RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/the_unstate.html

For the rationale of this newfound nation, order of some kind was present despite the diversity of backgrounds. Old-country habits had to adjust to new-world conditions.

For most of American history, a consensus was established that allowed for flexibility, despite highs and lows in orderliness. As I see it, the Brett Kavanaugh deliberations converted America to a new stance. Out of the Burkean world that sought stability and civility, there emerged a wholesale business in tearing the state, or, in this case, the nation, apart.

From relative calm, an UnState erupted. The space between rage and order disappeared, leaving in its wake a breakdown of constitutional principle. For many, American rage is the answer with Hillary Clinton’s comment about her inability to get along with Republicans and Michelle Obama’s belief that when they go low, we go high. This is reminiscent of Sartre’s yearning for and commitment to some vague and unattainable goal. This is the era beyond partisanship; it is all-out war. The stage is set for civil war. The innocent girl in denims is to become a recruit in all-out UnState battle, where Joan of Arc knows no limits. When rationality has retreated before commitment, it is conceivable for blood to flood the streets even for the new Robespierres. This is surely not the America I embrace, but she is here. Perhaps there is no way at this stage to avoid her, but we have to hope the principles for which this nation stands can be restored.

It would seem the UnState supports the radicals, whether they know it or not. For what has led to a country divided with many that believing the ends – namely, the defeat of Trump – justifies the means? We are a different land today, but not a better land. The remarkable founders of America are turning over in their graves, all wondering whether this nation can recover.

Twenty twenty is over the horizon, and Trump looms as the party who must be defeated. These harridans are out to get Donald.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/412683-president-democrats-should-seal-a-deal-trade-the-wall-for-merrick-garland

Donald Trump has won big with Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. He also is leaving his imprint on the lower courts. These results are paying real-world political dividends, as Republicans appear poised to keep control of the Senate. This is the moment for President Trump to win big with “The Wall” along our southern border.

Yet, with Democrats about to take control of the House, the wall will likely be as real as Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court, without some Democratic support.

President Trump should start thinking about making a deal, and the next Supreme Court seat vacated by a liberal justice may be just the pressure point. How about offering assurances to Senate Democrats that Judge Garland, the stalled Supreme Court nominee of the Obama administration, would fill the next seat vacated by a liberal justice, in return for full funding of a “big and beautiful wall”?

The last time the wall was part of a possible deal, the price was DACA, and ultimately the GOP and White House balked. But offering to trade the wall for Merrick Garland, with a Supreme Court firmly in conservative control, leaves the Trump political base with little to lose.

In fact, the House Republicans’ Freedom Caucus would have plenty to cheer about. Rank-and-file Republicans could sleep easier at night knowing that the southern border was safer. Like the president, Senate Republicans have some room to give, and the president could smile because he didn’t have to give anything on immigration to get the wall.

As for the 2020 re-election, such a trade would highlight Trump’s political deal-making prowess, and show him to be capable of compromise. For Independents, that could ease doubts about the president’s capacity to govern effectively. It could increase Trump’s chances of getting their votes and, in so doing, of maybe winning the popular vote.

To be sure, the Federalist Society may oppose this proposal. But the Federalists would still get to name every other appointment to the federal bench while Trump remains as president. And, lest anyone forget, Trump’s brand is on the ballot, not theirs.

So, how might congressional Democrats react?

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/10/exorcising-marx-economics/

Regard Marxism as the economic equivalent of a dead language and it makes some sort of sense — worthy of study for its place in the pantheon of human knowledge and doleful impact when implemented, but otherwise having no contemporary utility

How do you tell a communist? Someone who has read Marx and Lenin. How do you tell a non-communist? Someone who has understood Marx and Lenin.
—President Reagan
______________

“There is a great deal of ruin in a nation,” wrote Adam Smith philosophically in the late eighteenth century. He no doubt thought it would be ever thus. He was oblivious, of course, to the claimed curative powers of Marxism as practically expressed in communism. However, as a man of practical affairs, Smith today would not be impressed. After all, Marxism in practice has always produced the most dreadful results imaginable. What kind of people would downplay this overwhelming evidence and hold to the faith? In a word, idealists, the same kind of people who subscribed to Robert Owen’s utopian socialism before Marx and Engels came on the scene. They are a legion to this day.

