RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-democrats-ruin-everything-the-new-york-times/

This New York Times video doesn’t exactly shout, “Vote Republican” because everyone involved in it, and everyone it is aimed at, is a Democrat. But if Democrats can mess things up this badly, what other conclusion are we supposed to draw? Democrats make things worse is the resounding message here. I agree, except unlike the production team of the video, I don’t find this baffling.

The message of the video is that Democrats are hypocrites who don’t live up to their values. Of course they don’t! But that’s not what’s important. What’s important is that they make everything worse. Watch the video. It’ll knock you out that this came from the Times.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/five-moderate-dem-senators-reject-bidens-pick-for-top-bank-watchdog/

Five prominent moderate Democratic senators have vowed to reject President Biden’s nominee, Saule Omarova, for the nation’s top bank watchdog role over her aggressive approach to regulating the financial sector.

Democratic members of the Senate Banking Committee Jon Tester, Mark Warner, and Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.), as well as Democratic Senators John Hickenlooper and Mark Kelly have all declared their opposition to Omarova as head of Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Biden officials still endorse Omarova, even though her confirmation is increasingly unlikely given these lawmakers’ disapproval.

“The White House continues to strongly support her historic nomination,” a White House official told Axios.

“Saule Omarova is eminently qualified for this position,” the official added. “She has been treated unfairly since her nomination with unacceptable red-baiting from Republicans like it’s the McCarthy era.”

The former law professor drew criticism from Republicans during a congressional hearing last week for her past academic works in which she advocated to “end banking as we know it.” Her position would preside over lenders holding an extremely high value of assets. Senator Kennedy grilled her over her purported praise of a number of economic practices exercised by the Soviet Union.

https://www.city-journal.org/noncitizen-voting-devalues-citizenship

New York City’s political leaders are prepared to extend the franchise to noncitizens by creating a new class of persons called “municipal voters.” These new voters would include Legal Permanent Residents—LPRs, known familiarly as “green card” holders—and other noncitizens “authorized to work in the United States.” Municipal voters would be permitted to vote in all local elections, including primary, general, and special elections for mayor, public advocate, comptroller, city council, borough president, and in local ballot initiatives. They would not be permitted to cast ballots in state or federal elections.

About 37 percent of New York City residents were born abroad. The majority of these more than 3 million people are naturalized citizens, entitled to vote in any election, assuming they meet the requirements of being 18 years old and not currently in prison or on parole. The “municipal voter” legislation would apply to the 650,000 LPRs in New York City and approximately 150,000 others who hold employment-eligible visas, or who have received “deferred action” status under DACA.

New York City has about 5.6 million registered voters, 90 percent of whom are considered “active.” Expanding the rolls by another 800,000 voters would potentially create a major new voting bloc, though it is not clear that these voters would be especially motivated to go to the polls. Voter turnout in New York City, especially in local elections, is extraordinarily thin, with typically less than 20 percent of registered voters bothering to take the trouble; one imagines that noncitizens would have even less engagement in the process. The effects on some council races, however, could be meaningful: the noncitizen population is distributed unequally around the city, so districts in parts of Queens or the Bronx with populations more than 50 percent noncitizen could see a much greater impact than other areas of the city with higher concentrations of citizens.

Allowing noncitizens to vote was normal in the early years of the American republic, though New York State ended the practice in 1804. Arkansas was the last state to abolish alien voting in 1926. In the wake of the 1968 teachers’ strike, New York City opened voting for local school boards to all residents, on the premise that noncitizen parents of schoolchildren ought to have a say in how their schools were run. But school boards were abolished in 2002, when direct control of the Department of Education was concentrated under the mayor, and the city’s experiment with noncitizen voting ended then, too.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/23/opinion/liberals-survive-progressivism.html

It’s been nearly 30 years since then-Gov. Bill Clinton took a break from the campaign trail to oversee the execution of death-row inmate Ricky Ray Rector. Morally, it may have been repugnant to kill a man so mentally handicapped by a failed suicide attempt that he set aside the pecan pie of his last meal because he was “saving it for later.”

Politically, it was essential.

By the early 1990s the American left had spent a generation earning a soft-on-crime image in an era of growing lawlessness. In 1988, Mike Dukakis secured the Democrats’ third landslide loss thanks in no small part to his stalwart opposition to the death penalty. Four years later, it was difficult to imagine any Democrat reaching the White House without a literal blood sacrifice to the gods of law and order.

