DELEITURAS

The left-leaning fact-checking website Snopes butchered facts about a PAC controlled by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her top aide in a story published Thursday.

Ocasio-Cortez and Saikat Chakrabarti, her former campaign chair and current chief of staff, obtained majority control of Justice Democrats in December 2017. The PAC, which had raised more than $1.8 million before her June 2018 primary, has been widely credited with manufacturing her upset victory over incumbent Democrat Joe Crowley.

Snopes reporter Dan MacGuill falsely claimed in his story that Chakrabarti, who served as executive director of Justice Democrats in 2018, “was not an official agent or officer” of the PAC. He also failed to acknowledge the fact that he and Ocasio-Cortez are members of the PAC’s three-member board of directors, according to archived versions of the Justice Democrat website and corporate filings obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Justice Democrats’ board of directors on March 23, 2018. (Screenshot/Wayback Machine)

Former Federal Election Commission member Brad Smith told TheDCNF that Ocasio-Cortez and her top aide “could be facing jail time” if they knowingly and willfully withheld their control over Justice Democrats from the commission in order to bypass campaign contribution limits.

Snopes joins CNN, ABC News, NBC News, The Washington Post, Business Insider and Market Watch in failing to disclose the facts surrounding Ocasio-Cortez’s control over the PAC in stories about the freshman Democrat’s mounting campaign finance scandals.

Archived copies of the Justice Democrats website reveal Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti held “legal control over” the PAC starting in December 2017, and that Chakrabarti was one of its “major players” up until January 2019.

Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti continue to serve as “governors” of Justice Democrats, according to the PAC’s filings with the Washington, D.C. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Saikat Chakrabarti listed as governors of Justice Democrats on March 8, 2019, at 2:28 pm. (Screenshot/DCRA)

MacGuill did not return a request for comment.

CIA Operators, Glenn Dougherty and Tyrone Woods, heard the cries from the CIA safe house nearby.  All accounts have these men fighting until their deaths.  But what we know now is that not only did they send 3 separate requests for help, they were told to “Stand Down”.  Fox News reports that

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”

They ignored those orders.  They went to the rescue of Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans on scene.  They took fire, rescued as many as they could, but could not find Ambassador Stevens, so they returned to the CIA “annex” located a few miles away.  At that point they started to receive mortar fire, and they called again for help.  And that request was denied, too. They were denied a total of 3 times.

 FOX  is the only Main Steam Media reporting on Benghazi, you can find the whole report here.  This part of this story is still breaking, we will continue to update as needed. Update below.

There are some stories that hit a chord, when you sit down to write, there is a fear you won’t convey the proper words, sometimes there are no words.  Being that the Main Stream Media is ignoring “all things Benghazi” its up to us, regular Americans, to do “their” job and spread the truth.  To spread the truth so these heroes will not have died in vain.  With that said, this  story will enrage you, and it should.

Charles Woods is the father of Tyrone Woods, the ex-Navy Seal who answered the call from the Benghazi “CIA Safe House” which was attacked on September 11th, 2012.  Tyrone didn’t make it out alive, but not before he fought valiantly for  several hours, taking out dozens of terrorists.  When Tyrone’s body was brought back via Andrew’s Air Force base, his father Charles was on hand to receive his slain son’s flag draped coffin.  After Obama and Hillary spoke, Charles was greeted separately by Obama and Hillary.  As Obama greeted Charles, Charles stated:

“…his face was pointed toward me, but he could not look me in the eye, he looked somewhere over my shoulder, and his handshake was like a dead fish.  I am a retired Judge, and it was my job to know when someone is telling the truth, his voice was not forceful–not like ‘I am really sorry about this Mr. Woods’, no he was not sorry or remorseful.  I could tell he wasn’t being truthful.  I didn’t speak out before, but after I learned they knew, I want to know who it was that gave the order to not protect…to not send in troops? ” (emphasis mine)

Mr. Woods goes on to relate his encounter then with Hillary Clinton.  Hillary, gave him a “hug”, and he thanked her for taking the time to come and speak with him.  Mr. Woods goes on to state:

“…..first off she said she was “sorry”, her countenance was not good, she then tells me ‘we will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted’ and I could tell, she was not telling me the truth, I mean she is smarter than me, I’m sure, and she knew she was not telling me the truth…”

Charles Woods also was incensed by VP Joe Biden.  Blundering Joe is one thing, but what he said to Mr. Woods is so crass  and in this case, so offensive:

….then Joe Biden in a real ‘boisterous” voice says ‘yea, I’ve gotten a call like that in the middle of the night, hey let me ask you something, did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?’

Yea, Joe, I’m sure watching that live feed, watching men who go in and take fire, realizing at some point they were it, no back-up would be coming, God forgive you, Obama and Hillary.  God help us.  Obama, you- Joe and Panetta were meeting at 5pm during this attack, and CIA sources report it would be the POTUS who would have to say “stand down”.  And all you have to offer this slain hero’s Dad has to do with the anatomy of his private parts?

Let me say why this story is so very important right now.  Charles Woods says he is a man of faith, and that one thing he knows for sure—is that his son did not die in vain.  As it stands, this story—Tyrone Woods’ story and all 4 dead Americans, their deaths may well be swept under the rug by the Main Stream Media, the Benghazi cover-up forgotten in a few weeks.  So, for these Americans deaths to be not in vain, we must make this the turning point—it would be the turning point in this Election if it had the same press as a Cindy Sheehan.

This Country may well perish for lack of knowledge–information.  I know one thing, most Americans are good honorable people.  Many are just not “plugged in” to these events, and they then have no idea that we have a President who lies, who dishonors, who is so arrogant, who is condescending.   He thinks he can “lecture” and use “mock anger” as he did in that second debate over Benghazi.   I don’t think I will ever forget his superb acting when he reeled around at Romney saying “I take it as an offense for anyone to suggest that I don’t take this seriously, it is I who has to stand over those graves, meet those families, and to suggest I or anyone in my Administration would politicize such a thing…well is despicable”.

