tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News July 6, 2019 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
mike: a fox news alert, a gas explosion rocking a florida shopping center. at least 20 people are hurt. hello, everyone, welcome to "america's news headquarters," i'm mike emmanuel in for eric shawn. arthel: and i'm arthel neville. you can see just how devastating the blast is. it happened in the city of plantation which is just west of fort lauderdale. in fact, phil keating is on the scene and, phil, if you could, tell us what you're seeing now. >> reporter: hi, arthel. this is the strip mall where all of this happened right before noon this morning. busy saturday, people are out shopping, numerous stores here. and when you walk around the whole property, the perimeter -- as i've done -- debris is all over the place. presumably was gas-caused even though that's not officially determined by the fire department here in plantation. blew the roof off, windows -- [inaudible]
but you really get the vivid picture of the damage from the air, from the helicopters that are hovering over. the arrows are just amazing, and if you think 15-20 people, that's the limit of the people injured, and by all reports nobody's in critical condition, and no fatalities. a lot of people are absolutely amazed by that. and feeling very fortunate for this community because this is a very busy place. you've got the l.a. fitness, you've got a italian restaurant, fashion stores, multiple restaurants, a couple of banks, and a lot of people work out on saturday morning and presumably they were in there when all of this exploded. the actual location of the the explosion appears to be -- again, not confirmed or officially determined yet -- it appears to be adjacent to l.a. fitness gym at an empty piece ifrrhea. pizzeria. there's a lot of people on scene. fire departments from all over
broward county including the city of fort fort lauderdale. you also have alcohol, tobacco and firearms on the scene because, like i said before, it is not officially determined that this was a natural gas explosion even though the debris looks like previous natural gas explosions that have leveled homes and businesses around the country over the past several years. tee coe's on the scene, that's tampa electric, they are the natural gas company provider. you've got police agencies from all over the place, university boulevard is completely closed off. so traffic is all being rerouted here. but the rubble and the ceiling damage, i mean, i walked around the north side of the area here, it was -- debris was flying into the adjacent parking lot at least 75, maybe 100 yards away. so you can only imagine how explosive the explosion was as
it propelled building debris and ceiling and tiles and windows up into the air and all over the place. not only are you going to have property damage here, you're going to have 15-20 people recovering from their wounds, but you're also going to have a lot of people whose cars are perhaps totaled. if not just minor damage or immediate damage. so amazing explosion here. again, the working theory is that it is a natural gas-caused, however, it's not official just yet. they are investigating, and they just had a press briefing at the top of the hour, about 2:00, 2:15, and they basically said, look, we're not determining the cause just yet. but, you know, it seems to be a natural gas explosion. but nothing is being ruled out right now. but the true, fortunate news here is that the impact on the gym and this very busy shopping mall on a very busy saturday
morning appears to be relatively light with 15-20 people suffering injuries, none of them critical. arthel? arthel: and that's really good news, because i was thinking the same thing, phil. you know, the l.a. fitness center, it's saturday morning, a holiday weekend, people are working out, shopping. i know you said authorities have the area cordoned off, but have they at least held on to the people that were there -- not the ones injured, but folks who were there, are they able to ask them what they heard and saw as they try to piece together what happened, how it happened, why it happened? >> reporter: well, a hot of the people who were here are now gone. all of the people who were injured -- this happened just before noon. so it was about three hours ago. so they've all been taken to hospital to get treated and potentially released anytime now. but as far as witnesses go, the anecdotal evidence i've heard from people, people did hear this explosion from miles away, and, you know, it's just -- was
very, very loud and shocking, and it sounded like a massive bomb. and, again, the working theory here, natural a gas pipeline explosion. but still nothing official just yet, arthel. arthel: all right, phil keating. i know you're out there getting all the details, and we'll check back in later. thanks, phil. >> reporter: thanks. mike: southern california bracing for more strong aftershocks after a 7.1 magnitude earthquake yesterday. the quake rattling homes, crumbling roads and causing fires. about 150 miles northeast of los angeles. it's the second powerful quake to strike the region in as many days. jonathan hunt is live in ridgecrest, california. jonathan? >> reporter: mike, the physical damage from those two very large earthquakes is miraculously minimal. there is more damage, though, done to the psyche of those who lived through them both. we got a vivid display of that last night when our producer, dan gallo, was in a restaurant
