RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/the-republic-is-collapsing-the-time-to-act-is-now/

Commenting on Rush Limbaugh’s passionate denunciation of the spirit of anti-American leftism that is destroying the country, Lloyd Marcus, who blogs at The Unhyphenated American, agrees that the time has come to say “No!” He concludes, with Limbaugh, “It is time that we take action to take back our country. It is time that we say no to anti-American traitors and anti-biblical cultural assassins.”

This is a sentiment that cannot honorably be refuted. The problem is trying to decide what saying “No!” actually means. Merely saying “No!” is obviously a futile gesture and will produce little to nothing in the way of results. The question is how to translate “No!” into action. Debate and discussion with any of the manifestations of the left is a non-starter since the left does not debate or discuss. It adheres to a rigid orthodoxy that will allow no reconsideration or reflection on the putative axioms it regards as sacred. It is, in essence, the contemporary version of Bolshevism. The left will lie, slander, cheat and commit violence to further its goals. Its mind is deadbolted shut.

How, then, to say “No!” such that it realistically leads to discernible and effective consequences? Rhetoric won’t do it. The expression of noble sentiment won’t do it. Hand-wringing won’t do it. Prayer may, or may not, be a powerful factor; Lincoln is reputed to have said: “I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.” But one recalls the Frank Loesser song, “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.” Remaining content with radio talk, podcasts, interviews, essays and articles that alert the public to the impending disaster, though not to be scanted, is only a necessary first step. Delivering an angry vote may stave off the brunt of the calamity for an interval, but will not significantly alter the dynamics. The answer is that a meaningful response requires material and demonstrable presidential action, as Lincoln knew in a time of national disintegration. Nothing less will do. Whether we like it or not, restitution now rests with Donald Trump.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/07/11/why-do-democrats-hate-jobs-so-much/

House Democrats, resistant to reason, continue to press for a minimum-wage hike even though a government report says it could cost as many as 3.7 million jobs. The party of the “working man” seems to have no problem throwing low-wage workers out on the streets.

The bill, which is headed to a floor vote, would increase the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour over five years. The Congressional Budget Office says it could kill as many as 3.7 million jobs, with a median estimate of 1.3 million, should it become law. (To be fair, the low estimate is roughly zero job losses, which seems far less credible than the upper estimate of 3.7 million, simply because the laws of economics show that when goods or services cost more, in this case labor is the service, markets respond by buying less.)

Rep. Bobby Scott, Virginia Democrat, has dismissed the job losses and is instead focusing on the CBO’s estimate that the hike would increase wages for 17 million workers (which is plausible) and move 1.3 million families out of poverty. (Which seems unlikely, since only about half of minimum-wage workers are not yet 25 years old, a quarter are teens, 64% work part time, only 221,000 are older than 25, and the never-married outnumber the married about 4-to-1, which means most aren’t providing the primary income for a family.)

But reality should never be denied, and the facts show there can be no doubt that minimum-wage hikes, even previously government-mandated wages floors, are job killers — and tend to reduce family income, as well.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/10/left-managed-mainstream-anti-americanism/

A recent profile of Rep. Illan Omar by the Washington Post made waves because of its revelation that the congresswoman lied to a group of high school students about witnessing racism and injustice in a Minneapolis courtroom. In an anecdote lifted almost verbatim from the plot of “Les Miserables,” Omar claimed she saw a “sweet, old… African American lady,” who had spent the weekend in jail for stealing a $2 loaf of bread to feed her “starving 5-year-old granddaughter,” handed an $80 fine. Omar, unable to control her emotions, blurted out, “Bullsh—t!” in the courtroom.

But Omar’s lies aren’t nearly as revealing as when she tells the truth. In that same speech to the high schoolers, she said “I grew up in an extremely unjust society, and the only thing that made my family excited about coming to the United States was that the United States was supposed to be the country that guaranteed justice to all. So, I feel it necessary for me to speak about that promise that’s not kept.”

