RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/05/06/the_dc_statehood_proposal_could_give_a_handful_of_people_three_electoral_votes_775920.html

Proponents of District of Columbia statehood believe this is their moment. The House of Representatives has approved H.R. 51, and the Senate might bypass the filibuster to send the proposal to President Joe Biden for his signature. But election questions plague the bill.

H.R. 51 would turn most of the District of Columbia into a state called “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth” (after Frederick Douglass). A remaining federal enclave consisting principally of the White House, the Capitol, and federal buildings around the Mall would become the seat of government called “Capital.”

While nearly everyone in the current District of Columbia would be moved to the new state, the new Capital would still have about 30 to 50 people living in it. And under the Twenty-third Amendment, ratified in 1961, those few dozen people would have three electoral votes in presidential elections. Though the District of Columbia did not have representation in Congress, the amendment gave D.C. residents electoral votes equal to the smallest state in the country. States such as Vermont and Wyoming have three electoral votes; so does D.C.

If Douglass Commonwealth becomes a state, it gets two senators, at least one member of the House, and an equivalent number of electoral votes. But the remaining Capital residents are also entitled to three electoral votes in every presidential election. Critics of the Electoral College complain about the imbalance between small and large states, but this would be the most lopsided of all — Capital would have about 1/20,000th the population of Vermont. A sitting president’s family could change their voter registrations to Capital and have nearly unilateral control over three electoral votes.

It’s a problem for statehood proponents, but H.R. 51 calls for an expedited repeal of the Twenty-third Amendment. There’s no guarantee that two-thirds of each house of Congress, plus legislatures in 38 states, would vote for repeal. The Constitution has been amended once in the last fifty years, and a handful of resistant states or members of Congress could block repeal.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2021/04/26/why-cant-democrats-all-be-like-tulsi-gabbard-n1442748

The Democrats made a big mistake by keeping former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) out of the fold. Her message can and will resonate with an awful lot of people who have grown tired of absolutely everything being viewed through the lens of race. Gabbard took to Twitter to post a video begging people to stop the practice of what she calls “racialism.” Unlike racism, racialism is the blaming of every societal ill on racism until the message is totally lost. Example: Removing all people of color off of grocery packaging.

It’s enough, already. “Please, please, let us stop the racialization of everyone and everything. It’s racialism,” Gabbard said. “We are all children of God and therefore family in the truest sense, no matter our race or ethnicity. This is Aloha. And this is what our country and world need.”

She went on to castigate the mainstream media for ginning up hatred. “The mainstream propaganda media and politicians: they want us to constantly focus on our skin color or the skin color of others because it helps them politically or financially.”

The Hawaiian philosophy of Aloha is beautiful and Gabbard explains it well. “Aloha means respect and love for others. It’s what enables us to see beyond our skin color and see the soul, the person within,” she said. “So let’s do our best to cultivate this Aloha in our hearts and see and treat others through this prism of love, not through the prism of race and ethnicity.”

Gabbard finished strong, saying, “Please, let us not allow ourselves to be led down this dark and divisive path of racialism and hate.”

She’s so normal and good. Why can’t all Democrats be like Tulsi?

https://www.theepochtimes.com/house-votes-down-resolution-condemning-maxine-waterss-remarks-on-chauvin-trial_3784487.html

The House of Representatives on Tuesday voted down a resolution that would have censured Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).

The party-line vote saw 216 Democrats reject the resolution and 210 Republicans back it. Two members from each party did not vote.

Waters traveled to a Minneapolis suburb over the weekend and urged demonstrators to be “more confrontational” if former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin were not convicted on charges in the death of George Floyd.

“We’re looking for a guilty verdict,” she also said.

The proposed resolution (pdf), filed by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), included most of Waters’s remarks. It also referenced how Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill commented on them in the courtroom, saying in part: “I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function.”

McCarthy charged that Waters “broke the law by violating curfew and then incited violence.”

On the House floor in Washington before the vote, Democrats disputed that claim.

“Chairwoman Waters’s remarks reflect the very profound anger and sense of hopelessness that she and so many others, myself included, feel when we see African-Americans being killed during encounters with our law enforcement. And their families not seeing justice,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told colleagues.

He accused Republicans of taking Waters’s remarks “out of context” to “hold a ‘gotcha’ partisan vote.”

In a statement after the vote, McCarthy said, “Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi, and every other House Democrat, had the opportunity to condemn the violent rhetoric of our colleague Representative Waters, a chairwoman and senior member of Congress, to protesters to ‘get more confrontational.’”