getting a well-earned break after 36 hours straight of work at his first earthquake and that 7.1 hit. dan whipped out his cell phone, caught the chaos and fear on camera as people ran for their lives from that restaurant. and dan himself, who is not a man given to exaggeration, said to me it really felt like it could be the end. so terrifying for a lot of people. on the other hand, there are those who say they will not be intimidated by mother nature. listen here. >> not going to sit around and wait for it and not do anything. i just, p i can't do that. i sat on the bench in our picnic area for two nights now, i'm not going to do that. i'm just going to get on with life and if it hits, it hits. there's nothing i can do to stop it, there's nothing i can do to forewarn me, so i've just got to keep busy so i don't think about it. >> reporter: the worst of the damage done by a couple of fires that broke out, those caught by our reporter jeff paul on his cell phone at a nearby mobile
home park. firefighters were out there mopping that up. everybody now just waiting nervously to see what comes next. mike? mike: jonathan hunt live in ridgecrest, california, thank you so much. our best to good folks there. arthel and i will be back here at 4 p.m. eastern. we will join the journal editorial report in progress just after the break. ♪ ♪ once-daily toujeo helps you
control your blood sugar around the clock. and with a $0 copay, ♪ let's groove tonight. that's something to groove about. toujeo is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. it contains 3 times as much insulin in 1 milliliter as standard insulin. don't use toujeo to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you're allergic to insulin. get medical help right away if you have a serious allergic reaction such as body rash, or trouble breathing. don't reuse needles, or share insulin pens.
the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which can be life-threatening. it may cause shaking, sweating, fast heartbeat, and blurred vision. check your blood sugar levels daily. injection site reactions may occur. don't change your dose without talking to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medicines and medical conditions. check insulin label each time you inject. taking tzds with insulins may cause heart failure that can lead to death. toujeo, ask your doctor. ♪ let's groove tonight. that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein.
♪ ♪ paul: the u.s. economy reaching a major milestone this week. monday marked the 121st month since the recession ended in 2009, making it the longest stretch of economic expansion in modern u.s. history. economist arthur laffer is the founder and chairman of laffer associates. welcome, and first, let me congratulate you on the presidential medal of freedom, well deserved. >> thank you, paul. paul: all right. >> i don't think it's well deserved, but i'm not giving it back. [laughter] paul: okay, good. so let's talk about this expansion, this record expansion, because it's very long, longest in history, but it's also very slow. one of the worst stretches of growth for an expansion in american history, and i think the longest stretch certainly since they've been keeping records of less than 3% growth or less, longer than ten years before it happened in 2018. how do you explain that?
>> well, i think we've had very bad policies at the beginning of this recession. mean, 2008-2009 you had all the stimulussing spending which was nothing other than a tax increase by both w. and obama, and it led to a very, very slow recovery. i don't know why it hasn't picked up more than it has, but it sure has picked up with trump. and i think maybe what we're doing is hitting some supply constraints as we go along, but i think we're in for a lot longer, you know, expansion than just 121 months. i don't see any policy changes that would make this worse. paul: well, okay. so but are you worried at all about the slowdown in growth, particularly the slowdown in the last six months or so in corporate investment? business investment? >> no, i really am not. i mean, look, you may get a second quarter that's lower than we would like to have it, we had a good first quarter, what was it, 3.1? paul: yep. >> but with the stock market doing what it has done in the first six months of this year,
that's a harbinger of really great things to come. and i would expect to see the economy doing very well for the year as a whole. i would hope well above 3% -- paul: above 3%? >> above 3 for the year, yeah. paul: wow. okay. so you were going to make a point about growth rates? because you're an outlier here if you're predicting 3% or well above 3% for this year. there aren't many people doing that. >> well, i don't mean 8% -- paul: i know, but -- >> 3% for the year, 3 plus. paul: look, art, i'm going to -- >> 3 or a little plus. you don't get a stock market like this, paul, without good economic growth in the future. you just plain don't, and this stock market's amazing for the first six months. we have very low interest rates, which is great, we have no inflation. i mean, this is a perfect, this is a goldilocks economy right now. the policies and the transparency, paul, and the medical sector, you know, that's
probably a little less than 20% of the economy, we're finally bringing it back into the market economy. i mean, people are going to know what the prices are of products and what the quality is of those products. you're going to get a drop in medical prices, i think a lot over the next year, and this is really a huge deal. paul: all right. let me ask you about trade policy because as i talk to business people, they -- this is the thing that they point to as the reason for caution. they say this has created uncertainty about where to invest in their supply lines, it has contributed to a global slowdown in the growth of trade and to particularly a downturn in manufacturing which, as you know, is now on the cusp of whether or not it's going to be an actual downturn. so how big a problem, in your view, is the trade uncertainty? >> well, trade is really, really important, and the freer the trade, the better the economy, period. i mean, i was in the white house from 1970-'72 when nixon did a 10% import surcharge, he
