RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://quillette.com/2019/06/20/my-testimony-to-

Editor’s note: Coleman Hughes delivered the following testimony at a United States House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Bill H.R. 40 on June 19, 2019. If passed, the bill would establish a commission for reparations.

Nothing I’m about to say is meant to minimize the horror and brutality of slavery and Jim Crow. Racism is a bloody stain on this country’s history, and I consider our failure to pay reparations directly to freed slaves after the Civil War to be one of the greatest injustices ever perpetrated by the U.S. government.

But I worry that our desire to fix the past compromises our ability to fix the present. Think about what we’re doing today. We’re spending our time debating a bill that mentions slavery 25 times but incarceration only once, in an era with zero black slaves but nearly a million black prisoners—a bill that doesn’t mention homicide once, at a time when the Center for Disease Control reports homicide as the number one cause of death for young black men. I’m not saying that acknowledging history doesn’t matter. It does. I’m saying there’s a difference between acknowledging history and allowing history to distract us from the problems we face today.

In 2008, the House of Representatives formally apologized for slavery and Jim Crow. In 2009, the Senate did the same. Black people don’t need another apology. We need safer neighborhoods and better schools. We need a less punitive criminal justice system. We need affordable health care. And none of these things can be achieved through reparations for slavery.

Nearly everyone close to me told me not to testify today. They said that even though I’ve only ever voted for Democrats, I’d be perceived as a Republican—and therefore hated by half the country. Others told me that distancing myself from Republicans would end up angering the other half of the country. And the sad truth is that they were both right. That’s how suspicious we’ve become of one another. That’s how divided we are as a nation.

If we were to pay reparations today, we would only divide the country further, making it harder to build the political coalitions required to solve the problems facing black people today; we would insult many black Americans by putting a price on the suffering of their ancestors; and we would turn the relationship between black Americans and white Americans from a coalition into a transaction—from a union between citizens into a lawsuit between plaintiffs and defendants.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-fraudulent-paper-trail-through-the-anti-trump-c

Remember the simple rule: Anyone who pronounces on Trump–Russia from the baseline of, “Yes, the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC),” or its current, fuzzier iteration, “Russia interfered in the 2016 election,” is either directing, party to, or victim of a seditious campaign of deception against the U.S. people based on a series of untrustworthy if not downright fraudulent documents.

As a longtime student of “Russian interference,” I hasten to add I never rule out “Russian interference”; I just expect to find it inside the anti-Trump conspiracy. But that’s another story.

The outrageous fact is, a stack of dodgy documents makes up the shaky foundation of one of the most virulent attacks on our nation in history; to date, though, they have largely passed inspection. Even as they variously come under scrutiny and dispute, they remain in place, undergirding escalating attacks on the legitimacy of the 2016 election and the presidency of Donald Trump.

There is simply no coming to terms with this conspiracy inside the U.S. government until the U.S. people are able to recognize the fraudulence of the paper trail that got it started, and see that those involved in perpetrating these frauds upon us, the People, are, as we often say but never do, brought to justice.

I hate to say it, but I have a hard time believing we ever will see justice. Still, for the record, here is a list of dodgy documents that set us off on this dangerous voyage through U.S. sedition. Reading through, do bear in mind this rule of thumb from West’s Encyclopedia of American Law: “Evidence is not relevant unless its authenticity can be demonstrated.”

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/
BIG UPDATE: YouTube has REMOVED the video from their platform. The video is still available on this website page.
UPDATE 1: Congressman Louie Gohmert issued a statement, saying “Google should not be deciding whether content is important or trivial and they most assuredly should not be meddling in our election process. They need their immunity stripped…”
UPDATE 2: Google executive Jen Gennai RESPONDED to the video, saying, “I was having a casual chat with someone at a restaurant and used some imprecise language. Project Veritas got me. Well done.” 
Insider: Google “is bent on never letting somebody like Donald Trump come to power again.”
Google Head of Responsible Innovation Says Elizabeth Warren “misguided” on “breaking up Google”
Google Exec Says Don’t Break Us Up: “smaller companies don’t have the resources” to “prevent next Trump situation”
Insider Says PragerU And Dave Rubin Content Suppressed, Targeted As “Right-Wing”
LEAKED Documents Highlight “Machine Learning Fairness” and Google’s Practices to Make Search Results “fair and equitable”
Documents Appear to Show “Editorial” Policies That Determine How Google Publishes News
Insider: Google Violates “letter of the law” and “spirit of the law” on Section 230

https://amgreatness.com/2019/06/24/the-steele-dossier-has-been-discr

The three-year orchestrated campaign to discredit Donald Trump and destroy his presidency is littered with sketchy reports authored by partisan characters motivated by power and revenge.

From the Steele dossier and the personal memos of former FBI Director James Comey to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, a trove of dubious documents is burnished as compelling evidence to show the president is an illegitimate occupant of the Oval Office, a Kremlin stooge, or worse, a criminal in plain sight trying to subvert the rule of law and torch our democracy.

What truly should alarm Americans—and, one hopes, interest future historians far removed from this debacle—is how these clearly questionable materials earned the imprimatur of the world’s most powerful law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

The Trump-hating media, once filled with skepticism about how intelligence-gathering violated individual rights in service of wanton political pursuits, regurgitate every outlandish accusation as undeniable fact.

One example is the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which claimed Russian President Vladimir Putin directly interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency. Two weeks before Trump was inaugurated the 45th president of the United States, Barack Obama’s top security chiefs—acting on a directive from the departing president—issued an official report to suggest that Trump’s victory was tainted.

