RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-would-frederick-douglass-regard-todays-left/

Frederick Douglass was one of the greatest Americans who ever lived. This man began life as an illiterate slave — nearly all slave owners prevented slaves from learning to read — and rose from slavery to become, along with Abraham Lincoln, the greatest orator of his time, and one of the wisest and most eloquent writers in American history.

He became the great black leader of his day, honored by multiple American presidents who frequently sought his counsel. If you read his autobiography, “Life and Times of Frederick Douglass,” you will experience English language writing that has few peers in any nonfiction writing in American history.

Every American child and adult should read this book for many reasons. First, it should be read to appreciate the inhumanity of slavery. The physical abuse, and perhaps worst of all, the human degradation inherent to slavery are depicted in understated yet riveting language. Second, it should be read as a document of history. Third, it should be read for its wisdom about the human condition.

Frederick Douglass may be one of the few figures in American history revered by Left and Right, and by nearly all blacks and all whites.

In light of that, it is worth pondering the question: Are Frederick Douglass’ views more consonant with today’s Left or today’s conservatives? It is fair to say that nearly every leftist believes that Frederick Douglass is one of them. But if you read his “Life and Times of Frederick Douglass,” you will discover a man who, with regard to race, the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln and related matters has virtually nothing in common with today’s Left. In fact, leftists would identify every one of the following quotes from Douglass’s autobiography as “white supremacist” and/or “racist.”

Frederick Douglass: “When an unknown man is spoken of in their presence, the first question that arises in the average American mind concerning him and which must be answered is, Of what color is he? and he rises or falls in estimation by the answer given. It is not whether he is a good man or a bad man. That does not seem of primary importance.”

This Douglass quote runs completely counter to the virtually universal left-wing (not liberal, left-wing) claim that race is important and that to ignore it — to attempt to be color-blind — is racist.

The Atlantic, Sept. 13, 2013: From an article titled, “Color Blindness Is Counterproductive”: “How many times have you heard someone say that they ‘don’t see color,’ ‘are color-blind,’ or ‘don’t have a racist bone in their body’? Maybe you’ve even said this yourself. Many sociologists, though, are extremely critical of color blindness as an ideology.”

https://thespectator.com/topic/matt-gaetz-fire-alarm-kevin-mccarthy-congress/

Matt Gaetz pulled the alarm but, unlike the stunt by fellow House member Jamaal Bowman, there really was a fire. Gaetz set it himself, with help from seven other Republicans on the party’s populist right. Now the whole party has to deal with the smoking ruins. 

Because the majority party has only a slim edge, any small, cohesive group among them can wield huge leverage. They can threaten to sink legislation or oust the Speaker by voting “no,” knowing their party doesn’t have enough votes to carry the day without them (or help from Democrats). 

That’s exactly what this “veto coalition,” led by Florida’s Matt Gaetz, did. When they issued the threat to close the government a few days ago, the tactic failed, but only because Democrats voted with most of the Republicans to keep it open. Why did Democrats help? Because the White House told them to, knowing the president would pay a political price if the government shut down, even temporarily. That’s why Biden’s White House wanted the Continuing Resolution (CR) passed. 

When Speaker Kevin McCarthy called a floor vote on the CR, the right wing of his caucus was outraged, partly because McCarthy called their bluff, partly because they didn’t get the concessions they wanted. 

The vote Tuesday to remove McCarthy as speaker was the populist right’s revenge. They secured only eight Republican votes against McCarthy, but that was enough. It is also a backhanded compliment to McCarthy’s Democratic predecessor, Nancy Pelosi, that she managed her caucus successfully with an equally narrow majority. 

Make no mistake: the entire Republican Party will pay an enormous price for this maneuver. It’s one thing to remove a speaker; it’s another to remove him without no obvious way to resolve the resulting impasse. Each day it lasts tells American voters, “Republicans don’t know how to govern.” They know how to use a bullhorn. They know how to stop legislation. They know how to jettison a speaker. But they don’t know how to pass legislation or find a new speaker. That’s a disastrous message to send voters. 

As the Republican House majority confronts this mess, they have only two conceivable paths to end it by selecting a speaker. Given their narrow majority, they need first, a candidate who wins virtually the votes in the Republican caucus and could be elected without any Democratic votes, and second, a candidate who wins a large plurality of votes in the caucus and becomes speaker because enough Democrats help them in the floor vote, either by voting with the Republicans or remaining absent. 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/a-broken-congress/

When Democrats are in the majority, they get their way. And when Republicans are in the majority, the Democrats also get their way. Most recently, after the stopgap spending bill was passed, Rep Jamie Raskin took to MSNBC to boast that the Democrats “got the vast majority of what we wanted” from it. And for some Republicans that was the last straw.

