RUTHFULLY YOURS

The former First Lady’s forthcoming book is titled “Becoming”…..a memoir that will arrive on November 18, 2018- translated into 24 languages and an audio edition. Is this a first stab at running for public office?

Well one hopes that her writing skills have er….evolved since her Princeton days. The late, very liberal journalist Christopher Hitchens had this to say about her college thesis…”to describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be ‘read’ at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn’t written in any known language.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/03/how_to_destroy_the_united_states_ditch_the_rule_of_law.html

With the clearly unethical and most likely criminal behavior of the upper management levels of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) exposed by Chairman Devin Nunes of the House Intelligence Committee, there are two complementary areas that have been conveniently swept under the rug.

The first deals with the murder of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Rich, and the second deals with the alleged hacking of the DNC server by Russia. Both should be of prime interest to special counsel Robert Mueller, but do not hold your breath.

The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was not a victim of robbery.

This has all the earmarks of a targeted hit job. However, strangely no one has been charged with this horrific crime, and what is more intriguing is that no law enforcement agency is even investigating this murder. According to other open sources, Metro police were told by their “higher ups” that if they spoke about the case, they will be immediately terminated. It has been claimed that this order came down from very high up the “food chain,” well beyond the D.C. mayor’s office. Interesting.

One more unexplained twist is that on July 10, 2016, the same day Seth Rich was murdered, an FBI agent’s car was burglarized in the same vicinity. Included in the FBI equipment stolen was a 40 caliber Glock 22. D.C. Metro police issued a press release, declaring that the theft of the FBI agent’s car occurred between 5 and 7 a.m. Two weeks later, the FBI changed the time of the theft to between 12 a.m. and 2 a.m. Was the FBI gun used to shoot Seth Rich? Neither the FBI nor the Metro police will discuss.

Mary Stalcup Markward appeared nervous as she made her way into the cramped hearing room on the morning of July 11, 1951. A battery of photographers snapped away while she quietly took her seat. Behind her, the gallery was jammed with reporters and spectators who had come to hear one of the most prolific spies ever to testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

Markward didn’t fit the image of a mole. But there she was — a young mother and homemaker from Fairfax County, only 5 foot 1, looking prim in her rust-colored suit and white sailor hat — preparing to tell the committee about the nearly seven years she had posed as a loyal member of the District Communist Party.

She was there to name names.

“I can see her face, how innocent she looked,” recalls Murrey Marder, a reporter covering the hearing for The Washington Post. “The fact that she was such an average person, that is what was so unusual. This was not some seasoned counterintelligence operative.”

Her testimony — both in prior closed-door sessions and in the public hearings — was a sensation. Never before had anyone spoken in public with such knowledge about the inner workings of the party. Never before had it hit so close to home for Washingtonians. Markward gave the names of more than 240 past and present party members, providing the names of their husbands and wives and the exact dates of party meetings. When she finished, the crowd gave her a sustained round of applause.

The nation — especially its capital — was in the midst of an anti-Communist frenzy at the time of Markward’s testimony. Abroad, U.S. troops fought to contain the Reds in Korea. On the home front, FBI Chief J. Edgar Hoover announced that no fewer than 55,000 card-carrying members of the Communist Party lived in the country. Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy, the relentless Communist hunter, ominously declared that 205 of them were working in the State Department. And in a trial that shocked the nation that spring, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were sentenced to death for passing nuclear secrets to the Soviets.

For most of the period leading up to World War II, being a Communist was perfectly legal, if somewhat provocative. At the height of its popularity in 1939, the party had 100,000 U.S. members. But in the years after the war, Congress passed dozens of laws, most notably the Smith Act, to ensure the loyalty of federal employees by making membership in subversive organizations a crime.

The most pervasive action to weed out subversives was launched by President Harry S. Truman in 1947. Dogged by Republican charges that he was soft on Communism, he created the Federal Employees Loyalty Program. The program established review boards to investigate federal employees and terminate them if there was “reasonable doubt” as to their loyalty. “Reasonable” grounds included associating with known Communists.

What do you do if Hollywood has been rocked for months by the biggest sex-harassment scandal ever and the Academy Awards are coming up and you’re running a film-industry trade paper that’s in the habit of putting out an annual Oscars issue?

Well, if you’re the editors of Variety, you put your heads together and decide to grace your cover with the most courageous victim of Hollywood sexism ever – namely, Barbra Streisand.

Written by Ramin Setoodeh, the slobberingly obsequious cover story is entitled “Barbra Streisand on How She Battled Hollywood’s Boys’ Club.” It opens with what must be the millionth account of what, one gathers, was the great anti-woman crime of the twentieth century: the denial of an Oscar nomination to Babs for her direction of Yentl (1983). How dare they overlook her while nominating five males, including some Swede named Bergman! “It really showed the sexism,” Streisand tells Setoodeh.

She tells this to Setoodeh, mind you, “over a cup of tea at her her stunning Malibu estate.” That’s Hollywood female victimhood for you, folks!

