RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272641/diverse-conformity-2020-democrats-daniel-greenfield

Never has the Democrat presidential field been more diverse in race, gender, religion and orientation, and less diverse intellectually. The 2020 primary field stumbled out into the streets of Iowa throwing clumsy identity politics punches at each other’s diverse faces. Soon the media was full of stories about how Bernie Sanders was a sexist pig, Kamala Harris spent all her time throwing the book at black men, and Tulsi Gabbard is a homophobe. And that’s just the warm up act. Give it a week and every candidate will be accusing his, her and its opponents of being bigger bigots than the biggest bigot in Biggotsville.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s entry into the 2020 race shone a light on the dismal conformity of the field, but not because she’s Hindu or part Samoan. Senator Kamala Harris was raised by her Tamil Indian mother in Canada and attended a Hindu temple as a child. But Harris has tried to mold her campaign into the generic cookie cutter African-American politician, dubiously laying claim to generations of history and struggle that her family was never heir to by announcing her run on MLK Day in Oakland.

And then rushing off to Iowa, which is about as far away as you can get from Oakland, because she wasn’t really trying to convince black people of her authenticity, but white progressives in Iowa City.

Cultural diversity is commonplace in the 2020 field. But all that diversity just makes for a poignant opening speech before politicians like Harris conform their brands to the lowest common Dem denominator. Harris falsely claimed to have attended a desegregated school and is using the civil rights struggle as the background for her presidential campaign because in a tribal party, white guilt and black bloc votes are safer bets than her actual background with her Tamil mother and Jamaican father.

https://edwardcline.blogspot.com/2019/01/islam-in-congress.html

One grows jaded from reading — indeed, weary of – all the bad news one finds on the Internet or which cascades into one’s email. More knife attacks in the U.K., more rapes in Swedenand Germany, Islamic butchery in Morocco and Pakistan and Nigeria, of Islamic slaughters everywhere. And news of Western countries folding, ever so slightly, to the invasion and inroads of Islam.

Except for a few reality- centered souls – Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Amil Imani, Katie Hopkins, and a scant paucity of other individuals – with access to the reading public , few other writers and thinkers and prominent persons will risk a blanket, public condemnation of Islam. This is especially true of members of Congress. To stand up and point fingers at Islam would invite charges of racism and attempts at suppressing freedom of speech, oppression of a “minority,” even though Islam is gaining the status of a “protected” minority here (creeping Sharia), as it enjoys in the U.K. and on Continental Europe. I can’t think of any politician with the moral or mental backbone to unapologetically cite Islam’s totalitarian, fascist nature and its 14 centuries of bloodshed, conquest, and destruction.

Congress has been Islamisized. No one there dares stand up and say, “Islam is evil and is not ‘peaceful.” Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, is friendly to the Muslimis, and has appointed them to powerful, influential committees, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib to the Financial Services Committee, and Omar to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Voters (or illegal voters) elected them to office as representatives of their districts in the House of Representatives: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14th district), Ilhan Omar (Minnesota-5thdistrict), and Rashida Harbi Tlaib (Michigan – 13th district). Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not a Muslim, but she is the newspaperman’s photogenic dream. She an agenda pal with Tliab and Omar. They all oppose, in varying degrees of vehemence, President Donald Trump, with the rest of the House.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/2020-democrats-progressive-profligacy/

The field has moved so far left it’s about to fall off the political charts.

By almost any traditional measure, President Trump should be extremely vulnerable in 2020. Although the president often brags about his victory in 2016, it is important to recall that a shift of just 107,000 votes in three states would have changed the outcome. That was less than 0.09 percent of all votes cast — and this when Trump was running against one of the most unpopular presidential candidates of all time. Since his victory he has done virtually nothing to expand his support beyond his loyal base. His approval rating hovers somewhere between low and dismal. A significant majority of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track.

