April 5, 2019

The government reported this morning that hiring in March rebounded strongly from February’s drop, with 196,000 jobs created. February's numbers were also revised upward a bit.


Meanwhile, jobless claims fell last week to 202,000, the lowest level in half a century.  The last time they were this low was in December of 1969, when there were about 120 million fewer Americans than there are now.


This is more bad news for doomsayers who keep predicting a recession. On top of that, President Trump backed off his threat to close the border and instead gave Mexico a one-year warning to get the drugs and illegal crossings under control.


So now, Trump’s critics don’t even have the threatened catastrophic avocado shortage to frighten us with.  On the bright side, they can drown their sorrows over the booming economy in lots of delicious, cheap guacamole.

Commentary continues below advertisement


A Democratic Senator who wants to be President seems to think we must “restore” America’s “democracy” (which our system isn’t) by doing away with something (the Electoral College) that’s in the Constitution and has been part of our system since the nation was founded.  I don’t think she understands what certain words mean, like “democracy” and “restore.”


“Science!”  Tokyo researchers claim that cats can recognize the sound of their names.  So it’s now official: they’re ignoring us on purpose.


A federal judge in California recently struck down that state’s ban on so-called “high capacity magazines.”  That means more than 10 rounds, which doesn’t seem high when you’re being attacked by criminals and need to fire, say, 11 or more bullets to stay alive.


You might not have heard much about this case (it’s not the kind of gun law ruling the media like to report on), and if you did, I’m almost certain they didn’t quote the judge’s reasoning for striking down the ruling, and the cases he cited in doing so.  This article does.  You’ll want to read it.


 While Democrats are arguing over whether Joe Biden’s impression of an overly excitable Labrador retriever constitutes sexual assault, there are very real and serious allegations of sexual assault against a high-ranking Democrat still hanging out in the breeze in Virginia.  The Party and the media are doing their level best to ignore and bury the story, but the alleged victims refuse to shut up and go away.


The New York Times recently quoted someone as saying the scandals involving the top three Democratic office holders in Virginia (this being the most serious) just seemed to go “poof” and disappear.  The Times can look for the reason in the nearest mirror, because that only happens when the media don’t do their job.  And a reminder: the media’s job is not to help make Democratic scandals go “poof” and disappear.


I’ve made it clear that I think the recent sexual-assault talk about Joe Biden is mostly partisan hyperbole, and that while there are many reasons I wouldn’t want Biden to be President, his effusively affectionate greetings for both men and women aren’t one of them.


But here is one that a lot of people have unfortunately forgotten: the underhanded way Biden misled Clarence Thomas before his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, giving him friendly reassurances, and then once the cameras were on, sinking the knife in his back while blindsiding him with quotes taken out of context.  And as long as we’re bringing up disqualifying personal behavior around women, as Instapundit blogger Sarah Hoyt notes, Biden is all over video doing stuff that looks far worse than anything Thomas was ever even accused of.


The Democrats have a lot to worry about these days: they now have 18 candidates duking it out for the Presidential nomination, not one of whom would a sane person trust to run a coffee shop (except the one whose experience actually involves running coffee shops.) The most prominent media face of their Party is an ex-bartender who’s quickly developing a reputation as the socialist Gracie Allen (a reference I guarantee she’ll have to look up on Wikipedia.)  And the “Russian collusion” narrative they staked their hopes on collapsed, leaving them desperately rooting through Trump’s tax records, garbage bags and septic tank, looking for anything at all to justify the impeachment attempt they announced the minute they realized they’d lost. 


With all that to worry their fevered minds, this news might just finish them off: Trump’s approval rating among Hispanic voters has risen to 50 percent.  If Democrats can’t count on two-thirds of the Hispanic vote, they can likely kiss Florida and Arizona goodbye in 2020, and maybe a few other states such as Colorado, as well.


