RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://nypost.com/2020/10/16/de-blasios-big-effort-to-push-mccray-into-politics-fizzles-out/?utm_campaign=ipad_nyp&utm_source=mail_app

Mayor Bill de Blasio spared no expense to burnish the image of his wife, Chirlane McCray — but like many of his big bucks plans it all came to nothing.

Hizzoner’s effort to use millions in tax payer money to make McCray a political star came crashing down this week when the city’s First Lady changed course and declared she would not run for Brooklyn Borough President.

Throughout his time in office de Blasio set McCray up to follow in the family’s politics biz, including giving her a staff that in recent years grew to a size larger than any First Lady’s in recent memory.

The McCray team had a $2 million payroll, and as recently as August included a chief-of-staff, senior adviser, speechwriter and a videographer.  At one point civil rights activist and political heavy hitter Rachel Nordlinger was McCray’s top lieutenant.

Hoping to give her a huge feather in her cap, de Blasio also made his wife the face of City Hall’s much-ballyhooed ThriveNYC mental health initiative in November 2015.

But the program has burned through an estimated $1 billion, while being blasted for showing little success in helping the needy.

http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com

A desire for more power for themselves and the state, identity politics and unadulterated hatred for Mr. Trump, have driven common sense into the nether regions of the progressive mind. The Oxford English Dictionary defines common sense as “good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.” It is, as Harriet Beecher Stowe put it, “seeing things as they are,” not as we might like them to be. It is, according to Thomas Edison, an imperative quality: “The three essentials to achieve anything are: first, hard work; second, stick-to-itiveness; third, common sense.” A lack of common sense infects all issues, from the economy, to climate, to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is the effect of a lack of common sense regarding COVID-19 and reactions to it that concerns this essay.

We have always lived in a politicized world, but we now live in one made more pervasive by the advent of the internet and social media. Attitudes toward masks have become flashpoints in the battle against COVID-19. It is said that opinions regarding masks differentiate Democrats from Republicans. Perhaps, but it sounds too simplistic. I do believe, however, that one can distinguish the individual who abrogates rational behavior to a political narrative. A friend wears a mask when driving alone in his car, but unlike many on the left he is honest as to his reason. He admits the purpose is to send a signal that he cares – not to protect himself or others against the virus – but a sign of his righteousness. But he ignores risks to his health; for, no matter how “woke” he may feel, we all need the fresh air an open car window provides. Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson, a German Consultant Neurologist and Neurophysiologist is quoted: “We know that the human brain is very sensitive to oxygen deprivation. There are nerve cells, for example, in the hippocampus that can’t be longer than three minutes without oxygen – they cannot survive.” It is an opinion that resonates common sense. Yet, Mr. Trump is ridiculed for removing his mask, when ten or twenty feet from others, while Mr. Biden has spoken of imposing a nation-wide mask-wearing mandate.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/15/scott_atlas_the_other_doctor_on_the_covid_task_force_144448.html

Dr. Scott W. Atlas joined the president’s coronavirus task force in August, but after two months, he has yet to sit for a photo shoot or throw out a first pitch or inspire a single artisanal cocktail. No one has impersonated him on “Saturday Night Live” either, and there certainly isn’t any grassroots campaign to get him nominated as People magazine’s “Sexiest Man Alive.”

Although he has a medical degree from the University of Chicago, Atlas is the other doctor, and he knows it. “I’m not here to make friends. Okay?” he tells RealClearPolitics in a rare interview. “I’m here to help the president save American lives. Period.”

Every other member of the commission would say the same. Combating the coronavirus is the whole point, and saving lives through disease mitigation and prevention remains their goal. But Atlas, a neuro-radiologist and senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, has different ideas about how to beat COVID-19. He says publicly that children do not frequently spread the virus. He questions the efficacy of mask mandates. He condemns lockdowns as not just ineffective but deeply destructive.

In short, Atlas is a walking/talking ambassador for Trump’s the-cure-can’t-be-worse-than-the-disease argument. Those views and his proximity to an impressionable president, critics argue, make Atlas a public health threat. Hence, his unpopularity in some circles.

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).