On Monday, former President Barack Obama attempted to take credit for President Donald Trump&#8217;s booming economy.
&#8220;Eleven years ago today, near the bottom of the worst recession in generations, I signed the Recovery Act, paving the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation in American history,&#8221; Obama posted Monday morning.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Eleven years ago today, near the bottom of the worst recession in generations, I signed the Recovery Act, paving the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation in American history. <a href="https://t.co/BmdXrxUAUf">pic.twitter.com/BmdXrxUAUf</a>
&mdash; Barack Obama (@BarackObama) <a href="https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1229432034650722304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
President Donald Trump&#8217;s team was quick to respond to the post, releasing a statement to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-campaign-fires-back-after-obama-claims-credit-for-economic-boom">Fox News</a> mere hours after Obama&#8217;s tweet was published.
“President Trump reversed every single failed Obama-era economic policy, and with it, reversed the floundering Obama/Biden economy,” read a statement from Kayleigh McEnany, the Trump campaign&#8217;s national press secretary. “Obama and Biden orchestrated the worst economic recovery in modern history.”
“By contrast, though, deregulating, lowering taxes, and supporting free-market policies, President Trump has created the hottest economy on record, with unemployment hitting generational lows and all-time lows for African Americans, Hispanics, the disabled, veterans and many other hard-working Americans,&#8221; continued McEnany.
“Paychecks are growing at the fastest pace in a decade and twice as fast for low- and middle-income Americans,” the statement noted. “It’s no wonder Democrats seek to take credit for the Trump economy after eight years of betraying blue-collar workers and inflicting pain upon the middle class as Americans everywhere suffered.&#8221;
&#8220;But the failed days of Democrat stagnation are over, and the soaring Trump economy is here to stay,&#8221; the press secretary added.
Others online were quick to hit Obama for the apparent credit-stealing.
&#8220;The notion that you did anything but destroy this nation’s economy is beyond hilarious,&#8221; posted famed actor and outspoken conservative James Woods.
&#8220;Those jobs are never coming back. What’s he going to do, wave a magic wand?&#8221; Woods said, quoting Obama during the 2016 presidential campaign. 
&#8220;Yes, did exactly that,&#8221; the actor said of Trump. &#8220;Your only sad legacy was your blatant lies about ObamaCare.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The notion that you did anything but destroy this nation’s economy is beyond hilarious. “Those jobs are never coming back. What’s he going to do, wave a magic wand?” Yes, <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> did exactly that. Your only sad legacy was your blatant lies about ObamaCare. <a href="https://t.co/1vCePXZ3tv">https://t.co/1vCePXZ3tv</a>
&mdash; James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1229477465489166338?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Daily Wire podcast host Michael Knowles also used a quote from Mr. Obama against the former president.
&#8220;You didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,&#8221; Knowles captioned Obama&#8217;s tweet.
In 2012, Obama infamously told self-made Americans that they &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/heres-everything-you-need-know-about-elizabeth-aaron-bandler">didn’t build that</a>.&#8221; “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Somebody else made that happen.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
You didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. <a href="https://t.co/Gul7ijpSTy">https://t.co/Gul7ijpSTy</a>
&mdash; Iowa Caucus Winner Michael Knowles (@michaeljknowles) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles/status/1229458533575380994?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;The Obama recovery of the last seven years remains the worst in postwar American history,&#8221; a <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/11/29/obama-and-the-dems-dismal-recovery/#2df5931ccb0e">Forbes</a> opinion piece published in 2016 outlined. &#8220;Average gross domestic product (GDP) growth since the bottom of the recession in 2009 was barely above 2.1% per year. The average since 1949 is well above 4% per year during the previous 10 expansions.&#8221;
&#8220;I believe the root cause of abysmal growth is the huge tax increases imposed by Obama and the Democrats in Congress since 2008,&#8221; the piece&#8217;s author, Rex Sinquefield, explained. &#8220;The most harmful were the increase in the capital gains tax from 15 to 20 percent, the increase in top bracket income from 35 to 39.6 percent, and the new tax of 3.8 percent on investment income in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The massive increase in regulatory burden through the ACA and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" data-ga-track="ExternalLink:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act">Dodd-Frank bills</a> are also crushing, but unfortunately are harder to measure.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-trump-booming-economy/">Investor&#8217;s Business Daily</a> also outlined Obama&#8217;s bad economy in 2018, when the former president similarly tried to take credit for Trump&#8217;s economic boom while campaigning for Democrats:
<blockquote>The rate of GDP growth was decelerating in Obama&#8217;s last year. It went from 2.3% in Q2, to 1.9% in Q3 to 1.8% in Q4 of 2016. Under Trump, GDP growth has averaged 2.9%. It was 4.2% last quarter and might be higher in the current one.
The stock market also was stuck in neutral the year before the November 2016 elections. The Dow is up by some 45% since then.
Real median family income didn&#8217;t budge from August 2015 to November 2016, according to Sentier Research. It&#8217;s up more than 4% since Trump came into office. Wages are on the <a href="https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/wages-obama-economys-weakest-link-now-surging-under-trump/">upswing</a>.
In Obama&#8217;s last year, unemployment rate remained basically unchanged — it was 4.9% in Jan 2016, and 4.8% when Trump took office in Jan. 2017. Now it&#8217;s down to 3.9%</blockquote>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-trump-didnt-build-economy-i-did-joseph-curl">Obama: Trump Didn’t Build This Economy, I Did!</a>

US-POLITICS-OBAMA-CORRESPONDENTS

Obama Tries To Take Credit For Trump’s Economy. It Backfires Bigly.

Barack Obama

Donald Trump

Economy

As the 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48863/who-will-win-democratic-primary-latest-2020-josh-hammer">battle it out for the nomination</a>, politicos must pay close attention to President Donald Trump&#8217;s approval ratings — both nationally and across key swing states.
If anything, Trump&#8217;s approval rating has recently been on the affirmative rise, as evidence continues to mount that Democrats have <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/31/this-whole-pathetic-impeachment-effort-was-worse-than-a-waste-of-time/">overplayed their hand</a> on impeachment. Last week, the historically reliable pollsters at Gallup <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156/trump-job-approval-personal-best.aspx">released data</a> revealing Trump&#8217;s approval rating to be at an all-time personal best of 49%. &#8220;In addition to possibly reflecting sentiment regarding his impeachment, Trump&#8217;s increased approval rating may also result from other issues,&#8221; Gallup wrote. Those issues include the recent military skirmishes with Iran, foreign trade, and the economy.
Historically, presidents have fared well in re-election campaigns when they maintain approval ratings above 50%. This president has never had such an approval rating at any point throughout his presidency; but Trump is also a unique figure, in many ways, from the perspective of American political history. He defies many historical norms and loose &#8220;rules.&#8221; President Trump also oversees a genuinely soaring economy, with record-low unemployment rates, and regarding which Americans are the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/americans-are-more-optimistic-about-the-economy-than-they-have-been-in-decades">most optimistic they have been in decades</a>. One must also never forget the sheer power of incumbency: Since FDR, only Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were elected and then subsequently not re-elected four years later.
As of February 11, 2020, the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html">RealClearPolitics average</a> for Trump&#8217;s national job approval rating sits at 45.1% — or 7.0% underwater. That Trump&#8217;s approval rating only rose while warding off impeachment only buttresses the theory that Democrats have overplayed their hand.
Henry Olsen of The Washington Post had an <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/06/trump-is-down-far-out" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W3HmRfg8wKtnCW4cGZSL1CSrXg0/*W5BKVhh96Gpb4W8-1y2m5m6ghN0/5/f18dQhb0Sq5J8Y9XHdW80JfVF1k63-nW7sTg0H2P2ZFHW6Dk5Sd1Vq7GqVLDpF18CSvhfW8CRtsF3P0gztW5yJNx18l2p1TW1nPLDM8rZZ3CW3L3hj18BVHkvW3knCMv8yXl2fN5x53HbSbM86W8CZT8L8tBst7VScmWZ5wMTWVW5wL96L1sL3M0W3Mybvy6RNDcsN5wYBLnZvRBfVRH-mh1l5XsBW55nSC91VJH71W4c2Rr971B_trW1x4lQB6GKLK6W1s0LSF5mKjF6W3m2jX953X_ZpW52Ylfx3_8mplW9fgwMT4fdf2wW1CKFgB4fCj-4W6yGjGM57QYy5W1zslkT7LNKKVW2twnxd6z4yN9W1GQ1T21fqP84W1BQNJF2PXVH6N8W1FtxGX70sW5YCjHQ1HGqqhW3mV5CD6Y6gM5W1j14QF1j9W8pN7KWJRDpdj-nV4slhZ3MYtL8W4HrzTg45Ly2MVkwRN48b6cnqW2GFB531GH84tW27PQWj8tVZYWVj8tbN4c-1VzW6PZLJt8zhkqrW4ffn6C5LdRRhW8qBft_2PLnMWW4rGbTz5ymY9KMZpcmq9ZLg8f2CCSW411&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1574867914609000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHkSMBe5OEEGUjYZNH6vGN2ZmbXFw">incisive piece</a> in November that analyzed the relationship between Trump’s approval ratings and his re-election chances. According to Olsen’s historically informed analysis, Trump would need his approval rating to rise to roughly 46% – 47% in order to confidently position himself to capture the Electoral College next November. That is well within the realm of possibility, given Trump&#8217;s current polling, although it will require the president to focus on reaching out to persuadable moderates, independents, and suburban swing voters. To that end, I have previously offered some <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-trump-needs-to-focus-on-a-safety-and-security-agenda-for-2020">unsolicited advice</a> to the Trump campaign: Focus on a safety and security agenda to appeal to these persuadable voters.
The Daily Wire will also be tracking Trump&#8217;s state-by-state approval rating as the general election nears. Here is the latest Trump approval rating information from across all the various swing states.
Battleground State-By-State Trump Approval Rating (latest data via <a href="https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/">Morning Consult&#8217;s January 2020</a> monthly survey)
ARIZONA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 3.57%</li>
<li>Governor: Republican</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -1%</li>
</ul>
COLORADO:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Clinton + 4.91%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -10%</li>
</ul>
FLORIDA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 1.20%</li>
<li>Governor: Republican</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Republican</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -1%</li>
</ul>
GEORGIA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 5.09%</li>
<li>Governor: Republican</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Republican</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: EVEN</li>
</ul>
IOWA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 9.41%</li>
<li>Governor: Republican</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Republican</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -9%</li>
</ul>
MAINE:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Clinton + 2.96%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Independent</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -7%</li>
</ul>
MICHIGAN:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 0.23%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Democrat, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -12%</li>
</ul>
MINNESOTA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Clinton + 1.51%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Democrat, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -7%</li>
</ul>
NEVADA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Clinton + 2.42%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Democrat, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -15%</li>
</ul>
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Clinton + 0.37%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Democrat, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -12%</li>
</ul>
NORTH CAROLINA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 3.66%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Republican</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -1%</li>
</ul>
OHIO:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 8.13%</li>
<li>Governor: Republican</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -1%</li>
</ul>
PENNSYLVANIA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 0.72%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -2%</li>
</ul>
TEXAS:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 8.99%</li>
<li>Governor: Republican</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Republican</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: +5%</li>
</ul>
VIRGINIA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Clinton + 5.32%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Democrat, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -4%</li>
</ul>
WISCONSIN:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 0.77%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -10%</li>
</ul>
This article has been updated to reflect the most recent survey data.

Trump rally Kentucky

Will Trump Win? The Latest On Trump’s National And State-By-State Approval Ratings.