The new survey by McLaughlin & Associates found that Trump not only has a 50 percent approval rating among Hispanics, but that was three points higher than among voters in general.  Some Democrats have tried to dismiss it as a Republican-friendly polling company, but in February, a Morning Consult/Politico poll put Trump’s Hispanic approval at 45 percent, and in January, a Marist/NPR/PBS survey (hardly friendly to Republicans!) also had it at 50 percent.   


Talk about shattering the narrative with a sledge hammer!  Liberals must be stunned: how can so many Hispanics approve of Trump when he called all Mexican immigrants violent criminals and rapists?  (Actually, he never said that: he was talking about MS-13 gang members who are here illegally, but they’re still trying to keep the liberal narrative duct-taped together.) 


Paul Mirengoff at the Powerline blog has some good comments explaining Trump’s rising Hispanic approval numbers, particularly from Steve Cortes, who led Trump’s Hispanic Advisory Council in 2016.


Cortes cites three factors, one of which might shock the left.  The obvious are the economy (Trump has presided over record-low Hispanic unemployment and rising wages) and social issues (many Hispanics are devout Catholics, traditional family-oriented and pro-life.)  The one that might shock Democrats is the large number of Hispanic Americans who approve of Trump’s tough stand on illegal immigration and border security.


This really shouldn’t come as a shock.  I’ve been reporting for years that many Hispanic Americas have told me they find it offensive that liberals think they approve of illegal immigration just because they’re Hispanic.  These legal immigrants are some of our most patriotic US citizens.  They tell me of how they waited in line, followed the rules, respected America’s laws, studied the books, paid the fees, passed the tests and proudly took the oath of citizenship.  They greatly resent that people think they can sneak across the border and demand the same rights they worked so hard for. 


Cortes also points out that Hispanic Americans are some of the worst victims of the negative impacts of illegal immigration.  Illegal immigrants blend into largely Hispanic neighborhoods, especially along the border, and compete with Hispanic citizens for jobs at unfair lower wages.  The gangs target their kids with drugs and threaten their families.  Their violent, lawless behavior makes their neighborhoods unsafe and gives their communities a bad reputation.  So why wouldn’t they support Trump’s efforts to protect them from all that? 


Hispanic Americans think of themselves as independent, diverse, hard-working, law-abiding Americans, because that’s what they are. The left sees nothing but their ethnicity and are shocked that they might not vote based solely on that.  Sorry to break this to them, but that sounds awfully racist to me. 



Thursday, President Trump nominated Herman Cain to fill one of the seven seats on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. 


Since just about everything Trump does is given a negative spin by the media without including all the facts, you’ll probably hear that Cain is a former presidential candidate and news commentator who is lacking in qualifications for such a high level job related to finance. There’s about a 50-50 chance that the mainstream media will mention he’s the former president of the Godfather’s Pizza chain, the former president of the National Restaurant Association and one of the most successful African-American businessmen of the past 40 years. 


There’s a very good chance they’ll mention the accusations of sexual harassment that came out of nowhere when his 2012 campaign was rising in the polls and not mention how they mysteriously vanished once he left the race.  And there’s probably very little chance that they’ll mention his first appearance on the public scene, debating Bill Clinton and arguing that Hillary’s health care plan (a precursor of Obamacare) would force businesses to lay off workers (I’d say he was proven right on that one). Or that he also happens to be the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.


But since this link is to a conservative-leaning publication, it actually has all that information and more.


Attorney General Bill Barr has said that the Mueller report will be ready to greet its eager public by mid-April. That’s only a week or so away. So why are Democrats embarrassing themselves by calling nonstop for its immediate and total release, even when they know perfectly well that it contains material –- classified records, grand jury proceedings, etc.--- that would be illegal for Barr to make public. Barr has made it plain that he wants to be transparent and will turn over as much as he can, even though he’s not obligated to turn over anything at all. Trump is saying the same.


So why is House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler acting like he’s got a wasp in his underwear? (Apologies to the late Morey Amsterdam.)


