RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/trending/beto-tells-black-leaders-they-need-protection-from-their-own-country/

Beto O’Rourke was in South Carolina yesterday on a mission to pander to black people. The black vote in South Carolina is critical and Democrats have been vying with each other to see who can emote most fervently when speaking of the difficulties of American blacks.

I think Beto got a little carried away.

Washington Examiner:

Appearing before a gathering of 10 black community leaders and activists at Park Circle Creamery, the 2020 presidential candidate addressed the lack of trust in the law enforcement community that has arisen from incidents of police brutality.

“I don’t know the right word to describe what we need to do as a country, but it’s not just leveling the playing field. It is protecting people from their country and those who hold positions of trust, including in law enforcement right now,” the former Texas congressman told the group. “And it’s protecting from a criminal justice system, it’s protecting from a kindergarten classroom, it’s also protecting from who’s polluting the air that we breathe and the water we drink,” he said, making an apparent reference to the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

I guess the concept of equality of opportunity is dead in the Democratic Party. Instead, as some cheap-suit mob boss would do, Beto is offering “protection.”

“We have these very specific proposals about ensuring there’s more capital in the community, capital in society, making sure everyone has access to it,” O’Rourke said. “I understand that it’s much larger than any given policy proposal or any part of the system because it is systemic. And I will in all humility admit I don’t have the answer.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-hawaii-democrats-surprising-views-11560714036

New York

Of all the Democratic presidential candidates, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard may most defy easy categorization. She fuses appeals to national honor—drawn from her Army service in Iraq—with resolutely left-wing policy prescriptions, especially on foreign affairs. Yet she appears frequently on Fox News, has earned plaudits from Republican colleagues, and staunchly opposes impeachment proceedings against President Trump, which she warns would “tear the country apart.”

“The whole reason the Mueller investigation started was to investigate collusion,” she said in an interview between recent campaign stops in Manhattan. The special counsel “was very clear in his report that there was no evidence found that collusion took place.” But she is at pains to distinguish her reasoning from that of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose reticence about impeachment, Ms. Gabbard says, is rooted in partisan calculation: “That’s exactly what people are sick and tired of.”

Ms. Gabbard, who represents Hawaii’s Second District, also doesn’t belabor her sex, her ethnic background (Samoan) or her religion (Hindu). “I think identity politics, again, is one of those things that is unfortunately being used to divide us. . . . [it’s] a dangerous road to walk down,” Ms. Gabbard told me in a podcast interview, lamenting fellow Democrats and the media for often treating Americans “as though we are the sum of the color of our skin.”

Since she launched her campaign in January, liberal media outlets have scorned her. NBC News published an article alleging that she had the backing of “Russia’s propaganda machine.” The Daily Beast charged that she was being “boosted by Putin apologists.”

But she’s found support from a popular alternative-media figure, Joe Rogan, who has hosted Ms. Gabbard twice on his video and audio podcast—consistently a top-ranked offering on YouTube and iTunes. Like Ms. Gabbard, Mr. Rogan is politically heterodox. He’s endorsed libertarian Republican Ron Paul, shuns ideological labels, and has a following among right-leaning listeners.

Perhaps because of her reliance on alternative media, Ms. Gabbard is unusually sympathetic to conservatives who complain of social-media censorship. Asked about YouTube’s penalization of right-wing personality Steven Crowder, Ms. Gabbard says: “I think it points to the dangerous level of power that these platforms have, and how they can seemingly arbitrarily make their own rules, and make decisions about what kind of free speech is acceptable.” It amounts to a kind of monopoly, she argues: “If you get cut out from YouTube, there’s nowhere else you’re going to be able to go.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/06/16/u

Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders’ attempt to promote “democratic socialism” as a political platform recalls former Vice President Walter Mondale’s 1984 convention speech promise: “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes. And so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.”

A gift which my bosses at President Reagan’s re-election campaign accepted with undisguised glee. Especially when Fritz helpfully quantified his planned pocketbook raid, which our guys extrapolated to a $3,000 per-household hike.

