Border Patrol union welcomes Trump’s wall as ‘vital tool’

As reported by the San Diego Union Tribune:

The National Border Patrol Council has high hopes for President-elect Trump’s border security policies.

The union’s president, Brandon Judd, has been advising the Trump transition team. The union has encouraged the building of a border wall and changing enforcement policies put in place in the past four years.

San Diego-based Shawn Moran, vice president of the union, said a wall on the border would be a “vital tool,” and it’s difficult to say exactly where along the border a wall is needed.

“The problem arises when you secure one area, you push traffic to another,” Moran said, citing a Border Patrol program called Operation Gatekeeper that blocked entry to much of the San Diego area. …

Click here to read the full article

Ways in Which a Trump Victory Could Benefit California

donald-trump-2On Jan. 20, when Donald Trump takes his hand off the Bible and picks up the phone, he could cause a near-seismic upheaval in California just by changing some federal rules and implementing new policies.

Let me break the news to you gently: it might work out well.

The federal government continuously writes stacks of regulations that cause consumers to pay more for everything than they otherwise would. But because of the length of time between the writing and the paying, it can be hard to recognize the cause and effect.

For example, your bill from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is higher because of federal regulations interpreted by California regulators to prohibit the use of ocean water for cooling power generation plants on the coast. We’re paying billions of dollars to convert three coastal generating plants, a project that began in 2011 and is scheduled to continue for decades. If the new administration modified those regulations, Los Angeles residents could save a small fortune.

If you’ve noticed that food is a lot more expensive, consider that because of federal regulations, the water supply was cut off to California’s breadbasket, the once-prosperous agricultural goldmine of the Central Valley.

Members of Congress from the area have introduced legislation over and over again to adjust federal law to override those regulations. Most recently, the Western Water and American Food Security Act was attached to the bill that funds the Interior Department. But President Obama has threatened a veto, arguing that the regulations are necessary to protect species like the Delta smelt.

The regulations could easily be changed if the new administration chooses to make abundant food production a policy priority over the protection of the smelt.

Other federal regulations have led to arguably impossible targets for further reducing fine particles, like dust and soot, in the air. To meet these goals, state regulators have repeatedly tightened the requirements for new diesel engines, raising the cost of trucking and the price of everything that’s moved by truck. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has even enforced California’s rules on out-of-state trucking firms when state regulators lacked jurisdiction.

Similarly, federal regulations have caused the South Coast Air Quality Management District to write up a new list of proposed tax increases to raise up to $14 billion. The bureaucrats need the money for policies and plans that are required in order to avoid federal sanctions for missing air-quality targets. But under a new administration, there’s an opportunity to take the bureaucracy off auto-pilot and look carefully at what we’re doing to ourselves. Some regulations may no longer be reasonable or necessary, and the cost may not be justified.

Federal rules that discourage the use of coal have made electricity more expensive, raising the cost of living for everyone. The next president’s policies could lower your utility bills.

Policy changes from the new administration will save taxpayers money in other ways, too.

A 2011 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office said California paid $1.1 billion in 2009 to incarcerate criminals who were in the country illegally. The cost to Los Angeles County that year was $139 million.

President-elect Trump was criticized by California’s legislative leaders for his plan to immediately deport up to 3 million criminals who are in the country illegally. Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon wrote in a joint letter, “We will lead the resistance to any effort that would shred our social fabric or our Constitution.”

But what is the argument for not deporting convicted criminals who are in the country illegally? How does that shred the social fabric or the Constitution?

Maybe California politicians should start working now on how they’re going to explain to voters that they rejected federal funds that could have been used for education, transportation and health care because they wanted to protect criminals who are in the United States without legal authorization.

It’s long past time for California’s leaders to give some thought to the damage caused by policies that have gone unquestioned because their cost didn’t become clear until years later.

From housing to energy to transportation to health care to law enforcement to education, federal policies and regulations have consequences that are sometimes both unintended and disastrous. A new administration is an opportunity to take a fresh look at everything.

It might just work out well, even for California.

And here’s the punchline: By 2018, the state’s Democratic politicians will be taking credit for it.

Susan Shelley is a columnist for the Southern California News Group. Reach her at Susan@SusanShelley.com and follow her on Twitter: @Susan_Shelley.

