RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Sustainability is an over-used word. Or is it? Googling the word generates over three billion hits, almost three times the number of hits generated by its parent, sustain. It is a relatively new word, first appearing in the United Nation’s 1987 Brundtland Report, which defined sustainable development as meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It generally refers to climate and the environment and what man is doing (or not to doing) to sustain it, along with racial, gender and equity issues. Wikipedia defines sustainability as “a societal goal that relates to the ability of people to safely co-exist on Earth over a long time.” (Sustain is defined: to support, uphold, or strengthen.)

In 2015, the United Nations adopted a collection of 17 interlinked objectives called Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include: the elimination of poverty, reduced inequalities, climate, peace, justice, decent work, responsible communities, and strong institutions – all goals with which no reasonable person would disagree, but also words whose definitions are amorphous, and which can vary with user. Nevertheless, woke universities and colleges have been quick to add “Sustainability Institutes.”

But might the word be more inclusive? We must harbor our resources and protect the environment. But we must not constrain man’s propensity to create and adapt. It was underestimating man’s capacity to innovate that led to Thomas Malthus’ faulty prediction in 1798, that population growth would exceed resources. People need the freedom to express ideas, and the freedom to go where aspiration, ability and dedication take them. For that they need a sustainable political environment, which allows for individual freedom, functions under the rule of law, includes property rights, and provides access to free markets.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/03/17/feds-foreign-corruption-double-standard/

At the same time Department of Justice officials were using spying and corruption statutes to aggressively pursue Donald Trump’s allies based on what turned out to be rumor and innuendo, they declined to use those same laws to investigate evidence of wrongdoing involving Biden family members and one of their corrupt Chinese business partners, Justice Department documents and federal court records reveal.  

In 2016-2017, the evidence shows, the FBI raided the offices and intercepted the communications of Chi Ping “Patrick” Ho, a Chinese national suspected of espionage even as he was negotiating business deals with former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter and brother James. 

The Justice Department later used information obtained from the searches and wiretaps—which included conversations with the current president’s son and brother—to convict Ho of bribery and money laundering, as part of a separate corruption case involving United Nations officials. But it declined to tap into its trove of evidence—including “over 100,000 emails”—to explore the connections between Ho and the Bidens, who received millions of dollars from Ho and a Chinese intelligence front and discussed sharing office space. 

At Ho’s 2018 trial, prosecutors hid Hunter’s connection to Ho, redacting his name from court exhibits (see here) while describing Ho as “the person who flies around the world paying bribes to advance the interest of the oil company [CEFC China Energy],” according to hearing transcripts. 

A federal database shows the Bidens failed to register as foreign agents while engaged in activities on behalf of CEFC, a state-owned entity suspected of being a front for Chinese intelligence. Federal anti-spying laws require anyone acting as a lobbyist for a foreign power to register with the Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).  

The Justice Department did not prosecute either Biden family member for potential violations of FARA for representing the interests of the Chinese.  

This stands in stark contrast to the Justice Department’s aggressive pursuit of alleged FARA violations involving no fewer than six Trump campaign officials. In August of 2016, shortly after receiving a tip that a low-level Trump campaign volunteer, George Papadopoulos, had allegedly been told that the Russians might have dirt on Hillary Clinton, the bureau opened FARA investigations into Papadopoulos and three other Trump associates with no clear ties to Papadopoulos: national security adviser Michael Flynn; campaign manager Paul Manafort; and campaign adviser Carter Page. The FBI subsequently investigated Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates and Trump’s Mideast adviser Walid Phares under the same statute.  

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/03/a_visit_to_the_national_world_war_ii_museum_is_both_sad_and_uplifting.html

Some of you may have noticed my absence over the past week. That is because I made my first visit to New Orleans. The city is beautiful, although a bit overwhelming, because it hits every one of your senses. However, what I want to write about here is not New Orleans generally, but, more specifically, a visit to the National World War II Museum.

When it comes to the museum itself, it’s a well-designed, thoughtful museum. A friend of mine who is an avid historian usually fulminates against what the government does to American history. His oft-repeated line is “The National Park Service is where history goes to die.” However, although he had a few quibbles with the museum, especially the minimal focus on General Patton, he also thought it was excellent.

The museum’s exhibits are broken down into three sections. In the older building, through which one enters, there are movies, a gift store, and an entire exhibit dedicated to D-Day. In the larger, newer building, the exhibits are broken into the European theater and the Pacific theater. There is also a moving exhibit of the merchant Marines, who turned out to have one of the most dangerous jobs in World War II as they fought to keep the military supplied with food and equipment.

In each section, the museum designers tried to create a feeling of “you are there.” For Europe, the rooms felt like burned-out towns or, for the Battle of the Bulge, a forest in Belgium. In the exhibit on the Pacific, you felt as if you were entering a ship, and then you found yourself in tropical jungles. Of course, nothing could create the feel of actually being there, in the freezing cold of Europe or the tropical heat of the Pacific, all the while see-sawing between fear, boredom, and exhaustion. Still, it raised the museum above being sterile.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/03/the_truth_about_parental_rights_legislation.html

Considering how egregiously parents’ rights have been trampled in recent years, federal parental rights legislation recently reintroduced in Congress sounds promising, but its premise is dangerous. In fact, it could result in eroding parents’ God-given rights to direct the upbringing of their children.

The precedent for parental rights legislation was initiated by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, whose bill was dubbed by critics the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. A noteworthy feature of the DeSantis law is that it prohibits sexuality education in kindergarten through third grade (five through nine-year-olds). It is hard to believe that we need a law to prohibit sexuality education for children who, at these young ages, aren’t even thinking about sexuality, but nonetheless it is necessary.

Governor DeSantis has done more for protecting children and our country’s freedom than any governor I have observed in my lifetime. He has been right on education policy on many fronts and continues to take the lead on common sense education policy. But the reality is that parental rights are determined by our Creator, not the government. Despite such good intentions from leaders like DeSantis, any parental rights legislation is flawed at its inception, suggesting parents’ rights are determined by government rather than the fundamental, inalienable rights of parents afforded by their Creator.

Prominent conservative legal scholar Joanna Martin, JD, recently published an article titled “A Massive Transfer of Power Over Children from Parents to Governments” where she discusses similar concerns with parental rights legislation. She writes specifically about the bill passed by the North Carolina Senate, saying, “…what SB 49 does is to transfer power over children from parents to governments. Parents’ ‘rights’ consist of the privilege of being notified of decisions made respecting their children by governments; and they are granted certain rights to challenge some of the decisions.”