RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270960/racist-communist-famine-grows-south-africa-daniel-greenfield

“Strongman politics are ascendant,” Barack Obama warned in South Africa. He spoke passionately about “the politics of fear and resentment” at the Mandela Lecture. He worried that we were entering a world, “where might makes right and politics is a hostile competition between tribes and races and religions.”

While the media used the remarks to attack Trump’s meeting with Putin, Obama had shared a stage with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa who had come to power promising to seize land from white farmers. Ramaphosa was the latest in a series of ANC strongmen, including his predecessor, an alleged rapist, beginning with the Communist terrorist whose legacy Obama was commemorating.

President Ramaphosa had vowed early on to seize land from white farmers without compensation. “The expropriation of land without compensation is envisaged as one of the measures that we will use to accelerate redistribution of land to black South Africans,” he had declared. And denied that such racist Communist tactics were unconstitutional. Now he’s moving to modify South Africa’s constitution.

Initially, the ANC, which is partnered with the South African Communist Party, had claimed that seizing land would not violate the law. Now it’s actually going to change the South African constitution.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12807/multiculturalism-spain-july

The United Nations reported that June 2018 was a record month for illegal migration to Spain. In all, 17,781 illegal migrants arrived in Spain during the first six months of 2018, almost double the 9,581 migrants who arrived in Spain during the same period in 2017.

The Islamic Commission of Spain, a Muslim umbrella group, threatened to file a lawsuit against the regional government in Valencia if it fails to offer Islam courses in public schools.

“It is not possible that there are residency permits for everyone, nor is a welfare state sustainable that absorbs the millions of Africans who want to come to Europe. We have to say it, even if it is politically incorrect. Let’s be honest and responsible with this question.” — Pablo Casado, leader of the center-right Popular Party.

July 1. The United Nations reported that June 2018 was a record month for illegal migration to Spain. At least 7,142 illegal migrants arrived in Spain during the month, more than twice the number of arrivals in Italy (3,101) and three times as many as in Greece (2,157). By way of comparison, 2,682 illegal migrants arrived in Spain in June 2017. In all, 17,781 illegal migrants arrived in Spain during the first six months of 2018, almost double the 9,581 migrants who arrived in Spain during the same period in 2017.

July 2. The European Commission provided Spain with €25.6 million ($30 million) in aid to improve the reception capacity of migrants in the country. The money will be used to provide food and shelter for people arriving through the so-called Western Mediterranean route. With this transfer, the EU has provided Spain with €692 million ($800 million) since 2014 to help manage migration flows.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270886/wise-giants-and-arrogant-dwarves-bruce-thornton

In the 12th century Bernard of Chartres first pointed out that we have more knowledge than those who came before us not because of our greater intelligence and understanding, but because we are “dwarves sitting on the shoulders of giants,” and can see farther because of the accumulated achievements of generation after generation of intellectual pioneers who preceded us.

That intellectual modesty and respect for tradition that once characterized Western Civilization has been scorned and spurned by modernity, leading to many of the bad ideas and lethal ideologies that have plagued the last two centuries. Indeed, we are historically unprecedented––but only in the coexistence of an astonishing depth of knowledge about nature and its laws, with a profound lack of the wisdom and common sense once possessed by even our illiterate forbearers. Rather than acknowledge the traditions and wisdom on whose shoulders we sit, we arrogantly imagine ourselves to be self-created giants.

Our hubris comes from the remarkable success of Western science at understanding the material world and its laws, and then using that knowledge to create transformational technologies. But the wonders of technology led us into a category error. We began to think that human beings could be understood in the same way and with the same predictability as we achieved with the material world. Such knowledge in turn would lead to “scientific” techniques that could transform humans and correct the evils caused by ignorance, tradition, and superstition.

This illusion and the hubris it nourishes dominates our culture, especially among those called progressives, who endorse the arrogance of technocratic elites who believe power backed by the “human sciences” can reshape and improve humans, and so create a perfect society free from the suffering and misery of the past.

In response to a news item :

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/06/revolutionary-transgenderism-march/

Revolutionary transgenderism is on the march in Britain, with the blessing of a Conservative Prime Minister. The delayed consultations on proposed changes to the government’s new Gender Recognition Act that Theresa May promises are to go ahead. It is likely that, though opposed by traditional feminists as well as social conservatives, the Gender Recognition Act, backed by Labour, will pass through the Commons and into law.

