RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/the_seven_funniest_moments_at_the_democrats_first_debate.html

Last night saw the expression “clown car” gain considerable justification as a description of the Democrats’ presidential field. It was “9 candidates with no shot at anything and the tenth, the first fake Native American candidate,” in Daniel Greenfield’s apt description of the farce.  But there were moments of hilarity that punctuated the tedium, so it was not a total loss for those who subjected themselves to the entire broadcast, a marathon competition in pandering to the hard-left activists that shout the loudest on Twitter.

I confess that my secret hope of Robert F. O’Rourke jumping on top of his podium like some Iowa coffee shop counter was dashed, but the humor content was, by the standards of American political theatre, fairly impressive from the standpoint of a conservative.

In descending order of laughter potential:

#7 Bill de Blasio goes full commie

This is humor of the grim humor genre, so it loses points in the hilarity competition, but gains them in the meaningfulness column. The Mayor of New York reflects a growing sentiment among Democrats with his implicit claim to spearhead the re-assignment of wealth from the hands of those who earned it into the hands of those who want it. Bill and his crypto-commie associates know which hands are the wrong ones to have money. “There’s plenty of money… it’s just in the wrong hands”

#6 NBC declares us a bi-lingual country, with moderator asking first-ever Spanish Language question in a US presidential debate

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/06/27/muellers-reluctant-witness-pose-is-another-impeachment-ploy/

Twenty-eight days after former Special Counsel Robert Mueller declared that he had nothing more to say about the results of his 2-year investigation into President Trump, he unreservedly agreed to testify before Congress. It almost seems as though his playing coy was just part of some broader impeachment strategy.

In his statement at the conclusion of his investigation on May 29, Mueller said: “I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And it’s for that reason I will not be taking questions today, as well.”

In case the meaning was lost on anybody, he stated that “the report is my testimony.”

That what he claimed, anyway. But in that very statement, he went beyond the report, adding new impeachment bait by stating that the only reason he didn’t pursue an obstruction charge was that he couldn’t prosecute Trump while he’s in office. 

Former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy of National Review called it an explosive statement, that “runs against what we had heard up until now … that the Office of Legal Council guidance was the reason why they didn’t make a decision about obstruction.”

So let’s review. 

Mueller’s 400+ page report goes public on April 18, with half the report spent on the question of whether Trump tried to obstruct justice. Mueller says the investigation couldn’t decide whether what Trump did was a crime or not, but nevertheless detailed everything they could find that hinted at it — thereby adding a new and horrible new wrinkle to American jurisprudence: not innocent.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/06/27/democrats-cirque-de-absurdite/

When it was time to call the candidates on stage for Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate, did one of the moderators yell “send in the clowns?” If not, someone should have. What a bunch of buffoons.

We don’t use that word lightly. One definition of buffoon is “a person who amuses others by ridiculous behavior.” That’s a description that fits every candidate on the stage. Each was hilariously solicitous and comically transparent.

Almost before the game show applause had settled, Beto O’Rourke launched into a juvenile Spanish-language hustle that left Sen. Cory Booker wide-eyed and most everyone else rolling their eyes.

Moments later, Booker found common ground with Friedrich Engels, grousing about how the economy wasn’t working for everyone, a common thread throughout the “debate.” Still later, he too resorted to Spanish, competing with O’Rourke to show he is the most Hispanic candidate, even more Hispanic than someone named Castro and far more Hispanic than the Irish guy.

A few beats after O’Rourke’s first foreign-language outburst, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the media’s pre-selected winner, made the brave declaration she wanted to return government to the people — while pointing at herself. Well done, Senator. Now we know who she wants to vest the power of government in.

In English, former Obama Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro resorted, to no one’s surprise, to identity politics, insisting the country “pass” — hey, how about taking a remedial class in constitutional process before running for president — the Equal Rights Amendment.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/julian-castro-says-reproductive-justice-means-a-trans-female-can-get-an-abortion/

In the first 2020 Democratic presidential debate on Wednesday, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Julián Castro said that “reproductive justice” involves allowing “trans females” to get abortions. Even in terms of pandering to the transgender community, this was a huge fail.

“I don’t believe only in reproductive freedom. I believe in reproductive justice,” Castro declared. “Just because a woman, or let’s also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise this right to choose.” He went on to pledge that he would appoint judges who would uphold Roe v. Wade (1973).

In this brief statement, the former HUD secretary not only supported taxpayer funding for abortion, overturning the Hyde Amendment (which protects pro-life taxpayers from having their money being used to fund abortion). Castro also mixed up the meaning of transgender identities.