2020 Election

Republican Party

I have been teaching economics since 1967 — 40 years of it at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. During that interval, economic reality has not changed. Just as Galileo&#8217;s law about the independent influence of gravity on falling objects has not changed, neither have the fundamental principles of economics. Economics is fun and simple. It&#8217;s made complicated by some economics professors — fortunately, not by my colleagues at George Mason University. Let&#8217;s apply some simple tools of economics to reveal outright myths, lies and tricks.
Who is punished by tariffs on imported goods? Let&#8217;s go through the steps. The Canadian government imposes high tariffs on American dairy imports. That forces Canadians to pay higher prices for dairy products and protects Canada&#8217;s dairy producers from American competition. What should be the U.S. government&#8217;s response to Canada&#8217;s screwing its citizens? If you were in the Trump administration, you might retaliate by imposing stiff tariffs on softwood products built from pine, spruce and fir trees used by U.S. homebuilders. In other words, the U.S. should retaliate against Canada&#8217;s harming its citizens by forcing them to pay higher dairy product prices, by forcing Americans through tariffs to pay higher prices for wood and thereby raising the cost of building homes.
Many politicians, pundits and some economists would have us believe that corporations pay taxes, but do they? Economists distinguish between entities who ultimately bear the tax burden and those upon whom tax is initially levied. Just because a tax is levied on a corporation doesn&#8217;t mean that the corporation bears its burden. Faced with a tax, a corporation can shift the tax burden by raising its product prices, lowering dividends or laying off workers. The lesson here is that only people pay taxes, not legal fictions like corporations. Corporations are simply tax collectors for the government. Similarly, no one would fall for a politician telling a homeowner, &#8220;I&#8217;m not going to tax you; I&#8217;m going to tax your property.&#8221; I guarantee that it will be a person, not the property, writing out the check to the taxing authority. Again, only people pay taxes.
Here&#8217;s a question: Are natural or manmade disasters good for the economy? Dr. Larry Summers, top economic adviser to President Obama, said about the Kobe, Japan, earthquake: &#8220;(The disaster) may lead to some temporary increments ironically to GDP as a process of rebuilding takes place. In the wake of the earlier Kobe earthquake Japan actually gained some economic strength.&#8221; After devastating Floridian hurricanes, it&#8217;s not uncommon to read newspaper headlines such as &#8220;Storms create lucrative times,&#8221; or &#8220;Economic growth from hurricanes could outweigh costs,&#8221; or &#8220;It&#8217;s a perverse thing &#8230; there&#8217;s real pain, but from an economic point of view, it is a plus.&#8221; Then there&#8217;s Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman who wrote in his New York Times column &#8220;After the Horror,&#8221; after the 9/11 attack, &#8220;Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack — like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression — could do some economic good.&#8221; He went on to explain that rebuilding the destruction would stimulate the economy through business investment and job creation.
One would never hear my colleagues in George Mason University&#8217;s economics department spouting such insanities. Just ask yourself whether the Japanese economy would have faced even greater opportunities for economic growth had the earthquake also struck Tokyo, Hiroshima, Yokohama and other major cities? Would the 9/11 terrorists have made a greater contribution to our economy had they also destroyed lives and buildings in Chicago, St. Louis, Los Angeles and Atlanta? The belief that a society benefits from destruction is sheer lunacy.
French economist Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) explained it in his pamphlet &#8220;What is Seen and What is Not Seen.&#8221; He said, &#8220;There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.&#8221; That&#8217;s why my George Mason University colleagues are good economists.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Cash.

WILLIAMS: Economics Reality

Economics

Just when you thought this week couldn&#8217;t get any better for President Donald Trump, government figures released Friday show that the administration, again, outpaced jobs expectations.
In the month of January, 225,000 jobs were added, according to Labor Department figures, far exceeding the Wall Street estimate of 158,000 jobs, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/07/us-nonfarm-payrolls-january-2019.html?__source=sharebar%7Ctwitter&amp;par=sharebar">CNBC</a> reported.
Moreover, according to CNBC, the unemployment rate ticked to 3.6%, &#8220;for the right reason as the labor force participation rate increased 0.2 percentage points to 63.4%, matching its highest level since June 2013, according to data released Friday by the Labor Department.&#8221;
<div class="BoxInline-container ">
<div id="BoxInline-ArticleBody-5" class="BoxInline-container" data-module="mps-slot">
Wages are also on the rise. &#8220;Average hourly earnings rose 3.1% over a year ago to $28.44, ahead of estimates for 3% growth,&#8221; CNBC noted. &#8220;That marked 18 consecutive months of wage gains above 3%, as the initially reported 2.9% for December was revised up to 3%.&#8221;
And necessary revisions show a jobs count boost for the months of November and December, 5,000 and 2,000 more jobs respectively.
The news comes on the heels of a slam-dunk week for the president. On Tuesday, Trump gave an optimism-infused State of the Union speech that was praised by the likes of CNN anchor Jake Tapper and CNN contributor Van Jones, both of whom lean left.
&#8220;We’ve seen the type of thing where a war hero like Tuskegee Airman Gen. McGee. That was a lovely moment,&#8221; commented <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/02/04/cnns-jake-tapper-trumps-sotu-had-lovely-moments-never-seen-anything-like-it/">Tapper</a>. &#8220;To have a 100-year-old Tuskegee Airman there with his grandson, who wants to be in the Space Force. President Trump telling a little girl that she’s going to get a scholarship, President Trump announcing that there is a solider coming home and reuniting with his wife and children, we’ve never seen anything like that before.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-van-jones-silences-cnn-panel-with-wake-up-call-trump-is-helping-african-americans-in-real-life">Jones</a> tweeted of the speech: &#8220;WAKE UP, folks. The [Iowa caucus] was a debacle, followed by a strong [State of the Union] speech laying out Trump’s strategy to win – which includes going for Black voters.&#8221;
The Democrats&#8217; reaction to the address was, arguably, also good news for Trump. For example, a CNN reporter questioned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on how &#8220;dignified&#8221; her actions were, regarding the Democratic leader ripping up her copy of Trump&#8217;s SOTU speech in front of scores of media cameras.
The moment also made for some pretty effective ads against Democrats:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
<a href="https://t.co/QhTWvcY4Ke">pic.twitter.com/QhTWvcY4Ke</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1225553117929988097?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 6, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Additionally, the president was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-acquitted-from-democrats-partisan-articles-of-impeachment">acquitted</a> in the Senate on both articles of impeachment on Wednesday.
“The Senate, having tried Donald John Trump, President of the United States, upon two articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senators present not having found him guilty of the charges contained therein,” announced Chief Justice John Roberts. “It is therefore ordered and adjudged the said Donald John Trump be, and he is hereby, acquitted of the charges in said articles.”
And as for the Democrats, they had plenty of trouble in Iowa, which is, of course, more good news for Trump.
&#8220;The Associated Press said Thursday that it is unable to declare a winner of Iowa’s Democratic caucuses,&#8221; the <a href="https://apnews.com/4f9044fe46f551d397d48dd8ca3d58db">AP</a> reported Thursday night, two days following the caucuses.
&#8220;[T]here is evidence the party has not accurately tabulated some of its results, including those released late Thursday that the party reported as complete. The AP’s tabulation of the party’s results are at 99% of precincts reporting, with data missing from one of 1,765 precincts, among other issues,&#8221; the report noted.
President Trump has trolled the Democrats over the troubles, suggesting the DNC is working against presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) again, adding more fuel to theories already floating around agitated Democratic voters.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ap-declares-no-official-democrat-winner-in-iowa-trump-has-advice-on-who-to-blame">AP Declares No Official Democrat Winner In Iowa; Trump Has Advice On Who To Blame</a>
</div>
</div>

CFP National Championship presented by AT&amp;T &#8211; Alabama v Georgia

President Trump Caps Off Successful Week By Outpacing Jobs Expectations

Impeachment

&#8220;In both law and politics, I think the essential battle is the meta-battle of framing the narrative. As Sun Tzu said, every battle is won before it’s fought. It’s won by choosing the terrain on which it will be fought.&#8221; – Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to The New Yorker&#8217;s Jeffrey Toobin, <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/30/the-absolutist-2">June 2014</a>
Although President Donald Trump no doubt prefers to vent his off-the-cuff frustrations in tweet threads and campaign rallies, it is the planned teleprompter format in which he most clearly excels. Since assuming office, Trump&#8217;s State of the Union addresses have consistently been visceral, evocative, rhetorically fine-tune affairs that make brilliant use of audience guests to drive home his substantive agenda.
Last night&#8217;s speech was <a href="https://theresurgent.com/2020/02/04/best-state-of-the-union-ever/">no exception</a>, and the president was tremendously successful in framing the 2020 election as a stark choice between two competing visions of American governance: The economic prosperity, domestic security, and &#8220;peace through strength&#8221; deterrence of the Right, and the socialism, lawlessness, and capitulatory foreign policy of the Left. To borrow from Cruz&#8217;s quoting of Sun Tzu, Trump has &#8220;cho[sen] the terrain on which&#8221; the 2020 election &#8220;will be fought.&#8221;
The president <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/05/president-trump-offers-a-sharp-rebuke-of-socialism-at-precisely-the-right-time/">spoke at length</a> about the revving American economic engine, thus placing on the defensive the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-aocs-squad-will-destroy-democrats-2020-josh-hammer">toxic brand of socialism</a> that has come to dominate the modern Democratic Party. The Democrats are a political party with a <a href="https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination">statistical frontrunner</a> of a presidential nominee who is a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-bernie-sanders-entire-worldview-grotesquely-josh-hammer">lifelong communist activist</a> — a man who literally honeymooned in the Soviet Union and infamously hung a hammer-and-sickle Soviet flag inside his Burlington, Vermont mayoral office. They are advancing that nominee (and so many others who now mimic his economic illiteracy) in the context of an American electorate that, according to reliable pollster Gallup, is the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/americans-are-more-optimistic-about-the-economy-than-they-have-been-in-decades">most optimistic</a> it has been about the economy in decades. Americans <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval_economy-6182.html">currently approve</a> of Trump&#8217;s handling of the economy by over 17%, and Democrats&#8217; solution for that is to stage a presidential primary where one of the leading &#8220;intellectual&#8221; debates among the candidates is whether to literally abolish private health insurance in favor of a government monopoly.
Good luck with that.
The president also spoke about the gruesome horrors of sanctuary cities, the great majority of which are <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-why-no-one-pointing-out-sanctuary-cities-josh-hammer">clearly illegal</a> under a straightforward reading of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373">8 U.S.C. § 1373(a)</a>: &#8220;Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the [Department of Homeland Security] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.&#8221; The president masterfully provided gut-wrenching details of the crimes committed by illegal aliens mollycoddled by sanctuary jurisdictions — thus seemingly borrowing a tactic from Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, each of whom has at times provided vivid details of the underlying murders of those defendants whose capital punishment appeals reach the Court. Trump forced Democrats in the House chamber to retreat to the unenviable position of loudly booing his oratory assaults on criminal aliens and the sanctuary jurisdictions that harbor them. It was a remarkable sight to behold.
The president has thus successfully framed the 2020 election as a referendum about whether the nation will reject the Left&#8217;s two most profoundly ruinous current hobbyhorses: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-a-political-wish-for-2020-less-socialism-more-law-and-order">Socialism and lawlessness</a>. He also spoke directly to the heart and mind of the proverbial <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-who-will-stand-for-the-forgotten-american">forgotten American</a> — the tax-paying, church-attending, law-abiding American who still has an innate love and appreciation for what has always made America great. Say what one might about Trump, but one cannot plausibly deny that he is an &#8220;Americanist,&#8221; properly understood.
The American people will head to the ballot box this November with an exceedingly straightforward choice before them. Here is hoping they make the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-here-are-three-reasons-why-i-plan-vote-josh-hammer">right decision</a>.

President Trump Delivers State Of The Union Address

HAMMER: Trump Successfully Framed The Stark 2020 Election Choice During Last Night’s SOTU Address

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Clarence Thomas

Communism

Democratic Party

Law Enforcement

Qassem Soleimani

Radical Islam

As the 2020 election cycle hits full swing, and as the Democratic Party&#8217;s quest to topple President Donald Trump got off to a fairly catastrophic start earlier this week in Iowa, polling now indicates that Americans are more optimistic about the economy than they have been in decades.
&#8220;For the first time in its history, the Gallup <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/284264/record-high-optimism-personal-finances.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-reader-unique-id="6">&#8216;Mood of the Nation&#8217;</a> economic survey found that 59% of people believe that they are &#8216;better off,&#8217; a trend that has soared under Trump,&#8221; Paul Bedard <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/record-economic-optimism-under-trump-better-than-reagan-clinton-obama">reported</a> this morning for the Washington Examiner. &#8220;It is higher than when President Ronald Reagan made his economy a campaign rallying cry and better than the so-called dot-com bubble under President Bill Clinton.&#8221;
&#8220;The survey follows several others that have showed public satisfaction with the economy,&#8221; Bedard added. &#8220;Just yesterday, Gallup reported a 63% satisfaction with the president’s handling of the economy, and calling it, &#8216;The highest economic approval rating not only for Trump, but for any president since George W. Bush enjoyed stratospheric job approval ratings in the first few months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.'&#8221;
Specifically, Gallup <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/284264/record-high-optimism-personal-finances.aspx">notes</a> today that &#8220;[t]he current 59% of Americans who say they are better off financially than they were a year ago is essentially tied for the all-time high of 58% in January 1999.&#8221;
&#8220;Americans&#8217; levels of optimism about both their current financial situation and where it will be a year from now are at or near record highs,&#8221; Gallup concluded. &#8220;These views align with President Donald Trump&#8217;s contention that Americans are doing better under his presidency, and with his use of the economy and job growth as key selling points for his re-election. Republicans&#8217; positive views on their finances are something of a given for a GOP president, at least during good economic times. The majority levels of optimism among political independents are more significant for Trump&#8217;s re-election prospects — and something Trump will want to maintain in 2020 to stay competitive.&#8221;
The news from Gallup today comes just one day after the same famed polling outfit reported an all-time high approval rating for Trump, as The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/will-trump-win-latest-trumps-national-and-state-josh-hammer">noted</a>. Furthermore, the current RealClearPolitics <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval_economy-6182.html">polling average</a> for Americans&#8217; views of Trump&#8217;s handling of the economy shows that a whopping 56% currently approve, whereas a trifling 38.9% disapprove. That ought to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid">augur quite well</a> for the president&#8217;s electoral hopes this November.
The news of Americans&#8217; record optimism about their economy, and Trump&#8217;s handling of it, comes at a time when the Democratic Party is increasingly committed to implementing an unvarnished socialistic agenda. The bold contrast between these two visions of governance offers a stark choice for voters this fall.
&#8220;Pulling no punches in Tuesday’s [State of the Union] speech, President Trump pointedly attacked socialism, a policy that has increasingly become the heart and soul of the modern left, much to the chagrin of the Democratic establishment,&#8221; The Federalist&#8217;s Erielle Davidson <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/05/president-trump-offers-a-sharp-rebuke-of-socialism-at-precisely-the-right-time/">wrote</a> this morning. &#8220;In what may have been one of the most striking lines of his speech, Trump declared, &#8216;Socialism destroys nations. But always remember: Freedom unifies the soul.'&#8221;

