RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.”

 http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/22900/the-humanitarian-hoax-of-leftism-killing-america

   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.

War makes strange bedfellows, and the current Leftist/Islamist alliance against America-first President Donald Trump is worth examining.

Islamic sharia law with its misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, pedophilia, female genital mutilation, and wife beating is diametrically opposed to leftist Democrats’ proclaimed principles of women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, children’s rights, and anti-bullying. How can Leftists partner with Islamists whose norms are diametrically opposed to their own stated principles?

The answer is that Leftists are staggeringly hypocritical when it comes to their principles. Leftist metrics of inclusion are myopic – they only consider what a person thinks and ignore what a person does. The left embraces every color, every sexual orientation, every religion, every deviant behavior as long as its members THINK alike. Leftist anti-American anti-Trump group think is completely intolerant of any individual divergence of thought.

The demand for conformity among Leftists is no different from any religious orthodoxy. Orthodoxy requires conformity for membership in the group. Leftist tenets of political correctness, moral relativity, and historical revisionism are incontrovertible.

Islamic tenets of misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, pedophilia, female genital mutilation, and wife beating are ignored as long as these sharia-compliant Muslims are anti-American anti-Trumpers. Any anti-American anti-Trump Islamist is welcomed into the Leftist tribe because they are all warriors in the Culture War against America. America-first President Donald Trump is the existential enemy of the Culture War and the target of the Leftist/Islamist alliance.

Islamists unapologetically tell the world their goal is world domination and the establishment of a supremacist Islamist caliphate ruled by sharia law. There is nothing humanitarian about Islamists or their condescending attitude that insists they are doing the West a favor by freeing us from our freedoms, and settling America by imposing their savage medieval sharia law. Islamists do not recognize the authority of the United States Constitution.

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

Paraphrasing Mark Twain, there are lies, damned lies, and socialism.

The leader of the White opposition, the distinguished admiral Alexander Kolchak, was defeated on the battlefield, betrayed by the Allies and captured by the Bolsheviks.

During the interrogation, the Bolsheviks, astounded by their own victory, were trying to understand how they could defeat the well-supplied regular army, led by experienced military commanders.

“Admiral, why didn’t you promise land to peasants? You could have won this war,” the interrogators asked (Russia was an agrarian country and the ownership of land was one of the most compelling issues of the revolution). “I would not promise what I could not deliver” was the admiral’s response.   

The interrogators just smiled. They did promise the land and won.

Bolsheviks who had a propensity for fancy names called it “monopoly on the revolutionary truth.” In other words, the truth in the “decaying” world of capitalism does not mean what it does in the world of “triumphant” socialism. In practical terms, when Bolsheviks promised democracy, freedom, liberty, and inexorable “land to the peasants,” “bread to the hungry,” “peace to the people,” those zealous Bolshevik slogans sounded great but the Russian people found soon enough that “land to the peasants” meant forced collectivization; “bread to the hungry” – man-made famine; and “peace to the people” — civil war.

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2019/07

Milan Kundera observed in The Book of Laughter and Forgetting:

In times when history moved slowly, events were few and far between and easily committed to memory. They formed a commonly accepted backdrop for thrilling scenes of adventure in private life. Nowadays, history moves at a brisk clip … No longer a backdrop, it is now the adventure itself, an adventure enacted before the backdrop of the commonly accepted banality of private life.

The present time and the public realm have upended the past and the private. Give us this day our daily drama of the news cycle. Life on the iPad, Google, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter take up a good deal of each day, not to mention reading newspapers, watching television and answering the day’s emails, letters and recorded messages. Longer-term projects are postponed in the face of pressing, but passing, matter. (On the positive side, the internet provides an enormous library at our instant disposal.) You may get a lot of “likes”, but this merely reinforces your own views at the expense of more challenging inputs. T.S. Eliot said he didn’t read the newspapers because they were too exciting. We become vicarious actors, expert media sleuths in a continuing global drama, fulfilled by being in touch with vital contemporary currents. The spheres of our inner world and the world conversation happily align. The personal moves to the public sphere.