According to transgender identity, gender identity is more real than biological sex. A “transgender male” refers to a biological female who identifies as male. A “transgender female” refers to a biological male who identifies as female.

While transgender activists would call for abortion access for transgender people, they would demand it for “transgender men,” not “transgender women.” It is impossible for a “transgender female” to get an abortion, unless he gets a womb transplant.

Feminist author Sady Doyle called his error “a wild rollercoaster of emotion.”

“Castro supports overturning Hyde and confuses trans women with trans men in the same sentence, which is a wild rollercoaster of emotion,” she tweeted.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274144/debate-losers-daniel-greenfield

On a sweltering night in Miami’s Arsht Center for the Performing Arts, a 90-year-old building slightly older than Joe Biden, 9 candidates with no shot at anything and the tenth, the first fake Native American candidate, gathered to humiliate and be humiliated on national television.

On a set designed to look like a cardboard cutout White House, 10 cardboard cutouts of candidates, hoping to sit in the real White House, frantically searched for their 15 seconds of fame, while ignoring moderator questions and going over time.

All the millionaire candidates agreed that the economy wasn’t working for ordinary Americans like the ones they see on TV.

The speeches about the misery suffered by ordinary Americans in a booming economy at the hands of giant evil corporations fell flat to a base in which a third of Democrat primary voters earn over $100,000.

“Who is this economy working for?” Elizabeth Warren asked, doing a hand hatchet chop in a tribute to her imaginary Native American heritage while claiming that it was just working for those at the top.

Like her.

Not only was Warren wealthier than most of the other candidates on stage, but she was called on three times as often.

As part of their commitment to redistribution, the socialist candidates redistributed each other’s time. But, despite their supposed commitment to redistribution, they resisted speaking time socialism.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/adam_schiffs_latest_scheme_will_blow_up_in_democrats_faces.html

Much has been written about the perpetual imbecility of Adam Schiff, gadfly of the Left, one of many, sad to say.  Jerrold Nadler is equally thick.  But Schiff may be the most annoying, the least self-aware.

Despite the conclusion of the Mueller Report, “no collusion,” Schiff is a rabid dog with a bone.  He is convinced that his long campaign to prove that Trump won because he was in cahoots with Russia is still viable, despite the fact that not one of the numerous investigations has proven this to be so.  Schiff, as we all surely know by now, is the man who actually was enthusiastically willing to collude with Russia when he was pranked by a couple of comedians who pretended to offer compromising information on candidate Trump.  He made a complete and utter fool of himself, so excited was he to get his hands on that material.  Still, he cannot let go of his dogged determination to disprove what has already been proven: there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and any Russians.  Do the Russians interfere with elections all over the world?  Yes, have been for decades.  Everyone knows this, except Schiff, apparently.

Schiff is puffing up his feathers now because Mueller has agreed to honor his “friendly subpoena” to testify before two committees, Judiciary and Intelligence — misnamed panels, to be sure.  Better they should be called what they are: injudicious and unintelligent, except for the few stalwart Republicans who will be present who are actually smart; Jordan, Ratcliffe, and Gaetz specifically.  Those Republicans will make Mueller’s visit most uncomfortable; they’ve long known what he was up to and why.  Schiff thinks he has won something, that his questions will finally bring Trump to ground, that Mueller is going to spill some beans unrevealed in his ridiculous report, which was a 400-plus-page op-ed, not a legitimate legal document.  Schiff’s dream is not likely to come true. 

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/26/cory-booker-says-hes-listening-racist-louis-farrakhan/

Recently, at a faith breakfast doubling as a campaign event, 2020 Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) announced that he would be willing to meet with infamous anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, acknowledging that he was “very familiar with Louis Farrakhan and his beliefs and his values.”

Booker’s comments, while alarming, serve as a steady reminder that the American Democratic Party does not regard anti-Semitism as a form of ethnic hatred, but as a mere difference of opinion. Indeed, Booker’s speech at the breakfast in Columbia, South Carolina provides a roadmap for the type of Farrakhan whitewashing we might come to expect from 2020 Democrats attempting to justify their continued correspondence with Farrakhan (outlined here are numerous connections between Farrakhan and the Democrats).

“I live in Newark so we have famous Mosque 25, we have Nation of Islam there,” Booker stated at the breakfast. “As mayor I met with lots of folks talking to [Farrakhan]. I have heard Minister Farrakhan’s speeches for a lot of my life, so I don’t feel like I need to do that, but I’m not one of these people that says I wouldn’t sit down with anybody to hear what they have to say. But I live on a neighborhood where I’m getting guys on the streets offering and selling his works. I am very familiar with Minister Louis Farrakhan and his beliefs and his values.”

