RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/05/12/biden-and-his-party-are-trying-to-kill-humanitys-last-best-hope/

The president hates America. No? Then why is he, and his Democratic Party, systematically taking down this nation? Leaders who love their country don’t try to leave it on the ash heap of history.

Konstantin Kisin, a Russian-British satirist, recently said on Bill Maher’s show that “people in other parts of the world are not teaching their young children to hate their own country.” Maher, a man of the left, agreed. “This country,” he said, “is better off than a lot of people who are native to it” are willing to admit.

It cannot be argued that there is not an element, loud and strident, in this country that actively agitates against it and doesn’t miss a chance to weaken it. Its ever-outraged members are always found on the political left, and if they’re not Democrats, they caucus with them because they’re more closely aligned with that party’s agenda.

This faction denies America’s superior goodness relative to every other nation that exists or has existed. It rails against our market economy, which has produced far more prosperity than any system that’s ever been tried. Educators teach Marxism not as history but as guideline, twist past events to vilify this nation’s cornerstones, pervert objective math and science into subjective fields of study, undermine our national identity by pushing global citizenship, and tear away at the fabric of society through critical race theory instruction. The left mourns America’s founding, is at war with free speech, is perpetually in conflict with the Judeo-Christian heritage that has molded a nation like no other in history, and misses no chance to further divide an already polarized people. The moral code of the West has been shattered.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/05/10/speaker-kevin-mccarthy-forbids-rashia-tlaib-from-hosting-anti-israel-event-at-the-capitol/

On Tuesday, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) sabotaged efforts by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) to host an anti-Israel event at the U.S. Capitol, featuring anti-Semitic rhetoric by pro-Palestine groups.

According to the New York Post, Tlaib originally planned to host at least nine anti-Israel groups for an event titled “Nakba 75 and the Palestinian People,” which would be held at the Capitol Visitor Center. But McCarthy announced in a tweet that he was shutting down the event, simply saying “this event in the US Capitol is canceled.”

“Instead,” McCarthy continued, “I will host a bipartisan discussion to honor the 75th anniversary of the US-Israel relationship.”

“Nakba,” the word featured prominently in the title of Tlaib’s canceled event, is the Arabic word for “catastrophe,” which aligns with the planned speeches by Tlaib’s groups that would have described the founding of the state of Israel as a “catastrophe.”

“May 15th marks 75 years since the beginning of the Nakba, which means ‘catastrophe,’” the description for the now-cancelled event read. “Seventy-five years ago, Zionist militias and the new Israeli military violently expelled approximately three-quarters of all Palestinians from their homes and homeland in what became the state of Israel.”

At least one group that was supposed to attend, Jewish Voice for Peace, is documented as having openly praised terrorists, with the Anti-Defamation League describing it as a “radical anti-Israel activist group that advocates for a complete economic, cultural and academic boycott of the state of Israel,” and a group that “celebrates figures who have been convicted of engaging in terrorism.”

“It’s wrong for members of Congress to traffic in anti-Semitic tropes about Israel,” said McCarthy in a later statement to the press. “As long as I’m Speaker, we are going to support Israel’s right to self-determination and self-defense, unequivocally and in a bipartisan fashion.”

Israel first declared its independence on May 14th, 1948, and was ultimately admitted to the United Nations nearly one year later, on May 11th, 1949.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/05/10/weaponizing-death/

Recently there has been a spate of horrific murders.

The killers, whether committing mass shootings or single homicides, are hard to stereotype.

They can be clearly either mentally ill or simply innately evil. They can kill for revenge, for ideological purposes, out of hatred, for notoriety—or for no known reason at all.

They are probably left-wing and right-wing, white, black, and brown, young, and old. While their weapons of choice are semiautomatic rifles, there are plenty of killers who favor handguns and even knives.

Unfortunately, these tragedies increasingly have become politicized.

Yet our media and politicians do not apply a common standard of reporting about either the victims, the killers, or the apparent motives and circumstances of the violence.

Instead, each horror is quickly analyzed for its political usefulness. Then its details are electively downplayed or emphasized, depending upon the political agenda at work.

