Editor’s note: The mainstream media reports that Americans shouldn’t worry about the “caravan” of thousands of migrants headed to the U.S.-Mexico border. The Daily Signal’s audience mostly disagrees, based on comments such as the ones we feature below. Don’t forget to write [email protected]—Ken McIntyre
Dear Daily Signal: In his commentary, “The Left Goes Full Open Borders,” Jarrett Stepman quotes Marc McGovern, mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts, as saying of the migrant caravan: “Every one of these people are coming from a real fear. These are refugees.”
Really? Every one of them? I guess that means McGovern personally interviewed all 7,000 of them and is willing to personally vet them and be responsible for their actions?
That was how it used to be in the days of the Ellis Island immigration. You had to have a job waiting for you and a sponsor who would be personally responsible for your actions. It was a measure to provide assurance that you would not become a burden on society.—Michael Schmidt
I believe the vast majority of those claiming to want open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens have no idea of what a “New World Order” is, nor are they members of the “deep state” or of the “elite.” The reason these people say they want open borders and amnesty for illegals is not because they are especially concerned about the plight of the poor, but because President Trump opposes these things.
A few years back, when Barack Obama was making speeches about how unfair illegal immigration was to those immigrants who followed the law and came to this country legally and how much of a financial burden illegal immigrants were costing U.S. taxpayers, all the Democrats cheered.
When Bill and Hillary Clinton made speeches about how unfair illegal immigration was to immigrants who came into this country legally and how much of a burden illegal immigrants were costing U.S. taxpayers, all the Democrats cheered.
When Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer made similar speeches condemning illegal immigration, all the Democrats cheered.
Today when the Clintons, Obama, and Pelosi talk about illegal immigration, they drop the adjective “illegal” and refer to them as “Dreamers” who are just trying to make a better life for themselves and their poor families.
That’s not all they changed. Now the Democrat icons have “evolved” and claim these (illegal) immigrants will only strengthen our country and be an asset to the U.S. taxpayer. Despite their claims, what these Democrat icons really mean is that these (illegal) immigrants will only strengthen and be an asset to the Democrat Party.—Drew Page
All the data I have seen show that rates of crime by immigrants are lower than for people born here. And, many immigrants do jobs that most Americans won’t, thereby helping our economy. Why else would big business support immigration?—Michel Cavigelli
The illegals kill our citizens and get away with it. If that’s what you like, take them all into your house. We do not need or want them here. MS-13 members are in that caravan. They are violent criminals.—Estelle Newton
It is fact that some MS-13 gang members are in the caravan. It is fact there are gang members and terrorists outside our borders wanting to enter our country.
It is fact that these people have used asylum and refugee status to try to gain entry to our country in the past. It is fact they still are today.
Allowing these “refugees” and “asylum seekers” to just waltz into our country with zero vetting is all about MS-13 and potential terrorists using any means necessary to cross our borders.—Walter Williams
Don’t forget that every single person who crosses our border without following strict immigration protocols is by definition a criminal. He or she has broken our laws.
We don’t need more criminals in this country. We don’t need more poor, probably semiliterate, Third World scum in this country. We need to tighten our sickeningly lax immigration laws and permit only educated people who want to learn English and become Americans.—Maud St. James
— Jarrett Stepman (@JarrettStepman) October 25, 2018
How Our Immigration System Responds to ‘Caravan’
Dear Daily Signal: I have a question that wasn’t asked in Timothy Doescher’s article (“Q&A: Migrant Caravan and the US Immigration System”) and I have never seen an answer for it: Why are we allowing these people to set foot on our soil and become our problem forever?
Why are we not stopping them before they actually cross our border and turning them away, to make their way back home or to stay in Mexico? Why, when we catch them within a mile or so this side of the border, aren’t we just putting them right back across the border into Mexico, refusing them entry into our nation?
If we just did this, not allowing them to enter, they would then not become our problem, a very expensive and greatly damaging problem that lasts forever. So why is this simple solution to the issue not being used?—Marilyn Griffin
Make no mistake about it. This is an organized effort by the leftists and U.N. to conduct no less than an illegal, criminal invasion of our nation to overwhelm our national resources, just as was done in Europe over the past few years.