Booker’s blasé discussion of Farrakhan reminds American voters that Democrats are wholly unserious about tackling anti-Semitism within their own ranks. Booker had been responding to an audience member who had specifically asked whether Booker would reject speaking with Farrakhan on the basis of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism.

Instead of using his response as an opportunity to offer a full-throated condemnation of Nation of Islam leader, Booker took the opportunity to normalize the rabid anti-Semite, referring to Farrakhan’s “beliefs and his values” as if they were a matter of philosophical debate.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/06/26/why-are-democrats-so-incredibly-ignorant-about-medicare-for-all/

Ask Democrats whether they support “Medicare for All” and the vast majority will say yes. Ask them what’s actually in it, and most don’t have a clue. That, at least, is what a new survey shows.

The Kaiser Family Foundation asked multiple questions about Medicare for All, and broke down the findings by partisan affiliation. You’d expect that Democrats, who have been calling for single-payer for decades, and now have two bills in Congress that would achieve it, would be the most well-informed of anyone.

It turns out, they are the worst informed. Both Republicans and independents have a much better grasp of what Bernie Sanders and many other would-be presidents want to impose on the country.

Take the question of whether people could keep their private insurance plans under Medicare for All.

Two-thirds of Democrats think that private employer-provided health plans would continue. Sixty-five percent think that individuals happy with their current plans could keep them. Sixty-one percent think individuals and employers would continue to pay premiums.

Wrong on all counts.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274122/melding-communist-party-usa-and-progressive-joseph-klein

John Bachtell, chairman of the National Committee of the Communist Party USA, addressed the Communist Party USA’s national convention this past weekend, celebrating its 100th anniversary. He talked about using this “pivotal moment” in history to help bring about a “democratic and transformative upsurge” for the purpose of radically shifting politics in the United States. He talked about forging a “socialist path,” working as needed “within and alongside the Democratic Party” to defeat “the extreme right and the GOP,” including ousting the “fossil fuel, military-industrial complex, and the industrial elite that constitutes its core.” He added that “many of the forces operating within the Democratic Party today”—along with Communist Party members themselves — “will form the working-class party of tomorrow.”

Mr. Bachtell had written back in 2015  how the Communists could use the constituencies of “labor, African Americans, Latinos, other communities of color, women, most union members, young people, and a wide range of social and democratic movements” already within the Democrat Party as “the vehicle” to advance the Communist Party’s own agenda. The Democrat Party today, which has become a grievance machine against the imaginary ills of toxic maleness and white privilege, is helping Mr. Bachtell’s vision become a reality. Indeed, the Communist-progressive Democrat agendas have melded, as the Communists shrewdly exploit the identity politics that have taken over the leftward-leaning Democrat Party to serve their own more radical ends.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/at_hillarys_50th_reunion_at_wellesly_college.html

If Hillary Rodham Clinton insists she’s not running for president in 2020, why is she running… all over the place? Well, for one thing, Her Heinous has always believed in the value of high visibility as a means of enhancing her political chances  When she’s out of sight it’s  almost like she’s out of her mind.

To that self-serving purpose, she and Bill arranged  a cross-country tour of joint speaking engagements that began last year.  It was to be a means of keeping their power-presumptive connubial image front and  fresh in the public eye, but flopped almost from the start.  And recently a Broadway show based on her 2016 rpresidential run hit rock bottom in sales, closing after a shortened run.

But there is one audience that will always come through enthusiastically for  Mrs. Clinton.  Even before she came into national prominence, Hillary found comfort in  knowing  that  she could   always return  in triumph to the place where her  venture into  politics began:  Wellesley College, her alma mater in Massachusetts

As Hillary became increasingly famous, her welcome on campus grew even more jubilant. As the younger classes graduated and began to vote, the army of her dedicated collegiate “sisters” mushroomed, and the reciprocal affection flourished.  During the period when Bill Clinton was president, Hillary invited everyone in her Wellesley Class of ’69 to attend a state dinner at the White House.  If there were any Republicans among them, they were not turned away.  Neither, presumably, were they fools enough to discuss politics at the swank event.

For Wellesley alumnae, reunions occur  every five years based on  the last number of  their graduating  class.  As a result I have always shared the same “reunion cycle” with both Hillary and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright .  Both of them are younger than I am – and that, alas, is not their only distinction.  In addition, they share the  right  — or left, really — politics with  the majority of  our alma mater’s grads and undergrads.    And as American institutions of higher learning  deliver a more liberal doctrinaire, the likelihood of finding conservatives on campus  has diminished greatly.