RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/heres-why-2020-dems-are-dropping-like-flies/

On Friday, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) — Seth who? — will become the fourth candidate to drop out of the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. In fact, three candidates dropped out in the past two weeks: former Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), current Gov. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), and now Moulton. Americans can expect to see more Democrats throw in the towel as August 28 approaches.

While a whopping 21 candidates received the privilege of debating on stage in June and July, the threshold to qualify for the September and October debates is much higher, and only 10 have qualified so far. August 28 is the cut-off for the September 12 and 13 debates. Democrats need to have at least four polls showing them at two percent or higher and at least 130,000 unique donors.

The top three candidates: former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have qualified for the September debates, along with seven others. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has taken a tumble in the polls and now ranks with Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Ind., in a middle tier above the lower tier of candidates.

Far-Left Radicalism May Cost Dems 2020, Presidential Drop-Out Warns

Five candidates in that lower tier have also qualified for the September debates: Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.); former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas); former HUD Secretary Julián Castro; and entrepreneur Andrew Yang.

Tom Steyer, the environmentalist activist who made his billions by investing in coal, has reached the donor threshold and just needs one more qualifying poll. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) needs two more polls. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has only broken two percent in one poll and her campaign says she’s close to the donor threshold. Author Marianne Williamson stays she has enough donors but she hasn’t broken two percent in any qualifying poll.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/beth_van_duyne_a_champion_of_freed

Former popular Irving mayor Beth Van Duyne has left her post at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s office in Fort Worth.  She announced on social media on August 5 that she plans to run for the United States Congress District 24, which covers parts of Dallas, Tarrant, and Denton Counties.

I have known Beth throughout her incredible career in the City of Irving, and I am excited that she has decided to announce her candidacy.  A person of her outstanding principles is urgently needed in Washington, even though she will be missed here at home.

Beth started her public service ten years ago, when she worked tirelessly to build a children’s park.  Next, she ran for City Council, and later, she served with distinction as mayor of Irving.  When the call came from President Trump’s administration, she, characteristically, offered her much valued services.

Now Texas and the nation need her in Washington, and once again, she is willingly answering the call for service in the United States Congress, where she can be a resonant voice for principled conservatism that has made this country the standard-bearer for democracy and freedom.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/23/

One of the four leading Democrats running for president, Bernie Sanders announced this week that, if elected, he’ll spend $16.3 trillion over the next decade to decarbonize the economy. That’s a big number. But it’s only one of Sanders’ “bold” plans that, when added up, would more than double the size of the federal government.

The details of Sanders’ “Green New Deal” aren’t particularly important. Suffice it to say, the plan is stuffed to the brim with pie-in-the-sky assumptions and massive new government programs. The Democratic senator wants to spend $681 billion on a “vehicle trade-in program,” another $407 billion to replace school buses, $216 billion to replace every truck. That’s all on just one page of his Green New Deal plan.

All told, he wants to dump more than $16 trillion over 10 years on these and other boondoggles.

Incredible as it might seem, the Green New Deal isn’t even the biggest ticket item on Sanders’ agenda. That trophy goes to his Medicare for All plan, which clocks in at $32.6 trillion (which is a decidedly lowball estimate).

Then there’s Sanders’ plan for free college — $480 billion over the next decade — and canceling all outstanding college student loan debt. That adds up to another $2 trillion hit to taxpayers.

Sanders also proposes guaranteed government jobs. Cost estimates for this range from $32 billion a year to $543 billion a year. Of the four studies that have looked into it, the average cost works out to $3.5 trillion over 10 years.

Sanders still isn’t done. He also wants to expand Social Security benefits with a plan that would cost taxpayers $1.8 trillion over a decade.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/payback_democrats_rig_tulsi_gabbard_right_out_of_their_next_debate.html

Iconoclastic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard did the unforgiveable in the eyes of the hidebound Democratic Party establishment: She knocked down one their favorites, Kamala Harris. Now, through the miracle of rule-rigging, the Democratic establishment has maneuvered to exact a price from her: No appearance at the next Democratic debate. No more taking down the next favorite.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/democrats_continue_normalization_of_antisemitism.html

Democrats have been continuing a long trend of normalizing anti-Semitism in their party.

Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib had been leading the charge on Capitol Hill to deploy anti-Israel legislation with the goal of weakening Israel.  They put forth legislation to support the abominable Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, whose ultimate goal is to handcuff and damage the Middle East’s sole democracy.  It’s so noxious that it drew the fire of even liberal Bill Maher. 

The two congresswomen followed up this action by announcing a trip to a nonexistent “Palestine,” knowing that Israel would have no choice but to reject their request. 

No nation is eager to welcome people committed to its destruction, people so hateful that they can’t even acknowledge its existence on an itinerary.  Israel, a vulnerable country 33 times smaller than Texas in a tough geopolitical neighborhood, has a wise policy that prohibits BDS-supporters from entering the country.