The ancients juggled carpe diem (living for the day) with vanitas vanitatum (the futility of human endeavour), but for us it’s a no-brainer. In the past, delayed gratification and instinctual renunciation were the ways to achieve long-term goals, but large swathes of our culture have settled for hedonism, stroking of the ego, and instant entertainment. The Bible taught the Jewish and Christian peoples there was nothing new under the sun, but since the 1960s we have been propelled by the shock of the new. This has come about because a unidirectional tendency has overtaken contemporary thought, moving discussion into ever narrower channels and towards the present. Unlikely notions, sometimes originating in the academies, filter down to the media where they are given wider credence by public opinion-formers who act as gatekeepers to the wider community. A sign of coming times was the fad of brainstorming which threw people with limited knowledge together in a room, and provided a wonderful impression that something was going to eventuate, but was futile, as the process lacked any shared pool of information and any criteria of judgment. Ideas don’t appear out of nothing.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274199/pandemic-false-knowledge-bruce-thornton

When I wrote Plagues of the Mind: The New Epidemic of False Knowledge twenty years ago, I focused on the bad ideas underlying many of our social, cultural, and political dysfunctions. I was particularly concerned with the universities, where most of these ideas had been born and nurtured. Though aware of the larger malign effects of the intellectual and political corruption of higher education, I never imagined that the “higher nonsense,” as one critic called it, produced in universities would so pervasively infect the larger culture and lead to policies, politics, and cultural mores so absurdly irrational.

At the heart of these bad ideas lay a strange hybrid of technocratic hubris and the therapeutic imperative. The former is a species of scientism founded on the category error of believing that human beings with minds, cultures, languages, and free will, can be understood and manipulated the way hard science understands and manipulates the material natural world.

The latter is the obsession with individual feelings and subjective perceptions of personal well-being and happiness, accompanied by demands that environmental, historical, or social impediments to both be corrected or eliminated with rational techniques developed by the “human sciences” like psychology, sociology, economics, and especially political science.

Moreover, this hybrid in its public guise uses the methodologies and quantification of science to give a spurious authority to its unscientific and politicized conclusions about human nature and behavior, while at the same time relying on ancient myths, cultural memes, and modern political programs. This incoherence is the essence of false knowledge. But these days, this debased Enlightenment idea joined with an equally debased Romantic one has burst out of its university nursery and become a culture-wide pandemic.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/07/03/democratic-candidates-arent-on-a-winning-track/

Presidential candidates from both parties usually sound hard-core in the primaries to appeal to their progressive or conservative bases. But for the general election, the nominees move to the center to pick off swing voters and centrist independents.

Voters put up with the scripted tactic as long as a candidate had not gone too extreme in the primaries and endorsed positions too far out of the mainstream.

A good example of this successful ploy was Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. In the primary against Hillary Clinton, Obama ran to her left. But he was still careful not to get caught on the record going too far left. That way, he was still able to tack to the center against John McCain in the general election.

As a general election candidate, Obama rejected the idea of gay marriage. He blasted illegal immigration. He railed against deficit spending. And he went so far as to label then-President George W. Bush as “unpatriotic” for taking out “a credit card from the bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt.”

The result was that Obama was elected. After taking office, in cynical fashion he endorsed gay marriage, ran up far more red ink than did Bush, offered blanket amnesties and relaxed immigration enforcement.

Yet the current crop of would-be Democratic nominees has forgotten the old script entirely. Nearly all of them are currently running so hard to the left that the successful nominee will never be able to appear moderate.

Bernie Sanders leads the charge for abolishing all student debt. Kamala Harris wants reparations for slavery. Joe Biden talks of jailing health insurance executives if they falsely advertise.

The entire field seems to agree that it should not be a criminal offense to enter the U.S. illegally. The consensus appears to be that no illegal entrant will be deported unless he or she has committed a serious crime.

http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/22893/the-humanitarian-hoax-of-the-united-nations

   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 United Nations is an institutional humanitarian hoax promoting its destructive Agenda 2030 infrastructure for one world government as the altruistic advancement of world peace. This is how it works.

First, a little history. The United Nations began as a wartime alliance between the allies against Nazi Germany. President Franklin D. Roosevelt suggested using the name United Nations to refer to the allies of World War II. In 1942, the declaration of the allied United Nations articulated its purpose and was signed by twenty-six sovereign governments:

“A JOINT DECLARATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, CHINA, AUSTRALIA, BELGIUM, CANADA, COSTA RICA, CUBA, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EL SALVADOR, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, HONDURAS, INDIA, LUXEMBOURG, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA, NORWAY, PANAMA,POLAND, SOUTH AFRICA, YUGOSLAVIA

The Governments signatory hereto,

Having subscribed to a common program of purposes and principles embodied by the Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of Great Britain dated August 14, 1941, known as the Atlantic Charter,