RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/11/warren-mimics-bernies-promotion-anti-semite-linda-sarsour-campaign-surrogate/

Given Linda Sarsour’s record, her claim that she supports Bernie Sanders because of rising anti-Semitism in America is irony thick enough to cut with a chainsaw.

Personnel is policy, or so the saying goes. So it is troubling that the two leading left-wing presidential candidates—Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren—are empowering people who at best hate Israel and support the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement intended to destroy the Jewish state.

Over the weekend, Sanders tweeted a video identifying Linda Sarsour as a campaign surrogate:

Bernie Sanders

✔ @BernieSanders

“I would be so proud to win, but also to make history and elect the first Jewish American president this country has ever seen and for his name to be Bernard Sanders.” –@lsarsour

Sarsour’s record on Israel and Jews is no secret. She supports a one-state solution to Palestinian attacks on Israel that would effectively destroy the Jewish state. In 2012, she tweeted that “Nothing is creepier than Zionism.” She has claimed Zionists cannot be feminists. Sarsour supports the BDS campaign which, as Anti-Defamation League director Jonathan Greenblatt notes, “encourages and spreads anti-Semitism.”

In 2017, she literally embraced Rasmea Odeh, a convicted terrorist who killed two Hebrew University students in 1969. At last year’s convention of the Islamic Society of North America, she accused the Israeli police and military of training American police to kill blacks, and opposed humanizing Israelis.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-dan-bishop-wins-north-carolina-congressional-seat-with-trumps-support-11568168459?mod=cx_picks&cx_navSource=cx_picks&cx_tag=contextual&cx_artPos=2#cxrecs_s

CHARLOTTE, N.C.—Voters in a conservative congressional district picked President Trump ally Republican Dan Bishop in Tuesday’s special election instead of a Democrat who had promised to seek compromise in Washington.

Mr. Bishop, a 55-year-old state senator who campaigned on a promise to be in lockstep with Mr. Trump, defeated Democrat Dan McCready in the Ninth Congressional District based in the suburbs of Charlotte.

In his victory speech, Mr. Bishop said he would go to Washington to protect the border, fight Democrats in the House and support the Trump agenda. “Under this president, America is great again,” he said.

Mr. McCready, a 36-year-old veteran and entrepreneur, had campaigned as a centrist, emphasizing his service as a Marine in the Iraq war and pledging to put country over party.

Mr. McCready said late Tuesday he was proud that the campaign came so close to carrying a reliably Republican district. “We may not have won this campaign, but that does not mean that we were wrong,” he said. “As long as there are people who thrive off our division, there is still work to be done,” he said.

The GOP victory in the rare do-over election was a boon to Mr. Trump, who tweeted his support repeatedly for Mr. Bishop and campaigned for him Monday in Fayetteville, a military town at the far eastern edges of the district. Vice President Mike Pence came to the state for Mr. Bishop on Monday in Union County, a GOP stronghold. Mr. Trump won the district by 12 percentage points in 2016.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-the-rest-of-democratic-primary-field-has-embraced-open-borders/

Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii) derided her fellow Democratic presidential candidates during a recent interview for embracing permissive immigration policies, accusing them of support for “open borders.”

Asked if she believes “open borders” is a fair descriptor of the positions embraced by her Democratic primary opponents, Gabbard told YouTube host Dave Rubin that it was an accurate label and dismissed the oft-repeated Democratic rejoinder that conservatives use the phrase to tar their political adversaries.

“I don’t support open borders. Without secure borders, we don’t really have a country,” she said. “And while some of the other Democratic candidates will say ‘well, open borders that’s a conservative argument and that’s not really what’s being advocated for’ — if you look at the practical implications of some of the things they’re advocating for, it is essentially open borders.”

Long-shot presidential contender Julian Castro, the former secretary of housing and urban development under President Obama, managed to pull the Democratic primary field leftward on immigration during the campaign’s first debate, by asking those on stage to commit to decriminalizing illegal border crossings. All ten candidates on stage, with the notable exception of Beto O’Rourke, endorsed Castro’s plan, as did eight out of the ten candidates who took the stage the following night.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/mattis-says-hed-wouldnt-have-been-so-critical-of-biden-in-memoir-if-he-knew-hed-run-for-president/

On CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, former Defense Secretary James Mattis said he regrets being so critical of Joe Biden in his memoir since he didn’t know at the time he was writing that Biden would run for president.

In an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Margaret Brennan read him an excerpt from his new book “Call Sign Chaos: Learning to Lead,” in which he harshly criticizes the former vice president.

“You wrote, ‘He exuded the confidence of a man whose mind was made up, perhaps even indifferent to considering the consequences were he judging the situation incorrectly,’” Ms. Brennan said.

“Well, I was writing a history book at that point, Margaret, because I started writing this book in 2013,” Mr. Mattis replied. “Had I known the former vice president was going to run for office, I assure you I would not have probably been that forthcoming.”

