Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Saturday, March 1, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 771)
Polls

Kate-Steinle-Francisco-Sanchez

Kate Steinle, left, was a 32-year-old woman from San Francisco who was shot and killed by Francisco Sanchez, an illegal immigrant with 7 felony convictions.

According to a new poll, voters want the Justice Department to get tough on so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws. A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds 62 percent of likely voters say the DOJ should take legal action against cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants.

The murder of 32-year-old Kate Steinle by an illegal alien who was taking “sanctuary” in San Francisco has now put the open borders crowd in the hot seat this week. Francisco Sanchez, the 45-year-old man who has confessed to Steinle’s murder, had been released from jail in March after San Francisco authorities didn’t honor an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer request.

FOX News host Bill O’Reilly has been pushing hard to get the Republican Congress to pass “Kate’s Law,” which would impose a mandatory minimum five year sentence on a criminal illegal immigrant caught in the country after being deported. Reps. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., and Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., have been crafting the measure and writing amendments to cut off funding for sanctuary cities.

Americans support the idea by a wide margin.

Fifty-eight percent believe the federal government should cut off funds to cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants, while just 32 percent disagree and 10 percent are not sure. The majority includes a majority of voters in nearly every demographic bloc who agree with both the Justice Department taking action against sanctuary cities and the government cutting off all aid to those cities.

There are over 200 sanctuary cities nationwide in addition to San Francisco, including major cities such as New York, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Miami, Denver, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston and Detroit.

Crossover, unsurprisingly, is significant in all demographics between the two issues.

Eighty-four percent of those who want the Justice Department to take legal action against sanctuary cities also favor a cut-off of all federal aid. Further, among the vast minority of voters opposed to legal action, 80 percent also oppose a funding cut-off.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump came under fire for comments about the criminality of many illegal immigrants, but American most voters think Trump is right. Democrats and fellow Republicans alike thought it politically expedient to take The Donald down, but another recent poll from Rasmussen Reports suggest they’re a bit out of touch.

Yet, 53 percent of all voters — including 76 percent of Republicans — agree with Trump’s comments and say illegal immigration increases the level of serious crime in America.

“Most voters expect biased media coverage of the 2016 presidential race, and the media response to recent immigration comments by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is a good case in point,” says Fran Coombs, the managing editor of Rasmussen Reports.

“Clinton, still by far the leading candidate for next year’s Democratic presidential nomination, said recently that President Obama’s plan to protect up to five million illegal immigrants from immigration doesn’t go far enough,” Coombs added, noting that both of Clinton’s “positions are outside the mainstream as far as most voters are concerned.”

Only 34 percent favor Obama’s immigration amnesty, while 55 percent are opposed.

As they have for years, most voters (63%) think gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States. While that’s up just two points from January, it is the highest level of support for border control since December 2011.

The survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on July 8-9, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

According to a new poll, 62 percent

Economy

China's benchmark index fell by 5.9 per cent

A stock investor reacts as he checks prices in a brokerage house in Fuyang in central China’s Anhui province, 08 July 2015. Chinese stocks plunged on 08 July, with the benchmark Shanghai Composite Index closing down 5.9 percent despite new measures to shore up share prices. The Shanghai Composite Index has tumbled by around 30 per cent since a peak on 12 June. (PHOTO: EPA/AN MING CHINA OUT)

When I first got to Washington in the mid-1980s, one of the big issues was the supposedly invincible Japanese economy. Folks on the left claimed that Japan was doing well because the government had considerable power to micro-manage the economy with industrial policy.

With the benefit of hindsight, it’s now quite apparent that was the wrong approach.

In more recent years, some on the left have praised China’s economic model. And while it’s true that the country has enjoyed strong growth, it’s far from a role model.

Here’s some of what I wrote back in 2010.

Yes, China has been growing in recent decades, but it’s almost impossible not to grow when you start at the bottom – which is where China was in the late 1970s thanks to decades of communist oppression and mismanagement. …This is not to sneer at the positive changes in China. Hundreds of millions of people have experienced big increases in living standards. Better to have $6,710 of per capita GDP than $3,710. But China still has a long way to go if the goal is a vibrant and rich free-market economy. The country’s nominal communist leadership has allowed economic liberalization, but China is still an economically repressed nation.