No, they Obama, Biden, and Hillary just stood over those coffins and lied, and they felt no remorse.  These people do not  represent me,  they do not represent who America is—this really has nothing whatsoever to do with Politics.  This has to do with honor, and decency, who who we are as Americans.  I know many of you wanted to believe that Obama was going to be the next Abe Lincoln, a man who would bring us all together.  You wanted to believe he would be fair, that he was for the poor, he was for the disenfranchised. I am sorry, I wanted that too—but its time to face the truth.  He is none of those things.

Are we so numb to Charles Wood’s pain?   We can’t bring his son back, a son who died for our Freedom.  But we can honor him, by promising to do what we can, to restore America’s honor.  And that has to start with the defeat of Obama and his regime.

Hear Charles Woods interview on FOX here.

Pentatonix dropped another amazingly entertaining video featuring their incredible vocal talents with Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody.

The U.S. economy added 155,000 jobs through the month of November and the unemployment rate held steady at 3.7 percent, according to Department of Labor (DOL) data released Friday.

Wages hit 3.1 percent growth over a year last month, the first time in nearly a decade that wages have broken the 3 percent benchmark. Wage growth held steady at 3.1 percent through November from a year before.

The 3 percent benchmark has not been hit in year-over-year wage growth since April 2009. The increase in wages is an effect of the historically tight labor market as employers offer better pay to attract workers, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report data fell for jobs added under experts’ predictions of 198,000 jobs added, according to WSJ. Jobs data from October was revised downward from 250,000 to 237,000.

The unemployment rate hit a near-five decade low in September when it fell to 3.7 percent. It fell 0.2 percent from the month before and hit the lowest rate since 1969.

The four-week average of new jobless claims — a proxy for the number of workers laid off each week — hit 228,000 Thursday. The economy is producing so many jobs that the unemployment rate remains at historically low levels, despite the jobless claims number. The number of people collecting unemployment benefits sank by 74,000 and remains at the lowest level since 1973, MarketWatch reports.

“Today the Department of Defense rolls out our FY 2020 budget proposal.,” Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick M. Shanahan said in a statement. “With the largest research and development request in 70 years, this strategy-driven budget makes necessary investments in next-generation technology, space, missiles, and cyber capabilities. The operations and capabilities supported by this budget will strongly position the US military for great power competition for decades to come.”

The FY 2020 Budget maintains momentum from the sustained funding increases enacted in FY 2017, FY 2018, and FY 2019 to repair damaged readiness, and the Budget marks a key next step in how the Defense Department operationalizes the 2018 National Defense Strategy. The FY 2020 Budget is a major milestone in meeting this challenge and resourcing the more lethal, agile, and innovative Joint Force America needs to compete, deter, and win in any high-end potential fight of the future by:

1. 1. investing in the emerging space and cyber warfighting domains
   2. modernizing capabilities in the air, maritime, and land warfighting domains
   3. innovating more rapidly to strengthen our competitive advantage
   4. sustaining our forces and building on our readiness gains.

The $718.3 billion budget’s largest conventional military line items include funding for 78 F-35s, 4 nuclear submarines, 3 destroyers, and a nuclear-powered carrier. The wish list, which represents the largest shipbuilding request in 20 years, also includes numerous support ships, aircraft and ground vehicles.

Space, where a portion of a future war may be waged got a huge lift. The Space Force got its first line item and the funding is requested for numerous GPS and surveillance satellites and their launches.

The budget also includes a 3.1% pay raise for members of the military, funding to modernize the military health system, and funds to provide childcare and education to service members’ children.

This DoD fashioned the proposed budget to project power through competitiveness, innovation, and readiness. It recognizes that future wars will be waged not just in the air, on the land, and at sea, but also in space and cyberspace, increasing the complexity of warfare, according to the Pentagon. Congressional approval of the FY 2020 Budget will help America meet current operational commitments and outpace the threats posed by China and Russia through maintaining our competitive advantage, even as DoD spending remains near a record low as a share of the U.S. economy.

Specifically, the Department’s FY 2020 budget builds the Joint Force’s capacity and lethality by investing in:

Cyber ($9.6 billion)

• • Supports offensive and defensive cyberspace operations – $3.7 billion
  • Reduces risk to DoD networks, systems, and information by investing in more cybersecurity capabilities – $5.4 billion
  • Modernizes DoD’s general purpose cloud environment – $61.9 million

Space ($14.1 billion)

• • Resources the initial establishment of the United States Space Force – $72.4 million
  • 4 National Security Space Launch (aka EELV) – $1.7 billion
  • 1 Global Positioning System III and Projects – $1.8 billion
  • Space Based Overhead Persistent Infrared Systems – $1.6 billion

Air Domain ($57.7B)

• • 78 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters – $11.2 billion
  • 12 KC-46 Tanker Replacements – $2.3 billion
  • 24 F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets – $2.0 billion
  • 48 AH-64E Attack Helicopters – $1.0 billion
  • 6 VH-92 Presidential Helicopters – $0.8 billion
  • 6 P-8A Aircraft – $1.5 billion
  • 6 CH-53K King Stallion – $1.5 billion
  • 8 F-15EX – $1.1 billion

Maritime Domain: $34.7 billion and the largest budget request in more than 20 years for shipbuilding

• • COLUMBIA Class Ballistic Missile Submarine – $2.2 billion
  • 1 CVN-78 FORD Class Aircraft Carrier – $2.6 billion
  • 3 Virginia Class Submarines – $10.2 billion
  • 3 DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Destroyers – $5.8 billion
  • 1 Frigate (FFG(X)) – $1.3 billion
  • 2 Fleet Replenishment Oilers (T-AO) – $1.1 billion
  • 2 Towing, Salvage, and Rescue Ship (T-ATS) – $0.2 billion
  • 2 large unmanned surface vehicles – $447 million

Ground Systems ($14.6 billion)

• • 4,090 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles – $1.6 billion
  • 165 M-1 Abrams Tank Modifications – $2.2 billion
  • 56 Amphibious Combat Vehicles – $0.4 billion
  • 131 Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicles – $0.6 billion

Multi-domain and nuclear triad ($31 billion)

• • B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber – $3.0 billion
  • Columbia Class Submarine – $2.2 billion
  • Long-Range Stand-Off Missile – $0.7 billion
  • Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent – $0.6 billon

The FY 2020 Budget funds preferred munitions at the maximum production rate.

