RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/16/elizabeth-warren-debate-048163

Elizabeth Warren has enjoyed many of the trappings of a front-runner: the polling lead in Iowa and New Hampshire, a near-tie with Joe Biden nationally, explosive fundraising, big crowds. The only thing missing was the scrutiny and sniping from competitors that normally accompanies the rise of a new primary leader.

That changed on Tuesday night at Otterbein University, a small college outside Columbus, Ohio. Otterbein was named after the founder of the United Brethren in Christ, but the mood was anything but brotherly as Warren faced a barrage of criticisms from most of the other 11 Democrats on stage.

The candidate who brags about having a plan for everything was pilloried for not detailing how she would pay for her most expensive proposal. She was accused — sometimes subtly, sometimes explicitly — of being naive, dishonest, not adequately respecting her colleagues’ ideas, tearing people down, and failing to enact major legislation. She was attacked for believing in policies that were “punitive” and a theory of governing that was a “pipe dream.”

Warren’s biggest gains have come since the last debate, so Tuesday’s debate was the natural point for a more full-throated engagement from the other candidates. Until now, three elements central to Warren’s candidacy have received relatively little pressure from her opponents as she has slowly ticked up in the polls.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-slams-cnn-ny-times-for-suggesting-shes-a-russian-asset-slams-dem-foreign-policy-consensus/

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii) slammed CNN and the New York Times during Tuesday evening’s debate, which the two outlets co-hosted, accusing both of smearing her by attributing her call for an end to the “regime-change war” in Syria to a nefarious allegiance to Russia.

“The New York Times and CNN have also smeared veterans like myself for calling to an end to this regime-change war,” Gabbard told the crowd in Ohio.

“Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying I am a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears,” the Hawaii Democrat continued. “This morning a CNN commentator said on national television that I’m an asset of Russia. Completely despicable.”

A Times article published October 12 accused Gabbard of “defending the brutal Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad.” Hours before the debate, a CNN analyst called the senator a “puppet for the Russian government.”

Gabbard also blamed President Trump for ordering the withdrawal of U.S. troops from northern Syria, a move that has garnered bipartisan criticism.

“The slaughter of the Kurds being done by Turkey is yet another negative consequence of the regime-change war that we’ve been waging in Syria,” Gabbard said. “Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand — but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime-change war in Syria that started in 2011, along with many in the mainstream media, who have been championing and cheerleading this regime-change war.”

Gabbard added that she would end “regime-change” wars in the region by ceasing “draconian sanctions,” which she called a “modern-day siege.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/cnn-presidential-debate-show-lloyd-billingsley/

The undercard of the Democrat debate kicked off Tuesday morning when previously missing-in-action Hunter Biden gave an interview with ABC News. Joe Biden’s son conceded it was “poor judgment” to be involved in ventures in Ukraine and China that have complicated his father’s situation. On the other hand, Hunter insisted he “did nothing wrong at all.”

Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders had just emerged from Heart Attack Hotel and Elizabeth Warren had not, as she claimed, been fired because she was visible pregnant. Like her false claim to be a Cherokee, that was no obstacle to a continued run for president, at least for Democrats.

The real back story came on Monday, with the revelation from the O’Keefe video that CNN was determined to, as Jeff Zucker said, “stay very focused on impeachment.” When the show started at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio, it was a joint production with CNN’s impeachment surge. Anderson Cooper asked the twelve Democrats if it was better to let the voters decide.

“The president obstructed justice and done it repeatedly,” said Sen Elizabeth Warren. “Donald Trump broke the law. Impeachment must go forward.”

Socialist Bernie Sanders called Trump “the most corrupt president in the history of this country.” So Sanders called for a “speedy impeachment process,” and “McConnell must allow a free and fair trial.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/warren-and-sanders-policy-mates-11571181041

Bernie Sanders wants voters to know that he—not Elizabeth Warren —is the bona fide socialist running for President in 2020. “There are differences between Elizabeth and myself,” Mr. Sanders said Sunday on ABC. “Elizabeth I think, as you know, has said that she is a capitalist through her bones. I’m not.”

As he falls in the polls, Mr. Sanders has to do something to reignite that 2016 fire. But the Vermont Senator’s problem is that Ms. Warren has co-opted more or less all of his important policy proposals. True-blue socialists might thus conclude that in Ms. Warren they can get nearly all of Bernie’s agenda from a younger (barely, at age 70) candidate without the socialist label.

Consider the policy list. She and Mr. Sanders both want Medicare for All, including the end of private health insurance. The main difference is that Mr. Sanders admits he’d raise taxes on the middle class, while Ms. Warren ducks the question. They both vilify “the top 0.1%” and promise to make wealthy Americans “pay their fair share.” Her wealth tax would hit the net worth of “ultra-millionaires” at rates up to 3% a year. His would drain “extreme wealth” with a top rate of 8% a year.

