Trump Admin Devastates Putin After UK Nerve Attack

For the better part of the past two years, the liberal media has pushed the narrative that President Donald Trump is some sort of “puppet” of Russian President Vladimir Putin, largely owing to their fervent belief that Russia interfered in the 2016 on behalf of — and in collusion with — the Trump campaign.

That narrative has been used to suggest that Trump and his administration are “soft” against Russia, and somehow persists in spite of decidedly “hard” and tough actions the administration has taken against Russia over the past 18 months, such as economic sanctions and diplomatic expulsions, and pressure applied through energy production and even military activity.

Now the Trump administration is preparing to slam Russia with at least one, if not two, more rounds of sanctions that could prove devastating to Russia’s economy in response to the usage of a chemical weapon against a former Russian spy living in the United Kingdom in March, according to Reuters.

The State Department has concluded that Russia is indeed responsible for the use of a nerve agent known as Novichok against ex-GRU military intelligence agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia at their home in Salisbury, which left them sickened and hospitalized for months.

“Following the use of a ‘Novichok’ nerve agent in an attempt to assassinate UK citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal, the United States, on August 6, 2018, determined under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) that the Government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals,” said State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert on Wednesday, according to CNBC.

A first round of the new sanctions will likely go into effect on August 22, and will be followed by a potential second round of sanctions after 90 days if Russia is incapable of adequately meeting specific criteria laid out in the decades-old law, such as ensuring they’re no longer using biological or chemical weapons or allowing United Nations personnel to conduct on-site inspections of certain facilities.

The news of a additional economic sanctions from the U.S. against Russia hit the country’s already weak currency pretty hard, causing it to tumble even lower as compared to the U.S. dollar.

According to CNN, the first round of sanctions will target what are known as “dual use” technologies that are imported into Russia from the U.S., technologies that can be used generally but also for military or national security purposes.

While the export of most such sensitive goods to Russia will likely be denied approval by the State Department under the sanctions, there could be a few carve-outs of certain goods after case-by-case reviews are conducted into their intended use.

An anonymous senior State Department official told CNN that this first round of sanctions could effect “potentially a very great sweep of the Russian economy,” impacting upwards of 70 percent of the struggling nation’s economy and nearly 40 percent of the nation’s workforce.

“It is possible the trade affected could reach hundreds of millions of dollars,” the official added.

After the 90-day period has passed following implementation of these sanctions, and if Russia is found to be in non-compliance with international norms on biological and chemical weapons, a second and likely even more devastating round of sanctions will be automatically applied that will target Russian exports to the U.S.

That second round of sanctions is thought to be broad enough that it could even preclude Russian state-owned airliner Aeroflot from flying into the U.S. and would likely also include a downgrade of diplomatic relations between the two nations.

Yet, even in the face of this decidedly tough stance against Russia, some still hold to the illusion that Trump is in the pocket of Putin and sanctions like these — along with other tough actions against Russia — are merely politically-motivated distractions intended to quell the criticisms Trump has received over his purported relationship with the Russian leader.

“This clearly reinforces that the administration is tightening its sanctions approach to Russia,” stated former Defense Department official Mark Simakovsky, who is skeptical of the effectiveness of the sanctions. He added, “they could have taken this step months ago. They were late in taking this step by several months. The fact that they’re doing it now showcases that they’re under increased political pressure to target Russia for its malign activities abroad.”

Uh-huh. So if Trump hadn’t done anything, he’d be smeared as soft on Russia and in Putin’s pocket. But when he does impose crippling sanctions on Russia, he’s criticized for being too late and ineffective and merely acting under pressure to silence his critics. The man simply can’t win with his haters, regardless of what he does or doesn’t do.


Trump’s legal team responds to Mueller regarding interview

Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s legal team has responded to the special counsel, the latest effort in ongoing negotiations over a possible interview.