Given this terrain, Democrats can be said to have just one job for 2020: Don’t be crazy. And they are failing at it.

Conventional wisdom says that the Democrats offer no agenda other than opposition to Trump and various forms of identity politics. If that were true, it might actually be good enough to win. Hardly a day goes by without Trump alienating a new swath of the electorate. As the midterms showed, he remains popular in deep red states, but Democrats can make big gains in swing districts simply by not being Trump.

And while character and culture will be a big part of the upcoming campaign, elections are also about policy. Maybe not about the nitty-gritty details of 25-page white papers, but about the broad strokes of where candidates want to take the country. And unfortunately for them, the Democratic contenders are not offering an attractive policy vision.

It’s an agenda not just for big government, but for gigantic, enormous, jumbo, super-colossal government. In fact, the rapidly growing Democratic field has collectively moved so far to the left that it is about to fall off the edge of the political charts.

Consider that in 2016, Bernie Sanders was an outlier with his call for a $32 trillion government-run single-payer health-care system, a $15 minimum wage, free college, and guaranteed jobs for everyone. Today, those are positions held by every major Democratic candidate. Were Hillary to run again today, she would be considered far too moderate for today’s Democratic party. And that’s saying something.

And that’s just the start. The “free” goodies keep on coming: universal preschool, rent subsidies, expanded retirement benefits, and, of course, a Green New Deal. Details are sparse, and plans vary from candidate to candidate, but we are talking price tags that easily exceed $50 trillion over the next ten years.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/progressive-politics-abolish-ice-tax-increases-free-college/

Abolishing ICE, offering ‘free’ college to all, raising taxes to 70 percent: Will the somnolent GOP take notice?

The old Democratic party championed the working classes, wanted secure borders to protect middle-class union wage earners, and focused generous federal entitlement help on the citizen poor. Civil rights were defined as equality of opportunity for all.

That party is long dead. An updated Hubert Humphrey or even Bill Clinton would not recognize any of the present “Democrats.”

Even the old wing of elite liberals is mostly long gone, with its talk of legal immigration only, opposition to censorship, pro-Israel foreign policy, let-it-hang-out Sixties indulgence, and free speech.

It was superseded by grim progressives who are not so much interested in a square, new, or fair deal for the middle classes, as an entirely different deal that redefines everything from the Bill of Rights and the very way we elect presidents and senators to an embrace of identity politics as its first principle.

Indeed, we are currently witnessing a quite strange series of North Korean–like reeducation confessionals, from repenting erstwhile liberals and now presidential hopefuls such as Joe Biden, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand. They and other would-be candidates parade before show cameras to apologize for their prior incorrect heresies, including their erstwhile support for drug laws, tough sentencing, and border enforcement.

The subtext of these charades is that 28-year-old socialist Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (who won her Democratic primary with 15,897 votes and with that victory an assured congressional seat in a gerrymandered Democratic district) is the new Robespierre — warning that the earth as we know it will end in twelve years, ICE must be disbanded, all student debt abolished, wealth taxes levied, and Medicare provided for all. And her political guillotine awaits any progressive with lingering stains of the Ancien Régime.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/illegal-abolish-ice-gillibrand-grapples-past-conservative-immigration-views-n961806

After announcing a White House bid amid a historic government shutdown over President Donald Trump’s demands for a border wall, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., spent her first week on the 2020 stump explaining and expressing regret over her own hard-line immigration views a decade ago.

“I did not think about suffering in other people’s lives,” she said last Sunday in an interview on CNN. “I realized that things I had said were wrong. I was not caring about others.”

In an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow days earlier, she said her past views were not “driven from my heart. I was callous to the suffering of families that want to be together.”

It’s perhaps an unavoidable reckoning for a seasoned politician in a party that’s moved rapidly to the left during the last decade. But as electability emerges as a central issue on the campaign trail, Democrats are increasingly willing to say they were wrong.

