RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16644/fbi-militias-comey

Is it possible that the militia story [about planning to kidnap the governor of Michigan] is another contrived, anti-Trump, smear job by elements within the FBI?

Current FBI Director Christopher Wray hardly engenders confidence as a strong leader bent on cleaning house and reforming a corrupt agency that attempted a soft coup against the presidency. Wray is all about damage control and institutional preservation. When it comes to honesty, Wray does not have a tough act to follow.

The FBI’s reputation has been destroyed through blatant politicization. Here are the corrupt political police: Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Clinesmith, Pientka, Brower, Baker, et al. That is a collection of various dirty cops, oath-breakers, coup-plotters, and persons “lacking candor” in FBI parlance.

Of course, the presumption of innocence is foundational to our system of justice. Comey’s living legacy, and the permanent institutional stain on the FBI more generally, is that we cannot take the Bureau’s claims as truthful. We used to give due credence to sworn Special Agents of the FBI. No more.

In the past few days, news reports have alerted us to an FBI claim that a militia group was planning to kidnap the governor of Michigan. The Detroit Free Press wrote:

“Thirteen members of an anti-government group bent on igniting a civil war are charged in a plot to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who the group targeted in a possible commando raid on the state capitol, according to newly unsealed court records.

“Authorities said Thursday that the Wolverine Watchmen group planned on storming either the capitol or Whitmer’s vacation home as part of a broader mission to instigate a civil war.”

Half of the country does not believe the FBI. Is it possible that the militia story is another contrived, anti-Trump, smear job by elements within the FBI? If the FBI headquarters can run a coup against the president, can Michigan FBI agents phony-up some charges against fringe characters with sketchy criminal information?

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/stop-being-shocked

Can you believe …?

Perhaps no question has been repeated more times in reaction to more events this year than that one.

The most recent major outrage in the Jewish community, now several news cycles behind us, came on the Shabbat before Yom Kippur—the holiest day in the Jewish calendar—when many American Jews seemed dumbfounded by what was to me predictable news: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, progressive superstar, had pulled out of an event honoring Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister assassinated because of his efforts to make peace with the Palestinians. Rabin was, as Bill Clinton said at his funeral, “a martyr for his nation’s peace.”

Many Jews were shocked. If Rabin, the symbol of progressive Zionism, is out of bounds, are any Israelis acceptable? What about the 95% of Jews who support the Jewish state? Why would the congresswoman from the Bronx—representing the political party to which upward of 70% of American Jews have been consistently loyal—possibly do such a thing?

Perhaps, having previously admitted that she was “not the expert in geopolitics on this issue,” she didn’t know who Rabin was? That had to be it. Or maybe it was the fault of the Jewish community: Surely if she was introduced to the stable of Haaretz columnists she’d come around. After all, didn’t AOC say she had Sephardic heritage? Did she not realize it was Mandy Patinkin—Mandy Patinkin! International Rescue Committee ambassador!—who was hosting the event? She must not have understood. Surely there must be some confusion. Some miscommunication. Some mix-up.

But it wasn’t AOC who was mixed up. The savvy politician had read the room and was sending a clear signal about who belongs in the new progressive coalition and who does not. The confusion—and there seems to be a good deal of it these days—is among American Jews who think that by submitting to ever-changing loyalty tests they can somehow maintain the old status quo and their place inside of it.

Did you see that the Ethical Culture Fieldston School hosted a speaker that equated Israelis with Nazis? Did you know that Brearley is now asking families to write a statement demonstrating their commitment to “anti-racism”? Did you see that Chelsea Handler tweeted a clip of Louis Farrakhan? Did you see that protesters tagged a synagogue in Kenosha with “Free Palestine” graffiti? Did you hear about the march in D.C. where they chanted “Israel, we know you, you murder children too”? Did you see that Twitter suspended Bret Weinstein’s civic organization but still allows the Iranian ayatollah to openly promote genocide of the Jewish people? Did you see that Mayor Bill de Blasio scapegoated “the Jewish community” for the spread of COVID in New York, while defending mass protests on the grounds that this is a “historic moment of change”?

Listen, it’s been a hell of a year. We all have a lot going on, much of it unnerving and some of it dire. Moreover, many of these stories only surface on places like Twitter; they don’t make it into the pages of The New York Times or your friends’ Facebook feeds, which is where most Americans get their news these days. Reporters don’t cover these stories adequately, contextualizing them, telling readers which ones are true and which ones aren’t, which ones matter and which ones don’t.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/14/in-minneapolis-rage-and-fear-have-hobbled-a-great-american-city/

The one-two punch of riots over George Floyd’s death and shutdowns over the pandemic have taken a terrible toll on the City of Lakes.

