RUTHFULLY YOURS

I have been around guns my entire adult life. My father, my brother and my husband- gentle, kind and peaceful gentlemen- all owned guns. I spent many evenings before a fireplace in Connecticut cleaning, oiling and polishing handguns.

Each tragedy begets screeching about guns from both sides in the debate. A dear and scholarly friend- a physician, master carpenter and conservative sent me the following note which is a fair appraisal:

“Another awful day of carnage at the hands of an unstable young man wielding an automatic rifle. I’m all for protecting the Constitution, but when the writers penned the Second Amendment, fire arms were muzzle loaders that required three stages of ramming home powder, then wadding, and then the ball. No one envisioned even an all in one bullet comprising all three that could go directly into the breach of the weapon, much less automatic rapid-firing weapons with 30 round clips. AR-15s are military weapons used for killing humans in battle.

There is no reason for such weapons to be available for purchase by consumers other than the armed forces and law enforcement. With all due respect to the rights of hunters, why should such a weapon be used for hunting? Is the hunter fearful that the deer might shoot back if the first shot misses its mark and therefore needs to get off multiple rounds quickly to be certain the animal is dispatched? Background checks on buyers are certainly necessary but do not come into play on the secondary market where people with clean records purchasing guns make a profit when re-selling to folks who might not qualify as a gun buyer.

The issue can be dealt with while preserving the Second Amendment rights as envisioned by the founding fathers. I do not hunt, but my friends that do would give up the sport if their prowess was so bad as to require an automatic, big clip weapon.” M.M.M.D.

Last week Senator Rand Paul briefly shut the government down in protest of the $500 billion spending bill recently signed by the president. This latest binge will by 2027 increase to $800 billion the already $300 billion we currently spend on servicing the $20 trillion national debt. And that projected increase assumes interest rates at 3.5%. The debt-driving deficits are again approaching $1 trillion a year, meaning the debt will continue to expand beyond 100% of GDP, reaching $30 trillion in a decade.

But like Troy’s Cassandra, who for ten years accurately predicted the city’s destruction, Senator Paul was no more successful at alerting people to the coming calamity. Nor are any of the other fiscal hawks likely to do so either. The majority of citizens and politicians have no interest in our looming fiscal disaster, for they have become used to thinking that entitlements are “rights.”

The fiscal problem is one of simple mathematics. We spend much more than we take in from tax-paying citizens, which leads to more and more borrowing to make up the shortfall. And we have made promises to the people––Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid––that we have not funded adequately, and that now account for nearly two-thirds of the annual budget. Social Security alone has unfunded liabilities of about $34 trillion, and that’s not as bad as Medicare’s $49 trillion. Worse yet, every day 10,000 Baby Boomers retire, meaning the beneficiaries will continue to expand. And right behind the Boomers are the 66 million Millennials. We’re looking at decades and decades of relentlessly increasing expenditures and the borrowing required to pay for them.

Most of the “solutions” to this problem are preposterous, functioning mainly as a political narcotic to numb the voters’ minds. The left thinks that raising taxes on the “rich” will generate enough money to fund these programs, even though confiscating all the wealth of America’s billionaires couldn’t fund the whole government for one year. The right thinks cutting taxes will create economic growth that will generate enough funds to put us in the black. But we can’t tax or grow our way out of this problem. Half the voters don’t pay federal taxes, nor do payroll deductions cover the whole bill for the average retiree, who will take more in benefits from Social Security and Medicaid than he paid for. Economic growth indeed increases revenues, but we typically spend the extra money instead of saving it so we can pay future bills or reduce the debt.

On Monday evening, I joined Tucker Carlson to discuss Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s evidence-free analysis of the last election, and say a few words on the new Obama presidential portrait. On the last point I had a few cheap cracks ready re the extra finger Obama’s chosen artist has given him (see right). That makes eleven digits, which oddly enough is as many as the national debt had under him. [See Timothy McDonnell’s important note below.] Etc. But Tucker chose to move on to Justice Ginsburg, and to be honest any reasonably competent person can do his own shtick re the Obama portraiture, so you don’t need mine.

As to judges moonlighting as pundits, what with one thing and another, I was less tolerant of this latest and most prominent example of America’s hideously politicized judiciary than I might have been. Click below to watch:

Why is everyone surprised by the media’s infatuation with Kim Yo Jung, the sister of North Korea’s tyrant Kim Jong un? Anna Wintour, garmenta and fashionista and editor of Vogue magazine which advertises $20,000 pocket books, and supporter of Hillary Clinton once published a paean to the bride of mass murderer Bashar al Assad, entitled “Rose of the Desert.” The column failed to mention the thorns – mass killings, gassing, torturing of civilians which are standard issue atrocities committed by her hubby.

Here is just a snippet of adulation:

“Asma al-Assad is glamorous, young, and very chic-the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies. Her style is not the couture-and-bling dazzle of Middle Eastern power but a deliberate lack of adornment. She’s a rare combination: a thin, long-limbed beauty with a trained analytic mind who dresses with cunning understatement. Paris Match calls her “the element of light in a country full of shadow zones.” She is the first lady of Syria.