This piece was originally published by the L.A. Daily News

Allowing people their natural freedom through free trade

 

The just-completed election has been analyzed in terms of people who felt politically ignored, demeaned or attacked. Donald Trump’s campaign clearly claimed he would put their concerns first. Unfortunately, the protectionist “solutions” he has proposed cannot fix them.

Protectionism is among the most damaging things a country can do to itself. Henry George described it as doing to ourselves what enemies try to do to us in wartime — blockade our trade with others. It uses government coercion to impoverish its own citizens by undermining the massive gains in production, and therefore consumption, specialization and trade would create for them. Because restrictions on willing trading partners’ offerings reduce the real purchasing power of incomes, Auberon Herbert described it as a war of the protected on the unprotected.

john-brightThat is why the Trump victory aftermath is a great time to remember one of history’s most influential free traders — John Bright, born November 16. Along with Richard Cobden, he led the campaign which ended England’s protectionist Corn Laws in 1846, inaugurating one of world history’s freest trade eras, accompanied by increased prosperity and peace. It is worth reconsidering Bright’s case for international economic freedom — the ability to choose our own voluntary relationships with people from other countries:

I care for the condition of the people among whom I live … unless the beauty of your legislation and the excellence of your statesmanship are impressed there on the feelings and condition of the people … you have yet to learn the duties of government.

[I wish] to see my countrymen free, and able to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

To be a man … he must have food, and to be a healthy man one would say that it was necessary he should have a free market for the purchase of his food. To be a working-man he must have materials with which to work, and it would seem reasonable that he should have a free market for the purchase of materials. More than that, as far as possible, he should have a free market for the sale of his materials.

Force is not a remedy.

[Trade restrictions] bring … suffering, discontent, and insubordination.

Trade should be as free as the winds.

To sell freely would be a great advantage, as to buy freely is a great advantage; but neither to buy freely nor to sell freely, as the Fair Traders recommend, would … enormously increase the injury.

Many people … think that because other countries do not allow us to send our goods into their market free of duty, therefore we should not allow them to send their goods to this market free of duty. They think two bad things are better than one.

The Corn Law [repeal] … tells … what freedom has done … and it points the way to other paths of freedom which yet lie open. …

All this has been done by merely … allowing people their natural freedom to buy and sell where they could buy and sell to the greatest advantage.

What a grand thing it is to establish our laws upon a basis of freedom and justice … [not] so unjust, so cruel to the bulk of their countrymen.

We shall reap even greater gain from our policy of Free Trade in the future than we have reaped in the past.

John Bright led the Free Trade movement in 19th century England, because, in Richard Barry O’Brien’s words, “Bright loved justice and freedom, and had faith in the people.” According to Nicholas Elliott, “John Bright did more than anyone else to bring about the great advances for liberty in nineteenth-century Britain,” because “he helped to establish free trade as a popular principle which no politician would dare to interfere with for years to come.”

John Bright saw that international as well as domestic government restrictions on voluntary arrangements were unjustified applications of government coercion that harmed a country’s citizens. Unfortunately, our president-elect is far less concerned with liberty, and the benefits it provides for all, in our international relations. We would gain from re-learning the Bright idea that “allowing people their natural freedom” is a benefit and not a burden.

Gary M. Galles is a Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University, an Adjunct Scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and a member of the Foundation for Economic Education Faculty Network. His books include Apostle of Peace (2013), Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies (2014), and Lines of Liberty (2016).

Opponents fight California gun measure

As reported by the Orange County Register:

California voters’ approval of even tougher gun restrictions leaves opponents trying to contain the damage within the most populous state and across the country, an effort buoyed by Donald Trump’s election.

Proposition 63 bans possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, requires permits to buy ammunition and forces owners to give up their weapons as soon as they can no longer legally possess them. It also increases penalties for stealing a gun and for not reporting the loss or theft of a firearm.

The initiative passed with 63 percent support Tuesday, making it more likely that similar measures will be considered elsewhere, analysts said.

“It’s not like some tiny little state is doing this. If it’s feasible in California, it’s possible in most states,” Harvard University professor David Hemenway said.