• • 40,388 Joint Direct Attack Munitions – $1.1 billion
  • 10,193 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System – $1.4 billion
  • 125 Standard Missile-6 – $0.7 billion
  • 1,925 Small Diameter Bomb II – $0.4 billion
  • 9,000 Hellfire Missiles – $0.7 billion
  • 430 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile – $0.6 billion
  • 48 Long Range Anti-Ship Missile – $0.2 billion

Highlighting the enduring importance of missile defeat and defense, the FY 2020 Budget funds the sustainment of the surge in missile defense investment we undertook in FY 2018 and FY 2019, while also investing in Missile Defense Review efforts at $13.6 billion. The missile defeat and defense investments for FY 2020 include:

• • 37 AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense (SM-3) with Install – $1.7 billion
  • Support for Missile Defense Review (e.g., Land-Launched Conventional Prompt Strike, Extended Range Weapon, Space-based Discrimination Sensor Study) – $1.5 billion
  • Ground Based Midcourse Defense – $1.7 billion
  • 37 THAAD Ballistic Missile Defense – $0.8 billion
  • 147 Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) Missile Segment Enhancements – $0.7 billion

The FY 2020 Budget continues the Department’s emphasis on innovation and technology, which will enhance our competitive advantage. The Budget highlights emerging technology projects including:

• • Unmanned / Autonomous projects to enhance freedom of maneuver and lethality in contested environments – $3.7 billion
  • Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning investments to expand military advantage through the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) and Advanced Image Recognition – $927 million
  • Hypersonics weapons development to complicate adversaries’ detection and defense – $2.6 billion
  • Directed Energy investment to support implementation of directed energy for base defense; enable testing and procurement of multiple types of lasers; and increase research and development for high-power density applications – $235 million

The FY 2020 Budget increases the readiness, lethality, and agility of the Joint force by increasing our military end strength.

• • Funds readiness to executable levels across services – $124.8 billion
  • Total military end strength will increase from FY 2019 projected levels by approximately 7,700 in FY 2020
  • Active end strength will increase by approximately 6,200 from FY 2019 projected levels to FY 2020, with the largest increase in the Air Force
  • Reserve Component end strength will increase by approximately 1,500 from FY 2019 projected levels to FY 2020, with the largest increase in the Army Guard and Reserve

The FY 2020 Budget provides the largest military pay raise in 10 years and robust support to our most valued asset—our military members—and their families. The Budget:

• • Provides a competitive compensation package
  • Includes a 3.1 percent military pay raise
  • Continues to modernize and transform our Military Health System
  • Spousal/community support
  • Continues family support programs with investment of nearly $8 billion for:
    • Child care for over 180,000 children
    • Youth programs serving over 1 million dependents
    • DoD Dependent Schools educating over 76,000 students
    • Commissary operations at 236 stores

Facilities investment is a continuing area of emphasis. This funding:

• • Supports the National Defense Strategy by investing in key operational and training facilities
  • Enables timely maintenance of critical infrastructure
  • Improves Quality-of-Life for Service Members and their families
  • Provides funding for Marine Corps and Air Force hurricane-related facility repairs at Camp Lejeune and Tyndall Air Force Base

The FY 2020 Budget contains critical funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) and an emergency budget request, totaling $173.8 billion, which is subject to the same congressional oversight requirements as the base budget. These pieces of the request are vital to our budget as a whole and our ability to support the National Defense Strategy. The FY 2020 OCO/Emergency request contains four categories:

• • Direct War Requirements: Combat or combat support costs that are not expected to continue once combat operations end – $25.4 billion
  • OCO for Enduring Requirements: Enduring in-theater and CONUS costs that will remain after combat operations end – $41.3 billion
  • OCO for Base Requirements: Funding for base budget requirements in support of the National Defense Strategy, financed in the OCO budget due to the limits on base budget defense resources under the budget caps in current law – $97.9 billion
  • Emergency Requirements: Funding for military construction for emergencies, to include border security and reconstruction efforts to rebuild facilities damaged by Hurricanes Florence and Michael – $9.2 billion

Long-term strategic competitions with China and Russia are the principal priorities for the Department, and require both increased and sustained investment, because of the magnitude of the threats they pose to U.S. security and prosperity today, and the potential for those threats to increase in the future.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy placed a phone call to China’s President Hu Jintao after European leaders reached another last-minute deal to increase bailout funding in an attempt to tackle the regions worst debt crisis in over two decades. Apparently, Sarkozy’s pleas for China to contribute upwards of $100 billion (U.S.) to the EU bailout fund fell on deaf ears, as China’s refusal to buy EU bonds was reported early Friday morning, much to the dismay of the Global media that had been reporting that China would be buying upwards of $100 billion dollars worth of the EU’s bonds.

 

 Sarkozy attempted to woo public opinion and apply Global pressure by taking to the media in an interview right after his phone call to China’s President in which he stated:  “If the Chinese, who have 60 percent of global reserves, decide to invest in the euro instead of the dollar, why refuse?”  The answer to that question can be found in China’s state media announcement that Europe must take responsibility for the crisis and not rely on “good Samaritans” to save the continent.  Maybe China simply sees the U.S  as a good investment, and the EU..not so much.  China currently holds approximately $3.2 trillion dollars in foreign exchange reserves and was looking for “attractive, solid, safe investment opportunities according to Claus Regling, the chief executive of the European Financial Stability Fund. (EFSF) Mr. Regling is currently on a world tour talking to governments about how the EFSF might be structured so the EU bonds it sells to make money will look “more attractive” As Communist leaders in China try to deal with soaring housing costs and food prices while exporters are struggling to stay afloat, selling EU bonds to China right now is off the table.

The EFSF has already “announced” an increase of some measures including quadrupling the firepower of the fund to one trillion euros ($1.4 trillion). Now the main problem is just where that cash infusion will come from. As stock markets rallied on the recent news of the EU bailout fund quad-rupling, the EFSF is seen to be scrambling to raise the funds.  Isn’t that akin to be placing a bet on an as yet unfunded entity?  China certainly thinks so.