The leftists are afraid of losing and are implementing as many of their plans as possible. Stand up, America, and fight for your rights and your nation.—Patrick McCoy
No need to move the bases to the border. Just make unlawful entry into the country a felony.—Robert Zraick
Let’s say the Trump administration makes this police force even larger and gives it greater powers to expel illegal immigrants. And let’s assume that within a year or so most of the illegal immigrants will be deported, and seeing what is going on, no new ones come.
Will this meticulously trained, excessively powerful police force be dismissed? Or will the government find some other danger to keep them busy? Hint: They will find a reason to go after people like you.
Deporting illegal immigrants and restricting new ones from coming will hurt our economy. Weakening the U.S. economy will strengthen Asia, so gradually the gravity of the world financial market will move to Shanghai, which will become the new Wall Street. Silicon Valley will move to India, Malaysia, or Singapore.
To protect essential national interests, U.S. government leaders will do what they do the best. They will establish new stupid laws, this time banning American scientists, experts, and industrialists from leaving the country. Agents, well trained in chasing and catching illegal immigrants, will be used to catch and forcefully retain Americans trying to escape the country illegally.
The wall on the Mexican border will become handy to catch financiers, professors, and software engineers from escaping to Mexico. Am I fantasizing?—Henry A. Kowalczyk
They look well fed and well dressed. They are smoking and have cell phones and internet. They are carrying their homeland flags and even burning American flags. These are not refugees seeking safety.
They know the USA has the same drug lords and gangs and criminals, same as all countries. Even now they are traveling with criminals.
These people do not need to be doing what they are doing; there is no civil war in their homeland. They need to take their rear ends back where they came from.—Dusty Fae, West Virginia
We have an estimated 6,000 to 7,000 people coming to cross the southern border. They are determined, numerous, and probably cannot be stopped. My concern is diseases, infections, parasites they will bring with them.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have warned about the spreading of drug-resistant diseases and infections. People from countries with poor sanitation and poor hygiene are more likely to carry infections, and it’s likely they have not been vaccinated.
I can’t believe that thousands of people from these countries are all disease-free. If one American kid dies from catching any of these, it’s one too many. Please back President Trump in his vow to derail this invasion.—Joan T. Basson
If more troops are deployed to the border, they might help improve the number of border-crossers apprehended, but the Department of Homeland Security would still be releasing many of them.
— Tim Gradous (@tgradous) October 25, 2018
On Sending the Military to the Border
Dear Daily Signal: About David Inserra’s commentary, “Q&A: How the Military Can Help Secure the Border”: The Army can be used to repel an invasion, and this is what the “caravan” is—an invasion. Allow this mob to invade our country and what’s to stop the next mob of Third World poor, and the next, and the next, and the next?
Sure, they are all looking for a better life. Who isn’t? It’s all I can do to support my own family. I feel no obligation to provide for the world’s poor. If others do, that’s great, donate all you can afford; donate what you can’t afford. I don’t care how much of your own money you want to give away, but leave me out of it.
I worked for what’s mine. It may not be all that much, but it is mine. I pay income taxes and property taxes and sales taxes to support the government and American citizens who can’t make it without government assistance.
I keep being told by Democrats that we don’t pay enough taxes to provide homes for all the homeless, food for the hungry, schools for the ignorant, jails for the criminals, social services for the poor, medical care for all who don’t have insurance. If that is true, why do they want to keep bringing in more of the world’s poor, unskilled, uneducated, sick, and disabled—some of whom will turn to crime to survive here?
Despite all their rhetoric about the “Dreamers” who only want a better life for themselves and their families, the truthful answer is that the Democrats are doing this to increase their voter base. And they don’t give a damn what it costs the people who pay taxes to support their giveaways.—Drew Page
Since the Posse Comitatus Act does not allow the Army to enforce our laws, but does allow the Coast Guard to do so, dispatch the Coast Guard to the border. The Army can back up the Coast Guard, but let the Coast Guard do the enforcement part.
The important thing here is to not allow this mob of illegal aliens to enter our country, period. From the interviews with these aliens that I’ve seen, they are not looking for asylum. They are looking for jobs and health care. So they should not be given an asylum hearing by the overwhelmed Department of Homeland Security to be released into America.
They should be given a meal and some water and then be put on troop transports or buses and driven back to Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador. Come on, Mr. Trump, be the strong president that you are and stop this mob now. You stop this one now and other caravans will think twice about attempting to infiltrate our country in the future.—Marion E. Daniels-Price
Who is feeding these people? Where are they sleeping, getting medical aid, using toilets, or cleaning themselves, and who’s providing these things?