Opponents will keep fighting restrictions with lawsuits and a public relations campaign, and by challenging politicians who favor gun control, said Sean Brady, an attorney and spokesman for the Coalition for Civil Liberties, which opposed the measure. …

Click here to read the full article

Why #CalExit Will Never Happen

calexitCalifornia will never leave the United States.

Neither will most of these Hollywood actors who swore to flee America if Trump became the president.

They don’t need to. They’ve created their own country already, which is heavily dependent on foreign aid (i.e. your tax dollars) from Washington, D.C.

But that didn’t stop California leftist elites from expressing how horrified they are at the election of Donald J. Trump as America’s 45th President.

So much so that the Marxist Progressives who control California’s Legislature issued a joint statement on how much they fear our newly-elected president, Donald J. Trump (emphasis added):

California will defend its people and our progressWe are not going to allow one election to reverse generations of progress at the height of our historic diversity, scientific advancement, economic output, and sense of global responsibility.

We will be reaching out to federal, state and local officials to evaluate how a Trump Presidency will potentially impact federal funding of ongoing state programs, job-creating investments reliant on foreign trade, and federal enforcement of laws affecting the rights of people living in our state. We will maximize the time during the presidential transition to defend our accomplishments using every tool at our disposal.

While Donald Trump may have won the presidency, he hasn’t changed our values. America is greater than any one man or party. We will not be dragged back into the past. We will lead the resistance to any effort that would shred our social fabric or our Constitution.

California was not a part of this nation when its history began, but we are clearly now the keeper of its future.

They might do well to heed a warning from FDR: “There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

Or, more accurately — when you read the implied threats — they have become the very thing they claim to fear.

It’s not Trump supporters that are issuing death threats via Twitter. (Last time I checked, that was illegal, but don’t expect Obama’s Secret Service or FBI to do anything about it.)

It’s not Trump supporters that have worked themselves up into a frenzy in the streets over the peaceful transition of power from one president to another.

It’s not Trump supporters advocating violence all over social media and in the streets.

We’re all at work — working to pay taxes so these loafers can spend the day advocating our murder.

Someone needs to tell them.

No one died.

No one was deported overnight.

No one lost the right to pay for their own birth control.

If  you read the fear-laden headlines about women stocking up on IUDs and you don’t read the entire article, you might think Trump was going to ban all birth control, and shut down all the Rite-Aids and Walgreens nationwide.

When the reality is that it’s not Trump’s election that upsets them.

It’s that the election was clearly a referendum on the socialist direction of the past eight years under Obama — and as the beneficiaries of all the “free stuff,” they’re just mad that the party is over.

So like spoiled children, they’re throwing a tantrum.

I guess it’s a good thing that all the angry protestors live in gun-free” blue sectors of the country, where they can’t easily get “access” to guns because they seem to lack any self-control.

Maybe that’s why they hate guns so much — because they don’t trust themselves.

Maybe it’s a good thing they’re terrified of guns.

Because when they compare those of us who believe a country should have borders to restrict access, and a Constitution to restrict government, to Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, calling us fascists and Nazis, what they’re really doing is dehumanizing their “enemy.”

It’s a classic Alinsky tactic. You don’t debate your “opponent”; you destroy your enemy.  The enemy isn’t wrong, they’re evil.

They’re so brainwashed, they don’t realize that they and their leftist idols are the incarnation of all the very things they claim to fear.

Why #CalExit will Never Happen?

The weather’s great, the water’s warm, and these protestors love their Marxist Progressive Utopia

With Donald J. Trump in the White House, maybe it’s possible to take back California for Americans.  Now, there’s something worth discussing.

Tim Donnelly a former California Assemblyman.

This piece was originally published by Breitbart.com

How Trump’s Win Might Spark CA Republican Revival

Donald Trump SNLMy title is, “How Trump’s Win Might Spark CA Republican Revival.” The key word is “might.” This statement is counterintuitive, given the hostility to him among many GOP ranks here. But bear with me.

There are two conditions: Taking immigration off the table and a Reaganesque economic boom.

First, immigration. But isn’t he nasty toward Mexicans and other immigrants? Hasn’t he offended Latinos so much they’ll never become Republicans?

The problem might – again, might – be that neither party has come up with a sensible policy on immigration, the failed attempts going back 30 years. A lot of people point out how President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which amnestied 3 million illegal aliens. Except the “Control” part of the Act never was implemented. So the amnesty part brought in millions more, increasing the number today to something like 11 million illegals.

