RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19759/colorblind-society

Although this decision was split along current conservative-liberal lines, with the court’s three liberals dissenting, it actually reflects traditional liberalism. Justice William Douglas, perhaps the most liberal justice in Supreme Court history, advocated precisely this race neutral approach when affirmative action was first introduced. He was right then, and his liberal, colorblind approach, has now been vindicated.

A simple example demonstrates why employing race as a criteria is both unconstitutional and immoral. As the Supreme Court correctly pointed out, admission to elite universities is a zero-sum game: for every student or group that is given preference, another is disadvantaged. So consider this zero-sum choice:….

After decades of vacillation, the Supreme Court of the United States has finally and firmly declared that the Constitution does not permit publicly funded universities to consider race, as such, in its admission processes. This is a decision that many, including this author, have been advocating since the 1970s, when my first law review article appeared, calling for affirmative action to be based on non-racial criteria and individual accomplishments.

The Supreme Court has been moving in this direction for some time now, but it has until now allowed loopholes the size of university football stadiums. These loopholes were exploited by universities to enforce quota systems whereby approximately the same percentage of minority applicants would be admitted every year. The results of these quotas impacted most heavily on one of the most discriminated against groups in American history – Asian Americans. The plaintiffs in the Harvard case were such Americans. It will be interesting to see how their numbers are affected by the decision.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/hunter-biden-invoking-father-spurred-millions-china-company

Hunter Biden’s threatening messages invoking “my father” resulted in a swift agreement being signed between President Joe Biden’s son and a Chinese Communist Party-linked company and millions of dollars flowing to Biden family accounts.

The bombshell new WhatsApp messages were between Hunter Biden and key intermediaries with the since-defunct Chinese energy conglomerate CEFC whose chairman, Ye Jianming, is tied to the Chinese military. The messages were revealed by an IRS whistleblower.

Hunter Biden sent messages to Chinese businessman Henry Zhao on July 30, 2017, in which he leveraged his father’s name and threatened CEFC executives unless a lucrative deal was worked out with Ye, whose biography said he had been “deputy secretary-general” of the China Association for International Friendly Contact, which the U.S.-China Commission assessed was a “front organization” for the People’s Liberation Army’s General Political Department.

The newly released messages provide key context to previously discovered foreign bank transactions involving Hunter Biden. Within days after the president’s son named dropped his father in a text threat, Hunter Biden and his associated businesses soon received an estimated $5 million in payments from CEFC in 2017 and 2018, with Chinese payments quickly beginning to roll in, according to banking findings from a 2020 Senate report.

“I am sitting with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment has not been fulfilled,” Hunter Biden told Zhao in one of the July 30 messages. “I am very concerned that [Ye] has either changed his mind and broken our deal without telling me or that he is unaware of the promises and assurances that have been made have not been kept.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/glazov-gang-child-trafficking-the-open-border-and-willful-blindness/

This new Glazov Gang episode features Judd Dunning, author of ’13 1/2 Reasons Why Not To Be a Liberal’, a Newsmax regular columnist, and the host of ‘Unapologetic! The Judd Dunning Hour‘ on KABC am790.

Judd discusses Child Trafficking, the Open Border and Willful Blindness, analyzing The haunting silence of the Left, #MeToo, and our elites.

Don’t miss it!

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/06/30/the-4-big-lies-and-1-terrible-truth-in-bidens-bidenomics-is-working-speech/

“I’m happy to call it ‘Bidenomics.’  And guess what?  Bidenomics is working.”

In a 30-minute speech in Chicago this week, President Joe Biden declared that his economic policies — which can charitably be summed up as “borrow and spend, tax and regulate” — are doing wonders for the nation’s economy.

Never mind that just 38% of Americans approve of the job Biden has been doing on the economy.

No. The only risk we face, Biden argued, was a return of that bogeyman known as “trickle-down economics.”

“Folks, let me say this as clearly as I can,” Biden said. “The trickle-down approach failed the middle class. It failed America. It blew up the deficit. It increased inequity. And it weakened the in — our infrastructure. It stripped the dignity, pride, and hope out of communities one after another, particularly through the Midwest, Western Pennsylvania, and heading west.”

Scary!