“Instead, they condoned it. And the House and our justice system are worse off because of it,” he added.

“Every single House Democrat just voted to stand with Maxine Waters. They made it clear: Democrats are fine with Democrat politicians inciting violence and chaos,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) wrote in a tweet.

Pelosi had defended Waters’s remarks, saying she did not need to apologize.

“Maxine talked about confrontation in the manner of the civil rights movement,” Pelosi told reporters on Monday. “I myself think we should take our lead from the George Floyd family. They’ve handled this with great dignity and no ambiguity or … misinterpretation by the other side. No, I don’t think she should apologize.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/04/7-reasons-why-democrats-are-obsessed-race-don-feder/

It’s almost impossible for a Democrat to get through the day without saying something about race – something really stupid.

Last week, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Biden’s UN Ambassador, said white supremacy is “weaved [sic] into our founding documents [including the Constitution] and principles.” You know, like “all men created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” You gotta be a Klansman to believe that stuff.

On the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Red China, which practically runs the UN, systematically suppresses racial minorities which might challenge its rule), Joe Biden — who once said school busing would create a “racial jungle” — again took aim at the “systematic racism and white supremacy” which he says have long plagued our laws and institutions.

“Racism is real in America and always has been,” squawked Kamala Harris, who practically called Biden racist during the Democrat primary campaign.

If systematic racism and white supremacy weren’t enough, the left insists that we also confront “institutionalized racism,” “white privilege,” “white fragility” (whites who refused to admit their racism) and “whiteness” – in order to reach the promised land of “racial justice,” “racial equality” and “racial equity.”

Democrats call anything that challenges their misrule racist – including Georgia’s election reform (an attempt to “disenfranchise minorities”), gun ownership (In 2008, Obama said Middle Americans bitterly cling to guns and “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”), the Electoral College, the Senate filibuster (“a remnant of Jim Crow”), voter ID laws, capitalism and the Constitution.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/04/20/gop_rep_burgess_owens_projection

Clarence Burgess Owens is a Republican politician, and former professional football player elected in 2020.

Rep. Burgess Ownes testified at a Senate hearing on whether voter ID laws represent a “New Jim Crow,” particularly mentioning that he is insulted when Democrats characterize black voters as “not smart enough” to get identification.

“The true racism is this: the projection of the Democratic party on my proud race. It’s called the self bigotry of low expectation,” Rep. Owens said Tuesday. “President Biden said of the Georgia law ‘This is Jim Crow on steroids.’ With all due respect, Mr. President, you know better.”
This Week

@ThisWeekABC

“What I find extremely offensive from the left is the narrative that black people are not smart enough, not educated enough…to do what every other culture does in this country —get an ID,” Rep. Owens says in a congressional hearing about voting rights. https://abcn.ws/2QbCft8

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2021/04/have-new-york-city-voters-burned-out-left-daniel-greenfield/

New York City went from being run by a Republican and a moderate Democrat, and descended into hard leftist under De Blasio. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s win, the defeat of Rep. Elliot Engel, and the campaign to replace Cuomo with a Socialist seemed to solidify the city and perhaps even the state as leftist territory. And yet, despite all that, the Left seems unable to get a grip on the upcoming mayoral election.

A survey conducted by Data For Progress, a national think tank, found 26 percent of voters are supporting Yang’s candidacy — double the 13 percent who said they would support Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams. 

The poll also found Yang leading Adams 25 to 22 percent among Black voters — a surprising number given the borough president’s political base in predominantly African-American parts of Brooklyn. Data For Progress polled 1,007 likely voters between March 21 and April 5 through web and text interviews, which would not necessarily capture the older New Yorkers Adams — a former police officer and state Senator — is counting on.

City Comptroller Scott Stringer, a career politician from Manhattan, captured 11 percent of those surveyed, and former City Hall attorney and MSNBC legal analyst Maya Wiley came in fourth at 10 percent. Every other candidate polled in single digits.

The Left and the media have been pushing Wiley. She is the model of what the Left wants. Instead, Yang is far ahead despite the media’s efforts to destroy him. And while I’m no fan of Eric Adams, he’s far too moderate these days for the Left.

Could the Left win St. Louis while losing New York to moderate Democrats? The media is doing its best to stop Yang. With no effect. 

Why is Yang polling better with black voters than Adams or Wiley? One answer might be that a big chunk of the electorate in New York City is sick and tired of the lunatic Left.