A lot of these illegals – yes, I’m going to keep using the word – have become part of our community. An accountant friend of mine was talking with some of the Latinas at the construction company where he works. The ladies all voted for Hillary because they didn’t want their friends and neighbors deported. That’s understandable.

But what if Trump: 1) Builds the wall – for real. Which I think he will do. 2) Sharply restricts new immigration. 3) Makes a Trumpian “deal” on those here for a long time. Recent arrivals would have to leave. Those overstaying visas would have to leave. That would take care of half or so of the 11 million. But the other half would have some long-term path to citizenship, provided they pay back taxes and fill out all the paperwork.

If such a “deal” becomes real, the key will be effectively restricting new immigration. But if the “deal” happens, and really works, it will take the whole immigration issue off the table. Memories of Proposition 187, the illegals screening initiative thrown out by courts, will begin to fade, along with hatred of the California Republicans who pushed it. After all, a Republican president will have “solved” the immigration problem.

Second, Trump will have to boom the economy. He and the Republican Congress then would get credit for the prosperity lifting all boats, and all barcos. That will filter out here to California Latinos.

A 2012 Pew Research Center study found that Latinos still are moving up the upward mobility ladder that long has brought immigrants into the middle class: “Despite difficult economic times, in the long trajectory of their lives Latinos see improved standards of living when compared with their parents and expect their children’s standard of living to be even better. Two-thirds (67 percent) of Latinos (compared with 61 percent of the general public) say their standard of living is better than that of their parents when their parents were the age they are now.” It’s the old story of American prosperity.

Better yet, the Trump immigration cutoff would accelerate the assimilation. New immigrants suppress wages because the increased supply of anything brings about greater price competition. If new immigration is sharply reduced, then those already here would move faster up the upward mobility ladder.

As correctly was said of open immigration by legendary United Farm Workers co-founder Cesar Chavez, who has a state holiday in his honor, “As long as we have a poor country bordering California, it’s going to be very difficult to win strikes as strikes are won normally by other unions with the employer … . Now, there’s no way to defend against that kind of strikebreaking.” Except a wall.

That’s why the biggest defenders today of open borders are not immigrant groups, but big farms and other businesses that want to boost profits with cheap labor.

By contrast, when people gain upward mobility, they are less likely to seek the government benefits promoted by the Democratic Party and more likely to yearn for the tax cuts and business promotion championed by the Republican Party. That’s even more true now that the new president and party leader will be a famous billionaire.

So, if California Republicans want to get back in the game, they should stick to their pro-business, small-government principles.

Of course, I could be all washed up. Maybe I have no idea what I’m talking about. Maybe there will be no economic recovery no matter what Trump does. Maybe ethnic resentments are too high. Maybe.

But Trump might (might!) have put an oxygen mask on the wheezing body of the California Grand Old and Decrepit Party. They just need to breathe deeply.

Thirty-year California columnist John Seiler now writes freelance. His email:writejohnseiler@gmail.com

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

New Political Victors Would Arise From National Popular Vote

 

winner-buttonOnce it became clear Donald Trump’s Electoral College triumph would be accompanied by a popular vote loss, USA Today predicted “attempts to kill the Electoral College.” On cue, supporters of the national popular vote (NPV) compact redoubled efforts to effectively do just that.

In the name of advancing democracy and making every vote count, the NPV compact would pledge each adopting state’s electoral votes to whoever received the largest national vote, if states representing 270 or more electoral votes did the same. It would sidestep the rules necessary for constitutional changes, which supporters cannot come close to. Current adopters already represent 165 state electoral votes.

However, NPV’s actual purpose has always been to make Democrats new political victors. NPV doesn’t achieve its supposed core rationale – fixing supposed disenfranchisement of voters in safe states, so “every vote matters.” Further, it would undermine, rather than enhance, the perceived legitimacy of a close election winner. There would always be plausible claims that close races were stolen, since fraud or cheating or other forms of running up the vote anywhere could swing such an election. It could take the Florida Bush-Gore controversy nationwide.

