RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272583/cracks-democrats-wall-opposition-matthew-vadum

Some Democrat lawmakers are losing their will to fight on in the ongoing stalemate with President Trump over border wall funding that has partially shuttered the federal government since before Christmas.

The GOP-controlled House of Representatives voted 217 to 185 on Dec. 20 for a spending bill with $5.7 billion for the wall. The measure floundered in the Senate and the partial shutdown began Dec. 22. The Senate remains in Republican hands but the House is now controlled by Democrats.

The president’s negotiations with Democrats over the $5 billion needed to begin construction of the border wall have gone nowhere largely because of Democrat intransigence –leadership in the House refuses even to meet with the president at the White House—and the federal government continues to be partially shut down for lack of appropriated funds. Although pressure on Trump has been growing, the president has vowed to keep the shutdown going as long as it takes to secure funding for the wall.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who barely won the House speakership after an internal party revolt, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), vow to prevent Trump from securing any funding for a wall along the nation’s multi-state border with Mexico.

Pelosi’s lieutenant, House Majority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), said Democrats are solid in their opposition to negotiating with the president on the wall. “We are totally united — totally,” Hoyer reportedly said.

But that claim of unity is nonsense, according to Matthew Boyle of Breitbart News.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/01/16/take-this

In the annals of American political showboating, it’s tough to top the annual circus called the State of the Union message. Mandated by the Constitution—and at first delivered to Congress in written form—it has metastasized since the Wilson Administration into a full-blown political rally, celebrating not the party in power, but the president of the United States personally. Once a year, at the invitation of the Speaker of the House, he commands the attention not only of the Congress, but also members of the Supreme Court. It’s the nearest thing we have to a monarchical moment: all pomp and damn little circumstance, offering a president the chance to reel off, at stupefying length, a laundry list of policy prescriptions that have almost no chance ever of being realized. In short, the hot air that keeps the Capitol dome inflated doesn’t get much hotter than this.

This year, however, may be different. In their ongoing tug-of-war over the partial government shutdown, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has decided to stick her thumb in the eye of President Donald Trump and, citing security concerns, has asked him to delay his scheduled January 29 State of the Union address until the government re-opens or, alternatively, send it up the Hill in writing, as every president from George Washington to William Howard Taft did.

What a good idea.

The key to understanding what the SOTU was meant to address in the first place can be found in its Article II constitutional wording, which states that the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” Accordingly, early presidents concentrated on the nuts-and-bolts of government, including budget requests, the general economy, and other mundane matters.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/01/16/trumps-re-election

What are Donald Trump’s chances for re-election in 2020?

If history is any guide, pretty good.

In early 1994, Bill Clinton’s approval rating after two years in office hovered around a dismal 40 percent. The first midterm elections of the Clinton presidency were an utter disaster.

A new generation of younger, more conservative Republicans led by firebrand Newt Gingrich and his “Contract with America” gave Republicans a majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Republicans also picked up eight Senate seats in 1994 to take majority control of both houses of Congress.

It was no wonder that Republicans thought the 1996 presidential election would be a Republican shoo-in. But Republicans nominated 73-year-old Senate leader Bob Dole, a sober but otherwise uninspired Washington fixture.

By September of 1996, “comeback kid” Clinton had a Gallup approval rating of 60 percent. Dole was crushed in an Electoral College landslide.

Barack Obama was given a similarly dismal prognosis after the 2010 midterms, when Democrats lost 63 House seats and six Senate seats. Republicans regained majority control of the House, though Democrats clung to a narrow majority in the Senate. At the time, Obama had an approval rating in the mid-40s.

Republicans once again figured Obama would be a one-term president. Yet they nominated a Dole-like candidate in the 2012 election. Republican nominee Mitt Romney had little appeal to Republicans’ conservative base and was easily caricatured by the left as an out-of-touch elite.

http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/16/tulsi-gabbards-presidential-candidacy-exposes-huge-democratic-party-rifts/

Tulsi Gabbard is an odd Democrat candidate to run for president, and that is perhaps the understatement of the century, even for someone writing from Britain. When Prime Minister Narendra Modi, an Indian nationalist, visited the United States after his election, Gabbard was one of the few to personally meet him, and reportedly gift her personal copy of “Bhagavad Gita,” the Hindu sacred text, famous in the East as a war sermon and philosophy of destiny, famous in the West for being notably quoted by Robert Oppenheimer after the first atomic test.

Indian diplomats were mildly bemused, but Gabbard has always maintained that India is a vital partnership, regardless of who’s ruling the country, because the twin domestic and foreign threats facing the United States include radical Islam and a militaristic China, and New Delhi has experience dealing with both for far longer than Washington. She was vocal in opposing House Resolution 417, which was about to condemn India’s religious record in a tone similar to UN critiquing Israel.

