Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Wednesday, February 12, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 548)

Obama-Supreme-Court-split-ap

President Barack Obama, left, and the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), right. (Photos: AP/Getty)

DEVELOPING: The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration, effectively granting executive amnesty to million in the U.S. illegally. In a tie decision, the Court delivered a big win to states challenging his plan to give a deportation reprieve to millions.

The state of Texas led a 26-states coalition challenging President Obama’s waver of immigration law by executive fiat known as DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program announced in November 2014. The president came down with the action days after his party was thumped in a landslide during the 2014 midterm elections. Congressional Republicans also backed the states’ lawsuit.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who began the 26-state lawsuit as the state attorney general, called it a “vindication for the rule of law and the Constitution.”

At issue in the case case were two separate programs. The first would’ve allowed undocumented immigrants who are parents of either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents to live and work in the U.S. without threat of deportation. The second would’ve expand an existing program to protect from deportation a larger population of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

While the estimate was roughly 4.5 million, challenges to that number were much higher. The states argued the administration overstepped Congress’s sole authority given by the Constitution to make immigration law and produced an unduly burden on the states.

“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,” the Court’s opinion simply reads.

The Court said last year it would hear the case after an appeals court the prior November made permanent an injunction by a lower district court. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled against President Obama and upheld a Texas judge’s injunction against the expansion of the DACA program. The appeals court ruling put the administration’s record on executive amnesty at 0-5 in the courts and was thought to reduce the prospect of implementation of the executive order before Obama leaves office in 2017.

It did. However, the 4-4 tie vote sets no national precedent, but leaves in place the ruling by the lower court.

Executive amnesty has also been losing in the court of public opinion, as well. As PPD has previously examined, particularly in the case of immigration, the results get worse when the question is asked more plainly. We have examined and explained the data on this topic in great detail in the past, but most voters still oppose President Obama’s executive order to exempt millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. A solid 59% say Obama does not have that legal power to issue the order, which is up from 52% in February and a new high to date.

Further, only 35% favor the president’s actions, which is little changed from 5 months ago, and only 25% believe the president has the legal authority to grant executive amnesty without the approval of Congress. A nearly identical number of voters (26%) say Obama should take action if Congress doesn’t lay down in front of him on the issue.

The Republican-dominated states involved in the lawsuit over the president’s unilateral executive amnesty order included Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The Supreme Court blocked President Barack Obama’s

Supreme Court Building (SCOTUS)

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) building as viewed from across NE 1st Street.

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the use of affirmative action, or the use of race in college admissions at the University of Texas. The court’s 4-3 decision and rejection of a challenge brought by a white woman to the affirmative action program marks the second time the court has affirmed the use of race in the admissions process.

The high court previously punted on the bigger constitutional issue in a similar case argued roughly three years ago, but on Thursday upheld the university policy as “lawful under the Equal Protection Clause.” The dissent tore into the decision as fundamentally “discriminatory” by nature.

“[I]t remains an enduring challenge to our Nation’s education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity,” the majority opinion said.

The university considers race among many other factors in admitting the last quarter of incoming freshmen classes. Texas fills most of the freshman class by guaranteeing admission to students who graduate in the top 10% of their Texas high school class. However, the challenger’s grades were significantly better than the admitted applicants.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Samuel Alito called the program “discriminatory” and slammed the decision to uphold the policy.

“Even though UT has never provided any coherent explanation for its asserted need to discriminate on the basis of race, and even though UT’s position relies on a series of unsupported and noxious racial assumptions, the majority concludes that UT has met its heavy burden. This conclusion is remarkable—and remarkably wrong,” he wrote.

However, the majority opinion said the university should also continue to use data to “scrutinize the fairness of its admissions program.”

“The Court’s affirmance of the University’s admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement,” opinion said:

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the

Home-Prices-Home-Sales-Reuters

Home sales and home prices data and reports. (Photo: REUTERS)

The Commerce Department reported Thursday new single-family home sales fell 6% last month to an annualized rate of 551,000 units. New home sales in April were revised down to 586,000 units, still the highest since February 2008, from the previously reported 619,000 units.

The median forecast called for 560,000 units.

Still, single-family home sales were up 8.7% from a year ago and are volatile month-to-month. Preliminary figures are subject to large revisions because, as well as having incomplete data, they are mostly drawn from building permits data.

