RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/congressman-al-green-forces-impeachment-vote/

On Tuesday night, after the House voted to condemn as racist President Trump’s recent tweets about four Democratic congresswomen, Democratic congressman Al Green of Texas introduced an impeachment resolution.

“There will be a vote,” Green said Tuesday night. “There will be a vote to either table [it], send it to committee, or allow it to go forward.”

Green’s impeachment resolution doesn’t say anything about the Mueller investigation or Russia. It is solely focused on Trump’s comments about immigrants and the bigoted comments directed toward four Democratic congresswomen.

Green’s impeachment resolution states: 

In maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high misdemeanors committed as president, constituting harm to American society, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Article 1, the House of Representatives on July 16, 2019 strongly condemned President Donald Trump’s racist comments that have legitimatized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color by saying that our fellow Americans who are immigrants and those who may look to the president like immigrants, should go back to other countries, by referring to immigrants and asylum seekers as invaders. And by saying that members of Congress who are immigrants or those of our colleagues who are wrongly assumed to be immigrants, do not belong in Congress or in the United States of America.

In all of this, the aforementioned Donald John Trump has by his statement, brought the high office of the President of the United States in contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and disrepute, has sown seeds of discord among the people of the United States, has demonstrated that he is unfit to be president and has betrayed his trust as President of the United States to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. And has committed a high misdemeanor in office.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/mark-esper-headed-for-quick-confirmation-after-acing-largely-bipartisan-senate-hearing

Mark Esper, President Trump’s fallback nominee to head the Defense Department, did everything he needed to do yesterday to win quick and easy confirmation. With one notable exception (more on that below), he cruised effortlessly through his 2 hour, 45 minute hearing before the Armed Services Committee, telling the senators just what they wanted to hear, reassuring them he would work on their concerns, and generally showing a deep understanding of the issues facing the U.S. military.

For the most part the hearing was a bipartisan lovefest, beginning with the introduction of the nominee by Democratic former vice presidential candidate Sen. Tim Kaine, who compared Esper to Jim Mattis, the widely-respected previous defense secretary, who resigned last December over policy differences with the president.

“Most of us were very discouraged by the resignation of Secretary Mattis. And what we’ve hoped for is a successor who could show the same level of candor and principle and a willingness to remain independent even in the most challenging circumstances,” Kaine said at the start of the hearing. “I believe that Dr. Esper has those traits.”

IN THE MOLD OF MATTIS: Though lacking Mattis’ résumé as a decorated general and legendary commander, Esper does have a solid military background, having spent 10 years on active duty and another 11 years in the Guard. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, he served as an infantry officer with the Army’s 101st Airborne Division.

And while Esper was not exactly a protégé of Mattis, he has adopted his positions, including Mattis’s three “lines of effort” to move the Pentagon into the 21st century, namely to build a more lethal force, strengthen alliances, and reform the Pentagon to free up resources.

Michigan Democrat Gary Peters asked Esper point-blank, “Would you be a secretary of defense with views more aligned with Secretary Mattis or more aligned with President Trump?”

“I don’t know where to pick between the two,” Esper said, “but clearly I shared Secretary Mattis’ views and I’ve expressed that publicly.” Pressed by Peters about whether he might also consider resigning on principle if asked to support a policy counter to his values, Esper said, “Absolutely,” adding “In the Army, I grew up with this view that you’re asked to do anything that is illegal, or immoral, or unethical, then that would be the point at which you have to consider resignation and you’d be willing to do that.”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/15/stefan_halpers_wages_of_spying.html

Stefan Halper, the shadowy Cambridge academic who may have helped the FBI spy on the Trump campaign, was paid more than $1 million by a U.S. agency for research papers of dubious value, according to a new government report. But even as it shed new light on Halper’s work, the report left unanswered central questions about his Trump-Russia role and raised new ones about the circuitous winds on which Washington dollars manage to fly out the window.

In the months leading up to the 2016 election, Halper famously approached and questioned – sometimes amiably, sometimes aggressively — two men who became linchpins of the now-debunked Trump-Russia conspiracy theories: George Papadopoulos, whose supposed knowledge of Russian “dirt” on Hillary Clinton allegedly sparked the FBI’s official probe of the Trump campaign, and Carter Page, whose Russian connections led the Department of Justice to wiretap him.