Game. Set. Match. 

For some inexplicable reason — perhaps tempting polls showing that 70% or more of Democrats find socialism attractive, or young gun Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s rock-star status — Crazy Uncle Bernie didn’t just climb out on a similar political limb with his own daffy idea to cling ever more tightly to the banner of “democratic socialism.” Like Fritz, he proceeded to saw the branch off himself.

Roared the Vermonter: “It is my very strong belief that the United States must … find the moral conviction to choose a different path, a higher path, a path of compassion, justice and love. It is the path that I call democratic socialism.”

Uh, huh. Certainly, going all-in on socialism is the new ticket!

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/2020-presidential-campaign-begins/And Donald Trump holds the high ground

The 2020 campaign begins in earnest next week in Florida, when Donald Trump officially launches his reelection bid. On June 26, 20 Democratic candidates and five moderators hold the first of two nights of debates. Where do things stand?

According to the polls, President Trump starts at a disadvantage. He has 44 percent approval in the RealClearPolitics average, with a net disapproval of nine points. The most recent Quinnipiac poll has the major Democrats defeating Trump. The margins range from Joe Biden’s 13-point victory to Pete Buttigieg and Cory Booker’s five points. Another recent Quinnipiac poll has Biden leading Trump by four points in Texas. Private surveys of the Lone Star State also show a tight race. Trump polls very badly among suburban women, and the growth in suburban Texas has been extraordinary. Which spells trouble.

If the election were held today, a generic Democrat would defeat Donald Trump. What makes the predictions game difficult is that Election Day isn’t for 16 months, and generic Democrats do not exist. Political conditions are bound to change, for better or worse, and voters once again will make a binary choice between the incumbent and a specific progressive alternative. That alternative might not be as flawed as Hillary Clinton. But he or she will have flaws.

Do the Democrats have more than a fighting chance? Absolutely. They’ve won the popular vote in all but one presidential election since 1992. And yet they would be foolish beyond belief to assume Trump is destined for a single term. President Trump can’t beat a generic Democrat. Lucky for him he won’t be facing one.

Trump holds the high ground of incumbency. Only once in the last century, in 1980, has the public ousted a party from the White House after just four years. Moreover, Trump is extremely unlikely to face a primary challenger, and at the moment, the chances of an independent third-party candidacy are slim. At the outset of the contest, the economy is humming, the country is not in a major war, and there is no disruptive social unrest. This is a winning record.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/448447-landslide-polls-spark-angst-these-geniuses-saw-clinton-as-unstoppable#.XQOjNcQ6krs.twitter

Democrats and Republicans alike are skeptical of early polls predicting a landslide victory for Democrat Joe Biden over President Trump on Election Day 2020.

To Trump and Republicans, the polls are fake news and no more reliable than surveys predicting Hillary Clinton would be elected president in 2016.

Some Democrats are equally skeptical, warning their party not to buy into the early data.

“These same geniuses all predicted that Hillary Clinton was unstoppable and inevitable,” said Chris Kofinis, a Democratic pollster.

While Trump argues the polls undersell his support, some Democrats say surveys showing Biden well ahead of the Democratic field are not to be trusted.

Both sides think a close race in 2020 is likely and that surveys showing Biden and other Democrats with huge leads aren’t likely to reflect Election Day’s reality.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/14/dnc-announces-first-debate-lineups-1365570

By ZACH MONTELLARO and CHRISTOPHER CADELAGO

The Democratic National Committee announced the lineups for the first party-sanctioned presidential debates, after a random drawing Friday in New York.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/06/14/no-outrage-over-democrat-ties-to-foreign-election-interference/

In the latest media-manufactured crisis du jour, the president now stands falsely accused of inviting foreign interference into our elections.

During an Oval Office interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on Thursday, President Trump said there “isn’t anything wrong” with listening to information offered up by a foreigner about a candidate’s political opponent.