“We have now given him an answer. Obviously, he should take a few days to consider it, but we should get this resolved,” Giuliani said during an interview on the radio show of fellow Trump attorney Jay Sekulow.
“We do not want to run into the November elections. So back up from that, this should be over by September 1,” Giuliani said.
Sekulow confirmed in a statement that the legal team “responded in writing to the latest proposal” from the special counsel, but declined to comment on the substance of the response.
Giuliani had previously told CNN that the team plannedto send its counteroffer to special counsel Robert Mueller regarding a potential interviewon Wednesday.
“It is a good faith attempt to reach an agreement,” Giuliani, one of Trump’s lawyers on the Russia investigation, told CNN.
The former New York City mayor similarlywould not describe the contents of the counteroffer, except to say that “there is an area where we could agree, if they agree.”
Giuliani wouldn’t say if that area has to do with collusion or obstruction.
The President has previously said that he wants to speak with the special counsel and has insisted there was no collusion or obstruction, while deriding the investigation as a “witch hunt.”
But Trump’s public attacks on the Russia probe have sparked questions over whether his actions could constitute obstruction of justice. Those questions intensified earlier this month when the President calledon Attorney General Jeff Sessions to shut down the investigation, an escalation that Giuliani attempted to downplay as Trump merely expressing an opinion.
The President’s team has sought to limit any potential interview to questions about collusion. But Giuliani told CNN they would be willing to consider questions relating to any obstruction of justice inquiry as long as they are not “perjury traps,” a phrase favored by the Trump legal team as a way to raise questions about the fairness of the special counsel, though it also speaks to the risks of having the President sit down for an interview.
“For example: ‘What did you say about Flynn?’ ‘Why did you fire Comey?'” They already know our answer,” Giuliani said, referring to former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former FBI director James Comey, whom Trump abruptly fired in May 2017. The former FBI director later testified to Congress that Trump had pressed him to drop an investigation into Flynn, a claim that Trump has denied.
“If they can show us something in that area that didn’t involve those direct questions, that we don’t consider perjury traps, we would consider it,” Giuliani said, but conceded he “can’t think of what that would be.”
Mueller has indicated to the team that the special counsel wants to ask the President obstruction questions in an interview.
The President’s lawyers had previously offered the special counsel written answers to obstruction questions and limiting the interview to matters before his presidential inauguration, which are largely confined to collusion.
The back and forth over an interview comes as the special counsel investigation faces its first major test in court as Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort stands trial in the Eastern District of Virginia where he is accused of bank fraud, tax evasion and other financial crimes.
Manafort’s case isn’t about the 2016 presidential campaign, but he is the first defendantMueller’s team has taken to trial.

Trump’s America: Unemployment Benefits Hit 45-Year Low

New data from the U.S. Department of Labor published Thursday revealed that the number of Americans who filed for unemployment benefits last week was the lowest in decades.

“In the week ending February 3, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 221,000, a decrease of 9,000 from the previous week’s unrevised level of 230,000. The 4-week moving average was 224,500, a decrease of 10,000 from the previous week’s unrevised average of 234,500,” the DOL announced.

Here’s the kicker: “This is the lowest level for this average since March 10, 1973 when it was 222,000.”

Excellent, though just to be clear, the unemployment rate began dropping years ago after the financial crisis of 2007-2008, as seen in the following chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Because of this, Democrats keep trying to attribute America’s current economic boom to former President Barack Obama. But while this might hold true in regard to America’s low unemployment, it doesn’t hold true for other metrics.

“Home ownership: down. Labor force participation: down. Student loans: up. National Debt: up. Health care costs: up. Median family income: flat. People on food stamps: up. Workers’ share of economy: down,” Brad Schaeffer of The Daily Wire pointed out this week, referencing metrics that fell under Obama’s “recovery.”

“These trends do not paint a rosy picture for the working middle class,” he added.

Labor force participation particularly matters in regard to unemployment.

What does it suggest when both the unemployment rate and labor force participation rate drop at the same time as they did during the Obama years?

It suggests that the unemployment rate dropped not because of a change in economic conditions, but because more people dropped out of the labor force pool altogether.

Now take a look at the following labor force participation chart from the BLS:

The labor force participation rate dropped precipitously during Obama’s tenure in the White House. Not until around the time businessman candidate Donald Trump announced his candidacy for office did it begin to tick upward after nearly a decade of trending lower and lower.

