RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/15/kamala-harris-draws-comparison-between-ice-and-kkk/
– The Washington Times – Thursday, November 15, 2018

Senate Democrats compared ICE to the Ku Klux Klan Thursday, saying the agency’s deportation officers have earned an evil perception among “many” people, and it’s up to the acting chief to change that.

“Do you see any parallels?” Sen. Kamala Harris asked of Ronald D. Vitiello, the acting director at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, during a confirmation hearing for his nomination to become permanent director.

Mr Vitiello flatly rejected the comparison, saying there was no parallel, and demanded to know whether the senator was really trying to draw an equivalency.

The exchange was spurred by a series of questions Ms. Harris asked related to a social media post Mr. Vitiello made early this decade referring to the Democratic Party as “neo-Klanist.” He apologized for the post, calling it an attempt at a joke that he now realizes was hurtful and inappropriate.

“It was wrong to do,” he said.

Ms. Harris, though, asked him why the words were wrong, and he said it was because of the history of the KKK using violence and intimidation to achieve its social aims. That’s when the senator said the same perception exists of ICE.

“I see no perception that puts ICE in the same category as the KKK,” Mr. Vitiello retorted.

Ms. Harris’s line of questions drew a rebuke from Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/14/ilhan-omars-election-suggests-democrats-arent-interested-in-confronting-anti-semitism/

Ilhan Omar, one of the first of two Muslim women to be elected to Congress, is a new kind of politician. She’s telegenic. Ideologically progressive. Widely celebrated by a media that’s obsessed with identity politics. She’s the kind of politician who can openly side with Hamas against Israel or spread “Protocols of Zion”-style conspiracies on Twitter, claiming that Jews possess the supernatural ability to hypnotize the world as they unfurl their “evil.”

It’s not surprising, then, that Omar also supports the “boycott, divestment and sanctions” movement (BDS). In a statement to the website Muslim Girl (later confirmed elsewhere), someone on Omar’s staff explains that, yes, “Ilhan believes in and supports the BDS movement, and has fought to make sure people’s right to support it isn’t criminalized. She does however, have reservations on the effectiveness of the movement in accomplishing a lasting solution.”

So, although Omar contends that BDS will be ineffective in getting the sides to “a lasting solution,” she stills “believes in and supports” a movement that smears the Jewish state as a racist endeavor and aims to destroy it economically. It’s a mystery, is it not, why some Jews might find that positioning offensive?

Omar has supported BDS for a while, even though she will now occasionally slip in some platitudes about the peace process. As Scott Johnson of Power Line (who’s been following this story from the beginning) points out, Omar misled Jewish voters in her district, obfuscating about her position and, as she still does, conflating her support for BDS with a bill that would have stopped continued taxpayer funding of the movement. No one is attempting to “criminalize” anti-Israel speech, although it’s heartening to see Omar is a free-speech absolutist. We’ll see if her position on the “criminalization” of speech will remain consistent moving forward, and not reserved for supporters of Hamas.

As far as I know, not even former congressman Keith Ellison, who once accused the shifty Jews of running American foreign policy, openly supported the BDS movement. Not even J-Street, the progressive front for hard-left activists posing as Israel supporters, openly backed BDS. Nor does George Soros, although he has intermittently funded BDS groups in the past and has been active against the Jewish state for years.

Of course, BDS proponents will tell you they are anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic. But when you’re fixated on the only liberal state in the Middle East, and avoid criticism of any Islamic regimes that deny their own citizens the most basic of human rights, you, at the very least, betray a morally bankrupt position. Even as Hamas rains hundreds of rockets down on civilians—a nihilistic project that always takes precedent over investing in their own people in their own autonomous Palestinian territory—there is criticism from those who only see evil behind Jewish acts of self-defense.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/11/15/the-2020-

With the midterms behind us, it’s full steam ahead now to the upcoming Democratic primaries for the 2020 presidential nomination. Of course, the campaigning for that august honor started on November 9, 2016 (one can never be too early) but now that the “Christmas in July” feel of it is shed, there’s no more need for being coy.

Our previous installment focused on those most likely to be the establishment picks for the 2020 election. But if the 2016 battle taught us anything, it is to expect the unexpected. And the Democratic Party is ripe for an outside the party structure challenge, backed by a far-left base ready to avenge the loss of Bernie Sanders in those rigged primaries.

Who are the likely candidates for such a challenge?

Bern-out
Speaking of Sanders, there is little doubt that the socialist senator from Vermont is a frontrunner. He is the one other candidate who rivals former Vice President Joe Biden’s poll numbers, especially in the crucial early state of New Hampshire. And he still maintains a loyal following after his rigged defeat in 2016.

Alternative history and speculation about whether Sanders would have won in 2016 is fascinating. As even supporters of President Trump would admit, Bernie might narrowly have defeated Trump. His message also targeted voters fed up with the traditional politics of Left and Right who were looking for something different in an outsider with populist appeal. What’s more, Bernie had the passionate support of young voters. With his labor union bona fides, he might have understood the need to campaign hard in the Rust Belt (while Hillary Clinton simply took those votes for granted). On issues such as trade, for example, Sanders and Trump practically sound the same (though their reasoning differs).

Just as trade might have been the issue that could have won 2016 for Sanders, it may end up being the issue that secures President Trump’s reelection in 2020. Beginning with Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, his successful renegotiation of NAFTA, and his hard bargaining with China and the European Union for greater trade concessions, Trump has neutralized the issue.

Sanders’ luster generally has faded over the past two years. Another run in 2020 would be more of an attempted remake of his 2016 crusade rather than an actual “revolution.” And everyone knows the sequel is rarely better than the original. Perhaps that explains why the Democrats’ new rising socialist star, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has refused to endorse a possible Bernie 2020 campaign. While Bernie may still be useful as a campaigning tool, the chances of him actually being the candidate grow smaller and smaller by the day.