RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/11/making-american

In his book Why Are Jews Liberals, Norman Podhoretz described a “Torah of Liberalism” as the guiding political philosophy of contemporary American Jews.

Lacking religious devotion to the ancient Biblical text and Rabbinic tradition, or to the ritual observances practiced by “Orthodox” Jewry, Jewish Americans affiliated with liberal denominations, or disaffiliated completely from religious life, not only mimic predominant secular, urban political faith, they often lead it.

For many decades, prominent political movements of the Left—Communism, socialism, feminism, environmentalism, statism, welfarism, gay rights activism, and pro-abortionism—have been led by Jewish atheists, academics, and activists replacing God-based religious belief and behavior with a secular “social action” agenda. Podhoretz argued these Jews are religiously passionate, it’s just that their religion is now liberalism (not classical liberalism but modern progressivism).

The common Hebrew term heard at left-wing Jewish seminaries, synagogues, temples, summer camps, and communal organizations is “tikkun olam,” translated as “repairing the world.” The actual historical term, “L’taken olam b’malchut shaddai” was once an idea that served the social order, for example, by endorsing capital punishment to protect the community. Some leaders of the American Jewish establishment now selectively hijack Jewish law to authorize a range of social justice warfare intent on moving objectively nuanced and long-debated Jewish ethical concepts into subjective partisanship.

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=1084

At the end of last year on CapX, I documented the constant stream of technological, scientific and medical breakthroughs that are improving the lives of billions of ordinary people. Given all this good news, the real question is why people are so unbelievably pessimistic.

Judging by a 2016 poll of close to 20,000 people in some of the world’s richest countries, you could barely overstate the extent of the gloominess. In response to the question “All things considered, do you think the world is getting better or worse, or neither getting better nor worse?”, just 10 per cent in Sweden, 6 per cent in the US, 4 per cent in Germany and 3 per cent in France thought things were getting better. Why? Because, it turns out, we are pessimists by nature.

Over the last 200 years or so, the world has experienced previously unimaginable improvements in standards of living. The process of rapid economic growth started in Europe and America, but today some of the world’s fastest growing countries can be found in Asia and Africa – lifting billions of people from absolute poverty. Historical evidence, therefore, makes a potent case for optimism. Yet, pessimism is everywhere. As the British author Matt Ridley noted in The Rational Optimist:

The bookshops are groaning under ziggurats of pessimism. The airwaves are crammed with doom. In my own adult lifetime, I have listened to the implacable predictions of growing poverty, coming famines, expanding deserts, imminent plagues, impending water wars, inevitable oil exhaustion, mineral shortages, falling sperm counts, thinning ozone, acidifying rain, nuclear winters, mad-cow epidemics, Y2K computer bugs, killer bees, sex-change fish, global warming, ocean acidification and even asteroid impacts that would presently bring this happy interlude to a terrible end. I cannot recall a time when one or other of these scares was not solemnly espoused by sober, distinguished and serious elites and hysterically echoed by the media. I cannot recall a time when I was not being urged by somebody that the world could only survive if it abandoned the foolish goal of economic growth. The fashionable reason for pessimism changed, but the pessimism was constant. In the 1960s the population explosion and global famine were top of the charts, in the 1970s the exhaustion of resources, in the 1980s acid rain, in the 1990s pandemics, in the 2000s global warming. One by one these scares came and (all but the last) went.

Ridley raises a more specific point that general pessimism: Why are we as a species so willing to believe in doomsday scenarios that virtually never materialise?

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270617/leftist-malice-rabbi-aryeh-spero

There is a never ending blitzkrieg from the media to topple President Trump. Based on what we’ve observed during the last two years, there’s no doubt that the “Separation of Families” barrage that began a couple of weeks ago was an effort orchestrated by the media. It brought together the Four Horsemen for a Trump Apocalypse: the Democrat Party; the Deep State; the Never-Trumpers; and leftwing organizations, especially those purporting to speak in the name of religion.

One: Nancy Pelosi, the face of the Democrat party, accused Jeff Sessions and other conservatives of being “religious hypocrites” for not allowing open borders and easy and swift entry for all families and children wishing to reside in America. I have no doubt that Mr. Sessions and Mr. Trump do care about families. Indeed, as conservatives they are far less inclined than liberals to take children from parents and place them in the custody of the “enlightened” state, as those on the Left often propose.

What about families? Even Nancy Pelosi should know that government’s first duty is to protect and defend America’s existing families. And today that means seriously checking, at the borders, all who may possibly be a member of MS-13, a jihadi terrorist, a criminal or drug dealer, or carrier of infectious diseases, all of which have already threatened American families. We rely on the government to do this for us. Mr. Trump and Sessions are not “religious hypocrites”, but men living up to their oath and doing their duty of keeping Americans safe. They are acting as those who take their responsibility seriously.

