RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.stolinsky.com/

Thomas Sowell describes what he calls Stage One thinking. This type of thinking is common in small children and so-called progressives. When these people want something, they throw a tantrum and make a huge mess until they get it. But they give no thought to what damage will result from their tantrum. And they give no thought to what will follow if they get what they want. That is, they seem totally unaware that there will be a Stage Two.

This type of behavior is annoying but tolerable in small children, whose minds have not yet matured to the point that they can foresee the results of their actions. But this behavior is even more annoying, and even less acceptable, in supposed adults. More to the point, this behavior can be dangerous, not only for the childish adults, but also for all the rest of us.

Destroy statues.

First it was statues of Confederate generals like Robert E. Lee. The stated motive was to remove objects of veneration that represented supporters of slavery. What the real motive was I leave for you to discern. Now monuments to Columbus are being trashed, busts of Lincoln are being defaced, and the Lincoln Memorial is being spray-painted with obscenities. What does this tell us?

But if removing statues of Confederate generals is so important, why is it not equally important to erect statues of Union generals? If statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are so offensive that they have to be removed, why are not statues of Ulysses S. Grant, William Tecumseh Sherman, Phil Sheridan, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, and Robert Gould Shaw so praiseworthy that they have to be erected?

At the memorial for John McCain, Barack Obama said:

“After all, what better way to get a last laugh to make George and I say nice things about him to a national audience.”

Well that’s a grammatical error. It should have been “After all, what better way to make George and me say nice things about him to a national audience.”

Obama never released his academic records from Occidental (1979-1981), Columbia (1981-1983), or Harvard Law School (1988-1991), but to be fair, I have heard terrible grammar from Summa Cum Laude graduates of the most prestigious schools.

And at least Obama pronounces the word “nuclear” correctly while others, including some intellectuals say “nucular.”

In Woody Allen’s 1989 film “Crimes and Misdemeanors” Mia Farrow’s character says she could never fall for any man who says “nucular”.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/09/10/southern-poverty-law-center-essentially-a-fraud/
The Southern Poverty Law Center has less to do with justice than with fundraising

It had to happen sometime. The Southern Poverty Law Center has made so many vile, unjustified, hysterical, and hateful accusations over the years, it was bound to pay a price. When it did, the bill due was $3.375 million. Such was the amount the SPLC agreed to pay the British Muslim Maajid Nawaz and his think tank, the Quilliam Foundation, after smearing them in a “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.” Nawaz, a former Islamist radical turned whistleblower who calls for the modernization of Islam in columns for the Daily Beast and on London talk radio, had threatened to sue the SPLC for defamation — traditionally and properly a difficult case to make in U.S. courts. Yet the SPLC caved spectacularly.

The amusing but uncharacteristically groveling tone of the SPLC’s apology suggests fear of Nawaz’s lawyers: “We have taken the time to do more research,” stated the SPLC (doing research — what a novel idea!), noting that Nawaz has made “valuable and important contributions to public discourse,” adding that he is “most certainly not” an anti-Muslim extremist, and concluding, “We would like to extend our sincerest apologies to Mr. Nawaz, Quilliam, and our readers for the error.” The settlement further stipulated that the SPLC’s president, Richard Cohen, would film a video apology, prominently display it on the outfit’s website, and distribute the apology to every email address and mailing address on the SPLC mailing list. Whether Cohen was further required to come over to Nawaz’s house every week and iron his laundry could not be learned.