There’s a clip of Nadler from a couple of decades ago that’s been making the rounds: Nadler argues that Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s report on President Clinton should NOT be released. It’s quite hilarious, considering that this time, Nadler wants every last unredacted word of the report on President Trump, even all the supporting documents (which I understand run into the millions of pages). At this writing, he’s readying the subpoena (which the DOJ will refuse, simply because complying with it would be breaking the law). Nadler’s hypocrisy is even worse when you consider that today’s special counsel statute is different from the independent counsel law that governed Ken Starr. Barr is not compelled to give the entire report (or for that matter, any of it) to Congress; Starr was supposed to.


In fact, Barr is behaving exactly as the Democrats would want him to if it were a Democrat President under investigation. Fair, ethical, deliberate, transparent, lawful. But this is Trump, so as far as the Dems are concerned, all that is out the window, ‘cause fairness ain’t got nuthin’ to do with it. In the spirit of Festivus, they want an “airing of grievances” against Trump. Ironically, they want Barr to treat Trump the same way that then-FBI Director James Comey treated Hillary in his infamous July 2016 press conference: Detail a list of accusations even though there’s no indictment.


Alan Dershowitz continues to point out what was wrong with treating Hillary that way. He’s right: Comey wasn’t supposed to make public any allegations that weren’t going to be charged. What Dershowitz keeps ignoring, though, is that the most egregious part of Comey’s press conference wasn’t the “airing of grievances” part –- it was the “declining to charge” part. Hillary clearly had broken the law and just as clearly should have been charged with crimes. It would have been quite appropriate for Comey to detail Hillary’s crimes as he did if he had also done the right thing and indicted her.


Dershowitz, who supported Hillary for President, likes to call her misdeeds “political sins” that didn’t call for indictment. Admittedly, I’m not a lawyer, and Dershowitz is an esteemed one, but I have to disagree with him on that one point. There’s plenty of evidence that Hillary broke the law, and quite spectacularly. To save her from indictment, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch had to essentially rewrite the Espionage Act –- to require “intent,” which is almost impossible to prove.


In fact, it’s hard to compare these two cases because of that key difference: Hillary broke the law and Trump didn’t. Hillary should have been indicted. Thus it’s hard to have much sympathy for Hillary over Comey’s public recitation of her misdeeds; Comey’s worst mistake was in not following through.


As for the issue of obstruction, Dershowitz reminded viewers in a Thursday night interview with Sean Hannity that the President is entitled to express his opinion publicly on any issue. To do so is NOT obstruction. “I’ve never heard of a case where somebody was charged with obstruction of justice for speaking in public, or tweeting,” he said. “And if you’re the President, you can fire, and you can’t be charged if you engage in your constitutionally protected acts.”


While waiting for Barr to release the report, someone, apparently from Mueller’s team, is strategically leaking, first to The New York Times and then to just about everybody else, to further the narrative that the report is much harder on Trump than Barr had made it seem in his summary. And, of course, the media are salivating over this news, and happy smiles have returned to their faces. On the other hand, John Solomon at THE HILL has sources of his own, at the DOJ, and according to them, the Mueller team wrote their report in “snippets” designed for public dissemination, pieces that read like more like campaign material than a prosecutor’s final report. Also, these do include grand jury information. This certainly is not the sort of material that’s supposed to be released to the public.


In the meantime, if you’d like to read about some ACTUAL obstruction, here’s some great reading material. Sara Carter has learned still more about how the Hillary email “investigation” was conducted. She’s reviewed some yet-unreleased congressional testimony from James Rybiki, who was chief of staff to James Comey, dealing with how the DOJ tried to limit the FBI’s ability to gain access to the laptops of Hillary confidants Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson.


Mills and Samuelson were granted immunity in June of 2016, about a month before the FBI closed their “investigation” into Hillary. In exchange for the immunity, they were supposed to get access to the laptops. But according to Rybiki, the DOJ did not want the FBI to have the laptops. Of course, the FBI believed they contained classified information, and normally in such a case they would have sought a grand jury subpoena or warrant. But this time, they didn’t play hardball; they negotiated with Clinton and her lawyers, who set the terms of the deal.