It takes a titanic amount of chutzpah to travel as a U.S. elected official to a U.S. ally (purposely misnamed the mythic Palestine) to brazenly act to damage that country from within its own borders.  

The noxious Tlaib, whose map on her wall blots out Israel with a sticky, then made a humanitarian request to visit her grandmother.  A gracious Israel granted the request under the eminently reasonable condition that she not promote boycotts (i.e., act toward Israel’s destruction) during her visit. 

https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/22/the-perils-of-supporting-israel/

During his diatribe about the recent exploits of anti-Israel Democrats Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, President Donald Trump dropped this line: “And I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.”

An uproar followed due to the president’s use of the word “disloyalty,” which usually insinuates the charge of dual allegiances, a smear that’s been deployed against Jews in various iterations since the beginning of the Diaspora. In case there was any confusion, the president reiterated today that, yes, “If you vote for a Democrat, you’re being disloyal to Jewish people and you’re being very disloyal to Israel.”

If you’ve been following the adventures of progressive Democrats, you might be familiar with the dual loyalty smear. Then again, watching the same media that has been white-knighting Omar and Tlaib now feign horror at the word “disloyalty” has been quite a spectacle.

I assume most mainstream news consumers were confused about the motivation for Trump’s outburst, which was aimed at two members of Congress who had teamed up with an organization that literally praised suicide bombers and made accusations of blood libel. This aspect of Omar and Talib’s aborted Israel trip was not particularly newsworthy. Mostly because media hypocrisy is breathtaking. Incidentally, not a single Democrat now accusing Trump of peddling antisemitic tropes condemned them.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-impeachment-charade-11566427935

Big news on impeachment this week, or not: On Monday Ben Ray Luján, the number four Democrat in House leadership, endorsed “an impeachment inquiry, which will continue to uncover the facts for the American people and hold this president accountable.” The press played it as a big moment, the highest-ranking Democrat to endorse the probe.

“President Trump’s lack of action is jeopardizing our elections, national security, and Democracy,” Mr. Luján said in explaining his decision. “Not only has he ignored the warnings that our Democracy is being targeted, but he has also actively encouraged Russian interference.” But wait. Special counsel Robert Mueller released his report in April. Why reach this conclusion four months later?

You have to read 15 paragraphs into the Politico story on Mr. Luján’s conversion to discover the real reason. The New Mexico Congressman is running for the Senate to replace Democrat Tom Udall and he faces two liberal primary challengers. One competitor, New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, called on the House to start impeachment proceedings in May.

https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/what-could-sink-trumps-chances-in-2020/

What factors usually re-elect or throw out incumbent presidents?

The economy counts most.

Recessions, or at least chronic economic pessimism, sink incumbents. Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were tagged with sluggish growth, high unemployment and a sense of perceived stagnation — and were easily defeated.

The 2008 financial crisis likely ended any chance for John McCain to continue eight years of Republican rule. Barack Obama campaigned on the message that incumbent George W. Bush was to blame for the meltdown and that McCain, his potential Republican successor, would be even worse.

A once-unpopular incumbent Ronald Reagan fought recession for three years. Yet he soared to a landslide victory in 1984 only after the gross domestic product suddenly took off at an annualized clip of over 7 percent prior to the election.

President Donald Trump’s economy is still booming. But his opponents here and abroad are counting on a recession to derail him.

They hope that either the good times can’t last forever or that Trump’s trade war with China will scare investors and businesspeople into retrenchment. Or perhaps massive annual deficits and staggering debt will finally catch up to a financially reckless government.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/21/trump-

Gaffe-prone Joe Biden – despite his current healthy lead in the polls – is, at 76 years of age, sure to have his ability to function as president questioned harshly by the younger Democratic candidates. His rivals may not have attacked him yet on age, but they’re stalking their prey, waiting for an opportune moment to strike.

Frankly, it is near to impossible to imagine that Barack Obama’s vice president can escape age concerns for the next 14-and-a-half months of grueling campaigning, through the snows of New Hampshire, a 14-state Super Tuesday less than a month later, and nearly a dozen televised debates between now and next spring, when the nominee will likely become clear.

Should he manage to pull it off, even voters who dislike President Donald Trump are likely to prefer the 74-year-old devil whose presidency they know to the slightly older devil whose presidency might have to be run by those around him — appointees certain to be significantly to Biden’s left. And even a softening Trump economy is going to look and feel pretty good to voters in November of next year.

Should Biden not get the nomination — a more likely outcome — it will be Trump vs. some species or other of out-and-out socialist, scampering to the center as soon as the nomination is tied up, yet trying to keep energized a Democratic grassroots so radicalized it now considers Obamacare too tame.