RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/defending-constitution-jason-d-hill/

Recently, Elie Mystal, author and “Justice Correspondent” for The Nation, went on the daytime TV show The View and stated that the U.S. Constitution is “kind of trash.” In his new book, Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to The Constitution, Mystal continues to denigrate the Constitution in chapters such as “Canceling Trash People is Not a Constitutional Crisis” and “Bigotry is Illegal Even if You’ve been Ordered by Jesus.” Msytal is not alone in his dim view of the Constitution. Repeated surveys show that college students have increasingly come to believe that the U.S. Constitution is outdated and ought to be “brought up to the contemporary era,” radically modified, or abolished altogether. In this first of a series of three articles, I aim to show, in a measured and rational manner, both the indispensability of the Constitution in its universal form and content, and the revolutionary nature of its foundation.

When the Founding Fathers turned on the light of reason over 244 years ago and wrote the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, they achieved a remarkable feat. It was not just, as hundreds have remarked, the creation of an unprecedented political achievement that was the constitutional republic of the United States of America. This republic, replete with its Bill of Rights and subsequent constitutional amendments, was a major civilizational advancement over any other political phenomena that had ever existed.

But the major achievement of the Founding Fathers was not political; that was a derivative achievement. They, the first and last of America’s great intellectuals, had done what no other philosopher had done in the history of mankind: they achieved a revolution in epistemology by discovering the proper application of human nature to its appropriate political configuration. For the first time, the requirements of man’s survival as a human being – that is, man’s nature as a rational and conceptual being – were grafted onto a social and political environment that supported its rational upkeep.

The political milieu that they created was a direct corollary of that nature. In other words, they were the first to understand that the endpoint of all human striving—freedom and happiness—required a specific political milieu in which human preservation and the achievement of rational happiness were possible. They were the first to integrate man’s nature with the perfect political environment. America was and remains a political application of human nature. It is a metaphysical expression in the form of a political republic derived from an unprecedented epistemological feat: the perfect integration of a discovery of man’s nature and the artificial creation of a political system that corresponds to that nature.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/human-rights-watch-aclu-amnesty-international-robert-spencer/

There has been one salutary effect of the weeks-long efforts of Elon Musk to gain control of Twitter, and the debate over the freedom of speech that ensued: now the Left’s foremost individuals and institutions are out in the open about their hatred for the freedom of speech. The authoritarian heart of the Left has been exposed, as has their war against the foundational principle of any free society: the right to express oneself even if one’s opinions don’t coincide with those of the powerful and/or moneyed elites. Barack and Hillary hate the freedom of speech and want you to think it’s a dangerous toy, too dangerous for you to play with. And now three pillars of the unctuous and hypocritical Leftist “human rights” establishment, Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have come out against it as well.

Reuters, adopting the solemn, even funereal tone it reserves for significant Leftist setbacks, noted Monday that Musk has described himself as a “free speech absolutist” and has called the freedom of expression the “bedrock of a functioning democracy.” That’s exactly what it is, and that’s why Leftists are enraged that someone who believes such things has gained control of one of the foremost means of mass communication in our age. They had become complacent in their control of such outlets, as confident of the rightness of their power as much as any medieval king was in his divine election; but now their hegemony has been severely challenged, and so it’s time to try to shape public opinion by calling out the self-appointed and reliably Leftist “defenders of human rights” to explain to us why this is so very, very wrong.

Deborah Brown, whom Reuters describes as a “digital rights researcher and advocate” at Human Rights Watch, asserted: “Regardless of who owns Twitter, the company has human rights responsibilities to respect the rights of people around the world who rely on the platform. Changes to its policies, features, and algorithms, big and small, can have disproportionate and sometimes devastating impacts, including offline violence. Freedom of expression is not an absolute right, which is why Twitter needs to invest in efforts to keep its most vulnerable users safe on the platform.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/04/28/biden-unites-the-country-nobody-wants-him-as-president-any-more/

Last December, the I&I/TIPP poll asked registered voters who they’d like to see on the Democratic ticket in 2024. A shockingly low 37% of Democrats named President Joe Biden. If Biden didn’t run for reelection, only 16% wanted Vice President Kamala Harris to be on the ballot.  

The findings, we said at the time, are “a devastating sign of Biden’s weakening support within his own party.” (Google’s content police found the results so upsetting that they labeled our article accurately reporting the poll results as “unreliable and harmful.”) 

In the months following that poll, Biden gave his State of the Union speech, Russia invaded Ukraine, and COVID receded as a threat.  

Under normal circumstances, these events, along with ginned-up positive news from corporate media, would boost a president’s approval rating. At least they’d shore up support among his base. 

Yet, when we asked the same question of voters this month, Biden’s devastating numbers got shockingly lower.

Our April I&I/TIPP poll found that only 29% of Democrats want Biden on the ticket in 2024, and only 12% want Harris.  

Overall, less than one in five adults (19%) now say they want Biden on the ticket, down from 22% in December.  

Other polls show similar dismal results.  

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/tyranny-moral-minorities-daniel-greenfield/

When pilots and flight attendants announced the end of the mask mandate in-flight, most passengers cheered. Everyone except the media which claimed the masked were the victims.

Biden, in an unexpected moment of sanity, said, “it’s up to them” whether people wear masks.

