RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.aol.com/news/mike-johnson-accused-biden-bribery-110000012.html

House Republicans are approaching their Biden impeachment inquiry with renewed vigor following the election of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who has cautioned against rushing an investigation even as he’s previously accused the president of bribery.

As Speaker, Johnson has stressed a reserved approach to impeachment, invoking the founders in calling it the “heaviest power that we have,” while saying he has no predetermined outcome.

But as a prominent voice of the House Judiciary Committee, he was vocal in criticizing President Biden, at one point saying bribery is “what happened here.”

House Republicans have failed to demonstrate that Biden took a bribe — an allegation that surfaced as a result of a conversation with a Ukrainian oligarch that came to the FBI in a tip the bureau was unable to verify.

The White House has vigorously denied any wrongdoing by Biden and noted that even as Republicans have pored over the business dealings of his brother and son, they’ve failed to connect the president to their work overseas.

But as Johnson takes the helm from a former Speaker who at times seemed reluctant to pursue the matter, he said last week the House would soon have to determine how to move forward with an investigation shared across three committees.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/prominent-democrats-turn-on-rashida-tlaib-as-she-escalates-anti-israel-vitriol/

Prominent Democrats have turned on “Squad” member Representative Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) over her hostility to Israel and her embrace of genocidal language.

The radical progressive first faced condemnation from Democrats in Congress and her home state of Michigan after she posted a video accusing the Biden administration of being complicit in Israel’s alleged genocide against Palestinians.

Tlaib said, “We will remember in 2024,” followed by the text, “Joe Biden supported the genocide of the Palestinian people.”

Instead of reversing course, Tlaib has leaned further into her anti-Israel commitments in recent days, even going so far as to defend a genocidal chant popular among pro-Palestinian protesters.

“From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate,” Tlaib wrote in an X post on Friday. “My work and advocacy is always centered in justice and dignity for all people no matter faith or ethnicity.”

Democratic Michigan attorney general Dana Nessel responded by saying Tlaib’s defense of the hateful slogan crossed the line.

“@RashidaTlaib, I have supported and defended you countless times, even when you have said the indefensible, because I believed you to be a good person whose heart was in the right place,” Nessel wrote on X.

“But this is so hurtful to so many,” she said. “Please retract this cruel and hateful remark.”

Democratic Senator Jacky Rosen of Nevada agreed that the phrase has violent connotations targeting the Jewish people.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/05/the_context_of_hamas_apologists_call_for_context_150009.

Strategists close to the front seek to understand the constellation of circumstances and ideas that give rise to war. So too must responsible commentators far from danger assess the adversaries’ rival claims. The need to grasp a war’s wider frame goes for Hamas’ 10/7 massacres and Israel’s exercise of its right of self-defense.

No shortage of Hamas apologists insist that the jihadists’ mass atrocities perpetrated against civilians in southern Israel and their indiscriminate rocket attacks extending to much of central Israel must be placed in context. But the apologists don’t provide a reliable account of Hamas’ motives, ideas, goals, and conduct; a reasonable summary of Israel’s response; or a scrupulous overview of the Israeli-Arab conflict, not least Islamist enmity toward the Jewish state. Instead, Hamas apologists suppress facts, invent narratives, and repackage outlandish neo-Marxist talking points.

On Oct. 9, two days after the Hamas massacres, Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University, declared that the Israel-Hamas war must “be put within the context. And the context is not just occupation. The context is settler colonialism and apartheid.”

On Oct. 19, in an “Open letter from the art community to cultural organizations,” more than 500 “artists, writers, curators, filmmakers, publishers and workers who produce work, collaborate and communicate” opined about the Israel-Hamas war. The letter’s signatories prominently included photographer and activist Nan Goldin, who focuses on the LGBT world; UC Berkeley professor Judith Butler, who specializes in comparative literature and critical theory; and Columbia University professor Saidiya Hartman, whose research interests include African American and American literature and cultural history as well as gender, sexuality, queer theory, and feminism. The art community denizens – who did not claim knowledge of military operations or international law, first-hand acquaintance with unfolding events, regional expertise, or understanding of Islam – accused Israel of perpetrating “escalating genocide” and declared that the war’s “root cause” is “oppression” and “occupation.”

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2023/11/06/wait-who-actually-just-said-no-to-a-ceasefire-with-hamas-n4923651

But back to Bernie Sanders who, despite the growing pressure on the Left to force Israel into a ceasefire, stood fast on Sunday. On CNN’s “State of the Union,” anchor Dana Bash asked, “Some of you fellow progressives say that there should be a full-on ceasefire which would require an agreement on both sides to halt the fighting. Do you support a ceasefire and if not, why not?”