New single-family home sales declined 0.9% in the more populous South, where most building construction is conducted, and plummeted 33.3% in the Northeast. Meanwhile, home sales in the West tanked 15.6%, where there has been a dramatic increase in home prices due to tightening inventories. Single-family home sales increased only in the Midwest, jumping 12.9%.

The Commerce Department reported Thursday new single-family

jobs-report-getty

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – MAY 30: A job seeker holds a pamphlet during a job and career fair at City College of San Francisco southeast campus on May 30, 2013 in San Francisco, California. Hundreds of job seekers attended a career fair hosted by the San Francisco Southeast Community Facility Commission. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The Labor Department said on Thursday weekly jobless claims fell by 18,000 to 259,000 for the week ending June 18, lower than the estimate for 270,000. The prior week was unchanged at 277,000. While this marks 68 consecutive weeks of initial claims below 300,000, the longest streak since 1973, long-term unemployment has reduced the pool of eligible applicants in the labor force.

A Labor Department analyst said there were no special factors impacting this week’s initial claims and “no” state was triggered “on” the Extended Benefits program during the week ending June 4. The four-week moving average–widely considered a better gauge, as it irons out volatility–came in at 267,000, a decline of 2,250 from the previous week’s unrevised average of 269,250.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending June 4 were in Alaska (3.2), Puerto Rico (2.9), West Virginia (2.5), Wyoming (2.5), New Jersey (2.3), Connecticut (2.2), Pennsylvania (2.2), California (2.1), Illinois (1.9), Massachusetts (1.8), New Mexico (1.8), and Nevada (1.8).

The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending June 11 were in California (+18,762), Pennsylvania (+6,427), Florida (+1,769), Virginia (+1,417), and Georgia (+1,287), while the largest decreases were in Ohio (-1,101), Missouri (-905), Kentucky (-755), Oklahoma (-449), and Puerto Rico (-356)

The Labor Department said on Thursday weekly

Donald Trump

Donald Trump appears at a rally for his New York Republican primary campaign at the Grumman Studios in Bethpage New York April 6, 2016. (Photo: Peter Carr/The Journal News)

What’s Donald Trump really up to? Is he using the election of 2016 to enrich himself, with no intention of assuming the burdens of the presidency? Many wonder. If that’s the plan, he’s going about it the right way.

This may sound like political science fiction, but think. Success in such terms would entail two things: commanding maximum public attention and offending vast numbers of voters he would need to actually get elected. That’s what he’s been doing.

The two work together.

Vanity Fair reported speculation that the Trump endgame may involve establishing a family-run “mini-media conglomerate” — a kind of CNN or Fox News. Trump is already a media phenomenon with an enthusiastic audience. His campaign, meanwhile, has been featuring his wife, his children and a son-in-law as prominent co-stars.

The article said that Trump is sore about providing so much free content to the aforementioned media outlets without his getting a cut of the profits. (So much free airtime would be a source of joy for the conventional politician seeing election as the goal.)

Trump already controls a TV production company. Making the leap to Trump News Network, or whatever it might be called, would not seem so outlandish. The bigger the audience Trump builds dominating the news cycles, the more advertisers will pay for his product. And maintaining that high level of attention requires continually saying inflammatory things that turn off the larger electorate.

Suspicions began growing early on that Trump’s candidacy is a brand-building scheme and little more. Recall how every ludicrous thing out of his mouth — mocking John McCain for becoming a prisoner of war, smearing Latinos and savaging fellow Republicans — was deemed a campaign killer. His candidacy (SET ITAL) had (END ITAL) to collapse. But it didn’t. Trump won more and more support from the so-called Republican base despite (or because of) his vulgarity and disregard for conservative principles that were never widely popular to begin with.

When Trump became the presumptive nominee, the political sophisticates assumed he’d clean up his act and behave in a dignified, presidential manner. He’s done neither.

The Republican Party unwittingly created the conditions for a Trump candidacy. Its leaders have sat quietly for decades as a right-wing media — run by personalities flogging their own wares — normalized crazy political rhetoric. They probably figured that come Election Day, they could easily herd the fired-up base to the proper stalls. And they misread its strong support for Social Security, Medicare and other government programs.

That Trump has almost no campaign funds fits the theory he’s not in it to win it. His people insisted he’s never needed that kind of money. His arresting personality would do the job. Then came the sinking poll numbers.