With my skeptical view of the Chinese economic system, I figured it was just a matter of time before the nation experienced some economic hiccups.

And the recent drop in the Shanghai stock market certainly would be an example. I discussed the topic earlier this week in this Skype interview with Blaze TV.

Initialize ads

To elaborate, there’s no precise formula for determining a nation’s prosperity. After all, economies are not machines.

But there is a strong relationship between prosperity and the level of economic freedom.

And as I explained earlier this year, China’s problem is that government is still far too big. As such, its overall ranking from Economic Freedom of the World is still very low.

And this means that the Chinese people – while much better off then they were under a pure communist system – are still not rich.

I mentioned the comparative numbers on per-capita economic output in the interview, which is something I wrote about back in 2011. And you can click hereif you want the underlying figures to confirm that Americans are far more prosperous.

By the way, this is an issue where the establishment seems to have a semi-decent understanding of what’s happening, even if they don’t necessarily draw any larger lessons from the episode.

The Associated Press, for instance, has a good report on the issue. Here’s some of the story, which looks at why the the stock market seems untethered from economic fundamentals.

When China’s economy was roaring along at double digit rates in the 2000s, Chinese stocks floundered. But starting in the summer of 2014, as evidence of an economic slowdown gathered, the Shanghai Composite index climbed nearly 150 percent. …Now the Chinese stock bubble has burst and Shanghai shares are in a free fall. They’ve lost about 30 percent since peaking last month. …Prices in the stock market are supposed to reflect business realities: the health of the economy, the quality of the companies listed on stock exchanges, the comparative allure of alternative investments. But in a communist country where the government plays an oversized role in the economy, investors pay more attention to signals coming from policymakers in Beijing than to earnings reports, management shake-ups and new product announcements.

If savvy investors think it’s important to focus on what the government is doing, that’s obviously bad news.

During the booming 2000s, only politically connected firms were allowed to list on stock exchanges for the most part. Many of them were run by insiders of dubious managerial talent. The markets were dominated by inefficient state-owned companies. Investors were especially wary of investing in big government banks believed to be sinking under the weight of bad loans. Stocks went nowhere.

And when the government started to encourage a bubble, that also wasn’t a good idea.

…state media began encouraging Chinese to buy stock, even as the country’s economic outlook dimmed. The economy grew 7.4 percent last year, the slowest pace since 1990. It’s expected to decelerate further this year. But authorities allowed investors to borrow to buy ever-more shares. Unsophisticated investors — more than a third left school at the junior high level — got the message and bought enthusiastically, taking Chinese stocks to dangerous heights. Now it’s all crashing down.

I’m not sure “all crashing down” is the right conclusion.

As I said in the interview, the market doubled and now it’s down about 30 percent, so many investors are still in good shape.

That being said, I have no idea whether the market will recover, stabilize, or continue to drop.

But I do feel comfortable making a larger point about the relationship between economic freedom and long-run prosperity.

So if you want to learn lessons from East Asia, look at the strong performances of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea, all of which provide very impressive examples of sustained growth enabled by small government and free markets.

P.S. I was greatly amused when the head of China’s sovereign wealth fundmocked the Europeans for destructive welfare state policies.

P.P.S. Click here if you want some morbid humor about China’s pseudo-communist regime.

P.P.P.S. Though I give China credit for trimming at least one of the special privileges provided to government bureaucrats.

In more recent years, some on the

Politics

Bret-Baier-Jeb-Bush

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush sits in an interview with FOX News’ Bret Baier that will air in its entirety next week.

In an interview with FOX News’ Bret Baier, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said he will run a campaign that will inspire and drive turnout, “particularly among people who are conservative and just don’t know it yet.”

“I’m going to win the nomination and I’m going to run a campaign that will inspire people that their lives can get better,” Gov. Bush said. “That will drive turnout, particularly among people who are conservative and just don’t know it yet.”

However, despite Mr. Bush’s claims, according to PPD’s research, which has been tracking GOP enthusiasm as a whole and for individual candidates, Republican donors are the only bloc excited about him taking on Hillary Clinton.