Now Democrats seem intent on reviving that reputation. In Waukesha, Wis., six people were killed and at least 60 injured when Darrell Brooks drove his Ford Escape through a Christmas parade, according to the police. Brooks already had a lengthy rap sheet and had reportedly run over a woman with the same S.U.V. early this month. But, as The Times reported, he had been “quickly freed from jail on bond after prosecutors requested what they now say was an inappropriately low bail.”

What happened in Waukesha on Sunday is among the consequences of easy bail. And bail reform — that is, reducing or eliminating cash bail for a variety of offenses — has been a cause of the left for years.

Then there is California, which in 2014 classified possession of hard drugs for personal use and the theft of up to $950 of goods as misdemeanor offenses. In the Bay Area, the results have been stark: San Francisco’s overdose deaths rose to 81 per 100,000 people in 2020 from 19 per 100,000 people in 2014.

In the meantime, shoplifting has become endemic, brazen and increasingly well organized, culminating in mobs of looters ransacking stores and terrifying customers in the Bay Area last week. Local shops are closing, neighborhoods are decaying, encampments of drug addicts have proliferated, and streets are befouled by human excrement — a set of failures Michael Shellenberger calls in his thoroughly researched and convincing new book, “San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities,” “the breakdown of civilization on America’s West Coast.”

As for the rest of the country: Can anyone seriously say that Chicago, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, Philadelphia or New York has been improved in recent years under progressive leadership? Why did rates of homelessness register their biggest jumps between 2007 and 2020 in left-leaning states like New York, California and Massachusetts — and their biggest decreases in right-leaning ones like Florida, Texas and Georgia?

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/lincolnbrown/2021/11/23/the-lefts-vigilantes-n1535953

Who would have thought that “across state lines” would have replaced “Donald Trump” as the Left’s favorite epithet? But whatever fans the flames, right? Anything to get the latest rounds of arson, looting and violence up and running. There’s a country to be destroyed, you know.

If you watched Ken Burns’ The Civil War, which originally aired what seems like a hundred years ago, you may recognize the name Shelby Foote. He was a Civil War historian who made frequent appearances during the series. He was very knowledgeable and his books are enjoyable to read. Like C.S. Lewis, Foote has a way of crafting a sentence that keeps you hooked and somehow is pleasing to the eye. Of course, given Foote’s southern origin, many critics automatically label him a Confederate apologist, without taking the time to see the nuance in Foote’s books. Foote tried to tell both sides of a story. And history can be messy and does not always favor the side in which we are interested. But then again, nuance is all but lost in the 21st century.

In the book Confederates in the Attic, author Tony Horowitz sat down with Foote for an interview and the subject of the Confederate flag came up. Foote commented:

“Freedom Riders were a pretty weird-looking group to Southerners,” Foote said. “The men had odd haircuts and strange baggy clothes and seemed to associate with people with an intimacy that we didn’t allow. So the so-called right-thinking people of the South said, ‘They’re sending their riffraff down here. Let our riffraff take care of them.’ Then they sat back while the good ol’ boys in the pickup trucks took care of it, under the Confederate banner. That’s when right-thinking people should have stepped in and said, ‘Don’t use that banner, that’s not what it stands for.’ But they didn’t. So now it’s a symbol of evil to a great many people, and I understand that.”

And so it goes. The “right-thinking” people of the Left would never sully their hands in dealing with their enemies directly. Even if they do not explicitly encourage burning car dealerships, looting stores, attacking police stations or beating up unsuspecting people on the street, they know that their rhetoric inspires and encourages it. They know that they have an army of angry, under-educated or willfully uneducated group of people, highly vulnerable to the power of suggestion — people who will burn down a city while Leftist leaders and media mavens gather at the Kennedy Center or the Met Gala to sip champagne as their colleagues and errand-runners try to convince us that a building engulfed in flames is a sign of a peaceful protest.

People who they hate are being attacked by people they care nothing about. Just like their enemies, their foot soldiers are inconsequential and expendable. And if a neighborhood has to lose small businesses or a supermarket, drug store, or for that matter lives, so be it. After all, the goal is just, right?

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2021/11/22/i-hope-you-die-the-murderous-isis-jihadi-from-new-york-city-you-heard-nothing-about-n1535561

Ali Saleh, 28, was born and raised in the Jamaica, Queens neighborhood of New York City, in idyllic circumstances: according to court documents, he came “from a loving home, surrounded by parents and siblings, and was both educated and employed.” Yet despite the fact that we are constantly told that ignorance and deprivation cause terrorism, Saleh’s enviable upbringing didn’t prevent him from turning to the dark side. Wednesday, he was sentenced to thirty years in prison after pleading guilty to aiding the Islamic State (ISIS). He gives every indication of being as hardcore an adherent as the jihad terror organization ever had. And one question that no one seems to be asking is: Where did he get these ideas in Queens?