Eight House Republicans allied with Democrats on a vote to remove Speaker Kevin McCarthy. And for the first time in over a century, a House Speaker was successfully booted from office.

A civil war among Republicans came down to threats from both sides of collaborating with Democrats in a House of Representatives with a narrow majority. And collaborating with Democrats seems to be the only thing that House Republicans know how to do anymore.

What are the legislative achievements of a House GOP majority, today, yesterday and the day before? They invariably involve collaborating with Democrats for personal political gain.

It’s been over a generation since a House Republican majority delivered for conservatives. Congressional Republicans are too terrified to fight Democrats and instead go after safe targets like each other. It’s not even worth counting how many times a Democrat White House made a House Republican majority cower in fear over the threat of being blamed for a government shutdown. Or how often that same majority compensated for surrendering to Democrats with meaningless virtue signaling votes that everyone knew were never going to pass the Senate.

Why are Democrats able to effectively wield their House majority while Republicans couldn’t? The Democrats are not afraid of what Republicans think of them. They develop a plan, implement it and dismiss Republican efforts to stop them. Republicans however care a great deal about what Democrats, in the House, in the media and the culture, think of them.

When Republicans threaten to blame Democrats for something, they laugh it off. Democrats backed the mobs that burned cities to the ground and opened the border to an unprecedented mass invasion without worrying what the Republicans would say. But Republicans live in fear of being blamed for a government shutdown. Rather than risk being blamed for shutting down the country, they shut down their own agenda, and then formed circular firing squads.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/he-will-help-you-what-you-need-new-messages-hunter-deepen-concerns-over-chinese-influence

After the initiation of the Biden impeachment inquiry, new messages are deepening concerns over the influence of Chinese figures on the Biden family. Messages from longtime Biden associate Fran Person show the Chinese stepping in to support Hunter’s lavish lifestyle as funds dried up during his divorce. Person wrote Hunter that Chinese businessman Bo Zhang “will help you with what you need.”

Fran Person was not just a close aide to Joe Biden for years, but someone that the First Lady Jill Biden described as a member of the family: “Fran has been like a son to Joe and me. For eight years, we traveled the country, shared holidays together … Fran may be leaving the office, but he will always be a part of our family.”

Fran left the staff of Joe Biden and went to work with Chinese figures . . . and Hunter.

In a July 2017 WhatsApp message, Person told Hunter that Zhang was aware that he was in financial distress during his divorce and would cover his costs. Hunter sounds desperate for the Chinese support as he gushes money to fund his lavish lifestyle: “100K at least gets me until next month.”

Person assures him that Zhang has his back: “He will help you with what you need.”

Fox News Digital reported on Person’s messages. They include this assurance:

“I talked to Bo previously about the 37K – he didn’t flinch. I will talk to him about 56K and possibly 100K. It really depends on his liquid assets in the US…I will ask. His only problem is getting large sums out of China (especially right now).”

Hunter appears in distress and presses Person if he knew whether anything was wired or if they were in a “holding pattern.”

Person responds “No holding pattern…he was on his way to the bank this morning. He will be in touch when it’s confirmed.”

“He will help you with what you need. He also mentioned that you should take a trip to China some time this month to just get away for a week or so…just decompress.”

Hunter later schedules the trip.

The concern is that Hunter was receiving money from figures closely associated with foreign government and foreign intelligence, including the CCP.  These operatives often look for people who are in desperate situations to exercise influence over them. Hunter Biden’s massive spending and addictions would have been a draw for intelligence services.  He offered an obvious entry into potential influence or access with regard to Joe Biden.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/kendis_troubles_threaten_the_whole_antiracist_biz.html

As blue-collar philosopher Eric Hoffer reportedly observed some years back, “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” Ibram X. Kendi’s brand of antiracism skipped the first two phases. It was conceived as a racket.

Like most rackets, Kendi’s depended for its success on finding suckers to support it. Kendi found his at Boston University. In a perverse effort to atone for imagined sins, the BU administration funded a Kendi brainchild, the Center for Antiracist Research. Hysteria over the death of George Floyd inspired the center, but hysteria alone cannot sustain it.

 “After suddenly laying off over half his employees last week and with his center producing almost nothing since its founding,” writes David Decosimo in the Wall Street Journal, “Mr. Kendi is now facing an investigation and harsh criticism from numerous colleagues complaining of financial mismanagement, dysfunctional leadership, and failure to honor obligations attached to its millions in grant money.”

No surprises here. Kendi is just one racial bunco artist out of many. Doing research for my new book, Untenable: The True Story of White Ethnic Flight from America’s Cities, I reviewed the work of four of the leading lights in this movement, specifically on the subject of white flight.

