RUTHFULLY YOURS

Apparently by 2020 they will put a woman…..but the notices keep changing…..stay tuned…rsk
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is about to become the 21st century Aaron Burr by booting Alexander Hamilton off the $10 bill.Treasury was teasing a big announcement from its engraving office at midnight, until Nancy Lindborg, the president of the U.S. Institute of Peace, broke the embargo by praising Lew’s decision in a tweet.

“Sec Lew announced 2day historic decision to feature a woman on new 10 dollar bill. About time! Share ideas on who to feature #TheNewTen,” Lindborg tweeted. There had been a long-running campaign to put a woman on U.S. currency — but backers were lobbying for Andrew Jackson to be booted off the $20 bill.

“Andrew Jackson was celebrated for his military prowess, for founding the Democratic party and for his simpatico with the common man. But as the seventh president of the United States, he also helped gain Congressional passage of the ‘Indian Removal Act of 1830′ that drove Native American tribes of the Southeastern United States off their resource-rich land and into Oklahoma to make room for white European settlers. Commonly known as the Trail of Tears, the mass relocation of Indians resulted in the deaths of thousands from exposure, disease and starvation during the westward migration. Not okay,” explained the Women on 20s campaign.

Harvard is to law what Winchester is to bolt actions. Powerful, dependable, well engineered and the mark of a serious craft, at least that’s what I was told.

These days, Harvard graduates probably don’t know much about bolt actions, unless they are a member of the Harvard Law School shooting club. A stroll through the Harvard Law School course catalog also makes you wonder how much they know about the real practice of law.The course catalog from Harvard Law School hints that the answer might be — not as much as we thought.

The Harvard Law School course catalog frequently reads more like an ideological training academy than it does a program for teaching lawyers how to practice law.

The American Spectator and American Thinker are not the only ones calling out the danger signs popping up for Hillary’s supposedly inevitable nomination. It turns out that if you dig down into the internals of a recent poll in New Hampshire, there’s extremely bad news for Hillary Clinton. Michael Warren reports for the Weekly Standard:

The only female Democratic candidate for president may have a problem with male voters in that party, judging by a new Suffolk University poll of the New Hampshire primary. The poll, which shows former secretary of state Hillary Clinton below 50 percent support and just 10 points ahead of senator Bernie Sanders, reveals an interesting detail about where Clinton is weakest among Granite State Democrats.

While Clinton does better with female Democrats—47 percent to Sanders’s 28 percent—she’s actually losing men to the Vermont senator. Within a relatively small sample of likely male Democratic voters in New Hampshire, Sanders wins 75, or 35 percent, while Clinton wins 69, or 32 percent. See the details of the crosstabs here.

When I was in school, I was always frustrated by tests where the questions were geared to Asians or blacks or Eskimos; not being in any of these groups, I simply couldn’t answer such questions. For example, while I could easily answer questions about adding or subtracting apples, or pears, whenever a question asked about adding or subtracting igloos, the question would be so alien to me that my mind would draw a blank!

Therefore, it is with great sympathy that I read that blacks and Hispanics are failing teacher tests in disproportionate numbers because there are simply too many white questions on the tests.

Hillary Clinton says she turned over to the State Department “all” of the emails from her private email account related to her work as Secretary of State. And State has reassured Congress that it turned over “every” Clinton email demanded as part of the House investigation into the Benghazi attack. This must depend on the definition of “all” and “every.”

The House Select Committee on Benghazi recently sent subpoenas to Sidney Blumenthal, the longtime Clinton political hit man who was in steady contact with Mrs. Clinton (via her private email) while she was the top U.S. diplomat. Emails show Mr. Blumenthal was advising two U.S. companies seeking Libyan contracts at the same time he was secretly advising Secretary of State Clinton about Libya. Mr. Blumenthal’s attorney says his client had no financial interest in the two companies—though no one is denying that the friends of Mr. Blumenthal who ran the companies were looking for business.

If the president must lead from behind, could he at least get behind someone who wants to win the war against Islamic extremism?

It continues, dreadfully. Islamic State’s advancing war on civilization—despite the Obama administration’s protestations that it has been stanched—brazenly pushes the modern world toward despair.

Now Islamic State, or ISIS, announces it has taken 86 more Christians hostage, their likely fate a grisly martyrdom. On the same day, June 8, at the G-7 summit, President Obama admitted that he lacks a “complete strategy” to defeat the Islamic extremists now bedeviling Iraq, much of the rest of the Middle East, and beyond.

Princeton University is one of the most prestigious universities in the world. Its alumni include two former U.S. presidents and three current U.S. Supreme Court Justices, and the college’s rejection rate of undergraduate applicants is among the highest in the country. About 97% of its students graduate.
But the accreditor that Princeton needs on its side so students can continue getting access to federal loans and grants told college officials in 2009 to improve documentation of how much students were learning.

Shirley Tilghman, Princeton’s president at the time, says she was told by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education to emulate another college, which had filled an entire room with black, three-ring binders stuffed with documents. The reviewers said nothing about what was in those binders, stressing only the quantity of the data inside them, she recalls.

Accreditors keep hundreds of schools with low graduation rates or high loan defaults alive

Most colleges can’t keep their doors open without an accreditor’s seal of approval, which is needed to get students access to federal loans and grants. But accreditors hardly ever kick out the worst-performing colleges and lack uniform standards for assessing graduation rates and loan defaults.

Those problems are blamed by critics for deepening the student-debt crisis as college costs soared during the past decade. Last year alone, the U.S. government sent $16 billion in aid to students at four-year colleges that graduated less than one-third of their students within six years, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal of the latest available federal data.

Nearly 350 out of more than 1,500 four-year colleges now accredited by one of six regional commissions have a lower graduation rate or higher student-loan default rate than the average among the colleges that were banished by the same accreditors since 2000, the Journal’s analysis shows.

For Tony Blair and European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), “tolerance” seems not to be freedom of expression, but an Orwellian standard of behavior to be rigidly enforced and regulated by government, in which group rights trump individual rights.

Under government-enforced “tolerance,” extremists would flourish, honest critics would be silenced, freedom of expression would be criminalized, and, in deference to “groups,” the individual would lose his right to be an individual.

In a recent case before London’s High Court, a judge ruled that an illegal immigrant who beat his own son should be forgiven because of the “cultural context.” In other words, the law should protect only white children; the ruling implicitly condones the beating of minority children — all in the name of diversity and tolerance.

What if a team of Chinese agents had broken into the Pentagon or — less box office but just as bad — the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and carted out classified documents?

The next day, the newspapers and morning TV shows would show pictures of the broken locks and rummaged filing cabinets. And if we caught the Chinese spies in the act, perp-walking them for the world to see? Boy howdy.

My hunch is that the airwaves would be full of people talking about how “this was an act of war.” And I have no doubt that if the situation were reversed and we had sent our team to Beijing, the Chinese would definitely see it as an act of war.