The Nawaz settlement was the most damaging episode yet in what has become an increasingly dire situation for the SPLC’s floundering image. Image, painstakingly built since its founding in 1971, is its chief asset. Image is what keeps the dollars flowing in. The Right has long been calling attention to the SPLC’s questionable tactics, but these days even Politico, The Atlantic, and PBS are running skeptical pieces about the saints of the South. Politico wondered whether the SPLC was “overstepping its bounds” and quoted an anti-terrorism expert, J. M. Berger, who pointed out that “the problem partly stems from the fact that the [SPLC] wears two hats, as both an activist group and a source of information.” David A. Graham of The Atlantic wrote that the “Field Guide” was “more like an attempt to police the discourse on Islam than a true inventory of anti-Muslim extremists, of whom there is no shortage, and opened SPLC up to charges that it had strayed from its civil-rights mission.” PBS interviewer Bob Garfield suggested to its president that the SPLC is increasingly seen “not as fighting the good fight but as being opportunists exploiting our political miseries” and that this was tantamount to killing “the goose that lays the golden egg.” In 2015 the FBI dropped the SPLC from its list of resources about hate groups.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/judicial-watch-doj-says-no-fisa-court-hearings-held-to-get-warrants-against-carter-page/

Judicial Watch announced that documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request shows that the Obama Department of Justice did not request a formal FISA court hearing to obtain warrants against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

While a court hearing is not necessary to obtain a FISA warrant, it’s shocking that a request to spy on the campaign of the opposition party did not trigger extra caution that a court hearing would have demonstrated.

In the filing the Justice Department finally revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the Page FISA spy warrants, first issued in 2016 and subsequently renewed three times:

[National Security Division] FOIA consulted [Office of Intelligence] … to identify and locate records responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] FOIA request…. [Office of Intelligence] determined … that there were no records, electronic or paper, responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] FOIA request with regard to Carter Page. [Office of Intelligence] further confirmed that the [Foreign Surveillance Court] considered the Page warrant applications based upon written submissions and did not hold any hearings.

The Department of Justice previously released to Judicial Watch the heavily redacted Page warrant applications. The initial Page FISA warrant was granted just weeks before the 2016 election.

The arrogance of these people is astounding, as JW President Thomas Fitton points out:

“It is disturbing that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance courts rubber-stamped the Carter Page spy warrants and held not one hearing on these extraordinary requests to spy on the Trump team,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Perhaps the court can now hold hearings on how justice was corrupted by material omissions that Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC, a conflicted Bruce Ohr, a compromised Christopher Steele, and anti-Trumper Peter Strzok were all behind the ‘intelligence’ used to persuade the courts to approve the FISA warrants that targeted the Trump team.” CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/impeachment-over-porn-star-payoffs-is-just-a-liberal-fantasy/2018/08/30/809d75b8-ac68-11e8-8a0c-70b618c98d3c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.08d997d01288

Michael Cohen’s decision to plead guilty for making hush-money payments on Donald Trump’s behalf has raised the prospect that if Democrats take control of Congress, they might try to impeach the president over a matter completely unrelated to a criminal conspiracy with Russia. Good luck with that: Even if Democrats win back both the House and Senate, there is zero chance a two-thirds majority of senators will convict President Trump for paying off an adult-film star.

It would be the height of hypocrisy if Democrats tried to remove the president over allegations of illegality relating to extramarital affairs. During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, congressional Democrats told us the private sexual conduct of a president does not matter, and that lying under oath to cover up a “consensual relationship” is not an impeachable offense. Then-Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said President Bill Clinton’s lies about his sexual relationship with a White House intern might have been illegal, but declared the scandal “a tawdry but not impeachable affair” — right before heading off to a fundraiser with Clinton. At the time, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared that the Starr investigation “vindicates President Clinton in the conduct of his public life because we’re only left with this personal stuff” and that Founding Fathers “would say it was not for the investigation of a president’s personal life that we risked our life, our liberty, and our sacred honor.”

But now that a Republican president is accused of covering up an affair, suddenly Democrats are channeling their inner Kenneth W. Starr.