If the real issue was disenfranchisement, states have a constitutional alternative – assigning electoral votes to each district’s winner (plus two to the state winner) rather than winner-take-all. Every district would be reflected in the Electoral College. Yet only two states have adopted it. Most Legislatures have strenuously fought the idea.

District representation could be compromised by gerrymandering, by which politicians supposedly against disenfranchising presidential voters disenfranchise voters in state Legislature and House elections. However, that is not the fault of the Electoral College, but the supposed reformers.

NPV will not make individual votes matter more. Your vote only matters now if it decides your state and your state decides the Electoral College; under NPV, it would only matter if it determined the national popular vote winner. Your personal vote will remain insignificant.

Claiming safe states are ignored is also misguided. Their influence has already been exercised; the dominant party already has the support of a majority. Raising money also forces candidates to be responsive, even in “safe” states.

In fact, NPV is about increasing safe states’ political leverage, because running up votes there could then swing national elections (local media, consultants, etc., would also love the money it would bring). It would give those politicians and their friends clout to extract greater political payoffs. Given that every NPV state went for Hillary Clinton, the real intent is clear. NPV would also increase the leverage of major cities, strongholds of Democratic constituencies and political machines. It is also consistent with adamant Democratic opposition to voter ID requirements and other voter fraud deterrents, which limit their ability run up votes.

In a world without free lunches, however, those favors must come from others’ pockets. Consequently, NPV would effectively disenfranchise those forced to bear the burdens of buying urban and safe state votes.

Disenfranchisement claims also ignore its most important form — subjecting ever more individual decisions to political determination takes away individuals’ rights to make their own decisions. Markets are a democracy where individuals’ votes determine their own outcome. Yet NPV states favor giving government more power to disenfranchise those individual choices, even though preventing that is the essence of liberty.

NPV backers constantly repeat their disenfranchisement refrain. However, they have rejected effective, constitutional solutions. They have intentionally disenfranchised voters through gerrymandering and turned blind eyes to vote fraud. Every increase in enfranchisement they support will increase votes cast “the right way,” increasing the disenfranchisement of others. NPV will not make individual votes matter one iota more. And its advocates continually expand individuals’ disenfranchisement by moving ever-more decisions from them to government.

NPV is not electoral reform. It is a means to enhance the political expropriation of citizens for Democrats and Democrat-favored special interests, camouflaged behind totally misleading rhetoric of advancing democracy.

Gary M. Galles is a Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University, An Adjunct Scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a Research fellow at the Independent Institute and a member of the Foundation for Economic Education Faculty Network. His books include Apostle of Peace (2013), Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies (2014), and Lines of Liberty (2016)

How Mass Media Missed the Story

trump-wins-newspaperNo one looks like bigger fools the day after President-elect Trump’s triumph than America’s political reporters, and especially those working for the major California newspapers who completely misread this election. Cocooned in their little world of liberal elitism they completely missed the real anger that was out in the country and that led to Tuesday’s astounding results.

Most of California’s daily newspapers seemed to be vying to the Isvestia of the Hillary Clinton administration with one fawning story and opinion editorial after another.  The Los Angeles Times even went so far as to publish its own state by state “analysis” of the Electoral Votes showing Clinton with 352 votes, just about 120 more than she actually got. The accompanying story said their analysis was “based on public polling, state vote histories and the reporting done by our campaign staff.”

Instead of their “own campaign staff,” the Times should have looked at its own USC Dornsife/LA Times poll, the only poll in America that constantly showed Trump winning. But because this poll did not match the political bias of the political reporters, it was ignored, and in one case denounced.

A blog called CalBuzz written by two retired reporters took on this poll for daring to say Trump might win, writing on October 21 of the LA Times/USC Dornsife poll, “This poor excuse for a survey has been so wrong so persistently – and has been so constantly cited by Donald Trump as evidence of his campaign success.” Of course this poll was exactly right and California’s media establishment exactly wrong.

So what was the real story of this election missed by the political and media elites of California? Go to Harlan County, Kentucky. This is coal mining country, the very epitome of the Democratic Party that once celebrated “The Coal Miner’s Daughter” and worked to make life better for the struggling working class. Until 2004, Harlan County, dominated by the United Mine Workers, had voted for every Democratic candidate for president but one since Kentucky became a state in 1795.

On Tuesday, in one of the most historically Democratic counties in the United States, Donald Trump got 84.9 percent of the vote.