This is what the renowned historian of economic thought Mark Blaug wrote in 1968, in Economic Theory in Retrospect: “Marx is alive and well today. He has been reassessed, revised, refuted, and buried a thousand times; but he refuses to be relegated to intellectual history.” Fifty years on, Blaug would not need to change a word.

As old Marxists fade away new ones replace them. Marx’s resilient spirit stalks the corridors of humanities departments in most Western universities, ready to possess those amenable to believing in the promise of nirvana in the here and now. Saul Alinsky (in Rules for Radicals) has a nice take on this promise:

to seize power and give it to the people; to realise the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by values that give meaning to life.

I saw this movie last night with a very enthusiastic audience. It is a tad too long and makes a rather extravagant claim that Trump destroyed Isis. Not so fast- Isis is killing and kidnapping throughout Africa and Asia and establishing camps in South America.

However, it presents a compelling case for Trump and his success in the economy, foreign policy, taxes and trade. The scenes of Trump’s antagonists on violent and destructive rampages are harrowing.

Directed by Bannon and produced by Dan Fleuette, Trump @War is a retelling of the most significant election campaign in modern U.S. history and a look forward to the high-stakes midterm election in November 2018, which will cement President Trump’s legacy.

You can view it on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TODyyR5GRqw&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DTODyyR5GRqw&has_verified=1

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/white-privilege-debate-elizabeth-warren/

It’s not a coincidence that many of the loudest critics decrying white privilege are . . . privileged whites.

“I’m a white woman. . . . And my job is to shut other white people down when they want to interrupt. My job is to shut other white people down when they want to say, ‘Oh no I’m not prejudiced, I’m a Democrat, I’m accepting.’”
— Sally Boynton Brown, erstwhile candidate to head the Democratic National Committee

“These white men, old by the way, are not protecting women. They’re protecting a man who is probably guilty.”
— Joy Behar, cohost, The View

“Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins? . . . Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”
— Sarah Jeong, newly appointed editorial board member, the New York Times

Why are current monotonous slogans like “white privilege” and “old white men” finally losing their currency?

Who exactly is “white” in a multiracial, intermarried, and integrated society? How do we determine who is a purported victim of racial bias — relative degrees of nonwhite skin color, DNA badges, an ethnicized last name, or nomenclature with two or three accent marks?

The reason that Arab-, Greek-, or Italian-Americans are more likely to be branded or to self-identify as “white” than Brazilian-, Argentinian, Spanish-, or Mexican-Americans doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with appearance or their DNA or their ancestors’ or their own historical experience in America. It has everything to do with the perversities of the devolving diversity industry in which claims to victimization bring greater careerist advantage or at least psychological satisfaction.

The recent farce involving Elizabeth Warren’s “ancestry” has not only probably aborted her presidential aspirations, but — along with the Asian-American lawsuit against Harvard’s admission practices — also reminded us of the growing corruption of race-based set-asides. Warren’s desperate gambit was simply a response to the new reality that minority status often has little relation with appearance. (Many Latinos — a term never adequately defined — look “whiter” than Italian Americans or Greek Americans who have been absorbed as “white” long ago.)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/23/political-correctness-college-campuses-democrats-voters-midterms-progressive-activists-column/1726496002/
Democrats push for political correctness, Republicans mock them for it, and most Americans are uncomfortable with it. No one wins with PC culture.

Democrats are hoping to administer a tough midterm-election blow to the Republicans — akin to the “shellacking” President Barack Obama got from the Tea Party in 2010 — as a means of shutting down President Donald Trump. But it’s looking iffy now, post-Kavanaugh, and if they fail, they’ll have the politically correct culture that has moved from college campuses into the Democratic Party to blame.

As I wrote in these pages back before the 2016 election, opposition to PC culture was a major source of Trump’s appeal to voters. While most politicians, even Republican politicians, were afraid to challenge it head-on, Trump was unafraid, mocking the PC social justice warriors even on their own ground.

Since Trump’s election, the response among Democrats has been to double down. After all, if Trump’s against politically correct culture, then they have to be for it. But that puts them right where Trump wants them to be, because PC culture is highly unpopular.
Most Americans don’t want to be ‘woke’

Don’t just take my word for it. Here’s what a recent article in The Atlantic, with the title “Americans strongly dislike PC culture” says:

“Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that ‘political correctness is a problem in our country.’ Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages. Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness — and it turns out race isn’t, either. Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent) and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/trump-administration-isnt-dehumanizing-transgender-americans/

The administration is proposing to conform the law to the truth.