The EFSF fund was set up in May 2010 and is designed to provide financial assistance to European economies at risk of default, such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Here we  some 17 months later, and the crisis is now looming larger than ever. Next up on Regling’s EU bailout begging tour is Japan, whom as also offered “vague promises” ( just like China in the beginning) that Japan might be willing to expand it’s already large contributions to the EU’s bailout fund. We can expect Japan to take the route China has in refusing to bury itself in the EU bailout debacle simply because, as The People’s Daily Communist media outlet in China stated: “The (EFSF) summit did not reach any decision on institutional reform and therefore did not eliminate concerns over the (causes of) the European debt crisis at the root.”

Adding to the fact that the EFSF has apparently promised a $1.4T cash infusion into the EU bailout fund without first securing the actual funding, is that, as is usually the case, China will want to put certain “conditions” on their participation in buying EU bonds to increase the EU bailout fund. Those conditions: Greater market access in Europe and silence on their currency manipulation which most economists say is being unfairly undervalued. That tidbit comes to us from IHS Global Insight analyst Ren Zianfang.  Didn’t the U.S. Senate recently pass legislation calling for sanctions against China for undervaluing their currency? Yes they did, as you can see here.

In another shocking revelation, (sarc) also on Friday, a deputy Chinese finance minister said Beijing needs to learn how the new investment vehicle will work before deciding whether to invest.

China wants details on the amount of bonds issued by Italy and other individual European governments that might be guaranteed by the fund, Zhu Guangyao said at a separate briefing. Oh the nerve of those Chinese, wanting petty “details” before committing another $100T to the EU bailout fund!

So the Global market rallied on the EFSF’s recent announcement that they will quadruple the EU bailout funding. All they need to do now is find the money to put into the fund. What a dysfunctional mess of an organization. This is a grand example of how the EU Global government has become so involved with the European banking system that it has exasperated the European financial crisis tenfold, and instead of helping European countries to pull out of the recession, it now threatens to drag the U.S. and the rest of the world down with it.

 

 

 

The second trailer for the next installment of the Star Wars story, The Last Jedi, will be released Monday night during the NFL game between the Vikings and Bears.

The trailer will be shown at half-time during Monday Night Football which might reinvigorate, for a single game, interest in a sport-in-decline due to the national anthem protests. The #takeAKnee B.S. has resulted in the NFL going from one of America’s favorite sports to the bottom of the list.

The movie is expected to have a 2-and-a-half-hour runtime, the longest of any Star Wars film yet. YouTuber Mike Zeroh put out a video discussing some leaked shot descriptions from the trailer.

Rumors and gossip have surrounded the movie for months. What does the title mean? Is Rey Luke’s daughter? What happened to Kylo Ren? YouTuber Mike Zeroh doesn’t answer those questions but he did put out a video that discusses some leaked shot descriptions from the trailer.

A force tree, Kyber cystal, and a book burning? Who knows, but if you’re a Star Wars fan you might want to tune in for halftime tomorrow night (or just wait until after the game when we post it here.)

Tickets for the new movie will go on sale after the trailer’s premier and theaters are expected to sell out for the first showings on Dec. 15 almost immediately.

Economic growth is expected to continue in the U.S. throughout 2018, say the nation’s purchasing and supply executives in their Spring 2018 Semiannual Economic Forecast. Expectations for the remainder of 2018 continue to be positive in both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors according to the Institute for Supply Management^® (ISM^®) Business Survey Committees.

Manufacturing Summary
Sixty-two percent of respondents from the panel of manufacturing supply management executives predict their revenues, on average, will be 11.6 percent greater in 2018 compared to 2017, 5 percent expect an 11.9 percent decline, and 33 percent foresee no change in revenue. This yields an overall average forecast of 6.6 percent revenue growth among manufacturers for 2018. This current prediction is 1.5 percentage points above the December 2017 forecast of 5.1-percent revenue growth for 2018 and is 2.5 percentage points above the actual revenue growth reported for all of 2017. With operating rate at 85.8 percent, an expected capital expenditure increase of 10.1 percent, an increase of 5 percent for prices paid for raw materials, and employment expected to increase by 1.8 percent by the end of 2018 compared to the end of 2017, manufacturing is positioned to grow revenues while managing costs through the remainder of the year. “With 15 of the 18 manufacturing sector industries predicting revenue growth in 2018, when compared to 2017, U.S. manufacturing continues to move in a positive direction. However, finding and onboarding qualified labor and being able to pass on raw material price increases will ultimately define manufacturing revenues and profitability,” says Fiore.

The 15 industries reporting expectations of growth in revenue for 2018 — listed in order — are: Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Fabricated Metal Products; Transportation Equipment; Plastics & Rubber Products; Petroleum & Coal Products; Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Computer & Electronic Products; Wood Products; Primary Metals; Machinery; Chemical Products; Paper Products; Furniture & Related Products; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; and Nonmetallic Mineral Products.

The manufacturing panel was also asked Special Questions related to the impact thus far in 2018 on the following: (1) In the past six months, has your firm had difficulty hiring workers to fill open positions? (2) In the past six months, has your firm raised wages to recruit new hires? (3) In the past six months, has your firm offered additional training for new hires? (4) In the past six months, has your firm increased, decreased or left unchanged its capital spending plans for the next 12 months? And why did you say so? (5) Do you believe that tariffs will raise the price of the goods that you produce and deliver to your customers? (6) If you believe that tariffs will raise the price of your goods to your customers, by how much? (7) Do you believe that tariffs will cause delays and disruptions in your supply chain? Their responses are provided at the end of this report.

Non-Manufacturing Summary
Forty-nine percent of non-manufacturing purchasing and supply executives expect their 2018 revenues to be greater by 7.1 percent as compared to 2018. Respondents currently expect a 3.2 percent net increase in overall revenue, which is less than the 6 percent increase that was forecasted in December 2017. “Non-manufacturing will continue to grow for the balance of 2018. Non-manufacturing companies continue to operate efficiently, which is reflected by the high percentage of capacity utilization. Supply managers have indicated that prices are projected to increase 2.1 percent over the year. Employment is projected to grow 1.5 percent. Sixteen out of 18 industries are forecasting increased revenues, which is fewer than the 17 industries that forecasted increased revenues last year. The non-manufacturing sector will continue economic growth throughout the year,” says Nieves.

