RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2018/06/13/moms-to-daughters-dont

The case of Ali Watkins offers mothers an opening to have an uncomfortable yet necessary conversation with their daughters:

Don’t sleep your way to the top.

One would think in this #metoo, female empowerment, equal pay, don’t-even-tell-me-my-dress-is-pretty climate of workplace taboos, that conversation would be unnecessary. Twentysomething women and their successors have been programmed to be independent of men—especially white, older men. Our daughters’ internal soundtrack is a nonstop loop of Katy Perry tunes and Hillary Clinton speeches: “I’m With Him” just doesn’t have the same appeal.

So, it’s surprising to discover that young liberal women are still getting ahead the old-fashioned way. And not only is this behavior accepted, it is rewarded by the same news media overlords who have fueled the gender wars; boasted about their fealty to women in the workplace; and ridiculed powerful men preying on ambitious young women.

Web of Deceit
Ali Watkins, 26, is aNew York Times reporter mentioned in a federal indictment handed down last week against a former staffer for the congressional committee who is investigating the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy. James Wolfe, 58, was the head of security for the Senate Intelligence Committee until last December; his main job was to protect classified information.

While Watkins was a college intern at a D.C. news organization, the two started having an affair that lasted more than three years. Wolfe was interviewed by federal officials as part of the FBI’s ongoing investigation into criminal leaks of classified information to the media. When he was asked about his relationship and contact with Watkins and other reporters, he lied. He is now charged with three counts of making a false statement to a government agency.

http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/21275/the-humanitarian-hoax-of-convenient-google
http://lindagoudsmit.com

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Convenience is prioritized in 21st century life. Electronic devices that communicate with each other are marketed with the flattering descriptor “Smart” devices. Futuristic Smart Homes feature everything Smart from appliances, lighting, heating, air conditioning, TVs, computers, entertainment audio & video systems, security, and camera systems that can communicate with each other and be operated remotely from any location in the world by phone or Internet.

So, how smart is it to have a Smart Home? That depends upon how much you value your privacy and how smart you think it is to allow your metadata to be collected and possibly sold to a third party. Just in case you are wondering whether or not the convenient devices you’ve plugged in are collecting data on you – they are. Kashmir Hill and Surya Mattu reported on an experiment they did in a 2.8.2018 article for Gizmodo titled “The House That Spied on Me.”

https://www.city-journal.org/html/philosophy-expedience-15961.html

Judicial appointments have proved the most successful aspect of the Trump presidency. Neil Gorsuch has begun where Antonin Scalia left off—as a committed originalist and eloquent textualist. Twenty-one appellate justices have been confirmed, a record at this point in a modern President’s term. And, like Gorsuch, these appointees have been schooled in formalist methodologies of judging. Confident of and committed to their judicial philosophy, they will not shift leftward, as have many Republican appointees in the past. These judges are the fruit of institutions like the Federalist Society and of the work of scholars who have carefully formulated the ideas of originalism and textualism. The Left is enraged because the Trump judges will leave their mark for at least a generation. Thus a group, Demand Justice, has been formed to spend millions to assail the Trump appointees and tout progressive judges for the future.

But however much money they spend, judicial progressives face an existential difficulty: the Left has no philosophy of jurisprudence to compete with originalism. Yes, progressives embrace a familiar set of specific legal positions tied to their agenda. They believe that Citizens United—the case that gave corporations the same right to speak at election time as the media—is an abomination. They believe that the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not prevent the federal government from regulating anything that it wants to regulate. They believe that progressive programs, be they Obamacare or antidiscrimination law, should never yield to claims of religious liberty, and that discrimination is generally fine, so long as it favors minorities—and majorities, too, as long as those are women.

In answering a question about the Supreme Court in a presidential debate with Trump, Hillary Clinton characteristically subordinated law to a grab bag of progressive policy objectives. “I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United, we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace.” In contrast, Trump provided a general legal standard based on a principle: “Interpret the Constitution the way the Founders wanted it interpreted.” This is a rough but handy description of originalism.

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

If you wake up with a spearmint-fresh brain that hasn’t read a magazine, seen a newscast or exchanged what’s been happening, you could be excused for being charmed and seduced by the programs offered by the Open Society Foundations, a “rights” organization that bills itself as a grant-making association formed by billionaire George Soros in 1993.

Materials available at the entrance to his Open Society building lobby assert that Soros is one of the world’s biggest philanthropists, having given away, his materials say, over $32 billion. Recipients of his international meddling would have other nomenclatures for this.

Offered at the Open Society every few weeks are slide-ameliorated talks on issues of concern to mostly Third World countries. And, of course, progressive Democrats.

The recent one, was held, as are most, at Soros’ luxe building on West 57th off Broadway. The topic, which was preceded by a color documentary of some 20 minutes’ duration in Spanish (English subtitles, mostly), was titled: “The Industrialization of Coca.” The lecture title could have been interpreted as a criticism of coca leaves’ commercialization. But it wasn’t. Instead, four panelists, a translator, and a moderator spoke of the many medicinal and commercial uses of coca leaves, trying to dispel the taint that instantly accompanies the noun coca.

https://www.wsj.com/news/opinion

We live in intolerant times, and if you don’t believe it, consider that the CEO of Twitter this weekend was assailed, and than apologized, for eating at one of America’s most popular fast-food restaurant chains.

Jack Dorsey probably didn’t think twice when he tweeted Saturday that he had used his new Cash app to pay for a meal at Chick-fil-A. Perhaps he thought a chicken sandwich is merely a meal, but now he knows it’s also a political statement.