Stock exchange graph and numbers

Americans Are More Optimistic About The Economy Than They Have Been In Decades

George H.W. Bush

George W. Bush

Ronald Reagan

Rep. Adam Schiff has been holding court for days in the Senate, laying out the House&#8217;s case against President Donald Trump.
But no one cares. On the second day of the trial, the snoozefest drew fewer than 9 million viewers (that&#8217;s a million or so fewer the average nightly viewing of Jeopardy, the Washington Examiner <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/impeachment-trial-gets-lower-ratings-than-jeopardy-on-a-bad-night">noted</a>).
And senators are shocked that the galleries above the Senate &#8212; where average Americans can sit during the supposedly historic trial &#8212; have been half empty day after day.
Here&#8217;s something less shocking: &#8220;President Trump’s approval rating has climbed to match the highest of his presidency, boosted by majority approval of his economic stewardship even as Americans remain deeply divided on whether the Senate should remove him from office, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.&#8221;
That&#8217;s right, Trump&#8217;s approval has been going up, not down, during the impeachment trial.
&#8220;The Post-ABC poll finds 44 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s overall job performance and 51 percent disapprove. While views of Trump remain negative, Trump’s approval rating is significantly improved from his 38 percent mark in late October,&#8221; <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/americans-still-divided-on-trumps-removal-from-office-but-a-strong-economy-is-boosting-his-approval-rating-post-abc-poll-finds/2020/01/24/c8342406-3ec7-11ea-b90d-5652806c3b3a_story.html">The Post wrote</a>.
But there were a few interesting findings in the data. Among registered voters, those considered more likely to vote, that 44/51 split rises to 47/50. And among independents, which helped push Trump to victory in 2016, the numbers are even better at 47/48.
More: 56% of those surveyed approve of Trump’s handling of the economy, up 10 percentage points from September and his highest mark since he took office on January 20, 2017.
&#8220;The findings suggest the country’s strong economy and heightened support from men and independents are helping Trump weather an impeachment trial in which Democrats have argued Trump abused his presidential powers and obstructed a congressional investigation of his actions. Trump’s 44 percent approval mark is similar to other recent national polls, though other polls have shown Trump’s rating stable or increasing slightly,&#8221; The Post wrote.
The poll&#8217;s finding were predictable when it came to partisan politics. &#8220;Partisans continue to be starkly divided on Trump’s fate, with more than 8 in 10 Democrats supporting his removal and more than 8 in 10 Republicans opposed. Independents narrowly lean against removal, with 42 percent saying the Senate should remove Trump from office while 51 percent say it should not.&#8221;
In another poll, this one by <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/283940/economic-confidence-highest-point-2000.aspx">Gallup</a>, Americans&#8217; confidence in the U.S. economy was even higher &#8212; in fact, the highest at any point in about two decades. &#8220;The latest figure from Gallup&#8217;s Economic Confidence Index is +40, the highest reading recorded since +44 in October 2000.&#8221;
Gallup also noted that &#8220;tracking of economic confidence over the past 28 years has recorded index readings at or above the +40 mark in just nine other measurements, all between 1998 and 2000 &#8212; with the highest level recorded in January 2000, at +56&#8221;:
<blockquote>Americans&#8217; buoyant confidence in the economy in Gallup&#8217;s latest poll, conducted Jan. 2-15, likely reflects the U.S. unemployment rate&#8217;s continued stay at a 50-year low. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average continues to reach record highs &#8212; and flirts with reaching the 30,000 marker.
Gallup&#8217;s Economic Confidence Index is the average of two components: Americans&#8217; ratings of current economic conditions and their views on whether the economy is getting better or getting worse. The index has a theoretical maximum of +100, achieved if all Americans believe the economy is excellent or good and getting better. The theoretical minimum is -100, if all Americans say the economy is poor and getting worse.
The current conditions component score of +54 is the result of 62% of Americans saying the economy is &#8220;excellent&#8221; or &#8220;good&#8221; and 8% describing it as &#8220;poor.&#8221; Meanwhile, the economic outlook component score of +26 is the result of 59% saying the economy is &#8220;getting better&#8221; and 33% saying it is &#8220;getting worse.&#8221;</blockquote>

President Trump Attends The National Day Of Prayer Ceremony In The Rose Garden

Trump Soars To Highest Job Approval Rating Of Presidency Despite Impeachment Trial

Poll

On Monday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., sat for a discussion with author Ta-Nehisi Coates. She dropped a number of shocking statements — statements that elicited nothing but murmurs of agreement from Coates.
AOC claimed: “No one ever makes a billion dollars. You take a billion dollars.”
How, pray tell, are American billionaires responsible for such massive theft? According to AOC, the very mechanisms of capitalism mandate such theft. In her view, successful businesspeople simply exploit their workers while maximizing their profits.
Hypothetically speaking about billionaires making widgets, she said: “You didn’t make those widgets! You sat on a couch while thousands of people were paid modern-day slave wages and, in some cases, real modern-day slavery … You made that money off the backs of undocumented people.”
This, of course, is nonsense. Voluntary exchange of labor for wages is, as stated, voluntary, and the fact that there are many people willing and able to labor in the manufacture of widgets is presumably responsible for lower wages.
Companies that refuse to pay their workers market wages will soon watch those workers migrate to other businesses or other industries. It is a patent violation of free market principles to utilize force in order to compel someone to work for you; blaming the free market for coercion is like blaming free speech for censorship. Exploitation in labor markets is typically accompanied by government subsidies, regulation, and interventionism.
So, how does AOC magically turn economic freedom into economic tyranny? By suggesting that true freedom lies in collective control of the means of production: “If you’re a billionaire, that means that you control a massive system. … It means that you have a massive labor force under your control, and to be ethical if you’re a billionaire today, the thing that you need to do is give up control and power.”
But to whom would such power and control be given? AOC suggests that major companies be turned into worker cooperatives — companies whose workers own and control the business.
But, of course, that doesn’t solve her problem: If workers own and control the business, they are properly classified as capitalists. They will have to make decisions to make the business competitive, which means keeping wages competitive, for example.
This is precisely what has happened with one of the world’s biggest worker collectives, the Spanish Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, whose worker-owners have “learned to think like the shareholders of any other global business,” according to The Guardian.
In fact, most companies begin with a few workers who pool their capital and labor: Facebook, for example, handed out stock options to employees, resulting in a $23 billion valuation for its initial employees when the company went public. Does that make those workers evil capitalists?
In the end, what AOC truly wants is government control. Worker collectives won’t do the trick. Only top-down government redefinition of the value of labor will.
When AOC claims that capitalists merely leech off the true value of labor, she suggests that labor can be measured without reference to the market.
How would AOC measure the value of such labor? Presumably through appeals to “fairness.” There is only one problem with this method: It simply doesn’t work.
Consumers determine the value of products; producers do not. The diffuse informational system of the free market, which rewards the power of entrepreneurship, rather than punishing it, creates prosperity; top-down control creates poverty. In fact, the greatest guarantee of the sort of poverty AOC decries is the destruction of the same system she decries.
But according to AOC, we have nothing to fear from government, and “the government is us.” The fact that Coates, one of the most prominent writers on the evils of Jim Crow, nodded along should demonstrate that those on the left do not understand the consequences of their own philosophy.
The government is not “us,” because we are not a collective. We are individuals with rights. But in AOC’s world, we have no rights — we have only our role as members of a collective controlled by those who agree with her. And that is exploitation and tyranny.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

SHAPIRO: The Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez School of Economics

Capitalism

Socialism

One of the factors deeply worrying many Democratic politicos ahead of the rapidly approaching 2020 election is the obstinately booming economy under President Trump. Amid an increasingly lengthy string of excellent jobs reports, however, we&#8217;ve repeatedly heard rumblings of an impending &#8220;recession&#8221; just around the corner. Probably. Maybe.
Back in September, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/02/heres-a-list-of-recession-signals-that-are-flashing-red.html">CNBC</a> provided a helpful &#8220;list of recession signals that are flashing red&#8221; amid an alleged &#8220;dramatic spike&#8221; in fears of an economic downturn:
<blockquote>Google searches show recession fears have spiked dramatically since the end of July, when the Federal Reserve cut interest rates for the first time since the financial crisis. Data is coming at investors from every angle with so-called recession indicators flashing signs of an economic slowdown brought on by slower growth abroad and the U.S.-China trade war. A slowing global economy is pressuring central banks abroad to lower borrowing rates at unprecedented levels and a tit-for-tat tariff war between Washington and Beijing is weighing on business sentiment.</blockquote>
Three months — and three additional solid BLS reports later — <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/us-economic-recession-tracker/">Bloomberg</a> asked the question that it apparently believed was on everyone&#8217;s mind, despite what it admitted were &#8220;record-high stock prices and positive hiring momentum&#8221;: &#8220;Is a recession coming?&#8221;
<div class="sc-tilXH sc-cIShpX ghVBuD css--graphics-paragraph-wrapper Paragraph__2bZ6DrIKOv">
<blockquote>Amid record-high stock prices and positive hiring momentum, recession chatter continues to ebb. However, lingering trade war uncertainty and pullbacks in corporate investment remain risks to the U.S. outlook.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="sc-kAzzGY byicBG column_width css--column-width-wrapper">
<div id="yBjRjg787" class="sc-iELTvK cUEXLx RawHTML__Parent graphics css--html-wrapper">
<div class="RawHTML__yBjRjg787 raw__html css--html">
<div class="sc-tilXH sc-cIShpX ghVBuD css--graphics-paragraph-wrapper Paragraph__iyv9GyE94">
<blockquote>Bloomberg Economics created a model to determine America’s recession odds. The latest update, which looks at October data, estimates the chance of a U.S. recession within the next year at 29%, after an upwardly revised 27% in the prior month. That reading is lower than highs reached earlier this year and will likely move lower given initial positive readings across November data.</blockquote>
With January now mid-stride and fears of a war with Iran receding, prompting <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/stock-market-indexes-hit-all-time-highs-after-trump-announces-iran-standing-down">historically high</a> stock market numbers, how likely is that ever-impending &#8220;Trump recession&#8221; going? And will it come in time to save the Democrats in November?
<a href="https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-december-jobs-report-comes-friday-heres-what-to-look-for-51578564002">Barron&#8217;s</a> gathered what it describes as &#8220;some of Wall Street’s best minds&#8221; to discuss — &#8220;as we do every January for our annual Roundtable&#8221; —  what to expect out of the economy this year. What it found will deeply disappoint Democrats banking on that &#8220;recession&#8221; to topple Trump. According to a consensus of economic experts, Barron&#8217;s reports, &#8220;there’s almost no chance of a recession this year&#8221;:
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote>Investors entered 2020 with the financial markets heading higher and a lot of optimism about the economy. Then the latest flare-up in the long conflict with Iran reminded everyone of the many geopolitical risks lurking under the seemingly placid surface of the market.
But the 10 veteran investors and economists who convened in New York on Jan. 6 at the Barron’s offices agree that there’s almost no chance of a recession this year, and their view of stocks is decidedly, albeit cautiously, optimistic.</blockquote>
According to Barron&#8217;s, there&#8217;ll almost certainly be no recession bailout for the Democrats. Instead, the nominee is likely going to have to beat an incumbent president who, while still struggling in the polls, has a booming economy at his back.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-highlights-blowback-to-pelosis-iran-protest-comments-sums-up-dems-media-strategy">Trump Highlights Blowback To Pelosi’s Iran Protest Comments, Sums Up Dems, Media Strategy</a>

