RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/slandering-the-u-s-military-again/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

The accusation that the military is full of racists and extremists is false, and damaging.

During the 1960s and ’70s, those of us who fought in Vietnam became accustomed to having many of our fellow countrymen slander us as, at best, victims of a government that sent its poor to fight a criminal war and, at worst, war criminals ourselves, complicit in the routine commitment of atrocities. But the pendulum began to swing back the other way in the 1980s, and continued in the same direction through the Gulf War and 9/11 until, by the time of George W. Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers had been elevated to the status of “secular saints.”

My fellow Vietnam veterans and I would no doubt have preferred such reverence to the chilly reception we received after the war, but secular sainthood has created its own set of problems — isolation from American society at large, unequal burden sharing, and a belief in the moral superiority of those who serve over those who haven’t — that threaten to undermine the bond between service members and veterans on the one hand and American society at large on the other. After all, healthy civil-military relations depend on mutual trust between soldiers and the society they serve.

Now, the pendulum seems to be swinging back to the bad old days of slandering the military, as part of broader claims that Donald Trump normalized “white supremacy” and other forms of right-wing extremism. The fact that there were veterans among the rioters who unlawfully entered the Capitol on January 6, the persistent claim that Trump appealed to extremist groups, and Trump’s popularity with the military form the basis for proliferating allegations that the military has become a friend to racism and extremism.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/03/22/joe-biden-will-always-tell-you-the-truth-except-about-covid-vaccine-economy-border-crisis/

Almost exactly a year ago, then-candidate Joe Biden promised something that many apparently believed. “I’ll always tell you the truth,” he said. “This is the responsibility of a president. That’s what is owed the American people.”

So how is Biden doing on that promise?

Not very well, when you consider his inability to tell the truth about the COVID-19 vaccine, the economic rebound already underway, or the border crisis. Biden won’t tell the truth about the first two because he’d have to credit President Donald Trump. And he won’t tell the truth about the border crisis because he himself is entirely to blame for it.

Biden has repeatedly claimed that when he got to the White House, there was no plan in place to distribute the vaccine and that the credit for the widespread distribution all belongs to him. In his prime-time address earlier this month, for example, Biden said that “I have as president of the United States put us on a war footing to get the job done. Sounds like hyperbole, but I mean it, a war footing. Thank God we’re making some real progress now.”

But the former head of Operation Warp Speed, the program created by Trump to speed development and production of COVID-19 vaccines, told NBC’s “Face the Nation” over the weekend that “90% of what is happening now is the plan that we had.”

Of course, all you have to do is look at the data to see that rollout of the vaccine had nothing to do with Biden. By the time Biden took office, daily doses were well above 1 million – for a vaccine that nobody, including Biden, thought would be approved by then.

Biden isn’t telling the truth about the economy, either, or his $1.9 trillion plan to “rescue” it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wheres-the-science-behind-cdcs-6-foot-social-distance-decree-11616358952?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new guidance on Friday about how far apart children ought to be while in school. The old standard of 6 feet has been replaced by a 3-foot minimum, which will make it much more feasible for many schools to reopen for full-time instruction in person.

The adjustment applies only to schools, not society more broadly, and only when prevalence is low and schools are taking other measures, such as keeping kids in social “pods.” The preconditions may preclude the guidance from having its full intended effect. The World Health Organization has allowed 1 meter of distance (around 39 inches) both in and out of school. China, France, Denmark and Hong Kong, among others, went with this spacing. If the CDC’s guidance were applied universally—to include work and retail—that one adjustment could restore substantially more commercial activity.

More distance is always better when it comes to contagion. But the 6-foot directive might have been the single costliest measure CDC has recommended, which have been largely followed over the past year. So what science went into making—and, more important, sustaining—the recommendation?

Nobody knows for sure. Most agree the guideline derives from a belief that Covid is largely spread through respiratory droplets, like flu. Old studies suggest that larger respiratory droplets are unlikely to travel more than 6 feet, and therefore close contact with an infected person is the primary mode of exposure. This research was hardly conclusive, but by most accounts it formed the basis for the initial Covid recommendations. More-recent research shows that the novel coronavirus can also spread through airborne particles, known as aerosols, especially indoors.

http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/25228/the-collapsing-american-family

   http://goudsmit.pundicity.com and website: http://lindagoudsmit.com

What explains the radical leftist attack on the American family?

To answer this question we must understand the combatants in terms of competing ideologies. Leftism is rooted in Marxist collectivism and loyalty to the state. Conservatism is rooted in individualism and loyalty to the family. Consider the communist revolution in China. Thousands of years of venerating the family was extinguished and replaced with loyalty to the Communist Chinese Party (CCP).

