RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/09/27/joe-biden-tax-tyrant-tax-cheat-tax-hypocrite/

If there were any doubts that the Democrats are closeted authoritarians who sometimes crack the door and reveal their urge to rule like autocrats, all should have been removed last week when President Joe Biden yapped about federal tax policy.

“I’m running to change the dynamic of how the economy grows,” he said. “I’m tired of trickle-down. Trillionaires and billionaires are doing very, very well.”

First, as has been noted elsewhere, there are no trillionaires in the U.S. It shouldn’t be too much to ask a U.S president to know this, but Biden, afflicted with a sharp cognitive decline and a long history of wild embellishment, is no normal president.

Second, it’s not up to Biden to change the “dynamic” of how the economy grows. That’s not his job. An economy grows organically, through the spontaneous, non-coerced actions of free people. Central planners cannot command an economy to expand. Biden was elected to be the CEO of the federal government, and to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, not to carry out his personal preferences. 

Furthermore, Biden has neither the moral nor constitutional license to meddle in private affairs and employ authoritarian means to abolish something simply because he’s tired of it. He is not a king whose whims are law.

An objective media wouldn’t let him get away with making statements in which he makes threats the way a monarch would. But our press is largely along for the ride with the left. They want Democratic presidents to have czar-like powers.

Had he stopped at his “tired” comment, Biden would have been in a deep enough hole, at least with those who aren’t members and patrons of the ruling class. But there’s never been a governor on his tongue, so he continued to dig, insisting the wealthy should be taxed more.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-war-against-woke-communism/

Now is the time to stand boldly for American justice.

This excerpt is from Claremont board chairman Thomas D. Klingenstein’s speech, “Winning the Cold Civil War.” Responses will follow in the days to come.

In a traditional totalitarian regime, the government uses arbitrary violence to control every aspect of public and private life, all the way down to little league. In America, the government does not control everything. But today, through the power of the purse and the courts, the government influences a lot. And where the government leaves off, the cultural business complex takes over.

Education, corporate media, entertainment, big business, especially big tech, are to varying degrees aligned with the Democratic Party, which is now controlled by Woke Communists. These institutions together with the government function as a totalitarian regime, crafting narratives that advance their agenda and suppressing those that do not. Instead of violence, there is canceling. This may not look like a totalitarian regime, but it acts like one. Last summer’s riots are a case in point. Woke Comm agitators sparked the flame that lit the riots. Their intellectual leaders justified the riots; their corporate donors gave billions to the Black Lives Matter network; their media looked the other way; and their politicians, from Joe Biden on down, fanned the flames.

What is Woke Communism?

Like any regime, Woke Communism is built on a particular understanding of justice. For the woke comms justice is outcome equality. That is, all identity groups proportionately represented in all aspects of American life. So for example, the woke communists believe that blacks, who count for about 13% of the population, should have 13% of the nation’s chief executive officers, prisoners, heart attacks, wealth, top test scores, homes, corporate board seats, school suspensions, and everything else you can think of.

The New York Times often acts as the spin cycle for the Democrats’ dirty laundry. For years, Times reporters have helped get ahead of damning news, especially when it’s related to the Russian collusion hoax, in an attempt to establish the narrative early.

A recent example is the Times article downplaying the pending indictment against Michael Sussman, the Clinton campaign lawyer who acted in cahoots with the FBI to seed the collusion tale before the 2016 election. The article was published the day before Sussman pleaded not guilty of lying to the FBI.

On Saturday, the Times published a carefully constructed bombshell intended to soften the blow of an explosive scandal in the making: the FBI had at least one informant among the group of Proud Boys who marched on the Capitol on January 6. The informant, according to “confidential documents” furnished to the paper, started working with the FBI in July 2020 and was in close contact with his FBI handler before, during, and after the Capitol protest. 

“After meeting his fellow Proud Boys at the Washington Monument that morning, the informant described his path to the Capitol grounds where he saw barriers knocked down and Trump supporters streaming into the building, the records show,” reporters Alan Feuer and Adam Goldman (the Times reporter most responsible for priming the ground for news that was unfavorable to the Russia collusion narrative) wrote on September 25. “In a detailed account of his activities contained in the records, the informant, who was part of a group chat of other Proud Boys, described meeting up with scores of men from chapters around the country at 10 a.m. on Jan. 6 at the Washington Monument and eventually marching to the Capitol. He said that when he arrived, throngs of people were already streaming past the first barrier outside the building, which, he later learned, was taken down by one of his Proud Boy acquaintances and a young woman with him.”

In other words, one of the informant’s Proud Boy “acquaintances” was removing temporary barriers to allow a crowd to enter the restricted grounds around the building.

Sounds legit.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/09/25/how-it-might-end-act-i/ 

It seems to be that we have alarm bells going off all around us. The oddity is that so few people seem to hear them. 

A couple of years ago, I had the honor of publishing American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup by Frank Buckley, a prolific author and law professor at George Mason University. Buckley began by noting the obvious: that we in America are more divided now than at any time since the 1850s. We know how that Disunited States of America worked out, and the horror of the Civil War—what Buckley calls Secession 1.0—has led many of us to conclude that we’d put up with almost anything rather than risk a repeat of that disaster. 

“Almost” anything. 

Buckley does not predict a second American secession, exactly, but he shows, convincingly, I think, how it might come about. “The bitterness” of our life together, “the contempt for opponents, the growing tolerance of violence, all invite us to think that we’d all be happier were we two different countries.” There is something to that. And something to Buckley’s admonitory conclusion: “In all the ways that matter, save for the naked force of the law, we are already divided into two nations, just as much as in 1861.”

I hesitate to spoil the ending, but it is probably worth noting that in the end, despite his warnings and various scenarios of how the divorce might happen, Buckley turns out, again like most (but not all of us) to be a unionist. The United States may be too big and too powerful for its own or anyone else’s good, but might, while it doesn’t make right, does or at least conduce to stability. 

And consider the alternative world orders on offer: Communist China? Islamic fundamentalism? European socialism? 

No thank you. 

At the same time, some current events lead me to suspect that some of the scenarios Buckley imagines have a lot of divisive life left in them. At one point, he observes, “A state that uses every means at its disposal to neuter a federal law might render it unenforceable within its jurisdiction, at least until the Supreme Court is able to rule on the matter. That might be years later, however, and that may be all it takes, if during the interim a new president has been elected and the new administration takes the state’s view of the question.”