Our military must be shoulder to shoulder several deep, with heavy defensive equipment, armed and ready, with orders to not allow anyone to pass. We know the invaders will push women, the elderly, and children to the front line first.
That’s why the mainstream media is showing only the sad-faced women, the frail, and naturally innocent children in their photo ops. Non-mainstream media reporting shows proof there are thousands of young, able-bodied males, and perhaps hundreds of criminals and terrorists in the mix.—Marty Miller
There needs to be a wall, either concrete and steel, or a human wall that is shoulder to shoulder as a deterrent. Why is it so hard to protect our borders when it is so easy to find lawbreakers in the U.S.?
The “tent city” should be set up in White Sands and/or the California dessert with amenities. Those who are truly refugees will have a place to stay until the overworked courts can make the decisions about stay or go.—Karin Callaway, Florida
The big meat companies have bought those Mexican-South-Central American countries beef (protein). All those people that are marching north know is that the U.S. buys their meat that they can’t buy as a result.
Then that beef is not labeled here, so we can’t not buy it. Let’s go buy Ethiopian grain since we have more money. Please check the USDA import charts, and don’t forget the million head of live cattle from Mexico.—James Stotts, Llano, Texas
— Ryan T. Anderson (@RyanTAnd) October 15, 2018
Questioning Racial Preferences at Harvard
Dear Daily Signal: My response to Emile Kao’s commentary (“A Question for Harvard: Who Actually Wins From Racial Preferences?”) is this: A good start would be to eliminate the victim mentality from both the perceived victim and from those who want to feel good by helping. The law of unintended consequences is very much alive in this case.
While it feels good to help out those who need extra assistance in college admission, the cold, hard facts are that such assistance not only hurts others who are denied admission but also hurts those who are not qualified but are admitted.
This country has a foundational principle that merit is the key to success. Do-gooders feel good because they don’t suffer the consequences of their actions. Perhaps they should.—Lionel D. Dyck
We should make it illegal to ask your race on everything, including the census, government forms, in hiring, etc. And please, please, please stop calling anyone a hyphenated American. You are American or not. United we stand, divided we fall.—Redigo Gubernatio
We are human by race; Polish, English, Spanish, African, Japanese, Korean, or Indian by heritage; and American (no hyphens) by nationality. From the moment you are born or become a citizen of this country, you are an American. Accept it, believe it, live it.—Marion E. Daniels-Price
In a pure meritocracy for schools, jobs, and so on, the applicant would be judged solely on his ability and knowledge. While this is ideal, it will never happen, because to judge solely on ability would require the applicant to work and learn.
And it would remove the opportunity for the socialist liberals to be able to play on the “victim mentality” by passing out free goodies on the basis of race and sex. Affirmative action, in all its iterations, federal or not, is nothing but government-sanctioned racism and sexism, and should be abolished.
Promotion (for want of a better word) should be on merit, ability, and knowledge alone.—Maud St. James
Political correctness pervades everything. Did anyone notice that Asians focused their discrimination charge at whites? Harvard has made the admission standards for Asians more difficult than other groups, but the standards for whites are just a touch lower.
The real issue is in black and Hispanic admissions, where the standards are enormously lower. So Asians are not the only group being victimized when a white with much higher qualifications is passed over for other minorities, who fall well short of their standard.—Anthony Alafero
— All American Girl (@AIIAmericanGirI) October 12, 2018
Sex Slavery Survivor Nadia Murad and the Nobel Peace Prize
Dear Daily Signal: One of your recent headlines is factually incorrect: the one on Kelsey Harkness’ commentary on Nadia Murad’s Nobel Prize win, which reads “‘Feminists’ Silent When a Rape Survivor Wins Nobel Peace Prize.”
Feminists were not “silent” on this news story. It’s notable that the article gives absolutely no proof that they were; it does not mention feminist publications or feminist speakers that were oddly silent, or anything like that.
One quick search of social media and Google shows that feminist organizations (or their leaders) such as Ms. magazine, UN Women, The Lily, Women Deliver, Women Moving Millions, Global Fund for Women, and Women You Should Know all reported or posted on this story.
Hillary Clinton also posted about it. In the past, Gloria Steinem (one of the most famous U.S. feminists) interviewed Nadia Murad, and they’ve been on a panel together at the U.N. I found this just by a quick internet search. I’m sure there are far more feminists and feminist publications that carried this story that another quick search, not to mention actual journalistic research, would uncover.
