Posted on

Comparison Between Presidents Trump and Obama – Massive Success vs. Abysmal Failure Continues

President Trump has now been in office for more than two years and the results of his actions as President are exceptional, especially when compared to his predecessor President Barack Obama.

US Stock Markets

* President Trump is the only President in US history to oversee two stock market rallies of nine days or more where the markets set new highs each and every day.

* On February 28th, 2018, President Trump matched President Reagan’s 1987 record for most continuous closing high trading days when the DOW reached a new high for its 12th day in a row!

* Then in early August of 2018 President Trump reigned over a 9 day stock market rally with each day reaching record highs.

* The DOW daily closing stock market average has risen more than 40% since the election on November 8th, 2016. (On November 9th, 2016, the DOW closed at 18,332 – yesterday the DOW closed at nearly 26,000).

Since the 2016 Presidential election, the DOW reached record highs an amazing 103 times.  There were more stock market highs (71) in 2017, Trump’s first year as President, than any year in history.

The fastest 500 point increase in major milestones in the DOW (i.e. between 26,000 and 26,500), the fastest 1000 point increase, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000 and 7000 point increases in the DOW in major milestones have all occurred since President Trump became President.  (No doubt the markets would be much higher if the Fed hadn’t increased rates multiple times whenever a new market milestone was reached.)

So how does this compare with President Obama’s first few years in office? 

* The DOW daily closing stock market average tanked (went down) (-31% ) between Obama’s election win on November 4th, 2008 and March 5th, 2009. (On November 4th the DOW closed at 9,625 – on March 5th the DOW closed at 6,594. Overall it decreased more than 3,000 points during this time).  The markets had no way to go but up after this time and they increased but at a sluggish rate.

Obama never saw a new stock market high his entire first term (his first 4 years in office).  This is in spite of Obama receiving beneficial treatment from the Fed who kept rates at near 0% for most of Obama’s eight years in office.

Jobs

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics President Trump added 5,652,000 jobs in his two years plus through May (January 2017 through May 2019.) President Obama on the other hand lost (3,137,000) jobs in his same time period.

President Obama was so bad at creating jobs that by the end of his second term he said that jobs were not coming back.

The net difference in the same respective time periods shows that President Trump added 8.8 million more jobs than Obama.

Unemployment

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics President Trump decreased unemployment since his inauguration to the lowest levels in 50 years! The unemployment rate in January 2017 was 4.7% and by May 2019 it was down to 3.6% . It has never been higher than the starting rate of 4.7%.

President Obama on the other hand again moved in the opposite and wrong direction in the same respective time period. In his first two years plus as President of the US, the unemployment rate increased from 7.8% in January 2009 to 10.0% by October of 2009.  By May into his third year the rate was still at 9%.

Unemployment under Obama at the same respective time periods was horrible with nearly three times the rate of unemployment as under President Trump during the same time periods.

Food Stamps

President Trump has decreased the number of individuals on food stamps and the amount of dollars spent on food stamps since he became President.  In 2016, Obama’s last year in office, the US had 44.2 million participants on Food Stamps.  The total costs in 2016 were $70.9 billion.  In 2018, the number of participants had decreased to 39.7 million and the total costs also decreased to $64.9 billion.  President Trump has decreased the number of participants by 4.6 million and costs by $6 billion.

President Obama on the other hand was king of food stamps.  In Obama’s first two years the number of individuals increased by 12 million (from 28 to 40 million) and costs increased by more than $30 billion (from $37.6 billion to $68.3 billion).

President Obama’s policies increased the poor in America while President Trump’s policies are creating good paying jobs and economic prosperity.

In Summary

Overall based on the above data it is clear that President Trump is doing a solid, if not excellent job.

The mainstream liberal media won’t report this, but when looking at the economy, President Trump the billionaire businessman crushes the former community organizer Barack Obama in every meaningful measurement. President Trump is enjoying massive success while the severely unqualified and nearly incompetent President Obama forced America through some of its worst years in history.

The post Comparison Between Presidents Trump and Obama – Massive Success vs. Abysmal Failure Continues appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Posted on

Illegal Immigrants Can Hurt US Economy, Professor Argues, Prompting Calls For His Firing

Speaking truth can now get you fired. Via Fox News: A college professor in Georgia is drawing criticism for his online comments about illegal immigrants, including his contention that people in the U.S. illegally can be a drain on the nation’s economy. “If you are going to reward illegal immigrants, there will be more illegal […]

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

Posted on

It’s Not Just Central Americans: Hundreds of Migrants from Africa Arriving in Texas

The general impression that people have of those illegally crossing our southern border is that they’re from Spanish-speaking Central American countries. It used to be Mexican immigrants, now it’s migrants from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and other countries south of Mexico. In San Antonio, they’re perfectly used to this. There’s no shortage of representatives of…

The post It’s Not Just Central Americans: Hundreds of Migrants from Africa Arriving in Texas appeared first on Conservative Tribune.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Posted on

Autoworker Tells CNN the Blunt Truth About Trump That They Still Don’t Understand

The general media line in the Trump-Mexico trade kerfuffle was that autoworkers were going to among be the Americans most hurt if the president imposed a 5 percent tariff on our southern neighbors if they didn’t start enforcing immigration laws and stop the flow of illegal immigrants from their Central American neighbors.

