RUTHFULLY YOURS

In “Jihadist Psychopath,” a vital recently published book the author Dr. Jamie Glazov, reveals the steps by which, “Islamic Supremacists are duplicating the sinister methodology of psychopaths who routinely charm, seduce, capture, and devour their prey.”

Indeed, Islamists now openly admit that a group of Malaysian Islamic scholars have long planned to build a modern-day global Islamic state ruled by Sharia. Once a closely guarded secret, the Islamists have grown emboldened and are hard at work, plotting societal devastation.

Read on, to learn of the instance in which I personally confronted their methodology:

Sharia-supremacist Muslims use innocent-sounding standard interfaith dialogues as a key strategy to destroy Western civilization and install a Caliphate–a global Islamic state ruled by Shari’a law. They openly declare their intent, as they did at New York’s Chautauqua Institution last summer in a seminar I attended with approximately 40 other people.

The Chautauqua “Islam and Sharia” seminar was one of many daily Islamic programs led last summer by Khaled and Sabeeha Rehman. Who are they?

Conn Carrol
Communications Director for Sen Mike Lee (R-UT)

The WH did not make one executive action today. In reality they made three, only one of which involved an emergency declaration.

First, the WH announced they would be funding $601 million in wall construction from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, relying on 31 U.S.C. § 9705. This does not require an emergency declaration.

Second, the WH announced they would be funding $2.5 billion in wall construction under 10 U.S.C. § 284 (this is MilCon $ for combating drug trafficking). This does not require an emergency declaration.

Finally, the WH announced they would be funding $3.6 billion under 10 U.S.C. § 2808. This money doesrequire an emergency declaration.

According to the WH this money will be spent sequentially so the § 9705 money will be spent first then the § 284 money then the § 2808 money.

So depending on how fast they can begin construction, they will have to spend over $5 billion (including the $1.3 billion in fencing appropriations) before any of the emergency money is ever tapped.

“The “emergency” funds may not be tapped till the other, less controversial funds are depleted. Plaintiffs may not have standing to challenge the diversion of “emergency” funds till those funds are in fact allocated.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/02/11/washington_is_missing_a_chance_to_cut_the_federal_workforce_139431.html

Both parties have adopted a mantra of protecting federal employees during the recent government shutdown and ongoing showdown over immigration. Last month, all House Democrats and 29 Republicans voted to increase federal pay by 2.6 percent. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the effort was about “treating federal employees with the respect they deserve and compensating them for the financial stress the Trump-McConnell shutdown has inflicted on them.”

But the reality is federal employees are hardly victims. While it’s true that many are hard-working patriots who could earn significantly more in the private sector, many are not. Still, politicians reflexively defend the status quo out of fear of a political backlash. Their goal is not to protect federal employees or taxpayers, but themselves.

Setting priorities and making smart cuts to lower-priority positions, particularly during a shutdown or crisis, is far more compassionate and responsible than collectively punishing not only all federal employees, but the country and generations that follow.

At OpenTheBooks.com, we’ve documented the bloat in the federal workforce.

Today, there are more than 1.3 million federal employees in administrative agencies who cost taxpayers $114 billion in cash compensation alone. There are more than 91,000 federal employees who out-earn the governor of the state in which they are based. Compensation is so out-of-control that painters, mechanics, electricians, and welders employed by federal agencies now out-earn governors.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/jama-pushes-health-care-rationing/

I believe our would-be technocratic overlords had a two-step plan: First, pass Obamacare to centralize federal control over the health-care system. After that, use the cost-cutting mechanisms embedded into the law to institute health-care rationing, or as Sarah Palin famously called it, to establish “death panels.”

Step one succeeded, but has been blunted by subsequent events, such as removing the individual mandate penalty and the destruction of the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

But that has not impeded the overarching plan. Despite Obamacare’s troubles and in anticipation of “Medicare [really, Medicaid] for All,” rationing is now being brought to the fore in an editorial just published by the highly influential Journal of the American Medical Association. Claiming that rationing is “an inevitable consequence of increasing health care costs,” the JAMA editorial concludes:

Greater rationing of care is inevitable if health care costs continue to increase. Controlling health care costs is the only way to ensure appropriate investment in other areas, such as education, the environment, and infrastructure, and to provide a more equitable, just, and fair distribution of the remarkable health care advances that have been achieved with even more on the horizon.