Syria is known as the safest country in the Middle East, possibly because, as the State Department’s Web site says, “the Syrian government conducts intense physical and electronic surveillance of both Syrian citizens and foreign visitors.” It’s a secular country where women earn as much as men and the Muslim veil is forbidden in universities, a place without bombings, unrest, or kidnappings, but its shadow zones are deep and dark. ”

A few weeks later, the article and all references to it were removed from Vogue’s website without explanation.

Four companies dominate our daily lives unlike any other in human history: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. We love our nifty phones and just-a-click-away services, but these behemoths enjoy unfettered economic domination and hoard riches on a scale not seen since the monopolies of the gilded age. The only logical conclusion? We must bust up big tech.

I’ve benefited enormously from big tech. Prophet, the consulting firm I cofounded in 1992, helped companies navigate a new landscape being reshaped by Google. Red Envelope, the upscale e-commerce company I cofounded in 1997, never would have made it out of the crib if Amazon hadn’t ignited the market’s interest in e-commerce. More recently, L2, which I founded in 2010, was born from the mobile and social waves as companies needed a way to benchmark their performance on new platforms.

.

The benefits of big tech have accrued for me on another level as well. In my investment portfolio, the appreciation of Amazon and Apple stock restored economic security to my household after being run over in the Great Recession. Finally, Amazon is now the largest recruiter of students from the brand-strategy and digital-marketing courses I teach at NYU Stern School of Business. These firms have been great partners, clients, investments, and recruiters. And the sum of two decades of experience with, and study of, these companies leads me to a singular conclusion: It’s time to break up big tech.

Over the past decade, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google—or, as I call them, “the Four”—have aggregated more economic value and influence than nearly any other commercial entity in history. Together, they have a market capitalization of $2.8 trillion (the GDP of France), a staggering 24 percent share of the S&P 500 Top 50, close to the value of every stock traded on the Nasdaq in 2001.

How big are they? Consider that Amazon, with a market cap of $591 billion, is worth more to the stock market than Walmart, Costco, T. J. Maxx, Target, Ross, Best Buy, Ulta, Kohl’s, Nordstrom, Macy’s, Bed Bath & Beyond, Saks/Lord & Taylor, Dillard’s, JCPenney, and Sears combined.

The brouhaha regarding Poland’s new law is misunderstood. Poland’s defenders explain that it is all a matter of semantics. What are referred to as the “Polish death camps” were really German/Nazi camps. The correction is fair enough. But correcting a phrase leads so many Polish defenders to air-brush the complicity of Polish anti-Semites in aiding the Nazis. Oh yes…of course there were exceptions…noble people hid and helped Jews at great risk to their lives. But the majority did not and the word “Żyd”- Polish for Jew was an invective and curse.

My parents were Polish, and I speak Polish but I prefer to focus on present antisemitism hounding the Jews throughout Europe and in the entire Arab world, but to call the Polish history of brutal anti-Semitism “revisionist history, plagiarism and slander” is outrageous. My parents left Poland in 1930 because of the anti-Semitism that flourished long before the Nazi invasion. Of my family that remained- grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins – all were herded into the ghetto, and killed along with millions of “Zyds” with the undeniable indifference or outright collusion of the Poles. As usual it is blamed on economics:

Exhibit A: Today on Frontpage it is explained thus:

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269267/polands-new-law-criminalizing-speech-about-danusha-v-goska

“It’s undeniable that in interwar Poland, that is, between the end of WW I in 1918 and the onset of WW II in 1939, anti-Semitism flourished. The interwar period, for complicated historical reasons, saw one of the worst outbreaks of anti-Semitism in Poland’s history. Interwar anti-Semitism was largely predicated on economic grievances. Jews had occupied the middleman minority caste. Most Poles were impoverished peasants. They wanted to own shops and study to become doctors and lawyers. For some, not all Poles, these honorable ambitions veered into the dark, twisted path of anti-Semitism.”

What a pathetic explanation and excuse. rsk

I get tons of emails from Trump-friendly sites every day, and am overwhelmed by the voluntary and necessary task of reading the news, until I nod off in exhaustion. I thought the deluge had peaked during the 2016 presidential campaign, but the Niagara Falls of information keeps coming, creating clouds of fake news vapors. Now it’s not whether or not Trump wipes the floor with Hillary, but it’s the latest MSM conniption fit with hair being torn out in angry exasperation and furious foot-stamping, and over Trump’s hair. If it isn’t about whether or not the FISA memo ought to be released, to the style of Trump’s socks, then it’s about what he keeps on his “racist” Oval Office desk.

One thing that worries me about the FBI/State Department/NSA scandal is that one or all of the culprits named in the release of the FISA memo will not be punished; that is arrested, cuffed, charged, and hauled off to detention or put under house arrest with ankle bracelets before being tried for treason, plotting to overthrow a properly elected President, suborning Congress, and a baker’s dozen of other serious crimes.