devalued the dollar, he had the job development credit which excluded foreign-made capital. all of that led to a sharp drop in the stock market and a very big slowdown, worst one since the great depression at that time. if you look at the great depression, smoot-holly did that, the market fell by 90%, so trade is really important and let me just make that very clear. now, the question is whether this administration, are they negotiating for having tariffs, or are they negotiating to get tariffs in non-tariff areas removed? i believe it's the latter. i believe trump's strategy is to get freer trade, not more protectionism, and i think he's succeeding quite well. i'm quite optimistic about trade, but i am a full believer in full trade, and i think the tactics he's using are reasonable tactics. paul: well, let's ask about china in particular, because i know the president is trying to use trade to get better terms of trade with china and fewer
predatory abuses. but let's say you can't get a deal and you've got those 25% tariffs currently on a couple hundred billion worth of products, they last right through the election year? that's going to be -- >> that's not good. paul: no, that'd be a problem, and you've still got that threat of the hangover of imposing tariffs on european automobiles of 25%. that's also a potential problem. if the president called you and said, art, what should i do about that, what would you tell him? >> well, you know i'm for free trade, but i don't know anything about negotiating with countries like china or north korea. it's way above my pay grade, paul. but he does know how to do these negotiations, and he's doing a darn good job. the canada-mexico-u.s. deal was okay, i think the south korea thing, i think he's moving along very well with china. i'm not one to second guess him on his strategy, but i think higher tariffs would hurt the economy, the world economy, and i think that would be the wrong thing to do unless you can get a much better deal, and i'm hoping that he does get a much better
deal and i really expect it. paul: okay. are you anticipating that the federal reserve is going to cut rates a couple of times in 2019, and do you think that's a good idea? >> they have to. i mean, the fed has always followed rights, it's never led them, and it shouldn't lead them, and the rates have been falling dramatically. when the rates fall dramatically, the fed should lower rates. it's right in accordance with their policies historically. i see nothing inconsistent with the fed lowering rates say right on the same policy that they've done. i think the two new members of the fed the president is proposing are both good. i think judy shelton's spectacular, to be honest with you. i think she'll add a fresh breath of air in the fed board, and i expect the fed to lower rates a fatherly sizable amount. i mean, there's no inflation -- a fairly sizable amount. the ten-year bond yield is less than 2%. paul: that's astonishing. how do you explain that? >> well, i explain it because
there's no inflation and, you know, there's not been a policy here that has allowed inflation to come back, thank goodness. and i think i also explain it because the rest of the world's not doing nearly as well as the u.s., and there is a global marketplace for bonds and interest rates and inflation, and i think the u.s. is being helped -- well,st it is being helped by lower inflation than the rest of the world, and negative interest rates in of these countries, but we are the prime, shining light of the global community, and we're getting benefits of low interest rates and low inflation, which is wonderful. paul: all right, art, thanks for being here. >> when reagan -- [inaudible] paul: we gotta go, art, but thanks. >> sure. hey, thank you, paul. paul: instead of is celebrating economic expansion, the democratic candidates are sounding the alarm, issuing dire warnings about inequality and proposing really radical plans to fix it. so is it a smart strategy for whoever winds up taking on president trump in the general election? >> we are is the necessity of
not only beating trump, but doing what has to be done to transform this country and create an economy that works for all of us. let's be honest, you don't really talk about your insurance unless you're complaining about it. you go on about how... ...it's so confusing it hurts my brain. ya i hear ya... or say you can't believe... ...how much of a hassle it is! and tell anyone who'll listen... (garbled)....it's so expensive! she said it's so expensive. tell me about it. yes.. well i'm telling the people at home. that's why esurance is making the whole experience surprisingly painless. so, you never have to talk about it, unless you're their spokesperson. esurance. it's surprisingly painless.
priceline will partner with even more vegas hotels to turn their unsold rooms into amazing deals. delegates, how do you vote? (cheering) ♪ yes, y-y-y-yes, yes... that is freaky. (applause) take prilosec otc and take control of heartburn. so you don't have to stash antacids here... here... or, here. kick your antacid habit with prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn.
most of us don't know how much data we use, but we all know we're paying too much for it. enter xfinity mobile. america's best lte with the most wifi hotspots, combined for the first time. when you're near an xfinity hotspot, you're connected to wifi, saving on data. when you're not, you pay for data by the gig. use a little, pay a little. use a lot, just switch to unlimited. get $400 back when you buy the new lg g8. call, visit or click today.
