RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/supreme-court-nifla-becerra-ruling-free-speech/

The Supreme Court has issued its decision in NIFLA v. Becerra, a 5–4 vote holding that the state of California cannot compel pregnancy-resource centers to advertise for the state’s abortion services. We applaud this decision, which represents a considerable victory for both the right to free speech and the conscience rights of pro-life Americans.

The case concerned California’s Reproductive FACT Act, which mandated that both licensed and unlicensed women’s-health clinics (crisis-pregnancy or pregnancy-resource centers) that don’t perform abortions must provide a pre-written notice to clients:

California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].

Though the law related specifically to abortion, free speech was the fundamental issue at stake. This being so, the vote should not have been a narrow one. Alas, four of the Court’s justices were so hell-bent on promoting the manufactured right to abortion that they were prepared to jettison a real, preeminent, foundational liberty.

Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion cast the case more clearly, noting that there exists no such category in America as “professional speech” and concluding that to invent one would “give the States unfettered power to reduce a group’s First Amendment rights by simply imposing a licensing requirement.” In a short concurrence, Justice Kennedy dispensed with the idea that the First Amendment is outmoded. The viewpoint discrimination inherent in the FACT Act was “a matter of serious constitutional concern,” Kennedy concluded, and the law served as “a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-va-continues-a-centuries-long-history-of-scandal-1530052942

When Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin was ousted earlier this year, most of Washington wrote it off as another result of President Trump’s chaotic management style. Perhaps, but the change also reflects the state of pandemonium long associated with the VA. Caring for veterans has never been a straightforward task in the U.S.

Since its elevation to a cabinet-level department in 1989, the VA has shed secretaries faster than the Praetorian Guard knocked off Roman emperors. Seven of its nine confirmed secretaries have resigned out of frustration or over scandal. The secretary’s employment background hasn’t made a difference. Whether he came from the military, medicine, the corporate world or Congress, the result has largely been the same: Exit stage right, with little applause from veteran-service organizations or the broader public.

Scandals plagued veteran affairs before an official agency even existed. Fraud, overspending and waste nearly ended the relatively modest veterans pension program in 1820. The same trio of ills showed up in post-Civil War veterans programs. By 1921 Congress established the Veterans Bureau, which consolidated the majority of existing veterans programs. President Harding nominated Col. Charles Forbes to lead the bureau, and Congress tasked him with building hospitals. Forbes promptly squandered the bureau’s budget, was relieved of his duties, and served time at the U.S. Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kan., for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government.
A Department of Veterans Affairs health-care center in Ann Arbor, Mich. Photo: istock/getty images

In 1924 Brig. Gen. Frank T. Hines attempted reform, reorganizing the Veterans Bureau into six services—medical and rehabilitation, claims and insurance, finance, supply, planning, and control. By 1930, feeling political heat from the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, President Hoover decided that more was necessary to “coordinate Government activities affecting war veterans.” He created the Veterans Administration as an independent federal body, replacing three bureaus then separately overseeing all veterans programs. Two years later tens of thousands of veterans protested at the Capitol in what became known as the Bonus March. CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.thepostemail.com/

In Hillary’s cringe-producing appearances over the past year and a half––since she lost the U.S. presidency in 2016 to Donald J. Trump––she has offered upward of 38 excuses to rationalize her loss, which Amanda Prestigiacomo has documented here exquisitely.

Among those excuses were sexism, the mainstream media, the electoral system, the Democratic National Committee, the Democrat Party, suburban women, stupid Americans, technology, deplorables, and, laughably, that she was “too honest.”

You get the picture––a classic, clinical case of paranoia and delusional thinking.

Oops…did I say 38 excuses? Make that 39! At a Shared Value Leadership Summit in New York City this past April, Hillary told the audience that she lost because she was a capitalist!

Right…and Donald Trump won because he’s a Communist!

Oops…did I say 39 excuses? Here, lawyer and Fox News commentator Gregg Jarrett lists 56 of Hillary’s excuses…and counting!

Among that Mt. Kilimanjaro of Hillary’s excuses, Jarrett lists: racism, misogyny, James Comey, the FBI, Russians, Vladimir Putin, WikiLeaks, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Twitter, Netflix, Chief Justice John Roberts, and The Drudge Report.

You get the picture––a classic case of Hillary’s pathological inability to look in the mirror!