The smug California political class, and the reporters and editorialists that cover them, had no idea how unhappy working people are throughout this country. And now the elites will sit around their Beverly Hills and Silicon Valley mansions and wonder how they will survive four years of President Trump. It will not be easy.

Trump Pulls Off Biggest Upset in U.S. History

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks to supporters as he takes the stage for a campaign event in Dallas, Monday, Sept. 14, 2015. (AP Photo/LM Otero)

Donald Trump is going to be the next president of the United States.

The billionaire businessman who never before held elected office shocked America and the world, defeating Hillary Clinton in an extraordinary rebuke to the nation’s political class after an ugly and divisive race that will go down as the most stunning upset in American history.

Trump did so decisively, stomping across the electoral map with wins in the four biggest battlegrounds of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania. He defied the polls and pundits after a scorched-earth campaign against Clinton, the Republican establishment, and basic decorum, toppling the blue wall of states that Clinton had supposedly constructed to keep the White House in Democratic hands.

The nation, the markets and the world stood stunned, wondering what would come next. The Dow Futures sank as much as 750 points. The Mexico peso plunged.

“It is time for us to come together as one united people,” Trump said in a victory speech, following a concession call from Clinton at nearly 3 a.m. Eastern. “It’s time.”

Trump led an unseen rebellion of working-class voters, most of them white and so disgusted by a stalled status quo that they voted for a candidate promising dramatic change, even as Trump set disapproval records for a winning candidate. He also tapped into ethnic antagonism, vowing strict immigration controls, a ban on Muslims and a deportation force, promising an era of restoration.

“The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer,” Trump declared.

Clinton had been heavily favored to win. She led national polls and in most battleground states heading into the election. Her allies were so confident that a supportive super PAC had actually redirected millions to other races.

But Trump had been underestimated from the first day of his candidacy, when he descended the gilded escalators of Trump Tower to bash Mexican immigrants as “rapists.” He went on to dispatch 16 rivals in the Republican primary before mounting a vicious campaign against Clinton in which he paraded her husband’s infidelities, repeatedly called her corrupt and questioned whether she could govern as a woman.

For 17 months, the reality television showman mesmerized the public with his unvarnished tweets, constant television presence and raucous mass rallies. His full-throttle grip on the national imagination enriched the news media and eroded standards of political civility.

It made him a hero to his fans. And they voted in droves. …

Click here to read the full article from Politico

What Donald Trump Has Achieved for America Already

Donald TrumpGRAND RAPIDS, Michigan — The conventional wisdom is that the 2016 election has seen politics hit new lows. And in some ways — the rhetoric of the candidates, the partisan behavior of the media — it has.

But it has also seen the beginning of a democratic renewal — thanks to Donald Trump. And that remains true whether you are voting against him, or voting for him simply to reject Hillary Clinton.

Trump did more than break the stranglehold of the Republican establishment. Were that all he had accomplished, it would have been admirable enough. But he did something more: he reached out to Americans who had been forgotten by the political process and gave them a reason to care.

Think about the fact that Trump chose to hold the final rally of his campaign in Michigan. Not just as a stunt, either: the most recent poll, which came out just hours before Trump boarded his plane for Grand Rapids, shows Trump ahead by 2 points in the state.

Democrats spent the day campaigning here. They know the danger is real.

Trump is taking the biggest gamble of recent political memory, and reaching out to the very core of the traditional Democratic base in the hope of flipping a blue state. For the first time since Ronald Reagan, a Republican is courting the vote of the American worker.

Trump is not just attempting a win, but a realignment — and perhaps one long overdue.

The result, once the dust settles, is likely to be a more active, lively, and engaged political process — one where the views and concerns of working, law-abiding Americans are no longer shunted aside.

Bernie Sanders could not achieve that because he wanted to fight for them, but not to win for them. Trump wants both.

Well before the votes are counted, it is safe to proclaim: today is a new day in American politics.

There is something intrinsically great about this nation’s ability to save itself, and Trump has helped it begin that process. And just in time, too — for the challenges that lie ahead are as big as any we have yet overcome.

In 24 hours, we will know if he will be the one to lead us through.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, is available from Regnery through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

This piece was originally published by Breitbart.com/California