Linda Goudsmit writes:

“Transgenderism is yet another example of political science masquerading as biological science – no different than the political science of “man-made” climate change masquerading as environmental science. The ultimate end game of blurred boundaries whether they are personal, sexual, political, national, international etc etc is the creation of a new world of socially engineered androgynous, mindless, unthinking, unaware and compliant global citizen who will be enslaved by the globalist elite. The lemmings are too narcissistic and arrogant to understand they are participating in their own destruction – they are the useful idiots of the 21st century.

The sadness of transgenderism is that body dysphoria is an emotional/psychological disturbance that needs compassionate, patient, support from someone who can help the unfortunate sufferer come to terms with the trauma of his/her childhood that caused the disturbance. Hacking off body parts exacerbates the problem – it can never solve it.”

Janet Levy Ross writes:

“In Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College, Dr. Erler provides a comprehensive treatment of “diversity,” its pitfalls and implications for the perpetuation of our constitutional republic. (Long; but a very worthwhile read).The liberal bleeding hearts are the first to censure America when irresponsible and neglectful parents break the law to drag their children across our border. Clearly, this misplaced blame serves their anti-constitutional agenda for the “radical transformation of America.” Unfortunately, this meme has gained traction amongst many Republicans.”

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 11, 2018, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Colorado Springs.

President Trump’s zero-tolerance policy for illegal border crossers has provoked a hysterical reaction from Democrats, establishment Republicans, the progressive-liberal media, Hollywood radicals, and the deep state. What particularly motivated the ire of these Trump-haters was the fact that the zero-tolerance policy would require the separation of parents and children at the border. The hysteria was, of course, completely insincere and fabricated, given that the policy of separating children and parents was nothing new—it had been a policy of the Obama and Bush administrations as well.

Furthermore, where is the compassion for the thousands of American children who are separated from their parents every year as a result of arrests and convictions for non-violent crimes? Many of those arrested are single mothers whose infants become wards of the government until their mothers complete their sentences. No hysteria or effusive compassion is elicited by these separations, confirming that the object of the hysteria surrounding illegal border crossers is to force open borders on the nation under the guise of compassion for children.

President Trump’s preferred solution for ending the influx of illegal immigrants and providing border security is a wall; it is also the preferred solution of the American people. Zero tolerance is an interim policy that—if enforced—will help deter illegal crossers. The hysteria provoked by zero tolerance could have been predicted, but its magnitude and sheer insanity are almost breathtaking. Some prominent constitutional scholars have gone so far as to argue that the government has no constitutional authority to control the border. And this, which seems almost beyond hysteria, from the elite intellectual class that should be most immune to hysteria!

In the meantime, a Federal District Court judge in Southern California has discovered a substantive due process right guaranteeing the right to “family integrity” lurking in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and has ordered all children reunited with their illegal immigrant parents. Obviously the judge expects the parents to be released from incarceration to join their children, but the Trump administration seems determined to keep parents and children together in detention centers until legal proceedings determine their fate.

More than a century ago, the Supreme Court announced what was considered the settled sense of the matter when it remarked: “It is an accepted maxim of international law . . . and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within [a sovereign nation’s] dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.” This view was reaffirmed in the recent Supreme Court decision, handed down on June 26, that upheld Trump’s travel ban on foreign nationals from eight countries, six of which have majority Muslim populations.

This is the silly season of college applications for seniors throughout the nation. Besides scores and grades and recommendations, the essay is paramount in garnering attention. So here is an essay that is bound to gain consideration and even an offer of a scholarship:
“I don’t know if I identify as a male or female and I am open to all possibilities. I apply to college with serious doubts.
I doubt the value of capitalism; I doubt the concept of American exceptionalism; I doubt that we are a Democracy; I doubt the motives of our military – the fascist ground troops trained to commit war crimes in imperial conquest; I doubt that socialism and communism are as bad as racist right wing conservatives pretend; I doubt the culture that promotes music, prose and poetry with its recondite racism; I doubt the integrity of the slave owning founding “parents.”
I would rather study the mores and gentle life style of the Dayak people of Borneo and learn to speak Ngaju, than all Western culture.
I know that the syllabus and faculty of your great institution will focus on and allay all my doubts with facts and truth.
Please consider me for the freshman class of September 2019.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-conservatives-won-the-law-1532126300

STEVEN TELES IS A PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY….

When I was a freshman at the University of California, Berkeley in 2011, the College Republicans announced plans to hold an “Increase Diversity Bake Sale.” The idea was to offer minorities and women discounts on cupcakes while white males would pay full price. This led to an emergency meeting of the student government and widespread calls to defund the group or shut down the event. For its organizers, that alone made it a wild success.