Sanders didn’t hesitate when he answered, “I don’t know how you can have a permanent ceasefire with an organization like Hamas, which is dedicated to turmoil and chaos and destroying the state of Israel.”

“And I think what the Arab countries in the region understand is that Hamas has got to go,” Sanders added.

He’s right on both counts and kudus to Sanders for getting it right this once.

https://thespectator.com/topic/daniel-cameron-cost-racial-mudslinging-uncle-tom/

Racial slurs are being hurled at Daniel Cameron, the Republican candidate for Kentucky governor. That’s despicable. It doesn’t matter what race the victim is or what race his accuser. Those slurs should be called out loudly and promptly.

They would be despicable if a black candidate faced them from a white opponent, or vice versa. They are no less despicable when a black candidate, like Cameron, faces them from other blacks. The epithet in this case is “Uncle Tom” and it has been leveled against him in paid advertisements. His crime: he’s conservative.

Those ads are the work of Black Voters Matter Action PAC. They feature the loathsome slogan, “All skinfolk ain’t kinfolk.” Any group that uses that language for political gain should be condemned and repudiated. The pushback should begin with Democratic parties at the state and national levels. Although they are not responsible for producing the ad, they are the intended beneficiaries. They should reject both the ad and the group responsible for it. Don’t hold your breath.

There is a straightforward reason why Black Voters Matter is sending this noxious message now. Cameron faces off against a Democratic opponent in Tuesday’s balloting. Polls show the contest is a dead heat. To win, Democrats need a strong turnout by African Americans and nearly universal support among them. The slur by Black Voters Matter is designed to generate that support.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-hamas-and-complicity-civilian-deaths-atrocity-22966

Even Barack Obama supported Israel in dismantling Hamas, a senior Israeli official was eager to tell me early in the war. The former president said so in a 73-word statement on Oct. 9.

But on Oct. 23, in a 1,130-word statement, Mr. Obama called for Israeli restraint. Now, on the “Pod Save America” podcast, Mr. Obama counsels “an admission of complexity.” In a part of the interview released Saturday, Mr. Obama says: “What Hamas did was horrific and there’s no justification for it. And what is also true is that the occupation and what’s happening to Palestinians is unbearable.” To get to the full truth, “you then have to admit nobody’s hands are clean, that all of us are complicit to some degree.” He adds: “As hard as I tried—I have the scars to prove it—but there’s a part of me that’s still saying, ‘Well, was there something else I could have done?’ ”

Only a part? Mr. Obama sent Iran $1.7 billion in cash, released some $100 billion in frozen assets and unshackled Iranian industry. His plan to extricate the U.S. from the Middle East was suitably complex: find a rapprochement with Iran that would empower it to stabilize the region for us. Predictably, Tehran used the money to build up each front—Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank, Syria, Iraq and Yemen—in today’s war on Israel.

The rest of Mr. Obama’s policy paved the way. In August 2012, he drew a “red line.” The U.S. would respond militarily if Syria used chemical weapons. When it did a year later, Mr. Obama blinked and then let Russia bail him out by pretending to remove all the chemical weapons. Russia never left Syria, and propping up Bashar al-Assad solidified its alliance with Iran. The Journal reports that Russia plans to give Hezbollah better air defenses in Lebanon, and Syria is a key Hezbollah staging ground and transit point for Iranian weapons.

Mr. Obama pulled out of Iraq in 2011, only to see Iran-backed militias fill the vacuum. Once ISIS, which the president had dismissed as the “JV team,” established itself, reluctance to commit further to the region led the Obama and Trump administrations to work with the Iranians to defeat the group. This elevated Tehran’s Iraqi proxies, which have been attacking U.S. forces almost daily to pressure the U.S. to constrain Israel.

Israel had an early chance to destroy Hamas in the 2008-09 Gaza war, but the incoming Obama administration signaled its displeasure. Israel stopped short, declaring a unilateral cease-fire. That only prepared the next war, in 2014, but overthrowing Hamas wasn’t even on the table with Mr. Obama in the White House.

https://www.nysun.com/article/the-cocktail-party-contrarian-125-years-after-zola-it-is-time-for-americans-of-all-faiths-to-confront-identity-politics-

In January 1898, Emile Zola published an open letter titled “J’accuse” in a French newspaper, L’Aurore. It called out the antisemitism that inspired false charges of treason against a Jewish officer in the French army, Alfred Dreyfus, accused of passing secrets to the Germans. Zola’s morally courageous declaration shamed those who hid their rank bigotry behind a façade of enlightened patriotic allegiance.