Something similar happened with America’s food stamp consumption rate. According to documentation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service, the number of Americas collecting food stamps ballooned from 28 million in 2008 to 44 million in 2016. Then suddenly in 2017, during Trump’s first year in office, it shrank to 42 million.

In fact, numbers such as these suggest President Donald Trump, not former President Barack Obama, deserves credit for America’s booming economy.

And many economists agree: “A recent survey of economists suggest it is President Trump, and not Obama, who should be taking a bow,” The Hill reported in January, referencing a survey of 68 economists by The Wall Street Journal.

Of the economists surveyed, “A majority said the president had been ‘somewhat’ or ‘strongly’ positive for job creation, gross domestic product growth and the rising stock market.”

And that’s something everyone should be happy about.

Share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about this record-low unemployment rate.

Text source:

Image source:

Reporter Asks Sarah Why Trump Calls Dems Un-American, Instantly Regrets It

People often like to think about politics in sports terms, as if it’s the closest thing we’ll see to on-field competition in the real world. Even Ted Kennedy, when given a tryout with the Green Bay Packers, said that he was planning to “go into another contact sport, politics.”

(Driving as a contact sport would only come some years later for the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts.)

If you want to speak in sports metaphors, the substitution of Sarah Huckabee Sanders for Sean Spicer is kind of like Lou Gehrig taking over for Wally Pipp on the 1920s Yankees or Kurt Warner replacing the injured Trent Green on the 1999 St. Louis Rams.

Since the change, Sanders has been on a tear, meaning she’s tearing up pretty much every reporter in sight. Whether it was her telling CNN, when asked about Nancy Pelosi’s facial antics at the State of the Union address, that “she looks like that all the time,” or burning Jim Acosta time and time again, she was the perfect choice.

Lest you doubt, take a look at how she managed to deal with American Urban Radio Networks correspondent April Ryan in the press room when the question of Trump’s remarks about Democrats sitting during the State of the Union came up.

“They were like death and un-American,” Trump said during a Monday speech in Ohio, according to Independent Journal. “I said you have the lowest black unemployment in the history of our country, it was like…it was a game, you know it’s a game. They play games. They were told don’t even make a facial movement.”

“Un-American. Somebody said ‘treasonous.’ I mean, yeah, I guess, why not? Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean, they certainly didn’t seem to love our country very much,” Trump said, jokingly.

Ryan brought that up, of course, but also said that the “un-American” part was improper.

“On the next piece, you said, ‘Treasonous was a joke.’ What about un-American? In Washington, over the years with the State of the Union, one side, be it if it’s a Democratic president, the Republicans do,” Ryan asked.

“If it is a Democratic president — you get it. If it is a Democratic president, Republicans say it. If it is a Republican president, Democrats do it. What is so un-American about this this year, after this been going on all these years?”

Sanders scarcely missed a beat. (Scroll down for the video. You’ll be glad you did.)

“I think it is un-American not to be excited about the fact that more people in this country have jobs than they did before,” Sanders said.

“The fact that more people in the country have higher wages than the did before.”

“The fact that the economy is booming like it wasn’t before. The fact that ISIS is being crushed like it wasn’t before.”

“These are things that I don’t care what party you’re from, these are things that every American should be excited about and be able to celebrate.”

Check it out here. It’s classic Sanders in operation.

Perfect. Even at past ceremonies, low black unemployment or the Islamic State group’s decimation would be something to celebrate on both sides. We’ve reached the point where that’s impossible, all thanks to the Democrats. And Sarah Huckabee Sanders eviscerated them.

Like Gehrig for Pipp, like Warner for Green, Sanders came out of the woodwork and has been electric ever since. We salute you, Ms. Sanders. Yet again, press briefings are interesting for the right reasons.

Share this article on Facebook and Twitter if you agree.

Text source:

Image source:

Trump So Effective That Navy Officers “Baffled” by How Quickly Iran Retreated

Throughout his term in office, particularly during his final two years, the Islamic Republic of Iran took full advantage of former President Barack Obama’s obvious deference to them in and around the Middle East.