“Affirmative-action bake sale conservatism,” as Steven Teles calls it, has an intellectual legacy dating back to the 1960s. Influenced by the counterculture left, activists aim to provoke a crackdown on conservatives, thereby exposing elite education as a coercive “hegemonic project” that represses disfavored ideas. A more familiar term for this, he says, is “trolling.”

Mr. Teles, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University, is more sympathetic to a different model of conservative campus activism, epitomized by the Federalist Society. Instead of seeking to embarrass liberal institutions, the goal is to build conservative ones with social and intellectual resources sufficient to compete directly. In his 2008 book, “The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement,” Mr. Teles chronicles how a coalition of right-leaning law students in debating societies managed, over a few decades, to dethrone liberalism from its dominant position in legal thought. Assuming Judge Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, judges influenced by this project will soon constitute a majority on the Supreme Court.

Liberals, as they defend their domain, insist that the conservative legal movement is the product of a deep-pocketed conspiracy and that its ideas are fronts for power and greed. Mr. Teles, although a liberal Democrat, wrote his book partly to challenge these preconceptions. “Liberals have this myth of diabolical conservative competence,” he tells me. They imagine their own side as “bumbling . . . but benevolent” and the right as “evil” but “totally farsighted and competent.”

The main achievement of the conservative legal movement, Mr. Teles says, hasn’t been fundraising but education, study and debate. The Federalist Society’s premise is that “we’re going to be smarter than the liberals,” he adds. “We’re going to be more bookish. We’re going to be more intellectual.” Conservative law students would “go down to first principles” to show that liberal students “can’t even describe why they’re in favor of what they’re in favor of.” Many of the early Federalist Society members were former liberals; their goal was to “draw people in” as they had been drawn in, by demonstrating “how thoughtful and how intellectual that project is.”

The past week of Russia hysteria has me longing for the good old days. Like 2009, when a Democratic president could pull missile defense systems out of Poland and the Czech Republic to appease Vladimir Putin without facing charges of treason. Or 2010, when a former Democratic president could take a cool half-million from a suspected Russian government-backed source to speak in Moscow and that wasn’t considered treasonous, either. Or 2012, when no one was screaming for impeachment when a Democratic president on a hot mic assured the Russian president that he’ll have “more flexibility” on missile defense systems once he’s re-elected. Or when the previous Democratic administration helped Putin toward his goal of controlling the worldwide supply chain of uranium and that was really all about “resetting” relationships.

Oh, how the times have changed!

Now, according to screeching harpies like Commie-lover John Brennan or many in the Democratic Party’s kept media, if you don’t say the right words during a press conference, you might be a traitor, worthy of impeachment, and probably Putin’s hand-picked agent sitting in the White House to bring about . . . well, that’s where the narrative gets a little fuzzy.

But the point is not to focus on substance. Just the style. It’s all about words and feelings, not about what actually happens because that would ruin a really good story, much like telling children the story you’re reading them at bedtime isn’t real. Forget such things as facts when you can have a good rip-roaring fairytale that soothes you and distracts the world from reality.

There was no honeymoon for the unlikely winner of the 2016 election. Progressives have in succession tried to sue to overturn Trump’s victory using several different approaches. First on the bogus claim of fraudulent voting machines. Then they sought to subvert the Electoral College by bullying electors into renouncing their respective states’ votes.

Massive protests and boycotts marked the inauguration. Then there were articles of impeachment introduced in the House. Some sued to remove Trump on a warped interpretation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Others brought in psychiatrists to testify that Trump was ill, disabled, or insane and should be removed in accordance with the 25th Amendment. The former FBI director, CIA director, and director of the Office of National Intelligence have variously smeared the president as a coward, a traitor, and a Russian mole.

The Mueller Investigation

We are about 430 days into Robert Mueller’s investigation; the special prosecutor whose team of lawyers and investigators has in a large part been made up either of Clinton donors, clear Clinton partisans, lawyers who have in the past represented Clinton interests or employees, or partisans already removed for expressing clear Trump hatred. The media grew ecstatic over its creation, dubbing it an “all-star” or “dream” team, as leaks assured the public that next week, next month, or “soon” there would be a sensational indictment proving that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the presidency.

We have gone through the psychodramas surrounding Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and a host of others. Any second, any minute they would be indicted for collusion in throwing an election, or they would soon flip and end the Trump presidency.