Zola’s cri de coeur ultimately led to Dreyfus’s freedom. It was a close call. Antisemitism has always been a powerful force. Dreyfus was twice convicted before being pardoned, and Zola himself was charged with libel and forced to flee to England for a time.

“J’accuse” was ultimately effective — not because 19th century France was persuaded to love its Jews, but because Frenchmen still loved the idea of France. They believed in the legitimacy of their system more than they hated their Jews, and they chose to honor the French commitment to justice by refusing to corrupt it.

Today, Jews in America rely on allegiance to democratic ideals as preconditions for their safety and security no less than did Alfred Dreyfus. Yet once-revered American values like personal responsibility, the sanctity of the individual, blind justice, religious freedom, and free speech — which have long served as traditional guardrails against antisemitism in this country — have been decolonized.

In their place, identity politics and diversity, equity, and inclusion have been mainstreamed. We see the results across academia, and the broader culture: division along racial and ethnic lines, loss of national pride, and the upending of the American idea itself. The oppressor/oppressed model of social organization legitimizes hatred of the designated “guilty” class and allows antisemites not just to blame the “white, colonialist” Jews for their list of grievances, but to do so righteously and brazenly.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/11/keep_your_head_on_a_swivel.html

When terrorism strikes, do not expect government help

This is an essay about surviving.  We should be living our lives today with an expectation that something bad will soon happen.  That feeling should not dominate our existence or preclude us from pursuing rich and joyful lives, but it should keep us mentally vigilant and physically prepared before disaster strikes.  In this Obama-Biden America of open borders, out-of-control violent crime, economic fragility, and international provocations, it is only a matter of time before conflicts abroad become conflicts at home.  It is vitally important to keep your head on a swivel.

The October 7 Hamas terror attacks on Israeli civilians serve as a shocking reminder that evil is raring to go when people least expect it.  One second, concertgoers were enjoying festival music, the next second they were struggling to escape slaughter.  One moment, families were asleep in their beds, and the next moment gunmen were breaking into their homes.  Life-and-death situations require critical thinking without the luxury of time; therefore, those who have already mentally prepared for the worst put themselves in the best position to prevail.

Unfortunately, Americans are at a disadvantage today because they have been conditioned to depend entirely upon government institutions for protection.  A culture that values strength and self-reliance produces citizens who are capable of defending themselves when necessary.  A culture that embraces victimhood, views masculinity as “toxic,” finds language “triggering,” and insists that only government agents should be armed with weapons is a culture ripe for swift defeat.  

Furthermore, too many official U.S. government policies are intentionally geared toward harming Americans.  No sane nation interested in the safety of its citizens would open its borders to tens of millions of illegal aliens, refuse to prosecute violent criminals, or secretly resettle anti-American, military-aged “refugees” into unsuspecting American communities.  No sane nation wastes its resources harassing patriotic citizens as “domestic enemies,” while turning a blind eye to the damage caused by Antifa and BLM riots and the very real threats from Islamic terrorism.

NO URL…ORIGINAL COLUMN

Barack Obama once again showed his true colors when he engaged in his circumlocutory analysis of the Hamas genocidal activities.  Claiming that it is a “complicated” issue he used the term occupation even though Gaza was returned in total to the Palestinians and they, in turn, decided to elect baby murderers.

Obama promised to transform America and now in his third term via his puppet Biden, Americans are suffering the lies of a man whose every decision proves his comfort with Left-leaning, as well as jihadist thinking and actions.  He cannot help himself in his loathing for freedom and deep-seated hatred of the Jewish state.  Instead he wraps himself in a cloak of faux intellectual profundity counting on the fact that most of this audience do not know the actual facts of which he speaks.

After all, to this day, a videotape of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian activist has been deliberately suppressed.

In the Commentary Magazine of July/Aug 2002, one learns that “no term has dominated the discourse of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict more than ‘occupation.’”

Consequently, “the prevailing view not only among Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza but among Palestinians living within Israel itself as well as elsewhere around the world is shown by the routine insistence on a Palestinian ‘right of return’ that is meant to reverse the effects of the ‘1948 occupation’, i.e., the establishment of the state of Israel itself. Palestinian intellectuals routinely blur any distinction between Israel’s actions before and after 1967.”