Since December 2014, 51 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning independents on average have said say they are less likely to vote in 2016 if Jeb Bush is the nominee, and 48 percent of all registered voters say they definitely will not vote for another Bush. Further, just 29 percent of Republicans say the former Florida governor should’ve run for president in 2016. But even among these voters, just 14 percent say they would definitely vote for Bush in their state primary or caucus.

What are the top reasons Republicans and Republican-leaning voters are opposed to a Bush candidacy/presidency?

While his stance on Common Core — the increasingly and broadly unpopular education standards — certainly hurts Mr. Bush, it isn’t the number one reason voters won’t support him.

“We don’t need another Bush in the White House” tops the list with 42 percent, while “his stance on Common Core” (19 percent) is a distant second. His stance on immigration reform is a deal-breaker to only 10 percent.

In 2012, we observed millions of white voters — particularly working class and educated voters without a graduate degree — in the Midwest and Northern states stay home rather than vote for Gov. Romney. In 2014, those voters largely came back in states with competitive races. As of now, though this could change, Jeb is just not inspiring them.

TRANSCRIPT

BRET BAIER, SPECIAL REPORT: What’s the biggest vulnerability for Hillary Clinton?

JEB BUSH, REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT: It’s her, just this protective shield she wants to create around her candidacy. I just don’t think it’s going to work, and the fact that she can’t be trusted. There is never a straight answer, Whether it’s the server, the emails, benghazi, just constantly, you know, validates this notion that there are two sets of rules.

BAIER: So when somebody says, you know, if it’s Clinton vs. Bush, it’s going to drive down participation, people are not going to be motivated to head to the polls, what do you say to them?

BUSH: I’m going to win the nomination and I’m going to run a campaign that will inspire people that their lives can get better. That will drive turnout, particularly among people who are conservative and just don’t know it yet.

Despite Jeb Bush claiming he will drive

Policy

There’s an old saying that states are the laboratories of democracy. But since I’m a policy wonk, I focus more on the lessons we can learn from the states about public policy.

Such as the importance of limiting the destructive nature of taxes. Such as the economic benefits of not having an income tax. Such as the horrible consequences of adopting an income tax. Such as the negative effects of excessive compensation of bureaucrats. Such as better job creation in states with less government.

But it’s always good to have more data and evidence.

So I was very interested to see that the Mercatus Center at George Mason University has a new report that ranks states based on their fiscal solvency.

Here are some of the details.

Budgetary balance is only one aspect of a state’s fiscal health, indicating that revenues are sufficient to cover a desired level of spending. But a balanced budget by itself does not mean the state is in a strong fiscal position. State spending may be large relative to the economy and thus be a drain on resources. …How can states establish healthier fiscal foundations? And how can states guard against economic shocks or identify long-term fiscal risks? Before taking policy or budgetary action, it is important to identify where states may have fiscal weaknesses. One approach to help states evaluate their ongoing fiscal performance is to use basic financial indicators that measure short- and long-run fiscal position.

Here are some of the findings.

The five dimensions (or indexes) of solvency in this study—cash, budget, long-run, service-level, and trust fund—are…combined into one overall ranking of state fiscal condition. …States with large long-term debts, large unfunded pension liabilities, and structural budgetary imbalances continue to hover near the bottom of the rankings. These states are Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York. Just as they did last year, states that depend on natural resources for revenues and that have low levels of debt and spending place at the top of the rankings. The top five states are Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Florida.

And here’s a map so you can see the rankings of each state. Dark green is good and yellow is bad.

FR-OVERALL-Map-1

 

I’m shocked and amazed to see California, Illinois, and New York near the bottom of the list.

Here’s the same information, but in a table so you can see the specific scores for each state.

Norcross-State-Fiscal-Condition-table

 

So what should we learn from these rankings?

According to an editorial from Investor’s Business Daily, there are some very obvious lessons.