Actually, the genuinely pitiful and self-deluding Hillary is so blind to her own behavior and so clueless about even the concept of accountability that she has spent her entire adult life not seeing what is obvious to literally everyone in the world!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-rises-above-1530054005

Donald Trump is so polarizing that a test of his Presidency is whether American institutions can keep their bearings and hold to principle despite the passions of the moment. Five Supreme Court Justices did the country a service on Tuesday by sticking to the Constitution and rule of law on executive power rather than succumb to the temptation to rebuke an unpopular President’s dubious policy.

A 5-4 majority upheld Mr. Trump’s third “travel ban” from 2017 that restricted entry to America from eight countries. The ban in our view isn’t necessary, and the Court made no judgment on the policy merits. But Chief Justice John Roberts and four conservative Justices found that the ban falls well within the President’s core national-security powers. This is less a victory for Mr. Trump than for the ability of future Presidents to defend the country.

Hawaii (Hawaii v. Trump) argued that Mr. Trump exceeded the authority delegated to him by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and that his order was a pretext for excluding Muslims. But the Chief Justice ruled that the INA grants the President broad discretion to restrict the entry of aliens whenever he finds it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

https://spectator.org/unmasked-americas-real-fascists/
From the Red Hen to Hollywood, the mask comes off.

They come in all different disguises.

* Protesters disrupting the Mexican restaurant meal of a Cabinet Secretary, forcing her to leave.

* The owner of an innocent-sounding “Red Hen” restaurant in Lexington, Virginia boasting that she refused to serve the presidential press secretary Sarah Sanders and asked her to leave. Sanders quite politely did. Now we learn from Sanders’ Dad, Governor Mike Huckabee, that when Sanders did as requested and went to another nearby restaurant — the angry Red Hen owner followed and kept harassing her. (Note: At press time I had heard that Sanders herself was present at another restaurant when harassed again by the owner of the Red Hen. This was later clarified. So to update correctly: Sanders and husband went home after the incident at the Red Hen, but the family with her stayed and it is they who were harassed a second time, not Sanders.)

* A Florida Democratic Party activist threatened Republican Congressman Brian Mast’s children, saying to one of the Congressman’s interns: “If you are going to separate kids at the border, I’m going to kill his kids.” News reports note that the man had called the Congressman’s office 478 times.

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/394173-supreme-court-hands-trump-predictable-win-on-travel-ban

The Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Hawaii today was more than a predictable reversal of the 9th Circuit appeals court in its dubious ruling that the travel ban was unconstitutional. As some of us noted from the outset of this litigation, the precedent heavily favored President Trump.

What was unprecedented was the degree to which courts relied on campaign statements and tweets by Trump to rule that the entry limits were based on religious animus. The ruling properly returns the courts, and others, to basic principles of legal process. Call it “The Red Hen moment” for the courts, where judges, appalled by Trump’s inflammatory and reckless comments against Muslims, refused to extend him the same deference shown to predecessors like former President Obama. The response from judges, however, seemed more visceral than analytical in ignoring the nondiscriminatory rationales cited by agencies for the policy.

The Supreme Court’s decision is, obviously, a major win for Trump, but it also is a major victory for those who believe courts must rule within the confines of the traditional record of review. CNN was quick to declare that this presidential order was “very different” from the original order. Despite my criticism of the original order — which was poorly drafted, poorly executed and poorly defended — it is not true that this decision was based on different questions. The challengers emphasized that the third order was based on the same threshold questions raised in the first order. The Supreme Court specifically hit the same flaw found in the first, second and third opinions, which was the reliance on the statements made by Trump on the campaign and over Twitter.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/a_double_injustice_throws_a_scare_into_the_nations_judges.html

The June 5 voter recall of Judge Aaron Persky once again brings the Brock Turner 2015 rape case fiasco into the news. Turner, a student-athlete at Stanford, was prosecuted and sentenced for sexually assaulting a young woman at a drunken frat party. The particulars of the case were ambiguous from the start. Both participants in the sexual encounter were heavily intoxicated, and the woman claimed not to remember what had happened. No one saw the two leave the fraternity house. Turner was fully clothed when he was spotted lying on, and presumably molesting, the woman, AKA “Emily Doe,” by two passing Swedish bicyclists in the early hours of the morning – not an especially good time, given the hour and a nocturnal peloton, for accurate observation.