Today I learned something truly new. I’d lived my life on this earth almost 49 years before I understood that federal anti-discrimination law defines human existence. Changing that law can thus literally “negate the humanity of people.”

At least that’s what I’m learning in response to the news that the Trump administration is considering rolling back the Obama administration’s lawless expansion of Title IX, the federal civil-rights statute banning sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. At issue is the definition of the word “sex.”

In April 2014, the Obama administration quietly expanded the definition — without an act of Congress or even a regulatory rulemaking process. In a document called “Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence” it stated that “Title IX’s sex discrimination prohibition extends to claims of discrimination based on gender identity or failure to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity.”

Empowered by this new definition, the Obama administration issued extraordinarily aggressive mandates to schools across the nation, requiring that schools use a transgender student’s chosen pronouns and that they open bathrooms, locker rooms, overnight accommodations, and even some sports teams to students based not on their biological sex but their chosen gender identity.

The Trump administration is moving forward with efforts to define gender on the basis of biological sex, reversing decisions under the Obama administration that essentially allowed individuals to choose their own sex for federal government purposes. A new memo from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services argues federal agencies need a definition of sex and gender that is defined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.”

The changes are to take place under Title IX section of a 1972 law that bars sex-based discrimination in federally funded education institutions, but could have far broader implications, in areas such as single sex settings and set aside programs.

Progressives are predictably outraged by the fact that the Trump administration will no longer allow pseudoscience to define the words “man” and “woman,” but this is a common-sense move that will help the government better protect women’s rights and avoid the confusion of trying to regulate the myriad genders that have been invented in the past several years.

It is important to understand that this change will in no way affect how trans people or anybody else choose to label themselves. Rather, it will allow the government to have an objective standard when implementing federal programs. Without such a standard, a haphazard set of rules exists as to who qualifies for legal protections under Title IX.

Frankly, this move has been a long time coming and is very obviously needed. Our government and governments around the world have been struggling to keep up with new definitions of gender that seem to pop up every day. In recent years many advocates of the idea that people can choose, or self identify, their gender have argued that its nobody’s business but the person making the choice. But this is patently false.

Questions were always bound to arise that would require the state to make a determination about a person’s sex. College athletics, where men who identify as women have unfair advantages, is one example; another is set-aside or quota programs. If government contracts require that a certain number of subcontractors on a project have to be women-run businesses, for example, then there needs to be a definition of “woman.”

Both of the above examples show how this move really does protect women. The set-aside programs are a particularly good example, as their entire point is to ensure that women, who supposedly face disadvantages in male-dominated fields, receive a leg up. It makes no sense at all that a 40- or 50-year-old man, who has enjoyed the benefits of his sex for his entire career, can decide he is a woman and receive the benefit of the set-aside at the expense of a firm helmed by a woman who is more likely to have experienced the circumstances the law aims to compensate for.

The fact of the matter is that while academics and activists have been running around willy nilly changing the definition of sex and inventing 72 (at least) new pronouns, none of this has been rooted in any kind of confirmable science. It is farcical to think that the state can somehow keep up with such changes or pursue policies regarding sex without a workable and consistent definition.

The move also means that those with the most radical views about the sexes will not be able to impose them on our society and laws. In effect, it will mean that this objective standard will replace a hodgepodge of rules, regulations, and definitions of gender as it pertains to the federal government.

What will not and should not change is individuals and non-government related institutions’ abilities to pursue whatever policies in regard to gender they choose to appear as. Nobody is being told that he can’t identify or accept the gender identity of a person however he wishes. Newspaper style guides will still be free to define gender however they wish, and obviously private individuals can make their own choices as well.

The simple fact is that there is no compelling scientific basis upon which to believe a person can change sexes. While many believe that one can do so, it’s just that: a belief. And many do not share that belief. Foisting this metaphysical assertion on all of the federal government’s actions in absence of any actual legal text to support it, as the Obama administration tried to do, was the wrong decision.

Some will call the Trump administration’s decision discriminatory or bigoted, but nothing could be farther from the truth. For government purposes, using the scientific, historical, and standard definition of sex and gender is the only sensible path, and the administration is right to follow it.