Two, Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates, are Black; two, Robin DiAngelo and Tim Wise, are White. What they have in common is that none of them gives any evidence of ever having spoken to a White person who fled. Evidence only spoils the con.

https://pjmedia.com/culture/david-solway-2/2023/09/25/the-decline-and-fall-of-home-part-one-n1729442

The similarities between the current American decline as a world power and the collapse of the Roman Empire have often been remarked. (After the western part of the Roman Empire fell, the eastern half continued to exist as the Byzantine Empire for hundreds of years. Therefore, the “fall of Rome” really refers only to the fall of the western half of the Empire.) The analogy has become a staple cliché of popular opinion and historical scholarship. The correspondences between Rome and America are compelling and, when the issue is regarded with fresh eyes and attention to taxonomic detail, will strike us with a sense of genuine foreboding.

The factors leading to the fall of the Roman Empire, conventionally dated 476 AD, following the attack of the barbarian chieftain Odoacer, are eerily reminiscent of the nodal “single point failures” observable in 2023 America. Briefly:

The Welfare State

Starting in 123 BC, the powerful reformist Tribune Gaius Gracchus installed a monthly free dole of grain and provided for the entertainment of a decadent citizenry —  in poet Juvenal’s phrase from “The Satires” (Satire 10), circa 127 AD: “They shed their sense of responsibility/…and reveal their desire for two things only/bread and circuses.” The practice continued well into the later years of the Empire. The analogy with the American panoply of food stamps, “Great Society” amenities, payment to single mothers, provision of flat-screen TVs and other luxury items, and the contribution of welfare expansion to family breakdown, is stunning.

Debt

Under the Emperor Diocletian, personal debt led to the abandonment of mortgaged property — in our terms, the collapse of the subprime mortgage market. Enormous public debt crippled Rome’s economy. America’s debt, both funded and unfunded, hovers in the unimaginable trillions. As Will and Ariel Durant wrote of Rome in “The Lessons of History,” “Huge bureaucratic machinery was unable to govern the empire effectively with the enormous, out-of-control debt.”

We are seeing the same disaster unfolding before our very eyes. Michael E. Newton warns in “The Path to Tyranny,” “By 2035, the debt is projected to be between 79 and 181 percent of GDP…The United States is clearly on the road to bankruptcy.”

https://pjmedia.com/culture/david-solway-2/2023/10/01/the-decline-and-fall-of-home-part-two-n1729757

When one considers the full extent of the Roman cataclysm leading to the inevitable fall — the plethora of corrupt and self-promoting politicians, the exposure of unwanted infants (open-air abortion) and the consequent decline in the reproductive ratio, the deterioration of road systems and infrastructure, the degrading of a once-mighty military, and the evident degeneration of sexual morality (as the fifth-century Christian historian Salvian declaimed, “Be ashamed of your lives, no cities are free of impurities”) — one cannot help but note the affinities and correlations between the Roman Empire and the American Republic.

Both have suffered what has come to be known as the Polybius trap, named after the second-century Greek-Roman historian Polybius, who expounded the notion in his “Histories.” The idea is that once the political equilibrium between the three branches of government — in Rome, the Consulship, Senate, and Tribunate; in America, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial — is shattered, decline is inevitable. It is as if the various units of the political engine have seized with improperly distributed or stranded energy. The concept of a malign disequilibrium also applies more generally to the entire complex system of social, political, and economic organization of state or empire. Rome and America may be historically distant from one another but there is little doubt that they are ideologically intimate and civilizationally aligned.

The old question unavoidably arises: What is to be done? In The Path to Tyranny, Michael Newton suggests the only possible (if fanciful) answer, the response of a desperate optimist: “How do we fight and oppose the approaching tyranny? Obviously, we must vote in elections and support those in politics who defend our liberty and Constitution… Most important of all, each of us must act as a modern-day Samuel, Solon, Socrates, Cicero, Cato, James Madison… persuading people of the advantages of liberty and informing them of the evils of big government.” A pretty tall order. Newton wrote in 2010, before the plummet in snowflake literacy, the censoring monopoly of the digital platforms, the oppressive COVID mandates of an autocratic government, the advent of Wokeism, the complete DEI annihilation of the University, and the advanced machinery of electoral fraud.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/10/03/as-stagflation-fears-mount-dems-urge-biden-to-stop-bragging-about-bidenomics/

In the three months since President Joe Biden decided to campaign on the glories of “Bidenomics,” inflation started creeping back up, the unemployment rate rose, and his approval ratings on the economy have steadily dropped. Now, stagflation is back in the news. All of it is leading Democrats to urge Biden to … shift his messaging.

Stagflation – the combination of rising inflation, high unemployment, and a stagnant economy not seen since the disastrous Jimmy Carter years – is suddenly in the headlines.

On Friday, for example, CNBC ran a story: “Stagflation is ‘the big bogeyman out there’ — and many increasingly fear its return.”

