RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/16/ocasio-cortezs-factually-challenged-position-on-israel-is-embarrassing/

How can someone know so little about a topic yet be so passionate about it? That’s what I kept asking myself while re-watching a clip of media darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez discussing Gaza and Israel.

After dramatically defeating Democratic Caucus Chair Joe Crowley, there was a rush to proclaim the young, dynamic socialist Ocasio-Cortez the future of the Democratic Party. Well, if she portends the future, then it’s worth taking her words seriously. Even if we overlook the fact that Ocasio-Cortez’s self-identified ideology has led to more suffering and death than any other in history, her propensity to embrace positions she knows absolutely nothing about is, well, curious.

This week on the new “Firing Line” on PBS — a program claiming to be a reboot of the famous debate show, where William Buckley once politely dismantled his guests’ weak arguments — Ocasio-Cortez was asked about Israel. A few months ago, she claimed that Israel Defense Forces was mass murdering civilians, and that Democrats should not silent on the crimes of Israel anymore.

Ocasio-Cortez: Well, yes, but I also think that what people are starting to see in the occupation of Palestine is just an increasing crisis of humanitarian conditions and that to me is just where I tend to come from on this issue.

Margaret Hoover: You use the term the “occupation of Palestine,” what did you mean by that?

Ocasio-Cortez: Oh, I think, what I meant is that the settlements that are increasing in some of these areas and places where Palestinians are experiencing difficulty in access to housing and homes.

Hoover: Do you think you can expand on that?

Ocasio-Cortez: Yeah I think … [laughing] I am not the expert on geo-politics on this issue. You now, for me, I’m a firm believer in finding a two-state solution in this issue. And I’m happy to sit down with leaders on both of these… for me, I just look at things through a human rights lens, and I may not use the right words– I know this is a very intense issue.

Hoover nods and smiles through Ocasio-Cortez’s string of barely coherent platitudes, without challenging her in any genuine way.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/alexandria_ocasiocortez_is_one_very_lowinformation_voter_on_israel_and_palestine.html

Twenty-eight-year-old socialist sensation Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn’t all that, you know, ummm, up on the news.

Good thing she never met Bill Buckley, because on PBS’s current version of his old show, Firing Line with Margaret Hoover, she came out looking like an idiot.

Daily Wire’s Ryan Saavedra spotted the embarrassing exchange, writing:

New York socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attacked Israel in a recent interview on PBS’s “Firing Line,” calling them the occupiers of Palestine and later admitting that she has no idea what she is talking about regarding Israel.

Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks came in response to a question from host Margaret Hoover, who asked her to explain comments she made about Israel after she attacked them for defending themselves against an attack from Hamas terrorists.

Ocasio-Cortez, who called the shooting a “massacre,” said that she thinks that Israel has the right to “exist,” adding, “but I also think that what people are starting to see, at least, in the occupation of Palestine, is just an increasing crisis of humanitarian condition. And that, to me, is just where I tend to come from on this issue.”

It got worse when she got asked what she thought was going on, until the point where the Boston University graduate with the economics degree said she isn’t an “geopolitical expert.”

A couple of conclusions can be drawn from this.

One: She’s just like most typical Millennials in that she doesn’t know anything at all about the news, having come from a generation that never read newspapers. Her “umms” and “duhs” and hesitations make that embarrassingly clear.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/adriana_cohen/2018/07/cohen_sen_warren_forgets_all_about_democrats_influencing_the?utm_

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted this gem yesterday: “DOJ’s criminal charges provide hard evidence that Russian intel agents attacked America to boost their favorite candidates, undermine others, and influence our elections. @realDonaldTrump, cancel your ridiculous Putin summit and get your butt on a plane back to the United States.”

Good try.

Of course Liz conveniently forgets her CNN interview with Jake Tapper last November in which she said the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders.

She forgets the arrangement former DNC acting Chair Donna Brazile outlined in her book recounting the 2016 election, saying the DNC allowed the Clinton campaign to commandeer its finances, giving its preferred candidate control of the party long before Democrat voters chose their nominee.

Didn’t that undermine a legitimate presidential candidate — Bernie Sanders — and unfairly influence an election?

Of course it did but hypocritical liberals would rather keep screaming Russia, Russia, Russia and keep an unproven “collusion” narrative alive in an effort to derail the Trump administration instead of shining a spotlight on its own corrupt practices.