Mexico apparently got the message: Late Friday, the president announced that the proposed tariffs wouldn’t be enacted because of an agreement with the Obrador government which “has agreed to take strong measures” to stem illegal migration, according to The Associated Press.

Before that, however, CNN found out that not all auto workers necessarily believed the tariffs would have been apocalyptic. In fact, one Chrysler mechanic the network talked to said he was pleased there was “somebody would actually fight for us” in the White House.

So first, a quick recap of what’s going on: In late May, Trump announced that he was going to slap a 5 percent tariff on Mexican goods if they didn’t do more to stop the flow of illegal immigrants.

The tariffs would be effective starting June 10 and would increase by 5 percent for every month there wasn’t a deal, reaching a maximum of 25 percent.

TRENDING: Alec Baldwin & His Hateful Trump Impersonation Are Out at ‘SNL’

Automakers were probably going to get hit the hardest if the tariffs went into effect; cars and car parts are our two biggest imports from Mexico. The general belief, at least among those who were reporting on the showdown, was that this was going to be ruinous to the industry — and that those in the industry would be against it.

However, when CNN interviewed Chrysler mechanic Chris Vitale, what it found instead was a man who was for the proposed tariffs — if they were being used as a negotiating tool with the Obrador government.

In a piece that aired Wednesday, CNN’s Erica Hill said that “after 25 years in the volatile industry, Vitale believes they can weather a storm. And he’s confident this president has his back.”

“The idea that somebody would actually fight for us after being told for years and years, ‘Oh, you don’t matter. You’re going the way of the buggy whip,’” he said.

Do you agree with Trump’s negotiating strategy with Mexico?

100% (2 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

“He’s won legions of fans for — just for doing that.”

Video below:

Vitale was contrasted with Sean Crawford, a GM auto worker who thought that the tariffs would doom the industry.

“If you raise the price of these products, less people are going to buy them. It’s just common-sense economics. And if less people buy these products that I’m building every day, then they’re going to have to lay people off,” he said.

RELATED: Mexican Senator Threatens Takeover of US States

Vitale, a two-time Obama voter, said he felt Trump “wouldn’t have to resort to that if we had a Senate and a Congress that would enforce the borders.”

“People have endured much worse than expensive avocados or a few more dollars here and there, you know, to protect the country,” Vitale said. “And I think that this is valid, what he’s doing.”

Keep in mind that, as the events of Friday demonstrated, these weren’t tariffs aimed at protectionism. They were a negotiating tool, something that has been “indefinitely suspended” because the Obrador government has apparently agreed to “stem the tide of Migration through Mexico, and to our Southern Border. This is being done to greatly reduce, or eliminate, Illegal Immigration coming from Mexico and into the United States.”

People don’t have to deal with “expensive avocados” and that’s a good thing. Tariffs as a way to boost domestic industry are inherently ruinous. However, what the Trump administration has shown is that they can be an effective negotiating tool, particularly when you’re at the helm of the world’s largest economy.

Now, whether or not this tack works against China or other nations is another issue entirely. At least when it comes to Mexico, however, the president seems to have won — and the promised apocalypse has been anything but. Yet, the fact that there are people who support these kinds of policies continually stuns the folks at CNN.

Is Vitale representative of an entire industry? No, of course not. But one imagines that the media was surprised to find people like Vitale. I imagine they’d be surprised, too, to learn that there are a lot more like him.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Posted on

When the Left Defended the Electoral College

New York today is part of the movement to choose presidents by popular vote, but 40 years ago a nationally known liberal from the state took to the Senate floor to argue the advantages of the current system.

The Electoral College, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan asserted in his July 1979 speech, forces consensus and allows a president to “govern with the legitimacy that has come of attaining to such diverse majorities.”

The New York Democrat, who died in 2003, had lots of liberal company at the time.

Other Senate Democrats who opposed a constitutional amendment to scrap the Electoral College and elect presidents and vice presidents by direct popular vote included Joe Biden of Delaware, a future vice president, and Bill Bradley of New Jersey, a future presidential candidate.

These Democrats were joined by Edmund Muskie of Maine, the party’s vice presidential nominee 11 years earlier; Paul Sarbanes of Maryland; Thomas Eagleton of Missouri (briefly a vice presidential candidate in 1972); and John Durkin of New Hampshire.

