RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/08/russiagate_dismantling_the_democrats_hoax.html

At the long-anticipated U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska on August 15, President Trump stressed that his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin was well aware that his country had not interfered in the 2016 election. This unexpected remark amid talks on Ukraine war settlement referred to a massive legal work conducted by the intelligence community aimed at exposing that “treasonous conspiracy.”

That is, in mid-July this year, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard revealed that the so-called Russiagate investigation was politically motivated and inspired by the Democrat party, particularly the outgoing Obama administration in late 2016. The disclosures reinforced suspicions long held but never conclusively substantiated: the Russia-interference claim was not merely flawed but deliberately constructed to undermine Trump’s presidency.

Russiagate in a Nutshell

On January 6, 2017—just days before Donald Trump’s inauguration—the U.S. intelligence community released a new assessment concluding that “Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump.” This statement reversed six months of prior assessments, which indicated there had been no recorded foreign meddling through cyber operations.

The strong claim had a profound and long-lasting impact. It is not just about Trump’s first term being severely obstructed. Many of his top-tier supporters were “canceled,” some of them sent to jail under false “evidence.” Trump himself suffered massive reputational damage that had almost buried his political career. Overall, the meddling accusation campaign resulted in better electoral positions for the Democrat party during the 2018 and 2020 elections.

Besides, Russiagate prompted some anti-interference bills to be passed by Congress. Many of them included sanctions on Russia and other adversaries of the U.S. which led to higher tensions with Moscow, Iran, and China. Some pundits say this plot could have triggered numerous wars, including hostilities in Ukraine.

Moreover, the accusations led to a long-lasting investigation by the FBI and other agencies, which cost American taxpayers a hefty pile of money. The initial FBI investigation, called Crossfire Hurricane, transformed into Special Counsel Mueller’s probe, and it damaged the federal budget for some $35 million. Durham’s subsequent probe cost some $7 million, and other congressional investigations expenses up to $5 million.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/education-and-wealth-trump-all-identity-politics/

One of the strangest and dysfunctional ideas in our society has been “identity politics.” This creation sprang from Cultural Communism’s exploitation of the Civil Rights Act and the Great Society’s federal legislation and agencies’ redistribution of taxpayer money. The purpose was to keep the newly franchised black citizens mired as victims still oppressed by racist whites, and to make blacks political clients of the Democrat left, a project launched in the U.S. by Stalin decades earlier.

The effort was a success if measured by the subsequent predictability of black voters’ loyalty to Democrats. They have remained loyal despite a lack of reciprocation by the Dems. For example, look at black politicians who have ignored the persistent scandal of black-on-black violent crime. The current Democrat assault on the police and efforts to reduce fighting crime is disproportionately dangerous for “black lives,” who don’t “matter” to Dems as much as we’ve been told.

After the Civil Rights Act ended Jim Crow law, savvier American leftists knew that the improvement in black lives starting in the 1920s and increasing in the postwar period, and the growing distaste for racism, would create difficulty for the Democrat left’s plan to capture black votes.

So, they continued to treat blacks as victims, thus creating a reliable constituency. In fact, the black vote has gone Democratic for decades until Trump’s second presidential election achieved the highest number of black voters by any modern Republican candidate.

In addition, either unknown or indifferent to the moral hazards when the Dems started federal redistribution of Great Society funds in the Sixties, the plan actually worsened black lives. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Jason Riley catalogued the earlier decades of improvement, as well as the decline after the Civil Rights Act, the Great Society programs, and their malign moral hazard of the federal dole that worsened black lives:

Between 1890 and 1940, for example, black marriage rates in the U.S. were higher than white marriage rates. In the 1940s and ’50s, black labor-participation rates exceeded those of whites; black incomes grew much faster than white incomes; and the black poverty rate fell by 40 percentage points. Between 1940 and 1970—that is, during Jim Crow and prior to the era of affirmative action—the number of blacks in middle-class professions quadrupled. In other words, racial gaps were narrowing. Steady progress was being made. Blacks today hear plenty about what they can’t achieve due to the legacy of slavery and not enough about what they did in fact achieve notwithstanding hundreds of years in bondage followed by decades of legal segregation.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/08/21/what-is-the-democrat-alternative-to-trump/

The Pavlovian Left goes berserk at the mere prospect of each new Trump initiative.

Its escalating reactive venom and hysteria are calibrated to the success of Trump’s latest policy.

Yet the new hard-left Democratic Party offers no counter-agenda to explain its furor.

Still less do Democrats attempt bipartisan efforts to craft shared legislation.

Take foreign policy.

Democrat senators trashed the recent Trump-Putin Alaskan summit as a failure. Then they became depressed when, just days later, an entourage of European leaders and President Zelensky of Ukraine suddenly flew to the White House.

The Euros praised Trump for offering some sort of negotiated pathway to peace after over three years of war and some 1.5 million dead, wounded, missing, and captured on both sides—on Europe’s doorstep.

So why did Democrats object to such negotiations by Trump?

Was the reason that no such thing occurred during the Biden administration, when Putin invaded Ukraine, after his earlier invasions during the Obama era?

What is the left’s alternate plan? The old Biden idea of supplying Ukraine with enough money and arms to keep fighting and dying, but with no path to either victory or a negotiated peace?

Would they prefer a fourth, fifth, or sixth year of war, or an additional one million casualties?

The more Trump pressed almost all NATO members to pay their promised two percent of GDP on defense, the more Democrats grew irate over Trump’s overseas influence.

NATO members now want to raise defense spending to five percent of GDP and gush that Trump is “Daddy.”

Democrats steamed at that, since Europeans are supposed to hate Trump, not admire him for rebooting NATO.

Would they prefer the old, disarmed NATO?

Under the Biden administration, over 10 million illegal aliens flooded the country, sometimes 10,000 a day at the southern border.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/08/18/gavin-newsom-the-chameleon-who-destroyed-california/

Gavin Newsom may be saddled with an awful record. But the California governor is rapidly emerging as a leading bet – even a frontrunner in some polls – in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028. How is this possible?

The simple answer is that Newsom might be the ultimate candidate for the attention-deficient generation. He is a political chameleon who changes positions compulsively – not according to facts, but to whatever best seems to fit the national mood. We witnessed this after last year’s presidential election, when he began ‘bro-washing’ his slick image with some cringe-worthy appearances on podcasts. One of these even included an embrace of gun ownership – a surprise to many of his supporters who had voted for him on the basis of his strong anti-gun record.

Newsom follows what may be charitably described as a flexible ideology. He flip-flops even on his core issues, such as climate change. Newsom, an avid supporter of Net Zero, basically fell on his knees before Big Oil in April, when two companies announced they were shutting their Californian oil refineries as a result of oppressive green regulations.

Newsom has proven equally slippery on woke social issues. In recent years, he made California a ‘refuge’ for transgender children, supporting the experimental use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy on minors. Indeed, these policies were central to Newsom’s assaults on rival states Texas and Florida. But he shocked trans activists in March by admitting that having biological males compete with women was ‘unfair’. Clearly, he had sensed which way the political wind was blowing.

Now, the chameleon has changed his colours once again. After trying to appeal to MAGA voters in the aftermath of Trump’s November victory, he is back leading the ‘Resistance’. Last week, he promised to redraw California’s congressional districts to the advantage of Democrats. In June, as US federal agents targeted undocumented immigrants in California, Newsom accused Trump of a ‘brazen abuse of power’. Like all aspiring Democrats, he regularly denounces Trump as a fascist.

But Newsom has an even bigger, more vulnerable Achilles’ heel than his shifting political positions. It is the undeniable economic and social decline he has overseen as governor of California.