RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/08/why-its-time-defense-secretary-austin-resign-amber-smith/

Amber Smith is a former Pentagon official and U.S. Army Kiowa Warrior helicopter pilot and veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. She is the author of ‘Danger Close’.

The consequence of the Department of Defense COVID vaccine mandate? A self-inflicted national security threat to readiness, recruitment, retention and ultimately to the all-volunteer force. Secretary of Defense Loyd Austin made a foolish decision to throw away battle tested, combat proven service members with years of priceless war fighting experience and leadership who were an incredible asset to the fighting force. This deliberate decision has caused irreversible damage to the military and the force’s ability to accomplish the mission.

Austin should resign for his failures to maintain necessary force end strength, the worst recruitment crisis since the Vietnam war, for playing politics with soldiers’ careers over the COVID vaccine mandate, and the botched Afghanistan withdrawal. His failure to intervene early in order to tackle these issues prior to becoming full-fledged crises has significantly degraded the military’s capabilities, readiness and national security. 

But Austin’s failures started long before COVID. 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/07/31/harvard-study-only-8-of-capitol-rioters-wanted-insurrection/

A comprehensive study by Harvard University of the motivations of those who participated in the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol found that only 8% wanted to start an insurrection or civil war — contrary to claims by the January 6 Committee.

The Harvard Crimson reported last week:

In the most comprehensive study to date of what motivated the Trump supporters to attack the Capitol, Shorenstein Center researchers found that 20.6 percent of the rioters, a plurality, were motivated to take part in the riot because they supported Trump. Another 20.6 percent of the rioters cited Trump’s fraudulent claims that the 2020 presidential election was rigged as their primary reason for participating in the Jan. 6 riot.

…

The third most common reason for attacking the Capitol: a desire to start a civil war or an armed revolution, according to the study. Almost 8 percent of defendants indicated it was their main motivation.

In an interview, Fagan said she was surprised by how frequently support for Trump and concerns about the election were cited as primary motivations for joining the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/08/01/the-fbi-twice-interfered-in-the-2020-election-to-sabotage-trump-now-what/

It could be the whopper of the year.

“I can tell you that in every case we follow the facts and the evidence and the law and we do so without regard to politics or ideology,” Matthew Olsen, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, solemnly assured the House Judiciary Committee during a hearing last week.

Olsen was responding to a question by U.S. Representative Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) about the decision to arrest several men for supposedly conspiring to abduct and assassinate Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020. “The alleged Whitmer plot was announced on October 7, 2020 within a month of the U.S. presidential election,” Bishop asked Olsen. “How come that [was the] timing for the FBI’s announcement of this plot?”

Olsen refused to explain why, opting instead to commit borderline perjury by insisting the Justice Department turns a blind eye to politics—all evidence accumulated over the past six years to the contrary.

But now that two men have been acquitted after defense attorneys convinced a Michigan jury in April that the FBI entrapped their clients—the jury deadlocked on two other defendants who face a new trial next week—Bishop’s question demands an answer. And it won’t come from a dangerously-weaponized Justice Department focused almost entirely on prosecuting Americans who protested Joe Biden’s election on January 6, 2021 and with its sights now trained on indicting Donald Trump.

Despite Olsen’s stonewalling, the answer to Bishop’s question is in plain sight. Just as it did with phony claims of Russian election collusion in 2016, the FBI fabricated a scandal in 2020 aimed at sabotaging Trump right before a national election.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/07/fauci-deserves-a-trip-to-the-moon-not-an-official-portrait/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=top-bar-latest&utm_term=fourth

The National Portrait Gallery in D.C. flubs it in honoring the Covid lockdown’s high priest.

A couple of art-news stories are worth reporting. A few weeks ago, I wrote a pair of pieces about the National Portrait Gallery in Washington. It’s a great place and part of the Smithsonian. I love portraits, so it’s a natural draw for me.

In one piece, I suggested how the NPG, still new as museums go, could up its game. As an example, it displays many portraits whose subjects are laudable but, as quality goes, suck and shouldn’t be displayed. Since then, I learned that the museum has decided to commission a portrait of Dr. Cockroach for its collection. Fauci’s portrait will indeed premiere this fall.

You could resurrect Gainsborough and Reynolds, Rembrandt and Sargent, all laudable, even luminous, artists, but, alas, labor as they might, in Fauci’s case it’s the subject who sucks.

Fauci is the instigator and champion of the most profound case of public malfeasance in our history, more costly, more damaging, more extreme, and more futile than our failed wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He’s despised by half the country. No aspiring young doctor could look at him as a role model.

Fifty million children, most from poor or working-class families, tossed from school and subsequently tormented by a fear campaign, not to mention inferior online learning. Covid doesn’t affect them. Four trillion in new debt. Over 100,000 small businesses destroyed. Today’s dysfunctional economy, shocked and distorted by Fauci’s COVID regime. Soaring child abuse, drug overdose deaths, and suicides because lockdown left millions in isolation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/07/democrats-and-the-fbi-collude-again-on-a-russia-smear-against-republicans/

This time, they’ve been able to turn Democratic collusion with foreign powers into an illusion of disinformation.

