RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/03/01/biden-lied-and-105334-people-died/

” Biden deserves none of the credit for the gains we’ve made against COVID-19 since he took office. But if he wants to blame Trump for every virus death that happened before Jan. 20, he should take the blame for every one that’s happened since.”

During one of his presidential debates last year when about 220,000 people had died from COVID-19, Joe Biden said that “anyone who’s responsible for that many deaths should not remain as president of the United States of America.” So should Joe be looking for another job, now that more than 100,000 have died in just the two months that he’s been president?

Biden said, after all, that he had a plan on “day one” as president to tackle the disease. He was going to move “heaven and earth” to save lives, etc., etc. But since Jan. 20, there have been 105,334 deaths attributed to the coronavirus as of Saturday, according to the COVID Tracking Project. That means that one-fifth of all the COVID-19 deaths have occurred just since Biden took office.

Now Biden is busy casting blame for why the disease continues to claim lives, while repeatedly lying about what he inherited from President Donald Trump in order to make his own efforts seem more heroic.

On Thursday, Biden again claimed that he inherited no vaccination plan when he came into office.

“Were moving in the right direction,” he said, “despite the mess we inherited from the previous administration, which left us with no real plan to vaccinate all Americans.”

It’s been a constant refrain of his administration.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/voting-rights-at-the-supreme-court-11614553224?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

Election laws have become a dangerous political flashpoint, as Americans recently learned the hard way. On Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear a potentially landmark case (Brnovich v. DNC) that offers an opportunity to restore the Voting Rights Act to its original purpose.

At issue is Arizona’s requirement that voters cast ballots on election day in their assigned precinct and its ban on ballot harvesting by outside groups. A majority of states require in-precinct voting, and 20 or so limit ballot harvesting, which allows third parties to collect ballots in bunches. Both rules are intended to bolster ballot integrity.

Democrats say this violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits states from adopting voting qualifications, standards, or practices that result in “denial or abridgement” of the right to vote “on account of race or color.” But they provide no evidence that Arizona’s rules limit minorities’ ballot access.

Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to stop states from disenfranchising blacks with underhanded methods like poll taxes and literacy tests. But Democrats now argue that any state regulation that makes it a little harder for anyone to vote violates the law—even if it applies equally to minorities and whites.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/rachel-rachel-bruce-bawer/

If you consult the mainstream news media on a regular basis, you’ve probably heard that last Thursday was a red-letter day in American history – an occasion for dancing in the streets from Bangor to Burbank, and for socially distanced champagne toasts from Key West to Ketchikan. Why? Because, for the first time ever, a transgender nominee for a government office was up for Senate confirmation. That nominee was Dr. Rachel Levine, President Biden’s pick for Assistant Secretary for Health.

Is Rachel a great, or even a competent, physician? Who cares? It’s 2021, and Rachel is trans!

Rachel’s birth name was Richard, though there’s no way you could tell that from, say, Wikipedia. (In fact, on the “talk” page for Rachel’s Wikipedia entry, you can see anxious contributors earnestly debating how to deal with the ticklish fact that Rachel had a bar mitzvah, not a bas mitzvah.) Now aged 63, Rachel transitioned a decade ago and was divorced a couple of years later. Neither Rachel’s ex nor their two children appear to have attended the hearing.

Importantly, Rachel is not only a trans person; Rachel is a trans activist, a self-described champion of transgender youth. Meaning what? Meaning, among much else, that Rachel supports giving puberty blockers to children who say they’re the opposite sex, and is open to ordering “gender-confirmation” surgery to kids under age 18 with or without parental permission.

Rachel’s last job was as Health Commissioner in Pennsylvania. There were national headlines when it emerged that Rachel’s mother had been removed for her safety from a care home even as Rachel was ordering elderly hospital patients who’d tested positive for COVID back into nursing homes. Like Andrew Cuomo’s similar move in New York, this action doubtless contributed to the state’s elevated toll of COVID deaths in such establishments – a matter that Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) brought up at the hearing.

But hey, Rachel is trans!

Because Rachel’s appointment broke a glass ceiling, the Democrats treated the hearing as a celebration. But Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) had to spoil the party. Noting Rachel’s support for puberty blockers and the “surgical destruction of a minor’s genitalia,” Sen. Paul, who is a physician, pointed out that genital mutilation is internationally considered “a violation of human rights” and that “80 to 95% of prepubertal children with gender dysphoria” snap out of it “by late adolescence” if left alone. This being the case, asked Sen. Paul, “do you believe that minors are capable of making such a life-changing decision as changing one’s sex?”

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/02/28/bidens-latest-verbal-slip-might-be-his-most-disturbing-yet-n1428963

Conservative media has been calling out Joe Biden’s cognitive decline for a long time. During the presidential campaign, we were the ones sounding the alarm bells while the mainstream media covered for him. At times it was amusing, yet also a bit scary. This man is running for president? The most powerful position in the world?

Now, it’s just scary.

On Saturday, Joe Biden did it again. While attempting to list off the names of several Democrats, even he was surprised by his own forgetfulness.

“… and Representatives Shir-Shirley Jackson Lee, Al Greene, Sylvia Garcia, Lizzie Penelley, ugh, uh, excuse me, Pannill, and, ugh, what am I doing here? I’m gonna lose track here,” Biden wondered aloud. Her name is Sheila Jackson Lee… and she’s hardly forgettable. But his remark, “What am I doing here?” was very telling. Of course, we’ve all been wondering that for weeks. What is Joe Biden doing there in the most powerful position in the world?