Maoists instituted a national cancel-culture campaign that burned books, demolished statues, erased history, destroyed culture and cultural norms in a re-education campaign that replaced traditional Chinese culture with Maoist slogans and loyalty to the state.

In contemporary America, the radical leftist Democrats are following the Maoist cancel-culture model. They are targeting the three supporting pillars of American society; the American family, our Judeo-Christian faith, and the U.S. Constitution symbolized by our American flag. Cancel-culture is asymmetric warfare used by the advancing enemy to prepare the population for a replacement ideology.

How is this possible in the United States of America?

Hitler tried it in Germany. Hitler removed the children from their parents and indoctrinated them with Nazi re-education lessons that demanded loyalty to the state. Hitler’s youth actually turned in parents who rejected Nazism.

Marxist cancel-culture is ripping out the foundations of America’s constitutional republic that guarantee decentralized government, individual rights, and states rights. It is leftist preparation for a Marxist-style centralized, federalized, collectivist replacement ideology. According to Karl Marx, the father of Communism, an ideal communist society would have centralized banking, centralized education, and centralized labor. All infrastructure facilities, all agriculture, and all industries would be government-owned. There would be no private property, no inheritance rights, and the government would levy high taxes on everyone to support its programs.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/03/19/who-is-kristen-clarke-and-why-does-she-matter/

Joe Biden’s choice to lead the Department of Justice’s enormously powerful civil rights division has a long and troubling history of pushing a radical, anti-white, and anti-police agenda.

Kristen Clarke has shared “crackpot theories” about black supremacy, defended unrepentant cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, partnered with anti-Semites, pushed Jussie Smollett’s absurd hate crime allegations, and called for defunding the police—and that’s just for starters.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson brought to light the bizarre racist views espoused by Clarke while she attended Harvard as an undergraduate in the 1990s. Her arguments pushing black supremacy were so offensive, even the famously left-leaning Harvard Crimson had to push back.

As the president of the Black Students Association, Clarke wrote a letter to the Crimson in 1994 detailing her unorthodox views on race science. “Please use the following theories and observations to assist you in your search for truth regarding the genetic differences between Blacks and whites [sic],” Clarke wrote:

One: Dr. Richard King reveals that the core of the human brain is the ‘locus coeruleus,’ which is a structure that is Black, because it contains large amounts of neuro-melanin, which is essential for its operation.

Two: Black infants sit, crawl and walk sooner than whites [sic]. Three: Carol Barnes notes that human mental processes are controlled by melanin—that same chemical which gives Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.

Four: Some scientists have revealed that most whites [sic] are unable to produce melanin because their pineal glands are often calcified or non-functioning. Pineal calcification rates with Africans are five to 15 percent [sic], Asians 15 to 25 percent [sic] and Europeans 60 to 80 percent [sic]. This is the chemical basis for the cultural differences between blacks and whites.

Five: Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities—something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards.

“The above is not an editorial from the Final Call, Louis Farrakhan’s free newspaper,” Carlson noted. “That is a direct quote from the person Joe Biden is about to put in charge of this country’s civil rights laws.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/rand_paul_calls_out_a_slippery_evasive_anthony_fauci.html

Ever since getting a big spotlight in the public eye, the National Institutes of Health’s Dr. Anthony Fauci, billed by a fawning press as America’s foremost expert on infectious diseases, has revealed himself a slippery chameleon or magician of sorts, constantly changing his recommendations and positions on public health in a bid to extend the coronavirus crisis as far out as possible.

He’s pretty well burned up all of his credibility with the public as a result, as New York Post columnist and Instapundit-himself Glenn Reynolds notes here, but he doesn’t seem to know it. He continues his role as snake-charmer, or snake-oil salesman, assuming a fawning media will continue to carry him through.

He got called out. By probably the sharpest guy in the Senate, (and my favorite), Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who questioned his ever more elaborate mask mandate recommendations. According to the New York Post:

“You’ve been vaccinated and you parade around in two masks for show,” Paul told Fauci. “You can’t get it again there’s almost zero percent chance you’re going to get it.”

“And you’re telling people that have had the vaccine who have immunity — you’re defying everything we know about immunity by telling people to wear masks who have been vaccinated,” he continued.

“You want to get rid of vaccine hesitancy? Tell people to quit wearing their masks after they get the vaccine,” Paul added.

In response, Fauci quipped, “Here we go again with the theater.”

“Let me just state for the record that masks are not theater, masks are protective,” Fauci said.

Paul snapped back: “If you have immunity they’re theater. If you already have immunity you’re wearing a mask to give comfort to others.”

