RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2021-6-10-vxt2ve45uejrhg1ika45gx1mtq7

As you may already have learned, on Tuesday a left-leaning website called ProPublica published an article announcing that it had obtained tax returns of “thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people, covering more than 15 years.” The headline of the piece is “The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax.”

If you were still harboring any doubts that the IRS is a criminal enterprise in service of the progressive cause, this should put an end to them.

It is highly doubtful that the IRS has ever really been an organization legitimately engaged in apolitical enforcement of the tax laws. As one major example from the earlier days, the use by FDR of the IRS as a “weapon of political retribution” against the likes of Huey Long and Andrew Mellon (and many others) is well-documented. More recently, you probably recall the Lois Lerner scandal of 2012-13. Lerner was the IRS Director of Exempt Organizations in 2012, during the run-up to the contest where Barack Obama got re-elected. In that role, she oversaw the holding up of routine tax-status approvals of dozens of conservative-leaning issue-advocacy groups, particularly TEA Party groups, thus effectively crippling their fundraising and preventing them from participating effectively in the election. Lerner was caught dead to rights, but was permitted to retire without consequence or penalty in September 2013. In that affair, neither the IRS Commissioner (Koskinen), the Treasury Secretary (Geithner) nor the President (Obama) ever had to answer as to their knowledge or involvement.

And now we have the latest scandal. If this is a leak from within the IRS, it is a crime of great proportions. Is there any other bona fide theory of how these tax confidential tax returns have been disclosed? I have seen only two other theories proposed, neither of which I find plausible: (1) a hack, and (2) a leak from a foreign government (the IRS has certain limited ability to share tax information with foreign governments in furtherance of its mission). To believe the “hack” theory, you would have to believe that the hackers took the time and effort to find and segregate out the tax returns of the “wealthiest people” while scrupulously maintaining the confidentiality of everyone else’s records. I don’t think that’s how hackers work. The foreign government theory would require that every one of the people whose tax returns got released had tax-significant dealings with the same foreign country. Again, that’s not too likely. So I’ll put about a 99% chance on this being a criminal leak from some one or a group of politically-motivated employees at the IRS.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/trump-doj-obtained-data-on-schiff?token=eyJ1c

The Trump Justice Department in 2017 and early 2018 issued subpoenas to Apple to obtain the communications records of at least two Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee, Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Eric Swalwell (D-CA). According to The New York Times, DOJ prosecutors attempting to determine who leaked classified information to the media about Russiagate suspected the two House Democrats were the culprits, and to prove that, they obtained their communications records as well as those of family members, including minor children.

A DOJ leak investigation aimed at sitting members of Congress is highly unusual. Both the Obama and Trump administrations, in a hunt for leakers, created controversy by obtaining the communications records of journalists, including — in the case of the Obama DOJ — the family members of those journalists. But investigating members of the House Intelligence Committee for leaking crimes — as opposed to corruption or other standard criminal charges — can present different dangers. Neither Congressman was charged with any crimes and the investigation reportedly bore no fruit.

The two House Democrats, among the most fanatical disseminators of baseless Russiagate conspiracies and long known to serve as anonymous sources of leaks to liberal media outlets, reacted with predictable outrage. “This baseless investigation, while now closed, is yet another example of Trump’s corrupt weaponization of justice,” Schiff intoned on Thursday night. As difficult as it is, Swalwell, as he often does, found a way to be even more melodramatic than Schiff: “Like many of the world’s most despicable dictators, former President Trump showed an utter disdain for our democracy and the rule of law.”

Investigating possible crimes — such as leaking classified information — is the job of the Justice Department. To accomplish that, FBI agents and prosecutors often obtain personal communications records about their suspects. But invading the communications records of journalists, as both the Obama and Trump DOJ did, can create serious threats to press freedom and the possibility of abuse and retaliation. The same is true for invading the communications records of members of the legislative branch, particularly ones hostile to the president. An investigation is certainly warranted to determine the propriety of these subpoenas.

https://dianebederman.com/pope-fauci-versus-todays-galileo/

“Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science,” cried the infallible Pope Fauci. “All of the things I have spoken about, consistently, from the very beginning, have been fundamentally based on science. Sometimes those things were inconvenient truths for people.”

“Inconvenient truths”, he says, when questioned about the source of the Chinese Virus, the wearing of masks, lockdowns and vaccinations. So sure of himself is this Pope that no one is allowed to disagree, by religious fiat! Ahh another Pope Urban VIII; the Pope who silenced Galileo for the audacity to suggest that the earth was not the centre of the solar system. For those of you uneducated on Galileo versus Pope here is a brief history.

On April 12, 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. This was the second time that Galileo was in the hot seat for refusing to accept Church orthodoxy that the Earth was the immovable center of the universe. The first time was in 1616.

On June 22, 1633, the Church handed down the following order: “We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo… have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world.”  “We order that by a public edict the book of Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited. Galileo agreed not to teach the heresy anymore and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It took more than 300 years for the Church to admit that Galileo was right and to clear his name of heresy.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/10/four-pillars-of-america/

At my alma mater, I was privileged to study The Three Pillars of Zen with Huston Smith, a friend of the author, Roshi Philip Kapleau. Kapleau made it clear in his timeless classic that Zen Buddhism has three pillars. 

Using the idea of pillars as an analytical tool worked wonders for Kapleau. What if we were to follow his example, and ask what are the pillars of the American idea?

Two pillars come instantly to mind: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Even American Progressives would be hard pressed to deny these two are central to the American idea. After all, Progressives have spent more than a century attacking them. They began their project of fundamentally transforming America—that is, putting an end to the founders’ America and replacing it with an all-new Progressive country occupying that part of North America once occupied by the United States—by attacking the principles of the Declaration and setting to work dismantling the Constitution. 

If those two founding documents weren’t at the core of the American idea, why would the Progressives bother expending such an enormous effort to get rid of them? Progressives have been willing to pay an astonishing price of destroying American higher education—and much else—in an attempt to reduce these two founding documents to no more than mere curiosities of America’s early history.

Because of what the Progressives have accomplished, a few remarks about the Constitution and the Declaration are in order. 

They are not what they once were to us. The words are still there, but the nation that once embodied them has been changed away from them. The federal government we have today in America is not the government limited by the Constitution the founders envisioned. Instead, it is precisely the ever-expanding centralized government the founders tried to prevent. We call it “the federal government” though it is no longer “federal” in the founders’ meaning of the term. The 10th Amendment promised Americans the federal government would be a limited government; the great 10th Amendment is a dead letter today. 

To say the government in Washington, D.C. is no longer the government envisioned by Washington and the other founders is to say America no longer uses the Declaration of Independence as its guiding star. After all, the Constitution, great as it is, is properly understood as the founders’ brilliant attempt to design a new form of government according to the principles of the Declaration. To discard the founders’ design is to abandon the founders’ principles.

The Progressives have rejected those principles from the beginning of their effort to transform America. Here is what Woodrow Wilson, the very model of a modern Progressive, thought of the Declaration’s claim that we have unalienable rights:

No doubt a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle . . .

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/06/is_jill_biden_staging_a_little_coup.html

Kamala Harris’s short tenure in the Veep’s office, in its own way, has been even more disastrous than Biden’s equally short tenure in the Oval office. We all knew Biden would be a bumbling fool, but thanks to the power of the pen and the executive orders the radicals on his staff have been writing, he’s been incredibly effective. In six months, he’s dismantled America’s security, economy, and sanity. Meanwhile, Kamala has failed at the one thing for which she was responsible: Bringing control to the border. Now, some are wondering if that failure was orchestrated in the White House and if Mrs. Jill Biden was responsible.

We know that Kamala’s failed: Not only hasn’t she been near the border but she’s also done nothing to change the border status quo. Now, on her first trip out of the country, she’s been insulted and humiliated wherever she’s gone. She’s appeared unprepared, confused, and stupid. It’s embarrassing for America but equally embarrassing for Kamala. Meanwhile, Joe and Jill are basking in the love of European leaders delighted to deal once again with someone who will send American money their way and ask nothing of them.

National Review’s Jim Geraghty thinks that the White House might be forcing failure on Kamala (who’s an easy mark):

On the latest Editors podcast, I floated the somewhat-tongue-in-cheek theory that Joe Biden has set Kamala Harris up to fail, a passive-aggressive form of revenge for her shivving him in that first Democratic presidential-primary debate.

Back in March, Biden announced Harris would “lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border.” He said Harris was “the most qualified person to do it.” She’s actually probably among the least qualified people in the White House to do it, considering almost everyone on the National Security Council has more hands-on experience in international diplomacy and security, and Biden’s domestic team includes Susan Rice. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/why_did_george_w_betray_team_gop.html

“In 2020 I boldly declared that Trump was the only thing standing between our country, the American people, and socialism.  I turned out to be correct,” said George P. Bush in announcing his candidacy for Texas attorney general.

Nearly 75 million Americans agreed, but his uncle, George W. Bush, was not among them.  It is likely that if George W. had said what George P. did, the Democrats could not have “harvested” enough votes to put their man over the top.  But he didn’t.  The result, as George P. pointed out, “was over 30 trillion dollars in total spending and 6 trillion in next year’s annual budget.”  And that is just the fiscal damage.

In the year 2000, some 50 million people elected George W. Bush president.  Despite his failings, almost all hung with him and re-elected him in 2004.  They understood that politics is a team sport.  They may not have loved their captain, but they understood he was better for the country than the other guy.   The sports enthusiast Bush is, one would think he’d get the concept of teamwork.

He did not.  At least, he did not seem to.  In his bestselling campaign book, Battle for the Soul, Edward-Isaac Dovere gives us a glimpse into what Bush was doing and saying to sabotage Trump and betray the millions of Americans who had backed both men during their presidencies.

“The two presidents hadn’t talked much in the months since Obama left office,” writes Dovere of Bush and Barack Obama, “though their staffs, along with Clinton’s and George H.W. Bush’s, were on email chains that featured rapid-fire Trump mocking and consoling one another over the state of the republic.”  As someone who voted for both Bushes, reading this made me cringe.

Dovere cited some choice lines from a speech Bush made in October 2017, hosted by the George W. Bush Institute in New York City.  For those who need a refresher, here is the passage that warmed the hearts of Democrats everywhere:

https://pjmedia.com/columns/philip-carl-salzman/2021/06/11/how-we-came-to-celebrate-racism-once-again-n1453820

While in past centuries, Americans and Canadians held negative and thus racist views of blacks, and discriminated against them, today the official government policy in both countries is that whites should be viewed negatively, and be discriminated against. Rules have been put in place in government offices, in industry, education, media, and throughout to indoctrinate against whites and in favor of “people of color,” as well as to benefit “people of color” and marginalize whites.

To illustrate, here is a brief excerpt from a recent article in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association: “Whiteness is … a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which ‘white’ people have a particular susceptibility. … Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples.” 

Governments, universities, and corporations have mandated that “people of color” get priority in hiring and promotion. Merit, encompassing achievement and potential, is now rejected as a criterion for personnel selection. Skin color is now the primary criterion of worth. 

Minorities are caught up in this racism. The tiny minority of Jewish citizens, who were never considered white until it became a bad thing, are now regarded as hyper-white, having all of the bad qualities of whites (such as Nobel prizes?) and deserving of nouveaux pogroms, in America! Anti-Semitic hate crimes have skyrocketed since the Democrat Party has made street politics popular. Asian Americans, a good-sized minority, made the mistake of being the most successful category economically and professionally. For this, they have been designated “white-adjacent” and condemned to be criticized and excluded for achieving more than their “fair share.”