RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-filibuster-made-the-civil-rights-act-possible-11618174288?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

The debate over the future of the Senate’s legislative filibuster has focused on the simple use of majority power to crush the opposition. While the future of America’s bicameral legislature and the balance of power created by the Founders is riding on this debate, many have lost sight of the true nature and value of the Senate, an institution that takes time and requires compromise to find long-term answers to major issues. Critics have linked the filibuster to Jim Crow segregation, but the tactic actually played a crucial role in passing civil-rights legislation and ensuring it was accepted by the South.

Rule 22, which establishes a procedure called “cloture” to end a filibuster, was created to provide a way to close debate with support of a supermajority in the Senate and move to pass legislation. The rule protected the minority’s rights while allowing a compromise to be achieved that would ultimately result in legislation being passed.

For the first 47 years after Rule 22’s enactment in 1917, there were only five successful attempts to cut off debate in the U.S. Senate. A few senators felt so strongly about their right to extended debate that they vowed never to vote for cloture, even for legislation they supported.

There were several successful filibusters of civil-rights legislation between 1917 and 1964. But after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson decided to make the Civil Rights Act his chief legislative priority. He worked with Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Minority Leader Everett Dirksen to maneuver the bill through the challenges of senators who planned to filibuster.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/due-process-adult-sexual-morality

The Florida Congressman has not been charged with any crimes. But the reaction to this case raises important questions of political, legal and cultural judgments.

That Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) is a pedophile, a sex trafficker, and an abuser of women who forces them to prostitute themselves and use drugs with him is a widespread assumption in many media and political circles. That is true despite the rather significant fact that not only has he never been charged with (let alone convicted of) such crimes, but also no evidence has been publicly presented that any of it is true. He has also vehemently denied all of it. All or some of these accusations very well may be true and, one day — perhaps imminently — there will be ample publicly available evidence demonstrating this.

But that day has not yet arrived. As of now, we know very little beyond what The New York Times initially reported about all of this on March 30: that “people close to the investigation” told the paper that “a Justice Department investigation into Representative Matt Gaetz and an indicted Florida politician is focusing on their involvement with multiple women who were recruited online for sex and received cash payments.” The article also said the DOJ “inquiry is also examining whether Mr. Gaetz had sex with a 17-year-old girl and whether she received anything of material value.” Both the NYT and, later, The Daily Beast, indicated the existence of financial transactions involving payments by Gaetz to his associate Joel Greenberg, currently charged with multiple felonies. The New York Times article made clear: “No charges have been brought against Mr. Gaetz, and the extent of his criminal exposure is unclear.” That is still true.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/299995

America has become a strange, unrecognizable and intolerant place. In record time.

America. The country that says it is racist to expect black Americans to identify themselves when they go to vote, but don’t find it racist to insult black Americans by suggesting they are not capable of obtaining identification cards or documents.

America. The country that says it is racist if you don’t give black folk water when they line up to vote.

And a Democrat Party that can’t see the racism in suggesting that black folk are incapable of thinking of bringing water with them when they do go to vote.

America. The country where if you dislike a black person you are a racist, but if a black person dislikes you, it’s their 1st Amendment right.

If you lie to Congress, it’s a felony. But when Congress lies to you it’s just politics.

The government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals but they do almost nothing for the victims.

In public schools, teaching transgender transition is OK, but your kids can’t call you father or mother.

If a man pretends to be a woman, you are required to pretend with him.

People who say there is no such thing as gender, are demanding a female president.

People who have never been to college must pay the debts of those that have.

If you cheat to get into college you go to prison, but if you cheat to get into the country you go to college for free.

You don’t burn books in America yet, but you remove them from the bookshelves and your libraries.

You are unwilling to close your border with Mexico, but maintain troops protecting South Korea from North Korea.

If you protest offensive and oppressive Democrat policies you are a domestic terrorist, but if you burn the American flag and destroy federal property and attack police you are within your 1st Amendment rights.

You allow porn on your TV, but have a Christmas nativity scene in your garden.

People who have never owned slaves have to pay reparations to people who have never been slaves.

You can kill an unborn child, but it’s wrong to execute a mass murderer.

They let hardened criminals out of jail and protect them in sanctuary cities, but arrest you for protecting your property from a rioting mob with a firearm.

