RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/by_dems_logic_couldnt_obama_and_biden_be_impeached_and_convicted_for_their_actions_in_2016_so_they_can_never_hold_office_again.html

Isn’t it pure abuse of power and obstruction of justice when an administration is so consumed with maintaining power that it uses the massive personnel and taxpayer resources to destroy their political opponent while protecting their chosen successor from prosecution no matter how many crimes she committed?

For some reason, I have never seen Pelosi, Schumer, Hoyer, Durbin, AOC and other Democrats asked the following questions no matter how many times they have been interviewed the last 4 1/2 years:

Is it OK that the DNC and Hillary paid a foreign national over $10 million to create a fictional dossier to take out Trump?
Is it OK that the DNC and Hillary campaign committed fraud by lying to the FEC that the money paid to a foreign source was for legal fees instead of telling the truth. (And Democrats say they are the party of truth over lies)
Is it OK that several FBI swamp creatures used this fake dossier when they continually lied to the FISA court in order to spy on people surrounding Trump as they allowed Hillary and her aides to get off scot free? (and the Democrats say that under them, the Justice Department operates independently and no one is above the law)
Is it OK that so many people in the Obama administration, including Biden himself, spent the two months after the 2016 election unmasking people and seeking to destroy people like Flynn instead of helping the Trump administration and having a peaceful transition of power?

Image credit: Daniel Schwen CC BY-SA 4.0 license

As a matter of fact, I don’t remember Obama, Biden or Hillary asked these same obvious questions no matter how many times they have been interviewed and kissed up to the last several years as to how great they are and were.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2021/01/marginalising-conservatives-until-we-vanish/

Recently, miffed by its coverage of the US election and its aftermath, I wrote to The Australian:

Dear Editor, a suggestion: The cabal of your anti-Trump correspondents should get together each evening to stick pins in an effigy of Donald Trump. That might get the bile out of their systems and allow them to produce decent copy fit to read.

If you’ve noticed the newspaper’s drift to the port side of politics, you guessed it — The Australian didn’t publish my comment but, of course, I had zero expectation it would. The paper is becoming a left-of-centre rag. True, it has some decent writers. I enjoyed reading Gerard Henderson and Caroline Overington this morning. True, too, it is better than the alternatives, which is why I reluctantly still buy it.

It will also be interesting to see where the paper goes when Trump isn’t around for the hacks to get stuck into. What is clear is that it is on a pathway to leftism with the occasional dissident voice for appearances sake. Once leftists have infiltrated and reached an influential level they hire their own. That has been the history of universities, schools, public broadcasting, most of the mainstream print media and public services. The Australian, I fear, is just one more domino. Rupert won’t live forever.

By the way, I am not convinced that socialism per se is behind the movement to close down conservative voices. Socialism in practice produces an intolerance for counter views. First comes socialism then comes fascism. Right now, it seems as though the process has been short-circuited. I put it down to post-modernism and its attendant disregard for the concept of objective truth.

When there is no objective truth, my agenda can become the truth and your opposition lies. And, lies cannot be allowed to pollute the air waves. Liars can be cancelled in good conscience.

Thus, those who express the view that women must have XX chromosomes are liars and should be shunned. Those who don’t accept that free speech becomes hate speech when it offends someone of a minority group are liars. Those who believe it is discriminatory and racist to favour someone because of their skin colour are liars; unless the skin colour is white, in which case they are in good standing.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/day-hypocrisy-daniel-greenfield/

The University of Oregon celebrated Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday, but four years ago it came within a hair of canceling him for being politically incorrect on his previous birthday.

The offending issue had been King’s speech at the Lincoln Memorial, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Putting character ahead of race has long since become unfashionable among a radical leftist movement obsessed with identity politics.

Today children are indoctrinated with critical race theory in kindergarten. Four-year-olds who barely have any concept of race are told that they must divide each other by color, and to feel proud or guilty of their race. They must forget character and think only about skin color.

That’s how the Democrats who claim to celebrate King and his legacy have tainted his dream.

Around the 57th anniversary of King’s speech, Al Sharpton, an illiterate bigot at the center of a racist riot, and a powerful kingmaker whose golden ring every single Democrat presidential candidate bows to kiss, held his own 2020 rally at the Lincoln Memorial. Sharpton’s most famous quote has a somewhat different message than that of Martin Luther King Jr.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/mutant-social-growths-revisited-lloyd-billingsley/

“With such an addled China-compliant politician in charge, Americans might wonder if entire “classes” of people such as deplorables, Christians, and elderly people of pallor might be targeted for violence. For leftist Democrats, these are the equivalent of those mutant social growths that need to be uprooted if society is to progress in a socialist direction.”

“China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man. I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us.” Long before Joe Biden’s 2019 proclamation, American leftists engaged in a competition for best defender of genocidal Communist dictators.

“One must not make a god of Stalin, he was too valuable for that” wrote Anna Louise Strong in her 1935 I Change Worlds. Stalin was then busy collectivizing agriculture, and the independent farmers known as kulaks stood in the way. Stalin decreed it was time to abolish the kulaks “as a class,” and his planned famine, covered up by Walter Duranty of the New York Times, claimed more than a million lives.

“Stalin had merely authorized what farmhands were already instinctively doing,” wrote Strong, who later moved on to Communist China and defended Mao Zedong. After a life “extolling the virtues of Communism,” as the New York Times reported, Strong died in Beijing on March 30, 1970.  Two years later, when Mao’s Cultural Revolution was still going on, American socialists Janet Goldwasser and husband Stuart Dowty took a trip to China.

The result was Huan-Ying: Journey Through Workers’ China, published in 1975. “We wrote it to combat misinformation,” Goldwasser explained in 2019, “China had a different way of setting priorities in terms of healthcare and working conditions, so we intended to get information to readers who weren’t able to visit themselves.” Stuart Dowty showed up in China: People-Questions, published by the National Council of Churches (NCC) in 1975, while the Great Helmsman was still in power.