The promise that’s not kept. Consider the disconnect between that statement, the seething resentment behind it, and the reality of Omar’s own life story. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine an American success story more demonstrative of America keeping its promise. Omar’s family fled civil war in Somalia when she was a child and spent four poverty-stricken years in a Kenyan refugee camp before the United States, in its generosity, granted them admission to America as refugees.

Here, safe from the violence and chaos of their home country, they flourished. Omar received a college education, started a family, won election to the Minnesota State House at age 34, and two years later, became a member of Congress.

 http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/22919/the-humanitarian-hoax-of-tommy-robinson

   http://goudsmit.pundicity.com  http://lindagoudsmit.com

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

The conviction of journalist Tommy Robinson is a humanitarian hoax that has destroyed free speech in England and threatens free speech worldwide. What does this have to do with America?

Tommy Robinson is a British journalist who has been reporting on Muslim rape gangs throughout England that have been raping little English school girls with impunity for decades. The savagery of their acts, and that British authorities are covering up this massive atrocity against the innocent, is extremely destabilizing to British society. Civilized people reject the protection of perpetrators at the expense of victims.

For civilized people, Tommy Robinson is the heroic whistleblower who exposed the horror of Muslim rape gangs and their unspeakable acts of barbarity in England. British society experiences enormous confusion and cognitive dissonance because British authorities protect Muslim rape gangs and embolden them by prohibiting the reporting of their heinous acts of savagery. Why is this happening?

Let’s sort this out by examining the reasons in numerical order.

1. Tolerism

Tolerism is defined by Howard Rotberg in his 2014 book, Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed, as “excessive leniency to opinions of certain groups, and excessive intolerance to the opinions of other groups.” Rotberg explains that the breakdown of Western society is a direct result of Leftist tolerists who insist that tolerance is more valuable than justice.

The once free Britain has reduced itself to a dhimmi nation by tolerating its sharia compliant Muslim population at the expense of its native Christian population.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-7-8-why-are-they-all-so-angry

It’s the defining characteristic of today’s progressive left: Anger. And it’s not just the rioters like Antifa, or the unspeakably rude people who confront administration figures in restaurants and gratuitously yell at them. Take a look at any of the new icons of the Democratic Party when they are speaking — for example Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or Ilhan Omar — and you see them seething with barely controllable anger, if not outright fury. Same with essentially every left-wing commenter on CNN or MSNBC.

And I’m just getting to the Democratic presidential candidates. Bernie Sanders. Is there anybody angrier? Always, and about everything. For that matter, all the contenders who have broken out of the less-than-1% category (and most of those who haven’t) are putting on a show of trying to out-angry all the others. Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris. Anger must be what sells these days to the categories of voters they are pursuing.

But how about Joe Biden, you say? Certainly he is not as angry as these others. You must have missed Biden’s July 5 interview with Chris Cuomo of CNN. Having just been outmaneuvered by Kamala Harris at the first Democratic debate, Biden decided that it was time to show that he can do anger with the best of them. According to that New York Post report of the interview, “throughout it all, Biden was angry.” It reached the boiling point when Cuomo raised the issue of Russian election interference, drawing this outraged response from Biden:

“You think that would happen on my watch, on Barack’s watch? You can’t answer that, but I promise you it wouldn’t have. And it didn’t.”

Sure, Joe.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/noah-carl-andy-ngo-in-praise-of-crowdfunding/

The deranging effects of tech are visible every day. But there are also positive aspects — among them a tool that strikes me as having many of the capabilities needed to restore some sanity to our times. I refer to the process of crowdfunding. In recent weeks I have been struck by the response to two crowdfunding efforts in particular, which are vital in different ways.

The first relates to the case of Andy Ngo, the young Portland-based journalist whom I wrote about here last week. Ngo, readers will remember, was recently assaulted by so-called “Antifa” in broad daylight as the police stood aside. In the hospital afterwards it became clear that he had suffered a brain hemorrhage, among other injuries. Another journalist immediately set up a crowdfunding site to try to help pay Ngo’s substantial medical bills and to replace the equipment that the Portland Antifa thugs had broken or stolen from him. The goal of that crowdfunding appeal was reached (and indeed exceeded) in a matter of days by American citizens and others horrified at what had been allowed to happen on their streets.

