RUTHFULLY YOURS

Following the Pentagon’s announcement that transgendered members will be allowed to serve in the U.S. military openly, ten soldiers have formally asked to be recognized as their new gender.

The small number represents only those who have publicly said they are transgender, and doesn’t include soldiers who may be considering or beginning gender transition or those who don’t yet want to make an official paperwork change.

Gen. Mark Milley, chief of staff of the Army, said the key now is to educate the force, particularly commanders who will have to make decisions about soldiers in their units who request a gender change.

“Is the Army ready? Well, we are educating ourselves, and we are trying to get ready,” Milley said in an interview with The Associated Press. “We’re well-past the issue of debating and arguing about transgender. We are now into execution, to make sure the program is carried out with diligence, dignity, respect.”

New transgender guidelines were approved earlier this month.

Transgender troops are now able to receive medical care and begin changing their gender identifications in the Pentagon’s personnel system. Next year, the military services will begin allowing transgender individuals to enlist, as long as they meet required standards and have been stable in their identified gender for 18 months.

“We’re monitoring implementation closely, and everything we’ve seen so far points to a military organization fully committed to treating everyone equally and providing medically necessary care to all troops, not just some,” said Aaron Belkin, director of the California-based Palm Center, an independent research institute. “My conclusion, so far, is that implementation has proceeded smoothly and successfully.”

Milley, along with other military leaders were concerned the move was coming too fast.

“We’re monitoring implementation closely, and everything we’ve seen so far points to a military organization fully committed to treating everyone equally and providing medically necessary care to all troops, not just some,” said Aaron Belkin, director of the California-based Palm Center, an independent research institute. “My conclusion, so far, is that implementation has proceeded smoothly and successfully.”

Black Lives Matter was called into being to protest what the racist hate group claimed was the killings of black men by police. Activists with the extremist organization have accused law enforcement of genocide. According to a study widely touted by activists, 300 black people were shot by police in 2015.

That same year 320 black people became homicide victims in Baltimore alone.

In 2014, 189 died. And then Baltimore came under assault from Black Lives Matter over the Freddie Case leading to riots and the Ferguson Effect crippling law enforcement efforts. The police became the villains. Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake offered the racist rioters and looters space to destroy. Along with the businesses and sense of security, here is what else was destroyed.

An additional 131 black men died in 2015 in Baltimore. 16 black women were murdered in both 2014 and 2015. The huge increase came at the expense of black men. The biggest bump in homicides, 49 to 99, happened among young black men aged 18 to 25. This year’s incomplete toll already stands at 68.

The second biggest increase marked black men aged 26 to 34 whose death toll rose from 60 to 108.

277 black men were shot in 2015. Up from 141 in 2014. Shootings overall in Baltimore rose 72%.

These are the same black men that Black Lives Matter and its torrent of shrill supporters claim to care about.

On Friday, October 21st, the Miami, FL, Commission; the Monroe County, NY, Legislature; the Rochester, NY, Board of Education; and the Rochester, NY, City Council announced proclamations condemning hate speech against Muslims. These proclamations define neither hate speech nor the person or persons who will decide what constitutes hate speech. Far from benign calls to let peaceful Muslims go about their lives and prayers in peace, these proclamations represent a step towards elevating Shariah (Islamic law) over the Frist Amendment.

Why do I make this claim? Backtrack to 2012 and the aftermath of Benghazi, when President Obama told the UN, “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” The subtext of this statement was lost amidst several nods by Obama to the First Amendment later in his speech. The subtext was this: slander in Shariah is not telling lies that hurt someone’s reputation; rather, slander in Shariah is telling a truth or a lie which someone doesn’t want to be told. Slander in Shariah is thus defined by what the potentially aggrieved party wants or doesn’t want to hear, not by evidence.

For evidence of this, see Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. On page 730 of the English translation of this law manual – – which has been endorsed by the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Al-Azhar University, the premier authority in Sunni Islam – – slander is defined as follows: “to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike, whether about his body, religion, everyday life, self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban, garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning, cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him.”

Also consider the authentic hadith (report on the words and/or behaviors of Muhammad, the founder of Islam) from Sunan Abu Dawud #4856: “The Prophet was asked: ‘Apostle of Allah! What is slander?’ He replied: ‘It is saying something about your brother which he would dislike.’ He was asked again: ‘Tell me how the matter stands if what I say about my brother is true.’ He replied: ‘If what you say of him is true, you have slandered him, and if what you say of him is not true, you have reviled him.”