A sad example was the terrible murder spree at the private Christian Covenant School in Nashville. A transgender male lethally shot six people, including three 9-year-old children.

Almost immediately, three media narratives emerged.

One, semiautomatic weapons, not the killer Audrey Hale, were mostly responsible for the massacre.

Two, the shooter’s transgender identity profile played no role in the killing whatsoever.

Three, the public had no need to know of the contents of the shooter’s “manifesto.”

Why?

The media and authorities apparently assumed Hale’s written rantings tried to justify the murders because of Christianity’s supposed disapproval of transgenderism.

That censored reaction to the Tennessee shooting was quite different from another mass murder committed nearly six weeks later in Allen, Texas by a former security guard Mauricio Garcia.

Within minutes of the identification of the shooter, the media blared that Garcia wore pro-Nazi insignia and was thus a “white supremacist.”

Apparently that narrative was deemed useful to promote the idea of white supremacist terrorists using their semiautomatic “assault” weapons to kill for right-wing agendas.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-green-new-deal-and-chinafication-of-the-united-states/

We are living through extraordinary times, not too different from what was portrayed in The Matrix—a 1999 science fiction film that depicted humanity being unknowingly trapped in a false reality. In truth, we are being deceived on a range of important and vital matters by a deep state ruling class residing in U.S. Government, universities, media, and business corporations.

Members of this ruling class work behind the scenes to create narratives to redirect resources and power to their benefit. Programs with greatest mass appeal are often those wrapped in some moral or social justice cause, crafted with compelling catchphrases. The most captivating causes are often those that include a global vision—such as saving the earth. This explains the appeal of the Green New Deal, although common sense, history, science, and economics reveal that it is more hoax than real.

It is important to understand that many elites who push these narratives have little affection for the U.S. and identify with China and the World Economic Forum on many matters. What is different now for us—the American people—than previous times is the large number of U.S. government agencies that have fallen under the sway of narratives and collude with the technology information sector.  As a result, First Amendment laws are being violated with social media companies effectively acting as subsidiaries of government agencies carrying out those agencies’ unconstitutional directives to block or cancel those with contrary views, effectively denying them access to mainstream and social media. Thus, narratives and propaganda, however distorted or false, often advance because well-reasoned dissent from prominent experts is censored.

Great harm against the United States has been incurred recently by this information-blocking duopoly.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/we-are-living-in-a-world-made-for-satire/

The great Roman satirist Juvenal once said that the “monstrous city” of Rome makes it “hard not to write satire” and “fill a whole notebook” with scenes of corruption, vice, and sheer stupidity. I think of Juvenal more and more these days, as our own moral, political, social, and intellectual degradation reaches levels of absurdity not found in even the best satires.

Indeed, our culture and politics are so bizarre and surreal that the scenes we witness every day make satire redundant.

One example that would shock even a satirist like Juvenal or Jonathon Swift is the “transgender” phenomenon. Swift, in his early 18th century brilliant satire Gulliver’s Travels, describes the Academy of Projectors who carry out various preposterous experiments such as extracting sunlight from cucumbers, turning excrement back into food, and building houses from the roof down.

But our attempts to change biological males into females or biological females into males no doubt would have struck Swift as beyond satiric. Perhaps more incredible would be the credentialed  medical doctors who ignore their oath to “first do no harm,” and participate in the poisoning and irreversible mutilation of healthy, if troubled, young people and even pre-teens, including toddlers as young as two.

But that’s just the start of the absurdities. Who at the beginning of the 21st century could have imagined the military services––organizations whose members provide the serious and important service of fighting, killing, and dying for their county––wasting time and money subjecting their members to training in the protocols of made-up pronouns? Or, as Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville wrote in the Wall Street Journal, selecting a  “non-binary” lieutenant to read a poem to the whole crew of an aircraft carrier during an “LGBTQ spoken-word night”?