♪ ♪ paul: the u.s. economy may be mark its longest expansion on record, but you wouldn't know it from listening to the democratic presidential candidates who have taken to campaign trail and the debate stage to present a grim picture of an economy that is not working for the average american. >> who is this economy really working for? it's doing great for thinner and thinner slices at the top. >> this economy has got to work for everyone, and right now we know that it isn't. i live in a low income black and brown community. i see every single day that this economy is not working for average americans. >> this economy is not working for working people. for too long is rules have been written in the favor of the people who have the most and not in favor of the people who work the most. paul: we're back with dan henninger, kim strassel and
jason riley. dan, just one quick point, the last two years, in fact, the income gains have been going up at a faster clip. it's a factual point, for people who are the up skilled workers -- unskilled workers, for actually non-supervisory positions. so factually, they've got to get their head out of -- this economy isn't 2016 anymore. [laughter] >> right. or even 1939. i mean, also, you know, black unemployment, hispanic unemployment is the lowest level since back to 1960s which means, i think, paul, that a lot of minorities do have jobs now that didn't have them from 2008-2016. so it raises the question what are these people talking about? and as you're suggesting, i think they've got to push a little bit beyond simply this rhetorical platitude just dumping on the american economy and make an argument about what exactly their problem is inside
that economy. elizabeth warren, for instance, is bellowing about oil companies and oil company profits. if you go into the towns where energy has come back, paul, it is booming with jobs for workers, blue collar, middle class people. that's who has been benefiting. paul: jason, there's a real turn to left on health care policy. it's medicare for all instead of obamacare. student loans, write 'em all off and free college instead of just subsidies. on immigration it's pretty close now to let 'em all in and give 'em all free health care as opposed to balance security with legal immigration. there's other examples you can give. how do you explain this turn left? >> i think that the democrats are misreading anti-trump sentiment and seeing it as a green light for every progressive idea they've ever had -- paul: but these aren't -- these are smart people. [laughter] why would they be doing this if
they can read the polls and the public would be with them? >> because i think, you know, nancy pelosi may be the head of the democratic party, but the person or the people with the will in the democratic party now are the progressives. and i think they are running the show, and their agenda is getting played up not only in terms of congress, but also in the media which i think is giving them a lot of fuel here. so that is, i think it's a poorly thought out strategy because i don't think that that is where most democrats are, let alone most americans. but right now it is the progressives that are ascendant on the left. paul: how much of this is due to bernie sanders' relative success in 2016 with all those bernie brigades and young people and the millennial generation that is, i think in every poll, i much more liberal than earlier generations? this is that kind of leading democrats to go this route? >> well, that's a really important part of it, paul.
remember, for many of those democrats out there they still remain very angry at the dem crack national committee who -- democratic national committee who they felt stacked the deck against bernie last time around, and they believe the fact that clinton lost is because she was not radical enough in her policies. now, that's crazy. she lost because of an immense amount of baggage that she carried around and because is she wasn't a good campaigner. but they've taken another message out of this, and that particular crew also has a ton of millennials who are the snowflake generation -- [laughter] who haven't ever seen necessarily what happens when you have very, very bad economic policies, what it can do to an economy and so are, you know, pushing for some of these very outlandish proposals. >> and, paul, i think putting aside the general election, i think this could hurt some democrats in the primary. if you look at the primary electorate, it tends to skew older. 60% of primary voters back in
2016 were over 25, and the group over 60 is larger than the group under 30. do people want to see 70% marginal rates? do people aging want to see their private health care snatched away? are they for slavery operations and felon voting and phasing out gas-powered cars? i don't think they're primary voters. >> i agree with that, but that as it it may, if you are in politics today, your marinating in social media and media, and i think the tail is wagging the donkey because it is the only conversation democrats can have is about these summits, and there is no conversation -- subjects, and there is no conversation about the more moderate policy that, say, former congressman john delaney tried to raise in those debates or john hickenlooper. paul: you think it's a social media phenomenon? >> i absolutely do. paul: is that because of fundraising or the energy they provide or that there's a
reinforcing message? if jason's right, if those aren't going to be the people that decide the primary if, that's a bad bet. >> pete buttigieg raised $24 million in the last quarter, a lot of it's being done with social media, small donors. the big democratic donors are sitting on the sidelines at the moment. maybe if they get back in the game, you can get more of a conversation about moderate democratic policy. paul: all right, thank you all. still ahead, trump doctrine. the president's brand of diplomacy was on full display in asia, but can the president use that same strategy to engage with an increasingly aggressive iran? >> they know what they're doing, they know what they're playing with, and i think they're playing with fire. this is the couple who wanted to get away who used expedia to book the vacation rental
♪ ♪ paul paul president trump's signature brand of diplomacy on full display last weekend as he revived trade talks with chinese president xi jinping and met with north korean leader kim jong un at the demilitarized. the president hoping that personal engagement will produce a foreign policy victory as he heads into a re-election campaign. but as iran becomes increasingly aggressive and continues to violate the 2015 nuclear accord, will the president's personal diplomacy be enough?
