RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/trending/elizabeth-warren-demands-reparations-for-same-sex-couples/

True to form on the intersectionality front, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, introduced a bill to extend the idea of reparations to LGBT people. While far more limited in scope than frequent calls for slavery reparations to black Americans, the proposal blames the U.S. government for withholding benefits same-sex couples allegedly should have received before the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

On Friday, Warren re-introduced S. 1940, the Refund Equality Act, which would allow same-sex couples to amend past tax returns. According to a report from the Joint Committee on Taxation, the bill would direct $57 million in refunds. The funds would go to same-sex couples in states that had legalized same-sex marriage before the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013. Warren introduced an earlier version of the bill in 2017.

“The federal government forced legally married same-sex couples in Massachusetts to file as individuals and pay more in taxes for almost a decade,” Warren said in a statement on the legislation. “We need to call out that discrimination and to make it right — Congress should pass the Refund Equality Act immediately.”

“It wasn’t until marriage equality became law that gay & lesbian couples could jointly file tax returns—so they paid more in taxes,” Warren tweeted Saturday.

“Our government owes them more than $50M for the years our discriminatory tax code left them out. We must right these wrongs.”Such claims echo the argument for slavery reparations. According to that argument, the government allowed and fostered the horrific practice of race-based slavery, which stripped black people of their right to the fruits of their own labor. While slavery was abolished, the government did not return the property unjustly stolen from black people. The wealth inequalities among black and white Americans are a result of this horrific injustice, so the argument goes. Therefore, the government must pay their descendants the debt it owes them.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/new-documents-released-regarding-rep-ilhan-omars-possible-bigamy-and-incest/

The Minnesota Campaign Fiance Board has released new documents in the case of campaign finance violations against Rep. Ilhan Omar which shed a little more light on charges made during her 2018 campaign that she married her brother, a British citizen, so he could enter the United States, but then married another man in 2017 before divorcing her first husband.

An investigation by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune revealed that Omar legally corrected the error, but questions surrounding her relationship with her first husband persist.

In August of 2016, the original story broke when Powerline blog covered it:

A reader has written us to point out that the Somali website  Somalispotposted information last week suggesting Omar’s involvement in marriage and immigration fraud. The post notes that Omar married Ahmed Hirsi in 2002. Hirsi is the father of Omar’s three children. Omar is depicted with Hirsi and their children on Omar’s campaign website  here.

The post further notes that Omar married her brother Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009, implying that the latter marriage assisted his entry into the United States. Her brother was a British citizen. “As soon as Ilhan Omar married him,” the post continues, “he started university at her [a]lma mater North Dakota State University where he graduated in 2012. Shortly thereafter, he moved to Minneapolis where he was living in a public housing complex and was later evicted. He then returned to the United Kingdom where he now lives.”

The Star investigation tried to untangle the convoluted skein of Omar’s personal life:

Omar has denied the allegations in the past, dismissing them as “baseless rumors” first raised in an online Somali politics forum and championed by conservative bloggers during her 2016 campaign for the Minnesota House. But she said little then or since about Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, the former husband who swept into her life in 2009 before a 2011 separation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/liberals-against-investigating-cia-fbi/Since Trump took office, of course.

Was there ever a time when Americans had unquestioning faith in federal law-enforcement agencies? Maybe in the days before Vietnam and Watergate, most citizens did believe that those in charge of the nation’s fate could be trusted. Before World War II, the FBI’s formidable public-relations machine actually produced a popular radio and television program lauding its efforts “in peace and war.” After the war, when the CIA became the country’s first full-time foreign-intelligence agency, few Americans understood much about what it was doing, and what little they did know was colored by the government’s propaganda efforts.

But ever since the upheaval of the late 1960s and early 1970s seemed to make cynicism about government our new national pastime, the notion that the intelligence community is above politics has been as outdated as the adulation once accorded to J. Edgar Hoover. It’s in that context that we should understand the recent debate about whether it’s appropriate to scrutinize the CIA and FBI’s role in the origins of the Russia probe. Though Democrats are now treating criticism of federal law enforcement as beyond the pale, their newfound faith is every bit as partisan as Republicans’ newfound skepticism. A sober look at the history of the past few decades reveals that, to paraphrase Clausewitz, in Washington, intelligence has always been a matter of politics by other means.

