RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2020/10/25/trumpism-then-now-and-in-the-future/

Like it or not, Trump hit on a great truth that no country can write off its vast industrial interior, destroy its borders, or prefer managed decline over renewal, and meanwhile call itself moral.

hat was, is, and will be the Trump agenda? 

Against all odds, what elected Trump in 2016 was a recalibration of American foreign and domestic policy—and the art of politicking itself.

Doctrine and Policy

In foreign affairs, the United States would no longer adhere to every aspect of the 75-year-old postwar order it created—given the world now bore little resemblance to the world of 1945. 

Prior bipartisan foreign policy had often ossified to the point of enhancing the power of our enemies, weakening our complacent friends, and terribly damaging our own power. When Trump entered office, ISIS was proving that it was hardly a “JV” organization. North Korea was recklessly testing missiles and bragging of its nuclear-tipped rockets pointed at our West Coast. 

Israel and the moderate Arab regimes were ostracized as part of the insane Obama empowerment of theocratic Iran and its quest for a radical crescent encompassing Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Russian reset was an utter failure. Unhinged, we were hectoring Vladimir Putin on human rights while agreeing to dismantle missile defense in Europe, if he would just please behave for a bit, and give Obama space during his 2012 reelection bid. The Asian pivot was laughable. Our friendly and hostile trading partners praised the Obama Administration in direct proportion to their manipulation of it.

In the 1950s, it was understandable that the United States would spend blood and treasure abroad to resurrect the destroyed economies after World War II and contain Soviet Communism. Its policy of allowing recovering allies to run up huge trade deficits to reenter the world community was seen both as desirable and affordable, as was putting down Communist insurrections the world over to contain the Soviet Union. 

Western Europe, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea became powerhouses, often with wide open, one-sided access to U.S. markets. China would never have achieved its 40-year stunning ascendence had America applied to Chinese trade the same mercantilism that China applied to the United States. 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/americas-choice-2020-election-john-perazzo/

The purpose of this resource is to provide our readers with vital information about where President Trump, Joe Biden, and their respective parties stand on a host of vital issues. There are also entries on additional matters of great importance to American voters. Simply click on whichever links interest you. And share this resource with every voter you know.

Positions & Actions on Major Issues:

Abortion

Criminal Justice

Democrat Support for CAIR

Democrat Support for Slavery Reparations

Democrats’ Close Ties to Al Sharpton

Democrat Party & Black Lives Matter 
Economy

Education

Electoral College

Environment & Energy

Health Care

Guns & the Second Amendment

Immigration, Asylum, & Refugee Policy

Israel

Iran Nuclear Deal

National Defense

“Packing the Senate” by Creating Additional States

Radical Democratic Plan to Eliminate the Suburbs

Supreme Court

Terrorism / Defeating ISIS

Trump’s Historic Peace Agreements

Trump’s Magnificent Leadership Through the Coronavirus Crisis

Trump & China

Trump & Russia

Veterans’ Affairs

Voting Rights

Additional Matters of Importance

The Myth of the Democratic Party As Champion of “The Little Guy”

Corruption by Joe Biden & His Son

Tara Reade’s Sex Assault Allegations Against Joe Biden

“Russia Collusion”: The Most Evil Political Hoax in American History

Donald Trump: A President Who Loves America

Biden & the Democrats: Viewing America As a Racist Country That Must Be Transformed

Examining Charlottesville: Is Trump a Racist?

“Animals” at the Border: Is Trump Anti-Hispanic?

“Criminals” & “Rapists”: Does Trump Hate Mexican Immigrants?

The “Muslim Ban”: Is Trump an “Islamophobe”?

Ignoring Trump’s Effusive Praise for Nonwhites

The Fraudulent Impeachment of President Trump

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-boom-is-real-11603659361?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

There’s often more to the macroeconomy than what meets the eye. My friend Alan Blinder published an op-ed recently declaring that the employment surge during Donald Trump’s presidency is a “convenient myth.” He noted that unemployment had declined steadily since 2010 and that there was no acceleration in job growth after the 2017 tax reform. But there’s little reason to think the expansion held for a record-long 10 years merely on its own steam; Mr. Trump’s policies gave it new life.

