Laura Ingraham: President Trump’s successes in black and white

In a scene you likely did not see on one of your local or national newscasts, the White House on Wednesday announced a bold plan to change the lives in America of some of our poorest citizens, those who live in the most distressed, and sometimes the most dangerous, neighborhoods. Flanked by Sen. Tim Scott … Continue reading “Laura Ingraham: President Trump’s successes in black and white”

In a scene you likely did not see on one of your local or national newscasts, the White House on Wednesday announced a bold plan to change the lives in America of some of our poorest citizens, those who live in the most distressed, and sometimes the most dangerous, neighborhoods.

Flanked by Sen. Tim Scott and BET founder Bob Johnson, with CNN host Van Jones looking on, the president signed an executive order creating something called the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council. Now, if you think this is just another brick in the bureaucracy in D.C., signifying nothing, think again.

Led by HUD Secretary Ben Carson, it will coordinate efforts across the entire federal government to deliver jobs, investment, and growth in underprivileged areas. By the way, it includes rural areas, too. This means more private-sector money will flow into some of these high-risk or low development areas. And what will that do? In turn, that will deliver jobs.

Of course, the few reporters that were at this announcement weren't interested in the substance of this undertaking. All they were interested in was shouting questions out about Michael Cohen. And unlike most White House events starring Trump, it was not broadcast on cable or on C-SPAN or any of the networks. I wonder why?

I’ll tell you why. Because Trump is delivering results for those who Democrats thought that they had forever co-opted politically. It all smashes the press' relentless drumbeats about how the president just doesn't like black people and is racist.

Media mogul Bob Johnson, one of the most prominent and most successful African-Americans probably on the planet, would disagree with that sentiment. He was on hand at Wednesday’s event to recognize the Trump administration's drive and commitment to help low income Americans.

“Just recently, your Department of Labor signed a historic document that created something called auto portability.  Auto portability is designed to reduce retirement leakage among low income 401(k) account holders who tend to cash out,” he said. “And Mr. President, you should know this, 60 percent of African-American and Hispanic-Americans cash out of their 401(k) accounts. This program will put close to $800 billion back in the retirement pockets of minority Americans. So I just want to applaud you for that.”

And there was no coverage anywhere in the media. I had to play the footage from Wednesday’s announcement on my show just because no one saw it.

Now, you see, there are a lot of politicians out there who traffic in bromides, shining with a veneer of real compassion. Former President Barack Obama was good at making audiences feel good and hopeful with soaring words.

Who cares more about America, particularly the working poor? The guy who delivers results – record low unemployment, opportunity zones and a decent chance for criminal justice reform? Or a party that is all talk and no action? I will take the former any day.

And that's nice. I guess that's Nobel Prize material. But the problem is, talking about hope is beautiful, but it won't bring business into your community. People who can get jobs tend to have more hope. Despair and crime in places like Chicago and Baltimore spiraled out of control during much of Obama's eight years.

I know what some of you are going to say. But Laura, Obama and the Democrats care more than Donald Trump. Look, you can see it. You can feel it. They care. Then you're going to bring up Charlottesville and the s-hole comment Trump made to them drive the point home. OK, even for the sake of argument, I concede those points. The tonality, the wording – maybe I wouldn't have done it that way. Fine.

But I ask the following: Who cares more about America, particularly the working poor? The guy who delivers results – record low unemployment, opportunity zones and a decent chance for criminal justice reform? Or a party that is all talk and no action? I will take the former any day.

Oh, and by the way, the press did find one angle at the opportunity zone announcement that they thought was worth covering. They said Jared Kushner and Trump himself are only pushing these inner-city investment incentives because they will make money off their own real estate holdings.

Please. HUD Secretary Ben Carson swatted this allegation away in an appearance on my radio show.

“These zones were picked by the governors. So they were not picked by Jared Kushner,” he said. “There are all kinds of people in the country who already have real estate in those zones. Will they benefit? Probably. Why shouldn't they benefit? Why shouldn't everybody benefit? Why shouldn't we create win-win situations?”

I want to see more of Ben Carson out there, by the way. I loved what he had to say. And once again, the media proves itself to be absolutely incapable of covering virtually anything about the work the president does to try to restore our country. Not even an inkling of objectivity.

And the president isn't doing this, by the way, to benefit just a few of his pals, or the people who voted for him. He is doing this to try to benefit those who have been served so poorly by politicians of both parties for decades.

Despite everything that is swirling around President Trump – the Democrats’ obsession with impeachment, the indictments, et cetera, et cetera, the president continues to do work that other presidents wouldn't do. And poor working class Americans will be better for it. And that's “The Angle.”

Adapted from Laura Ingraham's monologue from "The Ingraham Angle" on December 13, 2018.

Laura Ingraham is the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Ingraham Angle (weeknights 10PM/ET). She joined the network in 2007 as a contributor.

Laura Ingraham: Immigration truths the Democrats deny

Congressmen and senators are supposed to be fighting for the American people, their constituents. But when Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer pounced on the president at the Oval Office on Tuesday for whom exactly were they fighting?

Both the Senate and the House oath of offices are nearly identical. They begin like this: "I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

At this point, are we even sure that Chuck and Nancy took the oath? I have a news flash for the dynamic duo: When migrants illegally cross our borders, whether they come to work or to collect welfare, using false documents, whether they come to deal drugs or join murderous gangs that are already here, this does constitute a foreign enemy action. That's why Trump 
was so clear at the end of that Oval Office exchange on Tuesday. He understands the threat, and he wants to answer it. He told Chuck Schumer to his face that he would be proud to shut down the government over border security. It's that important for him.

But the Democrats are determined to block Trump's efforts to fortify the border. You can see them recoil at any border wall talk. Here are the facts. The Democrats are willing to sell out the country, law and order be damned, in order to deny Trump a victory over the wall.

A few years ago, they were all for fortifying the border but not now. Of course, if we had a media that publicized actual facts on illegal immigration and other immigration issues, rather than obsessing 24/7 about Michael Cohen or focusing on a few really sympathetic people in Tijuana, we would have a lot more Democrats feeling the pressure on this issue from the voters.