What do the most fiscally sound states have in common? Good weather? Oil? Blind luck? Or is it conservative policies such as keeping taxes low, regulations reasonable and spending under control? …There’s only one factor these fiscal winners and losers share in common. And that’s their political leanings. …if you look at the 25 best-performing states, only three could be considered reliably liberal. …There’s only one factor these fiscal winners and losers share in common. And that’s their political leanings. Of the top 10 states in the Mercatus ranking, just two — Florida and Ohio — voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in the past four elections, and just one — Montana — has a Democratic governor. Even if you look at the 25 best-performing states, only three could be considered reliably liberal.

Now let’s shift from policy lessons to political implications. There are several governors and former governors running for President.

Based on the Mercatus ranking, can we draw any conclusions about whether these candidates are in favor of taxpayers? Or do they support big government instead?

We’ll start with the current governors.

Kasich – Ohio ranks surprisingly high on the list, particularly given the Ohio governor’s expansion of Obamacare in the state. Maybe the state’s #7 ranking is due to fiscal restraint by his predecessors.

Christie – New Jersey ranks low on the list, and this isn’t a surprise. The relevant question is whether Christie can argue, based on some of the fightshe’s had, that the state legislature is an insurmountable impediment to pro-growth reforms.

Jindal – The governor of Louisiana has proposed some big reforms, but the state’s #35 ranking doesn’t give him any bragging rights on fiscal policy (though the state is leading the way on education reform).

Walker – Thanks to his high-profile fight with unionized bureaucrats, Walker has a very strong reputation. But his state doesn’t rank very high, and he can’t blame the legislature because it’s GOP-controlled as well. But perhaps the low ranking is a legacy of the state’s historically left-wing orientation.

What about former governors?

Well, there’s probably not much we can say because we don’t have long-run data. There was a similar Mercatus study last year, but that obviously doesn’t help with the analysis of governors that left office years ago.

Nonetheless, here are a few observations.

Bush – I’m very suspicious of politicians who express an openness to tax hikes, and Bush is in that group. But he did govern Florida for a couple of terms and never flirted with imposing an income tax. And former governors, particularly from recent history, presumably can take some credit for Florida’s relatively high ranking.

Pataki – Since New York is one of the worst states, Pataki has guilt by implication. But he did lower a few taxes during his tenure, and you also have the same issue that exists with Christie, which is whether a governor should be blamed when the state legislature is hostile to good policy.

Perry – It’s hard to argue with the success Texas has enjoyed in recent years, and Perry (like Bush) never even hinted at the imposition of a state income tax. Though the #19 ranking shows that there are issues that should have been addressed during Perry’s several terms in office.

Huckabee – There aren’t many conclusions to draw about Arkansas and Huckabee. He’s been out of office for a while and the state is in the middle of the pack.

The bottom line is that the Mercatus study is very helpful in identifying well-governed (and not-so-well-governed) states, but the newness of the project means we can’t make any sweeping statements about governors because of limited data.

Fortunately, the Cato Institute for years has been publishing a Report Card that grades governors based on fiscal policy. So fans (or opponents) of different candidates can peruse past issues to see the degree to which governors pushed policy in the right or wrong direction.

There’s an old saying that states are

Opinion

 

American-Flag-July-Fourth

When Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention, a lady asked him what kind of government had been formed. Franklin reportedly responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Franklin’s answer has always been interesting because it revealed that he well understood the profound difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional republic. But far more intriguing to me was Franklin’s implied concern that the newly crafted scheme of government was hardly self-sustaining and ultimately vulnerable.

He and the other framers understood that liberty was rare in world history and that it would be no easy task to design a system that would both maximize and preserve it. I believe that until relatively recently most Americans cherished this system precisely because it was uniquely equipped to accomplish those purposes. Now I am not so sure.

The framers established a federal government with sufficient power to ensure ordered liberty, but with a host of limitations on its power. Governmental power was divided between the federal government and the states, and federal power was divided among three branches that would each check encroachments by the others. They set up a bicameral legislature to further diffuse federal power and eventually drafted a Bill of Rights to expressly guarantee civil liberties against government intrusion — and much more.

This system was vastly superior to the celebrated “democratic” systems of ancient Greece and the Roman Republic. It wasn’t the first system to include popular participation in the decisions of government. It was unique because it was the first to impose significant limitations on government.