“It’s not an interference, they have information. I think I’d take it,” he told Stephanapolous when asked whether it’s appropriate to accept opposition research from someone in another country. “If I thought there was something wrong, maybe I’d take it to the FBI, if I thought there was something wrong.”

The rather innocuous comments unleashed the predictable and tiresome widespread outrage. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) scolded the president for “not knowing between right and wrong” and demanded that “everyone in the country should be appalled.”

Trump’s remarks provided the newest grist for impeachment threats. Perpetual bore Senator Mitt Romney (R-Utah) apparently misunderstood Trump’s response, but nonetheless seized the opportunity again to boast of his moral superiority. “I ran for president twice. I ran for governor once. I ran for Senate twice,” Romney told CNN, once again reminding Americans that he has been in politics for way too long. “I’ve never had any attempt made by a foreign government. Had that occurred, I would’ve contacted the FBI immediately.”

Even Ellen Weintraub, the chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, weighed in from her long-expired perch (her term officially ended in 2007) at that agency:

While Weintraub’s lecture earned atta boys from the usual suspects, it again brought attention to the legitimate scandal that the media, Democrats, and NeverTrump Republicans continue to ignore and excuse: The use of foreign sources to fabricate and promote the Russian collusion fable during the 2016 presidential campaign.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/448589-arent-delirious-democrats-now-accusing-team-obama-of-treason

American voters are a lot harder to fool than the political elite think.

If you read the newspapers, tuned into the cable TV pundits or received an email from one of the Democrats running for president, you’d swear Donald Trump was back to his treasonous ways. 

All that was missing was an annoying OMG text exclamation punctuating the unfounded claims that Trump might violate the law in 2020 by accepting intelligence on a political rival from a foreign country. The inference, of course, is that it would come from a hostile power such as  Russia or North Korea or Iran.

Actually, what Trump told ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos was that he’d consider taking intelligence dirt about a rival from a friendly ally. (Norway was the actual example he used.)

Sound familiar? That is EXACTLY what the Obama administration did in 2016. It’s something no one in the media or the political space grasped during the tsunami of breathless reaction that followed the interview.

In July 2016, the Obama administration accepted unsolicited information from Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat who just happened to have helped arrange a $25 million government donation to the Clinton Foundation years before. Downer said that he had witnessed a Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, bragging about some dirt that the Russians supposedly had on Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Though Downer’s claim was reported two-plus months after the alleged event, and was only hearsay gathered at a London tavern, the Obama administration gave it to the FBI which, in turn, thought it was weighty enough to justify opening a counterintelligence case against the lawfully elected Republican nominee for president.

In other words, the Democratic administration accepted dirt from a foreign friendly and used it to justify investigating its GOP rival.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/defining-socialism-down-11560553255

Part of Bernie Sanders’ apparent political appeal is his authenticity. He may be a socialist, but at least he’s honest about it. Then again, his speech on Thursday defining his idea of democratic socialism may begin to erode that reputation.

The Vermont Senator presents himself as the ideological descendant of FDR, whom many seniors still revere and millennials incorrectly believe rescued America from the Great Depression. Medicare for All, a federal jobs guarantee and energy-industry takeover? Mr. Sanders says they are merely an extension of New Deal programs like Social Security, unemployment insurance and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

“Like today, the quest for transformative change was opposed by big business, Wall Street, the political establishment, by the Republican Party and by the conservative wing of FDR’s own Democratic Party,” the Democratic Socialist declared. “While he stood up for the working families of our country, we can never forget that President Roosevelt was reviled by the oligarchs of his time, who berated these extremely popular programs as ‘socialism.’”

We can understand why Mr. Sanders wants to define socialism in this way, since the polls show the word is politically toxic for most Americans. But he’s underselling his own contributions. FDR’s social programs were based on the principle of work in return for benefits. Workers chipped in part of their payroll to finance their own retirement many years hence. The benefits are unsustainable now, but at least they require someone to work.