RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-deep-state-is-all-too-real-congress-chevron-delegation-civics-hunter-biden-985ed65e?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

There are two competing conceptions of American governance: the version students are taught in the classroom, and the one that exists in the real world. Grade-school civics teaches that Washington is designed to operate under a system of checks and balances, constrained by the Constitution and empowered by the consent of the governed. In practice, however, power has become concentrated in the executive branch and largely wielded by unaccountable career bureaucrats. The notion of a “deep state” isn’t a conspiratorial talking point but a manifest political reality.

The separation of powers is an animating principle of our nation’s founding documents. As the Constitution outlines, the U.S. has three distinct and coequal branches of government: a legislature that passes laws, an executive branch that implements them, and a judiciary that interprets them. This built-in division is meant to restrain government overreach and prevent abuses of power. The president and members of Congress regularly stand for election to ensure the government is accountable to the governed, and the judiciary serves in good behavior to ensure that justice is dispensed impartially.

While this sounds nice in theory, the federal government typically doesn’t honor it in practice. Congress has delegated much of its lawmaking authority to the executive branch since the 1930s. Federal agencies now issue regulations that have the force and effect of the law. “Administrative judges”—executive-branch employees—routinely preside over trial-like proceedings without juries, letting agencies act as both prosecutor and judge.

Under the Supreme Court’s Chevron doctrine, courts generally defer to the executive branch’s interpretation of the law—both in regulatory and enforcement proceedings. Many of the Constitution’s checks and balances, from the separation of powers to the right to jury trial, have fallen by the wayside.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/05/08/j6-jackals-circle-trump/

In 2002, David Frum, chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush, coined the phrase “axis of evil” to describe the despotic regimes of North Korea, Iran, and Iraq during the nascent stages of the global war on terror.

Today, Frum is warning the country about a different axis of evil that he believes similarly threatens the security of America and perhaps even the world: Donald Trump, the Oath Keepers, and the Proud Boys.

“One after another, the foot soldiers of the January 6 attack on Congress are sentenced to prison terms, which for many will mean the lifelong loss of political rights,” Frum tweeted on May 8 in faux concern for the railroaded defendants. “Yet the commanders who plotted and ordered the attack are escaping with impunity—even running for high office.”

Frum, who hasn’t lost his touch as he’s transitioned over the past two decades from a neoconservative to a full-blown Marxist, was referring to the recent convictions of members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. Last Thursday, a Washington, D.C., jury found four Proud Boys guilty of seditious conspiracy, a post-Civil War statute nearly synonymous with treason; six Oath Keepers also have been convicted of the same charge for their participation in the events of January 6. Individuals tied to the groups have pleaded guilty to that count or been convicted of other conspiracy and obstruction felonies.

Now, none of these so-called “foot soldiers” possessed nuclear material or starved millions of their countrymen or harbored foreign terror cells bent on the annihilation of the United States. To the contrary, several defendants associated with both groups fought in the very same wars orchestrated by Frum and his former boss. For example, Joseph Biggs, a Proud Boy convicted last week of seditious conspiracy and other offenses, is a Purple Heart recipient who was deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s.

But in Frum’s tiny, vindictive mind, men like Biggs—who brought no weapons to the Capitol and did not assault police on January 6—are comparable to, perhaps worse than, al-Qaeda and ISIS. 

After all, Osama bin Laden never expressed loyalty to the Bad Orange Man!

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/05/john_kerry_finds_his_vietnam_war_medals_pops_them_onto_his_suit_at_the_uk_coronation.html

Lurch makes a fool of himself in the pageantry of Britain.

In today’s ridiculous news, I present this picture:

Kerry is famous for tossing his Vietnam war medals over a fence, or at least, saying he did, before he later said it was just his ribbons, and then later still saying it some other guy’s medals. 

Here’s the New York Post report from 2004:

Presumed Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry said in an interview more than 30 years ago that he threw away some of his Vietnam combat medals – contradicting statements he has made as a candidate, it was reported yesterday.

“I gave back, I can’t remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals,” Kerry said in an interview with WRC-TV, a Washington, D.C., station on Nov. 6, 1971, ABC News reported. Kerry previously had told the network that stories about him tossing medals were a “myth.”

In the 1971 interview, for a program called “Viewpoints,” Kerry – who had not yet been elected to the Senate – said that war veterans who threw away their medals “decided to give them back to their country.”

When asked if he disposed of his Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts received as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam, he replied, “Well, and above that. [I] gave back the others.”

Earlier this year, Kerry was asked by syndicated columnist Robert Novak, if he regretted throwing his medals away, and responded, “There was no regret,” but he added, “I threw away my ribbons, not my medals.”

…and this…

But in 1984, he told the Globe he still had his own medals but had tossed away another soldiers’ medal.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/05/09/reparations-derangement-syndrome/

A panel in California, where rotten public policy ideas metastasize like a fungus growing in dark, slimy conditions, has approved paying reparations to descendants of slaves. It is impossible to overstate just how insane this is.

The reparations task force, appointed by Boy Gov. Gavin Newsom, voted Saturday to recommend the state pay out as much as $800 billion to the descendants of enslaved or free black people who were in the U.S. by the end of the 19th century. That’s 2.5 times the size of California’s annual budget. Recipients could rake in as much as $1.2 million each.

Or more. Much more. Because San Francisco’s reparations advisory committee has recommended the city’s qualified African American residents be given a $5 million lump sum.

The committee also proposed “the elimination of credit card debt, car and student loans; a string of tax breaks; and 250 years of special benefits for African Americans such as a  guaranteed income of $97,000 a year (adjusted for inflation); and the ability to buy homes for $1,” says Rowena Itchon of the Pacific Research Institute.

The cost of this largess, says the Hoover Institution’s Lee Ohanian, will be “​​on a per-household basis … nearly $600,000 per non–African American San Francisco household.”

Let’s not pretend this is about justice, fairness and decency. It’s a shakedown – aided and abetted by rich, white, guilt-ridden, virtue-signaling progressives – that not even Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton could have envisioned a decade ago.

The case against reparations is irrefutable. Or would be in a sane world, which we no longer live in.

Despite the lunacy that has a grip on our politics, we will lay out the arguments.

First, no taxpayer in California or the U.S. was alive when slavery was allowed in this country, and none of those who were enslaved are alive either. Anyone who doesn’t think this is irrelevant is neither a clear nor honest thinker.

Second, we go to Andreas Koureas of The Spectator, who brings up an unpopular but salient point: “Ultimately, the great evil of slavery was practiced by all inhabited continents and all races.” Consequently, nearly every human on the planet has “an ancestral link to the slave trade.”