President Trump

Experts Have Bad News For Democrats Hoping For 2020 Recession To Topple Trump

In a televised statement Wednesday, President Trump addressed Iran&#8217;s attack on two military bases in Iraq and announced that no U.S. or Iraqi personnel were killed and that Iran &#8220;appears to be standing down.&#8221; The announcement sent stocks soaring, both the Nasdaq Composite and the S&amp;P 500 reaching all-time highs, while the Dow Jones jumped over 250 points.
&#8220;I am pleased to inform you, the American people should be extremely grateful and happy: No Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime,&#8221; President Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-addresses-nation-after-attack-no-lives-lost-iran-appears-to-be-standing-down">told</a> the nation Wednesday morning following the Tuesday night attacks by Iran (video of address below). &#8220;We suffered no casualties, all of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases.&#8221;
&#8220;Our great American forces are prepared for anything,&#8221; said the president, adding later that no lives were lost &#8220;because of the precautions taken, the dispersal of forces, and an early warning system that worked very well.&#8221;
After launching the missile strikes, which Iran declared a retaliation for the Trump-ordered airstrike that took out Iran&#8217;s top military leader, General Qassem Soleimani, Iran has indicated that it wants to de-escalate, a point that Trump stressed in his statement. &#8220;Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned, and a very good thing for the world,&#8221; he said.
As reported by <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/08/stock-markets-today-us-futures-fall-following-attack-in-iraq.html">CNBC</a>, the stock market responded with a &#8220;sigh of relief&#8221; to Trump&#8217;s announcement. &#8220;Stocks rose sharply on Wednesday after President Donald Trump spoke about an attack by Iran on an Iraqi airbase that houses American troops, which had led to a massive sell-off in overnight trading,&#8221; CNBC reported Wednesday. &#8220;The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 255 points, or 0.9%. The Nasdaq Composite advanced 1% and hit an all-time high. The S&amp;P 500 climbed 0.8% and hit a record high as well.&#8221;
In his statement Wednesday morning, President Trump made clear that his administration will not allow Iran to continue to carry out its &#8220;destructive and destabilizing behavior&#8221; in the region, saying &#8220;those days are over,&#8221; but also indicated that he does not intend to escalate the situation through further military action, instead announcing new economic sanctions on Iran.
As Trump referenced, Iran has signaled that it hopes to de-escalate, Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif issuing a statement late Tuesday stating that Iran does “not seek escalation or war” and suggesting that the missile attack on the two Iraqi bases was the extent of its “proportionate” response.
“Iran took &amp; concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens &amp; senior officials were launched,” Zarif <a href="https://twitter.com/JZarif/status/1214736614217469953?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">tweeted</a> after the attack Tuesday night. “We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.”
In his televised statement, Trump also took time to defend his decision to order the strike that took out Soleimani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/state-dept-iranian-general-killed-in-u-s-strike-responsible-for-17-of-american-deaths-in-iraq">responsible</a> for killing hundreds of Americans during the Iraq War.  
“Last week, we took decisive action to stop a ruthless terrorist from threatening American lives,” Trump explained. “At my direction the United States Military eliminated the world’s top terrorist, Qassem Soleimani. As the heads of the Quds Force, Soleimani was personally responsible for some of the absolutely worst atrocities. He trained terrorist armies, including Hezbollah, launching terrorist strikes against civilian targets. He fueled bloody civil wars all across the region. He viciously wounded and murdered thousands of U.S. troops, including the planting of roadside bombs that maim and dismember their victims. Soleimani directed the recent attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq that badly wounded four service members and killed one American, and he orchestrated the violent assault on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. In recent days, he was planning new attacks on American targets, but we stopped him.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
LIVE: President <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> Addresses the Nation <a href="https://t.co/vRH9gVAD0N">https://t.co/vRH9gVAD0N</a>
&mdash; The White House (@WhiteHouse) <a href="https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1214946620053184513?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/shapiro-trumps-iran-policy-isnt-the-problem-barack-obamas-was">SHAPIRO: Trump’s Iran Policy Isn’t the Problem. Barack Obama’s Was.</a>

Stock Market Indexes Hit All-Time Highs After Trump Announces Iran ‘Standing Down’

Iran

Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps

Stock Market

On New Year’s Eve, a Domino’s Pizza in New York City’s Times Square decided to sell $30 pizzas to those awaiting the 2020 ball drop, reports the <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/31/dominos-sells-30-pizzas-to-times-square-ball-drop-revelers-on-new-years-eve/">New York Post</a>.
Upset by the restaurant’s alleged price increase, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio took to social media to express himself:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Jacking up your prices on people trying to celebrate the holidays? Classy, <a href="https://twitter.com/dominos?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@dominos</a>.
To the thousands who came to Times Square last night to ring in 2020, I’m sorry this corporate chain exploited you — stick it to them by patronizing one of our fantastic LOCAL pizzerias. <a href="https://t.co/rO6I9oYIku">pic.twitter.com/rO6I9oYIku</a>
— Mayor Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) <a href="https://twitter.com/NYCMayor/status/1212427695595905024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 1, 2020</a></blockquote>
<blockquote>Jacking up your prices on people trying to celebrate the holidays? Classy, <a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/dominos">@dominos</a>. To the thousands who came to Times Square last night to ring in 2020, I’m sorry this corporate chain exploited you — stick it to them by patronizing one of our fantastic LOCAL pizzerias.</blockquote>
For this tweet, the mayor was ratioed big time. While de Blasio’s tweet has 1,667 “likes” and 339 retweets as of publication, it has been commented on approximately 5,500 times.
User Ethan Case wrote: “Even at $30 its price competitive with full pies at any of those ‘local’ pizzerias near times square on a normal day, and they have to pay delivery guys to run that pizza through a crown on foot b/c people can&#8217;t leave their position to go to a pizza place.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
Even at $30 its price competitive with full pies at any of those &#8220;local&#8221; pizzerias near times square on a normal day, and they have to pay delivery guys to run that pizza through a crown on foot b/c people can&#8217;t leave their position to go to a pizza place.
— Ethan Case (@EthanCase) <a href="https://twitter.com/EthanCase/status/1212429157008920577?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 1, 2020</a></blockquote>
User Emily Barry echoed Case, writing: “First, $30 is not that far off from what a large pizza costs around Times Square anyway, and the added $ to get it to through the crowds to the person is completely justified. Second, Dominos franchise operations are also owned by hardworking NYers. This is a bad take.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
First, $30 is not that far off from what a large pizza costs around Times Square anyway, and the added $ to get it to through the crowds to the person is completely justified. Second, Dominos franchise operations are also owned by hardworking NYers. This is a bad take.
— Emily Barry (@emilyhbarry) <a href="https://twitter.com/emilyhbarry/status/1212453424949796871?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 1, 2020</a></blockquote>
They’re not incorrect. The Daily Wire surveyed several local pizza restaurants around Times Square, and found large pepperoni pies ranging from $23.95 before tip to $31.57 before tip.
A large pepperoni pizza from the Times Square Domino’s location goes for approximately $17.24 before taxes, tip, or delivery fees. Once tax and delivery are added in, and with a 20% tip, you’re looking at a $28.73 pizza.
User The Safest Space made a salient point, writing: “And if the $30 was too expensive then nobody would have bought it. The market worked perfectly here, people who really wanted pizza got it despite the chaos of NYE in Times Square.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
And if the $30 was too expensive then nobody would have bought it. The market worked perfectly here, people who really wanted pizza got it despite the chaos of NYE in Times Square
— The Safest Space (@TheSafestSpace) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheSafestSpace/status/1212454525510000641?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 1, 2020</a></blockquote>
User Marie Brown wrote: “He wants $15 minimum wage with $1 burgers and $5 pizzas. He has never had to make a payroll or earn a dollar through earned revenue. Taxes, fees and fines are his sources of revenue.  He should call out the high personal property taxes in NYC and leave his local businesses alone.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
He wants $15 minimum wage with $1 burgers and $5 pizzas. He has never had to make a payroll or earn a dollar through earned revenue. Taxes, fees and fines are his sources of revenue. He should call out the high personal property taxes in NYC and leave his local businesses alone.
— Marie Brown (@mariebrown) <a href="https://twitter.com/mariebrown/status/1212905665271881728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2020</a></blockquote>
Mayor de Blasio has been championing higher minimum wages for several years now. As a matter of fact, as of January 1, 2020, New York City’s $15/hour minimum wage law goes into full effect.
According to the <a href="https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2019/12/23/new-yorks-minimum-wage-rising-again-heres-what-itll-2020/2586881001/">Democrat and Chronicle</a>:
<blockquote>Wages are finally reaching $15 an hour this year – at least in New York City, where workers at small businesses with 10 or less employees will be receiving a $1 raise from the current $14 per hour wage. Large New York City employers with 11 or more employees began paying $15 last year, as did city fast-food employers.</blockquote>
As to the mayor’s suggestion that New Yorkers shun Domino’s and patronize “local pizzerias” instead, a spokesperson for the company <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/varney-bill-de-blasio-dominos-pizza-times-square">told</a> Fox Business Network:
<blockquote>Every store in [New York City] is owned by a local resident. &#8230; Every employee is a local New York resident. Those stores provide jobs to thousands of his fellow citizens. With his comments, the mayor is suggesting that New Yorkers who own or work at a franchise are “lesser than” those who don&#8217;t.</blockquote>

Bill de Blasio.

De Blasio Rebukes Times Square Domino’s For Selling $30 Pizzas At NYE Ball Drop; Gets Wrecked On Social Media