It is those limitations that ensure our liberties. It is those limitations that make America the greatest nation in world history and the envy of all mankind. It is the deliberate erosion and destruction of those limitations that existentially threatens this nation today.

Don’t you see? Franklin knew as well as anyone the powerful safeguards he and the other framers had imposed to maximize and preserve liberty, and yet he knew that human nature was such that this system would still be vulnerable to abuse and attack. “A republic, if you can keep it.”

No matter how ingeniously designed, the Constitution and laws are not immune from fascists who, under color of law, ignore their plain meaning. Checks and balances ultimately break down if those wielding power twist, pervert, ignore, selectively enforce and flout the law.

This is why character matters so much; this is why morality is foundational to government. Any system of self-governance, even one as glorious as ours, ultimately depends on the honor of the people living under it.

Anti-constitutionalists have been chipping away at the integrity of the Constitution for decades, for they prefer the forcible imposition of their own values and agenda more than they cherish liberty. But the process of dismantling our system has now accelerated to alarming levels — it has reached a fever pitch — as the puffed-up left is feeling its oats, intoxicated by a bitter president anxious to exact revenge on a nation he obviously believes was born in hell.

Why would President Obama have any hesitation in emasculating the Constitution and the rule of law when he resents its very formation and what it represents? Why would he protect our borders against illegal immigration when he doesn’t believe in the system the legal immigration process is designed to promote — especially when changing the demographics is virtually guaranteed to increase the power of radical leftists?

I don’t expect to get through to people who, like Obama, believe America, as founded, is intrinsically unfair, but I challenge fellow freedom lovers to consider that Obama and his band of leftists don’t really care so much about things like expanding people’s access to quality health care; they don’t care about putting people back to work; they don’t even care about harmony among the races.

What they care about is consolidating their power and imposing their will, and they use these various hot-button causes to do so. They want to have their way, and they are using government in unprecedented ways to achieve it — absolutely unconcerned about the destroyed liberties in their wake. They are showing their true colors as they freely trample on the Constitution and rule of law. They are not only encroaching on the liberties of their opponents; they are openly trying to muzzle them.

More and more people are starting to wake up to the extremism of the political left, which, incidentally, has taken firm control of today’s Democratic Party to the point that pundits across the board are acknowledging that unapologetic socialist Bernie Sanders risks nothing in proudly advertising his socialist agenda to his base. In fact, his openness has forced Hillary Clinton to scramble even further leftward to compete.

I pray that freedom lovers and patriots will muster the same passion in defending this nation as those attacking it. The first step is to recognize what’s going on. Is it possible that even some rank-and-file Democrats can set aside their allegiance to party affiliation long enough to open their eyes to it?

That’s a long shot. But could at least those who call themselves Republicans wipe the sleep out of their eyes and rise up in defense of liberty and this our rapidly disintegrating America?

David Limbaugh explains why the founders established

Politics

Clinton-Gowdy-subpoena

Hillary Clinton, left, said in an interview with CNN that she was not under a subpoena to hand over emails she had deleted. Benghazi Select Committee Chair Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., produced that subpoena, right.

House Select Committee Chair Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., released the very subpoena Hillary Clinton just claimed in an interview with CNN she had never received. The release comes shortly after Clinton gave her first nationally televised interview with CNN, during which she claimed she “never had a subpoena” for emails she took upon herself to delete.

“Here’s the subpoena Hillary Clinton told @CNN she ‘never had.’ It’s dated 3/4/15.” Gowdy wrote in a tweet Thursday, which is viewable below. Here’s a closer look and, as Chairman Gowdy pointed out, it’s in fact dated.

Clinton-email-subpoena

Chairman Gowdy said he had “no choice” but to make the subpoena public “in order to correct the inaccuracy” of Clinton’s claim.

“Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation,” Clinton said.

Gowdy said the committee issued the March 4 subpoena to Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her use of private emails while serving as secretary of state.

“Secretary Clinton had a statutory duty to preserve records from her entire time in office, and she had a legal duty to cooperate with and tell the truth to congressional investigators requesting her records going back to September of 2012,” Gowdy said in a statement, regardless of whether a subpoena was issued.