And despite the warning provided by the massive drop in sales of Bud Light, after making a poncy transexual in campy drag its unofficial spokesman, the Navy “tapped another self-described nonbinary sailor to become the Navy’s first ‘Digital Ambassador,’” Tuberville writes. He adds, the “concern is that our new national obsession with sexuality, race and gender is focused on self rather than on purpose, ability or service”–– especially at a time when the Navy, like the other services, is facing record shortfalls in recruitment.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/05/11/just-27-back-biden-on-the-debt-ceiling-fight-ii-tipp-poll/

There’s always a lot riding on a showdown between a president and Congress over raising the federal debt ceiling to avoid a government shutdown. But this year, as the 2024 election year looms, the stakes are particularly high. That could be bad news for President Joe Biden, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows, since his positions on debt, taxes and spending lack majority support even from Democratic voters.

For our May online I&I/TIPP Poll, taken May 3-5 with a margin of error of +/-2.6 percentage points, we asked 1,480 adults across the country the following question:

“At $31.5 trillion and rising, the U.S. government debt is close to its ‘ceiling,’ the legal limit before all non-essential government functions must shut down. Which of the following is closest to your position in dealing with this problem?”

Respondents were given three possible answers.

The first represents the president’s basic negotiating position, as of late April: “Congress should raise the debt ceiling with no controls on spending.”

The second response represents the negotiating position of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Republican lawmakers: “Congress should raise the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion in exchange for $5 trillion in cuts over the next decade, as proposed by the House Speaker.”

The third response: “If President Biden and Congress can’t make a deal, Congress should do nothing and let nonessential parts of the government shut down.”

The breakdown of the answers showed a clear preference (46%) for the congressional proposal over Biden’s take-it-or-leave-it plan (27%).

And 28% said if the two sides can’t agree, Congress should just let the nonessential parts of the government close until a deal is struck.

https://thefederalist.com/2023/05/09/e-jean-carrolls-original-claims-about-trump-were-absurd-but-that-didnt-stop-the-media-from-amplifying-them/

It’s a good time to reflect on just how ridiculous her claim was when she originally made it in 2019.

But more critical than the 79-year-old magazine writer’s allegation that Trump assaulted her in a fitting room after the two noisily galavanted throughout a popular department store — a claim she made to promote a new book — is the absolute nonsense she said immediately after.

It’s pretty stunning to accuse a sitting president of rape but then not want to call it rape, which is exactly what Carroll did at the time. In an interview with The New York Times, “It was an episode. It was an action. It was a fight. It was not a crime. It was, I had a struggle with a guy.” She added in the same interview, “I am not — I have not been raped. Something has not been done to me. I fought. That’s the thing.”

If it were just some kind of coping mechanism, a self-empowerment move to omit the word from her vocabulary, it might make sense. But when asked in a separate interview on MSNBC whether she would consider attempting to press criminal charges against Trump, her answer was even more bizarre. She flatly said no, and when asked why, she said, “I would find it disrespectful to the women who are down on the border who are being raped around the clock down there without any protection … It would just be really disrespectful.”

If you’re not following, that’s okay. Carroll was simply saying that she wouldn’t seek charges against the man who allegedly raped her because she had too much compassion for illegal immigrants. Understand?

Further minimizing the traumatic event she supposedly went through, Carroll said, “Mine was three minutes, I’m a mature woman. I can handle it. I can keep going. You know, my life has gone on. I’m a happy woman.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/soros-backed-pac-spends-big-to-install-liberal-da

PITTSBURGH — A D.C.-based social justice PAC with no ties to western Pennsylvania has invested a whopping $734,000 into electing liberal public defender Matt Dugan as Allegheny County’s district attorney over incumbent Steve Zappala in next Tuesday’s Pennsylvania Democratic primary.

The Justice and Safety PAC, a national organization backed by liberal billionaire businessman George Soros, has used the bulk of its money on ads and mailers aimed at Zappala’s record. Take the Soros money out of the equation, and Dugan has only raised $76,764.17 for his entire campaign, with Zappala raising $226,800.

Zappala has blasted the outside influence, noting that the social justice PAC was spending 10 times as much money to elect Dugan as Dugan was spending on himself.

“No rational person believes that any politician who gets nearly all their funding from one source won’t be taking orders from them once taking office,” Zappala spokesman Mike Mikus said in the statement.

Instead of donating directly to Dugan, the Soros group is listing the commercials and mailers as in-kind donations with Dugan’s authorization. This unusual arrangement allows the PAC to have final say on the ad.

