RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-american-lefts-fantastic-beasts-progressives-abortion-voting-book-ban-842c0d65?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

President Biden’s re-election announcement video warned that “MAGA extremists are lining up” to repeal “bedrock freedoms.” Uh oh—what freedoms? The extremists plan on “dictating what healthcare decisions women can make, banning books, and telling people who they can love, all by making it more difficult for you to be able to vote.”

It was a perfect expression of the paranoid state in which American progressivism finds itself. Leave aside for a moment the line about “dictating what healthcare decisions women can make,” a euphemistic reference to abortion. The other threats on Mr. Biden’s list—“banning” books, “telling people who they can love” and voter suppression—are literally nonexistent. Mr. Biden isn’t engaged in the time-honored political craft of exaggeration. He’s seeing things that aren’t there.

Liberal commentators have been ridiculing conservatives for fearing negligible or nonexistent threats for as long as I can remember: communist infiltration during the Cold War, Islamic extremism in the 2000s, illegal immigration in the 2010s, gender ideology in the 2020s. The right might or might not have exaggerated the urgency of these problems. But they were, or are, problems. That isn’t the case with an array of issues Democratic politicians and progressive intellectuals are exercised about in 2023. You often feel they’re so invested in the idea of a delusional right that they can’t perceive their own penchant for dreaming up nonexistent threats.

Mr. Biden is worried about book bans. The American Library Association recently claimed in a report that 2,571 books were “challenged” in American libraries last year. These challenges the ALA calls “attempted book bans,” nearly all of which involve a request by a patron that a public library or school library remove a book from its shelves because it is obscene or otherwise offensive. I’m not sure such requests are improper—young-adult fiction has become sexually avant-garde and shockingly coarse over the past two decades. Anyway, to ask that a taxpayer-supported library not facilitate children’s access to a sexually explicit book isn’t to “ban” it. An interested patron may buy it and read it in public if he wishes.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/06/the_lefts_control_over_the_language_of_sexuality_finally_meets_resistance.html

George Orwell taught us that control over the terms used to discuss consequential subjects is a key element of tyranny.  It’s a lesson that the left took to heart as a weapon, not as a caution against despotism.

No better example exists today than the language of sex, which the left has asserted control over, immensely assisted by its dominance of the major media organs.  Calling genital mutilation “gender-affirming care” is the most blatant example of bizarro-world terminology since calling abortion “reproductive health care” and its advocacy as “choice.”  Virtually the entire medical, academic, and journalistic establishments employ the term “gender-affirming care” now.  

But finally, there is a growing movement that has attracted at least one piece of critical support in fighting back.  It started yesterday with a grassroots tweet from a therapist named James Esses:

When his point was picked up and extended to policy at Twitter (at least according to its owner, Elon Musk), attention to the term exploded:

My understanding of the import of the term “cis-” is that it denies any status as normal to what has been normal since the dawn of human consciousness: people (and the animal kingdom) come in two varieties, male and female.[i] Thanks to modern science, we know that these two (and two only) varieties are determined by chromosomes, equally binary, XY and XX.

This exchange led to further tweets making the point that the origin of the terminology “cis-” is perversely connected with pedophilia.

It’s a target rich environment for government waste, fraud, corruption and taxpayer abuse. 

Yet, today comes a breath of fresh air!

Thanks to our honorary chairman, the late U.S. Senator Dr. Tom Coburn, the federal government’s own internal watchdog must regularly search for duplications and inefficiencies in federal spending — and report them to Congress.

Back in 2010, when President Obama was negotiating yet another debt-ceiling deal, Coburn insisted that this simple reform be part of the agreement. 

Today, the Government Accountability Office reported that $46.8 billion of duplicative spending was saved during the past year. 

 Altogether, since 2010, the Coburn Rule has saved taxpayers a collective $600 BILLION!