The 16 non-manufacturing industries expecting increases in revenue in 2018 — listed in order — are: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting; Mining; Transportation & Warehousing; Information; Management of Companies & Support Services; Construction; Arts, Entertainment & Recreation; Wholesale Trade; Real Estate, Rental & Leasing; Professional, Scientific & Technical Services; Health Care & Social Assistance; Finance & Insurance; Retail Trade; Utilities; Public Administration; and Accommodation & Food Services.

The non-manufacturing panel was also asked Special Questions related to the impact thus far in 2018 on the following: (1) In the past six months, has your firm had difficulty hiring workers to fill open positions? (2) In the past six months, has your firm raised wages to recruit new hires? (3) In the past six months, has your firm offered additional training for new hires? (4) In the past six months, has your firm increased, decreased or left unchanged its capital spending plans for the next 12 months? And why did you say so? (5) Do you believe that tariffs will raise the price of the goods that you produce and deliver to your customers? (6) If you believe that tariffs will raise the price of your goods to your customers, by how much? (7) Do you believe that tariffs will cause delays and disruptions in your supply chain? Their responses are provided at the end of this report.

OPERATING RATE

Manufacturing
Purchasing and supply managers report that their companies are currently operating, on average, at 85.8 percent of normal capacity, the same as in December 2017, as well as an increase from the 82.5 percent reported in May 2017. The 11 industries reporting operating capacity levels at or above the average capacity of 85.8 percent — listed in order — are: Apparel, Leather & Allied Products; Wood Products; Paper Products; Petroleum & Coal Products; Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; Textile Mills; Chemical Products; Transportation Equipment; Computer & Electronic Products; and Furniture & Related Products.

Non-Manufacturing
Non-manufacturing purchasing and supply executives report that their organizations are currently operating at 85.5 percent of normal capacity. This is 6.4 percent less than what was reported in December 2017 and less than the 86.9 percent reported in May 2017. The nine industries operating at capacity levels above the average rate of 85.5 percent — listed in order — are: Real Estate, Rental & Leasing; Mining; Retail Trade; Finance & Insurance; Public Administration; Accommodation & Food Services; Transportation & Warehousing; Health Care & Social Assistance; and Construction.

Operating Rate
	Manufacturing	Non-Manufacturing
	May 2017	Dec 2017	May 2018	May 2017	Dec 2017	May 2018
90%+	37%	50%	47%	62%	58%	52%
50%-89%	60%	49%	51%	36%	40%	45%
Below 50%	3%	1%	2%	2%	2%	3%
Est. Overall Average	82.5%	85.8%	85.8%	86.9%	91.9%	85.5%

PRODUCTION CAPACITY

Manufacturing
Production capacity in manufacturing is expected to increase 4.9 percent in 2018. This increase is more than the 2.7-percent increase predicted in December 2017 and is greater than the 4.3-percent increase reported in December 2017 for all of 2017. This reflects the continuing strength in the sector, as 43 percent of respondents expect an average capacity increase of 13.3 percent, 3 percent expect decreases averaging 29.6 percent, and 54 percent expect no change. The 15 industries expecting production capacity increases for 2018 — listed in order — are: Wood Products; Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Plastics & Rubber Products; Furniture & Related Products; Apparel, Leather & Allied Products; Fabricated Metal Products; Petroleum & Coal Products; Primary Metals; Transportation Equipment; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; Machinery; Computer & Electronic Products; Chemical Products; Paper Products; and Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components.

Manufacturing Production Capacity
	For 2017	For 2018	For 2018
	Reported Dec 2017	Magnitude of Change	Predicted Dec 2017	Magnitude of Change	Predicted May 2018	Magnitude of Change
Higher	46%	+10.5%	48%	+7.4%	43%	+13.3%
Same	48%	NA	49%	NA	54%	NA
Lower	6%	-9.8%	3%	-27.3%	3%	-29.6%
Net Average		+4.3%		+2.7%		+4.9%

Non-Manufacturing
The capacity to produce products or provide services in the non-manufacturing sector is expected to increase 3.8 percent during 2018. This compares to an increase of 2.9 percent reported for 2017, and a prediction in December 2017 for an increase of 3.4 percent for 2018. Twenty-four percent of non-manufacturing respondents expect their capacity for 2018 to increase by an average of 16.6 percent, and 1 percent of the respondents foresee their capacity decreasing by an average of 8.3 percent. Seventy-five percent expect no change in their capacity. The 12 industries expecting to add to their production capacity in 2018 — listed in order — are: Wholesale Trade; Finance & Insurance; Professional, Scientific & Technical Services; Other Services; Construction; Information; Retail Trade; Health Care & Social Assistance; Public Administration; Management of Companies & Support Services; Real Estate, Rental & Leasing; and Accommodation & Food Services.

Non-Manufacturing Production or Provision Capacity
	For 2017	For 2018	For 2018
	Reported Dec 2017	Magnitude of Change	Predicted Dec 2017	Magnitude of Change	Predicted May 2018	Magnitude of Change
Higher	32%	+10.9%	39%	+8.9%	24%	+16.6
Same	62%	NA	59%	NA	75%	NA
Lower	6%	-9.4%	2%	-5.7%	1%	-8.3
Net Average		+2.9%		+3.4%		+3.8

PREDICTED CAPITAL EXPENDITURES — 2018 vs. 2017

Manufacturing
Survey respondents expect a 10.1-percent increase in capital expenditures in 2018. This is notably higher than the 2.7-percent increase predicted by the panel in the December 2017 forecast for 2018. Currently, 34 percent of respondents predict increased capital expenditures in 2018, with an average increase of 42.1 percent, and 14 percent said their capital spending would decrease an average of 30.5 percent. Fifty-two percent say they will spend the same in 2018 as they did in 2017. The 13 industries expecting increases in capital expenditures in 2018 compared to 2017 — listed in order — are: Furniture & Related Products; Primary Metals; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Plastics & Rubber Products; Transportation Equipment; Chemical Products; Fabricated Metal Products; Apparel, Leather & Allied Products; Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Petroleum & Coal Products; Paper Products; and Machinery.