They take money from those who work hard and give it to people who don’t want to work.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/in-harvard-speech-breyer-speaks-out-against-court-packing/

Emphasizing that the Supreme Court’s authority hinges on the public’s trust in the court, Justice Stephen Breyer used a speech on Tuesday at Harvard Law School to argue against efforts to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court. The 82-year-old Breyer contended that public trust in the court rests in the public’s perception that “the court is guided by legal principle, not politics” and would therefore be eroded if the court’s structure were changed in response to concerns about the influence of politics on the Supreme Court.

The text of Breyer’s prepared remarks, which he delivered as a nearly two-hour speech, included references to the Roman philosopher Cicero, Shakepeare’s Henry IV, The Plague by Albert Camus and Alexis de Toqueville, the French aristocrat who chronicled American life in the early 19th century. (Breyer, who has been known to give speeches in French, did not indicate whether he read the latter two sources in English or in their original French.) The focus of Breyer’s speech, sometimes referred to as “court packing,” has been a popular topic among some Democrats, particularly since the September 2020 death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell moved quickly to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett after having refused to hold a hearing on Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, in March 2016. As a candidate, President Joe Biden declined to support an expansion of the court, instead promising to establish a commission to examine possible reforms to the Supreme Court more broadly.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/04/cancel_culture_and_identity_politics_are_the_road_to_a_oneparty_state.html

America is at war. This time the enemy isn’t on some distant battlefield or hiding in a barren cave thousands of miles away. Instead, the enemy is not only here, but it’s ruling over us.

That’s the powerful message of David Horowitz’s latest book, The Enemy Within: How a Totalitarian Movement is Destroying America. This isn’t just a warning, it’s the reality around us.

“Americans are more divided today than at any time since the Civil War,” Horowitz writes. “In the course of the anti-Trump wars, we have become two nations with little shared ground on the core issues that previously defined us.” And it’s the Left that brought us to this state, not just in the last five years, but going all the way back to the fundamental strategy of its divisive politics.

In The Enemy Within, Horowitz exposes the Communist roots of identity politics that have been used to turn Americans against each other and reduce them to hostile warring tribes, rather than citizens of a common nation invested in its welfare, success, and prosperity.

Identity politics is the delegitimization of America and Americans. It’s a hate campaign that justifies any extremity, and any attack on the country and her people. “It is this regressive attack on America’s fundamental principles by the Left that is the source of the irreconcilable conflicts and ugly passions that are currently tearing the nation’s fabric apart,” Horowitz writes.

Class warfare, racial warfare, gender warfare, and the countless other forms of identity politics injected into schools, workplaces, government offices, and every area of life are aimed at forcing Americans to identify radically and tribally, rather than nationally. Divide and conquer.

David Horowitz, a veteran of the radical politics of the Left, has the knowledge, the experience, and the training to expose not just what the movement he was once a part of is doing, but the ideological origins of its tactics, and how they feed it into its dreadful vision for America.

America is delegitimized through revisionist history smears, like the 1619 Project, that rewrite the powerful force for equality and freedom that is the true history of the United States into the big lie of systemic racism, while Americans are accused of various forms of oppressive privilege so that, just by existing, they oppress everyone who does not fit into the same artificial category.

In The Enemy Within, Horowitz tackles the radical and racist roots of these ideas, from Karl Marx to Derrick Bell, a supporter of Farrakhan, and how they exploded into violence and tyranny in the streets of our cities and the halls of power as Black Lives Matter mobs used lies to unleash racist violence and Democrat officials used racist myths to build a one-party state.

But it’s not just BLM.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/04/10/do-vaccine-resisters-risk-being-wacod/

Because of the natural mutation the clever little RNA strand undergoes, it is clear to anyone with a critical mind that the COVID-19 vaccines will go the way of the flu vaccines: An annual affair if one chooses to make it so.

Choice, alas, is quickly becoming a quaint concept in COVID-compliant America.

Vaccine Passports 

The possibility of a vaccine passport, a “certification of vaccination that reduces public-health restrictions for their carriers,” has been floated. Without finesse, it amounts to, “Your papers, bitte!”

While Fox’s Tucker Carlson did term the idea an Orwellian one—it took civil libertarian Glenn Greenwald, the odd-man-out among the authoritarian Left, to place the concept of a vaccine passport in proper perspective.

The popular TV host (and perhaps the only good thing on Fox News) had asked Greenwald if he felt a vaccine passport “would work to convince more Americans to get vaccinated.”

But judging a policy by its positive outcomes for the collective, rather than by whether it violates individual rights is utilitarianism. It is the rule among politicians and pundits. 