Gillibrand isn’t the only one reconciling past views. Ahead of a potential bid, former Vice President Joe Biden said that his past criminal justice stances haven’t always “been right.” Not long after announcing that she was exploring her own 2020 campaign, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, apologized for her past views on LGBT rights.

And it’s no surprise Gillibrand’s once-conservative stance on immigration is raising eyebrows a decade later: They sound nothing like her current views, like her recent call to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/opinions/kamala-harris-big-challenge-axelrod/index.html

This is major, because David Axelrod is the man who groomed Barack Obama from obscurity to the White House in four years….rsk

Kamala Harris has a theory of the case about the Democratic presidential nominating process. If she’s right, she could well be standing on a debate platform with Donald Trump in 2020.
Plainly, her announcement and effective rollout on Martin Luther King Jr. Day wasn’t a casual scheduling decision. Nor was her decision to visit South Carolina even before her highly produced kickoff rally Sunday in Oakland, California.
While not explicitly capitalizing on her status as the only woman of color in the race, the symbolic timing of her declaration and the nature of these events were impossible to ignore.
Too little attention has been paid to the way the nominating process unfolds, first in mostly white Iowa and New Hampshire but then moving quickly to more diverse states where African-Americans play a much larger role.

Hillary Clinton was able to shake off Bernie Sanders in 2016 primarily because of her advantage among black voters. That same edge helped Barack Obama prevail over Clinton in 2008.

African-American voters are a strong part of the Democratic base. And under party rules, congressional districts with overwhelming Democratic performance receive additional delegates, multiplying the value of black support.
Harris’ challenge is to be a top finisher in the early states that traditionally narrow the field, to get to those contests that start with the crucial South Carolina primary, where she may have a decided advantage. She’ll be in Iowa tonight for a CNN Town Hall hosted by Jake Tapper. (It airs at 10 pm on CNN.)
There are many reasons to believe Harris could break through.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/the_democrats_stealth_jihad.html

For decades, the Democrat Party has shown by both words and deeds that they despise the U.S. Constitution while they bend over backward to embrace Islamists, illegal aliens, and anyone who hates America. The left is interested only in power and nothing else – even if it means to sacrifice our national security and advocate open borders.

The liaison between American Muslims and the Democratic Party is frequently described as a marriage of convenience, where Muslims will ally with leftist politicians, who will gladly cede some of their power to this group of enforcers so conservative politicians and Christians who advocate self-defense and sane social policies are kept out of office.

While America is in hibernation, Muslim organizations with the help of Democrats have been busy, working “stealthily” to change America in what is called “soft jihad.” Soft jihad is practiced where Muslims are not strong enough to unsheathe the sword of jihad, where the true nature of Islam is exposed and when the public would likely stamp them out. A critical tool of soft jihad involves penetration of the American educational system, such as Da’wa, the religious duty of each Muslim to convert non-Muslims and strengthen the Islamic Ummah.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272668/americas-latest-historic-political-icons-john-perazzo

“Historic” political figures may be well worth celebrating, but only if they are something other than ignorant and ill-tempered human wrecking balls. “Historic” doesn’t necessarily mean “good.” Barack Obama’s “historic” tenure as our nation’s first black president, for instance, was tainted by the somewhat inconvenient fact that he is a lifelong Marxist who has spent all of his adult years allying himself with America-hating revolutionaries like Bill Ayers and Berhardine Dohrn, and with bilious Jew-haters like Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, and Al Sharpton. When Hillary Clinton made her own “historic” attempt to become our first female president, her campaign was tarnished by the similarly unpleasant fact that she was the most corrupt presidential candidate who ever breathed. And when Keith Ellison “historically” became the first Muslim elected to Congress, he brought with him a long history of allegiance to the most prolific Jew-hater in living memory, Louis Farrakhan.

And now, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, the first two Muslim women ever elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, have stepped forth to become our latest “historic” icons.