Non-Manufacturing
Non-manufacturing purchasing and supply executives are expecting to increase their level of capital expenditures 6.8 percent in 2018 compared to 2017. The 29 percent of members expecting to spend more predict an average increase of 30.6 percent. Seven percent of respondents anticipate an average decrease of 29.1 percent. Sixty-four percent of the respondents expect to spend the same on capital expenditures in 2018 as in 2017. The 12 industries expecting an increase in capital expenditures in 2018 from 2017 — listed in order — are: Public Administration; Wholesale Trade; Transportation & Warehousing; Information; Arts, Entertainment & Recreation; Health Care & Social Assistance; Management of Companies & Support Services; Finance & Insurance; Mining; Construction; Real Estate, Rental & Leasing; and Accommodation & Food Services.

Predicted Capital Expenditures 2018 vs. 2017
	Manufacturing	Non-Manufacturing
	Predicted Dec 2017	Predicted May 2018	Magnitude of Change	Predicted Dec 2017	Predicted May 2018	Magnitude of Change
Higher	41%	34%	+42.1%	45%	29%	+30.6%
Same	42%	52%	NA	42%	64%	NA
Lower	17%	14%	-30.5%	13%	7%	-29.1%
Net Average	+2.7%		+10.1%	+3.8%		+6.8%

PRICES — Changes Between End of 2017 and April 2018

Manufacturing
In the December 2017 forecast, respondents predicted an increase of 1.3 percent in prices paid during the first four months of 2018; they now report prices actually increased by 4.8 percent. The 70 percent who say their prices are higher now than at the end of 2017 report an average increase of 7.1 percent, while the 4 percent who report lower prices report an average decrease of 4.5 percent. The remaining 26 percent indicate no change for the period. All 18 manufacturing industries reported an increase in prices paid for the first part of 2018 in the following order: Fabricated Metal Products; Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Furniture & Related Products; Wood Products; Apparel, Leather & Allied Products; Primary Metals; Machinery; Transportation Equipment; Plastics & Rubber Products; Chemical Products; Paper Products; Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; Printing & Related Support Activities; Computer & Electronic Products; Nonmetallic Mineral Products; Textile Mills; and Petroleum & Coal Products.

Non-Manufacturing
Non-Manufacturing respondents report that their purchases in the first four months of this year cost an average of 1.3 percent more than at the end of 2017. This is 0.2 percentage point higher than the 1.1-percent increase predicted in December 2017 for the first four months of 2018. Thirty-nine percent of non-manufacturing respondents report that prices increased an average of 4.6 percent in the first part of 2017. Eight percent report price decreases averaging 6.1 percent. The remaining 53 percent indicate no change in prices paid in the first four months of 2018. The 14 industries reporting an increase in prices paid in the first part of 2018 — listed in order — are: Construction; Public Administration; Mining; Wholesale Trade; Transportation & Warehousing; Professional, Scientific & Technical Services; Retail Trade; Accommodation & Food Services; Real Estate, Rental & Leasing; Health Care & Social Assistance; Management of Companies & Support Services; Arts, Entertainment & Recreation; Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting; and Finance & Insurance.

Prices – Changes Between End of 2017 and May 2018
	Manufacturing	Non-Manufacturing
	Predicted Dec 2017	Reported May 2018	Magnitude of Change	Predicted Dec 2017	Reported May 2018	Magnitude of Change
Higher	57%	70%	+7.1%	57%	39%	+4.6%
Same	29%	26%	NA	33%	53%	NA
Lower	14%	4%	-4.5%	10%	8%	-6.1%
Net Average	+1.3%		+4.8%	+1.1%		+1.3%

PRICES — Predicted Changes Between End of 2017 and End of 2018

Manufacturing
When asked to predict 2018 price changes, 70 percent of respondents expect prices to increase by 7.3 percent for the full year of 2018 compared to the end of 2017. Meanwhile, 4 percent anticipate decreases averaging 3.6 percent. Including the 26 percent who expect no change in prices, survey respondents expect a net average prices increase of 5 percent for all of 2018, indicating that prices are expected to rise 0.2 percentage point over the remainder of the year. All 18 manufacturing industries are predicting price increases for all of 2018 in the following order: Furniture & Related Products; Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Fabricated Metal Products; Apparel, Leather & Allied Products; Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Plastics & Rubber Products; Primary Metals; Transportation Equipment; Wood Products; Chemical Products; Machinery; Textile Mills; Paper Products; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; Computer & Electronic Products; Nonmetallic Mineral Products; Printing & Related Support Activities; and Petroleum & Coal Products.

Non-Manufacturing
For 2018, non-manufacturing respondents expect prices to increase, on average, 2.1 percent when compared to the prices at the end of 2017. Given that respondents have reported that prices have increased 1.3 percent through May 2018, prices are projected to increase 0.8 percentage point over the remainder of the year. Fifty-three percent of respondents anticipate price increases averaging 4.8 percent. Nine percent of respondents expect price decreases of 6 percent, and 38 percent do not expect prices to change. The 16 industries expecting price increases in 2018 — listed in order — are: Construction; Mining; Transportation & Warehousing; Public Administration; Wholesale Trade; Professional, Scientific & Technical Services; Accommodation & Food Services; Finance & Insurance; Management of Companies & Support Services; Arts, Entertainment & Recreation; Real Estate, Rental & Leasing; Other Services; Utilities; Information; Retail Trade; and Health Care & Social Assistance.

Prices – Predicted Changes Between End of 2017 and End of 2018
	Manufacturing	Non-Manufacturing
	Predicted Dec 2017	Predicted May 2018	Magnitude of Change	Predicted Dec 2017	Predicted May 2018	Magnitude of Change
Higher	60%	70%	+7.3%	63%	53%	+4.8%
Same	23%	26%	NA	27%	38%	NA
Lower	17%	4%	-3.6%	10%	9%	-6.0%
Net Average	+1.8%		+5.0%	+2.2%		+2.1%

EMPLOYMENT

Employment – Predicted Changes Between End of 2017 and End of 2018

Manufacturing
ISM’s Manufacturing Business Survey respondents forecast that manufacturing employment will increase by 1.8 percent by the end of 2018, compared to the end of 2017. Thirty-eight percent of respondents expect employment to be 7.7, on average, percent higher, while 9 percent of respondents predict employment to be lower by 13.1 percent. The remaining 53 percent of respondents expect their employment levels to be unchanged for the remainder of 2018. The 12 industries reporting expectations of growth in employment during 2018 — listed in order — are: Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Fabricated Metal Products; Textile Mills; Plastics & Rubber Products; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; Petroleum & Coal Products; Machinery; Primary Metals; Furniture & Related Products; Paper Products; Chemical Products; and Computer & Electronic Products.