In an effort to distract from the damning Peter Strzok congressional testimony Thursday, the DOJ announced a dozen indictments of Russian nationals they say hacked into Hillary Clinton’s campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

Before you swallow these new allegations, consider that this is the same DOJ whose FBI under former Director James Comey’s watch didn’t bother to obtain the Democratic National Committee’s server and do its own independent forensic analysis.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/16/maxine-waters-is-the-face

The most noteworthy thing to emerge from the recent Maxine Waters dustup wasn’t her call for mob harassment tactics against Trump Administration officials, nor the attendant inflammatory language she employed, but rather, the swift reaction of two women’s activist groups who castigated House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, for her audacity in reproaching Waters.

The two letters are significant not only because they convey the ideological principles upon which the progressive opposition to the Trump Administration will be based, but because they also forebode the inevitable internecine conflict that will soon engulf the Democratic Party.

The contents of both letters are rife with extremism and provide a glimpse into the soul of modern progressive identity politics.

The letters also are evidence that the zany social theories and concepts of group identity politics, spawned by the need for instances of perpetual grievance demanded by the Diversity Beast that was created long ago by the fringes of the academic Left. This beast is now a part of mainstream American life, having been incorporated by the vocabulary and policies of the Democratic Party.

Live by Identity Politics, Die by Identity Politics

The first letter from a group of black women politicians states an obvious but unpleasant political reality brought to the Democratic Party by their now decades long obsession with identity politics. In order to win national elections, Democrats needs to capture almost 90 percent of the black vote. The letter indelicately reminds Pelosi of the long-term fealty of African-Americans to the party in stark and unforgiving terms.

“For Black women, who are the most loyal base of the Democratic Party and the Progressive Movement, Congresswoman Waters is our shero [sic].”

The letter further reminds the Minority Leader that,

Disparaging or failing to support Congresswoman Waters is an affront to her and Black women across the country and telegraphs a message that the Democratic Party can ill afford: that it does not respect Black women’s leadership and political power and discounts the impact of Black women and millennial voters.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/democrats-dump-moderates-move-to-far-left/

But promoting socialism, sky-high taxes, and open borders is probably not going to help them trounce the GOP in November.

The activist base of the Democratic party is lurching left fast enough that everyone should pay attention. Activists matter because their turnout in low-turnout primaries and caucuses almost propelled leftist Bernie Sanders to victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Last month, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unseated New York congressman Joe Crowley, the No. 4 ranking House Democrat in a low-turnout primary. She benefited from organizing support from the Democratic Socialists of America. Leftists have also upset establishment Democrats in statewide primaries for governor in Colorado and Maryland.

The power of left-wing activists showed up in California this past Saturday, as 65 percent of the state Democratic party’s 330-member executive committee voted to spurn moderate Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein. Instead, they endorsed her left-wing opponent, Kevin de León, a state senator. De Leon won a stunning 65 percent of party activists, and Feinstein got just 7 percent.

Just five weeks ago, Feinstein crushed de León in the June open primary, winning every county and finishing in first place with 44 percent of the overall vote. De León finished far behind, with 12 percent. But that was enough for a second-place showing under the state’s primary system, which sends the top two candidates regardless of party into the November election.

Feinstein is still the favorite in the November election because she can better appeal to Republican and independent voters than de León can. But de León now has the official endorsement of the state party even though he won less than 30 percent of the vote cast for Democrats in the primary. That endorsement gives him access to email lists of party voters, a spot on the slate cards endorsing a united Democratic ticket, and a share of the national Democratic party’s campaign cash that will flow into California.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/california-dems-dont-think-senator-feinstein-is-liberal-enough/

The state party gives its endorsement to a radical leftist.

The California state Democratic Party apparently doesn’t believe that one of the most liberal senators in the country is liberal enough for California.

Dianne Feinstein has been a liberal icon since she took office as a senator in 1993. But the state party has given its endorsement to Feinstein’s Democratic rival, state Senator Kevin de Leon.

De Leon is a radical leftist who has become a star among California Democrats. Feinstein, the 14th most liberal senator according to one analysis, isn’t partisan enough or radical enough for most state Democrats. It sets up an interesting contest in November as Feinstein has far more money and name recognition while de Leon has the enthusiasm and love of the activists.

Associated Press:

“Today’s vote is a clear-eyed rejection of politics as usual in Washington, D.C.,” de Leon said in a statement after the vote. “We have presented Californians with the first real alternative to the worn-out Washington playbook in a quarter-century.”

A total of 217 delegates voted for de Leon, of Los Angeles, while 22 cast ballots for Feinstein and 94 voted for no endorsement.