“Are you raising questions about his judgment?” Ms. Brennan asked.

“I think the Obama administration, President Obama’s administration had made the decision to leave Iraq despite what the intelligence community was telling us what would happen,” Mr. Mattis said. “They were very clear that an al Qaeda-associated group would rise, that the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, the Iraqi nation was in a post-combat, pre-reconciliation phase. We needed to keep our influence there a little longer.”

While many in the media were hoping for a scandalous tell-all about his time in the Trump administration, Mattis’s memoir has instead proven to be very unflattering to Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The biggest bombshell so far has been Mattis’s revelation that Obama chose not to respond to an Iranian bomb plot on American soil in order to protect his terrible nuclear deal.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/08/biden-or-bust/

For better or worse, the Democratic establishment apparently has decided it has no choice but to embrace the former vice president. Can he be propped up and pampered for the next 14 months?

Pundits and politicos play the current parlor game of counting Joe Biden’s daily bloopers, signs of debility, or embarrassments.

Unlike former “Apprentice” host Donald Trump’s exaggerations and narcissisms, Biden’s fantasies are not baked into an outsider candidacy that by intent offers as a radical change of policy, a tough presidential tone, and unconventional political tactics. Trump is a renegade. Biden remains what he always was—a deep state fixture. And his brand is mainstream Democrat left-liberal orthodoxy, which supposedly does not include weird and wild La La Land pronouncements.

Also, Trump is hated by a media that is 90 percent negative in its coverage of his every word, deed, and sneeze. In contrast, the media is in the Biden tank.

So the reaction to the respective boilerplate gaffes and untruths of each is quite different: when Trump is caught mythologizing, his supporters blame the “fake news” media for taking things out of context—confusing his jest with seriousness, or conflating normal exaggeration and bombast with mortal-sin lying.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/tulsi-gabbard-disagrees-with-other-democrats-on-impeachment/

Although her fellow Democrats over in the House of Representatives are finally yielding to the fringe mob on the subject of impeaching President Trump, Sen. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) isn’t on board with the idea.

The Hill:

Rep.  Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) said in a new interview that she opposes an effort by dozens of House Democrats for an impeachment inquiry into the president, saying it would cause further divisions within the U.S.

In an interview on “Full Court Press with Greta Van Susteren,” the 2020 candidate for president took a firm stance against impeachment, putting her at odds with other Democratic candidates for president including Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

“I don’t [support impeachment,]” Gabbard said. “You know, I think it’s important for us to think about what is in the best interest of the country and the American people, and continuing to pursue impeachment is something that I think will only further to tear our country apart.”

Gabbard has been one of the more sensible Democratic presidential candidates thus far so, naturally, she’s not getting much traction and didn’t qualify for the next debate.

https://spectator.us/democrats-find-religion/

Now for some bracing honesty from the Democratic National Committee. In a new, unanimously adopted resolution, Democrats have declared that ‘the religiously unaffiliated demographic represents the largest religious group within the Democratic party, growing from 19 percent in 2007 to one in three today’ (emphasis added). Advocates for truth in political advertising should rejoice. The so-called ‘secular’ left has finally abandoned the canard that its views and policies are purely ‘neutral,’ or the products of inarguable empiricism. According to the resolution, the religiously unaffiliated and the nonreligious (labels used interchangeably) are, instead, members of a new faith community. This may be the first time that the Democratic party, or any official organ of the American left, has forthrightly declared the true objective of its modern politics: the promotion and enshrinement of a new religion.

With this declaration, Democrats are taking seriously their current, favorite term, ‘wokeness’ – the religious resonance of which is unavoidable. For them, to be woke is to be awakened to new knowledge, to be freed from one’s old, ignorant ways and to share in life-changing revelation. Thus, the Democrats’ woke resolution – a concise, one-page distillation of the modern, American left worldview – reads as a confessional, creedal document. It speaks of ‘values’: ‘religiously unaffiliated Americans overwhelmingly share the Democratic party’s values.’ It speaks of ostracism and suffering for beliefs: ‘the nonreligious have often been subjected to unfair bias and exclusion in American society.’ And, it articulates the essential, core aims of the creed by praising the religiously unaffiliated as ‘advocates for rational public policy based on sound social science and universal humanistic values.’

The resolution embodies what Charles Taylor, a scholar of secularism, terms ‘the independent ethic.’ According to Taylor, in establishing an independent ethic, a group will ‘deduce certain exceptionless norms’ and ‘abstract from…deeper or higher beliefs altogether for purposes of a political morality.’ And, as Taylor explains, when there ‘are real live atheists in the society…they will live an independent ethic not as some thought experiment, but as the basis of their moral lives.’ In this way, an apparently nonreligious or even overtly anti-religious creed can assume the character of what is actually religious fundamentalism.