let's ask retired four-star army general jack keane who is a fox news senior strategic analyst. general, welcome again. good to have you here. after this week of diplomacy with north korea and that historic moment on the dmz, where do we stand with the north right now? has anything really changed substantively? >> well, yes, to a certain degree. clearly, what happened to us is after the hanoi summit sort of blew up and kim jong un went home empty-handed, because he clearly has an objective to get sanction relief -- paul: right. >> -- and long train ride home, and face saving is what he undertook and trying to regain leverage for the enshoing number ofs -- ensuing number of months. i think president trump recognized that north north korn were not coming back to table. we reached out to them through our personal envoy, secretary of state, still not coming to table, so he used personal diplomacy to help restart the talks. he took a gamble there, a
chance, and i think it worked. so i think we should give him credit for that. now, the other thing is that they've agreed to work at the staff level in groups certainly trying to deal with the major issues before heads of state have to grapple with those issues as they have done in the previous two summittings. that is a good thing, paul -- summittings. because as you know, the north koreans have not put on the table yet anything that comes close to denuclearization, and yet they want some relief from us on the sanctions. so we're going to work that out on the working level, and there's a possibility we can make some progress. we'll have to see. paul: yeah, well, i think that's the key. north koreans, they're willing to make some concessions, you know, close the site, for example, what they're doing there, but, of course, they've already done that once in a prove administration, but they want with sanctions relief before anything else, and that's the rub. i don't see any if substantive
change on that so far. >> yeah. i think there has been a shift in the administration. they've made two major shifts. remember, in the beginning they wanted to get this done during president trump's first term. paul: right. >> now, no rush. major change. the second change is taking place inside the national security team, and that is the recognition that this has to be a step-by-step the process, that to think that north korea will give us all of their weapons, nuclear and ballistic missiles and then we would give them sanction relief is not realistic. they've come the that understanding. so i see we don't necessarily have to make major sanction relief in terms of concessions to them. we can help them with humanitarian things. i mean, they've got 400 miles of paved rod, that's it -- road, that's it. there's so many things that north korea needs that would not take away from the imposition of the sanctions, which is what brought north korea to table. also at some point, i think if
the north koreans are serious here, we'll get to point where we'll end the so-called korean war if end the armistice which is an enabler to move forward also because security, while economic prosperity is something that kim jong un is interested in -- and i think that is the difference between his grandfather and father -- security guarantee is absolutely crucial. i think that's job one for him. and we'll have to make some steps in that direction. there's a huge question mark here, as we all know -- paul: right. >> -- if we're going to be successful here or not. paul: let's turn to iran because it's been widely reported that you, your counsel to be cautious about the military strike was heeded by the president when he decided not to respond to the drone shootdown by iran. but now iran has moved ahead, and they're saying we're no longer going to obey crucial terms of the 2015 accord.