A new Gallup world poll found that nearly 160 million people around the world want to emigrate to the United States — 160 million. I bet it's more than that. Naturally, the U.S. is the top 
destination for immigrants; 21 percent of them would like to come here permanently. How are we supposed to deal with that kind of demand for access to our shores? Obviously we can't absorb half of our current population. Or is that actually what the Democrats want? After all, that would be an entirely new country.

The Democrats are determined to block Trump’s efforts to fortify the border. You can see them. They recoil at any border wall talk. Here are the facts. The Democrats are willing to sell out the country, law and order be damned, in order to deny Trump a victory over the wall.

The pragmatic position here is simple. There must be an orderly, legal process, one that protects the interests of the American people first, when it comes to immigration. Most Americans I really think, have no idea of the true cost of illegal immigration. Again, the media will not report it.

Let's look at health care. Even though illegals are forbidden access from federally-funded health care, Forbes magazine estimates that 3.9 million uninsured illegals receive about $4.6 billion in health services from the federal government, federal taxes. And $2.8 billion from state and local taxpayers goes to illegal immigrants. And $3 billion from higher payments by 
insured Americans. In other words, you are paying it because your costs are jacked up.

All told, Americans cross-subsidize health care for unauthorized immigrants to the tune of $18.5 billion a year. Now with that money, we could build a triple wall with all sorts of cool stuff on it along the border. Come on, $18.5 billion?

The president knows well that our loose asylum laws – which is another issue – the catch and release policy, and chain migration, have also acted as magnets and that has ballooned our illegal immigrant population. Once in country, they place an enormous stress on local law enforcement. As I said, health care providers and our schools – resources that should be benefiting Americans and legal immigrants – this money should be spent on our people and the people who have respected our laws to come here and not on noncitizens who are illegally present.

According to government data released Tuesday, in President Trump's first fiscal year in office, more than 2,304 people were arrested for either employing illegals or working 
illegally in the country. That's a 700 percent increase from the previous fiscal year. This is all a direct result of Trump authorizing ICE to investigate all crime committed by or with illegal immigrants and not just focusing on the most serious cases.

Now, Democrats are going to say why is the government arresting hardworking immigrants? They are just seeking a better way of life. Well, this is a simple twofold answer. One, they are 
not here legally. Two, and just as important, they are taking jobs that hardworking Americans do not have access to.

We cannot incentivize corporations to use cheap labor, giving them an unfair advantage and destroying other company's abilities to compete. The crackdown also, by the way, sends a message to the next wave of illegals: You, too, will be deported if you try to come here and work without permission, and of course, collect all those benefits along the way. So, don't even try.

Now, my friends, this is Christmas time. And although the country is doing better – a lot better – under Trump, many Americans are still hurting, Particularly those entering the workforce for the first time, single mothers and people without college degrees, many of whom happen to be black and Hispanic. They don't have groups by the way like Pueblo Sin Fronteras or 
Centro Sin Fronteras working on their behalf, filing cases on their behalf. Of course, as the competition from cheap illegal labor harms their chances of employment. Who is going to advocate their cases?

Democrats use to claim that they cared about our poorest citizens, the little guy. But this year, Chuck and Nancy seem more like the Grinch, making promises to the illegals. Sure, give all the goodies to the illegals and leave the poor and the working-class to pick up the bill. And by the way, take their tree, without so much as a lump of coal in their stockings.

Let's hope that Trump is successful before Christmas in getting the wall funded. And let's hope Congress finally gets its act together and remembers the meaning of 
that oath that they all took. Otherwise, the Grinch may get his way or her way.

Adapted from Laura Ingraham's "The Angle" monologue from "The Ingraham Angle" on December 12, 2018.

Laura Ingraham is the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Ingraham Angle (weeknights 10PM/ET). She joined the network in 2007 as a contributor.

Laura Ingraham: The guardians of the fallacy

The political and media establishment have been at war – and a cold war, really – with Donald Trump for more than three years now. And from the outset, he represented everything they hate, and not just his "America First" policies, but his brash, take no prisoners style that threatened to crash their exclusive club.

But as the Mueller probe and its new New York offshoot come to a head, the media feel well-positioned to recast their image from #Fakenews to galaxy-saving superheroes like Batman or Aquaman. They've decided to try a franchise reboot, as evidenced by Time magazine's choice for its "Person of the Year" this year.

"As we looked at the choices, it became clear that the manipulation and abuse of truth is really the common thread in so many of this year's major stories, from Russia to Riyadh to Silicon Valley," said Edward Felsenthal, editor-in-chief of Time, on NBC's "Today" show. "And so we chose to highlight four individuals and one group who have taken great risks in pursuit of greater truths."

When I first heard this, I caught the last part of what Felsenthal said and I thought, oh wow, they are giving it to China's persecuted Christians. That's amazing. Well, instead, Time magazine has kept the award kind of inside the family and named a group of journalists as the people of the year with the understated title, "The Guardians and the War on Truth." The group includes slain journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the Capital Gazette staff which lost members of course when a shooter opened fire on their offices.

Of course, we love objective journalists. And the targeting of reporters just because they are doing their jobs is despicable. But isn't there something kind of transparently self-serving about journalists giving awards to other journalists? To his credit and professionalism, Capital Gazette editor Rick Hutzell expressed uneasiness about the recognition. He said I hate being the story. And he added that this was the first sit-down interview he had done since that June attack. Good for him.

By the way, "Time" isn't the only aging outfit trying to resurrect its damaged reputation. Retired senators are also lumbering back from obscurity to claim the mantle of moral and intellectual superiority. Rising from the political dead, they promised that their wisdom will save us from Trump. (You've got to read between the lines.)

All you need to know is that a December 10 Washington Post op-ed was the brainchild of Trump basher extraordinaire Chuck Hagel and Connecticut liberal Chris Dodd. They said, in part, "We are on the eve of the conclusion of the special counsel Robert S. Mueller's investigation and the House commencement of investigations of the president and his administration — we urge current and future senators to be steadfast and zealous guardians of our democracy by ensuring that partisanship for self-interests not replace national interests."

