RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2021/06/justice-alito-destroys-scotus-obamacare-sellout-daniel-greenfield/

Supreme Court decisions aren’t usually an entertaining read. Dissents sometimes are and Alito’s dissents are notable, but this one is worth reading and rereading, not only for the biting rhetoric, but its reasoning.

“Today’s decision is the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the same pattern as installments one and two. In all three episodes, with the Affordable Care Act facing a serious threat, the Court has pulled off an improbable rescue,” Alito begins.

He delves into the three increasingly absurd decisions which first found that, “the ‘penalty’ for failing to comply with the mandate was found to be a ‘tax'”, and then “the Court came to the rescue by finding that the Federal Government is a “State”, and now “in the trilogy’s third episode, the Court is presented
with the daunting problem of a ‘tax’ that does not tax.”

“Can the taxing power, which saved the day in the first episode, sustain such a curious creature? In 2017, Congress reduced the ‘tax’ imposed on Americans who failed to abide by the individual mandate to $0,” Justice Alito sarcastically asks.

Justice Alito notes that, “instead of defending the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the Court simply ducks the issue and holds that none of the Act’s challengers, including the 18 States that think the Act saddles them with huge financial costs, is entitled to sue” while Democrat states were able to get standing to illegally force the citizenship question off the census, not to mention that, “some years ago, Massachusetts was allowed to sue (and force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gases) on the theory that failure to do so would cause the ocean to rise and reduce the size of the Commonwealth.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/06/bidens-terror-strategy-defines-republicans-new-daniel-greenfield/

As the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks approaches, Joe Biden has made it clear that he doesn’t intend to fight Al Qaeda. Instead he’s going to fight other Americans.

The Biden administration’s newly released National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism mentions Al Qaeda only once in its 30 pages. Even though the FBI continues to break up Islamic terrorist plots against America, the document only defines Muslims as victims.

Just last month a Seattle Muslim convert was arrested. The convert had discussed driving a “semi-truck” through “the gay pride parade in downtown Seattle”. Even though the arrest came shortly before the anniversary of the ISIS massacre at the Pulse nightclub, both Biden and the media ignored the potential plot and the fact that the Pulse shooting was Islamic terrorism.

“I wish to see the kuffar (non-Muslims) as I kill them, I want to strike terror in them and make Allah pleased for doing so,” the Seattle convert had boasted.

That same month another Muslim convert pled guilty to plotting to attack an Ohio synagogue and murder a rabbi. A third Muslim convert in Brooklyn was also sentenced that month for promoting terrorist plots against Americans. American converts to Islam are a major source of recruits for domestic terrorist plots. Despite that, Biden’s strategy ignores their existence.

In a flashback to the Clinton era, the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism claims that the only serious terrorist threats come from the militia movement and racists.

And the only racists whose existence the Biden administration will admit to are white racists.

Micah X. Johnson, a black supremacist who murdered 5 police officers in Dallas, is described as an “anti–authority violent extremist”. Racist and supremacist terrorism can only be practiced by members of the majority against “minority populations”. It can’t work the other way around.

Antifa is also rolled together into “anti-government”, a category that encompasses the militia movement, black supremacists, white anarchists, and everyone who isn’t a white racist.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/majority-of-americans-hold-unfavorable-view-of-critical-race-theory-poll_3863268.html

A new poll reveals 58 percent of Americans have an “unfavorable” view of Critical Race Theory (CRT), while 38 percent say they are in favor of the ideology.

The finding was published Wednesday as part of The Economist/YouGov poll (pdf), conducted between June 13 and 15 via internet among 1,500 adult citizens of the United States, with a plus or minus 3 percent margin of error. The sample was randomly drawn from the 2018 American Community Study, and was weighted based on gender, age, race, education, and voter registration status in 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.

Participants were asked if they had “a good idea of what CRT is.” The results show that 54 percent responded “yes,” 23 percent said “no,” and 23 percent said they are “not sure.”

The CRT, which is now the center of a national debate, is rooted in the Marxist theory of class struggle, but with a particular focus on race. Critical race theorists see racism in every aspect of the American public and private life, and seek to dismantle American institutions, such as the Constitution and legal system, which they deem to be inherently and irredeemably racist.

Those who said they knew about CRT were then asked whether they have a “favorable or unfavorable” opinion of it. Of these participants, 25 percent said they are “very favorable,” 13 percent “somewhat favorable,” 5 percent “somewhat unfavorable,” 53 percent “very unfavorable,” and 4 percent said they “don’t know.”

The results also highlight a division along party and ideological lines. An overwhelming 82 percent of those who voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election said they are at least somewhat favorable of CRT, compared to five percent in Donald Trump voters. Similarly, 82 percent of participants identifying as liberals said they have a favorable opinion of CRT, joined by 42 percent of the moderates, and a marginal 7 percent of the conservatives.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/06/18/jan-6-suspects-held-without-bail-more-un-american-than-capitol-incursion/

A month ago, the media reported that at least 53 Americans suspected of breaching the U.S. Capitol in January were still incarcerated. One web site more recently said “hundreds” are still behind bars. We know many have been denied bail, some apparently condemned to solitary confinement. Meanwhile, Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters are breezily waved through the system if they’re arrested at all. 

Is this still America?

Or a tyranny where political dissenters are disappeared?

“Detaining Americans captured within the United States indefinitely without trial or even charge is a clear violation of our Constitution and our values, and it must not be permitted,” says Sen. Feinstein. “We’ve seen over and over again that our criminal justice system is well-equipped to interrogate and convict terrorists, and I support that process.”

The California Democrat is at odds with her party. From the president down, most Democrats are treating the Jan. 6 protests as a genuine threat to the country. Yet the toll from what the Democrats and their scribes in media are calling an insurrection: $1.5 million in damage, roughly 750 federal and local officers injured, and a single non-accidental death, that of military veteran and unarmed protester Ashli Babbitt, shot and killed by an unnamed person inside the Capitol, (whose untimely passing gave Russian President Vladimir Putin the opportunity to imply that the U.S. is an outlaw nation just by asking if the federal government assassinated her.)

Compare this to the wreckage left behind in the last year by Antifa and BLM rioters (including riots in the capital): $2 billion in damage, 27 killed, and 2,000 police officers injured.

A handful of Republican senators have noticed the differences in how the two groups, one clearly hard left and radicalized, the other made up of Republicans, conservatives, and probably some independents, have been treated by federal authorities. They’ve asked the hopelessly political Attorney General Garland Merrick to explain the inconsistencies. Why has the former benefited “from infrequent prosecutions and minimal, if any, penalties,” they want to know, while the latter group is being subjected to a “potential” administration of “unequal justice.” 

The latter group includes suspects “from an 18-year-old high school senior from Georgia to a 70-year-old Virginia farmer with no criminal record,” Julie Kelly reported in American Greatness, accused Americans who “have languished for months” in cells “before their trials even have begun.”