The Iranian fast patrol boats that would routinely harass U.S. Naval vessels in the Persian Gulf and the strategic and narrow Strait of Hormuz, are just one example.

But according to The Wall Street Journal, those harassing activities essentially came to a halt in August of 2017, a move that leftist analysts and experts “baffled.”

Those small Iranian patrol boats, typically armed with mounted .50-caliber machine guns and/or multiple launch rocket systems, would rapidly approach U.S. vessels in international waters and close inwithin shooting distance prior to pulling back once radio calls, flares or warning shots were fired by the harassed ship.

“I hope it’s because we have messaged our readiness,” Army General Joseph Votel told reporters of the cessation of hostile approaches. “It isn’t tolerable or how professional militaries operate.”

The Free Beacon reported that there were approximately 36 such “unsafe” harassing incidents in 2016 and 14 of them occurred in 2017 prior to suddenly stopping in August, a rate of about two incidents per month.

Our readers no doubt recall the most infamous of those incidents which occurred in January of 2016, the day of Obama’s final State of the Union address, in which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps took captive the crews of two U.S. riverine patrol boats and held them for a day, only to release them after Obama’s speech and after they had gleaned as much intelligence as they could from the captured crew and equipment.

But then President Donald Trump took office in January of 2017, and according to Reuters, sent out a not too subtle warning to Iran via Twitter in early February. Trump tweeted that “Iran is playing with fire” and “they don’t appreciate how kind President Obama was to them. Not me!”

Business Insider reported that there were a few more “unsafe” incidents involving swarming Iranian patrol boats through the first part of 2017. Those incidents stopped in August, and there were also other signs that Iran was quietly backing down in the face of Trump’s tough rhetoric and unmistakable commitment to bolstering the pride and strength of the U.S. military.

Indeed, in a change of pace from previous years, Iran test-fired only one medium-range ballistic missile after Trump took office, and appears to have refrained from making any “technical infringements” of the vaunted nuclear deal that Trump has repeatedly threatened to do away with.

Not to mention the much more restrained manner in which the regime dealt with the recent Iranian mass protests as compared to the protests in 2009 which were brutally and murderously put down.

While the media and various analysts and experts wonder aloud why Iran has stopped being as provocative as they were before, Front Page Mag had no problem proclaiming the welcome change as being the result of the “Trump effect.”

Far from how Obama seemingly caved to the Iranians to appease them on a host of issues in a bid to curry favor, Trump has remained steadfast in viewing Iran as an adversary.

His unequivocal support for the military has strengthened the U.S. Navy 5th Fleet stationed in the Gulf, and essentially removed them as a viable target for Iranian harassment going forward, as they fear he might actually retaliate against their provocative actions, a fear they likely never felt under his predecessor.

The mullahs that rule Iran appear to have come to understand that the game changed in 2017 and the new sheriff in town has implemented new rules that aren’t anywhere near as favorable to them as before. The sooner everyone else realizes that too, the better off the world will be.

Share this story on Facebook to let everyone know why Iran isn’t so quick to harass the United States.

What do you think of the Iranians quietly backing down from Trump?

Text source:

Image source:

Numbers Are in: SOTU Sent Trump’s Polling Through the Roof

The numbers are in, and President Trump’s State of the Union seems to be sending his numbers through the roof.

Rasmussen poll taken in the aftermath of President Trump’s State of the Union address has seen a 6 point jump for the president’s approval ratings in the daily tracking poll over the period of just a few days.

Rasmussen reported that 49 percent of likely voters approve of the president vs. 49 percent who disapprove.

“The latest figures include 35 percent who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 38 percent who Strongly Disapprove,” a press release from Rasmussen read. “This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -3.”

These are the highest numbers in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll since March 7 of last year.

His lowest number was 38 percent in August, although he hit 40 percent as recently as Dec. 15.

Rasmussen tends to be among the more right-leaning of the daily tracking polls. Another major daily tracking poll from Gallup is only updated weekly, but showed Trump at 38 percent as of its most recent date, Jan. 28, before the State of the Union. For comparison, Rasmussen was at 43 percent on Jan. 29.

