RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/trump-must-fight-back-against-big-tech-corporate-control-or-risk-losing-a-winnable-election/

It comes as no surprise that Trump is constantly assaulted by the media, the Democrats, desultory members of his own party, the churches, the “Deep State,” late-night comics, the entertainment industry and by those euphemistically known as the “coastal elites.” After all, he is a member of that rare breed of political personage who put the nation before themselves; in other words, he is a principled president, which is anathema to the host of ideologues and sycophants who constitute the political class and the cultural establishment.

This has been the case since his early candidacy, continuing into the present moment in which his successes concerning the economy, trade, a refractory or hostile international community and border insurgency are regarded as errors of judgment or signs of personal hubris. Notwithstanding, just as Obama is correctly perceived by the more honest and astute observers on the current scene as the worst president in the history of the republic, intent on dismantling a great nation, Trump is seen by many as the best president since Reagan and among the best since Abraham Lincoln.

I would hazard that Trump actually won the popular vote in 2016 despite the reprehensible conduct of the Democrats whose electoral numbers arguably owed much to the unscrupulous rigging of the voting process. Clearly, Trump did not win the dead vote, the multiple vote, the uncounted vote and the unreported vote, yet managed to triumph despite the odds. I have no doubt that he would succeed again, perhaps handily, in the coming election, once more proving the biased and conniving pollsters catastrophically wrong—but only assuming that he recognizes where the real threat to a second term is coming from.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-contradictions-of-john-roberts-11561676526

Chief Justice John Roberts is the Supreme Court’s new swing vote, and he’s proving he won’t be pinned down by the law or judicial philosophy. His decision to join the four liberal Justices on Thursday to block a citizenship question on the Census is wrong on the merits and threatens larger damage to the Constitution’s separation of powers.

The question in Department of Commerce v. New York was whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross acted within his purview in reinstating a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. That’s not the question the Court ended up deciding. Instead, the Chief held that although Mr. Ross acted lawfully, his motives appear to have been less than pure.

Congress has delegated to the Commerce Secretary broad discretion to conduct the Census “in such form and content as he may determine.” It’s indisputable that Mr. Ross had the legal authority to add the citizenship question. But Democratic states argued that he violated the Administrative Procedure Act by overruling Census Bureau bureaucrats who claimed the question could reduce response rates.

According to the states, a citizenship question could result in a population undercount that would reduce their federal funding and representation in Congress. They also claimed the question was motivated by racial animus toward Hispanics and intended to help Republicans gerrymander. There was scant evidence for either claim.

In a memo explaining his decision, Mr. Ross noted that the Justice Department had requested that the Secretary reinstate the citizenship question to gather more granular data to enforce the Voting Rights Act. The data could be useful in reviewing the make-up of majority-minority districts in which a majority of voters are members of a racial or ethnic minority.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/neglecting-foreign-policy-in-the-presidential-debates/?utm_source=ntnlreview&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=amconswap

The second night of the first Democratic 2020 presidential debate had even less discussion of foreign policy than the first. Were it not for a few of the candidates themselves choosing to bring up some of these issues, the audience would have heard almost nothing about foreign policy. There was one important moment when Biden was forced to address his 2002 vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, and he gave a remarkably bad answer that was consistent with his overall poor performance. It was striking how the former Vice President still had no answer for why voters should trust his judgment.

Biden’s answer was scattershot, and most of what he said wasn’t related to the Iraq war:

Because once we — once Bush abused that power, what happened was, we got elected after that. I made sure — the president turned to me and said, Joe, get our combat troops out of Iraq. I was responsible for getting 150,000 combat troops out of Iraq, and my son was one of them.

I also think we should not have combat troops in Afghanistan. It’s long overdue. It should end.

And, thirdly, I believe that you’re not going to find anybody who has pulled together more of our alliances to deal with what is the real stateless threat out there. We cannot go it alone in terms of dealing with terrorism.

So I would eliminate the act that allowed us to go into war, and not — the AUMF, and make sure that it could only be used for what its intent was, and that is to go after terrorists, but never do it alone. That’s why we have to repair our alliances. We put together 65 countries to make sure we dealt with ISIS in Iraq and other places. That’s what I would do. That’s what I have done. And I know how to do it.