That exchange [between President Trump and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer] shows, in dramatic fashion, why Trump has so confounded the establishment. He pulls the veil back, allowing the American people to see just how unreasonable and how petty the Democrats have become.

Well, this is the kind of high-minded malarkey that signifies nothing. Look, I will forever salute Chuck Hagel's military service, but that doesn't give him immunity from political criticism. That is just kind of brain dead. Where was the bipartisan cabal when we needed to guardians of the rule of law and transparency during the Obama years? Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the Clinton email cover-up, the horrors at the VA, the green energy boondoggles involving companies like Solyndra, just to name a few.

Where were these 44 senators when we needed guardians of our border? Where were they when we needed guardians against the rigged trade deals that empowered a ruthless communist regime in China? And where were they when we need guardians against activist judges who stray far, far beyond their Article 3 powers?

Look, Donald Trump ain't perfect. None of us are. But he's done more in two years to try to safeguard America, the country we love, than all those senators who signed that op-ed  combined. The media and failed politicos are guardians. They are guardians of a fallacy that the American people need protection from their own political choices.

The president was duly-elected and is entering the third year of his first term, but the media and political establishment are still in denial. Do you notice, by the way, that they basically given up on substantive debate on any of the issues that Trump is really tackling? Instead they often prefer personal invective to pragmatic solutions.

"The president has very little in the way of attention span," Ruth Marcus, deputy editorial page editor at the Washington Post, said on another cable news network. "The president is  undisciplined."

"He gets bored after about 15 seconds. Even people talking to him," MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said.

"He doesn't want information," U.S. Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., said on another cable news channel. "He comes into the job with very little knowledge."

Well, if President Trump is that uninformed, how did he beat all you smart people? That's my question.

My friends, populist movements are popping up all over the world. They are challenging the old political orders that have failed to raise the standard of living of their own people or to safeguard the culture. Folks aren't mad because they enjoy being mad. They are mad because politicians have screwed things up so badly across the board.

But the guardians of the old order, they right now feel empowered by Trump's legal woes and a new Democratic majority in the House. But in an extraordinary on-camera exchange on Tuesday, the president turned the tables on Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and proudly promised to shut down the government if Democrats would not give him the funding he – and the American people – want for his long-promised border wall.

It was pretty amazing watching the whole thing play out because by refusing to be cowed by warnings that a partial government shutdown would damage him and his party politically, well President Trump is actually doing what the retired senators claim to want. He is standing on principle by acting on the urgent need to preserve the sovereignty and security of our country. And by the way, notice what Pelosi said several times during that very fiery exchange. She kept calling to have their conversation in private, not in front of the cameras.

Wait a second, wait a second. I thought the liberals were all about transparency and protecting the guardians of the truth. But the moment the guardians report on their conversations, Nancy wants them shooed out of the room.

That exchange shows, in dramatic fashion, why Trump has so confounded the establishment. He pulls the veil back, allowing the American people to see just how unreasonable and how petty the Democrats have become. Because an agreement on wall funding may give Trump I guess a partial victory, they refused to budge, even if the DACA kids end up getting a path to citizenship in the process, which they would've gotten last February.

And no matter how much a deal would help the country, guess what? The Democrats don't care. It's about score settling and preventing Trump from declaring victory on something. And that's the "Angle."

Adapted from Laura Ingraham's monologue from "The Ingraham Angle" on December 11, 2018.

Laura Ingraham is the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Ingraham Angle (weeknights 10PM/ET). She joined the network in 2007 as a contributor.

Laura Ingraham: James Comey’s convenient memory loss and the search for answers

It may be time to send some Prevagen over the former FBI Director Jim Comey. He seemed to experience some severe amnesia during his closed door testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees on Friday.

They were exploring the factual predicate of the entire Trump/Russia probe–who knew what and when? But Jim Comey, just couldn’t recall.

According to Fox News’ analysis of the transcript, during his 5 and a half hours of testimony, Comey said “I don’t remember” 73 times. He responded, “I don’t know” 161 times. And “I don’t recall” eight times.
Here’s why all of this matters: Republicans are still struggling to find answers about the origins of this Russian collusion probe and the biased “investigators” who advanced it as an insurance policy should Donald Trump win the election back in 2016.

When asked if he could recall who wrote the “initiation document” for the Russia probe in July of 2016, Comey had no recollection.  He also claimed to have no knowledge of the involvement of Peter Strzok. He’s the FBI investigator who led the Clinton email probe whose texts to girlfriend Lisa Page included gems like this: "Trump’s abysmal, hoping people will just dump him."

Comey also couldn’t remember why the FBI granted immunity to Bryan Pagliano, the State Department employee who set up Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Comey’s got more blank spots than Christine Blasey Ford.

Similarly, he could remember anything about the British spy, Christopher Steele, passing his dossier along to Justice Department official Bruce Ohr. It was Ohr who forwarded it to the FBI, sparking the surveillance of Trump Campaign figures. Remember Carter Page, Trump’s campaign adviser?

But the few details that Comey had clarity on raise important questions. He told Congress that the details of the Steele dossier were "unverified" when they were used by the FBI to secure surveillance warrants of Carter Page. Now remember, that’s what started this entire Trump-Russia probe. Comey also maintained that it was “not necessary” for the FBI to validate the sources of the dossier. With questions outstanding, Comey will be further grilled by Congress.

No matter what [Jerry] Nadler says, no matter how he tries to rush the public along to impeachment, disturbing questions linger about the political nature of this entire collusion probe. And we will get answers — whether James Comey recalls them or not.

As the clock is running out on Republican efforts to get answers, Democrat Jerry Nadler, who will soon take the House Judiciary gavel, has already announced his first order of business: To shut down all investigation of possible corruption at the FBI and Department of Justice, their handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe, and all inquiry into the political motivations behind the Trump-Russia investigation. So, once Nadler takes the reigns, its all over.

“It is a waste of time to start with,” Nadler told a gathering of reporters. “The entire purpose of this investigation is to be a diversion of the real investigation, which is Mueller. There is no evidence of bias at the FBI and this other nonsense they [Republicans] are talking about.”

"This other nonsense" speaks directly to the credibility of the Mueller probe and calls it into question. Isn’t Nadler in the least bit curious about the origins of this Steele Dossier and the possibly that American citizens were erroneously surveilled to serve a political end?