Nevertheless, armed with the Rasmussen poll — as well as a CBS News survey that found 75 percent of those watching the State of the Union agreed with it, including 43 percent of Democrats — the president took to Twitter to celebrate the uptick in the polls.

“Rasmussen just announced that my approval rating jumped to 49%, a far better number than I had in winning the Election, and higher than certain ‘sacred cows,’” the president said, not elaborating on who those sacred cows were.

“Other Trump polls are way up also. So why does the media refuse to write this? Oh well, someday!”

That wasn’t the only good news for the Trump White House from the Rasmussen survey, either.

While taken before the release of the House Intelligence Committee memo, “by a 49 percent to 31 percent margin, voters think a special prosecutor should be named to investigate whether the officials handled the investigations of Trump and Hillary Clinton in a legal and unbiased fashion.”

Rasmussen also found that 64 percent “of all voters think Clinton is likely to have broken the law by sending and receiving e-mails containing classified information through a private e-mail server while serving as secretary of State.”

The daily tracking poll is conducted among “500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis” in both telephone and online surveys. The margin of error is 2.5 percent.

Whether or not Trump can see a 6-point jump in other polls remains to be seen, but the fact remains that the president’s State of the Union speech established his bona fides as a communicator. Unfiltered by the media, the president’s agenda seemed to resonate with Americans who had been soured on Trump without actually hearing him. Could this be the start of a major turnaround in the president’s polling fortunes? Only time will tell.

What are your thoughts on President Trump’s State of the Union speech?


Image source:

UPS Goes All in for Trump Tax Plan With $12 Billion Dollar Program for America

During his 2016 campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump jokingly warned his supporters that they may eventually grow “tired of winning” once his pro-growth business and tax policies were put in place.

Following the series of incredible announcements regarding investments and employee bonuses from a host of different companies after tax reform was passed into law, we feel compelled to ask: Have you grown tired yet?

According to Breaking 911, the latest such announcement came from the United Parcel Service, better known as UPS, who just revealed a total investment of about $12 billion in their business and employees, and they specifically credited Trump’s tax reform as the basis for it.

That $12 billion will go toward expanding the company’s Smart Logistics Network and provide a significant contribution to their employee pension funds.

“This $12 billion investment program is an outgrowth of the opportunity for tax savings created by the Tax and Jobs Act,” stated Chairman and CEO David Abney in a release from the UPS Pressroom. “We will increase network investments and accelerate pension funding to strengthen the company for the long term, so that we maximize the benefit to our global customers, employees and shareowners.”

“Through our current and future actions,” Abney continued, “we will enhance UPS’s position as the leading logistics provider by expanding capacity and technology investments to help customers meet their needs for dependable, day- and time-definite service with enhanced visibility and flexibility.”

Of that $12 billion, roughly $7 billion will go toward the construction and renovation of new and existing facilities and toward the acquisition of new aircraft and ground vehicles, as well as enhancing the information technology platforms that support their network.

On top of that, they will also increase their capital spending above the current level of six to seven percent of annual revenue.

Furthermore, UPS also announced a $5 billion contribution to the three UPS-sponsored pension plans they offer, which equates to about $13,000 per enrollee. That contribution also raised the funding level of the pension plans above 90 percent, which secured retirement benefits for both union and non-union employees alike.

“We applaud President Trump and Congress for their bold action to improve the U.S. economy,” stated Abney. “Our investments will create new jobs, secure existing jobs and expand opportunities for our people. We are committed to remaining a preferred employer by continuing to provide industry-leading compensation and excellent career opportunities.”

The CEO also hinted that there could very well be more good news to come in the future.

“Tax reform is a tremendous catalyst,” Abney added. “We will continue to evaluate additional actions that benefit customers, employees and shareowners as we progress further in the year.”

According to the Atlanta Business Chronicle, this was perhaps the biggest tax reform-related announcement yet from a Georgia-based company, as several others — such as Home Depot, Aflac and SunTrust Banks, to name a few — had announced that they would be distributing one-time bonuses of around $1,000 and/or increasing their minimum wages.