Non-Manufacturing
ISM’s Non-Manufacturing Business Survey Committee respondents forecast that employment will increase 1.5 percent through the end of 2018. For the remaining months of 2018, 33 percent expect employment to increase, on average, 7.4 percent, 12 percent anticipate employment to decrease by 8.5 percent, and 55 percent expect their employment levels to be unchanged. The 11 industries anticipating increases in employment — listed in order — are: Other Services; Transportation & Warehousing; Mining; Public Administration; Construction; Wholesale Trade; Accommodation & Food Services; Health Care & Social Assistance; Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting; Professional, Scientific & Technical Services; and Management of Companies & Support Services.

Employment – Predicted Changes Between End of 2017 and End of 2018*
	Manufacturing	Non-Manufacturing
	Predicted Dec 2017	Predicted May 2018	Magnitude of Change	Predicted Dec 2017	Predicted May 2018	Magnitude of Change
Higher	44%	38%	+7.7%	44%	33%	+7.4%
Same	46%	53%	NA	42%	55%	NA
Lower	10%	9%	-13.1%	14%	12%	-8.5%
Net Average	+1.2%		+1.8%	+1.5%		+1.5%

*Change made to questionnaire in 2017. Respondents are now asked for a year-over-year employment comparison rather than a partial-year update, as previously reported.

BUSINESS REVENUES

Business Revenues Comparison — 2018 vs. 2017

Manufacturing
Increased revenue is expected in 2018 as purchasing and supply management executives predict an overall net increase of 6.6 percent in sector business revenue for 2018 over 2017. This is 1.5 percentage points higher than the 5.1-percent increase forecast in December 2017 for all of 2018, and 2.5 percentage points higher than the 4.1-percent increase reported for 2017 over 2016. Sixty-two percent of respondents say that revenues for 2018 will increase, on average, 11.6 percent over 2017. Conversely, 5 percent say their revenues will decrease, on average, 11.9 percent, and the remaining 33 percent indicate no change. Of the 18 manufacturing industries, 15 are reporting expectations of growth in revenue during 2018 in the following order: Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Fabricated Metal Products; Transportation Equipment; Plastics & Rubber Products; Petroleum & Coal Products; Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Computer & Electronic Products; Wood Products; Primary Metals; Machinery; Chemical Products; Paper Products; Furniture & Related Products; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; and Nonmetallic Mineral Products.

Manufacturing Business Revenue
2017 vs. 2016	2018 vs. 2017
	Reported Dec 2017	% Change	Predicted Dec 2017	% Change	Predicted May 2018	% Change
Higher	61%	+8.7%	70%	+7.8%	62%	+11.6%
Same	24%	NA	26%	NA	33%	NA
Lower	15%	-8.1%	4%	-7.2%	5%	-11.9%
Net Average		+4.1%		+5.1%		+6.6%

Non-Manufacturing
Non-manufacturing respondents forecast that sector business revenue for 2018 will increase 3.2 percent compared to 2017. This is 2.8 percent less than the 6 percent that was predicted in December 2017 for 2018. The 49 percent of respondents forecasting better business in 2018 than in 2017 estimate an average revenue increase of 7.1 percent. The 5 percent who predict less business in 2018 forecast an average decrease of 7.7 percent. The remaining 46 percent see no change in revenues for 2018. The 16 industries expecting an increase in revenues in 2018 — listed in order — are:  Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting; Mining; Transportation & Warehousing; Information; Management of Companies & Support Services; Construction; Arts, Entertainment & Recreation; Wholesale Trade; Real Estate, Rental & Leasing; Professional, Scientific & Technical Services; Health Care & Social Assistance; Finance & Insurance; Retail Trade; Utilities; Public Administration; and Accommodation & Food Services.

Non-Manufacturing Business Revenue
2017 vs. 2016	2018 vs. 2017
	Reported Dec 2017	% Change	Predicted Dec 2017	% Change	Predicted May 2018	% Change
Higher	55%	+13.5%	59%	+11.1%	49%	+7.1%
Same	26%	NA	31%	NA	46%	NA
Lower	19%	-10.1%	10%	-5.7%	5%	-7.7%
Net Average		+5.7%		+6.0%		+3.2%

SPECIAL QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE EARLY MONTHS OF 2018

We asked the panelists to tell us: (1) In the past six months, has your firm had difficulty hiring workers to fill open positions? (2) In the past six months, has your firm raised wages to recruit new hires? (3) In the past six months, has your firm offered additional training for new hires? (4) In the past six months, has your firm increased, decreased, or left unchanged its capital spending plans for the next 12 months? And why did you say so?

We also asked three questions related to tariffs. (1) Do you believe that tariffs will raise the price of the goods that you produce and deliver to your customers? (2) If you believe that tariffs will raise the price of your goods to your customers, by how much? (3) Do you believe that tariffs will cause delays and disruptions in your supply chain?

Manufacturing
Answers to the first Special Question, “In the past six months, has your firm had difficulty hiring workers to fill open positions?”:

• Yes, we have had difficulty hiring (77.9%)
• No, we have not had difficulty hiring (22.1%)

Answers to the second Special Question, “In the past six months, has your firm raised wages to recruit new hires?”:

• Yes (53.3%)
• No (46.7%)

Answers to the third Special Question, “In the past six months, has your firm offered additional training for new hires?”:

• Yes (47.9%)
• No (52.1%)

Answers to the fourth Special Question, “In the past six months, has your firm increased, decreased or left unchanged its capital spending plans for the next 12 months? And why did you say so?”:

• Increased capital spending plans (35.5%)
• Decreased capital spending plans (11.7%)
• No change to capital spending plans (52.8%)

As a follow-up to the fourth Special Question, respondents were asked why they answered as they did.

