RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2023/06/21/america-wakes-up-to-woke/

Wokeness was envisioned as a new reboot of the coalition of the oppressed. 

Those purportedly victimized by traditional America would find “intersectional” solidarity in their victimhood owing to the supposed sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and other alleged American sins, past and present. 

The so-called white male heterosexual victimizing class was collectively to be held responsible for their sinful triad of white “rage,” “supremacy,” and “privilege.” 

Class considerations became passé. The Duchess of Sussex, and the billionaires Oprah Winfrey and LeBron James, shared grievances against all whites, whether they hailed from Martha’s Vineyard or impoverished East Palestine, Ohio. 

A bicoastal elite would draft the woke agenda and the oppressed would follow as ordered. 

That top-down blueprint would embrace massive multibillion-dollar reparations to blacks. 

In lockstep, all victims would rally around a Green New Deal that mandated high energy costs to discourage consumption of fossil fuels. 

The new transgender canon mandated three sexes. Sex is socially rather than biologically determined. And there is a large, oppressed, and transgender population: this presents the next great civil rights struggle for America. 

Historical wokeism lodged a list of grievances against the supposedly flawed American past. Indicting the dead required statues to be toppled. Names had to be changed. Histories were to be rewritten. Even the foundational date of America was to be reconsidered and altered. 

Yet, the rainbow fabric of woke is now fraying—and for a variety of reasons. 

For one thing, woke took off after the perfect storm of the COVID pandemic, the devastating lockdown, the 120 days of violent rioting and looting following the death of George Floyd, and years of endemic Trump Derangement Syndrome. Most of those catalysts are waning. Temporarily unhinged Americans are slowly reviving. Millions of the comatose are waking up to normality—and don’t recognize their own country. 

Two, woke is retrogressive, reactionary, and anti-civilizational. Decriminalizing the legal code, defunding the police, failing to apply norms to the homeless population, and destroying meritocracy have all hollowed out our major cities. 

San Francisco was a far cleaner, safer, and kinder city 20, 40, or 80 years ago than it is today. 

A woke FBI, Pentagon, or airline industry becomes a matter of life and death. 

Three, in modern America, class is now a far more accurate metric of oppression than race or gender. 

It is one thing to restrict fossil fuel development if you are in the upper one percent income bracket, quite another if you commute 50 miles a day in a used car. If there are to be reparations, why include Eric Holder or Al Sharpton, but not indigent Hispanics, Asians, and poor whites? 

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

In courthouses where cameras aren’t allowed, the courthouse artist produces the image of record.

Which is why assorted leftists exploded in rage at the bland, courthouse drawings of William Hennessey, Jr., who up until now has said that his work rarely draws any attention.

According to Jack Montgomery at the National Pulse:

Leftists raged at an obscure sketch artist following Trump’s arraignment in Miami, seething that the former president looked too young and handsome in his courtroom drawings.

 “The courtroom sketch artist, William Hennessy [J]r., is far too kind to [Donald Trump],” wrote one Twitter user.

 “His pastel drawings make the pig look at least 20 years younger and 90 pounds thinner.”

 “Any chance you can whip up a quick indictment for false depiction of an indicted grifter?” wrote another, tweeting at a parody account of Jack Smith.

Some Twitter users went so far as to link Hennessy’s Facebook page and encourage others to harass him.

 “Yo Bill, why trim 70lbs off Trump? Just weird. Do you privately think of him as a trim superhero?” demanded one person on a Facebook post.

The first thing this little ragefest tells us is that leftists have too much time on their hands, using their hours here on earth to complain about somebody else’s courthouse artwork. Montgomery’s piece has the drawings here.

The second thing this tells us is that leftists set a great store on how someone looks. They’re all in on looks-ism, despite their bony finger pointed at others for the same thing.