It’s almost a vaudeville joke for policy wonks. What’s the difference between a socialist and a capitalist? Five percentage points, apparently. This punch line also holds regarding their respective proposals on “accountable capitalism” (Ms. Warren) and “corporate accountability” (Mr. Sanders). She wants to make big companies give 40% of their board seats to workers. He wants 45%.

They both would force these companies to get a new federal charter requiring them to consider “stakeholders” rather than shareholders in their business decisions. They both want to reimpose the old Glass-Steagall fence between commercial banking and investment banking. “The business model of Wall Street is fraud,” Mr. Sanders likes to say. Ms. Warren also thinks bankers are crooks: “Wall Street is looting the economy.” They agree the U.S. Postal Service should become a bank that offers government checking accounts and would compete with private banks.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/last_nights_democrat_debate_a_cluster_of_tyrannical_fantasists.html

For conservatives who watched the Democrat debate, it was like visiting Earth-2, as Drunkblogger Stephen Green so cleverly put it.  Conservatives probably could not endure these debates without Stephen Green’s infusion of both facts and humor.

Each of those candidates on the stage seemed oblivious to the reality of the last three years — the fabulous economy, lowest unemployment in decades, international trade renegotiated to our benefit, millions no longer on food stamps.  Our military, eviscerated by Obama, is being repaired.  Manufacturing has been revitalized, and the border, despite the intransigence of the Democrats, is slowly being better controlled.  The wall is being built.  Everything Trump has done since being elected has been effective; he has tried to keep his campaign promises despite the Democrats’ vow to see him impeached from day one.  And no matter how vicious the Left is, those candidates on stage last night continue to opt for mindless delusion that he can be removed from office in order to prevent his re-election.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are grateful for a president willing to fight back against both parties, who have nothing but contempt for Trump-supporters, for the man who means to drain the swamp.  We must be thankful for the distinguished few in the House (the Republicans in the Senate are abject cowards) who have the courage to defend the president.  The swamp was certainly on display throughout the debate.

The Democrats are losing.  Trump and his supporters are winning — on every issue, even Turkey and Syria.  As others have observed, the Left plays checkers while Trump plays 4-D chess.  He is way ahead of his opponents on every level, every issue.  Most Americans like having jobs and like their friends and family members having jobs.  They don’t mind the fact that some people are fabulously wealthy.  Those are the people who fund the countless attractions we take for granted: museums, medical research, hospitals that specialize, university buildings, public television, and a host of other things the rest of us enjoy and take for granted.  Where would we be without the largesse of all the American billionaires and millionaires who have funded so many projects that have enriched us all?  However they attained their wealth is of no interest, nor is how they live their lives.  They have contributed to the public good beyond what any of us can adequately appreciate.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/15/what_pelosi_really_wants_from_impeachment_141494.html

The most important thing to know about Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is this: It is not about removing President Trump now; it is about damaging him now so he can be defeated next year.

Impeachment normally seeks to remove the president (or a federal judge) from office. A successful House vote is only the first step. The Senate needs strong evidence to convict, and House leaders try to provide it with their investigation and public hearings. That’s what we learned in seventh-grade civics.

But Nancy Pelosi is not in middle school. She is teaching post-graduate courses, and she knows a Republican Senate is very unlikely to convict Donald Trump without a lot more evidence than has been brought to light along with a groundswell of public support. So, the House speaker has a more realistic goal, and it’s a purely political one. Her aim is to prevent Trump’s reelection. To do it, she has exerted tight, unilateral control over the process and handed day-to-day investigation to her California protégé, Adam Schiff, who heads the committee on intelligence. His secret hearings are in sharp contrast to the open ones held for Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton by the House Judiciary Committee.

Schiff’s closed-door sessions, his refusal to allow Republicans to call witnesses, and his prohibition of White House participation are all clear indications of Pelosi’s strategy. She and Schiff are using the investigation as publicly funded opposition research, complete with subpoena power, much like the probe that resulted in the second volume of Robert Mueller’s report.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/15/discord_flares_ahead_of_democratic_debate__141505.html

A younger candidate complained that the old guard wasn’t moving fast enough. An older candidate shot back that the next generation should wait its turn. There was shouting on stage, and that was exactly the moment Kamala Harris wanted.

“Hey, guys — you know what,” the California senator said, jumping in with an apparently calculated mix of authority and light-hearted exasperation, “America does not want to witness a food fight. They want to know how we’re going to put food on their table.”

Judging by the applause, this peace-keeping appeal was a winner, and for a while intra-party attacks were infrequent as Democratic candidates focused more on pitching themselves as the anti-Trump champion-to-be than on hitting each other over ideology or personality.