Party members and activists are typically more liberal than the wider California electorate that has sent Feinstein to Washington five times. Feinstein has turned skepticism from some party activists into an asset in her past campaigns.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/as_pelosi_increasingly_incoherent_in_public_dems_face_a_battle_over_leadership_succession.html

Long-simmering ethnic tensions in a party increasingly defined by identity politics could erupt if Nancy Pelosi’s mental decline forces her to bow out of her leadership of the Democrats’ House Caucus. With African-Americans the largest loyal base constituency, the fact that there has never been a black minority leader, much less speaker, the choice of her successor could split the party. Potentially at stake is the Speakership that could result if the longed-for Blue Wave produces a Democrat House majority.

Kyle Olsen of The American Mirror red flags Pelosi’s latest lapse into incoherence at a podium. Speaking to reporters Thursday,

Pelosi suffered brain freezes, speech problems and confused Russia and China at least twice.

While attacking Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Pelosi had trouble saying “effectively.”

“His kowtowing to the president, esffect, esffectively saying…” she said.

Moments later, while attacking the Trump tax cut, she said, “…the GOP tax scam for the rich that added 2 children dollars more” to the deficit.

See for yourself in the 83 second excerpt:

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-crowley-democrats-star-snag/

Making the click-through worthwhile: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hits an unexpected complication for November; tough questions about whether opposing Brett Kavanaugh is worth it for endangered Senate Democrats; and whether America can continue to function if political parties see each other as enemies and threats instead of mere opponents.

The Road to Congress for New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Democrats’ favorite new congressional candidate, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, hit a bump in the road this week. New York State has lots of small political parties and allows candidates to run as the nominee of multiple parties. Ocasio-Cortez beat incumbent congressman Joe Crowley in the Democratic party’s primary. But the Working Families party had endorsed Crowley, and made him their nominee. The Working Families party asked Crowley to agree to remove his name from the ballot and . . . he won’t.

Ocasio-Cortez now accuses Crowley of bailing on three scheduled concession calls and “mounting a 3rd party challenge against me.”

http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/21383/political-intermarriage-and-the-birth-of-the-newhttp://goudsmit.pundicity.com/21383
http://lindagoudsmit.com http://goudsmit.pundicity.com

Intermarriage is not always a matter of race or religion – sometimes it is a matter of politics. In 2008 Barack Hussein Obama officiated at the wedding of the Democrat party and Socialism. In this case the bride and groom came from very different family backgrounds with diametrically opposed world views and political perspectives.

The bride’s family, Constitution, was 242 years old and deeply committed to individualism, equality, liberty, and limited powers of government. The groom’s family, Socialism, came to America in 1877 deeply committed to collectivism and centralized government powers. The young lovers ignored the differences and their families’ objections to the marriage in their determination to make their union work for themselves and their children. What happened?

The marriage enjoyed the sweetness of honeymoon oblivion for awhile but soon it became apparent to both bride and groom that the Constitution and Socialism families were divided along foundational lines and compromise was not an option. As with so many racial and religious intermarriages the problems did not become apparent until the children were born. The husband and wife began to argue about what to teach the children.

The husband argued the superiority of his Socialism family tradition of collectivism to govern their family publicly and privately. He extolled the values of dependence, eternal childhood, and cradle-to-grave government control. The wife insisted that her Constitution family values of individual liberty, equality, and personal responsibility were better suited to govern their family. The arguments grew more heated and the husband and wife decided to seek professional counseling. They went back to the spiritual advisor who married them – Barack Hussein Obama (BHO).

The husband and wife entered the counseling office with optimism and confidence that their officiant could help them sort it out. After all, they had chosen BHO to marry them because Obama said he taught Constitutional law and also studied the great socialist Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals. Obama listened to the husband and wife patiently.

FULL TRANSCRIPT OF BRANDON STRAKA’S VIDEO

Once upon a time, I was a liberal.

Well, to be honest, less than a year ago, I was still a liberal.

I became a liberal because I felt I’d found a tribe whose values aligned with my own.

I staunchly reject racism of any kind, I reject the marginalization of any human being based off of their gender or sexual orientation. I reject tyrannical group think, I reject a system which allows an ambitious, misinformed, and dogmatic mob to suppress free speech, create false narratives, and apathetically steamroll over the truth.

I reject the acceptance of junk science and superstition to advance ideological agendas.

I reject hate.

These are the reasons why I became a liberal and these are the same reasons why I am now walking away.

For years now, I have watched as the left has devolved into intolerant, inflexible, illogical, hateful, misguided, ill-informed, un-American, hypocritical, menacing, callous, ignorant, narrow-minded, and at times, blatantly fascistic behavior and rhetoric.