The research in this article seems to be … oddly nonexistent. An article on why feminists in the U.S. appear to be mostly concerned on what happens in the U.S. could be merited, but this is just borderline deceptive reporting and I couldn’t stay silent about it.—Mary Ellen Dingley, Washington, D.C.
Kelsey Harkness responds:
Many of the organizations listed are international women’s groups. My article focused on the hypocrisy of American feminists, particularly groups that were the most vocal during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process. The large U.S.-based “women’s groups” include the Women’s March, Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the National Organization for Women.
None of these groups, according to my research, released a statement, let alone a tweet, on Nadia Murad’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I’m glad Hillary Clinton tweeted about it, and wish groups such as the Women’s March, which claim to speak for all women, had followed suit. I find that international women’s groups are far less hypocritical than American feminist groups on issues they choose to highlight. Which is precisely my point: American feminists are out of touch when it comes to “women’s issues,” and often choose to focus only on issues that affect them.
I appreciate the thoughtful feedback and will make a note to be more specific in my criticism. Thank you for reading our work at The Daily Signal, and for taking the time to share your thoughts. It’s important to hear from readers such as you, as we strive to hold ourselves to the highest standard.—Kelsey Harkness
It is purely political, is my reaction to Kelsey Harkness’ commentary on sex slavery survivor Nadia Murad. The left is angry, but not because of abuse of women. That is only used as fuel to their fire. They don’t give a damn about women’s rights (Clintons? Kennedys?).
They will try to pass laws that appear to be supportive of women, but are usually deleterious of both women’s rights and the Constitution. They never cared about women’s rights. It’s all a leftist narrative to fundamentally transform the U.S. to tired old policies that fail everywhere else they’ve been tried.—Wayne Harmon
Well said, Kelsey Harkness.—Darlene Pawlik
Some people regard the simple truth as name-calling. I believe “feminazi” is a perfectly accurate term.
Look how their tactics are almost a perfect copy of the early days of the Nazi party: Refusal to allow any beliefs but their own and attacking anyone who does not agree with them 100 percent. Large and loud rallies, though the real Nazis were nowhere near as vulgar as their modern counterparts. Acting only on what advances their own sick agenda and ignoring any truth that counters their beliefs.
Case in point: “Standing with” and promoting radical Islam as they did during the p—y hat and vagina costumes march while completely ignoring the horrors of Sharia law, such as stoning women to death, genital mutilation, and other widespread practices. No, feminazis is the perfect term.—Maud St. James
The radical feminists are very selective about which women’s rights they support. Abortion is supported, even encouraged, while slavery is ignored. Praise liberal women in politics while any conservative is bashed.
Completely overlooked and actually defended Bill Clinton’s admitted sexual abuse and several very credible accusations (substantiated by witnesses) while condemning Brett Kavanaugh although there are no witnesses other than those who deny the accusations.—William Surian
That’s the real story here, feminist hypocrisy in the U.S. And leftist hypocrisy. And media hypocrisy. Oh, wait, I forgot, that’s the real story of every story.
Can you for once just commend something or someone without turning it into a leftist-bashing exercise? You’re not wrong, but you, the whole Daily Signal staff, are so predictable and repetitive as to be boring.
If Nadia Murad comments on lack of support from feminists, that’s one thing. For you to use her story in this manner is exploitative.—Glen Secor
— Jim Mullen (@freedomforusnow) October 9, 2018
The Tea Party Takes It to the Next Level
Dear Daily Signal: Thank you so much to Kevin Mooney for the terrific article on the Virginia Tea Party (“Meet 12 Tea Party Activists Who’re Busy Improving Their State”). It means so much to have positive press. Many folks are shy about speaking to the media because we have so often been misquoted.
There were many more folks in attendance who have been involved since the beginning of the tea party movement. But unfortunately, some are shy regarding the media and other top activists were the worker bees behind the scenes making the summit happen.—Carol Stopps, Richmond, Va.
May I suggest that we call this movement tea party advocates? The true meaning of “activist” is the act of bringing about political change, but the term has acquired a violent character at the hands of Democrats.
As advocates, however, I believe we would not accidentally trip their land mines and cast our noble efforts in their light, but we would remain more solidly on the free-speech podium.—Nico van Niekerk, Thousand Oaks, Calif.