In contrast to the prevailing liberal ideology, American families indeed count. That’s all part of what we mean when we proclaim: America First. Compassion is not only for those outside but those within, for those regular, law abiding millions not part of any momentary preference group.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270655/will-our-current-political-conflicts-turn-violent-bruce-thornton

President Trump’s recent string of wins ––especially the victories in the Supreme Court decisions and the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy–– has incited the Democrat “resistance” to even loonier excesses of rhetoric and rudeness. Celebrities indulging juvenile vulgarities, boorish protestors harassing cabinet members in public spaces, the twitterverse smoldering with calls for violence and a “summer of rage,” and the buffoonish Representative from California Maxine Waters calling for even more public harassment: all have some people worrying that we are on the track of escalating violence that will turn the “cold civil war” hot.

Count me as skeptical for now. As bad as today’s political discord may seem, American history from its beginnings has been filled with worse political conflict and violence, from Shays’ Rebellion to Bleeding Kansas, from the Wall Street bombing to the Haymarket Riot. And having spent more than forty years in the university, the nursery of leftism and today’s parlor pinks, I see few people with the gumption to actually back their blustering threats with risky action.

Any claims that we are living on the brink of civil conflict inflamed by violent political rhetoric must answer the question, compared to when? The Sixties and Seventies saw urban riots that killed hundreds, wounded thousands, and caused millions of dollars in damages. Politically motivated kidnappings and shootouts were endemic. The 1968 protests at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago featured televised vicious battles between the police on one side, and antiwar protestors and left-wing groups like the Yippies and Students for a Democratic Society on the other. A jumpy national guard contingent killed four student protestors at Kent State. During this same period, thousands of bombings from a plethora of radical groups took place ––according to a 1970 Senate investigation, more than 4,300 just between January 1969 and April 1970, killing 43 and inflicting $22 billion in damage. And presidential primary candidate Robert Kennedy and civil rights icon Martin Luther King were assassinated.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/06/historys-bad-ideas-are-an-inspiration

What we now consider stupid and dangerous ideas of the past, progressives see as useful in the present.

Even liberal historians usually label as disastrous two decisions by the Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration: the adoption of the Earl Warren-McClatchy newspaper inspired plan to intern Japanese-American citizens and the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937—better known as FDR “court-packing scheme.”

The latter was a crazy scheme to remake the Supreme Court, given that Roosevelt wanted no more judicial interference in the implementation of the New Deal. And yet he had no recourse until slow-coach judicial retirements opened up new appointments of compliant progressive justices. In the interim, the convoluted proposal would have allowed Roosevelt to select a new—and additional justice—to the Supreme Court for every sitting judge who had reached 70 years, 6 months, and had not retired. And in theory, he could pack on 6 more judges, creating a 15-member court with a progressive majority.

The embarrassing plan properly died.

But progressives once again are advocating something like it, now that they fear Trump’s second Supreme Court nominee might cement a 5-4 hard conservative majority—and with a possible third appointment opening up in the next 30 months. Democrats nonchalantly talk of the Kennedy slot as a “swing” vote, which in these supposedly dark times must for now be institutionalized.

They are without any self-reflection that they never entertained any such notion that a Democrat-selected justice might “evolve,” “mature,, or “grow” into become a swing Kennedy-like apostate from Left, much less that a Kagan or Sotomayor would ever evolve into a right-wing mirror image version of a Justice Brennan, Souter, Stevens, or Warren.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/07/fascists-faux-real/

We all know about projection and the human inclination to perceive one’s own frailties, flaws and follies in others. These days the concept is reradily observed. Look at those on the Left so loudly denouncing as ‘fascists’ all and sundry who disagree and you will find the genuine lovers of jackboots.

Wikipedia is not always the most reliable of sources, but its definition of fascism is a reasonable starting point for discussion. A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views, desire for a strong central government, and no tolerance for opposing opinions. All forms of socialism, including Germany’s national socialism, are inherently fascist. They embody the two key identifying factors of fascism; strong central government and no tolerance for opposing views.

So what about the US president the media consistently denounce as a fascist, an idiot, and “literally Hitler”?

The Trump administration has removed red tape as fast as practically possible, repealing twenty-two regulations for every one enacted. This removes the brakes on private effort and enterprise, and shifts power away from government to the people. The opposite of fascism.

One of the first actions of the Trump administration was to reduce taxes. This gives more wealth and more freedom of choice to the people, while reducing the power of government. The opposite of fascism.

For forty seven years my family, the “King”dom owned a revolutionary home in Newtown, Connecticut. Our dear old house, built in 1752 by a schoolteacher named George Lake, had small windows with wobbly glass, original inner doors and hardware, low ceilings, a steep staircase, and a typical central chimney with three functioning fireplaces and a detached three-story barn that had been used for hay and horses. The family that owned it before us had upgraded bathrooms, plumbing and electricity but fortunately left the character and footprint intact. We restored the barn completely to create more living space for our children, kid-laws, and grandchildren.