we're going to enrich uranium above the 3.6% limit, and they're going to create new stockpiles, and they even open up the arak nuclear facility. so what is donald trump's next move? >> well, first of all, let's see what, what the iranians are actually doing. i suspect that there'll be some increase in their enrichment program and maybe opening up the hard water facility. i don't think it'll be with significant because what do they really want here? what they're seeking is for the united kingdom, germany and france to provide them some economic relief. and they're using this as leverage to get it. in other words, increasing the enrichment program. i think they're saying to them privately, look, we'll go back and abide by the restrictions if you provide us this economic relief because of what the united states is doing to us with the crippling sanctionings. that's the play. paul: but, general, the europeans are not in position to
provide that relief as long as the u.s. sanctions are in place. >> well, you know that they tried to work outside -- paul: yes. >> -- of the dollar financial system that drives the world and try to find another mechanism to do it. they have not been successful, although they certainly have the will, and they're certainly frustrating this administration. the good news is they are pushing back on iranians. they're telling them not to increase the enrichment program, and that -- we'll see. the iranians, clearly, are trying to provocation, we saw that, sabotaging ships in the gulf, taking our drone down. it's questionable whether they really intended to do that or not. paul: right. >> but they got caught at the sabotaging, and that's the one thing they wanted to avoid. we'll see how much of that they're going to do. what is a fact is the iranians have never been in a situation they're in in 39 years with the
pressure they have on them. they are the most determined foe i believe that we're dealing with, and their tendency is not to give up, but to lash out. and we have to be prepared for that. paul: all right, general, thanks for that. we'll see what happens. still ahead, the pelosi congress, the speaker recently caught between her progressive caucus and her more moderate members as she struggles to get her agenda passed. so what does she have to show for the first six months of the 116th congress? ♪ ♪ get it! get that butterfly! you know those butterflies aren't actually in the room? hey, that baker lady's on tv again. she's not a baker. she wears that apron to sell insurance. nobody knows why. she's the progressive insurance lady.
"the secret life of pets 2" since my dvt blood clot i was thinking... could there be another around the corner? or could it turn out differently? i wanted to help protect myself. my doctor recommended eliquis. eliquis is proven to treat and help prevent another dvt or pe blood clot... almost 98 percent of patients on eliquis didn't experience another. ...and eliquis has significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis is fda approved and has both. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. what's around the corner could be surprising. ask your doctor
about eliquis. ♪ ♪ >> today i'm signing a bill to deliver $4.6 billion in humanitarian assistance to our southern border. this includes funding for medical care, shelters and increased housing for minors through the department of health and human services. for many weeks democrats were giving us a hard time, but i tell you, it became a biif partisan bill, and -- a bipartisan bill, and we're very happy about it. paul: president trump this week taking a victory lap as he signed a $4.6 billion aid package to help the federal government cope with the surge of central american migrants at the southern border. house speaker nancy pelosi was forced to accept the republican-controlled senate's version of the aid package last week, frustrating the more liberal members of her caucus. it's an increasingly common
dynamic as calls for president trump's impeachment. we're back with dan henninger, kim strassel and jason riley. so, kim, how much of control is nancy pelosi still able to exercise over her conference? or is she in? -- is she in charge? >> not when it comes to controversial issues. if you look at their record this year, they've done very few things that have actually made it to trump's desk. i mean, they passed legislation to reopen the government after it closed, they had this disaster aid bill, i think a resolution to end u.s. involvement in yemen, but that's about it. and what we're seeing here, it reminds me of john boehner and paul ryan, the problems they had on anything that's remotely controversial where there is a split in her party, it's usually the liberal wing that is now winning and refusing to give the requisite votes, and it's hamstringing her ability to
govern. paul: yeah, it's fascinating, jason. it's ocasio-cortez has -- [laughter] and others have learned the lesson of the freedom caucus, right? >> right. paul: which is if you go outside and agitate, you gin up support on the left, the rachel maddows and the others on msnbc and social media, you can i put real pressure on the speaker to go your way. >> sure. and nancy pelosi knows that it is not the election of people like ocasio-cortez that gave democrats the house majority, and that's her dilemma. she would much rather focus on issues like health care which she thinks helped democrats win back control of the house. she has a bunch of members that come from swing districts, they want to go back home and run on something. and the problem is you have the ocasio-cortez wing of the party who wants to focus on impeachment and the mueller investigation and russia and trump's tax returns. they just want to investigate this administration, and that is
why it's been such heavy lifting for nancy pelosi. >> you know the contrast, dan, between nancy pelosi in this iteration and when she ran the house first with george w. bush in his last two years when he was still president, pretty striking. by this time i think they were closed to passing a stimulus bill. it was not a good one, but it was a bill. close to moving ahead on a big energy package among other things. this time right now nothing. >> well, no, that's right and what has changed since then? again, it's something we've been talking about on this program a lot, and that's the rise since the end of the last election, 2016, of the progressoff left in the democratic -- progressive left of the democratic party. and now you've got the progressive caucus inside the house of representatives led by ocasio-cortez and ilhan omar, the rest of them who now feel they have taken a page from conservatives and trump which is to be on offense all the time, to be agitating for your ideas.