Trump raised $5.4 million last month and spent over a million of it at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, on private jet service provided by his Tag Air and at other family-owned enterprises. He put in $2.2 million of his own money, but that was just a loan.

Trump’s dumping of campaign manager Corey Lewandowski can be interpreted as a logical response to evidence that he’s wearing thin among likely voters. But there’s no taking anything at face value in the Trumpian house of funny mirrors. It may reflect the family’s concern that it’s losing audience share.

The Republican Party has provided the vehicle for Trump’s joy ride. If at the end he returns a smoking wreck to the counter, not his problem. He’ll be fine, he keeps telling us.
For party leaders, another story. They will need much time for reflection, starting with how they got so royally set up.

What's Donald Trump really up to? Is

Obama-Gun-Control-San-Bernardino-Split

Right: President Barack Obama, joined by gun violence victims, speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 5, 2016. Left: The weapons used in the San Bernardino attack. (Photos: AP/Carolyn Kaster/Courtesy of San Bernardino PD)

The people in the government who want to control our personal choices are the enemies of freedom. And the enemies of freedom can be very clever and seductive.

Last week, these folks, manifesting their lust to keep us dependent upon the government by rejecting the natural right to self-defense, coined a clever phrase: “No fly, no buy.” It sounds rational, yet it rejects core American values.

The phrase was pounded home to average Americans during a one-sided 15-hour televised marathon on the floor of the Senate orchestrated by the gun control crowd. The essence of the argument was that stricter laws regarding gun sales would have prevented the massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. In gun control advocates’ dream world, the self-loathing Islamic State-inspired killer, willing to take 49 innocent lives, would somehow have been unwilling to violate restrictive gun purchase laws; and his obedience to those laws would have saved lives.

Their argument is naive and absurd. A person willing to commit mass murder is surely willing to break the law to acquire the means to commit the murders. So blinded were these senators in their misguided utterances about self-defense that they forgot about the Constitution.

The legislation they offered would have required that people whose names the feds put on a terror watchlist or a no-fly list (these are often done simultaneously) would not be legally able to purchase a gun. The senators summarized this idea dozens of times as “no fly, no buy.”

Though this phrase, which was quickly picked up by many of my colleagues in the media, has an easy and simplistic ring to it, it reveals a troubling ideology that profoundly rejects core American values.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and when the inalienability of our rights was codified in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the United States was wedded to the Judeo-Christian principle that our rights stem from our humanity. This was expressly recognized recently by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which it held that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental personal right, not a gift of the government to a group.

A fundamental personal right is the natural ability of individuals to make meaningful choices without a government permission slip. May the government ever interfere with fundamental rights? The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that it can only do so if it can demonstrate a compelling governmental interest — served by the least restrictive means, and only after due process.

Stated differently, if the government wants to silence your speech or deny you the right to self-defense, it must meet a very high burden in a public courtroom. It must demonstrate to a judge and jury that its need to silence or disarm you is compelling, and its goals may not be attained by any lesser means. Americans need not demonstrate a compelling need to speak or bear arms; the government must demonstrate a compelling need to prevent us from doing so.

That is what lawyers call black letter law — meaning it is well-established, followed throughout the land and rarely challenged. Until now.

Earlier this week in the Senate, the gun control crowd sought to give nameless and faceless federal bureaucrats the ability to strip Americans of their right to keep and bear arms by putting their names on a terror watchlist/no-fly list and prohibiting those on the list from buying guns. Yet none of these senators could state the criteria for putting a name on that list, and none could identify the people who prepare or keep the list.

That’s because these are well-guarded government secrets — secrets that have no place in American life.

If a government bureaucrat can put your name on a secret list on the bureaucrat’s own whim or even using secret standards and, as a result, you have lost a fundamental liberty, then the feds have transformed a natural right into a governmental gift. If the feds can create a no-fly list in secret and “no fly” comes to mean “no buy,” then we have no rights but what the government will permit us to do.

As if to underscore his ignorance of American values, one of the senators even stated that due process is killing us. He must have forgotten his oath to uphold the Constitution, which guarantees that the government may not take life, liberty or property without due process.

Due process — the absolute right to know the law and to force the government to prove a violation of it to a jury before it can take life, liberty or property — is the essence of the rights of free people. It is utterly scandalous — and probably disqualifying from office — that a senator could bemoan its existence.

