RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2021/04/09/hunter-biden-calls-laptop-a-red-herring-as-daily-mail-publishes-shocking-new-photos-and-texts/

During a television interview Thursday, Hunter Biden refused to admit that the infamous MacBook Pro—which exposed his family’s sketchy overseas business wheeling and dealings, as well as his own depraved, drug-induced sexual escapades—is his, even though the authenticity of his laptop has been verified by multiple sources. The scandal-plagued younger Biden asserted that any reporting on the bombshell cache of 103,000 text messages, 154,000 emails, more than 2,000 photos and dozens of videos, was a “red herring.”

He has recently admitted however that the laptop “could” be his, although he couldn’t remember dropping the device off at the repair shop.

The Daily Mail, which has conducted its own forensic investigation of the MacBook Pro, on Thursday published shocking, never-before-seen photos from the cache, including a horrifying pre-dental treatment close-up of Hunter Biden’s “meth-mouth,” and a photo of him frolicking on a bed with two prostitutes.

Texts published by The Daily Mail reveal:

• How he begged his father to run for president in 2019 to salvage Hunter’s own reputation
• How he repeatedly dodged police action against him, despite constantly dealing with drug pushers and prostitutes and having multiple run-ins with law enforcement
• Hunter was guarded by a Secret Service agent while on a 2018 drug and prostitute binge in Hollywood, despite not being entitled to protection at the time and amid denials from the federal agency
• Joe Biden was afraid his text conversations with Hunter were being hacked even as they discussed his White House bid
• How Hunter’s laptop is brimming with evidence of apparent criminal activity by Hunter and his associates including drug trafficking and prostitution.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/04/11/can-the-great-awokening-succeed/

Wokeism is creating a future group of politically incorrect Trotskyites on a proverbial rendezvous with a Mexican ice pick, given that by birth they will never be woke enough for the new Stalinism.

We all know that we are living in revolutionary times. The origins, ascendence, values, laws, and future of the United States are all under assault by self-described, though accurately described, revolutionaries.

It is a Jacobin, Bolshevik, or Maoist moment. All aspects of life, well beyond politics, are now to be ideologically conditioned. Everything from kindergarten messaging, cartoons, workplace reeducation, and television commercials to college admissions, baseball games, and the airlines are to be “fundamentally transformed” along racial lines.

Long gone is Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of a colorblind society. Gone, at least at the state level, is confidence in the melting pot of assimilation, integration, and intermarriage (although mixed marriages and multiracial children are at an all-time high).

Gone are even the affirmative-action doctrines of proportional representation and disparate impact. (Yet the two mandates were always arbitrarily applied, in the sense that the U.S. Postal Service and the professional football and basketball leagues never paid much attention to racial quotas based on demographic percentages, which apparently only applied to white and Asian “overrepresentation” elsewhere).

Wokeism, however, is essentially tribal. It seeks to identify particular nonwhite constituencies, unite them not by identical class, not by similar skin color, not by collective similar history, not by shared experience, not by mutual cultural affinities, not by longstanding historical alliances, but simply by two premises:

1) Those of the woke collective are either claimants to being “nonwhite,” and thus victims of racism, or they are architects and supporters of the wokeist agenda, and: 2) they can thereby all either directly leverage reparatory concessions in hiring, admissions, careers, compensation, and general influence or ensure the revolutionary guillotine exempts themselves.

A cynic might add that much of this new racialism is a product of globalteering, and seeks to cater to huge foreign markets—China especially—by both “looking more like the world,” and delighting America’s critics, while appeasing far less moral audiences and consumers abroad than a perceived shrinking market at home.

Still for the woke revolution to succeed, a number of experiments will have to go its way.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/04/gavin-newsoms-cousin-and-his-wife-stopped-sign-katie-hopkins/

I hear people talk about the recall of California Governor Gavin Newsom almost casually, as if talking about the weather or the price of gas.

Scars from the recent election, “stolen” in the eyes of 80 million or so great Americans, are still fresh and understandably many expect House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her band of half-wits to find a way around the recall itself, subverting democracy once again.

Others have one eye on the horizon, looking over the shoulder of the recall itself to the possible replacements that have a chance to beat Newsom, like that guy at a party who talks at you whilst scanning the room to see whom he can prey on next.