But that was at the second debate in Miami, way back in June. Ahead of the latest round tonight in Westerville, Ohio, discord has resurfaced and the knives are very much out.

This fight started over assault rifles, but it has more to do with candidates jockeying for survival. “I heard some of the comments made today on this stage,” Beto O’Rourke said Oct. 2 at a March for Our Lives forum in Las Vegas. “Those who are worried about the polls and want to triangulate — I’m thinking about Mayor Pete on this one.”

https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/10/house-dems-move-to-impeach-senate-gop-writes-mean-letters/

Unlike House Democrats, Senate Republicans are all talk and no action. They should take a cue from their House counterparts on the other side of the aisle.

While Congressional Democrats continue to violate House protocol, constitutional guardrails, and the boundaries of common decency in their quest to impeach President Trump, Senate Republicans are fighting back—by.writing mean letters. 

This vicious counterpunch, launched by powerful Word documents, carefully crafted by the most erudite Senate committee staffers, formatted on embossed letterhead, and signed with a real-life autopen, will undoubtedly strike fear and panic in the heart of their intended targets. Federal bureaucrats finally will face a long-overdue reckoning once these printed dispatches, personally delivered by the steadiest, most well-manicured hand in the Hart Office Building, arrive in their inbox. One shudders at the thought of the poor Justice Department flack or inspector general office assistant tasked with handling such dangerous weaponry as he/she struggles with how to present the devastating blow to his/her boss.

An infuriating sideshow to the Democratic House’s impeachment “inquiry” is that Senate Republicans refuse to wield their power with any measure in return. Instead, while House committee chairmen haul Trump administration officials and former campaign associates out in front of cameras to publicly humiliate them while issuing a flurry of subpoenas to create the chimera of a lawless presidency, Senate Republicans make empty threats and send letters. It’s an inexcusable abdication of power and a pathetic display of political cowardice.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/you-cant-spell-lieu-without-lie-discover-networks/

Rep. Ted Lieu contends that the recent “whistleblower” allegations against Donald Trump give evidence of impeachable “misconduct” by the President in his now-famous July 25th telephone conversation with the President of Ukraine: “Soliciting Ukraine to get dirt on Trump’s political opponent [Joe Biden]: HIGH CRIME,” Lieu tweeted in promoting an allegation which has been utterly discredited by the now-public transcript of the phone conversation in question.

It is no secret that Lieu has detested Trump from the moment the latter was elected in 2016, and that he has never viewed Trump as a legitimate president – not even for even the briefest moment. The congressman first registered his contempt for Trump by joining dozens of fellow Democrats in boycotting the Inauguration in January 2017. A few days later, Lieu asserted that “our leader is potentially unhinged … and that is highly disturbing.” Wherever Trump’s name appeared in Lieu’s press releases, the congressman placed asterisks linking to a footnote that said: 

“In addition to losing the popular vote, Trump … is in violation of the Emoluments Clause … of the U.S. Constitution due to massive conflicts of interests and his refusal to put his global business holdings in blind trusts. Trump also benefited from Vladimir Putin ordering a multifaceted and brazen Russian influence and cyber hacking campaign with the goals of undermining faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrating Secretary Clinton’s electability, and helping Trump’s election chances. Trump and his press secretary also routinely make stuff up.”

Moreover, Lieu’s website featured a “Cloud of Illegitimacy Clock,” which measured the length of Trump’s “illegitimate” term in the White House.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/jews-african-americans-and-democrat-party-kenneth-levin/

In democracies, minority groups will often embrace one political party and cling to that attachment irrespective of changing political circumstances. This seems especially true of minorities that have experienced discrimination, marginalization, and other forms of abuse.

In America, the groups that have been most closely attached to the Democrat Party for virtually the last century are African Americans and Jews. Even consideration in the abstract of the wisdom of being predictably committed to one party would suggest likely more negative than positive consequences – for example, being taken for granted by that party while given up on and not pursued by the other – and experience has borne that out.

This would seem to be most obvious with regard to the African American experience. Consider, for example, the Democrats’ decades-long lock on control of most of America’s big cities, many with African American majorities, and the record of public education in those cities.

Little weighs as heavily on impoverished children’s potential for extricating themselves from their difficult circumstances and shaping a better future for themselves than the quality of the education they receive in their elementary and secondary schools. But the African American populations in our large urban centers have consistently been very poorly served by their schools and lag significantly behind national averages in command of basic skills.

Those in charge of the relevant cities point to lesser per student spending on their schools due to lesser tax subsidies as compared to the subsidies provided in other jurisdictions. Another argument is that the difficult family circumstances these cities’ impoverished children often face undercut the children’s ability to make full use of the educational opportunities available to them in their public schools.