According to Obama’s FBI, CIA, and NSA, Putin “ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/06/24/5g-were-

Economic numbers can be confusing — and scary. Tax reform charged the economy up. Trade wars have added uncertainty. Unemployment is at historic lows. Oil is possibly set for a price spike.

At times like this — when optimism, pessimism, and uncertainty all coexist, it would be beneficial if the government would speak with one voice. Unfortunately, it currently seems that one hand of our government doesn’t appear to be in sync with the other. And that is causing more — and more importantly unneeded — uncertainty.

An example of this unneeded uncertainty is the government’s role in the global battle for 5G dominance.

Many elements of the Trump administration have taken strong action to support U.S. 5G leadership and to stop Huawei — seen by most as an arm of the Chinese government — from gaining control of 5G. At the same time, part of the government continues a lawsuit begun by the Obama FTC to hobble the one company that can help us maintain that leadership — even turning to Huawei to help its case.

The leader in the U.S. in 5G technology is Qualcomm. Qualcomm developed the foundational technology that enables 5G and everyone else is building upon that. Huawei in China is still behind, but they are working hard to stay close. And this lead over the rest of the world gives both Qualcomm and the U.S. an economic advantage that other countries are understandably jealous about.

President Trump made sweeping policy decisions in an attempt to defend the U.S. leadership advantage in 5G, and also protect Qualcomm. He has also made the Chinese theft of U.S. intellectual property a primary talking point of his administration’s trade talks.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274100/prison-time-democrats-vicious-doxxing-republicans-matthew-vadum

A Democrat U.S. Senate staffer who doxxed Republican senators during the nasty confirmation battle over Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, committing what prosecutors called “the largest data breach in Senate history,” was sentenced to four years imprisonment.

“Doxxing,” according to the U.S. Department of Justice, “is the act of gathering, by licit and illicit means, and posting on the Internet personal identifying information … and other sensitive information about an individual.”

In left-wing activist circles doxxing is emerging as an increasingly popular means of waging war on conservatives and Republicans.

Elon University computer science professor Megan Squire doxxes those associated with groups the Antifa movement deems enemies. Antifa supporter and academic Sam Lavigne participated in the publishing of the names and personal information of almost 1,600 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

On June 19, Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, gave the custodial sentence to Jackson A. Cosko, 27, of Washington, D.C., for stealing Senate information and posting restricted information about five U.S. senators on Wikipedia, the open-source online encyclopedia. Cosko had been a computer systems administrator for U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) before the went on his computer crime spree.

“It was a rather vicious offense,” Judge Hogan told Cosko at the sentencing hearing.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274102/jason-hill-video-ethical-defense-zionism-jason-d-hill

In this new video, Professor Jason D. Hill delivers An Ethical Defense of Zionism, sharing his deepest respect for the Jewish people and Jewish civilization. Don’t miss it!

[And make sure to read Prof. Hill’s Open Letter to Attorney General William Barr, in which Prof. Hill declares: Disband Students for Justice in Palestine and All BDS Movements.]

About Jason D. Hill

Jason D. Hill is a professor of philosophy at DePaul University and the author of several books. His forthcoming book: We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People, will be published in July by Bombardier Books and is now available on Amazon for pre-sale order.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/clapper_hears_barrs_chilling_footsteps.html

They really counted on Hillary wining, didn’t they?  Former director of National Intelligence James Clapper is in panic mode, realizing that the so-called “intelligence community” he supervised under President Obama is about to be revealed by Atty. Gen. William Barr and U.S. atty. John Durham as a weaponized arm of the Clinton campaign, with indictments to follow.

The man who lied to Congress about spying on the American people was shocked back in April to hear Barr testify before  Congress that yes, he thought the Trump campaign had been spied upon by his political opponents.  As Breitbart reported:

Well, I thought it was most stunning and scary. I was amazed at that and rather disappointed that the attorney general would say such a thing. The term “spying” has all kinds of negative connotations, and I have to believe he chose that term deliberately. And I think it’s incredible that if he has concerns, he would have easily on his first day on the job, after his confirmation, asked his own IG, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, for a briefing on his preliminary, in the course of his investigation, that is, the IG’s investigation, whether there was any wrongdoing by the FBI. I think it would have been far more appropriate for him to just defer to that investigation rather than postulating, apparently with no evidence. He just has a feeling that there was spying against the campaign.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/nancy-pelosi-president-trump-censure-impeachment/

The House speaker is playing the long game.

O ne-quarter of House Democrats publicly support impeaching President Trump. It is an oft-reported talking point in media-Democrat circles. Not much mentioned is the corollary: That means three-quarters would rather see the question go away.

This is the challenge that Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to navigate — deftly.

When last we visited this issue, the speaker was deflecting impeachment chatter by insisting that she would prefer to see the president prosecuted and sent to prison.

Now the latest: Pelosi is deflecting censure chatter by insisting that she’d rather see the president impeached.

It is a delicate dance.

As we have noted, only about one-third of the country, mostly Democrats, is interested in pursuing impeachment. The number that sticks with me is 37. That is the rough percentage of people who show up in poll after poll as strongly disapproving of the president and his policies.

I am no psephologist, but that seems like a very high number to me. At any given time, even when things are going well, the total number of people who disapprove is apt to be a good deal higher than those who strongly disapprove. So, if the latter is at 37, the likelihood is that the president will be underwater most, if not all, of the time. (As this is written, the RCP average has him down about 9 percent — 44 approve versus 53 disapprove.)