The report, completed by the Department of Defense inspector general, does not address Halper’s interaction with Papadopoulos and Page, nor does it question or answer whether Halper was a spy, a confidential human source, or just a curious professor. But it makes clear that Halper signed his richest contract award with the Department of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment — $411,575 for two studies on China’s economy — on Sept. 26, 2016, around the time Halper was meeting with Page and Papadopoulos.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/deranged-leftists-surround-lone-conservative-outside-aurora-ice-facility-youre-a-fcking-btch/

Unhinged, profanity-spewing, anti-American agitators verbally abused a conservative activist over the weekend when she took a stand outside the Colorado ICE facility where protesters took down the American flag and replaced it with a Mexican flag. “You’re a “f*cking b*tch!” one protester screamed in the conservative’s face. “You’re a stupid-ass, privileged-ass b*tch!”

In addition to taking down Old Glory on Friday, protesters participating in the “March to Close Concentration Camps” in Aurora, also wrote “Abolish ICE” on a “Blue Lives Matter” flag and hoisted it upside down next to the Mexican flag.

According to Denver-based political pundit Ashley StClair, members of Aurora’s City Council were in attendance when the leftists replaced the American flag with the Mexican flag.

Ashley StClair @stclairashley
“As if the situation at Aurora ICE couldn’t get any worse, members of Aurora City Council were in attendance while the US flag was being replaced with the Mexico flag. These elected officials watched silently as deranged protestors disrespected our flag, troops, & law enforcement.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/jihadist_evil_unites_with_leftist_evil.html

The Left has historically despised Jews, Judaism, Zionism, and Israel.  So it is quite ironic that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez employs the language of the Holocaust in discussing open borders where illegals are coming in by the thousands. Not only does she besmirch the memory of those who were murdered for being Jewish, she displays an abysmal ignorance of the horror of the Holocaust.

But she is emblematic of the fact that “two-thirds of American millennials surveyed in a recent poll cannot identify what Auschwitz is.” Thus, “according to a study released on Holocaust Remembrance Day… knowledge of the genocide that killed 6 million Jews during World War II is not robust among American adults.” And this lack of education is not limited to America.

So this historically ignorant woman bandies words like concentration camps with zero comprehension of what she is saying.  The abuse of language and the distortion of historical events is standard operating practice among Leftists, who simply do not care about facts and credible sources as they clamor for illegal aliens to flood our borders to shore up their own political base. 

For if they are truly troubled about victims, they are strangely mute when it comes to speaking on behalf of the Yazidis and the Christians who are being slaughtered by Muslims throughout the world.  But these beleaguered groups do not advance the Left’s agenda of destroying America.

I refuse to use the acronym AOC since it elevates this woman’s status.  The photo-ops of Ocasio-Cortez’s faux anger and angst camouflage her true nature.  The drama queen claims to be “the boss” as she displays her craven arrogance.  She ignores that these illegals are choosing to come to America — whereas Jews and others deemed “unfit to live” were rounded up by the Nazis and herded into concentration/extermination camps where they were slaves and ultimately gassed and burnt.  But as Kevin D. Williamson has written “[t]he Jews can be whatever their enemies need them to be.”

From: Beto O’Rourke

Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019, 9:22:19 PM EDT
Subject: Rose and Eliza

I was recently given documents showing that both Amy and I are descended from people who owned slaves. Along with other possessions listed in their property log were two human beings, Rose and Eliza.

A paternal great-great-great grandfather of mine, Andrew Cowan Jasper, owned these two women in the 1850s. There are also records showing that a maternal great-great-great grandfather, Frederick Williams, most likely owned slaves in the 1860s (“most likely,” because we are not certain that the Frederick Williams who is my ancestor and the Frederick Williams who owned slaves are the same person, but there’s enough circumstantial data to lead me to conclude that it’s likely).

Records also showed that Amy had an ancestor who owned slaves and another who was a member of the Confederate Army.

Something that we’ve been thinking about and talking about in town hall meetings and out on the campaign — the legacy of slavery in the United States — now has a much more personal connection.

Ownership of other human beings conferred advantages not just to Andrew Jasper and Frederick Williams, but to Jasper’s and Williams’ descendants as well. They were able to build wealth on the backs and off the sweat of others, wealth that they would then be able to pass down to their children and their children’s children. In some way, and in some form, that advantage would pass through to me and my children.

That those enslaved Americans owned by my ancestors were denied their freedom, denied the ability to amass wealth, denied full civil rights in America after slavery also had long term repercussions for them and their descendants.

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

“The most important thing to keep in mind about reparations is that it is never going to happen.No Congress is going to pass, and no President is going to sign, a bill that takes money from the great majority of American voters to pay a debt they don’t feel they owe.” Thomas Sowell “Risks of Slave Reparations Campaign” aUGUST 4, 2001                                                                                     

Periodically, the issue of reparations resurfaces, brought on not by those who might stand to gain, but by politicians who see political advantage in issues that never come to fruition, like immigration or climate, neither of which they would like to resolve, as long as they serve a higher purpose – their re-election.

Slavery was the blemish on our founding. Most of the Founding Fathers understood that. Nevertheless, the decision made was to proceed with unification of thirteen separate states under a Constitution and Bill of Rights to which all attendees agreed. Was it perfect? No, because it allowed the practice of slavery to continue. But liberty was the essence of our founding. It was understood by the Founders that at some point a Civil War would have to be fought, but they wanted to delay that inevitability until the Union had solidified into a unified and respected country. They knew it would have to be able to withstand the rending of its heart, which a civil war would cause. As the first half of the 19thCentury advanced, it became obvious that the cancer that was slavery did not fit a country whose values were based on individual freedom. The abolitionist movement grew stronger and advocates of slavery more isolated. It was felt that if the curse of slavery persisted it would mean dissolution of the union. But if it were abolished the union would be preserved, even though the cost would be high and the time for healing long.

In 1775, slavery was to be found in most of the northern states. As late as 1820, there were still an estimated 20,000 slaves in New York. But by 1860, slavery had been abolished in the north. Virginia had fewer slaves in that year than they did in 1820. It was not that they had been freed but were sold to cotton plantations in the deep south. And, while northerners railed against slavery, some were conflicted. For example, cotton brokers in New York became wealthy selling the slave-produced commodity to buyers in England.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/15/john-roberts-citizenship-decision-legally-politically-corrupt/

Are we a nation of laws or a nation of men? Previously, the most radically leftist federal judges had failed this test on cases pertaining to the Trump administration. Now the highest court in the land has joined them.

The fight over whether the simple question, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” could appear on the 2020 U.S. census already implicated major issues of public policy, including immigration, national sovereignty, and voting rights. But the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the matter has now transcended these issues to challenge the rule of law itself, once again raising the question: Who is really “violating norms,” “undermining institutions” and creating “constitutional crises”—President Trump, or his Resisters?

The majority opinion in Department of Commerce v. New York, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, reads like former FBI director James Comey’s infamous statement regarding former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s email server. It presents a methodical, compelling case that should result in a just decision, only to undo the case on the most baseless of grounds.

It’s Constitutional, But We Don’t Care

Roberts’ opinion affirms that including a question about citizenship in the decennial census is constitutional, writing that the “Enumeration Clause…permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary [of Commerce], to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire.” It affirms that the process by which it was to be reinstated was “reasonable, and reasonably explained,” consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). That should have been the end of it.

As Justice Clarence Thomas put it in a separate opinion: “Our only role in this case is to decide whether the Secretary complied with the law and gave a reasoned explanation for his decision. The Court correctly answers these questions in the affirmative…That ought to end our inquiry.”

But just as Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s finding of “no collusion” did not end his inquiry into obstruction, in the case of the census citizenship question, the Supreme Court soldiered on in its farcical quest. Stealing defeat from the jaws of victory for the Constitution and the country, Roberts said that in spite of the census citizenship question’s lawfulness, the Trump administration could not ask it.