“I totally disagree with you,” Fauci responded.

What Fauci revealed in that exchange is that he has a stake in continuing the coronavirus lockdowns and maskings forever. That’s his source of power and influence and he’s not ready to leave the spotlight or go back to his former obscurity. Fauci essentially told Paul that the vaccine is a nothingburger, COVID-19 will never end (despite the evidence seen in Texas and Florida) and masks are to be a way of life.

https://www.city-journal.org/mayor-tasks-nypd-to-investigate-noncriminal-hate

Amid a staggering wave of gun violence in New York City, with shootings this year measuring 42 percent higher than the same period in 2020, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that he plans to deploy the NYPD to track down and question people who have expressed “hate,” albeit without committing any crime or violation.

Speaking to reporters about anti-Asian attacks that have occurred around the country, the mayor encouraged people who have “witnessed or experienced any act of hate” to report it. “Even if something is not a criminal case,” the mayor explained, “a perpetrator being confronted by the city, whether it’s NYPD or another agency, and being told that what they’ve done was very hurtful to another person and could if ever repeated, lead to criminal charges, that’s another important piece of the puzzle.”

Asked how the NYPD would confront someone who has done something “hateful” but committed no crime, de Blasio enlarged on his prescription. “One of the things officers are trained to do is to give warnings,” he said. “If someone has done something wrong, but not rising to a criminal level, it’s perfectly appropriate for an NYPD officer to talk to them to say that was not appropriate. . . . I assure you if an NYPD officer calls you or shows up at your door to ask about something that you did, that makes people think twice.”

The mayor did not go into detail about the kind of behavior he was talking about, but we can surmise—since he explicitly stated that it wouldn’t rise to the level of criminality—that it must involve speech. Racial slurs or negative references to racial or ethnic identity, while nasty and rightfully unacceptable in civil society, are generally not prosecutable. Promising to involve the police in pursuing people who make intemperate, obnoxious remarks seems like an odd way to prioritize public-safety concerns.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17189/should-anything-be-off-limits-to-debate

The fact that we even have to ask these questions demonstrates the precarious state of freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas in the cancel culture….

Professors are being fired for private discussions of grades and race. Students are terrified of expressing politically incorrect views, especially about race, sex, sexual orientation and even politics. Even silence is not always an option.

There are several exceptions to this cancel culture rule. You can say almost anything negative about Jews, as evidenced by the recent Grammy awards, during which three overt anti-Semites were honored. These bigots did not even try to disguise their anti-Semitism behind the facade of anti-Zionism.

There has never been a time when respectful and nuanced debate has been more needed, especially about race and other taboo subjects— taboo unless you toe the line of political correctness.

Slate’s decision to suspend Peska strikes a blow against diversity. Yes, diversity! —which includes diversity of views about every issue including how best to deal with racism and how best to achieve equality.

Slate should end Peska’s suspension, apologize to him, and encourage debate about the issue over which he was suspended.

Slate — the online magazine known for its provocative content—has indefinitely suspended one of its star podcasters, Mike Peska, for debating with a colleague, on an inter-office messaging platform, whether it is ever appropriate for a non-Black person to use the N-word in the context of a discussion about race. It is not clear whether in the course of the discussion Peska actually uttered the word itself or just used the term “n-word.”

In defending Slate’s decision, a Black staffer argued that “For Black employees, it’s an extremely small ask to not hear that particular slur and not have debate about whether it’s OK for white employees to use that particular slur.” Not have debate?

Should anything be off limits to debate and discuss? Is this issue not reasonably debatable? Can only Black people debate this issue, as my colleague Randy Kennedy brilliantly did in his book whose title is the actual word—spelled out? Can the issue be discussed in racially mixed classrooms? Should that depend on the race of the teacher? Must a teacher who wants to have such a discussion issue a trigger warning? Is a trigger warning enough? Must he obtain permission from Black students in the class to discuss the use of the word even if the word itself is not uttered? Do these restrictions apply only to this word and only to slurs against Blacks, or do they apply as well to derogatory words against other groups.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/18/watch-rep-byron-donalds-says-bidens-tax-increases-will-hurt-low-income-americans/

Freshman congressman Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., blasted President Biden’s for hinting at tax increases during his recent “Good Morning America” interview Wednesday.

Speaking to Jan Jeffcoat on The National Desk Thursday, Donalds explained why raising taxes hurts even lower-income Americans.

“If you take money away from people, even the quote-unquote rich, what happens is they have less money to spend. If there is less money to spend, there is less money flowing through the economy. If there is less money flowing through the economy — who does that hurt? It hurts middle-income Americans and poor Americans,” Donalds said.