Now another crowdfunder has been set up, this time to launch legal proceedings against those responsible for assaulting the journalist. Among those who may be in the firing line of legal proceedings are not just the thugs who the authorities have allowed to run rampant through an American city, but also the authorities themselves. A link to the legal appeal can be found here.

https://www.capitolhilloutsider.com/a-

In his 1796 farewell address, George Washington warned future generations, much of which rings true for today. Some of the warnings in Washington’s “Farewell Address,” were about the forces that could destroy our Republic. He worried about hyper-partisanship, excessive debt, and entanglements in foreign wars. Washington stated, “The name of AMERICAN, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of PATRIOTISM, more than any appellation derived from local distinctions.”

President Washington’s concerns for future generations, much of which rings true for today, was justified. Particularly, his concerns with respect to our political parties:

Washington warned of “the baneful effects of the SPIRIT OF PARTY.” To Washington, POLITICAL PARTIES were a deep threat to the health of the nation for they allowed “a small but artful and enterprising minority” to “put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party.”

Never in the history of America, has a group of power-hungry wolves – known as the Democrat Party – done so much damage to America. We should keep in mind that establishment Republicans are not far behind!

President Washington’s warnings to future generations of Americans was more than two hundred years ago. Many things have changed since his farewell address. As a loyal, dedicated and committed American citizen, I find it my duty, not only to warn future generations but the present one. Today, as I write this letter, I feel bewildered and frightened to think about what it may be like when you are born. My mind is filled with uncertainty for your future. My soul is filled with pain and agony of an inevitable calamity.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/07/08/stop

Sometimes commentary is real work. Other times all that’s necessary is to let facts speak for themselves.

For example, in the last two weeks:

10 presidential candidates all stood on a stage and pledged to make U.S. taxpayers — who would lose their private insurance under most of their plans — subsidize health care for illegal immigrants.
One candidate promised to make the selfsame taxpayers pay for abortions for men who become women.
A prominent United States Congresswoman — who had previously referred to border detention facilities as “concentration camps” — charged that detainees were told by immigration officials to drink out of toilets. After which a group of Latino pastors and immigration advocates toured the facilities, with one insisting that there were “no deplorable conditions and no lack of basic necessities.”
A leading athletic equipment company recalled an Independence Day commemorative shoe that displayed — no, not the Confederate Stars and Bars — but the Betsy Ross version of Old Glory. According to reports, a paid endorser, infamous for his National Anthem protests, complained that the flag seen by many as one of the last emblems of national unity was instead “an offensive symbol because of its connection to an era of slavery.” An MSNBC commentator raised the stakes by comparing the flag to a swastika or burning cross.
Meanwhile, the latest “Pride Month” was capped by now familiar parades in which participants shamelessly march down the streets of our largest cities in various stages of undress — including “full frontal.” These days, barely an eye was batted at such seemingly unlawful behavior, including by event sponsors that encompassed, in New York City alone, T-Mobile, MasterCard, Hyatt, TD Ameritrade, Target, Coca Cola, Procter & Gamble, Chase, Nissan, American Airlines, Airbnb, United Airlines, IBM, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, New York Life, the NBA, Uber, Lyft, Microsoft, Kellogg, Johnson & Johnson and Starbucks. (Message: resistance is futile if you plan to converse, charge, compute, lodge, launder, invest, bank, fly, drive, drink, eat, medicate, spectate or be transported.)
The President of the United States engaged in a spur-of-the-moment summit meeting with the world’s most unstable and murderous dictator, taking an unprecedented stroll into North Korean territory that he called a “great honor.” After decades in which successive administrations had withheld such a prized photo op as the ultimate diplomatic bargaining chip. And took along his daughter and a Fox News commentator while dispatching his hawkish National Security Advisor on a trip to Mongolia. All days after joking with Russia’s president on-camera over the former’s interference in U.S. elections. And barely a week after the same Commander-in-Chief recalled a retaliatory attack while planes were reportedly in the air. Then publicized the fact of the aborted assault in a tweet and interviews that certainly misrepresented the facts about what the president knew and when he knew it. Followed up by leaked accounts of White House conversations that didn’t just throw that very national security adviser under the bus, but backed it up and ran over him again. In the same time frame that the chief executive was making and then withdrawing a promise to round up undocumented immigrants, just as he previously threatened and withdrew a threat to close the border. And dealt with yet another accusation of sexual assault.
Not to mention a brazen Antifa assault on a journalist in front of police. A married gay candidate again lecturing Christians on Christianity. The Supreme Court disallowing a citizenship question on the Census because it subjectively doubted a Cabinet official’s perfectly legal rationale for it. Special Counsel Robert Mueller rolling over and agreeing to appear before Congress to testify on the report he previously insisted must speak for itself. Charlottesville, Virginia — during the week of Independence Day — replacing a holiday celebrating the author of the Declaration of Independence (who lived in their town) with one celebrating the emancipation of slaves.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/07/07/would-president-joe-biden-become-25th-amendment-material/