Today, Democrats are outraged and appalled when Trump attacks special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and calls his inquiry a “witch hunt.” But back then, then-Sen. Joe Biden called the Starr investigation . . . wait for it . . . a “witch hunt.” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) declared Starr was “out of control” and accused him of having a “fixation of trying to topple the president of the United States.” Rahm Emanuel, then a White House senior adviser, accused Starr of engaging in “a partisan political pursuit of the president” while White House special counsel Lanny Davis (who is now representing Cohen) said Starr was a “desperate prosecutor who can’t make a case on Whitewater” and who should face “possible removal because of his conduct.”

https://pjmedia.com/video/vicious-anti-trump-diatribes-mar-aretha-franklins-memorial-service-orange-apparition-leech/

Continuing a sickening Democratic tradition of politicizing public memorial services.

The late great Aretha Franklin demanded R-E-S-P-E-C-T, but that didn’t stop at least a couple of speakers at her funeral service in Detroit on Friday from trivializing her memory.

Democrats Michael Eric Dyson and Al Sharpton both took the opportunity to blast President Trump during their eulogies, continuing a sickening Democratic tradition of politicizing public memorial services.

Former presidents and preachers and legendary singers took to the stage at Greater Grace Temple to pay their respects to the Queen of Soul during the farewell extravaganza.

Marring the event, was the hateful and partisan tone taken by Dyson and Sharpton, who whipped the mourning crowd into a frenzy at every mention of Trump.

Dyson lauded Aretha Franklin for being socially conscious and politically active throughout her life — before viciously laying into the president.

“Then this orange apparition had the nerve to say she worked for him! You lugubrious leech!” he bellowed, apparently meaning that President Trump is a sad and mournful bloodsucker. “You dopey doppelganger of deceit and deviancy!” he continued, sticking with the alliteration theme. “You lethal liar, you dimwitted dictator! You foolish fascist!!!”

His use of the word “fascist” brought many in the cheering crowd to their feet.

“She didn’t work for you! She worked above you!” he howled angrily. “She worked beyond you! Get your preposition right! CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-sign-executive-order-on-retirement-savings-1535673624?mod=trending_now_1

President Trump signed an executive order Friday directing the government to review rules requiring retirees to start taking annual withdrawals from retirement funds after they turn 70 ½ and to consider making it easier for small businesses to offer employees 401(k) plans.

The action, signed during a ceremony in Charlotte, N.C., ahead of the Labor Day weekend, was billed by the White House as a push to better prepare workers for retirement.

As part of the initiative, the Treasury Department would review the rules on required minimum distributions from retirement plans to see if investors can keep more money for a longer time in 401(k)s, individual retirement accounts and other tax-sheltered savings plans. If successful, it could allow retirees to spread retirement savings over a longer period.

The executive order also would direct the Treasury and Labor departments to consider issuing regulations that could make it easier and cheaper for smaller employers to band together to offer 401(k)-type plans for their workers.

“Such a big thing—they’ll be banding together,” Mr. Trump told an auditorium of supporters in Charlotte. “Small businesses will be able to pool their resources so that they can have the same purchasing power or even more, frankly, as large businesses.”

The arrangement has been available, but only to employers with an affiliation or connection, such as members of the same industry trade association.

“We will try to find policy ideas that will make joining a 401(k) plan a more attractive proposition for small employers to the ultimate benefit of their employees,” said Preston Rutledge, assistant secretary of labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration.

Dan Kowalski, counselor to the secretary of the Treasury, said the initiative aims to make multiemployer plans more understandable and useful for employees and less costly and burdensome for employers. It will also look to modernize the life-expectancy tables that are used to determine required minimum distributions. CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.wsj.com/articles/anatomy-of-a-fusion-smear-1535757026

Cleta Mitchell is a top campaign-finance lawyer in Washington, D.C. This year she’s also been the target of a political and media smear that reveals some of the nastiness at work in the allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

A partner at Foley & Lardner, Ms. Mitchell was astonished to find herself dragged into the Russia investigation on March 13 when Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee issued an interim report. They wrote that they still wanted to interview “key witnesses,” including Ms. Mitchell, who they claimed was “involved in or may have knowledge of third-party political outreach from the Kremlin to the Trump campaign, including persons linked to the National Rifle Association (NRA).”