Streisand isn’t embarrassed to still be whining about her supposed snub 34 years later. Then again, when has she ever displayed the slightest sign of embarrassment about anything? What’s a bit more surprising than her eternal self-obsessed kvetching is that neither Setoodeh nor his editors at Variety seem to have sensed any contradiction whatsoever between her endless complaints about patriarchal indignities she’s suffered in the film biz (once, when she was directing The Prince of Tides, her crew refused to work overtime) and the ample evidence of her own professional triumph served up in the article itself – from Setoodeh’s giddy description of her estate to the cover photo of her surrounded by a profusion of Oscars, Grammys, Emmys, and Golden Globes.

Think about it: since the takedown of Harvey Weinstein, dozens of Hollywood careers have been lost, scores of black dresses designed and fitted for the Golden Globes, hundreds of Time’s Up buttons proudly brandished, thousands of celebrity #metoo hashtags tweeted and re-tweeted, and heaven knows how many pious, pompous, publicist-written-and-approved speeches about male oppression in the entertainment industry delivered on talk shows, at rallies, and from the stages of awards galas. Formerly silenced and suppressed women in Hollywood, Setoodeh solemnly pronounces, are “finally gaining control of their own narrative.”

Newtown, Ct. where the tragic school shooting in Sandy Hook took place, was home to Fairfield Hills a campus like housing for the mentally ill which was a victim of the de-institutionalization movement that closed mental health hospitals and left mentally ill patients on the streets or in jails next to hardened criminals. Read

“Madness in the Streets : How Psychiatry and the Law Abandoned the Mentally Ill” Aug 1, 2000by Rael Jean Isaac and Virginia C. Armat

After another inexplicable act of violence in Parkland Florida claimed 17 lives, the usual chorus (and some of the not so usual chorus) is screaming for gun control. We don’t need gun control; we need nut control.https://amgreatness.com/2018/03/01/forget-gun-control-bring-back-mental-hospitals/

With the first one constructed in 1773, our country has a history of building and maintaining mental hospitals. In 1955, the United States had more than 100 mental hospitals with a population of over 560,000 people.

The U.S. population in 1955 was around 165 million. Today, with a population around 323 million, we can safely assume more than 1 million people would be institutionalized by 1955 standards.

Where are these millions of people who should be in mental hospitals? Living in our communities, wandering the streets while arguing with imaginary figures, or in prison having been declared to be insane, but competent after having committed a crime.

Many purportedly smart people run around decrying inanimate objects for causing death and mayhem. Our streets, schools, workplaces have become killing grounds because any lunatic can get his hands on a gun (or guns) and carry out a massacre. But a closer inspection of the headlines reveals a myriad of machete attacks, people pushed into oncoming subway cars, a man holed up in a bunker, and ex-cop on a bloody rampage—and who can forget the bath salts man who cannibalized a man on the streets of Miami? And so it goes with each bizarre and horrible story replaced by the next stupefying act of insanity.

Why is this happening? Guns? We’ve had guns for centuries.

The real and ignored reason is a policy called “deinstitutionalization,” which is a fancy way of saying “let’s close the mental hospitals to save money.”

Donald Trump is rightly frustrated that so many in Washington and the media refuse to take seriously the evidence that the government abused its surveillance powers during the 2016 election. Still, let’s remember who the bad guys are in this story. Hint: not Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

Mr. Trump’s Wednesday tweetstorm included a blast at both men after news that Mr. Sessions had asked Mr. Horowitz to look into whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation went rogue when it asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a warrant against ex- Trump aide Carter Page. The president complained that Mr. Horowitz will “take forever, has no prosecutorial power and [is] already late with reports on [James] Comey, etc.” He berated the inspector general as “an Obama guy” and asked why Mr. Sessions won’t use “Justice Department lawyers” to investigate “massive FISA abuse.” And then, of course: “DISGRACEFUL!”

Hardly. The Sessions request is the best—arguably the only—way to get an honest assessment of 2016 out to the public. Congressional Republicans are doing excellent work, but they face Democratic sabotage and a biased media. The Justice Department has no business investigating itself, and any finding from the Trump Justice Department would be cast as tainted. The last thing anyone should want is another special counsel, who would bring still more controversy and really would “take forever.”

No one should underestimate the power of the inspector general. Congress created these watchdogs in 1978 after the nightmare of trying to pry information out of a crooked Nixon administration. Inspectors general were deliberately placed within the executive branch and empowered to seek out information in ways that Congress can’t, even with subpoenas—including by demanding quick and comprehensive access to documents and promptly interviewing relevant officials. But inspectors general are still accountable; They go through extensive vetting before appointment and have a statutory duty to report to Congress. Most take their duty of neutrality seriously. CONTINUE AT SITE

The United States is about freedom. Central to any system of freedom is the “rule of law” – the principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are:

Publicly promulgated,
Equally enforced,
Independently adjudicated, and
Consistent with international human rights principles.

What we have seen throughout United States history, up to and including recent events, is that when we ignore the “rule of law,” as we often have, we do so at our own peril.