and in the border funding bill, it was very interesting because there's another caucus inside the house called the problem solvers caucus. those are the moderates. and as jason was suggesting, they want to go back and run this year on problem solving, little of which is happening in the house. the progressive caucus mocked the problemsoevers and the moderates for -- problem sol veries, they didn't want to give trump that victory, and we're back to point where nancy pelosi punted on approving the new trade deal with canada and mexico. this is hanging in the balance, and the question is, is she going to be able to get substantive issues like that through this divided house. paul: i want to answer that, kim, answer dan's question. is there a prospect for working together at all here, or is the dominant theme going to be we don't want to give trump a victory? >> that is the dominant theme, and that is what will prevail all the way until 2020. and it's funny, you know, you
mentioned boehner and ryan and this problem that they had and the freedom caucus. you know, that changed the first two years of the trump administration, the freedom caucus actually did come together, work with them, they got the tax package passed, they actually passed health care changes, but they only did that because they had suffered some losses. and i think that's going to end up being the ultimate only thing that makes democrats figure out how to get unified, is that they suffer some blowback for all of this at the polls. paul: well, i mean, there was some talk about the price cooperation, reducing infrastructure, certainly the usmca that dan mentioned, but are they really going to say, no, no, never? >> i believe that progressive wing is going to dig in. they believe they were sent to washington to obstruct this president, not work with him. they think they're there to be a check on donald trump, and i don't see them giving up. if. >> yeah. well, or they were working
together pretty well before the border funding bill. the progressives got very explicit in attacking the moderates for supporting that bill, so there's some real bad blood in the water down there in the house right now. paul: all right, when we come back, fresh off that controversial decision on the census, the supreme court tees up another major term in the fall. what to expect when the justices take up a high stakes religious liberty case as well as the trump administration's efforts to end obama-era protections for dreamers. ♪ ♪ uh-oh, looks like someone's still nervous about buying a new house. is it that obvious? yes it is. you know, maybe you'd worry less if you got geico to help with your homeowners insurance. i didn't know geico could helps with homeowners insurance. yep, they've been doing it for years. what are you doing? big steve? thanks, man. there he is. get to know geico and see how much you could save on
xfinity mobile is a designed to save you money. whether you use your phone to get fit or to find the perfect gift, you'll use less data with a network that automatically connects to millions of wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. so you save hundreds of dollars a year on your wireless bill. xfinity mobile has the best network. best devices. best value. simple. easy. awesome. click, call or visit a store today.
>> i have a lot of respect for justice roberts, but he didn't like it, but he did say come back. essentially, he said come back. we're spending $15-20 billion on a census. we're finding out everything about everybody. think of it. $15-20 billion, and you're not allowed to ask 'em are you a citizen. paul: that was president trump this week still smarting from the supreme court's decision to block him from asking about citizenship on the 2020 census. the president indicating that the fight is not over yet. the justices wrapped up their last week with that controversial 5-4 decision and set the stage for another blockbuster term in the fall, announcing that they will hear
arguments over whether president trump can end obama-era protections for young immigrants known as dreamers. we're back with dan henninger, kim strassel and jason riley. jason, we don't know what'll happen with the citizenship question, but what does that tell us, that 5-4 call, tell us about the supreme court and justice john roberts? >> well, he's the swing vote. [laughter] we know that brett kavanaugh replaced justice kennedy, previous king vote, but kavanaugh's not going to be the person -- [laughter] who decides these 5-4 decisions. it's probably going to be john roberts going forward. paul: what do you think, though, about -- was his decision justified or not? >> well, i think the question before the court was whether the administration had the authority to do this. and they clearly do. and for justice, chief justice roberts to get into the motives, i think, is not something that was really part of what should have been under consideration. and that's a very slippery slope when you go down that route,
because a lot of these decisions made by administrations are politically motivated. and so if they're going to get into discussions of what the administration was thinking or strategizing about, i don't know where that leads them. paul: he did the same thing he did on obamacare, which is to give the conservatives some of the law, but he gave the liberals on the court the policy victory, which is what those liberals really wanted, and that is kicking the census, citizenship question out. does that mean that justice roberts is just too political as a justice? >> well, the irony is that he was with the majority in the gerrymander case which said that the state -- courts would not get involved in overseeing state jerry handers or state redistricting plans because that would politicize the courts, and there's no, as he said, no real legal standard to define fairness. paul: right. >> so that was the right decision. don't get the courts too involved in these political battles. and yet as jason's just describing, he goes in the other