Can you see how low we have sunk? The gun control crowd doesn’t care about personal liberty in a free society; it just cares about control. It wants us all to be pliant and reliant on a government that it controls; never mind that it is utterly incapable of protecting us from crazies who will resort to mass death for their own deranged purposes.

If the government secretly can put an American’s name on a secret list and, as a result, his liberty is lost, then there are no freedoms — just government-granted privileges. And if it can do this to the natural rights to travel and self-defense, can other fundamental rights be far behind?

The people in the government who want

Palin-Trump-Iowa

Former vice presidential nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, left, endorses Donald Trump, right, in Iowa on January 20, 2015. (Photo: Reuters/Mark Kauzlarich)

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump and Sarah Palin will kick off the Western Conservative Summit on July 1 in Denver, Colorado, the organizers announced Wednesday. The major conservative convention claims to be the “largest gathering of conservatives outside of Washington, D.C.,” and is seen as a pivotal step in the grassroots effort to flip the once-reliably Republican state in November.

Former President George W. Bush carried the state twice before President Barack Obama flipped it in 2008. Gov. Mitt Romney failed to carry the state in 2012, despite fitting the Republican Party Establishment’s mold for a candidate who can win the state.

The former Alaska governor and 2008 vice-presidential candidate will speak, as will Trump on the first day of the summit. Organizers told The Denver Post that Gov. Palin’s speech will be a half hour and Mr. Trump is scheduled to speak for an hour.

Gov. Palin was among the first major conservative figures to endorse Mr. Trump in the Republican Primary, which he did ahead of the Iowa caucuses. In San Diego last month, she said that the the New York businessman “blew the lid off the corrupted and corroded machine.”

“He was like a golden wrecking ball. He wrecked what needed to be wrecked,” Palin said during the May 27 event.

Recent polling has been non-existent in Colorado. The most recent [content_tooltip id=”38038″ title=”Quinnipiac University (Q-Poll)”] conducted last November found Mr. Trump holding a commanding 11-point lead over Mrs. Clinton. However, Jefferson County was one of just two out of a total seven battleground counties tracking where Mrs. Clinton was leading Mr. Trump, albeit by just 40% to 26%.

Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump and Sarah

IMF HQ

International Monetary Fund (IMF) headquarters. (Photo: Reuters)

Japan is the poster child for Keynesian economics. Ever since a bubble popped about 25 years ago, Japanese politician have adopted one so-called stimulus scheme after another.

Lots of additional government spending. Plenty of gimmicky tax cuts. All of which were designed according to the Keynesian theory that presumes that governments should borrow money and somehow get those funds into people’s pockets so they can buy things and supposedly jump-start the economy.

Japanese politicians were extraordinarily successful, at least at borrowing money. Government debt has quadrupled, jumping to way-beyond-Greece levels of about 250 percent of economic output.

But all this Keynesian stimulus hasn’t helped growth.

The lost decade of the 1990s turned into another lost decade and now the nation is mired in another lost decade. This chart from the Heritage Foundation tells you everything you need to know about what happens when a country listens to people like Paul Krugman.

But it’s not just Paul Krugman cheering Japan’s Keynesian splurge.

The dumpster fire otherwise known as the International Monetary Fund has looked at the disaster of the past twenty-five years and decided that Japan needs more of the same.

I’m not joking.

The Financial Times reports on the latest episode of this Keynesian farce, aided and abetted by the hacks at the IMF.

Japan must redouble economic stimulus…the International Monetary Fund has warned in a tough verdict on the world’s third-largest economy. Prime minister Shinzo Abe needs to “reload” his Abenomics programme with an incomes policy to drive up wages, on top of monetary and fiscal stimulus, the IMF said after its annual mission to Tokyo. …David Lipton, the IMF’s number two official, in an interview with the Financial Times…argued that Japan should adopt an incomes policy, where employers — including the government — would raise wages by 3 per cent a year, with tax incentives and a “comply or explain” mechanism to back it up. …Mr Lipton and the IMF gave a broad endorsement to negative interest rates. The BoJ sparked a political backlash when it cut rates to minus 0.1 per cent in January.

Wow.

Some people thought I was being harsh when I referred to the IMF as the Dr. Kevorkian of the global economy.

I now feel that I should apologize to the now-departed suicide doctor.

After all, Dr. Kevorkian probably never did something as duplicitous as advising governments to boost tax burdens and then publishing a report to say that the subsequent economic damage was evidence against the free-market agenda.