Bill de Blasio

Dominoes pizza

New York City

Primary season will soon be underway, and the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is only just warming up. While former Vice President Joe Biden still leads in several states, as well as nationally, other candidates have climbed to the top of the heap in early primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire.
Although Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, is considered the most progressive candidate on the bench, each of the other top-tier contenders have offered up policy ideas that would grow the size of the federal government by leaps and bounds.
With socialism and the more friendly-sounding “democratic socialism” seemingly becoming the brand of the Democratic Party, as well as the polls suggesting that more and more voters view the ideology favorably (or at least what they understand to be the ideology), it’s important to properly frame the debate.
The following is an interview I conducted with economist Otto Brøns-Petersen, who is the director for analysis at the Copenhagen-based Center for Political Studies (CEPOS).
<blockquote>DW: When you see people like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and other Democrats touting the virtues of “democratic socialism,” what do they mean? Following that, what does it really mean?
BRØNS-PETERSEN: I fear that some of them really mean socialism. Hopefully, most of them do not. Whether democratic or not, socialism is defined by central government control, planning, and ownership of large parts of the economy.
DW: What’s your opinion of socialism as a philosophical concept and as a form of government?
BRØNS-PETERSEN: As Friedrich Hayek pointed out, you cannot have a free society without economic freedom, so socialism would mean the end of a free society. Economic freedom is the freedom for people to interact on a voluntary basis to pursue their individual goals. Socialism replaces the diversity of goals by the goals set by the planners. That does not only spell the end of individual freedom, but also of economic wellbeing, because socialism is incapable of handling a complex modern economy.
DW: Many progressives point to the “Nordic Model” as an example of “working” socialism. What would you say to that?
BRØNS-PETERSEN: The Nordic countries are far from socialist. It is true that some of us have large public sectors and high taxes, but in most other respects, the Nordic countries are more free-market than even the United States. The government doesn’t own or plan the economy in the Nordic countries, and in some respects, doesn’t even regulate as much as other Western countries. There are, for instance, no minimum wage laws in Denmark.
DW: One argument put forward by many advocates of socialism is that it simply hasn’t been done “correctly.” All the failures aren’t related to “real” socialism, but how it was improperly implemented, and the bad actors who co-opted the movement (example: Venezuela). What would you say to the people who make such an argument?
BRØNS-PETERSEN: No country which has become socialist has escaped dire economic consequences nor the loss of human freedom. This is no strange coincidence, but inherent to the nature of socialism. You can’t have freedom, prosperity, and socialism at the same time because of the nature of socialism, not because all socialists so far turned out to be bad people.
DW: Another argument I hear is that capitalism in the United States is failing, or has failed. Now, the free market in the United States is heavily controlled, meaning it’s not as free as people believe. What would you say to those who see the United States as the prime example of allegedly “failed” capitalism?
BRØNS-PETERSEN: The U.S. has largely been a capitalist success story since its founding. It still is in many respects, being, for example, the world leader in digital technology. But it is also true that it has become quite regulated, and that some of these regulations represent a kind of “crony capitalism.” There is evidence that the increasing regulatory burden has slowed economic growth. You don’t deal with disappointing growth by regulating even more; it would rather produce a vicious circle.
DW: Why are young people in the United States so drawn to socialism?
BRØNS-PETERSEN: I think there are more than one reason. Some are what James Buchanan, the Nobel Laureate in economics, called “libertarian socialists.” They value freedom and individuality, but mistakenly think socialism will make them more free. Buchanan himself used to be a socialist for exactly that reason, but realized that capitalism is a cornerstone of a free society. To some extent, we on the Right who favor capitalism have neglected to communicate the vision of a free society. At the same time, both the Left and the Right have come to embrace the old Marxist ideas that “everything is political” and that all human interaction is basically zero sum, pitting one group against another. But while politics is zero sum most of the time, the free market is positive sum.
Furthermore, I think identity politics and post-modernism is to blame for some of the reemergence of socialism as an ideal. The idea that you should force people to behave in accordance with your own sensibilities has been deeply damaging to morality and the respect for other people. Socialism has become a grand name for anti-social behavior. 
Finally, too many young people don’t know the historic price Europe has payed for socialist ideas when communists ruled behind the Iron Curtain.
DW: What is the best (and worst) case scenario for the United States if more people like Sen. Bernie Sanders are elected and hold power in the government?
BRØNS-PETERSEN: Luckily, the Founding Fathers of the U.S. have put very strong institutions in place to secure that the election of one man, even to the office of president, cannot change American society overnight. But if socialism were to gain a stronghold in the United States, there is no doubt that the U.S. in the longer run would be less free and well-off, and would cease being a beacon to the rest of world.
You are not guarantied to be one of the leading countries and economies forever, no matter what the politicians do. Just compare the fate of North America to that of Latin America, which were more inspired by socialists and populists. If you had followed their policies, you would have had their standard of living, too.
DW: What is the allure of “socialism”?
BRØNS-PETERSEN: Many of us have a strong socialist instinct to “provide according to ability and live according to need.” That is, in fact, the way most families work. But a whole society cannot do that. In fact, the only way a family can be free to organize itself as a “communist commune” is when society at large is free and market-based. So, we need to learn that our collectivist instincts are appropriate only in small group settings, but a recipe for disaster on a national scale.
DW: Do you think we can reverse the tide of the increasing popularity of “socialist” policies? And if so, how?
BRØNS-PETERSEN: You need to spell out a clear vision of a free society, a broadly appealing ideal. You have to show that deregulation means more economic growth, while regulating more will achieve the opposite of what the socialists promise. And I think we have to rid ourselves of zero sum politics, even when it emerges from the right side of the political spectrum. Individual freedom should once more be the highest political goal, and political intervention an exception to the rule of freedom. And then we shouldn’t forget the lessons of history, for instance, that the Nordic countries are not a socialist success story. We are not socialist today, and our high taxes didn’t make us rich. In fact, Denmark used to rank higher among the richest countries in the world when we were a low tax country.</blockquote>
I’d like to thank Otto Brøns-Petersen for taking the time to speak with me about the ideology of socialism. For more information, check out his article for CATO on the “Danish model” <a href="https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/danish-model-dont-try-home">here</a>, and watch his informational video for PragerU below:
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tzEPKrHalaY" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Sen. Bernie Sanders.

INTERVIEW: Danish Economist Otto Brøns-Petersen On The Myths And Failures Of Socialism

Bernie Sanders

Democratic Socialism

Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, a Texas transplant, has the following piece today at <a href="https://texasscorecard.com/commentary/commentary-texas-is-a-less-business-friendly-environment-than-you-might-think-its-time-to-fix-that/">Texas Scorecard</a>, which is a publication of Empower Texans.
Texas is the largest and perhaps the nation’s most iconic conservative state. Cowboy culture, gun-totin’ ranchers, top-notch barbecue, evangelical megachurches — in the minds of many Americans outside the Lone Star State, this is what the thought of Texas conjures up in the imagination.
The fact that Texas doesn’t have a state income tax is a defining feature of the state’s business climate, and property tax reform served as the marquee issue for the most recent state legislative session. Accordingly, Chief Executive Magazine <a href="https://chiefexecutive.net/2019-best-worst-states-for-business-an-overview/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://chiefexecutive.net/2019-best-worst-states-for-business-an-overview/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576867344833000&amp;usg=AFQjCNE9v6v_rVzPZ7uFw0GEw-y3cK61XA">consistently ranks Texas</a> as the No. 1 state in the country to do business. Impressive, for sure.
But, unfortunately, that doesn’t tell the whole story.
While Texas does share some business-friendly elements, the state remains a litigation-friendly, plaintiff-friendly lawsuit haven. The threat of litigation makes it more difficult to do business in the Lone Star State and undermines our state’s ability to recruit new businesses to relocate here. Recently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform <a href="https://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/states" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/states&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576867344833000&amp;usg=AFQjCNE8hlyQLCkqgjJtAV2lTIAuSdeTeg">ranked</a> Texas’ lawsuit climate an eye-popping 38th in the country — behind such leftist bastions as New York, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. This ought to serve as a wakeup call for legislators.
One particularly glaring problem is the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which is so notoriously plaintiff-friendly that it hosts <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-patent-case-may-shake-up-the-domination-of-eastern-texas-1490261403" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-patent-case-may-shake-up-the-domination-of-eastern-texas-1490261403&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576867344834000&amp;usg=AFQjCNE3ALIyTMJDhLwZKD7mChJJP4ctiA">nearly half of all new patent infringement lawsuits</a> in the country. In fact, Apple was so concerned with having a presence in the district, that it <a href="https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/22/apple-closing-stores-in-eastern-district-texas/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/22/apple-closing-stores-in-eastern-district-texas/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576867344834000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHis_7d-fEgS_RNYOiEaEJmtfr3tw">took the extreme measure</a> of physically closing its retail stores there to protect itself from the scourge of patent trolls.
Recently, similar high volumes of patent infringement cases have sprouted up across the Lone Star State. One prominent example is Amrock v. HouseCanary, which was brought in Texas state court. In this case, a jury awarded an astonishing <a href="https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/titanic-texas-trade-secrets-verdict-29320/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/titanic-texas-trade-secrets-verdict-29320/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576867344834000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGbXVvtvL7rTldmHp6o3aSOK0IcfQ">$740 million on HouseCanary’s counterclaim.</a> However, after the jury rendered their verdict, four HouseCanary whistleblowers came forward to confirm that HouseCanary was not able to develop the technology that the contract called for. The jury had been duped. Now, more than a year later, the case is under appeal in the Texas’ Fourth Court of Appeals.
The merits of the case stand on their own. HouseCanary promised to develop an appraisal app that would allow Amrock’s appraisers to complete appraisals in the field and agreed to provide other data and analytic products, such as an automated valuation model — all in an effort to save time, money, and resources in valuing a property. Amrock never received what it was owed.
Putting the merits of the case aside, such a judgment far exceeds the actual injury. Specifically, HouseCanary, the winner of the case, had just <a href="https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/housecanary#section-overview" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/housecanary%23section-overview&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576867344834000&amp;usg=AFQjCNH1Bm4pLzMvAhh7WHCsdlZBvl4enQ">$64 million</a> in total venture funding and had never turned a profit, yet was awarded nearly 150 times more than what the original contract was worth. This demonstrates the kind of massive punitive damages awarded in many Texas cases that can overly incentivize litigation and de-incentivize investment. My former law professor Richard Epstein <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardepstein/2018/09/12/jackpot-justice-in-texas/#56d7e6737158" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardepstein/2018/09/12/jackpot-justice-in-texas/%2356d7e6737158&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576867344834000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEXSyR6mTMv7Xb5EAHmkdhKoVZhrA">summed up</a> the judgment well: “[O]ne does not need to know the details of this case to recognize that only in fairy tales does a party get a hundred-fold return from failing to keep its own contractual obligations.”
<a href="https://texasscorecard.com/commentary/commentary-texas-is-a-less-business-friendly-environment-than-you-might-think-its-time-to-fix-that/">Read the rest here.</a>

Texas State Capitol

Hammer At ‘Texas Scorecard’: Texas Is A Less Business-Friendly Environment Than You Might Think. It’s Time To Fix That.

Texas

The results of a new focus group study of Michigan &#8220;swing&#8221; voters has Axios sounding the alarm over &#8220;major warning signs for the Democratic Party in a crucial swing county that will be a pivotal area to win in 2020.&#8221;
The voters, all of whom voted for Barack Obama before pulling the lever for Donald Trump in 2016, made clear during Axios&#8217; <a class="StoryBody__link--10w8x" href="https://engagious.com/swingvoters/">Engagious/FPG</a> focus group last week that they&#8217;re now fully on board the Trump train — particularly after the Democrats&#8217; impeachment campaign.
<div>
Though <a href="https://www.axios.com/focus-group-michigan-swing-voters-trump-impeachment-183e4fc7-5ecc-41bd-add1-537ed8a2fd8f.html">Axios</a> notes that the focus group, which included 10 voters who flipped from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016, obviously didn&#8217;t involve enough people to be scientific, it provided some rather stark insights into the minds of the voters who gave Trump a 1-point victory in Michigan&#8217;s Saginaw County after Obama won it by 12 points four years earlier.
</div>
<div id="hidden-183e4fc7-5ecc-41bd-add1-537ed8a2fd8f" class="" aria-hidden="false" aria-expanded="true">
Among the &#8220;big picture&#8221; takeaways from the Michigan swing voter focus group, Axios cites voters&#8217; disgust with the Democrats&#8217; impeachment efforts.
&#8220;These voters hate the fact that House Democrats are moving toward impeaching the president,&#8221; Axios explains. &#8220;They call it a distraction from the issues that would actually improve their lives, like preserving Social Security, cracking down on illegal immigration, and keeping jobs in the U.S.&#8221;
One of the voters, a 43-year-old male who backed Obama in 2012, said, &#8220;I think [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s] wasting a lot of [taxpayer] money on a ghost chase. The money she&#8217;s spending on that could go to help the homeless or go towards health care.&#8221; A 73-year-old offered a similar criticism about the Democrats. &#8220;Instead of working on policies and things that will help the people, they are just working to basically preserve their own position &#8230; [T]hey don&#8217;t really care about you and [me], I don&#8217;t think.&#8221;
The swing voters told those conducting the 2-hour focus group study that they credited Trump for the Republicans&#8217; massive tax cuts, which has given them more money to direct to health care in particular. They also said that if the economy begins to go south or if there&#8217;s a &#8220;full-blown trade war with China,&#8221; they&#8217;ll even more strongly support Trump.
Another takeaway from the 2-hour study is that the swing voters &#8220;have virtually zero trust&#8221; in the media&#8217;s coverage of Trump.
Axios notes that the findings clash with &#8220;several other groups of Obama/Trump voters we&#8217;ve spoken with this year,&#8221; who said they felt turned off by Trump&#8217;s antics.
The &#8220;warning signs&#8221; in Michigan&#8217;s Saginaw County appear to be playing out on a larger scale in Rust Belt polling. A <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/thanks-to-impeachment-trump-now-beating-all-democrats-in-three-key-battleground-states">Firehouse Strategies’ survey</a> of three crucial battleground states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — released last week found Trump now leading all of the Democratic frontrunners in all three states. As is the case with the Engagious/FPG focus group, one of the key factors in the rising support for Trump and the declining numbers for Democrats appears to be a growing opposition to impeachment.
The poll <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/thanks-to-impeachment-trump-now-beating-all-democrats-in-three-key-battleground-states">found</a> that in Michigan, Trump now leads Joe Biden by 5 points (46-41), Elizabeth Warren by 9 points (47-38), Bernie Sanders by 6 points (48-42), Pete Buttigieg by 11 points (48-37), and Michael Bloomberg by 11 points (48-37). In Pennsylvania, Trump beats Biden by 5 points (46-41), Warren by 7 points (47-40), Sanders by 10 points (48-38), Buttigieg by 6 points (46-40), and Bloomberg by 4 points (45-41). It&#8217;s even worse for Democrats in Wisconsin, where Trump now leads Biden by 9 points (48-39), Warren by 13 points (50-37), Sanders by 13 points (51-38), Buttigieg by 11 points (49-38), and Bloomberg by 14 points (49-37).
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tipping-point-quinnipiac-survey-has-tough-news-for-democrats-on-impeachment-economy">Tipping Point? Quinnipiac Has Tough News For Democrats On Impeachment, Economy</a>
</div>

‘Major Warning Signs’ For Democrats: Focus Group Shows Impeachment Helping Turn Obama/Trump Swing Voters Into Full MAGA