And what role did memory-challenged Comey play in all this? The Department of Justice Inspector General Report did question Comey’s judgments about the Clinton email investigation as well as the Russia probe.

And they’re still investigating, by the way, that Comey leaking of his own memo to the file after his conversation with the president. Remember when he sent it over to his friend at the New York Times? That investigation is ongoing.

But Nadler and company want to bury all those concerns and rush right to the endgame. There is only one investigation Nadler means to keep alive and that’s Mueller’s. The incoming chairman already believes the Southern District of New York’s contention that the president instructing his lawyer to pay settlements to two women during the campaign is a felony, is directing a felony. And bingo! That’s grounds for impeachment:

“They would be impeachable offenses,” Nadler said on another cable news network. “Whether they are important enough to justify impeachment is a different question. But certainly they’d be impeachable offenses, because even though they were committed before the president became president, they were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office.”

Translation: Rejoice, Deep State.

In the end, we may end up where this Russia probe began: Partisans misusing the tools of justice in a brazen attempt to drive a President from office. But no matter what Nadler says, no matter how he tries to rush the public along to impeachment, disturbing questions linger about the political nature of this entire collusion probe.

And we will get answers — whether James Comey recalls them or not. And that’s “The Angle.”

Adapted from Laura Ingraham's monologue from "The Ingraham Angle" on December 10, 2018.

Laura Ingraham is the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Ingraham Angle (weeknights 10PM/ET). She joined the network in 2007 as a contributor.

Laura Ingraham: Democrats are now the smartest people in the room even if you’re too stupid to understand that

Now, despite the big gains in the House and the midterms, Democrats still may not get it. They have a new line. They've been testing it out. All right, ready for this? They are now the smartest people in the room who have all the answers, even if you are too stupid to understand it. Here’s how Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono explains it:

“One of the things that we Democrats have a really hard time [with] is connecting to people's hearts instead of here. We are really good at shoving out all the information that touches people here but not here. We Democrats know so much — that is true. We have the kind of tell everybody how smart we are, and so we have a tendency to be very left brain.”

Now, unless you think this is some isolated idea, all right —  “that we are just so smart that we have trouble connecting with you” — It's actually something that is shared fairly widely and by two of the latest forebearers, by the way, of the Democratic Party.

Here’s Hillary Clinton: “Do you really think Donald Trump has the temperament to be commander-in-chief? Imagine him in the Oval Office facing a real crisis.

And here’s Barack Obama: “He just says, I'm going to negotiate a better deal. What magic wand do you have? And usually, the answer is, he doesn't have an answer.

This office has a way of waking you up. His positions or predispositions that don't match up with reality, he will find shaken up pretty quick.”

OK. The obvious implication being that Donald Trump and those Americans who voted for him are just a bunch of dumb (inaudible).

Now let's face it when Trump won in 2016 — you can see Obama there, still shell-shocked back in November of 2016 — well, he embarrassed. — Trump embarrassed a lot of the so-called experts.

The consultants, the pollsters, the strategists, all the big thinkers, and the establishment class. So feeling suddenly diminished, they lashed out at Trump, belittling his intelligence.

Here’s just a sample of the kinds of things that have been said on other news channels:

“The problem here is that the president doesn't read. We know that.”

“Isn't it remarkable how little confidence Donald Trump's own lawyers have in him? That they think he is too stupid to sit across the table with Robert Mueller?”

Mika Brzezinski, MSNBC host:  "…almost caveman-like. It really is. He is like Fred Flintstone running the country."

“It's man without curiosity. It's a man who doesn't read, and it's a man with an attention span of a rabid Tsetse fly”

OK, that is going back to Mark Shields. Well, they said similar things by the way about Reagan, until he died, of course, and then they all pretended that they never said any of the mean stuff they said about himfor his two terms in office.

Liberals claim to be for the little guy. They are the champions of the average person. But they are really elitist snobs at heart. Maureen Dowd, a New York Times columnist, used to write these pieces mocking the cultural and culinary tastes of Bush 41 and Barbara. You know, he ate pork rinds and the two of them watched things like "America's Funniest Home Videos" on TV. on Sunday nights.

The subtext was always, look at the Bushes, Ivy League blue bloods but still unsophisticated, and frankly, not all that smart. But here's a news flash for everybody. No one who becomes president is dumb. Especially not Trump, who managed to beat not one, but two political dynasties to win the White House. Remember all the dire predictions made by all those political and business savants about a Trump presidency?

Here’s some of what we heard from pundits:

“If the unlikely event happens and Trump wins, you will see a market crash of historic proportions.”  …

“In the event Donald wins, I have no doubt in my mind, the market tanks.” …

“Donald Trump is moving us toward World War III.”

“The lack of a diplomatic and serious engagement strategy, in my view, has us sliding toward war by next summer.”

We can just play this all night long. We sort of have a show because that is really entertaining. Democrats and their allies imply that they have a monopoly on intelligence and brainpower. But if that's true, why have they screwed things up so badly when they have the chance to fix them?

While Trump identified the threat, for instance, posed by China and has challenged them, who can forget Bill Clinton pushing for China's acceptance on the world stage with his misguided WTO push? Remember this statement?

Disagreement is a good deal for America. Our products will gain better access to China's market. If China gains no new market access to the United States, we will gain tough new safeguards against surges of imports and maintain the strongest possible rules against dumping products that have hurt Americans in the past.

Oh, my gosh. Rhodes scholar, Yale undergrad, Yale Law School, and like many others, he didn't see the obvious coming.

China has manipulated and distorted world markets, engaged in the blatant ransacking of our intellectual properties, and dumped heavily subsidize products into the United States, leading to the loss of millions of U.S. jobs.

The CEO of Minnesota's Cambria, it makes quartz countertops, told us earlier this week how China targets U.S. manufacturers for the sole purpose of destroying them, and then, dominating the market:

“They are subsidized by their government. The People's Republic of China is not a friendly participant in a free enterprise economy in America. They subsidize their companies, they run their banks, they are state-owned and they are going after American manufacturing.”