After any recession, employment grows quickly because there is a surplus of job seekers. Late in a recovery, when the unemployment rate has already fallen sharply, growth becomes much harder to come by. Common sense suggests that further progress is more difficult at a 4% unemployment rate than at 8%

It’s easy to look at steadily declining unemployment and conclude that no later variables had much effect. But a better question is how much unemployment declined relative to what experts predicted. Take the Federal Reserve, the body on which Mr. Blinder and I served together.

In December 2016, the Fed predicted that 2017 would close at a 4.5% unemployment rate. In fact, it ended at 4.1%. The Fed in 2016 also projected that 2018 would end with 4.5% unemployment, believing further improvement was virtually impossible. But unemployment reached 3.9% in 2018. Ditto for 2019: The Fed predicted 4.5%, but unemployment fell to 3.5% that year, a multidecade low. Under Mr. Trump, the unemployment rate fell to a level the Fed hadn’t even considered. The Fed’s 2016 predictions for GDP were 0.7 percentage points too low for 2017, 0.5 points too low for 2018 and 0.4 points too low for 2019.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/keep-an-eye-on-the-michigan-senate-race-11603659430?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Michigan hasn’t elected a Republican U.S. senator since 1994, and Republicans this year are working to save more than half a dozen seats in the upper chamber. But the Senate race in Michigan presents an unexpected pickup opportunity. Recent polls show Republican John James, a 39-year-old African-American Iraq war veteran, within striking distance of first-term Sen. Gary Peters and outperforming President Trump, who narrowly carried the state in 2016. The Real Clear Politics average has Mr. Peters leading 48.6% to 43.4%.

Mr. Peters, 61, was the only nonincumbent Democrat elected to the Senate in 2014. But his GOP opponent answered questions clumsily and repeatedly stumbled on the trail. Mr. James looks more formidable.

A Detroit native, he served eight years in the military before joining his family’s company, James Group International. He is now CEO of Renaissance Global Logistics, a subsidiary. Although he lost a 2018 challenge to Sen. Debbie Stabenow by 6.5 points, he was fighting a strong undertow: Democrats swept Michigan’s statewide offices, flipped two congressional seats and picked up five seats each in the state House and Senate.

Running on the same ticket as Mr. Trump may be both a blessing and curse. While the president may motivate Republican-leaning voters who didn’t turn out in 2018, he may do the same for Democrats. To flip the Senate seat, Mr. James will need to persuade moderates who dislike Mr. Trump but are leery of progressive policies.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2020/10/fauci-prepping-biden-victory-daniel-greenfield/

Don’t wear masks. Make everyone masks. Sure, why not? Just say it in a soothing voice with a pleasant bedside manner.

In a CNN interview on Friday, Fauci was asked if he thought Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s plan to fight for mandates on mask-wearing across the country would be helpful.  

Fauci told CNN’s Erin Burnett that it would be a “great idea” to have everybody wearing masks uniformly. He also responded to criticism that mandates on masks would be difficult to enforce. 

Everyone? In the entire country? Much of which, at a county level, has only experienced a limited infection impact?

As Fauci’s own mask-wearing, or lack thereof at sporting events, reminds us, he doesn’t believe any of this stuff.

But it’s the stupid thing that Biden has come up with on the advice of an advisor and donor base limited to the New York, San Francisco, and other big blue city crowd. And Fauci, readapting to the media’s expectations of a Biden victory, is all in on it.

“One of the issues though, I get the argument that ‘Well, if you mandate a mask, you’re going to have to enforce it and that’s going to create more of a problem,’” Fauci said. “Well, if people are not wearing masks, then maybe we should be mandating it.” 

This isn’t an actual thought.

But then again, Fauci doesn’t do actual thoughts. He does pleasantries. He never says anything substantial. Instead he says meaningless things, agrees with anyone he’s talking to, and does little expect give everyone the impression that he’s an empathetic professional, without actually substantiating that in any way. That’s what being a political doctor means.

All you can say about Fauci is that, unlike Birx, he’s better at faking warmth and relevance, but there’s still nothing there.