And conflicts are forming around the potential candidates, even before some of them declare their run. The former Mayor of San Diego, Kevin Faulconer, has the backing of the Sacramento GOP chair but has already drawn the ire of Donald Trump’s eldest son after he declined to state whether he wanted a Trump endorsement ahead of his election. The word RINO follows him like a bad smell.

Kaitlyn Jenner also says she will run. For her it is an opportunity for publicity and to feel politically relevant. I would call it willy-waving but with Kaitlyn… well, let’s just call it self-promotion.

My email inbox is crammed with messages asking me to get Trump’s former Director of National Intelligence Rick Grenell to run, as if my sheer forcefulness will make him announce. I am certain he will, but he appears to be waiting for the recall to be official before he does so, which is proper. I hear rumblings that his sexuality might hurt his Christian Conservative vote. But surely with Trump’s backing and patriotic pastors by his side, these prejudices could be put aside for the greater good of California.

Overall, the voters will be presented with a choice:

Do they want to recall Gavin Newsom?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/the-blm-and-biden-scandals-you-werent-supposed-to-see/

Censoring content about these controversies only fuels the public’s increasing distrust of the media and Big Tech.

E ric Hoffer, the late “longshoreman philosopher,” said that “every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

Most of the defenders of censorship by Big Tech have claimed that most of the removed postings have violated “the science” surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. This ignored the fact that many of the offending posts have been by highly credentialed scientists and medical specialists from some of the most prestigious institutions in the world, including Stanford, Yale, Harvard, and Oxford.

But what explains Twitter’s censorship of Jason Whitlock, an African-American sports commentator formerly of ESPN?

Whitlock’s crime is that he posted a link to a real estate blog showing that Patrisse Khan-Cullors, a Black Lives Matter co-founder, was buying a $1.4 million home in a secluded Los Angeles neighborhood where only 1.4 percent of residents are black.

Whitlock had some fun zinging the self-described “trained Marxist” ideologue for her hypocrisy: “She had a lot of options on where to live. She chose one of the whitest places in California. She’ll have her pick of white cops and white people to complain about. That’s a choice, bro.”

Twitter promptly censored the tweet — posting a notice that it was “no longer available.”

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/04/11/antifa-sets-fire-to-portland-ice-hq-with-people-inside-n1439102

On Saturday night, about 100 leftist protesters dressed in antifa’s signature black bloc set fire to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) headquarters in Portland, Ore., with people inside the building.

At around 9 p.m. West Coast time, Grace Morgan reported that roughly 100 people had showed up at the ICE building to protest. Activists tagged the building with graffiti reading “F**K ICE” and “This is indigenous land.” They also set a fire, fired a flare above the roof and threw eggs at the door.

Agitators chanted, “Every city, every town, burn the precinct to the ground” on repeat as they lit the building on fire. Independent Media PDX captured footage of the arson.

Andy Ngo, editor at large at The Post Millennial, noted that an antifa agitator gave the Black Lives Matter fist salute while the crowd cheered at the ICE building catching fire. “Officers were trapped inside when antifa set the building on fire,” he claimed.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-filibuster-made-the-civil-rights-act-possible-11618174288?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

The debate over the future of the Senate’s legislative filibuster has focused on the simple use of majority power to crush the opposition. While the future of America’s bicameral legislature and the balance of power created by the Founders is riding on this debate, many have lost sight of the true nature and value of the Senate, an institution that takes time and requires compromise to find long-term answers to major issues. Critics have linked the filibuster to Jim Crow segregation, but the tactic actually played a crucial role in passing civil-rights legislation and ensuring it was accepted by the South.

Rule 22, which establishes a procedure called “cloture” to end a filibuster, was created to provide a way to close debate with support of a supermajority in the Senate and move to pass legislation. The rule protected the minority’s rights while allowing a compromise to be achieved that would ultimately result in legislation being passed.

For the first 47 years after Rule 22’s enactment in 1917, there were only five successful attempts to cut off debate in the U.S. Senate. A few senators felt so strongly about their right to extended debate that they vowed never to vote for cloture, even for legislation they supported.

There were several successful filibusters of civil-rights legislation between 1917 and 1964. But after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson decided to make the Civil Rights Act his chief legislative priority. He worked with Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Minority Leader Everett Dirksen to maneuver the bill through the challenges of senators who planned to filibuster.