I speculate only because since January 2017 our popular culture and intelligentsia have suggested President Trump is crazy and should be removed under the 25th Amendment. Apparently, accusations about the mental health of presidents and would-be presidents are now legitimate political attack strategies under the new progressive rules.

After all, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe once bragged that he tried with former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to remove a supposedly unhinged Trump. Democratic members of Congress called in a Yale psychologist, Bandy X. Lee, to brief them that such Ivy League experts had diagnosed Trump in absentia as certainly unhinged. (She later attempted to walk back those claims.) The 25th Amendment, along with impeachment, the ossified Logan Act, and the Emoluments Clause, have now been mainlined by progressives as the sort of natural suspicions we cast on an elected president of the opposite party.

Yet, under these new progressive protocols, could a President Joe Biden be written off as delusional?

Addled Biden?
Biden once suggested that George Bush get on TV after the 2008 meltdown in the manner that President Roosevelt had addressed the nation after the 1929 market crash: “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed.” Biden was referring to a time when neither FDR was president nor was television commercially available.

More recently in the primary debate, when asked what was the first thing that a newly inaugurated Biden might do as president (presumably after defeating incumbent Trump in the 2020 election), he answered, “The first thing I would do is make sure that we defeat Donald Trump . . . Period.” Biden in this case was in Obama’s “57-states,” Hawaii is in Asia, and “corpse-men” Lala land.

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

“Thus, there is no viable argument against redefining the censorious, viewpoint-discriminating Big Tech consortiums as public utilities. They may not be knitting networks, but they have the power and ability to unravel a nation. ”

Should First Amendment rights be extended to Big Tech corporations to publish and censor as they please?  This is a question that has agitated the discussion on whether antitrust legislation should be applied to infogiants such as Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Amazon, Pinterest and many others that have cornered the market on a public resource, information, and an essential human activity, the consumption of information. A solution to the problem of data sequestration and restricted access practiced by these companies is to rebadge them either as publishers or, alternatively, as public utilities.

These entities are protected by Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code, which allows them to “restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene…or otherwise objectionable” (italics mine). This provision has become, in effect, a license to censor expressions of opinion that run counter to the convictions and political views these companies promote. The First Amendment argument absolving Big Tech from complicity in monopolizing political discourse is succinctly summed up by a commenter to an article I recently posted in which I advocated antitrust legislation with respect to social media. He writes, in part:

“A private company…is exercising its First Amendment rights to do whatever the hell it wants short of libel and slander and incitement to violence…No private company has the obligation to carry content which it opposes ideologically. No private company has the legal obligation to be content-neutral… [T]hat would be a blatant violation of its free speech rights. The government can neither suppress nor compel speech nor demand ideological neutrality from private entities…Changing the rules to subvert the Constitution by defining companies you don’t like as “utilties” or “publishers” is the kind of fascist trick the left is always trying to get away with.”