In addition to the 30 years for aiding ISIS, Saleh was also sentenced Wednesday to eight years and four months in prison for assaulting a federal correctional officer. According to the Justice Department, “on July 13, 2018, at approximately 12:35 p.m., while a senior correctional officer was retrieving trash through an access slot of Saleh’s cell, Saleh reached through the slot and slashed the officer with an improvised knife, lacerating the officer’s right forearm and damaging the officer’s radial nerve.  Saleh smiled at the officer and said, ‘I hope you die.’” Charming guy.

That was after Saleh amassed a long record of support for the world’s most brutal and murderous jihad terror group. Matthew G. Olsen, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s National Security Division, stated that “Saleh made numerous attempts to travel overseas to join ISIS, and when those efforts failed, attempted to assist others in joining the terrorist organization.”

Saleh made his loyalties abundantly clear. On July 10, 2014, he wrote online: “We are going to see a lot of be headings [sic] of American soldiers and I want front row seats.” Then on August 25, 2014, he declared: “I’m ready to die for the Caliphate, prison is nothing.” Three days later, he added: “Lets [sic] be clear the Muslims in the khilafah [caliphate] need help, the one who is capable to go over and help the Muslims must go and help.” He also wrote: “I’m ready to die for the Caliphate, prison is nothing.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/11/the_womens_march_beclowns_itself_with_an_almost_unbelievable_tweet.html

Leftism is unsustainable. It’s unsustainable economically, although nations must be destroyed before that fundamental truth emerges. Leftist revolutions also invariably eat their own. America is now witnessing that cannibalism and we can only hope the mutually assured destruction of leftism occurs before it succeeds in wrecking America. Today’s Exhibit A showing leftist cannibalism is a perfectly wonderful tweet from the Women’s March organization apologizing for offending people with the average dollar amount of its donations.

The Women’s March emerged after Trump was accused of “grabbing women by the [vulgarism].” I listened to the entire recorded conversation, and it was clear that Trump wasn’t saying he engaged in that conduct. Instead, he was making the point that, if you’re rich and famous, you can get away with anything. I’ve always imagined that, had the bus ride during which he was recorded not ended then, he would have added, “At least, that’s what Bill Clinton told me.”

In any event, an enterprising leftist made herself a symbolic little pink hat and put the pattern online. And so, the vulgarity of the Women’s March was born. Within a short time, because this was a leftist organization, the anti-Semites came to the fore, dimming the group’s luster.

Still, the organization continues to exist and, as is true for all political organizations, it’s constantly sending emails to people begging for money. In this case, the email apparently informed recipients that they didn’t need to send a lot of money. Really, any amount would do. But just as a guide, the average amount that supporters sent was $14.92.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/11/granholms_and_bidens_energy_clown_show_.html

Reassuring worried Americans that there will be enough oil for the Thanksgiving holidays, yesterday President Joseph Biden (D) informed a concerned citizenry of plans to release 50,000,000 barrels of oil from the emergency Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an effort to bring down high gas prices. 

Wow!  Fifty million barrels of oil!  That’s a lot of oil isn’t it, Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm?  That should take care of America’s energy needs for quite a while right?   “How many barrels of oil does the U.S. consume per day?,” a reporter commonsensically asked. “I don’t have that number in front of me. I’m sorry,” Granholm replied.

Tech challenged, non-Department of Energy Secretary me managed to get the answer in front of me in less than five seconds, conveniently from Granholm’s own Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration’s site, discovering

In 2020, the United States consumed an average of about 18.19 million barrels of petroleum per day, or a total of about 6.66 billion barrels of petroleum.

Oh.  But…but…that means the extra 50,000,000 barrels is only about 2 1/2 days’ worth of extra petroleum — long enough to transport people to and from their Thanksgiving celebration, heat residences for the holiday and to cook all the extra and special holiday foods.  Then what?  How can that literal drop in the empty bucket from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve bring down gas prices, up 60% since last year?

Energy Secretary Granholm could not be reached for comment as the numbers were not in front of her.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/tearing-down-thomas-jefferson-over-slavery-is-moral-idiocy/#slide-1

Actually, Thomas Jefferson did a lot of good, even on slavery.