The announcement from UPS also coincided with the revelation that they intend to purchase 14 brand-new Boeing 747-8F aircraft, the largest the business has ever flown, as well as four additional Boeing 767 aircraft to expand their air fleet.

So, we again must ask…are you tired of winning yet, or do you think you can handle a little bit more? We are, after all, only beginning Trump’s second year in office, so there is likely plenty more to come. We suggest everybody get some rest so they can keep up.

Share this story on Facebook to spread the word about what UPS plans to do now that Trump’s tax reform has begun to take effect.

What do you think of this tax reform-related announcement from UPS?

Text source:

Image source:×0/

Trump’s Plan Cuts Immigration to Levels Not Seen in Almost 100 Years

President Donald Trump’s new immigration proposal would dramatically reduce legal immigration to the United States over time to levels unseen in almost 100 years.

The White House plan was unveiled last week in order to kick off negotiations with Democrats to find a legislative solution to the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

According to The Washington Free Beacon, the president’s plan would allow a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million DACA beneficiaries who came to the U.S. illegally as children.

In return, Trump wants a $25 billion trust fund for border security, which would fully pay for the border wall. He also wants an end to chain migration and the immigration diversity lottery system, and for other immigration loopholes to be closed to ensure our borders are secure.

According to analysis released Monday by the Cato Institute’s David Bier and Stuart Anderson, Trump’s proposal would be the “largest policy-driven legal immigration cut since the 1920s.”

Bier and Anderson’s report found that if Trump’s immigration were signed into law, it would dramatically slash the number of legal immigrants in the U.S. from more than 1.1 million to approximately 600,000.

That is a reduction of 490,000 people the U.S. accepts annually, which would be a giant 44 percent decrease in immigration levels.

With Trump’s plan virtually eliminating chain migration and ending the diversity visa lottery, the report said an estimated 22 million who would otherwise immigrate to the U.S. would be denied entry into the U.S. over the next 10 to 50 years.

Bier and Anderson’s report was challenged by Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies. As a group that supports limiting immigration to the U.S., Vaughan argued Trump’s plan would be great for the U.S., securing our borders, and ensuring we contain the influx of immigrants — both legal and illegal — pouring into our country at an uncontrollable rate.

“Even if their analysis were correct, I would disagree that such steep immigration reductions would be bad for the country,” Vaughan told the Free Beacon.

“On the contrary, it would likely boost prosperity and well-being of Americans and other residents by slowing down the inflow of less-educated and less-skilled workers; reducing future demands on schools, hospitals, and public assistance; and moderating population growth, which has caused crowding and strained our natural resources,” she continued.

The CIS found eliminating chain migration would slash immigration by about 18 percent in the short-term, and roughly 33 percent after ten years.

According to a Harvard-Harris poll released in late January, 61 percent said the U.S. has inadequate border security.

The same poll found that 81 percent of Americans said the U.S. should take in fewer than the 1.3 million immigrants it currently admits each year. Seventy-nine percent also said America’s immigration agendas should be based on an immigrants’ ability to contribute to the U.S. and have skills.

An overwhelming majority of Americans agree with Trump that we need more enhanced border security measures, fewer immigrants should be accepted annually, and that American security should be prioritized over the needs of illegals.

Trump’s immigration plan not only tackles all of that, but it would also result in the largest cut in legal immigration since the 1920s.

Many Americans support Trump’s bold immigration plan that secures our borders and dramatically tames immigration into our country, and that’s something to get excited about.

Share this story on Facebook and Twitter if you agree with President Donald Trump’s immigration plan.

What do you think about these reports?

Text source:

Image source:

Trump Comes Forward With Official Statement on Dems Who Refused to Applaud SOTU

During remarks made Thursday at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting in Washington, D.C., President Donald Trump excoriated Democrats for the way they had behaved during his State of the Union address two nights earlier.

He was particularly bothered by the way they had responded when he announced that black and Hispanic unemployment levels have hit record lows.

“African-American and Hispanic unemployment have both reached the lowest levels ever recorded. That’s something very, very special. And when I made that statement the other night, there was zero movement from the Democrats,” he rightly pointed out.”