Attorney General William Barr’s decision to launch an investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation has caused some predicable anger among Democrats and other Trump-administration critics. This discomfort stems from what they regard as an attempt to flip the narrative from Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia to a dubious decision by the FBI to begin spying on the political opponents of Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.

Given the failure of the investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller to prove the collusion allegations, Barr’s attempt to determine whether the unprecedented probe of a presidential campaign was an abuse of power seems reasonable. But Barr’s decision is a huge problem for Democrats who are hoping to pursue the impeachment of Trump by picking up the case that Mueller failed to make after two years of effort.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274003/how-buttigieg-entered-anti-israel-echo-chamber-daniel-greenfield

Last year, Pete Buttigieg, then the mayor of a failing Indiana city with a small Jewish community, and with unlikely aspirations for higher office, visited Israel. He suggested that Israel’s approach to security offered “a very important lesson in that that hopefully Americans can look to”.

Buttigieg had joined an American Jewish Committee delegation of mayors and came back with a seeming understanding of Israel’s precarious security situation and the danger of simplistic solutions.

 “One of the first things that was very clear to us is that there is not a unified or single voice for the Palestinian people. Most people aren’t aware of the difference between what’s happening in Gaza, run by Hamas in a way that is contributing to a lot of misery there, but also totally different than an environment where you would have a negotiating partner across the table,” he observed.

Fast forward a year and Buttigieg is running for president and threatening to cut aid to Israel.

In his foreign policy address, he falsely claimed that “the Netanyahu government is turning away from peace” and warned Israel, while, referring to himself in the third person, that “President Buttigieg would take steps to ensure that American taxpayers won’t help foot the bill.”

What happened? There are two answers.

When Buttigieg was running a conservative city with an active Jewish and Christian community, where it’s not unusual to see churches flying the Israeli flag, it was safe for him to be more pro-Israel. On the campaign trail of a radical primary, where anti-Israel protesters dogged his steps, things changed.

But the bigger answer goes inside the foreign policy factory to see how the sausage gets made.

Buttigieg’s foreign policy team is headed by Doug Wilson. Wilson, Obama’s Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs and the highest-ranking gay Pentagon official, is an obvious choice. Wilson chairs the Board of Advisors at the Truman National Security Project making him the guy to talk to for 2020 Democrats like Buttigieg interested in developing a foreign policy position at the national level.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273997/will-dems-presidential-fate-repeat-past-wins-or-bruce-thornton

Many Republicans are feeling optimistic about Trump’s reelection in 2020. The Mueller investigation, on which Democrats’ pinned their hopes for mortally wounding the president, has crumbled like a bride’s first pie crust. AG Barr, unlike the lollygagging Jeff Sessions, is vigorously investigating the corruption in the FBI and DOJ that led to government agencies’ interference in an election in favor of Hillary Clinton, and then their attempts to engineer a bloodless coup to remove a legally elected president. The economy is roaring, with numbers on growth, employment, and productivity not seen in decades. And international rivals like Iran and China are now being confronted rather than coddled.

Meanwhile, the Democrats appear to have lost their political minds. They have sunk deeper into the swamps of zombie socialism, illiberal identity politics, 1984-style censorship, legalized infanticide, climate-change apocalypse, and proposals to dismantle the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For Republicans, these excesses portend a variation on their party’s victories in 1972 or 1980. But Dems apparently believe they can reprise Bill Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s triumphs in 1992 and 2008. Each of these elections recalls the circumstances and issues that so far are shaping 2020.

Richard Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972 over George McGovern, who won only one state and lost his home state, was a decisive rejection of the Sixties on behalf of the “Silent Majority” angered over this attempted fundamental transformation of America. The sneering assault on traditional religion, customs, mores, and morals, one abetted by the media, popular culture, and universities, aroused a sleeping electoral giant. Nixon’s deft handling of the Vietnam War during his first term, which lead to a draw-down of U.S. forces––from over half a million in 1968 to a mere 50 in 1973–– and the end of the draft, took the war off the table despite the antiwar media’s earlier attempts to spin North Vietnam’s 1968 Tet Offensive, a disaster for the North, into an omen of American military defeat.

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!