House Select Committee Chair Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.,

Video

In Watters’ World: Sanctuary city edition, O’Reilly Factor producer Jesse Watters asks San Francisco officials and residents about the murder of Kate Steinle. The traditionally upbeat and humorous segment took a serious and disturbing tone Wednesday night. In the Talking Points Memo earlier in the show, Watters pressed the sanctuary city-supporting members of the Board of Supervisors on the policy, but they refused to even raise their eyes and look at Kate’s picture.

Francisco Sanchez, the 45-year-old man who has confessed to 32-year-old Steinle’s murder, had been released from jail in March after San Francisco authorities didn’t honor an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer request.

“We are so sorry our leaders are vial and corrupt,” a note at Ms. Steinle’s memorial read. “We cherish your life and memory.”

Watters spoke to a young, San Francisco resident who said Kate’s murder was a tragedy, but should not lead to a policy change.

“It was a policy that was put in place to reflect our values,” he said.

Many other residents disagreed.

“When I found out that the city of San Francisco was allowing that to happen,” another man said, “that kind of pissed me off. I hope they make a change.”

“I don’t have anything against illegal immigration,” a Hispanic woman told Jesse. “But when it comes to criminals they should be deported.”

“Obviously this guy should have been deported,” another man said. “I mean, come on, it’s obvious.”

Apparently not to the liberal city leaders, who blatantly ignored Jesse and Kate’s picture at the hearing. The chairwoman repeatedly interrupted Jesse by asking for the “next speaker,” without saying a single word in her defense.

In Watters' World: Sanctuary City Edition, Factor

Video

Bill O’Reilly continued Wednesday to pound the open borders crowd over the death of 32-year-old Kate Steinle by an illegal in San Francisco. Francisco Sanchez, the 45-year-old man who has confessed to Steinle’s murder, had been released from jail in March after San Francisco authorities didn’t honor an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer request.

“The cold truth is Kate Steinle is collateral damage to the insane far-left politics that have long corrupted the city by the bay,” O’Reilly said Wednesday night. “Again, dangerous people are walking around because of political correctness.”

O’Reilly is pushing hard for “Kate’s Law,” which would impose a mandatory minimum sentence of five years on any illegal immigrant criminal caught in the country after being deported. The FOX News host of the network’s anchor show has been widely successful in the past with such efforts, including “Jessica’s Law,” which imposes mandatory minimums on child molesters and rapists.

“The mayor and the supervisors want to seem sympathetic to illegal aliens,” O’Reilly added. “That’s what this is all about — them and their liberal profile. The whole thing is absolutely disgusting.”

Donald Trump came under fire for comments about the criminality of many illegal immigrants, but American most voters think Trump is right. Democrats and fellow Republicans alike thought they might have found the right moment to take The Donald down, but a new poll from Rasmussen Reports suggest they’re a bit out of touch.

TRANSCRIPT CONTINUED

Now, there is some good news today as Kate may not have died vain. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell told The Factor he is meeting with the senate leadership to discuss Kate’s law. As we suggested last night Congress should pass legislation that would impose a mandatory minimum five-year sentence on any illegal alien that’s deported and then comes back. The word “mandatory” is crucial.

There are laws on the books now that are being ignored. Congress must write Kate’s law so if officials do not enforce the mandatory sentence, they themselves, can be prosecuted. Congressman Matt Salmon of Arizona tells us he is writing Kate’s law even as we speak. The congressman is looking for co-sponsors.

We hope representatives from both parties will sign on. If they do, we will tell you who they are. If anyone opposes Kate’s law, we will absolutely tell you who they are.

Also, you can get involved. We have a petition on BillOReilly.com that supports Kate’s law. We hope you will sign it and we will forward the petition to the House and Senate leadership as well as to the White House. More than four million people a night watch this program. If we get four million signatures on that, that would be quite something.

It is long past time for the congress of the United States to protect the American people. Every president since Ronald Reagan has not done so. So Congress must act on illegal immigration. This sanctuary city business has got to end. Any American city, town, or county, not cooperating with Homeland Security should immediately lose federal funding. Enough is enough.