As Senator Coburn himself said of these reports: “Turning this ready-made list of cuts into savings is one of the best ways Congress can regain the trust and confidence of the American people. No American – regardless of party or ideology – wants to see their tax dollars fund unnecessary duplication and bloat.” 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/our-next-president-must-fix-our-military-first/

The federal bureaucracy is a smoldering smorgasbord of corruption, incompetence, and pride flag-waving wokeness, and the big questions for the next Republican president are where to start fixing it and how. There are a few things that need to happen day one to begin imposing our iron discipline upon the out-of-control derp state – pardons for every persecuted victim of the two-tiered “justice” system, orders to comply with all GOP investigatory subpoenas immediately, and firing Chris Wray. But defeating the unofficial fourth branch of government requires focus and intensity. You cannot take it down overnight because it will fight back with support from the regime media. So, you need a quick and critical win.

That’s why the first thing you fix is the military. Getting a big win relatively quickly is substantively vital – we cannot be at the mercy of China, et al. – but beating the Pentagon’s perfumed princes also demonstrates that the bureaucracy can be beaten. Fixing the military checks both boxes.

People wonder how the military went from a glorious force for freedom to a disastrous parody of itself led by a be-medaled faculty lounge on a three-decade-losing streak. They should not wonder – the military is a hierarchical and centralized organization that reflects its commander’s intent. Obama and the people currently holding dust-puppet Biden’s strings treated our military the same way the chardonnay-soaked Munchausen mommies treated their boys and emasculated it. Trump, though a supporter of a strong military, was bedazzled by the badges, ribbons, and stars of the flag officers and did not disrupt the decline. We need a 180 degree turnaround. Soldiers do what commanders check, and right now, they are checking wokeness. That’s why the military is woke. And therefore broke.

But what if we had a commander-in-chief who checked combat readiness? Its hierarchical nature means that the military is the easiest and fastest federal institution to change back. But it will take the president devoting time and focus to the task; he can win a vast victory fast if he – the commander – demands it.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/whistleblowers-bidens-doj-stopped-prosecutors-from-going-after-hunter/

A gentle slap on the wrist. That is what President Biden’s son Hunter will likely face for lying about his drug use on a federal gun purchase form and for evading the payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars he owed in federal taxes.

After five years of a bogus investigation, Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss’ office announced on June 20th an incredibly lenient plea deal for offenses that have sent lesser mortals without a daddy in the Oval Office to prison. That is, unless the federal judge assigned to the case, U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika, sees through this miscarriage of justice and rejects the plea deal.

When asked about the plea deal for Hunter’s illegal acquisition of a gun and cheating on his taxes, President Biden said he was “very proud” of his son. Given the president’s zealous support for gun control and for going after well-heeled tax cheats, President Biden would have been better off saying nothing at all.

If Hunter Biden had taken full ownership of his crimes and agreed to serve some jail time in exchange for the prosecution’s agreement to accept his guilty plea, then maybe there would have been something to be proud of. But that is not what happened. Hunter is an unreformed grifter who has lived his adult life leveraging his father’s political power for personal advantage. The Biden Justice Department’s offer of a sweetheart deal to Hunter came about only because his father is in the White House.

Hunter took one for the entire Biden family syndicate by agreeing to plead guilty to narrow charges focused only on his own tax evasion and illegal gun acquisition. He avoided entangling his family members, including the “big guy,” in a web of far more serious charges like money laundering, bribery, and violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, despite strong evidence of such crimes. Perhaps that is why President Biden is so proud of his son.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/06/23/russian-collusion-it-was-hillary-clinton-all-along/

After seven years of false charges and investigations of Donald Trump, both the FBI and Hillary Clinton walk away unscathed.

It was clear from the beginning that charges of “collusion” between Donald Trump and Russia during the 2016 election were phony — a cheap, and illegal, political trick. But they did their damage. While Trump beat Hillary Clinton, there has since been a non-stop Democratic Party-led campaign to tar him as a “traitor” or worse.

And, as the recent testimony of Special Counsel John Durham to Congress shows, Clinton lay behind this scheme to defraud American voters and throw an election. So, today, despite powerful evidence of official wrongdoing, we’re back where we were some seven years ago.

By the way, you might notice the headline above has quotation marks. That’s because it was the exact headline we placed on an editorial way back in August 2018. We didn’t need to change it a bit.