But no worries because Democrats have all the answers. Now, remember President Obama assuring us, by the way, that his cabinet would be staffed with the best and the brightest?

Here’s this memorable statement from Kathleen Sebelius, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services as the rollout of ObamaCare was faltering:

We are on track to flip the switch on October 1st. We are on track to have the marketplace up and running on October 1st and [I am] confident that we will be up and running and on track on October 1st.

Nobody says the site is working the way we want it to. Certainly, the president acknowledges like yesterday, no one could be more frustrated  than I am, and the president, that this isn't smooth.”

All right, $120 million or so, right, to get that website, was it more? And they couldn't get a website working. Like a freshman at MIT could get the website working.

Who can forget the Obama administration's foreign policy flops? Again, these are the smart people, remember.

Mazie Hirono said we are too smart for our own good. Remember when he designated the Muslim Brotherhood as moderate Islamist in Egypt and he called Iran's president Rouhani a moderate reformer?

“We are encouraged that President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course. Iran's genuine commitment to go down to a different course will be good for the region in the world.”

It's been awesome so far. And how about all the geopolitical geniuses that Hillary's State Department, allowing our ambassador to travel to Benghazi when we knew about repeated security threats and an unstable situation on the ground? He and three others ended up dead.

Trump removed the rose-colored glasses and what he did is he confronted the rogue powers in the region as they exist.

Trump's foreign policy is more pragmatic and prudent. He doesn't believe in nation-building, nor does he believe passivity is the answer in the face of real threats. But the Democrats, they feel like, come on, they have the wind at their backs now. Forget all the stuff that happened, all their predictions that came out — no, they didn't come out to be true at all.

But they feel like they have a head of steam, and maybe you can kind of understand it. They picked up 40 seats in the House. But right now, what I'm seeing, is that there is very little evidence that they have learned much about America.

Why Americans voted in the first place for Donald Trump, and why they still support so many of his policies, especially on trade and immigration.

And for all the Democrats star power, they couldn't win the big races in Florida, Texas, or Georgia. Why not?

I'll tell you why, in part, because they have not come to terms with the fact that their decades of errors paved the way for Donald Trump.

But I'll tell you this, at least Senator Claire McCaskill, of course, she lost her re-election bid, she seemed to have learned something, telling NPR, "I don't think my vote against Kavanaugh hurt me as much as the spectacle that occurred. There were mistakes made by my party in terms of how that was handled." Well, I'll say.

The bright lights of the Democratic Party, though, they thought that the American people would rally behind them. And they set about to destroy the life of a man who actually is brilliant and one of the finest judges in America.

Well, instead, most fair-minded people, maybe they didn't go to Yale Law School. They saw the campaign of the Democrats, the campaign of personal destruction, for what it was. Insidious.

I don't know what the next two years are going to bring. But before you sweat the warnings of the expert class, remember just how much they screwed up over the past 30 years or so.

Adapted from Laura Ingraham's monologue on "The Ingraham Angle," on  December 5, 2018.

Laura Ingraham is the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Ingraham Angle (weeknights 10PM/ET). She joined the network in 2007 as a contributor.

Laura Ingraham: Enemies of American history

Back in August, protestors at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill took it upon themselves to pull down a Confederate statue. The "Silent Sam" statue honored UNC students who had fought for the Confederacy in the civil war.

Over the last few years, the statue has been labeled a celebration of white supremacy by some—and as a piece of history by others. On Monday, the university’s board announced a plan to house the statue in a new $5 million history and education center on the edge of campus—where it would be properly contextualized.  But even as she announced the plan, Chancellor Carol Folt, was clearly not entirely on board:

"I have a preference to move it off campus, but, like everyone here, I swore to obey the law, and sometimes you don't agree with laws, but I don't have the privilege of choosing which law I agree with and which ones I do not."

A 2015 North Carolina law forbids agencies from permanently removing and relocating state-owned memorials or statues.  North Carolina likely passed to the law to protect against what it saw happening across the country.

Nationally, since 2015, more than 100 confederate monuments and statues have been removed.

Students, protestors, and faculty members at UNC want the same fate to befall Silent Sam — the North Carolina law be damned. They took to the campus Monday night to protest the plan to house the statue in a new building:

Here’s some of what was said:

“UNC is not concerned about preserving history, it’s concerned about not upsetting its racist donors and the board of trustees and Carol Folt.” … Silent Sam has never existed as a documented person. The 1,000 Confederate soldiers are treasonous [enemies] of the United States and should not be celebrated!”

But that history were that cut and dried.

There is a movement, particularly among the young, to hate the past and eradicate anything they find objectionable or troubling.

It recalls the destructive mindset of ISIS as they pillaged and wiped away irreplaceable historical and religious monuments from Palmyra, Syria — simply because they could.

No matter what one thinks of the Civil War or those who supported the Confederacy, it happened. And we owe it to the future to leave history undisturbed. Why not allow future generations the opportunity to mark this history, process it, and come to their own conclusions?  Put up another statue commemorating the slaves who were abused and killed–adjacent to Silent Sam.  But to destroy, instead of engage, to defy the law instead of respect it, is no way to honor the past or the future.

By committing acts of violence to get your way, and defying laws to remove figures that you find offensive–you start to look a bit like the thing you’re protesting.

Should you succeed—in the future–some other mob might well tear down your statue because they find YOU offensive. And you would have taught them that it is fine to destroy all trace of whatever we find objectionable in the past.

Let’s hope the board of UNC and the North Carolina Historical Commission has less destructive tendencies.

Adapted from Laura Ingraham’s monologue on “The Ingraham Angle” on December 4, 2018.

Laura Ingraham is the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Ingraham Angle (weeknights 10PM/ET). She joined the network in 2007 as a contributor.

Laura Ingraham: George Bush would have wanted us to remember him without the usual political snark and slander

When a former president passes away it's appropriate to celebrate his life, his achievements and to remind the public of his record and his legacy.

Sadly, though, with the death of George H.W. Bush, some in the media and politicians from both parties are abusing this moment to trash, instead, the sitting president.