I had access to a book in the 1960s published by the U.S. War College that laid out in detail the Soviet plan to take over the United States. It was titled “Protracted Conflict.” The plan was developed in the 1930s and was expected to take at least two generations—80 years or more—to reach fruition.
What we are seeing today is the outworking of that plan in its final stages. The progressives have embraced the old Soviet plan in ignorance for the most part, because they have not been taught history, which was an integral part of the plan. So the goal is a fundamentally changed America.—Hugh Howard
— Rob Bluey (@RobertBluey) October 11, 2018
Taylor Swift Builds Her Political Reputation
Dear Daily Signal: I read Monica Burke’s commentary on singer Taylor Swift with interest (“Taylor Swift Finally Went Political. Here’s Where She Went Wrong.”). She dealt with what for some people is a sensitive subject and treated it with proper care.
Burke states: “A difference of opinion about the meaning of marriage does not constitute bigotry or discrimination.” I certainly agree, but I don’t find that Swift disagreed either.
The real issue here is not anyone’s right to believe what they like and (generally) to behave accordingly, but rather the right of others with different views to enjoy the equal protection of the law. Specifically, the right of some to believe that “traditional” marriage is the proper form should not be allowed to deprive same-sex couples from the right to marry and enjoy the rights and protections that the law gives to married couples.
Gays are not insisting that everyone should be gay (that is up to God, in any event) and heterosexuals should not insist that gay people should pretend to be straight.
Burke writes: “We should instead pursue a civil society and a culture that treats LGBT individuals with respect and simultaneously respects those who uphold a traditional view of marriage.” Absolutely.
And she ends by saying: “Swift, like many of us, wants to protect the right to live and speak according to one’s beliefs. For that right to truly extend both ways, Americans must be free to disagree about marriage.”
Again, I completely agree. However, Burke is not quite as forthright in stating her defense (hopefully) of the right of all of us to the equal protection of the law, which means the right of same-sex couples to marry.—Warren Coats, Bethesda, Md.
Taylor Swift can offer advice to my heart anytime she wants; her songs bring out the romantic in me. And she did exactly right with her accusation of sexual misbehavior by a man: She reported it instantly.
But when it comes to voting and politics in general, hers is just another voice in a crowd. I will say that I read her statement and was every bit as impressed with her ability to express her thoughts and opinions on her political choices as she is able to create poems that sing to matters of the heart.
I do hope, though, that this does not indicate an ambition on her part to become another insight-singer who makes a move into songs of political advocacy. (I’m looking at you, Jackson Browne. You broke my heart with that bull.)—Jay Wensley
If you’re having trouble deciding who to vote for, just find out who Hollywood would vote for and vote for that candidate’s opponent.—Kevin Boudreau
One of Taylor Swift’s best friends is Lena Dunham. Enough said.—Lynne Hallman
Taylor Swift did manage to get her name in my brain. I never heard of her before now.—Russell Armor
Well, I must say she is really cute but very, very stupid.—Jane Wegener
America's first "robot sex brothel" is bad news for our culture.
— George Cassis (@geopolytica) October 1, 2018
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sex?
Dear Daily Signal: About 100 years ago, moralizers like Monica Burke succeeded in putting government in charge of curbing our alcohol addictions (“America’s First ‘Robot Sex Brothel’ Is Bad News for Our Culture”). Prohibition did not work. it turned into criminals otherwise honest people going about their daily business.
But Prohibition facilitated growth of organized crime. Nevertheless, moralizers learned nothing. Now they want government to be in charge of our sex behavior. By the way, should America not be about giving people freedom to pursue their way of happiness?—Henryk A. Kowalczyk
Perversion will drive men toward sex bots and lack of commitment to a relationship or marriage. Let’s face it, any man who could be satisfied by a robot isn’t worth a woman’s time.—Rhonda Reichel
Blame women, not men. Some men would rather have sex with a doll than a woman. Maybe we should question why that is. What were the men’s past experiences that made a doll more desirable?—John Dapper
There is nothing in marriage for men anymore, nothing. She’ll divorce you just to win an argument and take all your money and go and make lies that you beat her even if you were never violent in your life and there’s no evidence. Or she’ll threaten to go live with another woman.
You go to church and there are zero single women. Or there are the ones who have 10 kids by 10 fathers and were never married to any of them. But they want you to commit to marrying them and taking care of their kids before they’d consider letting you pay to date them. If you married one and had a baby, she could murder it without your permission.