We wrote then: “It’s beginning to look as if claims of monstrous collusion between Russian officials and U.S. political operatives were true. But it wasn’t Donald Trump who was guilty of Russian collusion. It was Hillary Clinton and U.S. intelligence officials who worked with Russians and others to entrap Trump.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/adam-schiff-censured-house-false-allegations-trump-russia-collusion

The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to censure Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for pushing claims that former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign colluded with Russia — a vote that made Schiff just the third member of the House to be censured since the turn of the century.

The resolution passed 213-209 in a vote — every Republican voted for it except for six who voted “present,” and every Democrat voted against it.

Immediately following the vote, Democrats gathered on the floor and chanted “Shame!” and “Disgrace!” as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., tried to gavel the House in order for several minutes. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., was heard calling McCarthy a “spiteful coward” and accusing him of “weak leadership.”

McCarthy then asked Schiff to present himself in the well of the House, and Democrats clapped and cheered as he approached. After being interrupted several times by Democrats, McCarthy said, “I have all night.”

Schiff then stood in well of the House as required by the resolution, and was hugged and cheered by dozens of Democrats who surrounded him. The measure also requires the House Committee on Ethics to investigate Schiff’s “falsehoods, misrepresentations, and abuses of sensitive information.”

It was the second time the House tried to pass a resolution censuring Schiff from Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla. A resolution from Luna failed on the House floor last week because it recommended a fine against Schiff of $16 million, which Democrats and 20 Republicans opposed.

With that language removed, the resolution was able to pass on a party-line vote, which Luna said was needed to fight back against Schiff’s “lies” about Trump.

“As chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff launched an all-out political campaign built on baseless distortions against a sitting U.S. president, at the expense of every single citizen in this country and the honor of the House of Representatives,” Luna said before the vote. “With access to sensitive information unavailable to most members of Congress and certainly not accessible to the American people, Schiff abused his privileges, claiming to know the truth while leaving Americans in the dark about his web of lies… lies so severe that they altered the course of the country forever.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/irs-whistleblower-hunter-biden-probe-gary-shapley-joe-biden-bc42321d?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

One thing for readers to look for on Friday is what and where they read about Thursday’s testimony by a pair of Internal Revenue Service whistleblowers. Their claims, under oath at a House Ways and Means hearing, are newsworthy and politically explosive.

We’ve heard enough whistleblower tales over the years to be skeptical about claims that can be exploited by partisans, which is one reason we’ve been cautious about reporting the second-hand accounts about the IRS investigators from House Republicans. We wanted to see specific claims from specific individuals, and on Thursday we did.

Our Kimberley Strassel recounts some of the highlights from the testimony nearby. The details are shocking if true because they charge political interference and favorable prosecutorial treatment in the IRS probe of Hunter Biden. President Biden’s son agreed to a deal this week to plead guilty to two minor counts of failing to make proper tax payments.

But agent Gary Shapley claims his IRS unit recommended more serious felony charges based partly on what he described as a scheme to hide payments from Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that hired Hunter as a consultant and board member. Mr. Shapley claims U.S. Attorney David Weiss was blocked from pursuing those charges, which the Justice Department denies.

Mr. Shapley also recounts that his team obtained a July 30, 2017 WhatsApp message from Hunter Biden to Henry Zhao, a Chinese businessman. The testimony says Hunter wrote:

“I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/06/22/the-toughest-job-in-d-c-transcribing-bidens-remarks/

Watching President Joe Biden try to make his way through a speech is painful enough. Reading a transcript of it is worse. Not just because Biden’s words are even more confusing in print, but because you start to feel a strong sense of pity for the person responsible for figuring out what he is trying to say, how much of it to transcribe verbatim, and which facts to correct.

We looked through Biden’s remarks from just this month and found 15 instances where the transcriber felt compelled to make corrections on things the president said.

Here’s an example from one 11-minute speech he gave over the weekend in Palo Alto.

Forty million — 40 million Americans already drinking water that thousands of farmers rely on for — for integration [irrigation].  And 40 million count on that river and so do the farmers….

Folks, flood mitigation: $3.5 million [billion] to reduce or eliminate the risk of repetitive flood damage to buildings, plus $1 billion in funding mitigation measures to increase community resilience, like supporting adaptations of hazard-resistant building codes

And maybe most important, I’ve committed by 2020 [2030], we will have conserved 30 percent of all the lands and waters the United States has jurisdiction over and simultaneously reduce emissions to blunt climate impacts.