As the Bush motorcade was making its way to the capitol for the last time MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace, a former Bush aide herself, could not restrain herself.  She said this:

“I think what everyone is getting at is that under Donald Trump the office of the presidency has been debased in a way that is unimaginable for people who served every past president. … I think what's lost in this moment is our reverence and our dependence and the way we need and rely upon the elegance and the traditions of the presidency.”

Let's get this straight. She's talking about reverence and she's trashing the current president as the motorcade is inching its way up Capitol Hill.

And then there was this gem from earlier in the day. Here’s this soundbite from 'Morning Joe" co-host, Mika Brzezinski:

“Let's see what happens at Wednesday's memorial service. My prediction is that Trump fakes more respect for a family whose unprecedented history of public service has repeatedly belittled, then he goes back to making a mockery of the very office George Bush and this nation long revered.”

Well think about it this way, President Bush was a man who loved his country, loved his family, his faith and his friends. He was a war hero and a dedicated public servant throughout most of his life.

So are these folks really honoring that legacy and his innate sense of decency and kindness by slashing the man who entered the White House 25 years after him?

Look, even if you don't care for President Trump, even if you just hate President Trump, try showing just a little bit of class and decorum, as Bush 41 would have. The hits on Trump — subtle and not subtle at all — have been interwoven throughout the commentary and the coverage. Here are some of the soundbites from cable news commentators that got our attention:

“They both believe that the presidency is bigger than themselves which is not something that this president always adheres to.”

“What George Herbert Walker Bush is being remembered for this week isn't a tweet or isn't a press release or nothing much more than his fundamental character.”

“I do not know how it's going to work when Donald Trump is an ex-president and theoretically a member of this club. I really think it's going to change because I don't think these men who share something in common really share that in common with Donald Trump.”

At some point you don't even know what to say to these people. — That last quote was from Ron Klain, by the way, the former chief of staff to Vice Presidents Biden and Gore.

They lack all sense of decency. They reduce a presidential death to just a political battering ram like any other issue. But what you hear — if you listen closely, is the last gasp of an embittered establishment.

Now, as we have seen across Europe and across much of the United States, populism is swamping the old guard, whether it's on the right or on the left. So rather than direct their anger at Trump, the establishment, frankly in both parties, should be directing it at themselves, for it is their policies that the voters turned against in 2016.

Things like open borders, China trade, NAFTA, high taxes, endless wars, those weren't Trump policies. Those were the policies of the establishment and the establishment GOPers apparently think that the way, what, to win them back the people that they lost to Trump is to belittle the president non-stop, even during formal and informal on-air eulogies and tributes?

At a time like this when a father, a grandfather, a great-grandfather and a former president has died, we should be bigger than the petty politics of the moment. I think we should be capable of uniting as Americans and celebrating the best of George H.W. Bush without resorting to the same old usual political snark and calumny. And isn't that what President Bush would have wanted?

Adapted from Laura Ingraham's monologue on "The Ingraham Angle" on December 3, 2018.

Laura Ingraham is the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Ingraham Angle (weeknights 10PM/ET). She joined the network in 2007 as a contributor.

Laura Ingraham: Linda Sarsour, Marc Lamont Hill and anti-Semitism hiding in plain sight

During the next several months, we at “The Ingraham Angle” are going to devote a significant amount of time unpacking the most important political and cultural stories of the day.

Our aim is that these investigations help you better understand the people and facts behind critical challenges facing you, your family, and our country.

On Thursday we examine the pernicious influence in American politics of Linda Sarsour. A woman described by The New York Times very affectionately as “a homegirl in a hijab.”

Here’s how she describes herself:

“I am a Palestinian Muslim-American activist born and raised in Brooklyn and every Islamophobe's worst nightmare.”

Well, she is a nightmare, period. A relentless self-promoter, she represents so much that is hideous.

Now, check out this attack on the Trump administration where Sarsour actually invokes jihad.

“I hope that we when we stand up to those who oppress our communities that Allah accepts from us, that is a form of jihad that we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or on the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America were you have fascist and white supremacists and Islamaphobes reigning in the White House.

Reigning in the White House. She is also extremely subtle.

Now, as a co-founder of the anti-Trump Woman's March in January 2017, Sarsour became a near-constant fixture in the media, spewing her hate and her lies everywhere.

Now, wherever there is a camera, you will find her trying to hog it as she did in the Kavanaugh confirmation fight even.

She was arrested during the hearings themselves but so were a lot of other leftist agitators. She wore it as a badge of honor.

Yet Sarsour who claims to stand for all these oppressed people all over the world and has even done some fund-raising for victims of anti-Jewish violence is really an anti-Semite herself hiding in plain sight.

Sarsour and two other founders of the Women's March, Tamika Malory and Carmen Perez, have all appeared at events sponsored by the anti-Semitic organization the Nation of Islam, including by the way, one where Farrakhan himself said the Jews are my enemies.

Now, any association whatsoever with Farrakhan is the ultimate tell regarding someone's true motives.

Here’s just one of the things he’s said: "When they talk about Farrakhan, call me a hater, you know what they do, call me an anti-Semite. Stop it. I am anti-termite. The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a great name. Hitler was a very great man."

And Farrakhan, by God's grace, has pulled the cover off of that satanic Jew.

Of course, a perfunctory condemnation of anti-Semitism or other forms of bigotry was issued by Sarsour and her cohorts, but they have yet to condemn Farrakhan himself.

Last spring, the Women's March Organization cited the difficult and often painful work of intersectional movement building, hence why they had to work with him.

And instead of a strong unequivocal condemnation of the Nation of Islam founder, they wrote "Minister Farrakhan's statements about the Jewish, queer, and trans-people are not aligned with the Women's March Unity Principles."

Oh, that's tough. But now, to quote another well-known anti-Semite, the chickens are coming home to roost.

The main founder of a Woman's March, Teresa Shook, wants the Sarsour, Mallory, Perez trio to step aside.

Even that nasty Trump hater, Alyssa Milano, was less than charmed.

She is threatening to boycott the next Women's March — coming up in just a couple months — unless Sarsour and company leave the organization.

My question is, what took them so long? Sarsour of course feigned an apology but she is not backing down from her harsh attacks on Jews.