The third and most important thing this says is that hand drawn sketches, which was all the leftists got out of this trial, are not easily manipulated the way photographs are. That the leftists raged about Trump’s pictures being too handsome for their expectations brought to mind that had the pictures been photos instead of drawings, they would have been able to manipulate them into unflattering photos, what what with a plethora of inexpensive photo editing tools on the Internet. They could have reddened Trump’s face, as 60 Minutes once did to Trump’s advisor, Steve Bannon, to make him look like a drunk. Or, they could have given Trump a five o’clock shadow and painted some sweaty beads on his face to discredit him, the way once-vice president Nixon was discredited with those features during his debates with then-politician John F. Kennedy on television. They could have made Trump dirty, or pasty-pale, or back-shadowed, or better still, upshadowed, to get the image of Trump they wanted, and of course, made him look guilty or sleazy or dishonest to the casual observer. They could have Photoshopped in handcuffs or a bright orange jumpsuit, which is what they’ve slavered for for years. They can’t do that to even a reproduction of a drawing on the Internet, because the picture would simply be not true.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19745/federal-disinformation-bureaus

Recently, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines announced the creation of a new office within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI): The Foreign Malign Influence Center (FMIC).

Support in Congress means the money grab is on, with federal agencies vying to secure funds for the hot new topic to grow their bureaucracy, influence and power.

Other agencies already involved in disinformation are numerous…. The DHS has, or had, a Countering Foreign Influence Task Force… and a heavily criticized, ridiculed and now disbanded “Disinformation Governance Board.”

Is the threat of a new Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” as big as it is toxic?… is this function for the federal government even appropriate?

The American government is extremely capable at generating its own disinformation… Disappointingly, Americans have seen this capability firsthand. Some U.S. intelligence leaders have used their status to aggressively plant disinformation to undermine presidents and influence elections.

Consider Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and FBI Director James Comey, who used their positions to undermine incoming President-elect Donald Trump in January 2017 by leaking and hyping to the media information based on a deceptive briefing they provided to Trump to begin framing him for supposedly colluding with Russia in the disruptive, two-year pretend-investigation known inside the FBI as “Crossfire Hurricane” and outside it as “the Russia Hoax.”

The “Russia Hoax,” it turned out — as its perpetrators reportedly knew all along — had been organized and funded by Trump’s presidential election opponent Hillary Clinton — evidently to deflect attention from her extensive destruction of classified material — as well as the Democratic National Committee; fraudulently prosecuted by the FBI, and laundered by the Perkins Coie law firm.

Other recent allegations about potentially malign activities by our government abound. The FBI incidentally collected data without a warrant on U.S. citizens 3.4 million times in 2021. Thirty percent of the times the FBI did so, it acted in error or roughly one million times.

The evidence appears to be overwhelming….. When Congress has set lines, the Intelligence Community and law enforcement have been more than willing to overstep their bounds and stretch their legal authorities.

It is time to hold those responsible accountable…. Crucially, given the federal government’s repeatedly demonstrated disregard for the law, it is time to consider whether it should even be engaged in this effort. It should not. The American government, based on the First Amendment, should not be anywhere near regulating protected speech. The American government should not be deciding what speech should be regulated and what speech should not.

Recently, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines announced the creation of a new office within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI): The Foreign Malign Influence Center (FMIC). It would encompass “election threat work, essentially looking at foreign influence and interference in elections, but it also deals with disinformation more generally.” Legislation creating the center was passed by Congress and signed into law in 2022.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/john-stossel/2023/06/21/less-freedom-n1704919

Politicians claim their bills bring us good things. Free health care! Child care! A cellphone for all!

But government isn’t Santa Claus. Government is force. Most every law takes away a little of our money or freedom or both.

The Heritage Foundation ranks economic freedom across the globe. The United States once ranked No. 4 in the world, but we’ve been in decline. This year, as my new video explains, we’re 25th.

“If you care about living a prosperous life, you should care about what government economic policies are,” says The Heritage Foundation’s Derrick Morgan.   

The foundation ranks countries’ economic freedom based on things like rule of law, regulatory efficiency, open markets, fiscal health, etc. 

The big reason the USA fell in the rankings is that Congress spends so much more money than government can squeeze out of us in taxes.  

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/06/21/the-great-white-hunter-privilege/

Presidential son Hunter Biden got the deal of a lifetime when he agreed to plead guilty to a pair of federal tax charges and a single federal firearm offense. He will reportedly be placed on probation for the former and dodge punishment altogether for the latter.

In effect, he just has to say “sorry” for “​​owing in excess of $100,000 in federal income taxes” in 2017 and 2018 but failing to pay “the income tax due for either year.” To walk away from the charge that he lied on a form during a gun purchase (he said he did not have a drug problem), he evidently has to do no more than attend a diversion program.

Could any of us have received such a cushy arrangement for the same crimes from the Justice Department? Could a son of Donald Trump, or the son of any prominent Republican lawmaker, get off so easy?

C’mon, man. We all know the answer. It’s good to be a Biden.

Clearly it was too much to ask that prosecutors make an example out of Hunter. Federal prosecutors are throwing their books at January 6 offenders as a warning to anyone who might want to protest for the wrong side, but apparently Democratic Party status has its privileges.

Naturally, Republicans are angry. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis complained about Hunter’s “sweetheart deal.” Rep. James Comer of Kentucky called it a “slap on the wrist.” Oklahoma Rep. Kevin Hern said the president’s son was treated with “kid gloves.”

Which means the story now in the media will be about how the GOP is weaponizing the plea deal for political purposes. The offenses of a presidential son? Covered and smothered like Waffle House hash browns.

Meanwhile, probes into Joe “The Big Guy” Biden’s classified document stashes and credible accusations of him selling his office to foreign interests for financial gain are being slow walked – if they’re moving at all. It seems the Justice Department can investigate and prosecute only one document case at a time, the sole focus in the foreseeable future being the legal action against Donald Trump.

Bribery? That can wait until either Biden is out of office – and too old prosecute, because that would just be cruel, the same people now propping up the shell of a man will say – or the Democrats have such a tight grip on the federal government that neither man can be touched.

God save the queen, man, and Democrats save their own.

https://www.commentary.org/articles/matthew-continetti/midge-decter-reflections/

In the 1970s, there were very few Jewish thinkers on the political right, and no more than a tiny handful of them were women. One was Midge Decter, who had already established her bona fides among the New York intellectuals as a journalist and editor when she, along with her husband, Norman Podhoretz, helped found the persuasion that became known as neoconservative. A year after her death, Matthew Continetti reflects on Decter’s legacy:

Midge’s Gifts
Washington Commentary
by Matthew Continetti

Keeping up with Midge Decter wasn’t easy. Born in Saint Paul, Minnesota, in 1927, she never stopped taking on responsibilities: as a daughter, sister, spouse, mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother; as a social critic, commentator, and author; as a book and magazine editor; as a political activist and foreign-policy maven; and as a friend and mentor.

Decter’s first adult job was as a typist at COMMENTARY during the late 1940s. Though she left the office for other pursuits, her presence continued to be felt in her many essays and reviews for the magazine and, indirectly, in the editorships of her husband Norman and her son John. Between the 1960s and 2000s, she seemed to be everywhere—writing, speaking, arguing, fighting, caring, teaching.

The Heritage Foundation was among her favorite places. It was an association Decter did not expect. She was a Jewish New York intellectual, a former liberal Democrat who, along with her husband, became part of the neoconservative movement in the 1970s. Geography as well as opinion separated the neocons from Heritage, the D.C.-based think tank known as the policy engine of the populist, Christian New Right.

Imagine, then, Decter’s surprise in the spring of 1981 when Heritage’s co-founder and longtime president, Ed Feulner, asked her to join the organization’s board of trustees. She quickly said yes, telling Feulner, “You must always join the side you are on.”

That side was well represented at Heritage on a sunny afternoon in May. A group of scholars, readers, colleagues, and admirers met to discuss Decter’s work and legacy one year after her death at age 94. The gathering served as a reminder that the confusions, problems, and dilemmas that animated Decter’s public life have not gone away. In some cases, they have grown worse. Which makes Decter’s wisdom and example more important than ever.

A few of the speakers shared anecdotes. Feulner told the story of Decter’s first encounter with conservative grassroots activist Phyllis Schlafly. These two critics of women’s liberation took to each other immediately. Decter once said that it was “easy” to get along with Schlafly: “She’s been doing my dirty work for years.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-growing-india-is-good-for-the-us-modi-state-visit-8-percent-reform-65f1047d?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

When India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits the U.S. this week, Americans should pay careful attention to his vision for 8% growth. Both countries would benefit greatly from faster growth.

India has entered the 25-year period leading to the 100th anniversary of its independence with a growth plan. Called Amrit Kaal, which roughly translates to “Golden Era,” it is Mr. Modi’s rallying cry and blueprint for India to reach 8% growth and a much higher median income. Faster growth in India would help the U.S. by allowing new opportunities for trade and investment, less dependence on China, and better balance for the bipolar world economy.