In short, Dugan seemingly has no say, even in his own campaign message.

In 2017, Soros himself spent $1.7 million supporting the winning campaign of Larry Krasner for Philadelphia district attorney, a whopping five times as much as Krasner himself spent. The amount represented over 30% of all the spending in the seven-candidate primary.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/karine-kamala-and-the-killers/

“Our hearts go out to the trans community as they are under attack right now.”

That was Biden White House press secretary Karine Saint-Pierre, several days after Audrey Hale murdered Evelyn Dieckhaus, 9, Mike Hill, 61, William Kinney, 9, Katherine Koonce, 60, Cynthia Peak, 61, and Hallie Scruggs, nine years old and the daughter of Covenant Presbyterian pastor Chad Scruggs. By any standard, this mass murder, committed in the run-up to “Trans Vengeance Day,” was an act of terrorism.

Biden press secretary Karine Saint-Pierre did not name or condemn Audrey Hale, a woman who thought she was a man. The White House mouthpiece also failed to name a single victim, including Mike Hill, who was black. No word from Saint-Pierre whether Hale could have been motivated by racism.

The Nashville mourners might be hard pressed to find a similar demonstration of indulgence for  terrorism and callousness toward their victims. Something similar took place on December 2, 2015, in San Bernardino, California.

That day, employees of the Inland Regional Center gathered for holiday party. A National Police Foundation report explains what happened.

“Suddenly, a door swung open and a person clad in all black, with a mask shielding his or her face, stepped inside, wielding what appeared to be an automatic rifle. Without saying a word, the person, now believed to be [Syed] Farook, opened fire.” Then Tashfeen Malik followed.

“She also wore all black and entered the room shooting. Together, the shooters fired more than 100 rounds.”  The shooters then “hastily departed, heading out to a black SUV they had parked just outside, leaving behind a chaotic scene of noise, fear, and pain.” And death.

American-born Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, a green-card holder born in Pakistan, murdered Robert Adams, Isaac Amianos, Bennetta Betbadal, Harry Bowman, Sierra Clayborn, Juan Espinoza, Aurora Godoy, Shannon Johnson, Larry Daniel Kaufman, Damien Meins, Tin Ngyen, Nicholas Thalasinos, Yvette Velasco, and Michael Wetzel.

Isaac Amanios, 60, immigrated from Eritrea to California in 2000 to escape violence and repression. Bennetta Betbadal, 46, fled to America with her family to “escape Islamic extremism and the persecution of Christians that followed the Iranian Revolution.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/05/michael-mukasey-at-the-nri-ideas-summit/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=top-bar-latest&utm_term=second

” My job was to do law, and to have enough faith in the law to know that if I did it right, the result would be justice. Law can be a strength if it can be used to keep a society open to the opinions of all, and if, but only if, its administration can be placed in the hands of those for whom the law itself is the only agenda.”

When Abbé Sieyès, the 18th-century French clergyman and political theorist, was asked what he did during the Reign of Terror that accompanied the French Revolution, his answer was brief and to the point: “I survived.” Which is to say, he kept a low profile until the terror blew over, and so he didn’t wind up under the guillotine, as did several of his colleagues.

I don’t think we can afford to follow that passive example today, as we live through our own reign of terror, due in large measure to the advance of what is known as the woke agenda in which people can have their careers decapitated if they compliment a co-worker on her appearance or can be made to vanish from social networks for endorsing the wrong idea. Unlike the 18th-century Reign of Terror, this one seems unlikely to blow over on its own.

The proponents of this agenda are advancing their cause using control of what University of Texas scholar Michael Lind called three separate gateways: college education, professional accreditation, and commercial services, in particular media platforms. He did not mention government as a separate category, but I would suggest that it should be added to the list.

The theme of this conference, of course, is the sources of American strength, and one of those sources undeniably is the rule of law. But that presents us as conservatives with a particularly acute problem because several of those gateways are largely in the control of the private sector, which in turn poses the dilemma of whether the power of government can be brought to bear here in a way consistent with the Constitution’s limits on the reach of government, or not, and consistent with the economic freedom that has helped make this country great, or not. And the solution to that dilemma is by no means clear.