Chick-fil-A is run by CEO Dan Cathy, who has offended America’s progressive political guardians by publicly supporting the traditional religious definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Mr. Cathy, a Christian, was expressing his personal beliefs. His restaurants serve everyone, except on Sunday when they’re closed. But it is nonetheless now a sin against political orthodoxy to eat at Chick-fil-A, and Mr. Dorsey was immediately roasted on a Twitter spit for saying he had done so. Soledad O’Brien, the cable TV personality, tweeted that “This is an interesting company to boost during [LGBT] Pride month, @jack.” Others were nastier.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-victory-for-voting-law-1528759554

A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court on Monday upheld Ohio’s policy of clearing from registration rolls voters who don’t show up for several years. This is a victory for federalism and the plain reading of the law, notwithstanding howls that this is somehow about purging minority voters.

In Husted v. Randolph Institute, left-leaning groups challenged Ohio’s procedure for removing people from its voter rolls under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which was intended to increase voter registration and protect the integrity of the ballot. More than 10% of Americans move every year, and 2.75 million are estimated to be registered in more than one state.

The federal law requires states to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names” of voters who are ineligible “by reason of” death or change in residence. But it also prohibits states from removing registrants unless they fail to return a prepaid postage card ascertaining that they still live in the district. States also cannot remove people “solely” for failing to vote.

Within these limits states have wide latitude to cull their rolls to prevent fraud. Ohio sends postage cards to registered voters who haven’t voted for two years to verify that they still live at the same address. Those who don’t return cards or vote for four more years are removed from the rolls.

Liberals argued that the National Voter Registration Act says states can’t remove people “by reason of the person’s failure to vote.” But the law says that “nothing in [this prohibition] may be construed to prohibit a State from using” other procedures identified in the law including the failure to return a card.

Congress added in 2002 that “registrants who have not responded to a notice” and “have not voted in two consecutive general elections for Federal office shall be removed.” It’s hard to be clearer than that. As Justice Samuel Alito explained in his majority opinion, “no sensible person would read the Failure-to-Vote Clause as prohibiting what [other sections of the law] expressly allow.”

The four liberal Justices disagreed, though their real gripe is with Congress. Justice Stephen Breyer opined that Ohio’s process violates the law’s requirement that states make a “reasonable effort” to remove ineligible voters because failing to return a postage card doesn’t provide enough information to make such a judgment. But the federal law expressly endorses the postcard test.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor claimed the majority upholds a scheme that promotes the “disenfranchisement of minority and low-income voters,” but there’s no evidence that the law has been applied in a biased fashion.

Voter registration has become an emotive political issue on the left, and the four liberals are riding that political wave in wanting judges to define what is reasonable under the federal statute. Too bad they don’t have the law on their side.

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/391566-the-fbis-fractured-fairytale

Once upon a time, the FBI said some thugs planned to rob a bank in town. Thugs are always looking to rob banks. They try all the time. But at this particular time, the FBI was hyper-focused on potential bank robberies in this particular town.

The best way to prevent the robbery — which is the goal, after all — would be for the FBI to alert all the banks in town. “Be on high alert for suspicious activity,” the FBI could tell the banks. “Report anything suspicious to us. We don’t want you to get robbed.”
Instead, in this fractured fairytale, the FBI followed an oddly less effective, more time-consuming, costlier approach. It focused on just one bank. And, strangely, it picked the bank that was least likely to be robbed because nobody thought it would ever get elected president — excuse me, I mean, because it had almost no cash on hand. (Why would robbers want to rob the bank with no cash?)

https://pjmedia.com/trending/state-democratic-parties-accused-of-unprecedented-conspiracy-to-violate-campaign-laws/

A federal lawsuit filed by the Federal Election Commission alleges “an unprecedented, massive, nationwide multi-million dollar conspiracy”involving 40 state Democratic parties who illegally funneled $84 million dollars into the Hillary Clinton campaign for president in 2016.

New York Post:

A federal lawsuit says the Clinton team and the Democratic National Committee went around campaign finance laws by pouring money into state parties that then sent the funds back to the DNC to help Clinton, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.

The Committee to Defend the President, a pro-President Trump PAC, first filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission in December. But the authorities didn’t take action before a required deadline, the group’s campaign finance attorney, who filed the federal lawsuit, told the Review-Journal.

The FEC complaint alleges “an unprecedented, massive, nationwide multi-million dollar conspiracy” in which Dems and Clinton’s camp were “effectively laundering nearly all contributions” given to the Hillary Victory Fund.

That fund is a so-called joint fundraising committee that allowed Clinton to raise money for her campaign and local state parties simultaneously. Possible due to looser campaign finance rules, this type of fund meant Clinton could raise $350,000 or more from a single rich donor.

Backer said most money raised for state parties by the Hillary Victory Fund were then passed back to the DNC and on to Clinton’s campaign.

How very clever of them. Not that it mattered — Clinton lost. CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.nysun.com/national/obamacare-could-be-over-as-justice-department/90285/

ObamaCare could soon be history, thanks to a lawsuit filed by 20 states that claim the Affordable Care Act is no longer constitutional. Attorney General Sessions is so sure the states are right that he’s folding his cards. In a rare move, the Justice Department won’t defend a federal law.

The lawsuit argues that last December, when Congress repealed the penalty for not having ObamaCare insurance, it removed the only constitutional grounds for ObamaCare.

Remember that in 2012, the first time the constitutionality of the health law was challenged, Chief Justice Roberts slyly called the penalty for not having insurance a “tax” and justified a five to four ruling in favor of the law by arguing that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to tax.

Voila, the tax is gone, and with it the flimsy constitutional underpinning of the ObamaCare scheme.