Just a few weeks ago on Facebook, she slammed folks who masquerade as progressives but always choose their allegiance to Israel over their commitment to democracy and free speech.

Now the phrase "allegiance to Israel" is a favorite among the anti-Semitic set.

To his credit, CNN's Jake Tapper was all over Sarsour last spring after the Women's March wished a cop killer fugitive who fled to Cuba, a happy birthday.

The venomous Sarsour responded with this. "Jake Tapper joins the ranks of the alt-right to target me online."

Aside from Tapper's Twitter takedown, media outlets including CNN were responsible for elevating Sarsour to cult-like status.

So desperate to smash all things Trump, the left was only too happy to offer this incendiary figure a platform to organize. Here’s what Sarsour said recently:

“We're coming back out and we're announcing today to the American people to join us around the country and in Washington, D.C., on January 19, 2019. We are outraged that we are talking about and putting victims on trial and talking about Dr. Ford in the way in which she was treated at that hearing.”


But today, some good news. CNN dumped contributor Marc Lamont Hill after he delivered a speech at the U.N. that seem to call for wiping the state of Israel off the map.

Lamont Hill's association with the network was especially ironic given the network's new series at CNN about the rise of anti-Semitism here and abroad.

Sarsour owes her public profile to a press that has gone out of its way to cover for her rather than actually cover her true motives and allegiances.

They made excuses for Sarsour because she's a woman, she's Muslim, and she's a harsh critic of the president.

Now they are paying the price with the further erosion in their own credibility.

Adapted from Laura Ingraham’s monologue on “The Ingraham Angle” on November 29, 2018.

Laura Ingraham is the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Ingraham Angle (weeknights 10PM/ET). She joined the network in 2007 as a contributor.

Laura Ingraham: Four reasons why we need a strong, smart, permanent attorney general. Now

Justice delayed, justice denied. That's the focus of Tuesday's Angle.

Remember when President Trump said this about Attorney General Jeff Sessions? “By putting [an] attorney general that never took control of the Justice Department — Jeff Sessions — never took control of the Justice Department and it's sort of an incredible thing. I'm disappointed in the attorney general for many reasons and you understand that.”

Well, it happens in relationships. The president and Jeff Sessions started off strong. They were tight. But then they basically ended up hating each other.

Well, it's been three weeks since Trump canned Sessions and we haven't heard much about him filling the critical position of the attorney general since then.

Here’s what he said recently on the subject:

“Well, I have some very, very good people, but I think there's no rush. You know, it has to go through a Senate process which takes a long time, but we'll pick somebody that's great. We're going to pick somebody that's very good.”

Well, the fact that we still have no A.G. nominee has Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley up in arms. He said, "I think it would be wise for the president to get somebody appointed like yesterday. How long does it take for to you make up your mind for who you want to be the attorney general?"

Grassley makes a good point here. This is no time for the administration or the United States to be without an attorney general.

We need a permanent, top law enforcement officer in place particularly at a time when our border is under assault.

Now, for its own part, Democrats and their media sponsors have had a field day since the president selected former Sessions’ chief of staff Matthew Whitaker to be acting attorney general.

Lawsuits have been filed by Senate Democrats Blumenthal and Hirono to remove Whitaker. They’re claiming the president’s pick is unconstitutional since Whitaker hasn't been confirmed by the Senate. Here’s how Blumenthal put it:

“He very simply cannot install a person like Matt Whitaker who is his lackey and lapdog when the office really requires qualification. And Matt Whitaker lacks the key qualification which is approval by the Senate.”

The state of Maryland has also filed an absurd lawsuit to block Whitaker for his involvement in an existing ObamaCare lawsuit that they say would protect people with pre-existing health conditions. My friends, this is all an unnecessary distraction.

Trump's DOJ should be devoting its manpower and resources to defending his policies against the relentless attacks by groups such as the ACLU.

There is no point in fighting unnecessary battles launched by vicious opponents nor by delaying the nomination of a new A.G. Does the president need the appearance of seeming to be worried about the pending Mueller report?

Now, notwithstanding the bad blood between the president and Jeff Sessions after his recusal in that Russia probe, Sessions was tough and he was in sync with Trump on border enforcement. And now more than ever, we need a strong, smart, well-respected A.G. — who is liked by the president — to immediately do the following:

1. Lead the fight against the nationwide injunctions enacted by activist district court judges and issues from illegal immigration to health care — these injunctions issued by these activists on the bench are thwarting the rule of law, the will of the American people and the president.

2. The new A.G. needs to launch an investigation of open borders groups such Pueblo Sin Fronteras that have organized and choreographed this migrant crisis at the border. These organizations are criminal conspirators. They are masquerading though as non-profits helping the migrants.

Right now, there are laws on the books that a smart leader at DOJ could utilize to stop this caravan madness. What are these laws? One, there is Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, any person who knowingly brings or just attempts to bring an alien into the United States illegally has ommitted a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Moreover, anyone who encourages or induces an alien to come, to enter or reside in the United States legally can be jailed up to five years. And someone who aids or abets people committing either of the above acts can also be jailed for five years.

And by the way, it gets better, 18 USC section 1324 even invokes the possibility of the death penalty for those whose actions result in the death of any person while violating the governing immigration laws. Jeff Sessions dropped the ball on this issue. A new A.G. must not.

3. Before Pelosi takes the gavel and a deluge of Democrat-led Congressional investigations hit the Trump White House, a whip-smart, strong, experienced A.G. is needed to coordinate legal strategy and defend the president's policies and decisions. That means he or she needs to coordinate with the White House. This requires that he or she be confident and competent enough to appear on fair media outlets to advance the White House's position.  We need to see the attorney general.

4. We need a new A.G. to help restore public trust in the Department of Justice and the FBI.  After the reputational harm that Comey, McCabe, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and a gaggle of others have caused, it's time for the president to turn the page and nominate someone with experience and credibility to head the DOJ.

Weeks ago, I suggested former New Jersey governor Chris Christie as a possible A.G. pick. He would be fantastic and so would Andy McCarthy.

Adapted from Laura Ingraham’s monologue on “The Ingraham Angle” on November 27, 2018.

Laura Ingraham is the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Ingraham Angle (weeknights 10PM/ET). She joined the network in 2007 as a contributor.