Or, it would be, if there was a shred of truth to it. The middle class made huge gains during the “trickle-down” Reagan boom and was making huge gains during the Trump boom until the Biden-backed COVID lockdowns gutted it.

Truth is, the only way Biden can make the case for “Bidenomics” is by lying. Examples:

“U.S. has had the highest economic growth rate, leading the world economies since the pandemic.”

Except it didn’t. The U.S. ranks 146th in real GDP growth in the world so far this year, came in 151st place last year, and was 66th in 2021, according to the International Monetary Fund.

“We created 13.4 million new jobs.”

Also false. Because almost 10 million of those were simply refilled jobs lost during the pointless COVID lockdown. Under Biden, the number of net new jobs is less than 4 million — which is nothing to brag about, given that the working-age population has grown by 6.8 million since Biden took office.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-long-road-to-racial-equality-affirmative-action-supreme-court-discrimination-race-diversity-f45c3b8f?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

EXCERPT

I strongly believe that the future of our country demands that we reject our endless pursuit of diversity and equity and claw our way back to our values and the vision embraced by Lincoln and JFK. Ending race-based affirmative action is an important first step in that mission. Over the past 20 years, voters in Arizona, California, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Washington backed ballot measures to prohibit racial discrimination—including preferential treatment for minorities. Officials in Idaho, Florida and New Hampshire did the same via legislation or executive order.

As one who was born in Jim Crow as a “colored” person and who has lived through all 62 years of affirmative action, my fear has been that this departure from one of America’s most fundamental values—over which we have fought a civil war—was becoming accepted as the preferred policy, rather than the exception, to our constitutional obligation of equal treatment for every person.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of equal rights and against race-based affirmative action in college admissions, it is realistic to anticipate some pushback. Change after 60 years rarely comes easy. For my part, and that of the majority who believe in the ideal that has guided America since its inception, this is a time to rejoice, as America will come closer to living in accordance with its creed.

On the day before the high court’s oral arguments in the Students for Fair Admissions cases, I addressed a rally sponsored by Asian Americans for Equal Education. As I sat chatting with Ed Blum, whose organization was the plaintiff, a college student of Asian descent approached. I asked why she considered this case to be important.

“Because it would give me a chance to prove my merit, and the content of my character,” she said. Martin Luther King Jr. would have nodded even more vigorously than I did.

Mr. Connerly is president of the American Civil Rights Institute.

https://thespectator.com/topic/walls-closing-joe-biden-corruption-hunter-irs-white-house-trump/

Confronted with devastating evidence of Biden family grifting, the president’s advocates are abandoning their old defenses and trying some new ones. 

Some are attempting to change the subject. Nancy Pelosi offers a sterling example. Asked about the latest evidence connecting Joe Biden with Hunter’s corrupt schemes, she replied that she was too busy defending women’s reproductive rights. Not exactly a full-throated defense of the president. Still others are repeating the familiar refrain, “But Trump is worse.” (More on that in a minute.) 

Finally, a shrinking band of Biden supporters are sticking with their old line: you may have caught everyone who shares Joe’s DNA, but you haven’t caught ol’ Joe himself. That’s true, but the evidence of the president’s involvement is mounting and the allegations are detailed. The charges are so obvious and the evidence so serious that even mainstream reporters are asking about them. The president’s press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, stands mute. So does her more competent stand-in, John Kirby. KJP not only told the press she knows nothing, she told them she would not privately ask the president about the charges so she could respond to press inquiries. 

What Joe’s defenders are increasingly reluctant to say is, “He had absolutely nothing to do with the vast sums raked in by his son, brother, daughter-in-law and minor grandchildren. He knew nothing. He had no knowledge of the intricate web of shell companies his family used to move money around and hide its sources and recipients. He doesn’t know any honest business people who have used these covert methods. He did nothing to help his son, Hunter, his brother, James, or other family members. The president is completely ignorant of anything they did and did nothing to help them.” That’s his story. 

Many of Joe’s defenders have backed away from a straightforward declaration that “he’s innocent,” and instead render the Scottish verdict, “Not proven.” So far, they are right — the case isn’t proven yet. But the walls are closing in, both on Joe himself and on his defenders at the Department of Justice, IRS and FBI.