Fauci panders to anyone who’s in charge, and pivots from radically different views, because his goal is access to power, not to actually accomplish anything, but to be at the top of the heap.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/09/i-didnt-vote-for-trump-in-2016-but-id-crawl-over-broken-glass-to-vote-for-him-now/

I don’t care about the tone of his tweets nor if his opponents think he’s rude. I’ve seen that he is a patriot who genuinely loves the United States of America and its people.

Even though I had voted for every Republican presidential candidate since 1980, I didn’t vote for Donald Trump in 2016.

Many Republican nominees had been huge disappointments to me, and I wasn’t going to vote for yet another GOP candidate I thought would betray my trust. I couldn’t imagine Trump as a genuine conservative who would champion limited government, respect individual freedom and liberty, and protect the unborn — but was I ever wrong. Although I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016, I would crawl over broken glass to vote for him in 2020.

In 2016, I was convinced Trump was just another New York liberal. On election night, however, I smiled. I was happy that at least Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be president, and I suspected that the next four years with Trump would at least be entertaining.

The primary reason I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 was that I didn’t believe him. I didn’t trust that he would be pro-life, a non-negotiable issue for me. His bluster and bravado didn’t appeal to me. I took him literally but not seriously, in contrast to his supporters who took him seriously but not literally (credit to Peter Thiel for identifying this significant distinction).

By the time Trump took office, I was willing to give him a chance. He was the president, after all, and deserved the opportunity to prove himself. During the first year of his presidency, I was impressed by his commitment to keeping his campaign promises, unlike most politicians. By the end of 2017, I classified myself as a Trump supporter because of what he had already done as president.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/25/2016s_reluctant_trumpers_are_2020s_avid_trumpers.html
““It wasn’t until after he was president that I fully understood the power of Donald Trump’s message.” 

Four years ago, the media enjoyed covering the phenomenon of so-called Never Trumpers; Republicans who wouldn’t vote for Donald Trump.

There was speculation that these voters, many well connected to the Washington establishment, would put the icing on the electoral cake for Hillary Clinton. Of course, this notion proved fanciful. The Never Trumpers are back in 2020. They’re no greater in number, but the media has gobbled it up again.

But there’s another group of Republicans: those who enthusiastically supported GOP candidates other than Donald Trump before he was nominated. They remained cautious about Trump even after the Republican National Convention. Ultimately, though, they pulled the lever for Trump over Hillary. Call them “Reluctant Trumpers.”

They’re still around, too. But’s there’s a difference: they are now enthusiastic Trumpers. I know. I’m one of them.

Four years ago, I was national co-chair of Carly Fiorina’s fledgling campaign. She and I had served on the board of the American Conservative Union together, and I wanted a conservative candidate. Having supported conservatives since my days on Ronald Reagan’s campaign staff, I wasn’t yet convinced of the bona fides of former Democrat Donald Trump.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ocasio-cortez-declines-to-promise-support-for-pelosi-as-speaker-will-back-most-progressive-candidate/

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday hedged on whether she would support Nancy Pelosi as House speaker again, saying she will support the “most progressive” candidate.

“If Speaker Pelosi runs again, as she just indicated she will if the Democrats keep the House, will you support her?” CNN’s Jake Tapper asked the freshman congresswoman during an interview on CNN.

“Again, I want to make sure that we win the House. I do believe that we will, but it’s critically important that we are supporting Democrats in tight swing races, making sure that not only all of them come back but that we grow our majority. I believe that we have to see those races as they come, see what candidates are there,” Ocasio-Cortez responded.

“I am committed to making sure that we have the most progressive candidate there. But, if Speaker Pelosi is that most progressive candidate, then I will be supporting her,” she concluded.

The New York progressive’s remarks came just moments after Pelosi confirmed on CNN that she intends to run for speaker of the House should Democrats retain their majority in the chamber.

Last year, Pelosi clashed with Ocasio-Cortez and three other freshmen progressive congresswomen after the four voted against an emergency border-aid bill brought to the floor by leadership, saying they wanted to see more protections for migrants in the measure.