Two days later the McClatchy news service published a story with the headline “NRA lawyer expressed concerns about group’s Russia ties, investigators told.” The story cited two anonymous sources claiming Congress was investigating Ms. Mitchell’s worries that the NRA had been “channeling Russia funds into the 2016 elections to help Donald Trump.”

Ms. Mitchell says none of this is true. She hadn’t done legal work for the NRA in at least a decade, had zero contact with it in 2016, and had spoken to no one about its actions. She says she told this to McClatchy, which published the story anyway.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/beto-orourke-tried-to-flee-scene-drunk-driving-crash/

It has long been a matter of public record that Beto O’Rourke was arrested for driving while intoxicated in 1998, but a police report recently obtained by the Houston Chronicle reveals that the Democratic Senate candidate crashed and tried to flee the scene before his arrest.

O’Rourke, then 26, was driving at “a high rate of speed” on a Texas highway roughly ten miles from the New Mexico border when he crashed into a truck and spun across the median into oncoming traffic. A witness whom O’Rourke passed shortly before crashing later told police he personally prevented O’Rourke from fleeing the scene. The unnamed witness “turned on his overhead lights to warn oncoming traffic and to try to get the defendant [O’Rourke] to stop,” according to the report.

The rising progressive star, who blew a 0.136 and a 0.134 on police breathalyzers, did not address the witness report that he tried to flee the scene in a statement released on Thursday.

“I drove drunk and was arrested for a DWI in 1998,” O’Rourke said. “As I’ve publicly discussed over the last 20 years, I made a serious mistake for which there is no excuse.”

Republican senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who is engaged in a tight race with O’Rourke, has not commented on the newly revealed details of his opponent’s arrest.

O’Rourke, the son of an El Paso County judge, was charged with driving while intoxicated following the incident but completed a court-ordered diversion program to ensure that the charges would be dismissed.

The DWI arrest was not O’Rourke’s only youthful run-in with law enforcement: He was also arrested for trespassing after hopping a fence at a University of Texas at El Paso facility.

http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/21553/countdown-to-civil-war
http://goudsmit.pundicity.com
http://lindagoudsmit.com

On January 26, 2018 Daniel Greenfield gave a brilliant speech in South Carolina in which he argued that politics make civil wars – not guns. “Guns are how a civil war ends. Politics is how it begins.” What does that mean?

“Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge. That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.”

This is no small thing. The United States of America has distinguished itself by the peaceful transfer of power through elections for 242 years. Opposing parties compete in an election – one side wins and the other loses. The country reunites after the election in support of the office of the President and competes again four years later.

In 2016 Hillary Clinton competed against Donald Trump for the presidency and lost. For the first time in American history, 22 months after a presidential election the losing party still refuses to accept the election outcome. We are in a countdown to civil war. What changed?

The losing party of leftist Democrats began believing their own narrative of political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism. They live in the world of subjective reality where facts do not get in their way. Let me explain.

Subjective reality is a dreamscape where saying is the same as doing, all ideas are equal, and trying is the same as achieving. In the surreal world of subjective reality FEELINGS are the determining value. So, if you feel like Hillary should have won then in your mind she did win. If you feel that Donald Trump should not have won then he didn’t win – he is not your president.

In the objective world of FACTS Donald Trump won the election and is now the 45th president of the United States. He is President Donald Trump and is America’s president whether you like him or don’t like him, whether you agree with him or don’t agree with him, and whether you voted for him or didn’t vote for him. That is what it means to accept an election outcome – you accept the fact of it no matter how you feel about it.

As Tiger Woods so concisely pointed out, “He’s the president of the United States and you have to respect the office,” Tiger said. “No matter who’s in the office, you may like, dislike the personality or the politics, but we all must respect the office.”