We had wonderful decades there and July 4th was always special….a cookout, hot dogs, hamburgers, fries and friends and fireworks and patriotic songs and a reading of The Declaration of Independence and three loud cheers for America the Beautiful.

I sold the house last year with nostalgia and rue, but in fact, my husband and I always knew that we were more than owners. We were custodians of a bit of Connecticut history- only the fifth family to own it since George Lake built it with hand hewn tools.

Today I will celebrate with dear friends in a historic New Jersey town and we will watch the fireworks and sing patriotic songs. The venue has changed but the love for America is undiminished.

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!! RSK

REMEMBER THIS ONE?https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/18/us/clinton-says-chinese-money-did-not-influence-us-policy.html
Clinton Says Chinese Money Did Not Influence U.S. Policy

President Clinton said today that reported political campaign contributions from China to the Democrats had not influenced his foreign policy, but he welcomed further investigation into decisions that made it easier for China to launch American satellites and possibly obtain sensitive technology.

”The decisions we made, we made because we thought they were in the interests of the American people,” Mr. Clinton said, responding for the first time to reports that a Democratic Party fund-raiser told Federal investigators of funneling thousands of dollars from a Chinese military officer in the President’s 1996 re-election campaign. Mr. Clinton, speaking at the end of an economic meeting in Birmingham, England, said he would determine the substance of the charges before deciding whether they would affect policy toward the Chinese Government.

”In any case, I think the investigation ought to proceed,” he said, ”and then whatever the facts are, we’ll take appropriate action at that time.” Mr. Clinton is planning to visit China next month.

The Justice Department’s campaign finance task force is investigating whether political contributions influenced the Administration’s 1996 decision to reverse a State Department policy that had categorized satellites as ”munitions,” making it more difficult to export them for launching aboard Chinese rockets.

There is an iconic picture of a child, a young boy, terrified, holding his hands up as armed Nazis surround and round up the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943. Pictures of children who are injured or at risk evoke a special horror among decent people.

Indecent journalists exploit and stage such photographs to further bias and political agenda. A recent Time magazine cover is an example. In Gaza, Hamas paid the grieving family of a dead baby, Layla al-Ghandour to use her photo to blame Israeli troops who fired on violent “demonstrators” along the Gaza border with Israel.

Nothing is new here.

In August of 1982 during the first Lebanon/Israel War, front pages and television footage were flooded with pictures of a Lebanese baby with bandages covering her body. The headlines and networks screamed: “ A baby who lost both arms was severely burned as a result of a bomb dropped by and Israeli plane.”

Then U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz, by every measure a decent and fair man, declared after being shown the photograph and headline: “The symbol of this war is a baby whose arms have been amputated.”

Harsh words indeed, but totally wrong. The baby, it was soon disclosed, had not lost any limbs nor suffered severe burns. In fact, the light injuries were sustained from a shell misfired by the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Many years later, following the terrorist spree that segued the Oslo Agreement, the mainstream media failed to notice or record photos of mangled baby strollers or the blood soaked sheets of a crib in Israel.

Telling truth to biased journalists is akin to casting pearls before swine. rsk

https://edwardcline.blogspot.com/2018/06/if-hillary-had-become-president-iii.html

This is the third and final installment of my previous columns, “Had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election,” and what news we would be rationed with by the MSM and the Clinton regime. The cast of characters is as limitless as the membership of the Democratic Party and MSM, and their unceasing plots to somehow implicate Donald Trump in a conspiracy (with Russian help) to “steal” the election from Hillary Clinton. That year-long $17 million “investigation” by Robert Mueller was proven by the IG Report to be a house of cards susceptible to the slightest breeze of fact and truth, leaving the cards scattered over the floor.

Exempli gratia:

Ø President Clinton will award David Hogg a special Medal of Freedom at a ceremony at the White House. Hogg was a survivor of the Parkland massacre and became an anti-gun activist , and helped found a student group, “Never Again MSD,” dedicated to abolishing the Second Amendment. The President would announce, with Hogg at her side, that she will sign any legislation that erases the Second Amendment or nullifies the ownership of guns of any and all makes by private citizens. At the President’s obvious discomfort, however, Hogg would give a semi-Nazi salute with a raised arm after the President’s remarks. When questioned about the salute, Hogg would deny any connection between it and Nazi Germany.

Ø TV news channels MSNBC and CNN would refuse to apologize for comparing former presidential candidate Trump’s statements about federal immigration practices with Auschwitzand other Nazi concentration camps. Trump’s public remarks, post the election of Hillary Clinton to the White House about the need for a border wall, would be, as his lawyer would assert, twisted to “prove” he was a nascent Nazi.