Of those states, Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey now are part of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement in which states that sign on pledge the votes of their electors to whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote.

Four decades ago, though, advocates of a popular vote for president didn’t try to end-run the process of amending the Constitution.

Biden, first elected to the Senate in 1972, served there from January 1973 until he successfully ran for vice president as Barack Obama’s running mate in 2008.

Bipartisan Divide

In 1979, Congressional Quarterly reported that senators “crossed party and ideological lines” in the debate over Senate Joint Resolution 28.

The measure was sponsored by Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., an old pro with constitutional amendments who had drafted the 25th Amendment on presidential succession in a crisis as chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution.

With bipartisan support and opposition, Bayh’s resolution passed by a vote of 51-48, far short of the two-thirds majority needed for a constitutional amendment. A majority of Republicans opposed the measure.

The Senate breakdown at the time was 61 Democrats, 38 Republicans, and an Independent who caucused with the Democrats.

At the time, Congressional Quarterly reported, “three of the Senate’s most liberal Republicans”—John Heinz of Pennsylvania, Charles Percy of Illinois, and Lowell Weicker Jr. of Connecticut—”voted against direct election of the president.”

Weicker eventually left the Republican Party and won the Connecticut governorship as an Independent. Both Illinois and Connecticut are among states that joined the popular vote compact.

Since the 1979 debate, Republican presidential candidates twice have won the Electoral College but lost the national popular vote, pushing the debate largely along party and ideological lines.

Under the Bayh amendment, the presidential candidate with the most votes nationally would win. If no candidate got 40%, though, the top two candidates would face each other in a runoff election.

Incidentally, that setup would have imperiled Abraham Lincoln, a Republican who won the 1860 presidential race with 39.8% of the vote against a splintered Democratic Party.  

Minority Votes

Strong advocates of protecting the Electoral College four decades ago included the National Urban League, an African-American civil rights group, and the American Jewish Congress, a Jewish civil rights group.

“Take away the Electoral College and the importance of being black melts away,” National Urban League President Vernon Jordan testified during a Senate hearing at the time.

“Blacks, instead of being crucial to victory in major states, simply become 10%  of the electorate, with reduced impact,” Jordan said.

Jordan later became an ally of President Bill Clinton, and was among the cast of characters in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

The National Urban League has changed its mind, stating in a report last month that it backs moving “the U.S. toward the popular election of presidents through states’ participation in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, with the goal of eliminating the Electoral College.”

In an official pronouncement on the 1979 proposal, the American Jewish Congress cited similar reasons for opposing the Bayh amendment, The New York Times reported.

The organization’s statement said blacks and Jews “make up a significant proportion of the electorate in the key states with large electoral votes, and they tend, at least in presidential elections, to vote in a bloc.” It continued:

Hence, the political parties are sensitive to the interests of Jews and blacks both in their selection of candidates and in the adoption of party platforms. In a system of direct election, however, where a vote in one state is equal to a vote in another, that influence will be lost.

In a 2004 report, the Congressional Research Service explained a prevailing view about minority groups during the 1979 debate that helped explain why the presidents of the National Urban League and American Jewish Congress supported the Electoral College:

Another theory advanced during debate on Electoral College reform centers on the asserted advantage enjoyed by ethnic minority voters. According to this argument, minority voters, e.g., blacks, Hispanics, and Jews, tend to be concentrated in populous states with large Electoral College delegations.

By virtue of this concentration, they are presumably able to exert greater influence over the outcomes in such states because they tend to vote overwhelmingly for candidates whose policies they perceive to be favorable to their interests, and thus helping to gain these states and their electoral votes for the favored candidates.

Bayh, who died in March after living to see his son Evan Bayh serve as governor and senator from Indiana, became an advocate of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. For years, the elder Bayh would blame the 1979 defeat on minority advocates.

In 2012, Bayh told BuzzFeed, “I had an interesting experience, one of the few times I’ve been angry enough to throw people out of my office.”

He said African American and Jewish leaders told him “to get off this Electoral College reform kick. … You dump us into the whole mix, and we’ll get lost.”

Bayh, who also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, recalled replying: “You’re talking to somebody who busted his tail for ‘one person, one vote.’”

‘Most Radical Transformation’

A diverse coalition indeed backed a national popular vote in 1979, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Other prominent backers included Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Jake Garn, R-Utah.

In reporting on their defeat, Congressional Quarterly summarized: “A few northern liberals aligned July 10 with a majority of Republicans and southern Democrats to thwart passage of the direct election amendment.”

Because the Senate passed the measure by only a bare majority, the House didn’t bother taking it up even though in 1970 it had mustered a supermajority in favor.