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. — The intersection in south Minneapolis where George Floyd died in police custody on May 25 has become a quasi-religious shrine. It is a shrine not just to Floyd, who is honored here as if he were a saint or a martyr, but to the political power of the Black Lives Matter movement and the ascendency of the radical left in this city.

The intersection and the neighborhood around it have been “occupied” for months now. To get to the memorial—or “George Square,” as it’s now called—you must approach on foot. For a block in every direction, the streets are closed to traffic, barricaded by concrete roadblocks and makeshift chevaux de frise. Behind the roadblocks, plywood shields are stacked up next to a tent and an outhouse.

A young man in a pink sweater and green hair greets me as I approach. He informs me that it is Indigenous Peoples Day (formerly Columbus Day), and that there is a healing circle for indigenous peoples underway at the intersection next to the memorial. I am not allowed to take pictures of them, he says. By what authority he orders me not to take pictures, he doesn’t say. So I take pictures.

The memorial itself is a 15-foot black fist erected in the middle of the intersection of East 38th Street and Chicago Avenue, festooned roundabout with flowers and signs and graffiti and flags. Every conceivable surface, from the streets and sidewalks and light poles to the buildings and bus shelters and the abandoned Speedway gas station on the corner, is covered in graffiti and posters and overlapping murals.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/10/judge-barrett-bibles-requisite-righteous-judge/

With the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, the nation is once again embroiled in its recurring conflict over what judicial approach should animate our courts. 

Judge Barrett exemplifies the originalist approach, which dominated most of American history, where the U.S. Constitution’s text and its original meaning and intent determine outcomes. Those on the left, advocates of a judicial activism rooted in the era of FDR, continually push for justices who view the Constitution more as an expedient to maneuver toward a liberal social and political agenda, a malleable, “living” document submissive to their vision of how society should look and operate.

Because the Bible produced many of the themes and structure found later in the Constitution, and our Founders saw in it a model for a constitutional society, it may be worthwhile to observe what it says about judges and jurisprudence. The Bible clearly enunciates a conservative, originalist approach to justice.

In Leviticus 19:15, Scripture declares that a judge must not social engineer decisions. “You shall not be unrighteous in judgment, neither in favor of the poor or the mighty.” Righteousness is applying the law, not implementing one’s own political or social activism of what should be. In the Rose Garden last week, Judge Barrett affirmed that biblical principle. When speaking earlier at a different occasion, Judge Barrett, a conservative protegee of Justice Antonin Scalia, affirmed: “I totally reject the proposition that the end justifies the means or that a judge should decide the law or twist it in any way to match the judge’s convictions”.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/barrett-obamacare-and-severability-again/

Democrats don’t have much chance of derailing Barrett’s nomination, so they might as well use the high-profile hearings to campaign.
C learly, a big issue in Day Two of the Barrett confirmation hearings is the Obamacare case before the Supreme Court. Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) began the day by drawing out the nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, on the Court’s doctrine of severability.

Here’s why it’s important.

Democrats are claiming that President Trump and Republicans are trying to rush Judge Barrett onto the Court in time for her to rule on Texas v. California, a challenge to the Affordable Care Act that the justices will hear on November 10 — a week after Election Day. As I’ve repeatedly observed, it is a weak challenge, not remotely as strong as the original challenges to the ACA that the Court nevertheless rejected. Yet President Trump directed his Justice Department to join Texas and the other states who are arguing that the ACA must be invalidated.

They theorize that because the individual mandate has been “zeroed out,” it no longer qualifies as a tax and must be invalidated, since its being a tax was the basis on which the Court upheld it in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). Extravagantly, and far more dubiously, the states joined by the Trump administration contend that, because the mandate was so central to the ACA, the invalidation of the mandate necessitates the invalidation of the entire, extensive ACA statutory scheme (which includes some popular provisions, particularly coverage of people with preexisting conditions).

https://amgreatness.com/2020/10/13/covid-crimes-against-humanity/

If Chris Hayes and the Democrats want some sort of coronavirus tribunal for crimes against humanity, bring it on.

For once, I agree with MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes.

In an October 5 tweet, Hayes suggested the need for “some kind of truth and reconciliation commission” to hold accountable the politicians and experts who mishandled the coronavirus pandemic. 

Hayes, no doubt, had in mind the president and Republican governors such as Florida’s Ron DeSantis and South Dakota’s Kristi Noem, who have bucked the credentialed class’ ever-changing diktats on the never-ending crisis.

Hayes is right—just not for the reasons he imagines. 

As the dust settles on one of the most destructive man-made events in history—it’s hard to think of an appropriate comparison aside from war—the grim reality of what a handful of people inflicted on the world is coming into clear view. And there is no question that the perpetrators of this catastrophe should bear responsibility.