None of these people should be allowed to live easily and go golfing after being outed as obsessed criminals: James Comey, Robert Mueller, Hillary Clinton, Andrew McCabe, John Podesta, Rod Rosenstein, Sally Yates, FBI agents Peter Strzok and his mistress, Lisa Page, and a dozen or more others afflicted with Never-Trump brain seizures, including Barack Obama, who, as then President, okayed the wire-tapping of Trump Tower in New York City. This operation was directed against President Trump, who should take it personally, if nothing else, and call for their arrests, but hasn’t (yet). Americans have not seen any indication that he will slap the guilty with iron gloves.

Christopher Steele, the one-time British spy and Trump dossier fabricator, ought to be extradited to the U.S. and made to answer for his contribution to a fraud.

On both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, former British MI-6 Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele is going to extremes to avoiding answering questions from the United States Congress, while at the same time avoiding being videotaped and deposed in a multi-million dollar libel case brought against Buzzfeed.

At the very least, the culprits should be sentenced to the mandatory testing of consuming converted human waste as astronaut food, to see if it’s acceptable NASA fare to anyone in the astronaut corps.

“To me “bipartisan foreign policy” means a mutual effort, under our indispensable two-Party system, to unite our official voice at the water’s edge so that America speaks with maximum authority against those who would divide and conquer us and the free world. It does not involve the remotest surrender of free debate in determining our position. On the contrary, frank cooperation and free debate are indispensable to ultimate unity. In a word, it simply seeks national security ahead of partisan advantage. Every foreign policy must be totally debated (and I think the record proves it has been) and the “loyal opposition” is under special obligation to see that this occurs.”

It was Arthur H. Vandenberg Republican from Michigan who served in the Senate from 1928 to 1951. His relationship and collaborations with then Democrat President Harry Truman were legendary. Read more in :

Harry and Arthur: Truman, Vandenberg, and the Partnership That Created the Free World by Lawrence J. Haas

rsk

The latest Trump tweet to have knickers in a knot is due to my president’s use of the word “treasonous” to blast the Dem-wits’ behavior during the State of the Union speech.

Maybe the word is overblown. I was once accused of treason by my sons when I applauded a Boston victory over the New York Knicks…..

Daniel Greenfield has the perfect take on the issue: A Double Standard on Treason,

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/269252/double-standard-treason-daniel-greenfield
Before the memo was released, Senator Cory Booker was quick to throw around accusations of treason.

“I might say tantamount to treasonous in the sense of: when you violate the intelligence community’s mandates around classified documentation and what should be released, you could be betraying or, especially if you’re revealing sources and methods or giving some color to sources and methods, you are actually endangering fellow Americans in the intelligence community and our ability to source intelligence,” Senator Booker had insisted. “So, to me, this is something that could be potentially viewed as treasonous.”

Then once the Nunes memo was released, and not even the biggest CNN or Washington Post hack could find a single piece of classified information there that would endanger a mouse, Booker packed up his tent for the next show, complete with squeezing tears out with an onion.

But as the media once again waxes outraged about accusations of treason, let’s revisit it.

Senator Booker, like so many of his leftist colleagues, was using accusations of treason to suppress a political debate. That’s exactly what the Dems were falsely accusing Bush of. And it’s exactly what they’re guilty of.

Senator Cory Booker has never apologized for his accusations of treason. And that’s a sure bet that he will repeat them. But the double standard on treason says that only leftists can accuse others of treason. They are the experts.

If the #MeToo movement only reduces sexual predation in the workplace, it will have been a force for good. Its most likely result, however, will be to unleash a torrent of new gender and race quotas throughout the economy and culture, on the theory that disparities in representation and employment are due to harassment and bias.

Hollywood and the media are already showing the effect. It’s no coincidence that The Today Show now has two female anchors. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has pledged to double its female and minority members by 2020. Actress Natalie Portman’s sneer in presenting the best director prize at the recent Golden Globe movie awards—“And here are the all-male nominees”—will become the standard response to any perceived lack of “diversity” in entertainment. The Wall Street Journal’s pop music critic, Jim Fusilli, for example, groused that females were underrepresented among Grammy award nominees. “No groups led by women are among the nominees in the Best Contemporary Instrumental, Best Jazz Instrumental, Best Large Jazz Ensemble and Best Contemporary Christian Music album categories. “There is no Grammy category comprised entirely of women,” he complained. Six female music industry executives then complained to the Recording Academy’s board of trustees that the Recording Academy’s leadership suffered from “inclusion issues across all demographics.” In response, management has penitently promised to overcome the “unconscious biases that impede female advancement” in the music industry. The National Hispanic Media Coalition is planning to protest at the Academy Awards because of the paucity of Hispanic Oscar nominations. Even before the Hispanic protest, Hollywood execs were experiencing quota fatigue, given the pressures from feminist, LGBTQ, and disability activists to hire by identity category.