RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/04/kamalas-husband-hosts-virtual-passover-hell-daniel-greenfield/

After twenty minutes of dead air, Biden’s Virtual Passover got underway. Biden, who can only be counted on to remain coherent for short stretches of time before launching into a random tirade, only showed up briefly.  And that was the only good thing about Virtual Passover.

Virtual Passover, like the Biden administration, makes no sense. But the Biden administration can’t be expected to ruin every aspect of our lives, without also ruining Passover.

Kamala Harris had been delegated to take over the border crisis, and so her husband, Brentwood entertainment lawyer, Douglas Emhoff, took over the job of ruining Passover.

Dubbed a “Virtual Passover Celebration”, it was not a celebration, it had nothing to do with Passover, but it was virtual. The one thing that the Biden administration can be relied on is to be virtual. And by being virtual, to offer nothing real. Passover wasn’t going to change that.

Hosted by “Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff”, also known as the father of Kamala’s obnoxious stepchildren, his scripted speeches proved that everything he knows about Judaism he learned from leftist anti-Israel radicals and late night reruns of The Nanny.

Emhoff started out by touting Sharon Brous and IKAR.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/04/01/nancy-pelosi-the-real-insurrectionist/

The power hungry Democrats want to rule rather than govern.

The media are aglow with news that two U.S. Capitol Police officers are suing Donald Trump for inflaming, encouraging, inciting and directing a riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6. It fits their narrative. But this doesn’t and therefore gets no coverage: The real insurgent is the speaker of the House.

Two days after the regrettable events at the Capitol, which no serious or honest person would call an insurrection, Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi called U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Her objective was to strip Donald Trump of his constitutional executive authority. She followed up the call with a letter to her power-hungry Democratic colleagues:

This morning, I spoke to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike. The situation of this unhinged president could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/here-come-the-biden-taxes-11617231225?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

So much for the illusion of cost-free spending blowouts. The bill for President Biden’s agenda is coming due, starting with Wednesday’s proposal for the largest corporate tax increase in decades. Can we finally drop the pretense that any of this is moderate or unifying or bipartisan?

Mr. Biden’s corporate tax increase alone is more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years, with another $1.5 trillion coming soon on individual income and investment. That’s about $300 billion a year, or 1.36% of GDP each year, assuming U.S. GDP of $22 trillion. Dan Clifton of Strategas Research Partners compares that to Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase of 0.4% of GDP, making the Biden increase the largest since 1968.

***

Mr. Biden’s corporate increase amounts to the restoration of the Obama-era corporate tax burden, only much more so. The GOP tax reform of 2017 was designed to fix a corporate tax system that was uncompetitive and convoluted. Companies paid taxes in countries where they earned the income, but then again if they returned the money to the U.S. Trillions of dollars piled up overseas. Remember the string of corporate “inversions” when CEOs moved their headquarters overseas?

Those inversions all but ended after 2017 as reform lowered the top corporate rate to 21% from 35% and moved the U.S. closer to a territorial tax system in which income is taxed where it is earned. Mr. Clifton calculates that companies repatriated $1.6 trillion from overseas to the U.S. from 2018-2020, which they deployed for a variety of useful economic purposes. The repatriation total three years before reform: only $495 billion.

https://asiatimes.com/2021/04/biden-2-3-tn-boondoggle-is-no-challenge-to-chin

Democrats would hike corporate taxes without restoring the R&D incentives that the Trump tax cut eliminated.

President Joe Biden’s proposed $2.3 trillion spending package unveiled March 31 should have come a day later, as an April Fool’s exercise.

Labeled an infrastructure package, it offers just $447 billion for transportation infrastructure over eight years. That’s less than a quarter of the most widely accepted estimates for the US infrastructure deficit.

On February 21, Biden told a group of US senators, “If we don’t get moving, [the Chinese] are going to eat our lunch. They’re investing billions of dollars dealing with a whole range of issues that relate to transportation, the environment and a whole range of other things. We just have to step up.”

Biden might as well instruct Secretary of State Blinken to ask the Chinese if they want fries with that.

Most of the $2.3 trillion will buy votes rather than infrastructure, including $400 billion for “elder and disability care,” $213 billion for “green and affordable homes,” $174 billion for electric vehicles, $137 billion for “school and childcare infrastructure,” $100 billion for “job training” and so forth.

https://lawliberty.org/the-real-threat-to-americas-constitutional-institutions/

Unpunished violence in the streets does real harm to the rule of law, and yet the media looks away.

EXCERPTS:

More recently, a thoroughly anti-constitutional precedent was set by then-minority leader Chuck Schumer only last March, when he led a posse of about 75 members up the steps of the Supreme Court to warn recently appointed justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh that they had “released the whirlwind,” would “pay a price,” and would “not know what hit” them if they voted the “wrong” way on an abortion case. (Schumer’s act won a rare rebuke from the normally reserved Chief Justice Roberts, who denounced Schumer’s comments as “inappropriate” and “dangerous,” stressing, that “all members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.” In a proto-Trumpian response, Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman explained that his boss’s words didn’t mean what they sounded like, and denied that. Schumer was threatening or encouraging violence.)

