RUTHFULLY YOURS

Of all the constitutional freedoms granted to us in the Bill of Rights, none is more sacred than the right to free speech. That is why it stands apart from all other amendments at the top as the First Amendment. The Framers, having experienced the suppression of free speech firsthand, were cognizant of the tyranny ruling monarchs and assorted despots could impose by suppressing speech and sought to make clear that this was a sacred right that with few exceptions was not to be infringed upon.

But in recent years, we’ve witnessed an unrelenting assault on free speech with a concerted effort by the regressive Left to curtail thought and restrict the free exchange of ideas. Last week, I wrote about campus terrorism and how conservatives and others who maintain views that are inconsistent with the leftist narrative have been subjected to campaigns of harassment and abuse by campus hooligans.

Often university officials are apathetic, turning a blind eye to these transgressions, while in other universities the administration is complicit by instructing campus police to stand down, allowing the agitators free reign to shut down speaking engagements through use of bullying tactics. In at least two instances, university presidents were forced to issue rather craven apologies to an alliance of leftists and Islamists for having the temerity to defend the right to free speech.

This disturbing trend of muzzling free speech has now substantially broadened to include criminalizing speech that issues challenges to the so-called science of climate change. Some seventeen left-leaning state attorneys general have launched investigative and intrusive probes against Exxon Mobil and conservative groups because of their involvement in debunking alarmist claims of imminent doom issued by hysterical climate change proponents.

The ringleaders of this anti-free speech witch hunt include Eric Schneiderman (D-New York) and Claude Walker (I-Virgin Islands). At a recent speech at the Bloomberg’s Big Law Business Summit, Schneiderman was dismissive of his critics, accusing them of “First Amendment opportunism.” The more he spoke the more he sounded like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s thuggish dictator who utilized the vast resources of the state to silence anyone who disagreed with him.

On June 16, 2016 John Brennan, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified before a hearing conducted by the Senate Intelligence Committee on the various threats and challenges that confront our nation, including the growth of the Chinese military and its expanding sphere of influence and the threats posed to the United States, our allies and other countries around the world by ISIS. C-SPAN posted a video of the hearing.

The title of the report posted by Fox News in covering that hearing pulled no punches and left nothing to the imagination: “CIA Director Warns of ISIS Using Refugee Streams to Move Operatives .”

Here is the way that Brennan articulated his concerns on this issue in his prepared testimony:

Since at least 2014, ISIL has been working to build an apparatus to direct and inspire attacks against its foreign enemies, resulting in hundreds of casualties. The most prominent examples are the attacks in Paris and Brussels, which we assess were directed by ISIL’s leadership.

We judge that ISIL is training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks. ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West. And the group is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including refugee flows, smuggling routes, and legitimate methods of travel.

Meanwhile, even as Brennan voiced his concerns about the multitude of ways that terrorists were on the move around the world and seeking to attack the United States and its allies in the West, the administration continues to admit ever more refugees into the United States who cannot be effectively vetted.

The hearing that focused on the concerns of the CIA Director was not, however, the only hearing conducted last week in Washington that provided disturbing information about how our immigration system is likely to be exploited by terrorists.

On June 14, 2016 the Washington Times article “Illegal immigrants who overstay visas hardly ever caught, feds admit” reported on a hearing conducted by the House Committee on Homeland Security on the topic, “Overstaying Their Welcome: National Security Risks Posed by Visa Overstays.”

The seventeen attorneys general who have been pursuing “climate deniers” for prosecution have been put on notice: turnabout is fair play. If Democrats can use the force of law to silence climate change narratives they deem to be fraudulent, so can Republicans. This is not a road anyone should want to go down, but fascistic Democrats have left Republicans with no choice. A group of Republican AGs along with Republicans on the House science panel have decided to push back.

On June 15, the Republican AGs of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin sent a letter to the Democrat AGs pointing out that if statements minimizing the risks of climate change are prosecutable as “fraud,” then so are statements exaggerating the dangers of climate change.

Via the Washington Times:

The “cuts both ways” argument was among those raised by 13 Republican attorneys general in a letter urging their Democratic counterparts to stop using their law enforcement power against fossil fuel companies and others that challenge the climate change catastrophe narrative.

Consider carefully the legal precedent and threat to free speech, said the state prosecutors in their letter this week, headed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange.

“If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration,” said the letter. “If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud.”

The letter comes as Exxon Mobil fights off subpoenas by two prosecutors — Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude E. Walker — for decades’ worth of climate-related documents and communications with academics, universities and free-market think tanks.

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and California Attorney General Kamala Harris have also reportedly launched probes.

The 17 attorneys general — 16 Democrats and one independent — announced at a March 29 press conference that they had formed a coalition, AGs United for Clean Power.

“We think this effort by our colleagues to police the global warming debate through the power of the subpoena is a grave mistake,” said the letter.

The name of the coalition itself shows that the attorneys general “have taken the unusual step of aligning themselves with the competition of their investigative targets,” namely the solar and wind energy.