It has been said many times that in the richest country in the world, in which many of the greatest scientific and medical advances are developed, it is a blight on the US soul that each of its residents does not fully benefit from available health care.

That sounds like forced redistribution of medical resources to me.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/health_care_for_all__affordability_for_none.html

First, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio “issued a bold guarantee of affordable health care for every resident,” including the “undocumented,” according to excited news reports. From the Birkenstock Left (Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt.) to the Latte Left, (Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez D-Neverland) et. al. came applause. Then, most early Democratic presidential candidates began clamoring for “Medicare for All!”

Why stop there? What about food stamps for all, redeemable not just at Shop-Rite, but Whole Foods, too? Affordable transportation — by bus, subway, Uber or Southwest Airlines (new slogan: “It’s now free to roam around the country”). And housing, rent-controlled from the Bronx to Beverly Hills. All covered by the unalienable right to equality with those who have more.

De Blasio epitomizes today’s reactionary progressives. A Democrat who supported Nicaragua’s repressive Sandinistas and honeymooned in Castro’s repressive Cuba, he more recently has proposed repressing Asians’ access to his city’s best public schools.

De Blasio’s a statist social engineer, like virtually every big-name Democrat. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and the rest run for president by worshipping at the altar of invasive government. They can because the Left confiscated the vocabulary of humanitarianism as early as the French Revolution’s “liberte, eqalite, fraternite.” Which, of course, delivered anything but.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2019/02/15/despite_contrary_claims

Is the American Dream attainable for everyone? Conclusions in recent debates in academic and policy circles have been rather pessimistic, and a recent high profile newspaper piece went as far as saying that the American Dream is not for black millennials because so much of it is dependent on owning a house and reaching career milestones. An achievement not really possible for younger blacks in this country according to the author, who based her findings on discussions with a selection of her peers. Her conclusion that the American Dream is unattainable for black millennials Is a most disturbing finding if true.

However, data from a new survey on the American Dream (the American Enterprise Institute’s Social Capital survey) reveal that claims of its demise, especially among black millennials, are overblown.

In the survey, I asked thousands of Americans around the country what factors were essential to the American Dream. While homeownership was important, Americans replied that other factors such as freedom to live as one chooses, and meaningful family relationships were far more important — despite being elements that are not regularly discussed when people think about the American Dream.

The most significant factor in pursuing the Dream according to the survey results is to have the freedom to choose how to live one’s life. This is the case for the population as a whole, of which 86% believes that freedom of choice is essential for the realization of the American Dream. It is also the case for 83% of millennials — those born between 1981 and 1996. Breaking the findings down along racial lines, 86% of whites favor freedom of choice, while other groups are in the high-seventieth percentile range. Additionally, 83% of millennials (79% of black and 80% of white millennials) believe that a good family life is essential to the Dream. These minor percentage differences call into serious question the popular racial disparity stories.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ilhan-omars-history-of-america-11550259885

Not that it will make Israelis feel any better, but Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) doesn’t seem to like America all that much, either.

Shortly after apologizing for anti-Semitic comments, the House freshman Democrat set about trashing America’s conduct during its successful Cold War against the Soviet empire.

Rep. Omar’s views may not have been entirely clear to Minnesota voters last November. A public broadcasting report shortly before her November election to the U.S. House described her this way:

Omar fled her native Somalia when she was 8 years old and spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya. She came to the US as a 12-year-old and eventually settled in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis, which has long been a first stop for new arrivals in the US. There, she “fell in love with democracy” and started spending time as a community organizer until she ran for office.

… For Omar, the inspiration to get involved in politics came from her family, who were always talking about politics, world news and democracy over meals.

But in a New York Times report almost two months after last year’s election, her experience in America didn’t exactly sound like a love affair:

Her arrival in this country was the first time, Ms. Omar has said, that she had confronted “my otherness” as both a black person and a Muslim. She became a citizen in 2000, when she was 17. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, she decided to wear the hijab, as an open declaration of her identity. But from “the first day we arrived in America,” she said, she concluded that it was not the golden land that she had heard about.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/02/14

As the perpetrators of one of the most shameful scandals in American political history begin slowly to retreat, we are left to ponder one overarching question:

What now?