Other examples from this month as they appear in the official White House transcripts:

“Mary Robinson [Barra], the Chairman of the Board of General Motors …”
“Instead, I signed into law the Bipartisan Safers [sic] Community Act, which you’ve referenced several times today …”
“Last summer, I had the honor of bestowing the Presidential Meda- — Medal of Freemon [sic] — Freedom on distinguished Americans …”
“The ticket seller, SeatGreek [SeatGeek], is also set to give customers the option of seeing all-in, upfront prices …”
“And I’m pleased we’re also joined by x-pay [sic] — xBk, a small venue in Des Moines, Iowa, that’s going be using all upfront pricing for its hundred events at — a year as well …”
“Let me tell you, the Inflation Reduction Act includes $369 billion to comat [sic] — combat climate change …”
“We made clear — they made clear that we’d rather th- — they’d rather threaten the default of the U.S. economy than cut or get rid of, for example, $30 billion in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies who made $200 million [sic] last year — billion.  I said ‘million.’  Billion dollars last year …”
“When we were at the G7, we talked about — one of the meetings was — they used to call the Build Back Better World. It’s not that now. It’s the PIII [PGII] — P-triple-I [sic] …”
“At the G7, it was originally called Build Back Better World, but we were talking about — there’s a new PPI [PGII] — anyway — an industrial policy that we’re all signed on to …”
“As Commander-in-Chief, I was proud to have ended the ban on transgester [sic] Americans — transgender Americans serving in the United States military …”
“And finally, this executive order means more resources, especially when it comes to improving military families’ access to quality, defendable [dependable], and affordable — affordable childcare …”
“This could have been the week that a catastrophic — catastrophic devault [sic] — default happened …”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-tyranny-of-the-clerks/

The Framers of our Constitution were well-versed through experience and history in the dangers of tyranny. Their education in Classical history and literature familiarized them with the political theory and practice of the world’s first constitutional governments like democracy and republics. Their European influencers like Montesquieu and David Hume were similarly trained. From these sources, and their own take on their experiences with King George III, the Framers learned that concentrated and centralized power ultimately leads to tyranny–– the degradation of civil liberties, freedom, and equality.

One form of despotism, however, they could not have anticipated is our modern tyranny of the clerks, the functionaries in hypertrophied government bureaucracies that degenerate into instruments of political factions to be used against rivals. For over a century the Constitution has been weakened and compromised by these unaccountable, mostly anonymous bureaucracies––as the excesses of federal agencies over the last seven years are now making obvious.

The idea of technocracy or rule by “experts,” of course, was not unknown in antiquity. Plato’s famous utopia in the Republic (c. 375 B.C.) imagined a state run by cognitive elite “guardians” created by covert eugenic marriages, and trained for five decades in philosophy and virtue. Subsequently the idea of the “philosopher king” remained a staple of political fantasy all the way down to Marxism’s “vanguard” of the elite intelligentsia who could discern what Marx called the “inner but concealed essential pattern” of economics and history.

But Plato’s ideal has always encountered the problem that Roman satirist Juvenal identified: “Who will actually guard the guardians?” Such utopian notions foundered on the empirical reality of a flawed, irrational, universal human nature driven by “passions and interests.” And one of the most dangerous and destructive is the lust for power that seldom is sated, and always craves more.

That tragic realism, an inheritance from both our Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman cultural traditions, was also shared by the Founders. As historian Walter A. McDougall writes, “[A]ll Federalists believed human nature was flawed . . . envisioned no utopias, put little trust in republican virtue, and believed the only government liable to endure was one taking mankind as it was and making allowance for passion and greed.” Hence the Constitution’s structure of divided, mutually checking balanced powers.

The progressives at the turn of the 20th century, however, believed that the Constitution was an anachronism based on outmoded beliefs like mankind’s flawed nature. Progressives like Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Croly, in contrast, argued that new “sciences” such as economics, sociology, and psychology had made obsolete tradition, faith, and history as guides to human nature––and Darwinism’s “natural selection” had shown that human nature, rightly guided by technocrats, similarly could progress beyond the old realist view of it as flawed and unchanging.