Bring it on with the robots, already. God will understand. This chick writing this commentary better go talk to other women and stop her preaching on this usually decent news site.
My daughter got married to a nice Jewish man when she was 19. They have three sons and are still married 13 years later. He never cheated on her or hit her and he never will. She has a career (teaching young children).
It can be done, but she’s one in a billion and only because she had excellent fatherly values when she was growing up. If this chick running her mouth with this commentary isn’t similarly “accomplished” in family life, I sure as hell am not going to listen to her narcissistically preach.—Stuart Shepherd
Might blow the hell out of the #MeToo movement. No one to say they were sexually assaulted.—Rockne Hughes
This is so sad and perverted. People are missing out on true fulfillment when they do not have a loving, committed, long-lasting marriage. My husband and I had almost 38 years before his death.
I am thankful for the satisfaction of loving intimacy with a real man, in a life-long partnership raising our children. The real thing is a million times better than a doll or a picture.—Carol Morrisey
Here's how @realDonaldTrump rescued our economy from the "new normal." https://t.co/Ooa6xc5A2v via @mbusler @DailySignal/ #CCOT -Pres Trump has been in business all his adult life, had many successes & failures, he knows how the economy works & what needs fixing. BHO clueless!
— Debbie Herschfeld (@FLNativeDeb) October 1, 2018
Understanding the Trump Economy
Dear Daily Signal: Regarding Michael Busler’s commentary, former President Barack Obama says he saved the nation from the Great Depression No. 2, and then his draconian regulations, outrageous taxes, and frequent extortion of businesses through bogus suits did wonders (“How Trump Rescued Our Economy From Obama’s ‘New Normal’”).
Loved the part where Obama tried desperately to destroy the carbon energy sector, only to have it circumvent him, using state and private property law and saving his rear end with an energy boom.
Had his policies crushed energy growth, as he so desired, we would have fallen back into a recession and possibly a depression.—Anthony Alafero
As an economist, I feel it necessary to point out that President Obama added $30 trillion in long-term obligations and unfunded mandates to the U.S. economy. President Trump has rolled back some of them.
Eight years of Obama nearly destroyed the largest economy in the history of humanity. When the collapse does come, it will be fallout from the past 30-plus years of Democrats giving away the farm and RINO Republicans being complicit in every way. This is why the swamp has gone insane.—Anton Zilwicki
It was President Bill Clinton who campaigned on making mortgages available to all. That promise was kept and the lending rules were changed. Fast-forward a couple of decades, and financial institutions learned how to maximize their profits.
Where that then went very wrong is when the appetite for these mortgage bundles was very high, even though the quality was worse than bad. But the original belongs to Clinton, with many blind eyes along the way.—Steve Smewing
Who was the last president to have a budget surplus to pay down our enormous debt? Who was the last president to create 15 million jobs in the final seven years of his presidency (it’s really the economy, we all know, as presidents don’t create jobs)?
If you hate science, objective truth, compassion for others, and respect for dissenters, then yes, usually best to vote for a Republican candidate.—John Levin, New York
Trump inherited the longest economic streak of increases ever seen. Obama retrieved the economy from the Great Recession that would have plunged the nation and world into a Depression-era funk.
His treasury secretary and the existing Fed chair, Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke, set policies to stop bankruptcies such as Lehman Brothers that put thousands out of work. He set policies to solidify banks and get lending started again.
But there are tradeoffs. Health care was a crying need of “we, the people,” so that was the priority domestically. No more barriers for pre-existing conditions, no more hospital revolving-door treatments, 20 million more covered by insurers who profited from added subscribers despite the Supreme Court-affirmed tax to those who had no coverage at all.
It jump-started the economy that Trump claims. Since 2009, the economy was steadily expanding, not limping along. Since Trump, big corporations and rich men have had a windfall increase in income to 90 percent of national revenues and 50 percent of all assets, not workers.
Several times in his commentary, Michael Busler credits Trump for wage increases, which is true only in tax cuts leaving net income slightly higher for workers but corporations sitting pretty with small taxation for repatriated offshore money. They’re not giving the proceeds to workers, but using it for stock buybacks, capital improvements, and stockholder dividends.
Now with tax cuts, hardly reform, CEOs are making 250 percent more than workers who make industry go. Any nominal increase in wages is due to minimum wage laws increased by states, an Obama and Democratic and blue state feature, not Trump, who brags on carrier expansion that adds a few jobs here while cutting more jobs over there.