P.S. The IMF is not the only international bureaucracy that is giving Japan bad advice. The OECD keeps advising the government to boost the value-added tax.

P.P.S. Japan’s government is sometimes so incompetent that it can’t even waste money successfully.

P.P.P.S. Though Japan does win the prize for the strangest government regulation.

P.P.P.P.S. By the way, here’s another example of the IMF in action. Sri Lanka’s economy is in trouble in part because of excessive government spending.

So the IMF naturally wants to do a bailout. But, as Reuters reports, the bureaucrats at the IMF want Sri Lanka to impose higher taxes.

Sri Lanka will raise its value added tax and reintroduce capital gains tax…ahead of talks on a $1.5-billion loan it is seeking from the International Monetary Fund. …The IMF has long called on Sri Lanka to…raise revenues… These are likely to be the main conditions for the grant of a loan, economists say.

P.P.P.P.P.S. On a separate topic, the British will have a chance to escape the European Union this Thursday.

I explained last week that Brexit would be economically beneficial to the United Kingdom, but independence also is a good idea simply because the European Commission and European Parliament (and other associated bureaucracies) are reprehensible rackets for the benefit of insiders.

In other words, Brussels is like Washington. Sort of a scam to transfer money from taxpayers to the elite.

Though I wonder whether the goodies for EU bureaucrats can possibly be as lavish as those provided to OECD employees. I don’t know if the bureaucrats at the OECD get free Viagra, but they pay zero income tax, which surely must be better than the special low tax rate that EU bureaucrats have arranged for themselves.

Japan is the poster child for Keynesian

Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis represents the 6th Congressional District.

Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis represents the 6th Congressional District.

Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis has ended his bid for the U.S. Senate following the announcement by incumbent Sen. Marco Rubio that he will run for reelection.

“Marco Rubio’s announcement changes the contours of the U.S. Senate race in Florida,” Rep. DeSantis said in a statement in response to the news. “As a well-known incumbent, Senator Rubio is a strong bet to win what will be a pivotal U.S. Senate race in a challenging political environment. Casey and I are grateful for the support we have received across Florida and throughout the country and plan to continue the fight for limited government principles and a strong national defense.”

“In light of the Rubio development, I can best advance the cause by running for reelection to the U.S. House in the 6th Congressional District, where I can continue protecting taxpayers, promoting economic growth, helping our veterans, and supporting our military.”

Sen. Rubio, who ran unsuccessfully for the presidential nomination in the Republican Party, vowed not to run for president and reelection to the U.S. Senate at the same time. However, polling has consistently shown that he was the safer bet for the GOP to keep the seat in the swing state in their column. Even Donald Trump, the party’s presumptive nominee and former rival, had been part of the effort to draft Sen. Rubio to run again.

Still, Rep. DeSantis was going to face Rep. David Jolly, who represents the 13th Congressional District in the primary. He had the support of conservative grassroots and endorsement from groups like the Club for Growth, who has released a statement backing both Sen. Rubio and Rep. DeSantis in their reelection efforts.

“The Club for Growth PAC has been determined to keep this Florida Senate seat in the hands of economic conservatives since November 2014, when we first endorsed Senator Rubio’s re-election,” said Club for Growth President David McIntosh. “When Marco announced his retirement from the Senate and launched his presidential bid, the Club’s PAC was quick to endorse Rep. Ron DeSantis, who has a 96% lifetime Club score.”

“With today’s announcement by Senator Rubio and the anticipation that Rep. DeSantis will run again in FL-06, we are committed to the re-election of both of these pro-growth candidates,” Mr. McIntosh added. “They will remain leaders in their respective chambers, and we believe Rep. DeSantis clearly has great potential for a run at the Senate in 2018.”

Meanwhile, with Sen. Rubio now back in the game, the U.S. Senate race in Florida moves from a Toss-Up to Leans Republican on the PPD Election Projection Model.

“Marco Rubio may have lost the primary in his state, but he put up serious numbers in the Southeastern part of the state,” said PPD’s senior political analyst Richard D. Baris. “Those are the numbers necessary to hold down Democratic margins, though his edge as an incumbent remains tenuous.”

Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis has ended his

Donald-Trump-Hillary-Clinton-Getty

Donald Trump visits Turnberry Golf Club, after its $10 Million refurbishment, June 8, 2015, in Turnberry, Scotland. | Hillary Clinton speaks at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials’ (NALEO) 32nd Annual Conference at the in Las Vegas, June 18, 2015. (PHOTO: GETTY)

During a speech at Trump SoHo in New York, N.Y., Donald Trump pummeled Hillary Clinton like never before seen in modern American politics. Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, prosecuted the case against Mrs. Clinton on three basic levels that included the Clinton Foundation, the email scandal and the failed policy in Libya, which resulted in a failed terrorist state and the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Vowing to end the special interest monopoly in Washington, D.C., he called Mrs. Clinton “the most corrupt candidate to even seek the presidency of the United States.” He promised to fix a country that lost its way when it stopped putting “America First” in favor of a crony globalist system that enriches the likes of the Clintons to the detriment of the American worker.

“This election will decide whether we are ruled by the people, or by the politicians,” Mr. Trump said. “The other candidate in this race has spent her entire life making money for special interests – and taking money from special interests. Hillary Clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and theft.”

At one point, he also took aim at her record in Libya and on immigration at one point read aloud the statements of the victims’ families from the Benghazi attack.

“No Secretary of State has been more wrong, more often, and in more places than Hillary Clinton. Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched,” he said. “Among the victims is our late Ambassador, Chris Stevens. He was left helpless to die as Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed — that’s right, when the phone rang at 3 o’clock in the morning, she was sleeping.”

In fact, email records show that Mrs. Clinton’s aides could not reach her by phone or email until roughly 10:45 a.m. the next morning. When she finally responded, she admitted “I just woke up” and missed a would-be intelligence briefing. The former secretary of state, along with her longtime confident and then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, lied about the rescue efforts.

“She started the war that put him in Libya, denied him the security he asked for, then left him there to die,” Mr. Trump said. “To cover her tracks, Hillary lied about a video being the cause of his death.”

PPD has thoroughly reported on the email trail evidence, which conclusively comes down on the side of the victims’ families, unequivocally showing she lied to them about the video and other elements to the Benghazi terror attack at Andrews Air Force Base.

Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign and affiliated super PACs have already responded by simply claiming he was lying about her response to Benghazi. The Clinton campaign concedes that polling for their candidate has been disappointing, even as Mr. Trump slipped over the past few weeks. Mrs. Clinton they know is a known quantity in American politics yet consistently polls in the low to mid 40s. The plan has never been to inspire or convince the roughly 20% of undecided voters to go with her, but rather to make Mr. Trump unpalatable.

But his speech Wednesday could have the same impact on her among voters and is the beginning of a larger effort to prosecute the Clintons on a level they’ve never seen before. The campaign also recently announced the roll out of a new website LyingCrookedHillary.com, which will highlight Clinton’s lies to the American people over the years.

On immigration, he said Mrs. Clinton “put forward the most radical immigration platform in the history of the United States,” one which puts “each and every one of our lives in danger.” Indeed, the former secretary of state promised to unilaterally (via executive order) grant mass amnesty in her first 100 days and end federal immigration law enforcement, creating an open border in the United States.

“The first victims of her radical policies will be poor African-American and Hispanic workers who need jobs,” he said. “They are the ones she will hurt the most.”

Turning his attention to the terror attack in Orlando and his proposal to temporarily ban immigration from Muslim countries with high risk of terrorism, Mr. Trump pointed out the internal contradiction within the Democratic Party relating to so-called women’s rights, gay rights and Islamic apologists.

“I only want to admit people who share our values and love our people. Hillary Clinton wants to bring in people who believe women should be enslaved and gays put to death,” he said. “Maybe her motivation lies among the more than 1,000 foreign donations Hillary failed to disclose while at the State Department.”

He then shared a letter the campaign received from one Mary Ann Mendoza, who lost her son, Police Sergeant Brandon Mendoza, after he was killed by an illegal immigrant because of the open borders policies supported by Mrs. Clinton.

Hillary Clinton, who already has the blood of so many on her hands, is now announcing that she is willing to put each and every one of our lives in harms’ way – an open door policy to criminals and terrorists to enter our country. Hillary is not concerned about you or I, she is only concerned about the power the presidency would bring to her. She needs to go to prison to pay for the crimes she has already committed against this country.

The Mendoza family is just one of many Mr. Trump has showcased over the primary season and just one of literally thousands who have such a tragic story.

“Her campaign slogan is ‘I’m with her.’ You know what my response to that is?” Trump asked. “I’m with you: the American people.”

During a speech at Trump SoHo in

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