In her statement she said, “Throughout history, India as a nation has been home to many religions, and has protected many as well, including Tibetan Buddhists, Jews, Christians, and Muslims,” not unlike how Israel is the only multi-ethnic democratic country in the entire Middle East surrounded by mono-ethnic and often fundamentalist Islamic nations. This was not well received in her Democratic Party.

This non-traditional position makes her a paradox to the left, since on political issues, Gabbard is hardly an inch right of Leon Trotsky, Venezuelan socialist Nicolas Maduro, and newly instated Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Gabbard was a prominent Bernie Sanders backer who went on to diss Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for rigging the primary, when no one was daring to do that, earning her the wrath of liberal media.

She supports Medicare for All, wants to legalize marijuana, favors a non-interventionist foreign policy, and would like urgent state intervention in opioid treatment, as well as clean environment legislation. She’s a minority, half Caucasian and half American Samoan. She’s a practicing Hindu, like her mainlander mother, and a member of the semi-pacifist Vaishnavas, an esoteric sect that has more in common with Buddhism than hardcore Hinduism in practice.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/pelosi-to-trump-you-can-just-give-us-the-state-of-the-union-address-in-writing/

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suggested to President Trump that he either deliver a written version of his planned State of the Union address to Congress or postpone it because of the government shutdown.

The speaker traditionally invites the president to come make the annual address before a joint session each January, starting with a year after inauguration.

Pelosi invited Trump to address lawmakers on Jan. 3, the first day of the 116th Congress, with the State of the Union date set on Jan. 29.

With no end in sight to the shutdown that began at midnight Dec. 22 over an impasse on border wall funding, Pelosi sent a letter to Trump today noting that “during the 19th Century and up until the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, these annual State of the Union messages were delivered to Congress in writing,” and “since the start of modern budgeting in Fiscal Year 1977, a State of the Union address has never been delivered during a government shutdown.”

The State of the Union was also designated by the Department of Homeland Security last September as one of the National Special Security Events that requires “the full resources of the federal government to be brought to bear.”

“The extraordinary demands presented by NSSEs require weeks of detailed planning with dozens of agencies working together to prepare for the safety of all participants,” Pelosi wrote, noting that “both the U.S. Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security have not been funded for 26 days now – with critical departments hamstrung by furloughs.”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is entering the 2020 race for president

https://nypost.com/2019/01/15/sen-kirsten-gillibrand-is-entering-the-2020-race-for-president/

Sherrod Brown is going on tour to the first four early presidential states

https://www.cleveland.com/politics/2019/01/sherrod-brown-is-going-on-tour-to-the-first-four-early-presidential-states

Kamala Harris opens up as she eyes a 2020 bid By Maeve Reston and Kyung Lah, CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/politics/kamala-harris-2020-bid-personal/index.html

Beto, Bernie and Biden Keep Iowa-Caucus Democrats in Suspense
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-16/beto-bernie-and-biden-keep-iowa-caucus-democrats-in-suspense?srnd=politics-vp
Abrams and Gillum are likely 2020 kingmakers
The progressive African-American pols are looking to parlay their near-success into the defeat of Donald Trump in 2020.By MARC CAPUTO and DANIEL STRAUSS
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/16/stacey-abrams-andrew-gillum-2020-democrats-trump-1102371

https://amgreatness.com/2019/01/15/what-happened-to-the-

The Democrats used to be the peace party. While Democratic presidents led our entry into both World Wars and endorsed containment during the early stages of the Cold War, since Vietnam the Democrats have favored a more consensus-oriented foreign policy that takes a dim view of American military intervention. They were critical of our support for military regimes in Central America, the Contras, and even the First Gulf War. During the George W. Bush years, they were united in opposition to the Iraq War.

With the rise of Donald Trump and his pragmatic “America First” brand of disengagement, the polarity between the two parties has reversed. While we saw a preview of this reversal in reactions to the Mattis resignation, it has become more apparent in the angry, dismissive, and hostile reception to U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard’s (D-Hawaii) official presidential campaign announcement. Criticism came not only from the neoconservative Right—whose confusion about what constitutes America’s interest is legendary—but also from the mainstream Left.

Gabbard is unique in that she is one of the only Democrats who may be described as the voice of peace and reason. She has been critical of U.S. intervention in Syria, our cozy relationship with the Saudi regime, and our continuing cultivation of conflict with Russia.