During the slave years, there were obviously two sets of rules. It took over 600,000 lives to attempt to straighten that out. Then there was the mistreatment of American Indians. That error, which caused untold misery, was followed some years later by the Jim Crow laws. Known as “separate but equal,” they pretended to be consistent with the rule of law, but everyone knew they weren’t. The races were separate, and they weren’t equal. Suffering ensued.

Fast-forward to today, and you see that “sanctuary cities” have a separate rule of law for illegal aliens. College campuses twist themselves into pretzels describing what is “allowed speech” and what is “hate speech.”

In Broward and Dade Counties, Florida, school administrators along with local police created a two-tiered rule of law. As Jack Cashill wrote recently, “[t]he spurious ‘same behavior’ insinuation would put the onus on law enforcement to treat black students more gingerly than they would non-blacks.” Many argue that this policy led directly to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.

There are more than 66 investigations by the Broward County State Attorney’s office into Broward County Sheriff’s deputies and employees, ranging from drug trafficking to kidnapping since 2012, according to a 2014 Brady list produced by the Broward State Attorney’s office. Forty of the investigations occurred under embattled Sheriff Scott Israel’s watch. His office is now under investigation for allegations that his deputies failed to allow first responders from treating patients at the scene of Stoneman Douglas High School shooting on Feb. 14, and failure of his deputies to enter the school during the rampage that left 17 people dead, according to reports.

Over the weekend Israel fought back on calls for his resignation saying the actions of his deputies were “[not] his responsibility” when they failed to enter the high school that was under siege by Nikolas Cruz, 19. Police responded to calls regarding Cruz over 45 times over a seven-year period, although Israel disputes the report, stating his office only received 23 callsduring that time frame. The FBI also received a detailed call on Jan. 5, warning that Cruz had posted disturbing images of slaughtered animals and comments on his Instagram saying he wanted to kill people, according to reports. The FBI stated on Feb. 16, that the tip was not forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office.

But Israel has long had been criticized for his leadership. While Israel is battling allegations that his office failed to appropriately respond to the Cruz shooting, he is also fighting a civil court case brought by the family of Jermaine McBean, an African-American information technology engineer. McBean was killed in 2013 by Israel’s deputies after they responded to a call that McBean was walking in his neighborhood with what appeared to be a weapon. It was an unloaded air rifle.

Near-daily gossip surrounds Donald Trump’s three marquee generals.

The media sometimes blare out rumors that General John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, is proving to be a loose cannon and might soon be fired.

Lt. General H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, is occasionally rumored to be a robotic PowerPoint wonk and hawkish interventionist who soon might be terminated.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis is purportedly too much the centrist Democrat, and embarrassed by Trump’s antics, and thus might be leaving.

Of course, few Cabinet or White House appointees ever serve throughout an entire administration. Burnout is natural. Lucrative private-sector job offers multiply monthly. Normal people do not enjoy living inside the Beltway.

Barack Obama had four defense secretaries, three national security advisers and five chiefs of staff. That is about par for a presidential tenure covering eight years.

But the problem with all these rumors of departing generals is not just that they are likely false and shopworn. They also make no sense because the three generals have been radically successful. In just a year, they have markedly enhanced U.S. national security as well as the image of the Trump administration itself.

The media, which is mostly anti-Trump, has always been schizophrenic in the coverage of the three generals. Some media outlets initially echoed old worries about too many Pentagon tentacles or the militarization of the executive branch. They forgot that generals, both active and retired, have long held administration jobs. General Colin Powell, for instance, served four different presidents, starting with his tenure as national security adviser under Ronald Reagan.

Others in the media had hoped that the mostly apolitical generals would nudge the wild-card Trump left of center and embed him within the Washington foreign-policy establishment.

“It’s a plot against our election, not by the Russians, but by the left. It’s a plot against freedom of speech, not by the Russians, but by the left. The plotters took a Russian propaganda and influence operation and turned it into a pretext for the greatest assault on democracy and freedom in American history.”

Trump’s election victory was the Reichstag fire of internet censorship. The fury and conspiracy theories that followed were not just about bringing down President Trump, but ending free speech online.

It’s no coincidence that the central conspiracy theory surrounding the 2016 election involves free speech or that the solution is internet censorship. The claim that Russian trolls and bots rigged the election has zero actual evidence behind it. But it’s a convenient tool for not only delegitimizing Trump, but the very idea of a free and open internet where anyone can say anything they choose.

Senator Ben Cardin, Rep. Jerry Nadler and other members of Congress compared the election influence conspiracy to Pearl Harbor. Rep. Jim Himes went even further, suggesting that it had eclipsed 9/11 by claiming that it, “is up there with Pearl Harbor in terms of its seriousness as a challenge to this country.”

What they’re really saying is that Democrats losing an election is worse than the murder of 3,000 people. It’s why they will oppose a terror state travel ban until Islamic terrorists start voting Republican.

And what did this greatest attack since Pearl Harbor consist of? Speech. On the internet.