A decade ago, an even more direct and threatening, though ultimately (mostly) nonviolent, challenge to constitutional government was offered by Wisconsin public employee unions who invaded that state’s Capitol to protest and attempt to block Governor Scott Walker’s program of reforming public-employee contracts so as to balance the state budget without raising taxes, and also liberate public school administrations from rigid tenure rules (closely paralleled in school districts throughout the country) that prevented them from hiring teachers based on merit and adjusting their pay based on performance. Walker’s reforms even went so far as to require public employees to contribute to their health-insurance and pension costs—while still paying less for those benefits than the average Wisconsin citizen. (See Walker’s retrospective view of the “Capitol Siege,” with over 100,000 occupying the building and its surrounding square). Although nobody died in the Wisconsin protests, several legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, reported receiving death threats at the time. And one woman who emailed death threats to Republican lawmakers also pleaded guilty to making a bomb threat. Yet it would be difficult to find criticism of either Schumer’s warnings or the Wisconsin unions’ attempt to intimidate their state’s public institutions in most of the “mainstream” media.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/do-not-look-away-from-evil

EXCERPT:

“But maybe there is another evil, beyond the monstrousness of the the attackers and the cruelty of the bystanders. And that is the evil of lying about — or purposefully misdiagnosing — the problem to fit The Narrative.

As Zaid Jilani explained last week, the official media story about these anti-Asian hate crimes is that they are instances of white supremacy. “If you thumb through news articles from the past few days or read over statements from leading politicians, you’d imagine that the Ku Klux Klan is responsible for the spree of robberies, assaults and murders of Asian-Americans across the nation. The phrase ‘white supremacy’ is used repeatedly,” he wrote. “This narrative is pervasive, but it bears no relationship to the evidence before us. Not only are none of the high-profile attackers over the past few months white supremacists, many of them aren’t even white.”

Should a person’s life matter more to us if they are attacked by someone of one race, rather than another? Because that is exactly the calculus we are seeing.

Asian-Americans are being attacked and the media and the political class are contorting themselves to find a way to blame white supremacy or the legacy of Trumpism. Why? Because when the perpetrator is a neo-Nazi it is a moral gimme. When the person carrying out the hate crime comes from a group that’s also a target of hate crimes condemnation becomes much more difficult.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/03/the_diversity_delusion_and_the_pursuit_of_mediocrity.html

Progressives have a visceral hatred for America, its Judeo-Christian values, its free market system, its freedoms, opportunities, and material comforts. They want to change it fundamentally — or destroy it. Our founding documents guarantee the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” with a functioning, limited government that serves the people. But such a milieu of healthy competition is an anathema to the Left, which thinks it offensive that Americans are free to work hard and pursue their dreams with minimal government intervention. Instead of letting such a meritocracy prevail and deliver the best to the nation, the Left wants to impose a system that obsesses over race, gender, sexuality, and perceived inequities associated with these identities. Leftists seek proportional quotas to reward targeted minorities for arbitrary criteria of identity and dismiss effort and talent as “privilege.”

This dumbing down of America in the service of equity is occurring everywhere — in schools, universities, the workplace, and beyond. Paramount to this effort is the idea of diversity uber alles trumping merit, competence, or exceptional effort. This tyranny doesn’t spare members of minority groups who, out of experience and conviction, may believe in rising through merit and effort: deemed “unwoke,” they are reclassified as “multiracial white.” This misguided ideology peremptorily negates the multifarious influences that shape each individual’s unique perspective; it assumes a person is branded for life with the stereotypical characteristics of a particular race, gender, or sexual identity. Thus, the Left denies the heterogeneity of individuals and the influences on them even as it clamors for diversity.  It prejudicially assumes and demands ideological uniformity.

Here’s how the Left’s nefarious design is playing out. Schools and universities are forcing Leftist diversity standards on students, parents, and faculty at the expense of excellence. At the nation’s top high schools, the most represented race (by a significant margin) is Asian, followed by whites.  Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented. But is this evidence of racism? No, for it turns out that the admissions process at these institutions is blind to gender and ethnicity and based solely on the highest grades and test scores. In fact, these schools are forbidden to consider race and income as acceptance criteria. Attempts to coach black and Hispanic applicants for the admission tests and encourage more of them to apply have been unsuccessful in improving their representation in the student body. So the question is: Should academic standards be sacrificed, hard work penalized, and meritocracy substituted for mediocrity in order to achieve diversity?

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17227/bandy-lee-alan-dershowitz

“[I]t is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.” — Principles of Medical Ethics, American Psychiatric Association.

[Dr. Bandy] Lee herself has a long history of such unprofessional conduct. She previously diagnosed President Trump, whom I believe she also never met, as being psychotic.

Lee’s resort to diagnosis rather than dialogue is a symptom of a much larger problem that faces our divided nation: our unwillingness to debate issues and our willingness to resort to ad hominems and diagnoses instead of reasoned argumentation. Lee is part of that problem, not its solution. So is [Professor Richard] Painter. Shame on them.

Despite her violation of ethical and professional rules, I did not call for Lee to be fired. I simply advised Yale of her actions and asked them to investigate these violations. Yale decided to fire her not because of what I said, but because of what she did.

Lee is now suing Yale and blaming me for having caused her to be fired. She credits me with far more power than I have. I simply exercised my freedom of speech right to correct her falsehoods and to ask Yale to investigate her misuse of her credentials.

Should Yale have fired Dr. Bandy Lee, the psychiatrist who diagnosed someone she had never even seen — actually me — as suffering from “psychosis” because of my views on the constitutional rights of President Donald Trump? She claims I caught the psychosis from Trump. Her evidence: that I used a word — “perfect” — months before he used it!

Lee has never met me, never examined me, never seen my medical records, never even spoken to anyone close to me.

Yet she was prepared to offer a diagnosis of “psychosis’ which she attributed to my being one of President Trump’s “followers.” (I am a liberal Democrat who did not vote for Trump.)

Indeed, she went even further, diagnosing the severity and spread of “shared psychosis’ among “just about all of Donald Trump’s followers!”