Okay, obviously he wasn’t referring to the presidency there, but still, that off-hand remark was a stunning admission from Biden himself that he was aware of his scattered mind.

https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/wikipedia-co-founder-launching-competitor-website-upset-about-pro-socialism

A co-founder of Wikipedia is launching a competing website as a free-speech-friendly alternative to what he views as the increasingly monolithic left-wing bias of his former organization.

Last May, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger wrote an op-ed on his personal website titled “Wikipedia is Badly Biased” claiming that Wikipedia’s neutrality policy — known as  “NPOV,” or neutral point of view — “is dead.”

Now, when schoolchildren visit the Wikipedia website to look up answers to questions about the meaning of socialism, “they’re going to find an explanation that completely ignores any conservative, libertarian, or critical treatment of the subject,” Sanger told “Just the News AM” television program. “And that’s really problematic. That’s not education. That’s propaganda.” 

Sanger referred to a Fox News report last week by Maxim Lott, which noted, “The two main pages for ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ span a massive 28,000 words, and yet they contain no discussion of the genocides committed by socialist and communist regimes, in which tens of millions of people were murdered and starved.”

Wikipedia’s socialism page claims, “The Soviet era saw some of the most significant technological achievements of the 20th century,” Lott reported, but it “ignores a man-made famine in which Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin commandeered the food from regions like Ukraine and Kazakhstan, leaving millions to starve to death even as the Soviet Union exported grain to foreign countries.”

https://us20.campaign-archive.com/?u=2cf2a73e6220e59e3c1c4a60c&id=7845deb81f

It’s a legalized money laundering scheme.

It’s all legal and that’s the scandal.

Our report, Federal Funding of Fortune 100 Companies, drags this scheme into the sunshine.

It shows conclusive evidence that, over a four year period, Fortune 100 companies spent $2 billion lobbying Congress and received over $400 billion in federal grants and contracts — funded by the American taxpayer.

It’s no wonder that when new members show-up in Congress,  they quickly stop representing their constituents’ values. 

Their vote has been won by a higher bidder.

Our reporting on this critical subject has raised heads in the media, with features in the Washington Times, the Associated Press, C-SPAN, One America News, Newsweek, and The Daily Caller. 

The time is ripe for a bipartisan policy change. Remember, it’s YOUR money. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/540235-the-political-effort-to-limit-free-speech-attacks-our-own-values

English essayist Samuel Johnson wrote that “when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” I thought of Johnson’s words in preparing to appear before a House committee exploring limitations on free speech, including a campaign by some Democratic members and activists to remove networks like Fox News from cable carriers. As someone who just came over to Fox News as a legal analyst from CBS and the BBC, the hearing concentrated my mind “wonderfully” on the future of free speech and the free press.

Increasingly, free speech in the United States is described as a danger that needs to be controlled, as opposed to the very value that defines us as a people. While I am viewed as a “free speech purist” by many, I maintain what once was a mainstream view of free speech. I believe free speech is the greatest protection against bad speech. That view is, admittedly, under fire and may even be a minority view today. But history has shown that public or private censorship does not produce better speech. It only produces more censorship and more controlled speech.

There is no disagreement that we face a torrent of false, hateful, extremist speech on social media and in other public forums. This speech is not without cost: It fuels those filled with rage, victimizes the gullible, and alienates the marginal in our society. It is a scourge, but not a new one.

The Constitution was written not only for times like these — it was written during times like these. Politics has always been something of a blood sport, literally. At the start of our Republic, the Republicans and Federalists were not trying to “cancel” one another in the contemporary sense; they were trying to kill each other in the actual sense, through measures like the Alien and Sedition Acts. There also were rampant false conspiracy theories about alliances with Great Britain, France, Spain, and other foreign powers. Newspapers and pamphleteers were highly biased and partisan.

Members of Congress are now pushing for public and private censorship on the internet and in other forums. They are being joined by an unprecedented alliance of academics, writers and activists calling for everything from censorship to incarceration to blacklists. For example, an article published in The Atlantic by Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods called for Chinese-style censorship of the internet, stating that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong.”

 https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/26/joe-bidens-cabinet-nominees-prove-his-unity-claims-are-a-lie/

In his first address on Nov. 7 to the nation after being prematurely crowned “president-elect” by the legacy media, Joe Biden called for “a time to heal” and urged for “unity.” At his January inauguration, President Biden did the same.

“With unity we can do great things. Important things. We can right wrongs. We can put people to work in good jobs. We can teach our children in safe schools. We can overcome this deadly virus. We can reward work, rebuild the middle class, and make health care secure for all. We can deliver racial justice,” Biden said.

Then Biden signed the most executive orders (15) in his first day than any other U.S. President in history—notably eliminating the Trump administration’s 1776 Commission to properly educate students about America’s founding. His cabinet nominations also do not spell unity. They indicate the opposite.

Throughout this week, the secretary of Health and Human Services nominee Xavier Becerra sat before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and Senate Finance committees for his confirmation hearings and notably dodged questions on his partial-birth abortion stance, and about suing nuns to force them into abortion coverage in 2017. The California attorney general is a far-left radical with zero public health experience or expertise.