Many other elements of the case were equally problematic: the woman was already in a state of partial inebriation when she was driven – irresponsibly, in my opinion – by her mother to the party; she chatted to her boyfriend on her cell phone just prior to leaving with Turner on their midnight rendezvous, indicating that she was still more or less compos; the police report swarmed with lurid assumptions that could not be proven or were merely inferential; and much more, detailed both in my previous article and my wife Janice Fiamengo’s video on the subject.

Anyone interested in the truth should examine the court documents, all 471 pages, replete with inconsistencies, unverifiable interpretation, bias, conjecture, and twisted logic, before rendering judgment. Here is where the crux of the issue resides, not in the stanchless profusion of articles, blogs, reports, tweets, and Facebook postings that minister to unfounded righteous indignation and accusations of rape or assault. The lede in The Independent, to take just one example among many, already assumed Turner’s guilt and the judge’s complicity, calling the sentence “lenient” and Turner a “rapist” – the first a matter of opinion and the latter provably false.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/adriana_cohen/2018/06/left_must_practice_what_they_preach

Liberals put out yard signs that say “Hate Has No Home Here,” yet these are some of the very same phonies who are practicing hate and discrimination themselves on a regular basis.

Talk about hypocrisy.

Take the Red Hen in Lexington, Va. On Friday, Trump press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders — an educated, professional working mom — went to the restaurant but was booted by its liberal owner for simply working for the Trump administration.

How is this type of hate and blatant discrimination any different from a pre-Civil Rights Act restaurant in rural America refusing service to black patrons? Or if a modern-day restaurant were to refuse to serve an openly gay couple?

It’s not. Discrimination is discrimination, whether that’s refusing service for one’s skin color, religion, sexual orientation, marital status or political affiliation.

It’s also an assault on the core pillars of a democracy. A political system that supports a plurality of political parties voters can choose from. One that distinguishes America from one-party dictatorships under Communist regimes.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/maxine-waters-harass-trump-admin-staff-everywhere-give-them-no-peace-god-is-on-our-side/

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) urged liberal protesters to harass members of the Trump administration, calling upon the name of God to encourage liberal activists that He is on “our side.”

“Already, you have members of this cabinet that are being booed out of restaurants, who have protesters taking up at their house,” Waters declared. She praised these protesters for chanting, “No peace! No sleep!”

The congresswoman went on to attack Attorney General Jeff Sessions for quoting the Bible to defend enforcing immigration law. “While you try and quote the Bible, Jeff Sessions, and others, you really don’t know the Bible,” Waters declared.

“God is on our side!”

She then went on to specifically advocate for continually harassing Trump administration officials, particularly members of the cabinet. CONTINUE AT SITE

https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-power-of-the-phrase-splc-aclu-and-hidden-persuaders/

As a poet and essayist, I have always been interested in the power of the phrase: the epithet, the slogan, the aphorism, the idiom, the cliché, the qualifier, the tag, the label, the title and the name. Of course, such locutions often carry neutral implications as mere designators, or may generate what Vance Packard called “hidden persuaders,” some of which can be quite clever and even impressive. For example, the FedEx logo. The company acronym contains a hidden symbol which one can glimpse with a little attention, namely, the white-space arrow implying forward motion between the concluding “E” and the lower case “x.”

The problem is, as we should all be aware, that phrases may also be used for nefarious purposes, insinuating themselves into the mind as signifiers for non-existent “realities” or as de facto claims that are wholly fraudulent. The names of many totalitarian dictatorships bear misnomers like “Democratic” or “Republic” or “Free,” which fool only the credulous and the partisan. Does an area of the Pacific Ocean belong to China because it is called the South China Sea?

But it is astonishing how many people fall for the appellative shell game, accepting without skepticism or critical thought the radiant energy of such — let’s call them — deceptors. They must mean what they say, especially by dint of incessant repetition. This, according to Goebbels, is how the “Big Lie” operates. I have conversed, much to my chagrin, with many otherwise sensible people who have swallowed the phrasal and lexical subterfuge hook, line and sinker.

In an article for PJ Media, “The Semantic Whoredom of the Left,” Sarah Hoyt unpacks such words for us — words, she explains, “that are in common use voided of their signification and filled with meanings they were never meant to have, meanings that can only be understood if you share the basic assumptions of leftist liberals.” We may regard them as semiotic false flags where connotations substitute for denotations, or as Hoyt writes, the Left is “holding perfectly good words captive and making them commit acts against their nature.” Regrettably, the gullible are routinely taken in.