The tale we’ve been told for more than two years—that Donald Trump’s campaign team, possibly even the candidate himself, colluded with the Kremlin to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election—has been exposed as a lie. Various investigations into this alleged conspiracy are coming up empty and the accomplices are trying to change the subject. Even more pathetically, some still are clinging to the farce, desperate to salvage whatever still remains of their already sketchy credibility.

To describe it as a witch hunt, the president’s preferred term, is too generous. The American public has witnessed a seditious attempt by powerful interests garrisoned throughout our political complex to overthrow a sitting U.S. president. The orchestrated and failed coup has exceeded the routine combat of our two-party system, where out-of-power partisans disrupt and agitate the other side. No, this has been a full scale insurrection that has violated the boundaries of law, normalcy, and civility in an unprecedented way.

Both Democrats and Republicans have been complicit. The national news media have acted as hatchet men. Influential public officials, operating both inside and outside of government, have aided the stratagem. One of the main culprits just revealed—no, bragged—how a handful of corrupt bureaucrats plotted unlawfully to remove the president from the Oval Office based on the fantastical scheme.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/the_road_to_shariadom_in_america.html

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA) is part of an international network of Muslim scholars that preaches shariah rule as a government system, even issuing a fatwa delineating sharia’s “superiority” over democracy. It is one of many Muslim organizations now dangerously and politically active in the United States. They include the 25-year-old Council of Islamic Relations, CAIR, self-described as a “Muslim civil rights organization” with an Islamic perspective on American public issues. More recent organizations – created in 2015 and similarly politically dedicated – include JETPAC, the Justice, Education and Technology Policy Advocacy Center, which encourages American Muslims to get involved in local politics, and MPower Change, committed to creating a political platform for Muslim issues and organizing around it.

All these politically active Muslim-American groups, prominent Muslims and other Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations within the U.S. publicly avow that they have no intention of implementing sharia in the U.S. Yet, their stated political goals, public statements and recent reports, betray their true intentions: to grow in political strength sufficient to replace our democracy with their religious governance.

More than 100 top Muslim leaders belong to AMJA, which began in 2003. Imams at over 3,100 U.S. mosques look to AMJA for instructional guidance to lead their congregations. The group’s name in Arabic, “The Group of Sharia Specialists in America,” implies its purpose: to impel Muslims to follow its comprehensive, sharia-compliant fatwas. Many of the group’s leaders attended Egypt’s Al-Azhar University, the world’s highest academy of Islamic learning and interpreter of the definitive sharia text – The Reliance of the Traveller.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stop-the-impeachment-fishing-expedition-11550188732

As William Barr begins his term as attorney general, House Democrats are aiming a “subpoena cannon” at President Trump, hoping to disable his presidency with investigations and possibly gather evidence to impeach him. Mr. Trump fired back in his State of the Union address: “If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation.” To protect the presidency and separation of powers, Mr. Barr should be prepared to seek a stay of all congressional investigations of Mr. Trump’s prepresidential conduct.

The president is not one among many, as are legislators and judges. Crippling his ability to function upsets the constitutional balance of power. For this reason, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has repeatedly concluded that a sitting president may not be indicted or prosecuted. The same logic should apply to congressional investigations.

Congress is targeting Mr. Trump’s actions before becoming president because there are well-established constitutional limits, grounded in separation-of-powers doctrine, on its ability to investigate his official conduct. In U.S. v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court recognized a constitutionally based, although not unlimited, privilege of confidentiality to ensure “effective discharge of a President’s powers.” In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the justices held that presidents and ex-presidents have absolute immunity against civil liability for official presidential acts.

Executive immunity for prepresidential activity is less clear. In Clinton v. Jones (1997), which arose out of Paula Jones’s accusation that Bill Clinton sexually harassed her while he was governor of Arkansas, the justices reasoned that Ms. Jones’s lawsuit could proceed because the burden on the presidency objectively appeared light. Specifically, because only three sitting presidents had been sued for prepresidential acts, the justices thought it “unlikely that a deluge of such litigation will ever engulf the presidency.”

The court did, however, consider the question of whether civil litigation “could conceivably hamper the President in conducting the duties of his office.” It answered: “If and when that should occur, the court’s discretion would permit it to manage those actions in such fashion (including deferral of trial) that interference with the President’s duties would not occur.” CONTINUE AT SITE