Once again, “the fix was in,” apparently from the DOJ.


We already know that Clinton and her lawyers got other concessions, too. Unbelievably, Cheryl Mills, a State Department confidant of Clinton and a witness in the case, was allowed to sit in as Clinton’s attorney for Clinton’s FBI interview. They also did not record her interview.


We still don’t know what happened to the laptops --- whether they were destroyed or are still in the custody of the FBI. Even Inspector General Michael Horowitz did not say in his report what happened to them. Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch has never been able to find out what happened to them, either.


According to Rybiki, there was much discussion and disagreement about who should have access to the laptops, with the DOJ (“I don’t know what level”) trying to restrict it.


Anyway, with all the hysteria over the Mueller report --- the result of an investigation based on made-up evidence --- THIS is the material that the media should be clamoring for. THIS is the evidence of actual lawbreaking by a Presidential candidate and actual obstruction of justice, by our own DOJ no less, a bureaucratic cover-up at the highest levels of government. I’m referring to the many pages of testimony that Judicial Watch and Republicans in Congress have been requesting seemingly forever and that are now gradually dripping out, verifying our worst suspicions.


Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

More Stories

Comments 1-12 of 12

  • David L Shumway

    04/06/2019 05:59 PM

    I do not find the comment that you mentioned "my other comment today about Al Sharpton with its link to blogger Jeff Dunetz’s rundown of Sharpton’s appalling history that these would-be Presidents are willing to overlook and tacitly embrace for votes."
    I've scoured the reports today and do not find anything.

  • Barbara Colombo

    04/06/2019 02:30 PM

    I read your edition every day and thank you for the fair reporting and the truth.
    I am for our President Trump but can you please try to get him to stop tweeting things that are immature, unprofessional and unnecessary. The tweet with a video of Joe Biden was uncalled for. The Me Too movement has gone haywire with this and for Trump to add to it was awful. Also, making a comment about Shiff's thin neck. These remarks are beneath him and the presidency. Please these type of tweets are something teenagers would do. Give it up - that is why so many people are against him and overlook his accomplishments. He is doing his job and fulfilling promises but he has to try to keep his mouth shut once in a while.

  • Lucy Hooker

    04/06/2019 10:16 AM

    Mike, I wish more attention would be put on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. AMAC had an article about it. They are about 2/3 of the way to getting enough states to put this into effect. It would be the end of the electoral college without having to change the Constitution. This needs to be challenged in the courts or possibly a Senate vote, although I’m not sure about that working out. The whole article is at the link with a quote from it below.

    “The nonprofit is lobbying states to adopt what is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The compact requires a member state to cast its electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote—regardless of which presidential candidate wins the state.”

  • Teddye Stephan

    04/06/2019 06:21 AM

    Great report as always! Here's something I haven't seen addressed. I think AOC had to have been specially trained to spout what she spouts. Think of how her (insane) message would have played if Hillary Clinton had been elected as planned. AOC would have been hailed as an infant visionary, and the Democrats would have adopted much of the New Green Deal as the vehicle to bankrupt America and bring us into the global fold. I think that's who she is, and she is not the only one. Several others in our Congress identify every day as other pieces of the time bomb crafted to destroy America. AOC was recruited and trained for a specific job. Because Donald Trump and 63 million patriots threw a monkey wrench into the plans it hasn't worked out well for AOC. PTL!!!

  • Jerry Korba

    04/05/2019 11:32 PM

    I am not that surprised Hispanics like Trump these guys understand hard work most of them do work hard.and they also like legal tender, they are not fools they are like our baby boomers who worked hard for legal tender when they were young. Lazy people like their handouts like riding the bus, live in a dumpy apartment smoke dope most of the day and they are ok with that. Thats how dems want them to be controlled, low income, undesirable work members, the dems want them to drain the system by being on welfare, collecting food stamps, cheap housing that is the dems way. Hispanics do not want to be that guy they want nice things for their children, their spouse they want to better than a welfare participant they see what the dems are and quite a few don't want to be dems. Come here legally don't be a Dem come here to be an American.You left the dems behind look a head your future is better as an American Citizen Go for it all.