The story pointed out that climbing oil prices and “the specter of higher-for-longer inflation have reignited concern about stagflation risks.”

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon is also ringing stagflation alarm bells, saying the Fed could have to raise interest rates to 7% to tame ongoing inflationary pressures.

“I am not sure if the world is prepared for 7%,” he told the Times of India. “I ask people in business, ‘Are you prepared for something like 7%?’ The worst case is 7% with stagflation. If they are going to have lower volumes and higher rates, there will be stress in the system. We urge our clients to be prepared for that kind of stress.”

Michael Hewson, chief market analyst at stockbroker CMC Markets, told CNN that the U.S. could “well be heading for a prolonged period of stagflation.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-preapproved-narratives-corrupt-science-false-studies-covid-climate-change-5bee0844?mod=opinion_featst_pos2

Scientists were aghast last month when Patrick Brown, climate director at the Breakthrough Institute in Berkeley, Calif., acknowledged that he’d censored one of his studies to increase his odds of getting published. Credit to him for being honest about something his peers also do but are loath to admit.

In an essay for the Free Press, Mr. Brown explained that he omitted “key aspects other than climate change” from a paper on California wildfires because such details would “dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.” Editors of scientific journals, he wrote, “have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives.”

Nature’s editor, Magdalena Skipper, denied that the journal has “a preferred narrative.” No doubt the editors at theNew York Times and ProPublica would say the same of their own pages.

Mr. Brown’s criticisms aren’t new. In 2005 Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis wrote an essay titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” He contended that scientists “may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings.”

“The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true,” Dr. Ioannidis argued. “Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure.”

In addition, many scientists use the peer-review process to suppress findings that challenge their own beliefs, which perpetuates “false dogma.” As Dr. Ioannidis explained, the more scientists there are in a field, the more competition there is to get published and the more likely they are to produce “impressive ‘positive’ results” and “extreme research claims.”

The same dynamic applies to Covid research. A July study in the Journal of the American Medical Association purported to find higher rates of excess deaths among Republican voters in Florida and Ohio after vaccines had been rolled out. Differences in partisan vaccination attitude, the study concluded, may have contributed to the “severity and trajectory of the pandemic.”

But the study lacked information on individuals’ vaccination and cause of death. It also didn’t adjust for confounding variables, such as underlying health conditions and behaviors. Charts buried in the study’s appendix showed excess deaths among older Republicans started to exceed Democrats in mid-2020—well before vaccines were available.

Despite these flaws, the study was published and pumped by left-wing journalists because it promoted their preferred narrative. The peer-review process is supposed to flag problems in studies that get submitted to journals. But as Dr. Ioannidis explained in a Sept. 22 JAMA editorial, the process is failing: “Many stakeholders try to profit from or influence the scientific literature in ways that do not necessarily serve science or enhance its benefits to society.” Those “stakeholders” include the scientific journals themselves, which he notes have among the highest profit margins of any industry—by some estimates, about 40%.

Journals often don’t compensate peer reviewers, which can result in perfunctory work. The bigger problem is that reviewers often disregard a study’s flaws when its conclusions reinforce their own biases. One result is that “a large share of what is published may not be replicable or is obviously false,” Dr. Ioannidis notes. “Even outright fraud may be becoming more common.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-new-york-fraud-trial-arthur-engoron-letitia-james-49ef3200?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

New York’s civil fraud trial against Donald Trump and his business empire started Monday in a Manhattan courtroom, and the great shame is that he and state Attorney General Letitia James can’t both lose. In comments at the courthouse, Mr. Trump called it a “witch hunt,” and he has a point. Yet the investigation also seems to have caught some typical Trumpian deception.

Judge Arthur Engoron granted partial summary judgment to the state last week, ruling that Mr. Trump presented grossly inflated financial figures to lenders. This is “not a matter of rounding errors or reasonable experts disagreeing,” he wrote. Mr. Trump’s famed triplex residence in Trump Tower is 10,996 square feet, but he repeatedly claimed 30,000 square feet.

“Defendants absurdly suggest that ‘the calculation of square footage is a subjective process that could lead to differing results,’” the judge added. “Well yes, perhaps, if the area is rounded or oddly shaped,” but “good-faith measurements could vary by as much as 10-20%, not 200%. A discrepancy of this order of magnitude, by a real estate developer sizing up his own living space of decades, can only be considered fraud.”

The ruling goes on for pages like this: Despite four appraisals pegging his Seven Springs estate at $30 million or less, Mr. Trump claimed it was worth $261 million. He valued apartments in New York as if their rents weren’t regulated. His figures for several golf clubs “included a 15% or 30% ‘premium’ based on the ‘Trump brand,’” according to the judge, even while lenders were told no such premium was added.