Trump keeps winning, a new intelligence director, talk about Socialism and a Wilder-Fury prediction.

Obama didn’t build that. Trump will be judged by the present state of the economy in 2020.
http://dailytorch.com/2020/02/obama-didnt-build-that-trump-will-be-judged-by-the-present-state-of-the-economy-in-2020/

Incumbents are always judged by the present state of the economy and when voters go to the polls this year they will be judging President Donald Trump, not former President Barack Obama. It’s how the American people hold politicians accountable. Just ask Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush if they think the economy had any bearing on their political fortunes. Both had recessions occur during their first terms in office, which turned out to be their last. No amount of blaming their predecessors would have made a difference. If the economy were to have entered a recession during President Trump’s watch — recall the headlines from last summer when short term interest rates briefly inverted with long term interest rates — you can bet that President Trump would have been blamed for it. It stands to reason then that with the economy doing so well, and Americans becoming wealthier, that Trump will undoubtedly receive the lion’s share of the credit when the American people go to vote in November. Voters will likely point to the President’s policies on tax cuts, deregulation and America first trade with new fair and reciprocal trade deals with Mexico, Canada, China, South Korea and Japan as playing a key role. Is that really surprising to anyone who follows politics?

Trump and Barr were outraged by DOJ recommending Roger Stone get 9 years in prison, and so should you:
http://dailytorch.com/2020/02/trump-and-barr-were-outraged-by-doj-recommending-roger-stone-get-9-years-in-prison-and-so-should-you/

The ink has barely dried on the acquittal of President Donald Trump in Congressional Democrats’ failed impeachment attempt to remove him from office and now it is right on to the next thing, this time the faux outrage that the Justice Department reduced its sentencing recommendation for Trump friend Roger Stone from 9 years to leaving it up to the judge to decide. The filing noted that the initial recommendation of 9 years in prison was akin to sentences received by violent offenders. And just like that, the left and the Washington, D.C. establishment were in another tizzy, this time with more than 2,000 former Justice Department officials signing a petition calling for Barr to resign. The petition claims that “It is unheard of for the Department’s top leaders to overrule line prosecutors” to give what the petitioners say is “preferential” treatment for Stone. And yet, under 28 U.S. Code § 519 it is the Attorney General’s job to supervise all prosecutions and prosecutors: “the Attorney General shall supervise all litigation to which the United States, an agency, or officer thereof is a party, and shall direct all United States attorneys, assistant United States attorneys, and special attorneys appointed under section 543 of this title in the discharge of their respective duties.” Meaning, if the Attorney General determines that a prosecution is malicious or in this case, that a sentence recommendation was excessive, he has a responsibility under law to intervene in the case. And under Article II’s vesting of executive power in the President and charging him with faithfully executing the laws in addition to his pardon powers, so does President Trump. What do you think?

From the border fence in Hidalgo, Texas.

Bernie’s Green New Deal to go 100 percent renewable in 10 years would destroy America:
http://dailytorch.com/2020/02/bernies-green-new-deal-to-go-100-percent-renewable-in-10-years-would-destroy-america/

If socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) is elected, his utopian promise to implement a 10-year Soviet-style Gosplan to end oil and gas consumption —the Green New Deal—will radically transform the U.S. economy, and possibly leave America in the dark and cold. The plan, according to Sanders’ website, calls for “[r]eaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization of the economy by 2050 at latest – consistent with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change goals – by expanding the existing federal Power Marketing Administrations to build new solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources.” All sources of non-renewable energy accounting for 62 percent of the electricity grid would need to be replaced. No more coal, natural gas or petroleum based electricity generation. Those aren’t renewable. In addition, 19 percent of the grid via nuclear power would come to an end, too, even though it doesn’t emit carbon. New nuclear plant construction would cease under the Sanders plan. Every building including 129 million households would all have to be upgraded to no longer emit any carbon. Home heating and hot water heaters via natural gas and oil would all have to be replaced. So would all of your stoves if they run on fire. Are you ready for winter yet? Every car and truck—more than 250 million—that runs on gasoline and diesel would have to be replaced. Convenient air travel would have to be banned. The oil, coal and gas industries will be eliminated. Are the American people about to vote to destroy the way of life?

Bernie takes New Hampshire from Mayor Pete as two-way race emerges, Biden, Warren on the ropes:
http://dailytorch.com/2020/02/bernie-takes-new-hampshire-from-mayor-pete-as-two-way-race-emerges-biden-warren-on-the-ropes/

A two-way race has emerged in the Democratic presidential nomination as Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), a self-professed democratic socialist, narrowly defeated former Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-Ind.) in the all-important New Hampshire primary, 25.7 percent to 24.4 percent. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and former Vice President Joe Biden (D-Del.) were distant fourth and fifth place showings, putting their campaigns on life support without wins in the first two contests. This could be their political swan songs. Now, late-deciding voters in subsequent contests will likely choose between Sanders and Buttigieg — which is what usually happens. In more than three-quarters of the years where no incumbent Democrat was running for president — 1976, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2016 — the nominee had won either Iowa or New Hampshire. It’s winner’s bias. Iowa and New Hampshire narrow the field. If you start off losing, and losing badly, then it’s harder to make a case that your campaign is viable. Do you donate money? Time? Energy? Or do you bet on the candidates who have a shot? History suggests the latter. What do you think?