  • Bernadette Dillon

    04/05/2019 10:07 PM

    Thank you for your honesty. As a person that lives in San Diego and has to live in danger with these criminals MS-13. I have lived here since birth. We used to be able to play outside after dark. Not worry about our kids playing in the street. Now drug dealers, gun dealers, human traffickers are everywhere and people like Dianne Feinstein wants to take our second amendment rights away so we cannot protect ourselves. I wish President Trump shut down the border. Avocado small farmers and big farms here in the good old USA would make a great profit. So would tomato farmers here. American car maker part companies would hire more Americans, higher U S Labor Participation rate!
    Shut down the border and make America even greater!

  • Carl Smith

    04/05/2019 08:24 PM

    The TRUTH has been evident for years now. However when your dealing with really good and sneaky Lawyers the truth might drip out but I'm willing to eat this page if ANYTHING or ANYONE is ever held accountable and forget wearing a stripped suit. I upped my bet from a 100:1 to a 1000;1 and still no takers? Wonder why that is?

  • Amelia Little

    04/05/2019 08:23 PM

    And the double standard goes on and'd think democrats would recognize, or maybe someone in their ranks should point out to them, all their demands for reports that they stonewalled on or refused altogether regarding hilary but demand instant gratification on something they want. How many subpoenas for FBI and DOJ documents have never been turned over in the case of hilary? And, how come people associated with her were allowed to not testify about anything (lynch comes to mind.) How about releasing transcripts of hilary's "interview?" Oh, yeah, it was just a little interview, probably no records of what was discussed, and if there were any I'm sure they were burned in someone's fireplace by now. Or smashed or beach-blit if a computer were used.
    I started to watch a clip of "uncle" joe re:the allegations against him, but my stomach wouldn't take it. He started out saying he isn't going to apologize for anything, but he might try to change his approach or something to that effect. With the same smirky grin as seen on rosenstein and obama, and what he must have attempted to be a "naughty little boy grin" even his mother would like to slap off his face. So, do all others who have been accused get to say--no apology, but I'll try to not do that again?

  • Darlene F. Donston

    04/05/2019 06:52 PM

    I only have one opinion today and that is WHY ON EARTH DID TRUMP BACK DOWN ON CLOSING THE BORDER???? I and everyone else on my Facebook page was disgusted. I love Avocados, but I can do without them! Mexico cannot do without our money for any of their tomatoes , avocados and such. But these Illegals are still coming over in droves and bringing in diseases and killing American's with their driving because they do not know how to drive, they drink a LOT, they do not have insurance, they do break in, the rob businesses, they steal food out of the grocery stores and they do drugs along with the alcohol..........well I could go on and on! BUT THE MAIN THING IS that in one year Mexico is NOT GOING TO CHANGE THEIR WAY. MEXICO IS MEXICO always have been and they always will be. LaRaza still wants to take back CA and the Border States. So that means we have ILLEGALS STILL COMING IN along with the MUSLIMS/TERRORISTS. What a nice deal that is! Well, what I read this today on FB Trump better watch what he says from now on because we do not want him backing down anymore on the Border disaster!

  • Gene Muehring

    04/05/2019 06:10 PM

    An excellent recap of the day's news.

  • susan bemis

    04/05/2019 05:27 PM

    I so enjoy your comments Governor - and I LOVE Sara!! so strong and doesn't back down- handles herself beautifully
    I am in California - would like to send a letter to you on our problems here in this state with our worthless governor - where may I e-mail it or send it?? Perhaps the more exposure given, something can be done about his obvious corruption
    Thank-you Governor Huckabee
    Susan Bemis

  • Steve McDonnough

    04/05/2019 05:08 PM

    Mr. Huckabee,
    I ate my first avacado this past winter. It would not bother me if I never ate another one. What does bother me is having to take out a loan for anything I eat. No mo green slime for this redneck!