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

Most days, I read or skim five newspapers. Like many, I strive for some sort of balance. But it is difficult. Families and friends avoid politics for fear personal animosities will subsume relationships. Partisanship is everywhere, especially in the media. Either we, as a people, have become reflective of the them, or they of us. We read and listen to one side; we ignore (and condemn)those who think differently. Think of our universities, network TV and late-night comedians. The consequence is that real news is hard to discern. We all have examples of a news item picked up by The Wall Street Journalthat is ignored or exaggerated by The New York Times, or vice versa. Editorial pages smack of hypocrisy, sanctimony, mendacity and schadenfreude, depending on which side of the story the editor finds him or herself. Often, I find myself – and I am sure I am not alone – tossing the papers aside in frustration and picking up a novel, a Wodehouse for its comic relief, or a Times crossword puzzle for its mental stimulation. I am not without prejudice, as you all know, so find myself wondering:why is the Left so consumed with hate? I know many of these people and many are friends. And I know they wonder:why am I so stupid, insensitive and obtuse? I don’t think I am, and my guess is that most of my friends are not filled with hate. But we have allowed extremists to define our opinions; and politicians, watching which way the clouds move, sail with the wind.

The problem, as I see it, is that both sides fail to recognize that we, generally, have the same ends – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and all that encompasses). It is in the means to achieve common goals where we differ. In recent years, as rhetoric has amplified, a desired political end has justified not only nasty words but acts of violence, “whatever it takes,” as one Democrat put it. We saw it in the Senate Visitor’s Gallery during the Kavanaugh hearings and in restaurants that forced out Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Ted Cruz, among others. Listening to the bickering of Senators last month reminded one of Matthew Arnold’s poem “Dover Beach,” “…where ignorant armies clash by night.” “Never argue with a fool,”my father used to say, “for a passer-by could not tell which was the fool.” Like a lover’s quarrel, both parties may be at fault, but both parties are not equally at fault. Despite a mainstream media that would have us believe otherwise, it is the left that has elevated hateful discourse to new levels.

In a Wall Street Journalop-ed last September titled “Why the Left is Consumed with Hate,” Shelby Steele of the Hoover Institute explained what he thought was the answer: “The great crisis for the left today – the source of its angst and hatefulness – is its encroaching obsolescence.” Perhaps? I don’t know. In my opinion, part of that angst stems from the failure of the progressive Presidency of Barack Obama to leave a lasting legacy. Despite being elected President twice and remaining popular as an ex-President, Mr. Obama, over the course of his eight years in office, saw Democrats lose the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. Worse, Democrats lost heavily in state and local elections. In 2008, there were twenty-eight Democrat governors and twenty-two Republican governors. Eight years later, Democrats had lost twelve governorships and Republicans had gained eleven. (Bill Walker of Alaska is an Independent.) During those same years, Democrats lost over a thousand state legislative seats. Mr. Obama may remain personally popular, but he destroyed the Democrat Party.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/10/21/wolves

If the New Democratic Party was smart, it would do what the old Democratic Party did long ago: always sound centrist if not conservative in the last weeks of a campaign, get elected, then revert to form and pursue a left-wing agenda for a year or two—and then repeat the chameleon cycle every two to four years.

But although many Democrats in Trump states still dance the old bipartisan two-step, lots of blinkered progressive wolves don’t even bother to put on the sheep’s clothing.

Evidently, the new progressive and radical Democratic Party is far more honest—or perhaps far more hubristic—than in the past. So what now looks and sounds like a wolf is a wolf. Democrats have learned nothing and forgotten nothing from 2016. Or rather, they still believe it is 2008 all over again, with a host of wannabe Obamas on the 2020 horizon, all appealing to identity politics, Maenad feminism, and neo-socialism. The hipster theory is that 30 percent of the present electorate will always vote en masse for unapologetic progressives, and that bloc number, due to changing demography and persuasive street theatrics, soon will grow to 50 percent of all voters.

More to the point, the strategy of hating Trump 24/7 and fueling the 90 percent negative media coverage of the president had seemed to be a winning hand—given that Trump has usually below 45 percent approval in most polls, and pundits promised a huge blue wave neutering what certainly would be Trump’s last two years in the White House.

Yet the result of a progressive wolf baying proudly like a left-wing wolf is that as we head to the 2018 midterm, progressives may soon blow what should be, by history’s analytics, a big win for the out party in any president’s first term.