The 1970 measure died from a Senate filibuster primarily led by Democrat-turned-Republican Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Interestingly, many segregationists in the South cited voting bloc protections similar to those cited by civil rights advocates in the North in arguing for the Electoral College.

Moynihan led the Democrats’ opposition to the Bayh proposal, calling it the “most radical transformation in our constitutional system that has ever been considered.”

“The Electoral College requires the assembly of consent—again, concurrent majority—in one part of the country and another part of the country, and yet another part, all defined in terms of several states,” Moynihan said. “It has as its extraordinary ability the formation of consensus as between widely differing regions, political purposes and styles, and political agendas.”

The New York Democrat continued:

The fundamental thrust of this measure, however unintended— nonetheless, it seems to be ineluctably clear—would be to abolish that principle of concurrent majority.

If there is once introduced into the Constitution the idea that a president may routinely be elected by 40% of the vote, you have the most ironic of all outcomes, that in the name of majoritarianism we have abolished even that single majority which the Founders so feared.

The post When the Left Defended the Electoral College appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

Posted on

Christian Florist Will Appeal to the Supreme Court in Same-Sex Wedding Dispute

A florist who refused to create floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after a Washington state court ruled Thursday that she violated the state’s civil rights law.

The case presents the high court with an opportunity to decide whether conservative religious believers can use the First Amendment as a defense against laws requiring accommodation of LGBT people, a question the justices ducked in the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling.

dailycallerlogo

“I could lose my business and life savings simply because I declined to celebrate and participate in a sacred event that violates my faith,” the florist, Barronelle Stutzman, said following Thursday’s decision. “No artist or creative professional should be forced by the government to create custom work that conflicts with their deeply held beliefs. That’s why I will appeal my case to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

State prosecutors filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Stutzman, who owns and operates Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, in April 2013 after she refused to sell flowers to a longtime gay patron called Robert Ingersoll for use in his wedding. Stutzman is a Christian who operates her business consistent with her religious views about same-sex marriage.

“Washington state law protects same-sex couples from discrimination based on their sexual orientation,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said. “I will continue to uphold these laws and fight to protect Washingtonians from discrimination.”

The Stutzman case reached the Supreme Court once before. The justices held her case in abeyance while the court considered the Masterpiece Cakeshop dispute, a case with similar facts arising from Colorado where a Christian baker refused to produce a custom wedding cake for a gay couple. The justices found for the baker because a Colorado civil rights commission displayed animus toward his religious beliefs when processing the dispute.

After releasing the Masterpiece decision, the justices lifted a lower court decision against Stutzman and ordered the court to reconsider her case in light of Masterpiece. On remand, the Washington State Supreme Court said it found no evidence of discrimination against Stutzman’s beliefs.

“We have painstakingly review [sic] the record for any sign of intolerance on behalf of this court of the Benton County Superior Court, the two adjudicatory bodies to consider this case,” Thursday’s decision reads. “After this review, we are confident that the two courts gave full and fair consideration to this dispute and avoided animus toward religion. We therefore find no reason to change our original decision in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop.”

Alliance Defending Freedom, a faith-based cause lawyering group that represents Stutzman, counters that the state enforces its civil rights laws unevenly.

While state prosecutors sued Stutzman personally—an aggressive step that makes her personally liable for fines and damages—they did not take action against a coffeehouse owner who profanely expelled a group of Christians from his business. ADF argues this enforcement pattern is the kind of discrimination the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling condemns.

As with the Masterpiece case, which ADF also litigated, Stutzman’s lawyers argue she cannot be compelled to create expression with which she disagrees. They also say requiring her to attend a same-sex wedding violates her constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion.

A decision as to whether the justices will hear the case will come during the court’s next term, which begins in October. Arguments would most likely follow in 2020, depending on how quickly the justices choose to process the petition.

The high court is also considering a similar petition from Oregon, where a state anti-discrimination panel fined a Christian bakery $135,000 for declining to produce a cake for a same-sex wedding. That court has been sitting on that petition since February, indicating it has piqued the justices’ interest.

The Klein petition also asks the court to revisit the 1990 Employment Division v. Smith decision, a landmark ruling that held laws that interfere with religious exercise are constitutional provided they apply to everyone and are neutrally enforced.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post Christian Florist Will Appeal to the Supreme Court in Same-Sex Wedding Dispute appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

Posted on

FBI Releases New Documents On Hillary Clinton, With Some Interesting Reveals

FBI just released a trove of Hillary Clinton documents. New docs from FBI vault: -FBI concludes Hillary Clinton was in "violation of basic server security" w/ home-brew server.-Discusses possibility that *all* of her emails were stolen.-Review found HRC stripped classification of highest possible level.https://t.co/WjcpcIMyrW pic.twitter.com/t2vsWWBiuF — Jordan Schachtel (@JordanSchachtel) June 7, 2019 This part is […]

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us