RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/uncategorized/jeff-reynolds/2020/10/12/portland-rioters-topple-statues-of-roosevelt-and-lincoln-smash-windows-at-oregon-historical-society-n1022591

On Sunday night, rioters in Portland, Ore., toppled statues of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and caused thousands of dollars’ worth of damage at the Oregon Historical Society. Declaring a day of action, the “indigenous wing” of antifa threatened violence to anyone caught live-streaming or recording video of their actions leading into Columbus Day.

After toppling the statues, rioters smashed windows at the Oregon Historical Society, an expansive museum on the South Park Blocks near Portland State University.The east side of the Oregon Historical Society building faces SW Broadway Street, a heavily traveled thoroughfare through downtown Portland. That side of the building has a large, multistory mural depicting events from Oregon’s history. Rioters defaced the mural by pelting it with paintball guns.

Rioters then moved on to cause serious damage to several businesses in downtown Portland.

http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/24638/why-cancer-is-called-a-silent-killer

  http://goudsmit.pundicity.com

http://lindagoudsmit.com

Cancer has been called a silent killer because it kills its victims gradually without causing serious or alarming symptoms in the early stages. Cancer is not the only silent killer disease. High blood pressure, diabetes, coronary artery disease, even osteoporosis are considered silent killers because their early warning signs are disguised and diffuse, subtle symptoms that are often ignored until it is too late. So, programs of early detection have been instituted to oppose silent killers.

What about the body politic?

Wikipedia explains, “The modern understanding of the concept means a body politic comprises all the people in a particular country considered as a single group forming what we know as a nation.”

What are the silent killers of nations? What are the often ignored subtle and diffuse symptoms?

Silent killers attack the infrastructure of the body and its essential organs. So it is in politics. The U.S. Constitution is the infrastructure of the United States of America. Its central organs are the separated powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The silent killers attack them all.

Our Founding Fathers created the first government in world history based on individual freedom. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, was a completely revolutionary concept of government because it completely rejected the binary structure of rulers and ruled. Monarchical England went to war against American independence and its founding philosophy. What happened?

America prevailed, grew and prospered because Americans, from the very beginning, were incentivized to work hard. They reaped what they sowed and developed a robust middle class enriched with private property. The middle class and private property distinguished American governance from every other society in the world. The middle class and its upward mobility made America great in the first place, and explains why the enemies of America target the middle class.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/senator-whitehouses-opening-salvo-at-barrett-hearing-dems-obamacare-diatribe/

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) is among the most insufferable hacks on Capitol Hill. It was he, recall, who suggested that energy companies should be sued under the federal racketeering laws for purportedly being “deniers” of climate change. He was also the laboring oar among a handful of Senate Democrats on an unhinged court amicus brief in a recent Supreme Court Second Amendment case, extortionately threatening that the Court could be “restructured” — translation: subjected to ruinous partisan court packing — if the justices continued what the senator portrayed as its Trump-era conservative drift.

So it comes as no surprise that Whitehouse’s opening statement in the confirmation hearing on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court was an absurd attack along lines I have previously described: Republicans are supposedly desperate to get Barrett on the Court so she can be the deciding vote to invalidate the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in toto, including its guarantee of coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Whitehouse’s diatribe was aimed less at Judge Barrett than at Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas.), a supporter of the district judge in Texas (a Bush-43 appointee), whose ruling is at the center of the case now before the Supreme Court.

There is no chance that the justices are going to invalidate the ACA. I doubt a single one would vote to do that. I repeat what I wrote about this nonsense two weeks ago:

The notion that Judge Barrett, or for that matter the other Trump appointees to the Supreme Court, are on the warpath against the Affordable Care Act is laughable. The ACA issue is being contorted into a convenient political talking point in the stretch-run of a presidential campaign because President Trump, foolishly and reportedly against the advice of Attorney General Barr, has supported a weak legal challenge to the law. The case is California v. Texas, and the justices are scheduled to hear arguments about it on November 10.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/no-judge-barrett-did-not-criticize-the-affordable-care-act/?utm_source=

Democrats are continuing their disingenuous strategy of framing Judge Amy Coney Barrett as President Trump’s stealth weapon, being rushed onto the Supreme Court by Republicans in order to kill Obamacare in a case the Court is scheduled to hear arguments in on November 10 (see my earlier post). In this vein, Senator Chris Coons (D., Del.) posits that Barrett has publicly criticized the Affordable Care Act. 

This is false.

As a judge, Barrett has not ruled on Obamacare. As a scholar, she has taken the firm position that a judge’s important but modest role is to say what the law is, not to formulate public policy. The best prediction of her position on legislation, therefore, is that its policy direction is for Congress to decide; the judge’s narrow role is to ensure that enacted law complies with constitutional requirements, regardless of its political or ideological bent. That, for what it’s worth is why I’ve predicted (see the earlier post) that neither Judge Barrett nor any of the eight justices currently sitting on the Court (including its four conservatives, two appointed by President Trump) would vote to invalidate Obamacare.

Senator Coons is apparently referring to an article – actually, a book review, “Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty” – that Judge Barrett, as a Notre Dame Law School professor, wrote for a scholarly publication of the University of Minnesota Law School in 2017. The article was not specifically about Obamacare. Instead, it arose out of a roundtable discussion in which several academics discussed Our Republican Constitution, an excellent, provocative book by Randy Barnett, a superb law professor at Georgetown.