Laura Ingraham: The migrant caravan naughty list (and the lame duck Congress)

If you have caught any news about the border crisis in the last 24 hours, you have been subjected to a disgusting and blatant attempt at emotional manipulation.

Now, at a time when we actually need something called real reporting, instead, we get comments like this from MSNBC host Nicole Wallace,

“Look at the photo. See for yourself. That group includes men, women, and several children, some of them trying to cross after being denied access to the port of entry where they could legally claim asylum.”

That's it, it's the one photo.

On Sunday, in a brazen act of lawlessness, scores of migrants attempted to rush the border, and they placed our agents, our sovereignty, in peril. Border patrol had two choices. Let them over on the U.S. border like what they did to Mexico or Guatemala or use non-lethal tear gas to repel the crowd.

Now, these are the only images the media are circulating — women and children who appear to be running for their lives.

The meter on the hyperbole was in full tilt mode. Here’s one soundbite from the commentary on cable news:

“This is a shameful American moment. It's a shameful American moment. Those children, those pictures are the pictures we saw at the end of the Vietnam War.”

Now, no one wants to see children in distress. But that comment was an embarrassment. And remember, Donald Trump didn't create this crisis.

His foremost responsibility as president is safeguarding the nation, which is what he's doing.

Reporters who are either lazy or agenda-driven are using their own toxic agents to blur the eyes of the public on this critical issue.

Now, this is what really happened on Sunday. Here’s Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council:

“The way these people rushed the border was absolutely monstrous. They pushed women and children up front and then behind those women and children, they started throwing rocks, cement bricks. They started throwing bottles at our Border Patrol agents.”

Just a bunch of modern-day patriots. And as for the mothers and children, well, do they make up the bulk of those arrested? No. Here is what San Diego border Chief Rodney Scott said:

“We are making about 42 arrests, only eight of those were females and there were only a few children involved. The vast majority, the people we are dealing with are adult males similar to what we saw of the first wave of the caravan that came up about a week or so ago.”

In total now, about 69 arrests have been made and the crisis continues to escalate, which “ The Angle” repeatedly warned you would happen.

Well, of course, the atom-splitters over at the other cable news networks claimed it was no big deal.

Here’s a sampling of the soundbites:

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is no invasion. There is no emergency.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  They are panicked about this fake invasion.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC, "MORNING JOE" CO-HOST:  For everybody out there that was telling me, no, it's a real story. We are worried about the caravan to come in and Trump strong enough to — I go back to what I said about Martians coming to my backyard. They are not coming and the caravan is not coming. The leprosy is not coming.

A thought… It's not comin'!

Well, it's not just the media know-nothings though who need to be exposed here. We are making a list and we are checking it twice. And others have been very naughty as well on this issue.

One of the prime drivers of these never-ending caravans are groups such as Pueblo sin Fronteras and a Chicago-based Sentro Sin Fronteras.

They have been organizing this caravan and other caravans for months, in fact, years. And Pueblo Sin Fronteras even put out a press release, this was last March. It reads like some type of primer for a borderless world.

This is my favorite line in the press release, "We demand of Mexico and the United States that they open the borders to the U.S. because we are as much citizens as the people of the countries where we are and/or travel."

What? OK, they are not American citizens, but this is a classic “citizens of the world” claptrap that's been funded by billionaires who want transmigration to be universal right.

Now, number two on our naughty list, activist judges. Acting like a super-legislature, district court judges continue to frustrate the president's every initiative when it comes to immigration enforcement.

Just last week, the president was hit with two devastating rulings. In the first case, Judge Jon S. Tigar, an Obama appointee from the Ninth Circuit attempted to bar the president from limiting asylum claims to those who enter the country legally.

Then in Michigan, Judge Marc Goldsmith ordered the release of nearly 100 Iraqis who were incarcerated under the Trump travel ban. Now, all of this explains why the president is running very short on patience. Here’s what he had to say:

“It's a shame. It's a shame. It's a disgrace frankly. Some judge sitting at some location very far away is telling our incredible military and law enforcement what to do, and it's not right and that's been going on like that for a long time. These nationwide injunctions have got to be stopped.”

Now, he's absolutely right. Certain judges have completely abandoned their article III limits and are totally out of control. But Congress, perhaps more than all of the other culprits on this naughty list, deserves the most of the blame here.

Now, both parties could have solved this nightmare had they acted to shore up the asylum loopholes while Obama was still president. Democrats should have struck a deal also with Trump while the iron was hot last January. Republicans were willing to grant a pathway to citizenship for nearly 2 million illegals, fixing the DACA problem. They wanted to do this for a limit on chain migration and visa lottery and of course the funding for his border wall. Now Trump was actually excited about the prospect of this deal. Remember when he said this:

“I will consider that a great achievement to solve the DACA problem. It's been out there a long time. These are good people. These are people that should be able to stay in this country.”

Now, it didn't matter. Sen. Chuck Schumer rejected this out of hand. It was more important in the end for the Democrats to deny Trump a win on immigration than it was for the Democrats to agree to protect our country. — And even to avoid the type of crisis we see on the border now.

Now, at the same time, many weak-kneed Republicans, many of whom are captive to agribusiness or the hospitality or construction industries, were unwilling to go to the mat for the Trump agenda. So nothing ended up getting done.

With 12 legislative days left until they lose power in the House, Republicans must unite and make passing Trump's immigration enforcement agenda a priority. Working through Christmas and shutting down the government, yes, if that's necessary.

This is a crisis that must be addressed immediately. And we know that once Nancy has the gavel back, the Democrats answer to things like this. It will be to just simply allow the situation to worsen, encouraging thousands more to storm our borders and put women and children at risk.

The Republicans meanwhile have a chance to make this short session of Congress a lot less lame by addressing the most immediate problem facing our country today. But I am telling you if the Republicans duck it once again, they shouldn't expect to be back in charge anytime soon.

Adapated from Laura Ingraham’s monologue on “The Ingraham Angle” on November 26, 2018.

Laura Ingraham is the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Ingraham Angle (weeknights 10PM/ET). She joined the network in 2007 as a contributor.