direction on this census question, and this is the heart of it as justice clarence thomas said, they've opened a pandora's box. that obamacare decision was a one-off. this one opens the door to constant court challenges to administrative decisions on the basis of what they were thinking -- paul: motives. yeah, that's right. >> so he can't have it both ways. paul: so, kim, let's talk a little bit about gorsuch, neil gorsuch versus brett kavanaugh, the two new justices. how different are they? what have you noticed about their decision, their writing? >> well, this is one of the most notable things to come out of this term, because remember, go back to last fall when kavanaugh was about to be approved to go to court and we were hearing this railing from the left that you were going to have this solid 5-4 conservative bloc on case after case. and, of course, actually, we got a very intellectually diverse number of rulings. and what we found out is that not all conservative justices,
whether you call them textualists or constitutionalists, are the same. so kavanaugh was a little bit more careful, administrative in some of his decisions. you know, whereas gorsuch, we're seeing his sort of libertarian streak, as it were. he was particularly great on a lot of free speech and liberty issues. and those are some very big differences between these two justices. paul: he's also more willing, like clarence thomas, to overturn precedents. [laughter] you can see clarence thomas saying, laying out essentially here's my argument for how we ought to think about precedents, and it isn't the way that john roberts thinks about them. >> well, i think if you voted for donald trump because he promised to nominate conservative justices, you're pretty happy with this term, paul. i think we got a nice decision on religious freedom -- paul: right. >> -- involved displaying a public cross to honor world war i veterans. we got a nice ruling on redistricting and whether courts should be deciding, making these
political decisions for legislatures, and they should not. i think on balance it was a pretty good term, you'd think it's a good term if you're conservative. paul: and next year could be very, very interesting with the court taking up the state blaine amendments which were anti-catholic amendments that blocked aid to religious schools and the daca decision. what are you looking forward to. >> well, the blaine amendment especially, the anti-catholic amendment. i think that could get overturned by the five conservative majority because we were just talking about neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh, they've both shown a lot of sympathy to religious liberty. and my guess is the blaine amendments go back into the early part of the 20th century -- paul: 19th, late 19th century. >> so i think they're going to be overturned. daca will be more interesting over the rights of the young immigrants who came here under no, you know, parents brought them here. so that one's a little harder fur me to predict. paul: yeah, on the daca, the
dreamers, dan -- jason, i think this is going to be one that is going to hang with justice roberts. it's highly political, and it's impossible for me to figure out, kim, i don't know where john roberts could come out on this particular issue because it's going to be so highly political, and i think you're going to see what happened on this census thing happen again, which is the left in the media is going to go right at john roberts and say if you go the other direction, you are compromising the integrity of the court. >> yeah. this is a complicated one too because just on the idea of the merits of the law, the idea that the executive can suspend the law, that seems tough to uphold, but john roberts is getting good at this stuff, so we'll see. paul: we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. ♪ ♪ ♪ limu emu & doug
look limu. a civilian buying a new car. let's go. limu's right. liberty mutual can save you money by customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. oh... yeah, i've been a customer for years. huh... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ going back to the doctor just for a shot. with neulasta onpro... ...patients get their day back... ...to be with... ... family... ...or just to sleep in. strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study... ...neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17%... ...to 1%... ...a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver...
...neulasta the day after chemo... ...and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome... ...have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing... ... or allergic reactions to your doctor right away in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes... ...fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect... is bone and muscle ache. ask your doctor... ...about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card.
time when we are celebrating great nation. paul: jason. >> paul in new york city public schools can choose their gender and playing sports teams regardless of what it says on better certificates, most students cannot lead or do math at grade level and we are talking 80% black and hispanic kids, radical idea, why don't we focus on teaching kids the basics and less on turning them into social experiment. >> biggest barbecue weekend of the year, but to be able to do that, the first thing you need is a backyard. [laughter] >> well, turns out increasing numbers, young could you please that's exactly what they want, many young could you please decided that life in cities are too expensive and moving out to suburbs, more space, big hit to american suburb, hot dogs,
cheeseburgers and all the rest. paul: thanks, dan, thanks to my panel and thanks to all of you for watching i'm paul gigot, hope to see you right here next week. ♪ >> fox news alert, at least 20 people are injured in an explosion at a florida strip mall, witness scene looking like apocalypse. phil keating is live now, phil. >> hi, arthel, the scene is behind me, appears to have been a natural gas explosion inside where most of the debris field seems to have emanated from, that was a pizzeria store that had been closed for reportedly