Y ou can always count on woke progressives to live up to the worst caricatures of their ideas. Democrats on the New York City Council have now removed a statue of the founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson, from the City Council chamber in New York City Hall. The statue has been in City Hall since 1834 (eight years after Jefferson’s death), when it was erected to celebrate his advocacy of religious liberty. It is a sign of how proud Democrats are of their decision that they tried to block the press from witnessing the removal.

This is madness, and it vindicates many on the right — prominently including Donald Trump — who argued that the campaigns against Confederate statues were dangerous precisely because the people pushing for the removals were certain to move next against the Founding Fathers. When Trump made that argument in 2017, he was met with sneers. In a piece titled “Statues of Washington, Jefferson Aren’t ‘Next,’ But It’s Complicated, Historians Say,” Dartunorro Clark of NBC News wrote:

Historians who spoke to NBC News said such fears are slightly misplaced and that Trump is championing a murky interpretation of history. . . . “The president can raise the slippery slope, but it’s a false slippery slope,” said Kevin Levin, a Boston-based historian who specializes in American Civil War history.

John Oliver:

I’ll tell you where it stops. Somewhere! Any time someone asks, where does it stop, the answer’s always . . . somewhere. You might let your kid have Twizzlers, but not inject black tar heroin. You don’t just go, “Well, after the Twizzlers, where does it stop?”

Actually, you do ask that, and this is why. Whatever Trump understood about history, he understood the madness of mobs better than Kevin Levin or John Oliver did.

Without rehashing here the whole debate over Confederate icons — which has been going on for years now and has been vigorously debated on this website, sometimes by me — the strongest argument for removing some or all Confederate statutes and monuments is that the Confederate cause was not just flawed in the way that many great Americans are flawed; it was actively wrong, and the people who supported it made the country worse, or at any rate tried to, and thus should never have been memorialized in the first place.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/paul-krugman-michael-lind

How a trash-talking neoliberal economist harmed America by vilifying strategic trade and industrial policy

Strategic trade and national industrial policy are back. Growing U.S. military and economic competition with China, along with the COVID-19 pandemic, have revealed the dependence of the United States on manufacturing supply chains in China and other foreign sources. The neoliberal consensus in favor of indiscriminate trade liberalization and against government support for strategic industries is evaporating: The Biden administration, in a more nuanced way, has continued many of Donald Trump’s nationalist economic policies, including some tariffs and programs to promote reshoring. In an era of extreme polarization, there is a high degree of bipartisan support for measures like the CHIPS for America Act, which seeks to reduce U.S. reliance for semiconductors on a few Asian sources like the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and South Korea’s Samsung Electronics.

The last time these issues were at the center of public debate was during the 1980s and early 1990s. At that time, both the industrial revival of Japan and West Germany after the devastation of World War II and the increasing offshoring of production to low-wage countries by U.S. corporations were challenging America’s manufacturing sector and its workers.

Then as now, America’s university-based economics profession was dominated by the otherworldly neoclassical school, which, having purged the empirical and realistic institutional school of economics after 1945, specializes in using mathematics to model unrealistic assumptions. Even so, a generation ago the debate over whether the U.S. should adopt a strategic trade and industrial policy—favoring some industries over others and including selective protectionism or export promotion—was causing a few bold academic economists to rethink the discipline’s creed that free trade is always and everywhere good for everyone.

One was a promising young economist named Paul Krugman. In a 1987 paper for The Journal of Economic Perspectives, “Is Free Trade Passe?” Krugman noted:

If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations “I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage” and “I advocate Free Trade.” … Yet the case for free trade is currently more in doubt than at any time since the 1817 publication of Ricardo’s Principles of Political Economy … because of the changes that have recently taken place in the theory of international trade itself. … There is still a case for free trade as a good policy, and as a useful target in the practical world of politics, but it can never again be asserted as the policy that economic theory tells us is always right.

Only a few years later, however, Krugman had become one of the most vehement critics of scholars, public servants, and journalists who questioned free trade, doing his best to destroy their reputations in the eyes of the trans-Atlantic media and business and academic establishments. He and other intellectual vigilantes like Martin Wolf of the Financial Times and the economist Jagdish Bhagwati who policed the borders of acceptable discourse about trade in general and offshoring to China in particular were all too successful. It might have happened anyway, but Krugman’s prestige and skill as a polemicist helped persuade elite media outlets, think tanks, government agencies, and business institutions that they could ignore the experts from varied backgrounds who were raising alarms about the consequences that offshoring U.S. manufacturing would have for supply chain fragility, domestic jobs, and U.S. military power. By the time Krugman confessed that he and others had been wrong to minimize the problems involved in globalization for a quarter of a century, the damage to the United States had been done.