• The reasons given by those who increased capital spending plans (35.5%):
  • General business outlook (68.9%)
  • Recent business tax reform (14.4%)
  • Prospects for regulatory reform (2.2%)
  • Other (14.4%)
• The reasons given by those who decreased capital spending plans (11.7%):
  • General business outlook (50.0%)
  • Prospects for regulatory reform (3.3%)
  • Recent business tax reform (3.3%)
  • Other (40.0%)
  • Not applicable (3.3%)

Answers to the fifth Special Question, “Do you believe that tariffs will raise the price of the goods that you produce and deliver to your customers?”:

• Yes (73.9%)
• No (26.1%)

In response to the sixth Special Question, “If you believe that tariffs will raise the price of your goods to your customers, by how much?”, the average increase was 5.4 percent, with a median of 3.0 percent.

Answers to the seventh Special Question, “Do you believe that tariffs will cause delays and disruptions in your supply chain?”:

• Yes (57.5%)
• No (42.5%)

Non-Manufacturing
Answers to the first Special Question, “In the past six months, has your firm had difficulty hiring workers to fill open positions?”:

• Yes, we have had difficulty hiring (64.4%)
• No, we have not had difficulty hiring (35.6%)

Answers to the second Special Question, “In the past six months, has your firm raised wages to recruit new hires?”:

• Yes (35.7%)
• No (64.3%)

Answers to the third Special Question, “In the past six months, has your firm offered additional training for new hires?”:

• Yes (50%)
• No (50%)

Answers to the fourth Special Question, “In the past six months, has your firm increased, decreased or left unchanged its capital spending plans for the next 12 months? And why did you say so?”:

• Increased capital spending plans (31.4%)
• Decreased capital spending plans (10.1%)
• No change to capital spending plans (58.5%)

As a follow-up to the fourth Special Question, respondents were asked why they answered as they did:

• The reasons given by those who increased capital spending plans (31.4%):
  • General business outlook (57.6%)
  • Recent business tax reform (18.6%)
  • Prospects for regulatory reform (3.4%)
  • Other (18.6%)
• The reasons given by those who decreased capital spending plans (10.1%):
  • General business outlook (57.9%)
  • Prospects for regulatory reform (5.3%)
  • Recent business tax reform (0%)
  • Other (36.8%)

Answers to the fifth Special Question, “Do you believe that tariffs will raise the price of the goods that you produce and deliver to your customers?”:

• Yes (50.3%)
• No (49.7%)

In response to the sixth Special Question, “If you believe that tariffs will raise the price of your goods to your customers, by how much?”, the percent given was 7.2% with a median of 5.0%.

Answers to the seventh Special Question: “Do you believe that tariffs will cause delays and disruptions in your supply chain?”:

• Yes (59%)
• No (41%)

SUMMARY

Manufacturing

• Operating rate is currently at 85.8 percent of normal capacity.
• Production capacity is expected to increase 4.9 percent in 2018.
• Capital expenditures are expected to increase 10.1 percent in 2018.
• Prices paid increased 4.8 percent through the end of April 2018.
• Prices of raw materials are expected to increase a total of 5.0 percent for all of 2018, indicating an expected increase of 0.2 percent in prices for the remainder of the year.
• Manufacturing employment is expected to increase by 1.8 percent in 2018.
• Manufacturing revenue is expected to increase 6.6 percent in 2018.
• Overall, manufacturing is expected to exhibit a positive growth trend in 2018.

Non-Manufacturing

• Operating rate is currently 85.5 percent of normal capacity.
• Production capacity is expected to increase 3.8 percent in 2018.
• Capital expenditures are expected to increase 6.8 percent in 2018.
• Prices paid increased 1.3 percent through the end of April 2018.
• Prices were reported to have increased 1.3 percent in the first four months of the year and are expected to increase 0.8 percentage point for the rest of the year, for a total projected net annual increase of 2.1 percent.
• Non-manufacturing employment is expected to increase 1.5 percent during the rest of 2018.
• Non-manufacturing revenue is expected to increase 3.2 percent in 2018.
• The non-manufacturing sector is projected to have continued growth in 2018

The forecast was presented today by Timothy R. Fiore CPSM, C.P.M., chair of the ISM Manufacturing Business Survey Committee; and by Anthony S. Nieves, CPSM, SC.P.M., A.P.P., CFPM, chair of the ISM Non-Manufacturing Business Survey Committee.

Acting border patrol chief for the Rio Grande Valley, Raul Ortiz, told “Fox & Friends” he wants to see another 120 miles of border fencing in his sector and an increase in the number of agents.

“Right now we would like to see about another 120 miles of fencing in this sector alone. We’ve got 277 miles of river country. It winds an awful lot,” Ortiz said Friday.

“But if we were able to get the infrastructure, a few more agents and certainly the technology, I like our chances against the transnational criminal organizations out there,” he continued. “What I say to anybody who says we don’t need those things, come walk in my shoes.”

“Fox & Friends” co-host Pete Hegseth said Ortiz appreciates President Donald Trump’s hands-on approach to the border crisis and said anyone who knows border security will stipulate that a wall is absolutely necessary.

“[Ortiz] went on to say he really appreciates this president for the first time any president — willing to come down to the border, talk to the agents and the real experts. When I asked him, when I said, ‘Hey, critics of president say that they’ve got experts that tell them that walls aren’t necessary,’ he just laughed and said I’ve never met these experts,” Hegseth said. “Anyone who’s been here knows you got to have a wall.”

Co-host Brain Kilmeade said the wall is a simple solution and is being embraced by border experts from across the political spectrum.

“The former border patrol chief under [former President Barack] Obama also says you need a fence. No one says it’s a cure-all. They talk about the need for a border. What it does is you put sensors on these slats and on these fences, that’ll give both sides what they want,” Kilmeade said.

“You got technology as well as at the very least a delay of those coming here,” he added. “Not all with evil intentions — some just looking to come here. But you just combine the both. That’s what’s so frustrating. This is not hard.”