“If the focus is fraud, such alignment by law enforcement sends the dangerous signal that companies in certain segments of the energy market need not worry about their misrepresentations,” said the GOP letter.

Schneiderman spokesman Eric Soufer insisted in a statement that “the law is clear: the First Amendment does not give any corporation the right to commit fraud.”

We are going to take care of the troops, first, last and all the time’ – George Marshall, 1940

Really?! General Marshall must be spinning in his grave.

You might be wondering why an article about Memorial Day is nearly 2 weeks after the actual day of commemoration, and why I will use it to talk about veterans. Simply put, if we want to honor the dead, let’s take care of the men and women in uniform they died for. I can picture the ghosts of deceased military – brave men and women who died in battle – floating above, and crying for their battlefield buddies who survived, because too many of these veterans sleep under bridges, and pan-handle on our street corners. Whether because of undiagnosed or undertreated psychiatric disorders – battlefield related or not – or economic reasons, too many of our former servicemen and women are marginalized. That needs to stop.

To be sure many community charities are trying to fill the gaps, and provide outreach to struggling vets. But it is a patchwork of efforts – sincere, sometimes effective, but not comprehensive enough.

Most countries have some form of commemoration for those who wore the uniform, especially those who died for their nation. Not that the media are doing much to honor the dead. But Memorial Day should also put into specific relief a sobering notion that we have active duty who can die in the next battle, and veterans who will die – not from an enemy’s bullet but on a street, homeless, hungry, alone, or sick and waiting for promised medical care from a system designed to provide for the military continues to fail.

On behalf of a grateful nation…but are we?

I shudder to think homelessness, untreated illness, or vets abandoned after being wounded is our nation’s expression of “gratitude,” or commemorating the sacrifice of survivors. Not exactly the stuff of a grateful nation.

The security of a nation rests upon the shoulders of men and women in uniform – and that security comes with a price…including blood. Memorial Day reminds us of that ultimate sacrifice made for our country. Veteran’s Day celebrates those who served, and by extension, those still in uniform; a day often overlooked by society beyond being a great time to buy a car. Neither Veteran’s Day nor Memorial Day seems sufficient. Critically important infrastructure changes are needed to provide for those who serve.

Often tempted to opine if the military voted Democrat instead of mostly Republican, would the administration treat our people in uniform better? Like maybe as well as the entitlement folks? Truth be told, neither party has distinguished itself in the service of our military’s needs.

From a must-read article on the FBI’s Orlando Intel failure by Pamela Geller:

Under Obama, the Department of Homeland Security was prohibited from using words like jihad and sharia. Instead, according to the Daily Caller:

One of the sitting members on the Homeland Security Advisory Council’s (HSAC) Subcommittee on Countering Violent Extremism is a 25-year-old immigrant of Syrian heritage who said that the 9/11 attacks “changed the world for good” and has consistently disparaged America, free speech and white people on social media. Laila Alawa was one of just 15 people tapped to serve on the newly-formed HSAC Subcommittee on Countering Violent Extremism in 2015 — the same year she became an American citizen.

The result?

The subcommittee Alawa serves on instructed the DHS to begin “using American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma’” when discussing terrorism in order to avoid offending Muslims.

Not only did this Syrian immigrant cheer 9/11; in April 2013 she told me to “go f–k yourself” after I called the Boston bombing jihad. This is who Obama assigns to keep us safe. Who is going to keep us safe from this woman? And she is not alone: another Homeland Security Advisor, Salam al-Marayati, has said that the U.S. is doing Israel’s “dirty work” and blamed Israel for the 9/11 attacks. Salam al-Marayati defends terrorist acts and the groups who carry them out.

With the recent release of another exhaustive report by the National Academies of Sciences attesting to the safety of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, it is time for the food industry and advocates of genetically engineered crops to stand up for their products and put a label on them.

This could be the best way to make consumers confront their irrational fears, to stamp out public ignorance and to save an important technology that is too easily demonized by companies—like Whole Foods and Chipotle—that exploit consumer ignorance to seek competitive advantage in the marketplace.

Despite the scientific evidence, polls continue to show that most Americans fear that GMOs may harm their health. A 2015 report by the Pew Research Center, for instance, found that 57% of American adults think GMOs are generally unsafe whereas 88% of scientists think they are generally safe.

Statistics like these scare farmers and food manufacturers who have opposed mandatory GMO labeling laws like the one soon to be implemented in Vermont. Some have even pre-emptively pulled products from grocery shelves or replaced GMO ingredients.

But food producers may be more worried than they need to be. Studies that indicate popular aversion to GMOs do so in highly stylized experimental settings that highlight GMO attributes and do not resemble typical grocery shopping experiences. They reveal consumers to be poorly informed about the foods they eat and to have inconsistent preferences that vary depending upon how studies are conducted.

For instance, 90% of Americans want GMOs labeled if that question is posed to them, according to a 2013 survey by Rutgers University. But when researchers ask them to list the food characteristics they want labeled, only 7% name GMOs. And a 2015 survey by Oklahoma State University found that 80% of respondents would require labels on foods containing DNA—even though all foods contain DNA. CONTINUE AT SITE