Not since Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers has a couple gone cheek-to-cheek quite like Democrats and the FBI.

This spring, we watched special counsel John Durham’s first Russiagate trial blow up on him, not because he lacked evidence of a 2016 fraudulent scheme to portray Donald Trump as a clandestine agent of the Kremlin, but because he portrayed one of the two main schemers, the FBI, as if it were a victim. In Durham’s indictment, the Clinton campaign lies to the bureau’s babes in the woods, gulling them into opening a baseless foreign-counterintelligence probe of whether her Republican rival is a Putin puppet. In Durham’s proof at trial, however, top FBI officials turn out to be fully aware that they are colluding with Clinton campaign operatives in exploiting political opposition research to try to nail Trump — and then labor to cover their tracks.

It’s an unfortunate blind spot. Durham has one conviction so far: a guilty plea from FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, whose manipulation of a document caused the FISA court to be deceived into granting a surveillance warrant to monitor a former Trump campaign adviser — again, substantially based on the Clinton campaign’s bogus opposition research. Except the case wasn’t charged as a fraud on the court. It was charged as a false statement to another FBI official. Yes, it seems even when the FBI itself lies, the victim is . . . the FBI.

And now we learn how adaptable the Democrat–FBI Russia two-step is: You can run it in reverse! Not only can the scheme distort actual disinformation into an illusion of Republican collusion with foreign powers. It also can turn actual Democratic collusion with foreign powers into an illusion of disinformation. Now, that’s some choreography, right there.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/court-rejects-googles-attempt-to?utm_source=email

A federal district court in California on Friday denied Google’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that the Silicon Valley giant is violating federal antitrust laws by preventing fair competition against its YouTube video platform. The lawsuit against Google, which has owned YouTube since its 2006 purchase for $1.65 billion, was brought in early 2021 by Rumble, the free speech competitor to YouTube. Its central claim is that Google’s abuse of its monopolistic stranglehold on search engines to destroy all competitors to its various other platforms is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which makes it unlawful to “monopolize, or attempt to monopolize…any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.”

It is rare for antitrust suits against the four Big Tech corporate giants (Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon) to avoid early motions to dismiss. Friday’s decision against Google ensures that the suit now proceeds to the discovery stage, where Rumble will have the right to obtain from Google a broad and sweeping range of information about its practices, including internal documents on Google’s algorithmic manipulation of its search engine and the onerous requirements it imposes on companies dependent upon its infrastructure to all but force customers to use YouTube.

Founded in 2013, Rumble began experiencing explosive growth in the run-up to the 2020 election. Americans were encountering escalating and aggressive Big Tech censorship of political content as the election approached. Conservative politicians, followed by a wide range of heterodox voices on the right and left, began migrating by the millions away from Google’s YouTube to Rumble, which has promised and provided far more permissive free speech rights. That was at the time when Google and other Big Tech platforms — at the urging of the Democratic-controlled Congress — began aggressively increasing its censorship of political video content on YouTube in the name of combatting “disinformation” and “hate speech.”

The explosive user growth which Rumble enjoyed in 2020 has continued to rapidly increase, as Big Tech generally, and Google specifically, clamped down further on dissident views in the name of the COVID pandemic, and now even more so with respect to the US/NATO role in the war in Ukraine. More and more prominent politicians, journalists and commentators, along with smaller content creators, have either been banned by YouTube or left on their own accord to join Rumble as Google’s crackdown on free speech intensifies. The ability to speak more freely on Rumble regarding the most contentious political debates has become one of the key drivers of the exodus of users from YouTube to Rumble.

https://www.commonsense.news/p/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-gender?utm_source=email

Over the past three decades, the Gender and Identity Development Service at the Tavistock Clinic in London has seen thousands of British children for gender dysphoria, with a British minister noting a more than 4,000 percent increase of referrals for girls alone in the last decade. But on Thursday, Britain’s National Health Service announced that it was closing down Tavistock for good—and, in effect, rebuking the common American medical approach known as “gender-affirming care” for treating children with gender dysphoria. This can include a mix of puberty suppressants, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries, interventions in minors that can lead to irreversible effects.

For years, whistleblowers have rang the alarm about shoddy care at Tavistock. Psychologists who worked there, like Sonia Appleby and Sue Evans, said that vulnerable children were being prematurely rushed to transition. Parents confronted the head of the clinic. A courageous detransitioned woman, Keira Bell, said that kids at Tavistock were unable to understand the ramifications of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. The National Institute for Care and Excellence, a governmental body that creates evidence-based guidelines, found that the link between transitioning and improved psychological function was, in fact, very weak. (The oft-cited justification for childhood transition is that if gender-dysphoric kids are not allowed to transition, they will commit suicide, despite the lack of evidence for this claim.)

And then, the coup de grace: The widely respected pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass, in an independent study of Britain’s care for transgender children, found that Tavistock’s approach was unsustainable and children were receiving inadequate care. There was, Dr. Cass wrote in her report, “a lack of consensus and open discussion about the nature of gender dysphoria and therefore about the appropriate clinical response,” among many other issues.

The National Health Service is following Cass’s recommendation to shut down Tavistock and replace it with a series of centers in regional hospitals. The bottom line: There will be no more top-down, one-size-fits-all transitioning for kids with gender dysphoria in the UK.

The question is how Americans will react.

https://compactmag.com/article/they-can-t-let-him-back-in

The people who really run the United States of America have made it clear that they can’t, and won’t, if they can help it, allow Donald Trump to be president again. In fact, they made this clear in 2020, in a series of public statements. Simply for quoting their words in an essay for The American Mind, I was mercilessly mocked and attacked. But they were quite clear. Trump won’t be president at noon, Jan. 20, 2021, even if we have to use the military to drag him out of there.

“Anti-Trump hysteria is in the final analysis not about Trump.”

If the regime felt that strongly back then, imagine how they feel now. But you don’t have to imagine. They tell you every day. Liz Cheney, Trump’s personal Javert, has said that the 45th president is literally the greatest threat facing America today—greater than China, than our crashing economy, than our unraveling civil society.

That’s rhetoric, of course, but it isn’t merely that. It’s safer, and generally more accurate, to assume that your adversaries mean what they say. If you doubt this, ask yourself: When was the last time they acted more moderately than they talk?

Even if it is just rhetoric, the words nonetheless portend turbulence. “He who says A must say B.” The logic of statement A inevitably leads to action B, even if the speaker of A didn’t really mean it, or did mean it, but still didn’t want B. Her followers won’t get the irony and, enthused by A, will insist on B.

Take some time to listen to the mainstream media. It doesn’t have to be long; five minutes should do. Then spend another five or so reading the statements of prominent politicians other than Trump. To round it out, sacrifice another five on leading intellectuals. It should become abundantly clear: They all have said A and so must say—and do—B.

And B is that Trump absolutely must not be allowed to take office on Jan. 20, 2025.

Why? They say Jan. 6. But their determination began much earlier.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/07/29/as-new-trial-looms-justice-department-silent-on-whitmer-plot/

For the first time since the government failed to win a single conviction in the alleged criminal plot to “kidnap” Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020, a top Justice Department official was publicly confronted about the FBI’s primary role in concocting the hoax.

It was not a welcome line of inquiry, to say the least.

Matthew Olsen, head of the National Security Division, repeatedly rebuffed questions by U.S. Representative Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) about the case during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday. A Michigan jury in April acquitted two men charged with conspiring to kidnap Whitmer after defense attorneys successfully argued their clients had been entrapped by the FBI; the jury deadlocked on two other defendants. Shortly after the stunning verdicts were handed down in what the Justice Department considers one of its most prominent “domestic terror” investigations in recent history, prosecutors announced they would retry Barry Croft and Adam Fox, the alleged ringleader of the group.

The new trial involves Olsen’s division, but rather than take time to perform the usual self-indulgent back slapping and preening common among top law enforcement officials during public hearings, Olsen had little to say except to confirm the Whitmer case was a good example of how the Justice Department handles domestic terror threats. 

“I would include that case among many others that are part of our efforts to ensure that people who serve in public office are safe,” Olsen told the committee.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/07/29/the-new-age-of-orwellianism/

Community organizer and left-wing social activist Saul Alinsky wrote in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals, “he who controls the language controls the masses.” Alinsky, whose work profoundly influenced at least one notable fellow Chicagoan, Barack Obama, was in that quip channeling George Orwell’s famous dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. “Newspeak,” the language of Orwell’s fictional single-political party superstate, was a tool devised for monitoring the people’s communications, prosecuting “thoughtcrimes,” and ultimately controlling and dictating the people’s very beliefs.

Conservatives have taken pleasure in poking fun at the modern Left’s “Orwellian” tendencies—perhaps too much, actually, as overuse of the accusation has limited its potency. But as the woke ideology metastasizes within the American Left like the cancer it is, and as censors increasingly clamp down on anything sniffing of dissent to the regime’s orthodoxy, it is now clear that we are in a new age of Orwellianism. In this new age, the regime and its enforcers pursue the suffusion of its orthodoxy at any cost, gaslighting dissenters into not believing their own lying eyes.

This week, new governmental data revealed that the American economy, measured by gross domestic product, contracted for the second straight quarter. That was, up until perhaps a week ago, the universally accepted definition of what constitutes a “recession.” This was not a partisan issue; indeed, well-known liberal Democratic Party economists have frequently defined recession in precisely these terms. Back in 2008, President Joe Biden’s current National Economic Council director, Brian Deese, stated: “Of course, economists have a technical definition of recession, which is two consecutive quarters of negative growth.” And in 2019, top Biden economic adviser Jared Bernstein said that a “recession” is “defined as two consecutive quarters of declining growth.”