Eight percent sounds out of reach in a world of weak growth, but India has grown by 6% or more in recent years and is building from a relatively low base ($2,200 per capita). When offered sound policies and the tolerance inherent in rules-based government, people from anywhere in the world can achieve fast compound growth rates. China’s economy grew 10% a year throughout its 1993-2012 era of currency stability, market and price liberalization, and tolerance for growing businesses.

India has shown that it can hold down external indebtedness and that the rupee can be relatively stable. It should build on that. Key reforms would shrink spending and bureaucracy and allow increased investment and jobs in medium-size companies. India’s job creation is shaped like a barbell, with startups and small businesses on one side facing daunting barriers to expansion from overgrown government, regulation and high taxes. On the other side are the government and a few big companies as massive employers. While Mr. Modi’s budget calls for more government investment, it is critical that investment shift to the private sector, particularly so small businesses can grow. Reforms offer big potential upside in three particular areas.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers-alito-gifts-disclosure-alaska-singer-23b51eda?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Editor’s note: Justin Elliott and Josh Kaplan of ProPublica, which styles itself “an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force,” emailed Justice Alito Friday with a series of questions and asked him to respond by noon EDT Tuesday. They informed the justice that “we do serious, fair, accurate reporting in the public interest and have won six Pulitzer Prizes.” Here is Justice Alito’s response:

ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclose Report. Neither charge is valid.

• Recusal. I had no obligation to recuse in any of the cases that ProPublica cites. First, even if I had been aware of Mr. Singer’s connection to the entities involved in those cases, recusal would not have been required or appropriate. ProPublica suggests that my failure to recuse in these cases created an appearance of impropriety, but that is incorrect. “There is an appearance of impropriety when an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant facts would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties” (Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices appended to letter from the Chief Justice to Senator Durbin, April 25, 2023). No such person would think that my relationship with Mr. Singer meets that standard. My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups. On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the Court. On two occasions, he introduced me before I gave a speech—as have dozens of other people. And as I will discuss, he allowed me to occupy what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat on a private flight to Alaska. It was and is my judgment that these facts would not cause a reasonable and unbiased person to doubt my ability to decide the matters in question impartially.

Second, when I reviewed the cases in question to determine whether I was required to recuse, I was not aware and had no good reason to be aware that Mr. Singer had an interest in any party. During my time on the Court, I have voted on approximately 100,000 certiorari petitions. The vast majority receive little personal attention from the justices because even a cursory examination reveals that they do not meet our requirements for review.

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

The Intercept recently revealed that high-ranking U.S. military officials have intelligence resources charged with protecting their physical well-being…and also their egos…from criticism and potential subsequent “embarrassment,” in particular due to comments posted on social media. This is not a joke. (Okay, it is in one sense, but not literally.)

Yes, according to the left-leaning online newspaper, a new U.S. military unit has apparently been tasked with monitoring social media for mean posts about current and former high-ranking officers. Presumably, stuff like this from Twitter:

This fairly reeks of dictatorships, juntas, and other authoritarian regimes.

Forget defending against China, Iran, North Korea, et. al., the Obiden administration has fundamentally transformed what was previously the world’s most powerful and capable fighting force. It has emasculated it—and tasked it with defending against nationalism, climate change, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, misgendering, “disinformation,” “domestic terrorists” (i.e. patriots and parents)…and now posts critical of military heads themselves.

Somewhere, George Washington weeps. And Patton rages.

https://dianebederman.com/we-have-been-normalizing-child-sacrifice-for-far-too-long/

June 12 is recognized globally as the World Day Against Child Labour. By definition, child labour is “work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development.”

I recently spoke to a young woman who is planning to buy a Tesla. To save the planet, of course. Great, I said. But, what about the child labour involved in creating the batteries; mining the lithium?

Well, she answered, child labour has been with us a long time – Nike, Adidas and so many others have their products made in China and third world countries using child labour.

True. Sad, but true. And very astute. But, just because child labour already exists, do we just turn a blind eye and carry on?

At what point do we say no?

Why are we normalizing child sacrifice?

Why do we not speak up against evil when first confronted?

Why do we remain silent?

To what end?

Money, in the case of product; and for child suicide bombers…?

Let’s start with child labour for cheap product.

Child labour laws were implemented in the USA with the federal child labor provisions, authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), also known as the child labor laws. They were enacted to ensure that when young people work, the work is safe and does not jeopardize their health, well-being or educational opportunities.