“It doesn’t work”: How often have you heard those words used to describe grave violations of your rights? As if using coercion to decrease “vaccine hesitancy”—is ever a good reason for coercing vaccination! As if employing coercion to decrease “vaccine hesitancy” is ever an appropriate use of state or corporate power!

The Benthamite utilitarian calculus is thus rightly associated with a collectivist, central planner’s impetus.

America’s founders, conversely, held a Blackstonian view of the law as a bulwark against government abuses. Their take has since been supplanted by the notion of the law as an implement of government, to be utilized by all-knowing rulers for the “greater good.”

To his great credit, later in the program, Carlson did advance a rights-based argument against the vaccine-passport outrage: the individual right to privacy.

It fell, however, to Greenwald to take note of the three different ways in which the passports constitute a draconian invasion: 

Number one, coercing citizens to put a substance into their body that they don’t want in their body, a pretty grave invasion of bodily autonomy, one of the most fundamental rights we have. Secondly, gathering a new database that can track people in terms of their health, that can easily be expanded as government programs often do into a whole variety of other uses, and then thirdly, . . . restricting people’s movement. Freedom of movement is one of the most fundamental rights we have. It’s actually guaranteed in the Constitution.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/what-should-be-done-to-curb-big-tech

Do your eyes gloss over when you see the words “Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act”? Mine do.

Yet the subject of Big Tech’s might — Should Facebook have the power to ban a president? Should Amazon have the power to ban the sale of a controversial book? Should Twitter have the power to permanently bar a user over a single tweet? And if not, what should the government be doing about it? — is both fascinating and incredibly important.

I don’t think there is a group left in America who is happy about the power that companies like Facebook and Twitter and Google have arrogated to themselves. According to a recent poll from Vox and Data for Progress, 59% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans think Big Tech’s economic power is a problem. It’s hard to think of another issue with that kind of bipartisan consensus.

The nature of your anger, of course, depends on where you sit. (Twitter’s decision to ban Trump in January found 87% approval from Democrats and a mere 28% of Republicans in the same poll.) But the point is that this subject touches everyone. 

So why is so much of the writing about tech so confusing? One of the reasons it confuses, I think, is that the loudest “progressive” and “conservative” arguments are the opposite of what you’d imagine.

Progressives are supposed to be against corporate power. And yet on this subject, they are the ones pushing for more of it. They are enraged that these companies don’t crack down harder on “disinformation,” arguing that the Zuckerbergs and Dorseys of the world put profit above principle when they allow groups like QAnon to run wild on their platforms. Sure, President Trump was banned, but only after he lost the election. Why didn’t it happen earlier? Private companies are not hamstrung by the First Amendment, so why do they hesitate to ban dangerous people whose online words lead to real-world violence?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/04/when_a_jewish_teacher_union_b

Randi Weingarten, leader of the AFT (American Federation of Teachers union) has made a malicious smear against the Jewish community that would normally be characterized as anti-Semitic, but it may get a pass because she happens to be Jewish. 

She was asked a very appropriate question: “Why are the teachers across the nation in major cities still refusing to go back and teach children in the classroom in public schools?”  Instead of acknowledging the problem, she strangely shifted into a tirade against the Jewish community.  She castigated Jews by saying, “American Jews are part of the ownership class … who now want to take that ladder of opportunity away from those who do not have it.”  She took legitimate criticism of her union’s refusal to go back to work as a prompt to demonize the Jewish community.  Historically, this was labeled “scapegoating.”  Scapegoating is the practice of dodging and deflecting a legitimate concern by parlaying each issue against the Jewish people or the hard-work result of Jewish financial success and ownership.

Ms. Weingarten is tragically another example of someone denouncing her own people and inciting others against Jews in order to be the darling of the left, thereby climbing the ladder of political power.  She understands that today, power in leftist and minority circles is achieved by those who blame Jews.  This has become the left-wing formula.

If anything, those from the Jewish community, who have been critical of teachers being the last holdouts to return to work while still drawing their salary and full benefits, are acting as plaintiffs for the students in public school who will fall behind as a consequence of their school activities being shelved.  Indeed, they’ve been acting to keep the rungs of the ladder intact.  Thus, one would think there would be significant blowback from the “race police” against Weingarten’s obvious smear of Jews.

But it has not happened.  That is because the laws of “wokeness” on behalf all minorities do not include Jews.  Jews have been excluded from the victimization monopoly; they are not in the pecking order.  You can say anything you want against Jews, just as with whites and Christians, if the accusations can be parlayed into an indictment against those pre-perceived as oppressors of the intersectional officialdom.