“They sat there stone cold, no smile, no applause,” he continued. “You would have thought that on that one they would have sort of at least clapped a little bit.”

Instead, the majority of Democrats remained seated, either staring forward like zombies or rudely inspecting their phones like distracted children at a dinner table.

“Which tells you perhaps they would rather see us not do well than see our country do great. And that’s not good, that’s not good. We need to change that,” the president added.

Can we “change that,” though? From many Americans’ vantage point, it seems clear that the Democrat Party is now “motivated more by hatred of Donald Trump than the best interests of the American people,” as noted by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire.

Even Dana Milbank, a leftist columnist for The Washington Post, seemed to recognize this, arguing Wednesday that “the only message the Democratic leaders managed to convey” during the SOTU address “was that they really do not like Trump, for any number of reasons.”

Watch the Democrats’ behavior below:

But my question is this: Do we even want “to change that?”

Writing for RedState, Brandon Morse pointed out that the “utter contempt” displayed by the Democrats could come back to bite them in the rear come the 2018 midterm elections and even the 2020 presidential election.

The American people “saw Democrats frowning as Trump talked about our rising wages, and lower taxes,” he wrote. “They noticed Democrats shaking their heads as Trump talked about getting tough on violent gangs, and defeating terrorists. They saw Democrats stone-faced as the minorities that the left said were being kept down were now getting a better life.”

“Last night Democrats showed their true aims in Washington, and I bet many Americans noticed. I can’t wait to see what they noticed at the polls,” he added.

Good point. While the Democrats’ hatred isn’t inherently good for America, the potential repercussions — more Republicans being elected into office — would be quite advantageous, as they’d make it even easier for the president to continue on his mission to “Make America Great Again.”

And that would be great for all.

Share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about President Donald Trump’s remarks about the Democrats’ behavior.

What do you think about the Democrats’ unhealthy hatred of Trump?

Text source:

Image source:×1000.jpg

Trump’s Making America So Great, Even Public Radio Is Admitting It

Democrats have insisted that President Donald Trump’s tax plan would only benefit the wealthy, going as far as to call the plan “pathetic” for what it does for working people.

Southern California public radio station KPCC was among those who made such claims, reporting that the new law would give big cuts to corporations and wealthy Americans and only modest reductions to other Americans.

The station echoed liberal talking points when it claimed the bill would leave lower-income families in the lurch.

As usual, these claims are absurd, and KPCC had to make that embarrassing admission while attempting to prove how bad Trump’s tax reform bill would be for those with lower incomes.

The station enlisted the help of H&R Block tax preparer Aaron Martinez to calculate the taxes for a group of Californians at different income levels that ranged from low-income grad students to highly paid professionals.

Based on 2016 tax returns, Martinez found that the impact of Trump’s tax reform resulted in savings for a wide spectrum of incomes, including those who are considered to be low income.

For example, graduate student Christine Vega, who earned $23,446 last year, would receive a refund increase of $400.

Middle-income earners Megan and Marlee Malone-Franklin, who made $69,192 last year, would receive a tax cut of $1,497.

KPCC reported that Martinez said the cases showed that “most people will see a reduction in their tax. But not everyone.”

However, the station failed to present anyone who would not benefit from the tax bill.

KPCC went on to report that Martinez said that claims that the bill was skewed toward the rich depended on where people were rich.

“The new rules don’t always give much back to highly paid workers in a state like California. They pay higher state income taxes than residents in other states, and now their ability to deduct those taxes will be capped,” the station reported.

“The impact to residents of California is going to be different than a state like Texas or North Carolina or Florida,” Martinez said.

“They’re going to get more of a benefit out of it than what we will get,” he added.

So, those who do not live in California can expect to see even better numbers.

It must pain liberals to admit that the president’s tax plan is going to benefit low- and middle-income families after all the scaremongering that took place before the bill was passed.

Once again, we have proof that liberals simply cannot be trusted.

Share this story on Facebook and Twitter to spread the word about how this public radio station had to admit that Trump’s tax reform bill will actually help low-income families.

What do you think about this admission?

Text source:

Image source: