RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/trending/judge-jeanine-drops-bold-new-book-radicals-resistance-and-revenge/

“Donald Trump.”

The mere mention of the name makes liberals go apoplectic. It makes the media lose its collective mind. It’s like Voldemort in Harry Potter combined with Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984 – to the left, Trump’s the name that must not be mentioned, but when it is it must be scorned and hated. “Orange man bad!”

The very thought of a Trump presidency drove some Americans mad. It sparked FBI agents to create an “insurance policy” that now looks very much like a conspiracy against an American presidential candidate and – after he won – the sitting President of the United States. That “Russia Russia Russia!” conspiracy cost millions of taxpayer dollars and spilled billions of pixels, and in the end proved to be a hoax.

There was no collusion between Donald Trump, or anyone in his orbit, or any American at all, and the Russians to impact the 2016 election. None.

Judge Jeanine Pirro is out with a blockbuster of a book that investigates the Russia hoax. Radicals, Resistance and Revenge: The Left’s Plot to Remake America blows up Russia gate with a deep dive into the deep state.

Pirro opens with a crushing blow: Russiagate came up empty!

“So, the special counsel comes out with its thirty-four indictments and a final report. None of the indictments involved Donald Trump, his family, the Trump campaign, or any American, for that matter, colluding with Russia. There was full cooperation by the White House, which never claimed executive privilege and handed over more than one million documents…If after two years, 19 prosecutors, 40 investigators, more than 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants, several grand juries, and $34 million spent there was not a scintilla of evidence to the collusion claim, whose idea was it to start the investigation and why?”

https://freebeacon.com/issues/tom-cotton-discusses-his-new-book-sacred-duty/

Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) discussed his new book Sacred Duty about his time serving in “The Old Guard” and honoring fallen American soldiers during an appearance on Fox News’s Fox & Friends on Monday.

“One of the most meaningful things I’ve done is serving in the military, and if I wasn’t serving in Iraq or Afghanistan leading troops in combat, I can’t think of anything more meaningful than serving at Arlington National Cemetery with The Old Guard honoring our nation’s fallen heroes and everything they mean to America,” Cotton said.

Created in 1784, The Old Guard is the oldest regiment in the army and has been the army’s official ceremonial unit since 1948. The regiment sometimes performs more than 20 funerals per day. They also jumped into action after the Pentagon was hit on 9/11.

“On 9/11, when American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon, funerals continued to go on, but The Old Guard also rushed down to the Pentagon to help provide military aid and security on that site. In a way it became the first army unit to deploy to a new battlefield in the war on terrorism,” Cotton said.

“For the first 170 years before The Old Guard came to Arlington in 1948, they were serving on the front lines of almost every war, all the way up to World War II. The story of The Old Guard’s history is kind of the story of America as a nation,” Cotton added.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ball-of-collusion-book-excerpt-bogus-story-that-launched-collusion-probe/

A minor functionary’s farcical encounter with a self-promoting schemer provided the excuse for an investigation.

Editor’s note: Andrew C. McCarthy’s new book is Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency. This is the fourth in a series of excerpts; the first can be read here, the second here, and the third here.

The George Papadopoulos Origin Story has never added up. It has been portrayed as the Big Bang, the Magic Moment that started the FBI’s investigation of “collusion” — a suspected election-theft conspiracy between Donald Trump’s campaign and Vladimir Putin’s regime. But if the young energy-sector analyst had actually emerged in early 2016 as the key to proving Trump–Russia espionage, you would think the FBI might have gotten around to interviewing him before January 27, 2017 — i.e., a week after President Trump had been inaugurated, and six months after the Bureau formally opened its “Crossfire Hurricane” probe.

You would probably also think Papadopoulos, Suspect One in The Great Cyber Espionage Attack on Our Democracy, might have rated a tad more than the whopping 14-day jail sentence a federal judge eventually imposed on him. You might even suppose that he’d have been charged with some seditious felony involving clandestine operations against his own country, instead of . . . yes . . . fibbing to the FBI about the date of a meeting.

That, however, does not scratch the surface. We are to believe that what led to the opening of the FBI’s Trump–Russia investigation, and what therefore is the plinth of the collusion narrative, is a breakfast meeting at a London hotel on April 26, 2016, between Papadopoulos and Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic we are supposed to take for a clandestine Russian agent. We are to take Papadopoulos’s word for it that Mifsud claimed Russia possessed “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands” of “emails of Clinton.” We are further to believe that “the professor” elaborated that, in order to help Donald Trump’s candidacy, the Kremlin would release these “emails of Clinton” at a time chosen to do maximum damage to the Democratic nominee’s campaign.

The story is based on no credible evidence. If it were ever presented to a jury, it would be laughed out of court.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ball-of-collusion-book-excerpt-election-legitimate-only-if-democrats-win/

Democrats scoffed at charges of ‘election rigging’ until they needed an excuse for Hillary Clinton’s unexpected defeat.

Editor’s note: Andrew C. McCarthy’s new book is Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency. This is the third in a series of excerpts; the first can be read here and the second here.

‘Horrifying!”

As we’ve seen, candidates can get chirpy at final presidential debates less than three weeks from Election Day, and Hillary Clinton was no exception. What “horror” had her inveighing so? The very thought that her Republican rival would question the legitimacy of the presidential election.

Donald Trump being Donald Trump, he wouldn’t budge. He would not pledge to accept the election results a priori. Okay, no, Trump didn’t use the phase a priori. But he did speculate that the electoral process could be rigged. Until he saw how it played out, the Republican nominee said, he could not concede that the outcome would be on the up-and-up.

First, he reaffirmed an allegation for which he’d already been roundly condemned: Foreigners could swing the election — specifically, “millions” of ineligible voters, an allusion to illegal immigration, the piñata of Trump’s campaign. Second, he complained about the gross one-sidedness of the media’s campaign coverage: scathing when it came to him, and between inattentive and fawning when it came to his opponent, whose considerable sins were airbrushed away. Third, he claimed there was deep corruption: Clinton, he maintained, should not have been permitted to run, given the evidence of felony misconduct uncovered in her email scandal. Instead of prosecuting her, law-enforcement agencies of the Democratic administration bent over backwards to give her a pass, and congressional Democrats closed ranks around her, conducting themselves in committee hearings more like her defense lawyers than like investigators searching for the truth.

A flabbergasted Clinton responded that she was shocked — horrified — to hear Trump “talking down our democracy” this way. This was a top theme in her campaign’s closing days: The election was absolutely legitimate; Trump was traitorously condemnable for refusing to say so.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ball-of-collusion-book-excerpt-democrats-true-election-meddlers/

They have tried to influence elections in Russia and Israel, and have sought the Russians’ help to get elected here.

Editor’s note: Andrew C. McCarthy’s new book is Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency. This is the second in a series of excerpts.

NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE

‘T he 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”

Thus spoke President Barack Obama just a couple of weeks before Election Day 2012. With the race still thought to be tight, he had come to the candidates’ final debate loaded for bear. Earlier in the campaign, his Republican rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, had had the temerity to pronounce that Russia was, “without question, our number-one geopolitical foe.” The incumbent president regarded this as an absurd anachronism. So that night, he brought the snark. Hadn’t anyone informed Romney that “the Cold War’s been over for 20 years”?

Obama tut-tutted that this Republican nostalgia for the foreign policy of the 1980s was of a piece with the GOP’s desire to revive the “social policy of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.” Yes, that was your Democratic-party standard-bearer, what seems like only yesterday. No longer was this the party of Harry Truman and Jack Kennedy. To Obama-era Democrats, arguing that Russia was a real threat, that it longed for a return to Soviet hegemony, was akin to calling for the return of Jim Crow and the adoption of protectionist practices that helped ignite the Great Depression.

But then Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, and Democrats decided they’d best return that call from the 1980s after all. It turns out Russia — the Russia against whose serial aggressions Obama took little meaningful action throughout his eight years in office — really is our Numero Uno geopolitical foe. Turns out the Cold War isn’t “so last century.” Since November 8, 2016, in ever-evolving Democratic dogma, Russia has gone from a quaint obsession of neocon warmongers to an existential threat on the order of Climate Change!

As is generally the case, neither extreme of political posturing has been accurate. Romney was right that Putin’s Russia is a significant rival on the world stage. Whether it is “number one” on the tally sheet is debatable. To figure that out, we’d have to make judgment calls about all the threats we face — immediate versus long-term, forcible versus other forms of aggression, ideological versus transactional, and so on. No need to dawdle over that. It suffices to say that the Russian regime is a serious adversary. It has a formidable nuclear arsenal, as well as highly capable military and intelligence forces. Its default posture is anti-American (though it is biddable). It cooperates effectively with other anti-American regimes and factions. Its veto power in the United Nations Security Council complicates our government’s capacity to act in American interests. It has a Soviet iciness about the use of terrorism and forges alliances with terrorists in the pursuit of its interests. The regime is ruthless in its determination to remain in power, it has revanchist ambitions, and it is shrewd in testing the West’s resolve — or lack of same — to respond to incremental aggressions that implicate NATO and other commitments.

https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/the-education-of-clarence-thomas/?

Clarence Thomas graduated cum laude from the College of Holy Cross in Massachusetts in 1971 and received a J.D. from Yale University in 1974. His memoir, My Grandfather’s Son (2007), testifies to a much deeper educational journey—one that began under the determined watch of his maternal grandfather in Jim Crow Savannah and that culminated in his ordeal during the 1991 Senate confirmation hearings. In between came his appointments as head of the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education, chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

What he learned in those positions was significant, but not transformational. The transformational moment, we learn in Myron Magnet’s new book, Clarence Thomas and the Lost Constitution, came in 1980, “after he read through [Thomas] Sowell’s works, registered as a Republican, and voted for Ronald Reagan.” He was drawn by Reagan’s “promise to end racial social engineering.” Thomas had had a bellyful of that at Yale and had concluded that “blacks would be better off if they were left alone” instead of being conscripted into the utopian schemes of liberal politicians.

Needless to say, this wasn’t an idea he picked up from his teachers at Holy Cross or Yale, though it did owe something to his grandfather. Moreover, it prepared him for the opportunity he had at the EEOC when “he hired as special assistants Ken Masugi and John Marini, students of political philosopher Harry Jaffa.” Masugi and Marini introduced Thomas to texts that deepened his knowledge of the American founding.