Over the past two weeks, a fascinating intellectual conflict has broken out on the Right over pornography, of all things. The debate was prompted by a letter from four Republican congresspeople to Attorney General William Barr, calling on Barr to “declare the prosecution of obscene pornography a criminal justice priority.”
This, on its face, should be unobjectionable. There is no fundamental First Amendment right to pornography — it is not merely an aspect of free speech, as the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled, and as Founding-era philosophy makes clear — and there are clear externalities to certain aspects of pornography. So, for example, it’s hard to imagine why any conservative, even a conservative with libertarian leanings, would oppose banning the dissemination of pornography to minors, or the ability of local communities to bar the posting of pornographic images in public spaces, or a legal crackdown on sex trafficking (I’m not aware of many libertarians, even socially liberal libertarians, who oppose any of these things).
But the issue of pornography quickly morphed into a more general argument about the role of government in American life, the right to do wrong, and the differences between federal and local government. Those arguments have purchase far beyond the rather contained area of pornography — an area where, again, you could easily make the case for regulation of aspects of pornography without violating libertarian and small government precepts, and without redefining the nature of American government. The arguments articulated for generalized pornography regulation, however, have consequences for issues as far-ranging as free speech and economic regulation.
But here’s how the debate has broken down so far.
What Is Government Here To Do?
The conflict over pornography has highlighted a split between so-called “common good” conservatives and “rights-based” conservatives.
“Rights-based” conservatives articulate a vision of government that mirrors the language of the Declaration of Independence. According to the Founding vision, we have certain rights that pre-exist government. Those rights are negative rights — rights we have against all other human beings, including the right to speak and think freely, the right to engage in free market activity, and the right to defend our lives. Government was instituted, in Founding theory, in order to protect those rights; violation of those rights by government made the government fundamentally illegitimate.
“Common good” conservatives articulate a vision of government steeped in pre-Enlightenment tradition. In this view, government is there to promote virtue, justice, and the common good. Government plays the role of teacher. Terry Schilling, executive director of the American Principles Project, <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/11/how-to-regulate-pornography">argued</a> recently in First Things that “a new conservatism is being born — one less interested in managing our nation’s decline than in using political power to promote virtue, public morality, and the common good. &#8230; Conservatives need to overcome their fear of governing the nation that elected them.”
For rights-based conservatives, such language is anathema. Who defines the “common good?” What makes “common good” conservatives believe that in maximizing the power of government to be “teacher,” they will be the ones who wield that power, especially given the fact that the Left has both grown and wielded such governmental power for decades? By throwing rights out the window and instead focusing on the “common good,” the only question is who controls the government gun. “Rights-based” conservatives promote the idea that duty is to be provided by culture, and liberty is to be protected by government.
For “common good” conservatives, rights-based conservatism neglects the fact that power can be used to shape cultural mores. “Common good” conservatives believe that focus on rights rather than protection of tradition, including protection via government, leads to the degradation of rights into wrongs, and leads to the slide from liberty into libertinism. “Common good” conservatives promote the idea that duty is to be inculcated by government, even if that means the massive growth of government. “Common good” conservatives, in other words, do not harbor the grave mistrust of government the Founding Fathers did — or the grave mistrust of government they should, given that the Left has typically wielded government far more effectively, and with far more damaging effects, than the cultural Right.
The consequences of this difference are grave for a variety of issues. Take, for example, economics. It is no surprise that “rights-based” conservatives are increasingly wary of “common good” conservatives on free markets; “common good” conservatives have taken to using language more typical of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, suggesting that we must “make markets work for the American people” and “curb the excesses of the free market.” This isn’t the language of social fabric-building, but economic compulsion. “Common good” conservatives respond that free markets are actually immoral in many cases — many such conservatives have claimed that the government must prevent companies from shutting down production in certain areas of America in order to stop job loss, and thus social fabric loss, in those areas. This amounts to government compulsion of high order, and the brutalization of the economic freedom agenda that has historically characterized American conservatism.
The same holds true for freedom of speech. “Common good” conservatives have made “drag queen story hour” their cause celebre. These events are indeed morally perverse, and involve the inevitable sexualization of children. The question is whether libraries can be forced not to allow such events without allegations of child abuse. If the answer is yes, the question becomes why libraries can’t ban Bible events — and just as importantly, which is more likely in today&#8217;s culture, banning drag queen story hour or banning Bible events? The last several decades have shown us the answer to that question. Free speech can be abused. But at least free speech provides a guarantee of free speech.
What About Consent Of The Governed?
The “rights-based” conservatives and “common good” conservatives have significant disagreements about what sort of government control human beings consent to when they live in a society. “Rights-based” conservatives say that you consent only to the government defending your rights; you do not consent to a government cramming down its vision of virtue in contravention of your rights. Furthermore, your representation is required in order for government to act in all areas.
Neither aristocratic nor majority rule, in this view, is an ultimate good: Protection of rights is the ultimate good when it comes to government. Majorities are necessary in non-rights-based areas; no majority can override rights. This means that even when fundamental rights are not in question, a government acting without the consent of the governed can still threaten a separate fundamental right to representation.
This is why the Founders relied so heavily on the Montesquieu-backed notion of subsidiarity. Localities are more ideologically homogenous; they are also local, which means that if you don’t like their rules and regulations, you can leave. Consent is far more likely and government involvement more justifiable in areas in which fundamental rights are not infringed upon. Federal governments ought to be granted very narrow powers, and checks and balances ought to narrow those powers even further: There is no place to run if the feds point their gun at you.
What about “common good” conservatives, and the role of republicanism? “Common good” conservatives say you consent to be part of a society governed by historic law and tradition, and that your rights are defined only by that law and tradition. This leads to a far murkier relationship between individuals and the government. Can a majority redefine fundamental rights, since majorities routinely redefine tradition? It’s unclear. Is tradition formalized in any way, such that a majority cannot infringe upon it? It’s unclear. This leads to a sort of goalpost-shifting in governance philosophy in “common good” conservatism: “Whatever is necessary” becomes the standard. It’s actually rather easy to slide from the traditionalism of Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk into the Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes under this sort of logic. That doesn’t mean that “common good” conservatives have to go along with such a slide. But their philosophy certainly doesn’t forestall it. If you’re citing Plato’s definition of good government, you shouldn’t be surprised to find yourself gradually drifting toward Plato’s Republic.
“Power is as power does” views of government are inherently immoral. A government big enough and unanswerable enough to do your bidding is also big enough and unanswerable enough to destroy you. When the government completely loses touch with those it represents, it becomes a tyranny — even if it’s a tyranny promoting policies you like or find moral. “Consent of the governed” is indeed a moral principle, not just a pragmatic stance in favor of republicanism.
Is Culture Upstream Of Politics? 
The question of the role of government, and the role of consent, quickly slides into a question about culture versus politics. “Rights-based” conservatives have made the case that culture is upstream of politics — that we must change the culture to change our politics. “Common good” conservatives make the case that politics is part of culture, and that politics can change culture. “Common good” conservatives aren’t wrong here — but their point is far less powerful than they believe. Terry Schilling writes, “Politics is a key part of culture, and often drives it. The law can serve as a teacher and a guide to encourage positive behaviors and discourage negative ones.” But the law cannot provide a bulwark against social change. Law can be used to deepen already-extant social movements; it cannot defeat burgeoning social movements. The history of the last century should have taught us at least that much. Marriage laws didn’t defeat the same-sex marriage movement; by the same token, liberalized abortion laws haven’t defeated the pro-life movement.
This means that the heavy work to be done must be done in the cultural sphere. But because conservatives have watched their chief cultural institution — church — wane in influence, and have provided no alternative methods of cultural purchase, abandoning Hollywood and the media in large measure, they are left with government as their only tool. This means that conservatives — who, it turns out, are quite good at elections — have become a hammer in search of a nail. The problem is that the nail, cultural change, isn’t actually a nail, it’s a thimble of nitroglycerin — and hitting it with a hammer will lead to an explosion. You can’t solve cultural change with politics.
But you can solve politics with cultural change. And this is where conservatives ought to be putting their focus: On minimizing the size of government, growth of which threatens both liberty and conservative culture, while simultaneously changing the cultural milieu through cultural engagement.
The Founders, at least with regard to the federal government, sought a society of Burke-ians ruled by a government of Mill-ians. Danger lies in a libertarian society of self-described Mill-ians who don’t understand the concept of social fabric, and make light of it; danger conversely lies in a society of self-described Burke-ians who don’t understand the concept of “rights-based” government. The happy medium was a moral and religious people with a limited government devoted to the protection of rights. The Founders weren’t wrong. Everyone else is.

Declaration of Independence

SHAPIRO: The Problem With ‘Common Good’ Conservatism

Conservatism

Constitution

First Amendment

Libertarianism

Supreme Court

With polls showing President Trump surging in key battleground states amid an apparent backlash to the Democrats&#8217; impeachment effort, Quinnipiac — a pollster that generally gives unfavorable numbers for Trump, frequently giving him among the lowest approval ratings of the major polls — presented more troubling numbers for Democrats in a report published Tuesday.
For the first time in the poll, opposition to impeachment topped 50%, while Trump&#8217;s approval numbers on the economy reached a new high.
&#8220;Slightly more than half of all registered voters, 51 percent, think that President Trump should not be impeached and removed from office, while 45 percent say he should be impeached and removed,&#8221; <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3651">Quinnipiac</a> reports on its survey of 1,553 self-identified registered voters (conducted Dec. 4-9). &#8220;This compares to a November 26 poll in which 48 percent of voters said the president should not be impeached, while 45 percent said he should be. Today&#8217;s poll is the first time since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the inquiry that more than half of voters say that Trump should not be impeached.&#8221;
&#8220;With Washington in turmoil and House Democrats poised to vote on impeaching the president for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, American voters signal they are slightly more inclined not to impeach than to impeach,&#8221; said Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy.
The report was released the same day that Democrats announced that they are bringing two articles of impeachment against the president: &#8220;abuse of power&#8221; and &#8220;obstruction of Congress,&#8221; neither of which are specified in the Constitution&#8217;s impeachment clause as impeachable offenses, though Democrats insist that both qualify as &#8220;high crimes and misdemeanors.&#8221;
Quinnipiac also found a problematic trend for Democrats when it comes to the economy: Trump has now attained his highest approval ratings yet on his handling of the economy, while voters&#8217; perception of their own financial status as well as the economy overall continue to climb:
<blockquote>Today, voters give the president his highest score on his handling of the economy since the question was first asked in February of 2017, with 54 percent approving of the way he&#8217;s handling the economy and 42 percent disapproving. A similar 57 percent of voters say that they are better off financially today than they were in 2016, while 22 percent say they are worse off and 19 percent volunteered that they are the same. Voter perception of the economy has improved since October, as 69 percent of voters say the state of the nation&#8217;s economy is excellent or good, while 30 percent say it is not so good or poor. In an October 23 poll, 61 percent said the economy was excellent or good, while 36 percent said it was not so good or poor.</blockquote>
Quinnipiac, as usual, finds Trump deep underwater on overall approval (40-57). It also finds him trailing the Democratic frontrunners in hypothetical matchups, though the pollster notes that it found similar numbers for Trump leading up to the 2016 election, which he would go on to win by a wide margin in the Electoral College. The study also found that &#8220;none [of the Demcratic presidential candidates] are especially well-liked by registered voters.&#8221;
The Quinnipiac study follows <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/thanks-to-impeachment-trump-now-beating-all-democrats-in-three-key-battleground-states">Firehouse Strategies&#8217; survey</a> of three crucial battleground states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — that found Trump now leading all of the Democratic frontrunners in all three states. The study&#8217;s findings indicate that opposition to impeachment is partly to blame for the Democrats&#8217; increasingly grim chances in those three Rust Belt states, which proved crucial in Trump&#8217;s electoral victory in 2016.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-democrats-announce-impeachment-articles-trump-responds-dems-refuse-to-acknowledge-key-fact">Democrats Announce Impeachment Articles; Trump Responds: Dems Refuse To Acknowledge Key Fact</a>