Tariffs have raised consumer prices for workers that fat cats absorb with no problem in their new largesse. What’s needed now is attention to inflation, too much money chasing too few goods because “goods” haven’t increased through any magic of Trump reform or capital expansion.
Trashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership and NAFTA has upset our efforts to contain China’s expansion or help our neighbors to prosper while holding prices down. Inflation is the new concern. The tide is rising, and workers will pay the price for the renewed boom-and-bust economics of Trump.—Bill Lemoine
As a logical thinker and an accountant for 40 years, I think Obama used a lot of dollars paying off terrorists and terrorist supporters. We could have paid down some of the obligation with that money, since there was no chance that it would be used for us.—Karin Callaway, Florida
All boats are rising. And the reversals of Obama policies, plus the massive leadership of Trump, are the reasons.—Lisa Roy
Billings is very good as Gosnell, and @yesnicksearcy did a great job directing this.
— Larry Schweikart (@LarrySchweikart) October 13, 2018
On the Big Screen, the Truth About Gosnell
Dear Daily Signal: Regarding Rachel del Guidice’s commentary on the movie “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer” (“I Watched ‘Gosnell.’ Here Are My 5 Takeaways.“): Modern feminism is the primary defender of abortion and the primary opponent of the pro-life movement.—Kenneth Mathews
Feminists salute abortion. They will loathe this movie.—Diego Connor
Every supporter of abortion must watch this movie. We must stop taxpayer money going to pay for abortions. It is unethical.—Jane Wegener
If a woman can decide who lives or dies, why can’t a man? Legally speaking, of course.—Herman Mueller
It should be especially required viewing for every politician who supports abortion.—Allen E. Anderson
— ?M. T.? (@kwicgov55) October 5, 2018
Dianne Feinstein and That Confidential Letter
Dear Daily Signal: Bravo to Fred Lucas on showing the ongoing hypocritical standards of the left during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s actions (“Feinstein May Face Ethics Probe Over Leak of Ford Letter“). This entire incident has left me in a state of total disbelief. My biggest fear however, is the public does not believe, through their actions, that “guilty until proven innocent” is a bad thing.
I was a military policeman and became a police officer for private universities in both Baltimore and Washington, D.C. I needed probable cause to obtain warrants for arrest. The burden of proof that the accused committed a crime relied on the prosecution.
The emergence of the “mob rule of law” mentality is dangerous, because, if left unchecked, the day could come where some of the very same anti-Kavanaugh protesters could become victims of their own inadequate standard of “justice.”
Victims of sexual assault should always have their voices heard and their allegations investigated. But never at the expense of the rights of the accused. We should never “believe” either men or women. Justice demands that the facts be investigated and if the evidence suggests that a crime has been committed, so be it.
The United States must never become a country where crooked lawyers and unsubstantiated claims become a replacement for equal justice under law. Thanks for being a true public trustee. With your help, we will succeed.—Julius Clark
Maybe I have missed something here but if Christine Blasey Ford wanted to keep her identity confidential, just what is it she expected was going to be done with the accusation she was making?
Second, if Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., promised Ford’s confidentiality would be protected, what was going to be gained by sitting on the letter for two months? If she would have told Ford, ‘I can’t use this information unless you let me share it with the FBI,’ she could have gained enough permission to at least let the FBI know who made this accusation so it could be investigated. If both were on the up and up, this would have made sense.
Third, why did Ford need Feinstein to help her retain lawyers?
I think this whole episode needs to be investigated. Was the entire story fabricated with the clear intent to delay the confirmation past the midterm elections? Was Ford a willing participant, or did Feinstein use her story as the basis for the delaying tactic?—Patrick Gerber, New Berlin, Wis.
— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) April 12, 2018
If You Can’t Beat Them, Purge Them
Dear Daily Signal: Imagine if shortly before the World Series started, the Boston Red Sox had half of the Los Angeles Dodgers’ players eliminated. Does that sound fair? Well, that’s what Facebook did to conservatives Oct. 11, when the company unexpectedly deleted hundreds of personal profiles, pages, and groups—weeks before the midterm elections.
Of course, Facebook won’t admit its real intentions. The company usually falls back on its tried-and-true “you were posting too fast,” or my all-time favorite, “you are guilty of spamming.” That makes no sense because the platform was built on “sharing.”