Much to the chagrin of the Clinton presidential campaign, FBI Director James Comey, the so-called mainstream news media — who are in the pocket of Hillary Clinton — and the Democratic National Committee, one of the FBI’s great success stories, Assistant Director James Kallstrom, is speaking out against the FBI’s Clinton email investigation and its outcome. And he’s pulling no punches.

In addition, a report says that former Clinton insider and Democratic National Committee Chairman, Virginia’s Gov. Terry McAuliffe, forked over about a half-million dollars in campaign cash to a Democratic candidate connected to the Hillary Clinton criminal case.

According to many insiders within the Washington Beltway — including the former Assistant Director of the FBI — Gov. McAuliffe gave cash and material support to the spouse of an FBI official who was part of the team investigating Hillary Clinton and her unsecured, unauthorized email server from which she conducted official business as Secretary of State which included the sharing of classified material, especially top secret information.
Hillary Clinton and Terry McAuliff.
Hillary Clinton and Terry McAuliff.

The Democratic political machine of Virginia led by Gov. McAuliffe, is nationally influential with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Reports indicate he authorized nearly $500,000 to be given to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use.

Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.

President Obama took a health-care victory lap last week in Miami, celebrating “all the progress that we’ve made in controlling costs” and portraying the law’s critics as “false and politically motivated.” Does that apply to the actuaries at the Health and Human Services Department too? On Monday they reported that ObamaCare premiums will soar 25% on average next year, and this is “progress” all right, in the wrong direction.

That headline number understates the extent of the trouble. Liberals used to dismiss insurance premium shock by saying that the subsidies will offset any increase and, anyhow, beneficiaries can shop around for a cheaper plan. But the 25% figure refers to the rate spike for the second-cheapest “silver” plan on each exchange from state to state, which is a key benchmark in the subsidy formula. In other words, these are the mid-level insurance plans that are performing the best, not the average increase of all ObamaCare coverage.

HHS also disclosed the premium jumps for a 27-year-old buying the second-cheapest silver plan in individual states. Our condolences for such young people in Arizona, where their premiums will climb by 116%. Likewise for Oklahoma (69%), Tennessee (63%) and Minnesota (59%).

In a normal election year, the presidential candidates might debate solutions, but, well, you know. For the time being, perhaps Mr. Obama could show a little more intellectual humility when confronted with evidence of his own failures. But, well, you know.

PBS personality Tavis Smiley stopped by Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, a private “Hidden Ivy” with a modest $45K tuition and was asked about whether slavery might make a comeback.

“Mr. Smiley, do you believe that given the crisis state of our democracy, we black folk could ever find ourselves enslaved again?” a student at this elite institution asked the millionaire.

Smiley assured readers of Time Magazine, the flagship product of a multi-billion dollar corporation headquartered near the World Trade Center, that slavery could very well make a comeback.

Why? What possible reason did Tavis Smiley have for anticipating the return of not merely Jim Crow, but cotton plantations and chains? Because the Senate has yet to act on Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. The South will rise again… because a judicial nominee’s confirmation was delayed. It’s the sort of thing Senate Democrats used to think was good clean fun.

One of the victims of their judicial delaying tactics was Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a sharecropper’s daughter, who was blocked for years. Judge Garland, unlike Judge Brown, is white. Why does blocking him from tilting the Supreme Court further to the left represent the return of slavery?

Merrick Garland, a man whom Tavis Smiley, like the rest of the left, couldn’t have been bothered to sneeze at a few years ago, is now suddenly the litmus test for the return of slavery. It’s not about Garland. It’s about Obama. And, more specifically, it’s about the insecurity and guilt of the Smileys.

The curious characteristic of this current wave of angry activism is the privileged nature of the activists.

Consider Colin Kaepernick with his $114 million salary standing up to oppression, the $150 million social justice activism of Black Lives Matter, Yale students shrieking themselves silly over Halloween costumes and a dialogue between a millionaire PBS host and a student at a prestigious college over whether slavery might be coming back. These people are not oppressed by grinding poverty, deprivation of civil rights or any other plausible metrics of discrimination. They are oppressed by their privilege.