Tlaib, who served in the Michigan state legislature from 2009-15, has cultivated noteworthy ties to a number of radical Islamist organizations. In 2009, for instance, she received a Community Service Award from the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group she has praised for its “invaluable” and “vital” “advocacy efforts” on behalf of “those who don’t have the resources to defend themselves.” Moreover, Tlaib has spoken at banquets and conferences hosted by CAIR, the Muslim American Society, and the Islamic Circle of North America. She also has received numerous financial donations from individuals affiliated with CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Students Association, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Most of these entities are affiliated with the notorious Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic supremacist organization and a fountainhead of extremism/terrorism.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/billionaire-presidential-candidates-2020-howard-schultz-bloomberg-trump/

2020 could see Trump, Bloomberg, and Howard Schultz of Starbucks all running.

Democrats are bullish on their chances of beating President Trump in 2020. If his approval ratings remain below the 46 percent of the vote that carried him to victory in 2016, they think they can win.

Some have also been counting on an anti-Trump candidate from the right running a third-party effort. They note that libertarian Gary Johnson and independent Evan McMullin won a total of 3.8 percent of the vote in 2016, much of it from voters who might otherwise have voted for a Republican.

But suddenly Democrats are facing their own possible third-party headache. Lifetime Democratic billionaire Howard Schultz, the founder of the ubiquitous coffee chain Starbucks, has told CBS’s 60 Minutes that he’s close to launching a self-funded presidential run in 2020 — and that he will run as an independent.

“We’re living at a most fragile time,” the 65-year-old Schultz told CBS. “Not only the fact that this president is not qualified to be the president, but the fact that both parties are consistently not doing what’s necessary on behalf of the American people and are engaged, every single day, in revenge politics.”

Schultz is apparently quite serious and has already hired Steve Schmidt, the 2008 campaign manager for the late John McCain, whose insurgent campaign captured the Republican nomination in 2008.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tulsi-gabbards-2020-contribution-11548619003

The left is ascendant in the Democratic Party, as likely presidential candidates outdo each other with promises of free college, single-payer health care and a guaranteed income. Yet the party’s direction on foreign policy is still up for grabs, which makes Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s presidential bid more interesting.

Elizabeth Warren says “it’s time to create a foreign policy that works for all Americans,” whatever that means. Kamala Harris vows not to conduct international relations by tweet, while Kirsten Gillibrand promises the opposite of whatever President Trump does.

Ms. Gabbard is different in making foreign policy a focus. “There is one main issue that is central to the rest and that is the issue of war and peace,” said the four-term Hawaii Congresswoman, 37, in a recent CNN appearance announcing her candidacy. Her vision for a more limited American role in the world will be the campaign’s central theme.

First elected to the Hawaii House at 21, Ms. Gabbard steadily climbed the island’s political ranks. Along the way she joined the Hawaii Army National Guard and served in Iraq. She says her time in the military has made her more hesitant to support U.S. involvement abroad.

She is best, or worst, known for bringing the Aloha spirit to Damascus and meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad in January 2017. She says she doesn’t regret the meeting and has since defended the Assad regime. This is part of a consistent skepticism regarding U.S. military missions from Africa to Afghanistan.

Ms. Gabbard opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and has worked with libertarian Republicans on legislation to stop the U.S. from supporting Syrian rebels. Her ideas would make the world less safe and prosperous, but at least she doesn’t hide her isolationism as other Democrats do.

Ms. Gabbard’s biggest obstacle to winning the Democratic nomination may be her past as a social conservative, and she spent the first days after announcing for President apologizing for her previous opposition to same-sex marriage. She blamed it on her socially conservative father’s influence. A Bernie Sanders 2016 supporter, Ms. Gabbard now follows progressive orthodoxy on most domestic issues. A proponent of the Green New Deal, Ms. Gabbard has introduced legislation mandating 100% of U.S. energy generation come from renewable sources by 2035.