the bank’s assets in 2008 and almost caused its bankruptcy, had been unfairly dismissed. Société Générale was ordered to pay Kerviel $511,000 because it decided he was dismissed “without cause.” …When employers cannot fire workers, they are less likely to hire them, leading to a sclerotic labor market and high unemployment. This is what the left-wing Hollande is trying to repair. …Some view France as a worker’s paradise where the government protects workers from abusive employers. The reality is that France is a worker’s nightmare where jobs are scarce and work ethic is prohibited by law.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is even more negative in his column for the U.K.-basedTelegraph.

An intractable economic crisis has been eating away at the legitimacy of the French governing elites for much of this decade. This has now combined with a collapse in the credibility of the government, and mounting anger… The revolt comes as Paris battles a wave of protest against labour reform, a push that has come close to rupturing the Socialist Party. The measures were rammed through by decree to avoid a vote. Scenes of guerrilla warfare with police on French streets have been a public relations disaster… Rail workers are demanding a maximum 32-hour week. Eric Dor from the IESEG School of Management in Lille says powerful vested interests have made France almost unreformable. …Dor said the labour reforms have been watered down and are a far cry from the Hartz IV laws in Germany in 2004, which made it easier to fire workers and screw down wages.

He points out that the damage of labor-market intervention is exacerbated by a wretched tax system (I’ve written that the national sport of France is taxation rather than soccer).

France’s social model is funded by punitively high taxes on labour. The unintended effect is to create a destructive ‘tax wedge’ that makes it too costly to hire new workers. It protects incumbents but penalizes outsiders, leading to a blighted banlieu culture of mass youth unemployment. There are 360 separate taxes, with 470 tax loopholes. The labour code has tripled… Public spending is 57pc of GDP, a Nordic level without Danish or Swedish levels of labour flexibility. Unemployment is still 10.2pc even at this late stage of the global cycle.

Given the various ways that government discourages employment, is anyone surprised that the French work less than any other nation in Europe? Here’s a blurb from a report in the EU Observer.

French put in the least working hours in the EU, according to the bloc’s statistical office Eurostat. Full-time workers in France clocked up 1,646 hours of labour last year.

By the way, there’s a tiny possibility of change.

There’s an election next year and one of the candidates has a platform that sounds vaguely like he wants to be the Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher of France.

Here are some of the details from a report by Reuters.

French presidential hopeful Alain Juppe, the frontrunner in opinion polls 20 years after serving as a deeply unpopular prime minister, said on Tuesday he would roll back France’s iconic 35-hour working week and scrap a wealth tax if elected next year. In the mid-1990s Juppe triggered France’s worst unrest in decades because he would not budge on pension reforms. He eventually had to drop them after weeks of strikes and protests. …”The French are being kept from working by excessive labor costs. I want to cut those costs,” Juppe told hundreds of supporters as he outlined his economic platform. …Juppe said he would raise the retirement age to 65 from 62 while cutting both taxes and state spending. Juppe said he would aim to cut public spending by 80-100 billion euros over five years and to reduce payroll taxes by 10 billion euros and corporate taxes by 11 billion euros. …Juppe also said he would cap welfare subsidies.

Amazingly, Juppe is the favorite according to the polling data.

So maybe French voters finally realize (notwithstanding the bad advice of Paul Krugman) that becoming another Greece isn’t a good idea.

P.S. My “Frexit” title simply recognizes the reality – as shown in this video – that productive people already are fleeing France. Hollande’s punitive tax policy has driven many of them to other nations.French entrepreneurs in particular have flocked to London.

P.P.S. Watch Will Smith’s reaction after being told France has a top tax rate of 75 percent.

P.P.P.S. France’s effective tax rate actually climbed to more than 100 percent, though Hollande mercifully decided that taxpayers now should never have to pay more than 80 percent of their income to government.

P.P.P.P.S. The big puzzle is why the French put up with so much statism. Polling data from both 2010 and 2013 shows strong support for smaller government, and an astounding 52 percent of French citizens said they would consider moving to the United States if they got the opportunity. So why, then, have they elected statists such as Sarkozy and Hollande?!?

P.P.P.P.P.S. In my humble opinion, the most powerful comparison is between France and Switzerland.

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

The United Kingdom is getting a lot

Hispanics, Blacks Favor Donald Trump Over Hillary Clinton on Immigration by Greater Margins Than Whites

U.S. President Barack Obama, left speaks about immigration reform during a visit to Del Sol High School in Las Vegas, Nevada November 21, 2014. A man protests President Obama's executive action granting amnesty to more than 4 million illegal immigrants. (Photos: AP/Reuters)

U.S. President Barack Obama, left speaks about immigration reform during a visit to Del Sol High School in Las Vegas, Nevada November 21, 2014. A man protests President Obama’s executive action granting amnesty to more than 4 million illegal immigrants. (Photos: AP/REUTERS)

Following the Supreme Court’s split 4-4 decision blocking the president’s executive order on immigration, a [content_tooltip id=”37972″ title=”SurveyUSA”] finds voters in leftwing San Diego County not only support deportation but are willing to pay for illegal immigrants to be deported.

The split is an overwhelming 5:3, with just 34% of San Diego County adults saying those in the United States illegally should be allowed to stay and 54% saying illegal immigrants should be deported. The poll was conducted as research exclusively for KGTV-TV and the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Worth noting, SurveyUSA found there is no statistically significant gender gap. Women favor the policy to deport by 54%, just one shy of men (55%). Hispanic voters in the U.S. legally are just as likely as white voters (52%) to say those here illegally should be deported and a whopping 66% of blacks agree.

In fact, Donald Trump was the preferred candidate for handling immigration, with 47% favoring the presumptive Republican nominee on immigration to just 37% for likely Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. When asked which candidate has the better plan, 53% of blacks, 50% of Hispanics and 47% of whites say Mr. Trump. Only 30% of black and Hispanic voters support Mrs. Clinton’s plan, meaning that blacks and Hispanics support Mr. Trump’s plan in greater margins than whites.

Of the majority in San Diego County who say illegal immigrants should be deported, a staggering 48% say deportation should pertain to all immigrants, including children born in America. Meanwhile, only 34% say children born in America–often referred to as anchor babies–should be allowed to stay. Further, 61% are willing to pay the estimated $4,000 each taxpayer would owe to underwrite the cost of mass deportation, and just 29% are not.

Of the minority in San Diego County who says that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in America:

* 91% say immigrants should have a path to citizenship.
* 72% say immigrants should be allowed to get a driver’s license.
* 84% say immigrants should be allowed to purchase health insurance.
* 86% say immigrants should be allowed to work for wages.
* 92% say immigrants should be allowed to attend public schools.
* 86% say immigrants should be allowed to attend state universities.

A SurveyUSA poll finds voters in leftwing

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