While cable news fixates on the numbers of deaths and reported cases, other heartbreaking statistics go largely unnoticed by pundits and journalists who now think mask-shaming amounts to hard core reporting on the crisis. It’s been 216 days since Americans were asked to make extreme and unprecedented sacrifices to “flatten the curve” of the expected COVID-19 caseload. This two-week suspension of daily activities, which included going to school and operating businesses, was intended to protect frontline health care workers. “We’re all in this together,” we were assured. Horrifying scenes from China and Italy acted as powerful warnings of what could happen if we did not submit.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/why-left-hates-religion-don-feder/

Americans remain the most religious people in the industrialized world: 87% believe in God, two-thirds say they’re Christians, and 45% attend religious services at least once a month (23% weekly).

One political party supports their worldview, the other disdains it. One views religion as an ally, the other as an adversary.

That wasn’t always the case.

Traditionally, the Democrat Party – the party of Al Smith, FDR and JFK – was at least respectful of religion. Roosevelt regularly used religious imagery to bolster morale during World War II, as he did in his famous D-Day Prayer.

The modern Democrat party – the party of Biden, Bernie and Kamala – is increasingly hostile to religion, depicting it as a force for repression and a danger to democracy.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/libertarian-betrayal-bruce-bawer/

Don’t laugh, but once upon a time I was so naïve that I thought libertarians were really about liberty.

I even thought that they had an important raison d’être. Back in the day when some of us were uneasy both with GOP preaching on social issues and with Democrat statism, the libertarians seemed to offer a sensible place in between. I also remember having the impression that, even if you disagreed with them on some issues, at least they were ideologically consistent, which meant that they were principled.

But then I met some libertarians. I liked and respected a few. But others proved to be world-class oddballs, misfits, potheads, and crackpots. If they weren’t hatching plans for independent countries built on abandoned oil rigs, they were writing mad, elaborate political manifestos that seemed to have zero to do with liberty. And some were well-nigh indistinguishable from your standard-issue leftist, like the self-described “bleeding-heart anarchist” and “libertarian socialist” (!) whose savage review of The Victims’ Revolution, my 2012 critique of identity studies, in Reason, the libertarians’ flagship rag, could have been written by any multicultural academic.  

People used to write pieces asserting that most Americans were really libertarians but didn’t realize it. Some even said we were approaching a “libertarian moment” when this silent majority would finally take over. But I eventually came to see that while libertarians were thick on the ground in Washington, D.C., they had few constituents outside the Beltway – aside, that is, from the corporations that paid their think tanks to spew out principled-sounding arguments for policies that would line their pockets. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-afraid-of-amy-coney-barrett-11602629853?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

The Senate confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett may lack for political drama, but they are still instructive. They are revealing the deep fault lines over the Supreme Court, and how Democrats view it as a mini-legislature to achieve policy goals, rather than a real judicial body.

Democrats are asking very little about the actual law or Judge Barrett’s jurisprudential thinking. Instead, one after another, Democrats have used their time to focus on a parade of policy horribles if she is confirmed. And for emotional effect, they brought along photo displays of children and women who would supposedly be her victims on health care, abortion, gun violence and more.

All of this distorts the role of a judge, who has to rule based on what the law is, not on what she would want it to be. “Judges can’t just wake up one day and say ‘I have an agenda. I like guns. I hate guns. I like abortion, I hate abortion’ and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” Judge Barrett said Tuesday. But that is lost on Democrats, who are treating the hearings like a campaign rally.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/13/will-all-the-name-brand-people-who-pushed-the-russian-collusion-conspiracy-get-off-scot-free/

The Russian collusion hoax has fallen apart more every day. And we haven’t heard a word of comment from any of the people responsible for pushing it and helping fracture this country.

A year ago, the story dominating headlines was the allegation that President Donald Trump had colluded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election. The idea of impeaching President Trump due to these allegations was gathering steam, with accusations from elected officials and beyond that the president of the United States was a Russian puppet, a Manchurian candidate installed by Vladimir Putin, and even an agent of a hostile foreign power for the last 30 years.

You don’t need to be a fan of Trump to be outraged about the Russian collusion conspiracy. But it’s a mark against your patriotism, your judgement, or your intellect if you aren’t. Beyond just being perhaps the most defining political scandal of our time, the hoax gets under my skin because I fell for it. And I’m enormously angry for having been duped.

Now that this narrative has been proven false and possibly influenced by actual Russian disinformation, it is time to revisit how it was created and dominated U.S. politics for so long, as well as demand justice for its perpetrators.