Tipping Point? Quinnipiac Has Tough News For Democrats On Impeachment, Economy

Quinnipiac

On November 24, 2019, Michael Rubens Bloomberg announced his formal entrance into the Democratic Party&#8217;s 2020 presidential primary. To date, he is the latest candidate to enter the primary field.
Michael Bloomberg served three full terms as mayor of New York City, from 2002 through the end of 2013. He was New York City&#8217;s mayoral successor of the failed 2008 Republican presidential candidate and current private attorney for President Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani. Bloomberg is also the co-founder, CEO, and majority owner of financial services conglomerate Bloomberg L.P., which is perhaps best known for its flagship Bloomberg Terminal hardware. As of November 2019, Bloomberg&#8217;s net worth was <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/michael-bloomberg">estimated</a> at $58 billion dollars, which makes him one of the wealthiest individuals in the world. He has been a prolific donator to various charitable and political causes.
Born in Boston in 1942, Bloomberg has degrees from Johns Hopkins University and Harvard Business School. A registered Democrat earlier in his career, Bloomberg actually ran for and successfully sought the New York City mayoralty office as a registered Republican before re-registering as an independent in the midst of his second mayoral term. He re-registered as a Democrat in 2018. Since joining the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary field, Bloomberg News — an international news outlet operating as a legal subsidiary of Bloomberg L.P. — has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bloomberg-news-wont-investigate-bloomberg-democrats-its-journalists-go-to-work-on-bloombergs-campaign">announced</a> that it will not journalistically investigate Bloomberg or his fellow 2020 Democratic Party primary campaign rivals.
Electoral History: Bloomberg&#8217;s only experience in elected office is his three terms as New York City mayor. In 2001, shortly following the 9/11 jihadist attacks, Bloomberg sought to replace outgoing Mayor Rudy Giuliani as a fellow Republican and defeated his Democratic opponent, Mark Green, by a 50.3%–47.9% margin. In 2005, Bloomberg once again ran as a Republican and was re-elected by a nearly 20-point margin over his opponent, Fernando Ferrer. In 2009, after having successfully lobbied the New York City Council to change its mayoral two-term limit to a three-term limit, Bloomberg was narrowly elected to a third mayoral term while running as a Republican Party-endorsed registered independent.
On The Issues: Bloomberg&#8217;s general political profile is that of a fiscal and national security centrist, although he positions himself far to the left on social issues — with his <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/05/bloomberg-unveils-expansive-gun-control-plan-076376">anti-gun advocacy</a> perhaps emerging as the political issue with which he has become most closely identified. The latter stages of Bloomberg&#8217;s mayoral tenure were marked by odd flirtations with nanny state-style progressive governance, with the infamous <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/03/11/the-new-york-city-soda-ban-explained/">&#8220;soda ban&#8221;</a> as the most prominent example. Furthermore, in terms of hot-button leftist issues, Bloomberg&#8217;s current 2020 presidential campaign is aggressively <a href="https://www.mikebloomberg.com/policies/international-climate-priorities">advertising</a> his commitment to combatting global warming. But on bread-and-butter issues pertaining to fiscal prudence and foreign policy — perhaps especially with respect to Israel and the Middle East — Bloomberg is generally <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-michael-bloomberg-would-have-no-chance-at-the-democratic-presidential-nomination">far more centrist</a> than most of his other primary opponents.
Constitution: Bloomberg&#8217;s career in the financial services industry and his tenure as New York City mayor provide little in the way of concrete guidance as to what he may believe about constitutional interpretation and judicial philosophy. However, following the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, Bloomberg expressed support for &#8220;chang[ing]&#8221; prevailing constitutional jurisprudence so as to allow for easier mass domestic surveillance. His far-left stances on most cultural issues might also portend a belief in leftist &#8220;living constitutionalism.&#8221; Similarly, his nanny state governing proclivities likely augur in favor of an expansive view of the Constitution&#8217;s Commerce Clause — a provision that has justified decades of progressive economic regulatory overreach, going back to the New Deal.
Economy: Bloomberg has self-described as a fiscal conservative, pointing to his balancing New York City&#8217;s budget as his most supportive data point. Bloomberg may indeed be fiscally conservative to the extent fiscal conservatism means cutting deficits and balancing budgets, but his mayoral tenure and public statements also evince a willingness to raise various taxes toward achieving those ends. Bloomberg is also a firm proponent of free trade and opponent of protectionist policies. Out of all the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, it is possible that no one better personifies the decades-long post-Reagan/Clinton bipartisan neoliberal economic consensus than Bloomberg.
Health Care: Bloomberg&#8217;s nanny state governing tendencies, as best seen with the now-infamous &#8220;soda ban,&#8221; are perhaps most evident in the health care context. Despite his self-identification as a fiscal conservative, then, Bloomberg has long demonstrated a willingness to extend the reach of government to regulate both health care and the health of those citizens under his governing watch. His 2020 presidential campaign now <a href="https://www.mikebloomberg.com/getting-stuff-done">emphasizes</a> the pursuit of universal health care, and how &#8220;expanding Obamacare and Medicare is the best way to achieve universal coverage.&#8221;
Immigration: Bloomberg has previously been very critical of border hawks who call for deportations of illegal aliens, suggesting a personal view that mass amnesty is proper. To that end, he was supportive of the U.S. Senate&#8217;s failed 2007 &#8220;comprehensive immigration reform&#8221; push, which included amnesty for millions of illegal aliens as one of its underlying goals. As mayor of New York City, Bloomberg was fairly lax on immigration enforcement and largely shirked meaningful steps to crack down on illegal immigration plaguing the city. His current campaign <a href="https://www.mikebloomberg.com/getting-stuff-done">website</a> hails Bloomberg&#8217;s erstwhile formation of &#8220;pro-immigration organization New American Economy,&#8221; and he is generally seen as a staunch advocate of large-scale legal immigration.
Foreign Policy: Bloomberg assumed the New York City mayoralty in the near-term aftermath of the 9/11 jihadist attacks, and he is generally considered to be more hawkish on foreign policy and national security matters than most of his 2020 Democratic presidential rivals. He previously supported the PATRIOT Act, was an initial supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and publicly endorsed President George W. Bush&#8217;s re-election campaign at the New York City-hosted Republican National Convention in 2004. Bloomberg is much more pro-Israel than most of his 2020 Democratic rivals: In 2014, when President Barack Obama oversaw a temporary <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/213288-obama-defends-israel-flight-ban">U.S. flight ban</a> to Israel amidst the jihadist rocket fire that rained down on the Jewish state that summer from the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-israel-must-destroy-hamas-once-and-all-josh-hammer">Hamas</a>-controlled Gaza Strip, Bloomberg personally <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2014-07-23/why-i-flew-to-israel">flew to Israel</a> solely to demonstrate to his fellow Americans that it was safe to do so. In September 2019, Bloomberg conducted an odd interview on the issue of China, in which he <a href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/michael-bloomberg-china-pbs-climate-xi-dictator.html">defended</a> Chinese Communist Party strongman Xi Jinping against charges that he is a &#8220;dictator.&#8221;
Abortion: Bloomberg is emphatically pro-abortion.
Guns: Bloomberg&#8217;s anti-gun advocacy is perhaps the single most defining issue of his recent private citizen activism — and perhaps the single most defining issue of his 2020 presidential bid. He is very closely affiliated with and has <a href="https://everytown.org/press/new-gun-violence-prevention-group-everytown-for-gun-safety-unites-mayors-moms-and-millions-of-americans-on-new-paths-to-victory-state-capitols-corporate-responsibility-voter-activation/">helped</a> <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/bloomberg-gun-violence-moms-demand-action-volunteers">fund</a> Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, which are both groups deeply hostile to Second Amendment rights. He also co-founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns while he was mayor of New York City. Bloomberg supports <a href="https://www.mikebloomberg.com/policies/gun-safety">“universal” background checks</a>, which often serve as a rhetorical euphemism for the government serving as an intermediary in all private firearms transfers. Bloomberg believes that every gun owner should need a permit before making a gun purchase. He <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cory-booker-wants-a-ban-on-assault-weapons-and-yes-it-means-putting-gun-owners-in-jail" data-reader-unique-id="49">supports a ban</a> on the undefinable sub-class of firearms referred to as so-called “assault weapons” — a line of thought that, if taken to its logical conclusion, could <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42837/hammer-kamala-harriss-flirtation-banning-all-semi-josh-hammer" data-reader-unique-id="50">lead to the banning of all semi-automatic firearms in America</a>.

Michael Bloomberg

Where Does Michael Bloomberg Stand On The Issues? Here’s Everything You Need To Know.

Abortion

Bloomberg News

Foreign Policy

Gun Buybacks

Gun Control

Gun Laws

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau mocked President Donald Trump on Tuesday at a NATO summit in London, saying that Trump&#8217;s team&#8217;s &#8220;jaws drop[ped] to the floor&#8221; after watching the president&#8217;s behavior.
Trudeau&#8217;s mockery of Trump became international news, and the president immediately canceled a press conference that he was scheduled to participate in at the conclusion of a NATO summit in London.
On Friday, however, Trump got the last laugh after jobs reports were released for both countries that showed very different performance numbers to put it mildly.
CNBC <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/06/us-nonfarm-payrolls-november-2019.html">noted</a> the following highlights from the U.S. jobs report:
<ul>
<li>Nonfarm payrolls surged by 266,000 in November, better than the 187,000 expected by economists polled by Dow Jones.</li>
<li>The unemployment rate ticked down to 3.5% from 3.6%, back to the 2019 low and matching the lowest jobless rate since 1969.</li>
<li>Average hourly earnings rose by 3.1% from a year ago, slightly above the 3% expected by economists polled by Dow Jones.</li>
</ul>
CNS News <a href="https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/158593000-employed-november-24th-record-breaker-trump">reported</a> that the 158,593,000 Americans who were employed in November marked “the 24th record of Trump&#8217;s presidency” in terms of the overall number of Americans in the workforce.
“This is a ‘who would have thought moment?’” Becky Frankiewicz, president of staffing company ManpowerGroup’s North America division, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/november-jobs-report-11575633600">told</a> The Wall Street Journal. “No one would have ever guessed we could be sitting at 3.5% unemployment with 110 months of job gains.”
Trudeau&#8217;s economy took a very different turn than the U.S. economy did as it registered the biggest drop in employment in a decade.
&#8220;Canada’s job market unexpectedly weakened for a second-straight month, registering the biggest drop in employment since 2009 and casting doubt on the resiliency of the domestic outlook,&#8221; The Financial Post reported. &#8220;The economy lost 71,200 jobs in November, Statistics Canada said Friday in Ottawa, following a decline of 1,800 in the prior month.&#8221;
&#8220;The report missed the median economist forecast for a gain of 10,000 jobs,&#8221; The Financial Post continued. &#8220;The unemployment rate increased to 5.9 per cent in the month, from 5.5 per cent in October, the biggest one-month jump since 2009. The decrease in employment was broad-based among both the goods-producing and service-producing sectors.&#8221;
Julia Pollak, labor economist at ZipRecruiter, noted, &#8220;Canada’s jobs report is disappointing, showing job losses for the second month in a row. But observers should remember that the numbers are highly volatile and that this is still the strongest year for job growth in Canada in 17 years.&#8221;
Donald Trump Jr. had a different take, writing on Twitter: &#8220;For perspective the US is about 10X the population of Canada so this would be the equivalent of America shedding 700,000 jobs. Yikes! Maybe Justin should watch <a class="css-4rbku5 css-18t94o4 css-901oao css-16my406 r-1n1174f r-1loqt21 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0" role="link" href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump" data-focusable="true">@realDonaldTrump</a> &amp; learn how to create jobs&#8230; or go back to being a substitute drama teacher. Either way Canada wins!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
For perspective the US is about 10X the population of Canada so this would be the equivalent of America shedding 700,000 jobs. Yikes!
Maybe Justin should watch <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> &amp; learn how to create jobs&#8230; or go back to being a substitute drama teacher.
Either way Canada wins! <a href="https://t.co/uwq0sGJFdD">https://t.co/uwq0sGJFdD</a>
&mdash; Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) <a href="https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1203116583427678213?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Trudeau&#8217;s mockery of Trump surprised some who noted online that he did not have a lot of room to make fun of anyone after his embarrassing blackface scandal earlier this year.
&#8220;Numerous photographs and videos surfaced earlier this year that showed Trudeau wearing blackface which is universally seen as racist and condescending to black people,&#8221; The Daily Wire reported. &#8220;Trudeau was later humiliated by school children who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-canadian-schoolchildren-destroy-justin-trudeau-over-blackface-photos">confronted him on camera</a> about why he choose to wear racist blackface.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
A new high quality video of <a href="https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JustinTrudeau</a> dancing in blackface
Read more: <a href="https://t.co/Ytarj5Heih">https://t.co/Ytarj5Heih</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/cdnpoli?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#cdnpoli</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/elxn43?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#elxn43</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TrudeauBlackface?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TrudeauBlackface</a> <a href="https://t.co/vyrIiJpHdO">pic.twitter.com/vyrIiJpHdO</a>
&mdash; The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) <a href="https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1178027994285260800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 28, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Ezra Levant, founder of The Rebel, a Canadian publication, tweeted out a video clip Trudeau mocking Trump, writing: “Just like at the G7 meeting last year, Justin Trudeau was meek and obedient to Donald Trump when they were face to face. But the moment Trump left the room Trudeau bad-mouthed him. Here he is doing the same in London, mocking Canada’s greatest NATO ally.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Just like at the G7 meeting last year, Justin Trudeau was meek and obedient to Donald Trump when they were face to face. But the moment Trump left the room Trudeau bad-mouthed him. Here he is doing the same in London, mocking Canada’s greatest NATO ally. <a href="https://t.co/hGENrbnHg7">pic.twitter.com/hGENrbnHg7</a>
&mdash; Ezra Levant 🍁 (@ezralevant) <a href="https://twitter.com/ezralevant/status/1202013710153388032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 3, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Levant later <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/canadas-justin-trudeau-mocks-trump-at-nato-summit-thats-ironic-coming-from-trudeau">highlighted</a> how Trudeau has been awkwardly ignored by world leaders on the international stage multiple times.