Bill O'Reilly continued Wednesday to pound the

Economy

unemployment-benefits

Weekly jobless claims, or first-time claims for unemployment benefits reported by the Labor Department.

The firing rate, or the number of new applications for U.S. unemployment insurance benefits rose last week to their highest rate since February, 2015. Weekly jobless benefits, the amount of first-time claims for state unemployment benefits increased by 15,000 to a seasonally adjusted 297,000 for the week that ended July 4, the U.S. Department of Labor said on Thursday.

The previous week’s claims were revised up by 1,000 to 282,000, and a Labor Department analyst said there was nothing unusual in the latest claims report.

While the latest jobless claims report marks the 18th consecutive week below 300,000, the report took Wall Street completely by surprise. Economists polled by Reuters had expected new applications to fall to 275,000 last week.

The four-week moving average of claims — which is considered a better gauge of the labor market, as it irons out week-to-week volatility — rose 4,500 to 279,500 last week. Continued claims – the number of people still claiming jobless benefits after an initial week of aid – rose 69,000 to 2.334 million in the week ended June 27, the Labor Department said.

The firing rate, or the number of

Polls

trump-presidential-announcement-2015

Donald Trump makes presidential announcement at Trump Tower in June, 2015.

Trump This! Americans Back The Donald on Illegal Immigration

Donald Trump came under fire for comments about the criminality of many illegal immigrants, but American most voters think Trump is right. Democrats and fellow Republicans alike thought they might have found the right moment to take The Donald down, but a new poll from Rasmussen Reports suggest they’re a bit out of touch.

Yet, 53 percent of all voters — including 76 percent of Republicans — agree with Trump’s comments and say illegal immigration increases the level of serious crime in America.

“Most voters expect biased media coverage of the 2016 presidential race, and the media response to recent immigration comments by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is a good case in point,” says Fran Coombs, the managing editor of Rasmussen Reports.

The murder of 32-year-old Kate Steinle by an illegal alien who was taking “sanctuary” in San Francisco has now put the open borders crowd in the hot seat this week. Francisco Sanchez, the 45-year-old man who has confessed to Steinle’s murder, had been released from jail in March after San Francisco authorities didn’t honor an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer request.

According to an April, 2013 survey conducted by Rasmussen, 50 percent think ending all federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities would have a big impact on the flow of illegals into this country. The same number say strong penalties against U.S. employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants would reduce future illegal immigration a lot.

It’s same to say that these numbers are likely much, much higher at this point.

(READ ALSO: Americans Want DOJ to Punish Sanctuary Cities for Refusing to Enforce Immigration Law)

The number of voters who consider illegal immigration a serious problem and believe controlling the border is the most important thing the government can do, even if using the military is necessary, is at a four-year high.

A May Rasmussen Reports survey found 77 percent of likely voters now consider illegal immigration a serious problem in America today, including 51 percent who say it is very serious. Meanwhile, just 19 percent don’t think it’s a serious problem, and that includes only 3 percent who say it’s “Not At All Serious.”

“Concerns about border security remain the biggest threat to passage of immigration reform,” noted Scott Rasmussen, the former head of Rasmussen Reports. “It’s interesting that solutions focusing on incentives for crossing the border are seen as more effective than physical deterrence at the border.”

As they have for years, most voters (63%) think gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States. While that’s up just two points from January, it is the highest level of support for border control since December 2011.

Meanwhile, Trump will meet on Friday with Mr. Jamiel Shaw, a father who recalled on the O’Reilly Factor Wednesday night seeing his 17-year-old son, Jamiel Jr., lying dead in the street where he used to play. Jamiel Jr. was gunned down execution-style by a “Dreamer.”

“I felt happy for the first time,” Shaw, an African American, said in response to hearing Trump’s comments. “When that happened, I felt good. I felt hope. This is the hope that Obama thought he was gonna get. That was false hope. This is a beautiful thing.”

The man convicted of killing Shaw’s son was an illegal immigrant who had been released from jail the day before on prior gun charges.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 2 and 5, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Donald Trump came under fire for comments

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

Subscribe