But since Biden has as much impact on the policy of his administration as the shoeshine guy at Union Station, the DOJ and the CDC have triggered a legal challenge to the federal court ruling.

Biden and the entire D.C. elite don’t like wearing masks. Most people don’t. Universal masking is mandated to accommodate a vocal minority, most of whom are not immunocompromised or otherwise especially vulnerable, but who still demand that everyone accommodate them.

This tyranny of minorities has long since come to define the Democrat coalition which knits together single-issue victimhood voters whose pet issue, whether it’s police shootings, green energy, racial justice, men pretending they’re women, or the right of teachers to sexually indoctrinate kindergartners against the wishes of their parents, must take precedence.

That is why the Biden administration will fight for an otherwise unpopular mask mandate.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/diversity-free-speech-and-woke-assault-america-bruce-thornton/

Tech plutocrat Elon Musk announces he is buying Twitter to liberate this “virtual town square” from one-sided political censorship – and he is met with hysterical charges that he is attacking free speech. A woman who reposts TikTok videos of “woke” teachers bragging about their sexualize of children in their classrooms, is attacked by a Washington Post reporter who harasses the woman’s family in order to silence an enemy of “free speech” and purveyor of “hate” – just days after the reporter appeared in a video and bursts into tears over getting the same treatment she later inflicts on the anonymous creator of Libs on TikTok.

We are clearly living in Orwellian times, when the ambitions of tyrannical power are camouflaged by debased language, incoherent thought, and patent double-standards. Like the Newspeak of 1984, our progressive media abuses words like “diversity” and “free speech” to make them mean their opposites: a uniform orthodoxy protected and enforced by censorship. As long ago as Thucydides, this abuse of language and thought was recognized as the enemy of freedom and the precursor of a tyranny that reduces the diversity of opinion and ideas into one monolithic, oppressive dogma.

Since its creation in the ancient Athenian democracy, free speech has been the sine qua non of a political order that includes a wide diversity of citizens, not just the rich and educated elites who monopolized power in oligarchic or autocratic regimes. Since political discussion and deliberation were conducted through public speeches, citizens had to be protected from reprisals for, or limitations on their diverse opinions and their particular ways of expressing them.

True diversity – the diversity of thought and opinion – is intimately connected to free speech, itself one of the most critical foundations of political freedom, and most important bulwarks against tyranny.

This freedom of speech given to social and economic inferiors was one of the major criticisms of democracy in arguments against politically enfranchising non-elites. Antidemocratic critics like Plato, an aristocrat and philosopher who favored rule by a technocratic elite, mocked the average Athenian who presumed to address his betters in the Assembly and the Council. Plato’s like-minded mentor Socrates mocked and slandered the masses as “dunces and weaklings,” the “fullers and the cobblers or the builders or the smiths or the farmers or the merchants or the traffickers in the market-place who think of nothing but buying cheap and selling dear.”

https://pjmedia.com/columns/john-stossel/2022/04/27/wikipedia-bias-n1593132

“Look up “concentration and internment camps” and you’ll find, along with the Holocaust, “Mexico-United States border,” and under that, “Trump administration family separation policy.”

I love Wikipedia. I donated thousands of dollars to the Wikimedia Foundation. Before Wikipedia, all we had were printed encyclopedias — out of date by the time we bought them.

Then libertarian Jimmy Wales came up with a web-based, crowd-sourced encyclopedia.Crowd-sourced? A Britannica editor called Wikipedia “a public restroom.” But Wales won the battle. Britannica’s encyclopedias are no longer printed. 

Congratulations to Wales.But recently I learned that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger now says Wikipedia’s political pages have turned into leftist “propaganda.”That’s upsetting. Leftists took over the editing?

Sadly, yes. I checked it out. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/blinken-appears-to-confirm-iran-is-targeting-current-u-s-officials/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_

Yet he downplayed the practical effect of the IRGC terror label during a Senate hearing today.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken seemingly confirmed during testimony Tuesday that Iran is plotting attacks on both current and former U.S. officials. While there have been reports about threats to former senior officials, Blinken’s comments appear to be the first disclosure of any plot concerning current officials.

The Biden administration’s top diplomat addressed the threats under questioning from Senator Ted Cruz before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Is it true that the IRGC is actively trying to murder former senior officials of the United States?” Cruz asked.

“I’m not sure what I can say in an open setting, but let me say generically, that there is an ongoing threat against American officials both present and past,” Blinken answered.

The phrasing leaves room for interpretation. But the testimony is likely to feed into congressional concerns about nuclear negotiations with Iran being carried on in spite of these threats.

Blinken, citing the confidentiality of the talks, declined to answer Cruz’s questions about whether the U.S. had offered to lift the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s (IRGC) designation as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) in return for Iranian assurances to end its ongoing assassination plots, as certain news reports had indicated.

The top diplomat did, however, say that he shares Cruz’s concerns about the IRGC and, specifically, its paramilitary Quds unit, saying that “86 of the 107 designations by this administration have been against the IRGC or its component parts.” He also said that the administration told the Iranian government to stop targeting Americans.

Throughout the hearing, Blinken blamed the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement in 2018 and to opt for a “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign for a rise in Iranian attacks across the Middle East. He noted that the Bush and Obama administrations declined to put the IRGC on the FTO list in the first place on the advice of the military and the intelligence community.