Donald Trump Justin Trudeau

Trump Gets Last Laugh With Trudeau After Jobs Reports Released For Both Nations

jobs

Justin Trudeau

Unemployment

On Friday, CNBC’s “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer appeared on the network’s “Squawk Box” to discuss the latest unemployment numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for the month of November.
“Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 266,000 in November. Job growth has averaged 180,000 per month thus far in 2019, compared with an average monthly gain of 223,000 in 2018. In November, notable job gains occurred in health care and in professional and technical services,” reports <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm">BLS</a>.
The bureau also noted that the “seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate dipped from 3.6% in October to 3.5% in November. Last year (November 2018), the unemployment rate was 3.7% “adjusted.”
Additionally, average hourly earnings for “all employees on private nonfarm payrolls” are up 86 cents from November 2018 ($27.43 to $28.29).
After noting that there was “growth with not very much inflation,” Cramer stated that he wished people “were making more money.”
He then mentioned cable news bias pertaining to the economy:
<blockquote>There&#8217;s a fellow by the name of Michael Cembalest &#8230; he is the Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy at J.P. Morgan. He came up with a list of what the cable companies – CNN, [MSNBC] – what do they cover. 16th is positive economic news. All the rest of them are negative. So, you know what&#8217;s going on here, Joe. People don&#8217;t want to say good things, and this is the best number I&#8217;ve ever seen in my life!</blockquote>
Host Joe Kernan then asked Cramer “how can it last forever?”
Cramer replied, speaking directly about the ongoing trade war with China:
<blockquote>It has to go up, Joe, because when we win the trade war, which you now know we&#8217;re going to win now because we have the better numbers, then they&#8217;re going to have to put jobs here. That&#8217;s what they&#8217;re going to have to do. And we&#8217;re not even talking about that yet. In the end, the Chinese are going to have to put jobs here. Because this thing is – the president can walk away from the table with this number.</blockquote>
After Kernan stated that Americans won’t “see that written or said anywhere,” Cramer responded, saying the “truth sets people free.”
Cramer added:
<blockquote>You can&#8217;t contradict that these are the best numbers of our lives. &#8230; I don&#8217;t see inflation; I don&#8217;t see recession. 50 years ago that number was a curse, now it&#8217;s a blessing. And you know something, Joe? It doesn&#8217;t matter whether you hate [Trump] or like him, these are real numbers.</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zKuEBt4DQzg" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
On Wednesday, J.P. Morgan’s Michael Cembalest published a piece covering a variety of finial topics. In the piece, as Cramer stated on “Squawk Box,” Cembalest <a href="https://am.jpmorgan.com/blobcontent/1383651198191/83456/12-04-2019%20-%20War%20of%20the%20Worlds_AMV.pdf">charted</a> the coverage of four cable news shows (CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” and “Cuomo Prime Time,” and MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show” and “Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell”) over the course of one year (September 2018 &#8211; September 2019).
What Cembalest and his team found was that “positive economic news” came in 16th place under the “number of times [a] topic [was] discussed in depth” metric, below the following:
<blockquote>Mueller investigation/Russian interference
Trump is inept/erratic/mendacious/biased
Asylum and immigration
Trump Administration corruption
Presidential politics
Supreme Court
Natural disasters
Gun violence
International relations
Senate/Governors Races
North Korea
Trade war
Data privacy
Climate change
Opioids and prescription drug pricing</blockquote>
This isn’t surprising to anyone who follows this type of thing closely. As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-former-msnbc-host-says-networks-coverage-frank-camp">previously reported</a>:
<blockquote>According to a report from the <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2019/01/15/networks-trashed-trump-90-negative-spin-2018-did-it-matter">Media Research Center</a> (MRC), from January 2017 through December 2018, 90% of the coverage of President Trump from the major network evening news programs (ABC, CBS, NBC) has been negative, while just 10% has been positive. The analysis excludes “neutral statements.”
MRC states: “To determine the spin of news coverage, our analysts tallied all explicitly evaluative statements about the President or his administration from either reporters, anchors or non-partisan sources such as experts or voters. Evaluations from partisan sources, as well as neutral statements, were not included.”
Of the 858 minutes spent by the big three networks’ evening newscasts discussing the Trump/Russia collusion story in 2018, 98% was “negative,” according to the MRC analysis. Of the 643 minutes covering immigration and the border, 94% was “negative.” The least negative of the big five “Trump-bashing” stories that received hundreds of minutes of airtime pertained to North Korea (410 minutes; 80% “negative”).</blockquote>

Thumbs up Trump.

CNBC’s Jim Cramer On Jobs Report: ‘Doesn’t Matter Whether You Hate’ Trump, These Are The ‘Best Numbers Of Our Lives’

Jim Cramer

For the Democratic Party, the better the economy, the more difficult it will be for them to succeed in their primary goal: to dethrone Donald Trump in 2020. In that light, the latest jobs report presents a bunch of very bad news for the party so desperate to see Trump go down.
That the excellent economic news comes one day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that her party was officially moving forward on drafting articles for their entirely partisan impeachment — public support for which has been waining — doesn&#8217;t help.
Just how good for the American people/bad for the Democrats are the November jobs numbers? Here are the highlights of the expectations-smashing figures via <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jobs-report-november-2019-labor-department-225145709.html">Yahoo Finance</a>:
<blockquote>The U.S. economy added <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">far more jobs than expected in November</a> and the joblessness rate edged down to a 50-year low, as the domestic labor market continued to fire on all cylinders. &#8230;
Change in non-farm payrolls: +266,000 vs. +180,000 expected and +156,000 in October
Unemployment rate: 3.5% vs. 3.6% expected and 3.6% in October
Average hourly earnings month over month: +0.2% vs. +0.3% expected and +0.4% in October
Average hourly earnings year over year: +3.1% vs. +3.0% expected and +3.2% in October</blockquote>
That 3.5% overall unemployment rate matches the lowest figure in 50 years, dating back to 1969.
&#8220;The total labor force participation was nearly unchanged at 63.2%, just a hair below October’s 63.3%, which had reflected the largest share of the working population employed or looking for work since 2013,&#8221; Yahoo notes.
In its official report on the November numbers (full report below), the <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm">Bureau of Labor Statistics</a> also provides the breakdown on key demographics, showing the continued excellent numbers across the board, particularly for minorities who are experiencing record-low unemployment under the Trump administration:
<blockquote>Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.2 percent), adult women (3.2 percent), teenagers (12.0 percent), Whites (3.2 percent), Blacks (5.5 percent), Asians (2.6 percent), and Hispanics (4.2 percent) showed little or no change in November.</blockquote>
The new report also includes upward revisions to payroll figures for both September and October, revised up 13,000 and 28,000 to 193,000 and 156,000, respectively, raising the three-month average increase to 205,000.
The release of the stellar jobs report comes one day after Speaker Pelosi held a press conference <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-pelosi-makes-it-official-we-will-impeach-trump-responds">announcing</a> that she has ordered the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee to begin drafting articles of impeachment against Trump.
The move is politically risky as Democrats have failed to convince any Republicans to join their effort, while recent polls have consistently shown either a plateauing of public support for impeachment or, more often than not, a decline. <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/bowmanmarsico/2019/12/05/more-on-impeachment-polls/#4ddbe3d448f9">Forbes</a> provided an update on some recent polls on Thursday:
<blockquote>In <a href="http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/11/25/rel13a.-.trump,.impeachment.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga-track="ExternalLink:http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/11/25/rel13a.-.trump,.impeachment.pdf">CNN’s November 21-24 poll</a>, 50% said President Trump should be impeached and removed from office. The responses were identical to <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6508707-Trump-Impeachment.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga-track="ExternalLink:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6508707-Trump-Impeachment.html">CNN’s mid-October poll</a>. When asked whether they felt strongly or not strongly, 91% of those who supported impeachment and removal said they felt strongly, as did 89% of those who felt strongly that he shouldn’t be impeached. In <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us11262019_uaov53.pdf/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga-track="ExternalLink:https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us11262019_uaov53.pdf/">Quinnipiac’s late November poll</a>, 45% of registered voters said he should be impeached and removed; 48% didn’t think so. In their <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3645" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga-track="ExternalLink:https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3645">late October poll</a>, those responses were 48% to 46%.</blockquote>
Below is the <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm">Bureau of Labor Statistics</a> official November report (formatting adjusted):
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 266,000 in November, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 3.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Notable job gains occurred in health care and in professional and technical services. Employment rose in manufacturing, reflecting the return of workers from a strike.
This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household survey measures labor force status, including unemployment, by demographic characteristics. The establishment survey measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry. For more information about the concepts and statistical methodology used in these two surveys, see the Technical Note.
Household Survey Data
Both the unemployment rate, at 3.5 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at 5.8 million, changed little in November. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.2 percent), adult women (3.2 percent), teenagers (12.0 percent), Whites (3.2 percent), Blacks (5.5 percent), Asians (2.6 percent), and Hispanics (4.2 percent) showed little or no change in November. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 1.2 million, was essentially unchanged in November and accounted for 20.8 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)
The labor force participation rate was little changed at 63.2 percent in November. The employment-population ratio was 61.0 percent for the third consecutive month. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 4.3 million, changed little in November. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)
In November, 1.2 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 432,000 from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 325,000 discouraged workers in November, down by 128,000 from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 921,000 persons marginally attached to the labor force in November had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 266,000 in November. Job growth has averaged 180,000 per month thus far in 2019, compared with an average monthly gain of 223,000 in 2018. In November, notable job gains occurred in health care and in professional and technical services. Employment also increased in manufacturing, reflecting the return of workers from a strike. Employment continued to trend up in leisure and hospitality, transportation and warehousing, and financial activities, while mining lost jobs. (See table B-1.)
In November, health care added 45,000 jobs, following little employment change in October (+12,000). The November job gains occurred in ambulatory health care services (+34,000) and in hospitals (+10,000). Health care has added 414,000 jobs over the last 12 months.
Employment in professional and technical services increased by 31,000 in November and by 278,000 over the last 12 months.
Manufacturing employment rose by 54,000 in November, following a decline of 43,000 in the prior month. Within manufacturing, employment in motor vehicles and parts was up by 41,000 in November, reflecting the return of workers who were on strike in October.
In November, employment in leisure and hospitality continued to trend up (+45,000). The industry has added 219,000 jobs over the last 4 months.
Employment in transportation and warehousing continued on an upward trend in November (+16,000). Within the industry, job gains occurred in warehousing and storage (+8,000) and in couriers and messengers (+5,000).
Financial activities employment also continued to trend up in November (+13,000), with a gain of 7,000 in credit intermediation and related activities. Financial activities has added 116,000 jobs over the last 12 months.
Mining lost jobs in November (-7,000), largely in support activities for mining (-6,000). Mining employment is down by 19,000 since a recent peak in May.
In November, employment in retail trade was about unchanged (+2,000). Within the industry, employment rose in general merchandise stores (+22,000) and in motor vehicle and parts dealers (+8,000), while clothing and clothing accessories stores lost jobs (-18,000).
Employment in other major industries&#8211;including construction, wholesale trade, information, and government&#8211;showed little change over the month.
In November, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 7 cents to $28.29. Over the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 3.1 percent. In November, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees rose by 7 cents to $23.83. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 34.4 hours in November. In manufacturing, the average workweek increased by 0.1 hour to 40.5 hours, while overtime decreased by 0.1 hour to 3.1 hours. The average workweek of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees held at 33.5 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for September was revised up by 13,000 from +180,000 to +193,000, and the change for October was revised up by 28,000 from +128,000 to +156,000. With these revisions, employment gains in September and October combined were 41,000 more than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.) After revisions, job gains have averaged 205,000 over the last 3 months.

Jobs Report Presents Terrible News For Democrats As They Push Forward On Partisan Impeachment

Menu