But if you share too much, you’re guilty of violating everybody’s biggest nightmare, Facebook’s “community standards.” It’s kind of like Bugatti’s selling you a car that goes 200 miles per hour, but taking it away from you because you drove it 200 miles per hour.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google don’t understand what censorship and suppression does to conservatives. It makes us work 10 times harder to support conservatives like President Donald Trump.—Allen Muench, St. Louis, Mo.
Editor’s note: Facebook revealed Oct. 11 that it removed 810 accounts and pages that “have consistently broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior.”
— AmericaFirst ????? ? (@danco_1830) October 18, 2018
This and That
Dear Daily Signal: Didn’t Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., use her American Indian heritage to gain favor and preferential treatment in various ways (“Pocahontas Descendant: Elizabeth Warren Should Apologize“)?
And if she is not a member of a tribe, and does not have a roll number, isn’t that fraud? I wonder what the statute of limitations would be for that?
I have about the same amount of Cherokee blood that Elizabeth Warren does, and although my family is proud of our heritage, it never was something we ever thought about profiting from.
My mother would occasionally bemoan the fact that her great-grandmother had left the Oklahoma reservation and forfeited her roll number. We had some cousins who were still members of the Choctaw tribe, and they had free medical care and free college. But my parents managed to get all six of their children through school, and we are all pretty healthy, now going into our sixth and seventh decades. So we did OK without it.
Actually, we have all done quite a bit better than OK. I am convinced that welfare ruins lives by destroying people’s belief in their own abilities. That is a terrible and cruel thing to do to anyone: to rob them of their proper pride in being self-sufficient and able to take care of themselves and their families. I am very grateful to my great great-grandmother for leaving the reservation and setting all of her descendants free.—Karen Schmid, Woodland Park, Colo.
Why are folks not sounding sirens and blowing whistles on The New York Times for advocating (by innuendo that is more than obvious) that the president be assassinated (“Rep. Steve Scalise Calls for New York Times to Remove Trump Assassination Short Story”)?
That is a federal crime. These editors should be prosecuted. Where is our U.S. attorney general? You claim to represent us, the common man and woman. Do your duty.
I am a former journalism instructor in secondary school who used The New York Times for her “bad example” of how not to write news articles. Back in the ’60s, I had award-winning student writers. They will tell you they got their start in writing from a demanding lady who used the Times’ bad example to inspire them affirmatively.—Ellen Verell
I really like The Daily Signal because I feel that you report news and write commentary in a truthful and accurate manner.
Having said that, I want to make you aware in the event that you haven’t thought about the segment of the population who cannot listen to your podcasts. I’m talking about people like myself who are significantly hearing impaired and those who are deaf.
When a person with this issue does not see something in print, or the speaker’s mouth, they cannot understand the message. Is there some way that you could print these messages so that those of us with this disability can get the same information as people who can hear clearly?—Carmen Kearney, Manchester, N.H.
Editor’s note: We run transcripts of major interviews on the podcast. Watch for them in the Morning Bell email or at dailysignal.com.
Why is there little to no positive or encouraging news? Every day, we are bombarded with negative news and the terrible things that are happening. What would happen if we started hearing about good things? It would strengthen and encourage, instead of negative, oppressive, discouraging and discouraging reports.
Let’s hear about the good, encouraging, strengthening, and uplifting stories. What we hear and see has a huge impact on what we think and believe. Let the news create a whole new perspective on life. Especially in America, where we have so much to be positive and thankful about.—Dwayne Potteiger
How Are We Doing?
I don’t get it. How does The Daily Signal get away with reporting on meaningful and significant issues that involve actual research and in-depth investigation? No fluff, no garbage, no absurd tales of things that never happened. What gives? Keep up the good work and honest reportage.—Steve Fowler, Colville, Wash.
Thank you so much for your wonderful, up-to-date information. Gratitude.—Alonso Lopez
I thoroughly enjoy getting your information every day. Something I can count on to be true, and new info that the left-wingers would never let the public know.—Bonnie Saar, Milford, Ohio
Fred Lucas is great. Not. He is an idiot. Sources? Fake news. Is he related to Trump?—Marcos Konig
You are doing a much needed, reliable service to your readers. Keep up the good work.—Ruth Yarman, Wadsworth, Ohio
Troy Worden helped to compile this edition of “We Hear You.”