Republicans Were Defined by the Iraq War During the Bush Years
While perennial warmongering may be expected from the Max Boots and Bret Stephens of the world, the change among the Democrats has been jarring and sudden. After 9/11, Bush took an aggressive approach fueled by a strong streak of idealism. He saw the 9/11 attacks not merely as an isolated event involving al-Qaeda, but conceived of Islamic terrorism as a maladaptive response to the region’s backwards, kleptocratic dictatorships. He thought hopelessly outnumbered American forces could transform Iraq and the rest of the region into stable, liberal democracies.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/14/former_obama_housing_chief_julian_castro_joins_2020_campaign_139169.html

Assailing President Donald Trump for “a crisis of leadership,” former Obama Cabinet member Julian Castro joined the 2020 presidential race Saturday as the rush of Democrats making early moves to challenge the incumbent accelerates.

Castro, who could end up being the only Latino in what is shaping up to be a crowded Democratic field, made immigration a centerpiece of his announcement in his hometown of San Antonio, less than 200 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border.

Two days after the president visited the border to promote his promised wall, Castro mocked Trump for claiming that the U.S. faces an “invasion” from its ally to the south. “He called it a national security crisis,” Castro said. “Well, there is a crisis today. It’s a crisis of leadership. Donald Trump has failed to uphold the values of our great nation.”

Castro, the 44-year-old grandson of a Mexican immigrant, said he was running for president “because it’s time for new leadership, because it’s time for new energy and it’s time for a new commitment to make sure that the opportunities that I’ve had are available to every American.”

He made the announcement during the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, and as the field of 2020 contenders widens and anticipation grows around bigger names still considering runs.

Castro was San Antonio’s mayor for five years and U.S. housing secretary in President Barack Obama’s second term. He became the second Democrat to formally enter race, after former Maryland Rep. John Delaney.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has also started an exploratory committee for president, and four other Democratic senators are taking steady steps toward running. Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the first Hindu elected to Congress, said this week she is planning a bid, too.

For his part, Trump said he isn’t worried about the burgeoning field of Democratic opponents. He has already announced that he’s running for re-election.

“I love what I see,” Trump said Saturday night when asked about the competition during a telephone interview with Fox News Channel. He recited a list of what he views as his accomplishments, including low unemployment, tax cuts and trade deals.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272540/trump-resistance-larry-elder

Newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., in a recent “60 Minutes” interview, said there is “no question” that President Donald Trump is “racist.” If Democrats — the party of slavery and segregation and whose congressional members voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a lesser percentage than Republicans — stand for anything today, it’s anti-racism and anti-bigotry.

Except when it comes to liberal racism and liberal bigotry.

Former CNN pundit and “media studies and urban education” professor Marc Lamont Hill, for example, condemned what he called Trump’s pursuit of “racial division, white supremacy and xenophobia.” The President, Hill said, has a history of “dangling black people around as almost puppets or trinkets.”

But what does Hill think of the blatant anti-Semitism of Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan? In a speech last year, in which he declared, “powerful Jews are my enemy,” Farrakhan said: “White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through.”

Hill, however, defends Farrakhan: “Again, Minister Farrakhan is my brother. The idea that we have to renounce him, denounce him, throw him away … in the black tradition, I ain’t got the luxury of throwing people who love us away. I ain’t got the luxury of taking people who come out of traditions that have saved us and cleaned us and throw them away. We can’t do that. We shouldn’t do that.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/are_democrats_ready_for_a_presidential_candidate_with_a_guru.html

Fifty-nine percent of Democrats polled say they are “excited” about “someone entirely new” as their presidential candidate. Tulsi Gabbard certainly is that.

Representative Gabbard, who just announced her candidacy for president, first grabbed my attention and admiration when she denounced the anti-Catholic religious bigotry demonstrated by Dianne Feinstein, and by implication her Hawaii Democrat colleague, Senator Mazie Hirono and California Senator Kamala Harris.

This position makes her stand out in a crowded and growing field of over 30 potential or declared candidates for the Democrats’ nomination.

As Ruth King noted on these pages last week, the 2020 nomination contest could well recapitulate the rise “out of nowhere” of Barack Obama from obscurity to an eagerly embraced nominee, as someone new and different. Four days later, The Hill has published an opinion piece making the same point, that

…there’s every reason to believe an unknown will emerge and win the Democratic presidential nod. Barack Obama did it in 2008. Bill Clinton in 1992 and Jimmy Carter in 1976 also came from nowhere to win the Democratic presidential nomination. Bernie Sanders didn’t even think he had a chance to win when he entered the 2016 race, but he came within a whisker of taking the Democratic nod away from the prohibitive favorite, Hillary Clinton.

This view is supported by an interesting USA Today/Suffolk University poll revealing that:

Landing at the top of the list of 11 options was “someone entirely new” – perhaps a prospect not on the political radar screen yet. Nearly six in 10 of those surveyed – 59 percent – said they would be “excited” about a candidate like that; only 11 percent said they’d prefer that a new face not run.