RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/16/another-dud-in-the-string-of-bombshells/

You have to pity the bombshell-shocked American citizen trying to take seriously all the “shocking,” “stunning” and “bombshell” news coming out of Washington these days.

It is a little maddening — though mostly amusing — watching Rachel Maddow and the breathless news wags on MSNBC and CNN contorting themselves during interviews with greasy “witnesses” to supposedly nefarious behavior in Ukraine as to why exactly what they are claiming is so important and damning.

Or, “bombshell!,” as they like to say. And, certainly, “impeachable!”

HINT: If it takes exhaustive and complicated explanations to pinpoint precisely why something is a “bombshell,” then it is not a “bombshell.” That is the point of a “bombshell.” It is so powerful that it does not need to come wrapped in complicated explanations.

But there is no rabbit hole these people will not venture down in pursuit of President Trump. There is no zany conspiracy theory they will not gulp down to keep the party going. And there is no arcane strip of federal code from centuries gone by that they won’t dust off to construct their rickety case for impeachment.

ust ask Rep. Adam B. Schiff, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chairman and a newly ordained impeachment manager. He got thoroughly snookered by a couple of gonzo radio goofs pretending to be Ukrainians with naked pictures of Mr. Trump.

Of course, the raunchy pervert happily went along — anything to get his grubby little hands on nudie pictures of Mr. Trump. It really is astonishing that these people are taken seriously anywhere outside the peep-show booths that used to populate Times Square.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/01/18/democratic-candidates-are-sorry-for-all-the-wrong-things/

We’d like to see candidates expressing dismay about the ways that government malfeasance or indifference threatens Americans’ health and safety every day. If they don’t, we should make them sorry on election day.

When presidential candidate Joe Biden began a campaign tour with the slogan, “No Malarkey” (a seeming oxymoron for a politician), the rallying cry was contradicted by his many apologies for past actions and positions. Had he fashioned his expedition as a “No Apologies” tour, he doubtless would have done far more to solidify his position as the most electable Democrat.

But he is not alone in lamenting past positions, actions, or inaction. One could imagine the consternation from Michael Bloomberg’s natural constituency when he felt the need to apologize for his support of “stop, question, and frisk” in New York City. Had Bloomberg simply said he should have made sure the policy was not taken to an extreme, as apparently was the case, he not only could have been truthful, but also avoided alienating those who recognized the positive impact the policy had in his city.

This presidential campaign has raised apologizing to a new art form. Much of it is no more than pandering. A simple explanation that one’s views have “evolved” would, we think, be far more effective. Instead, the pandering has spurred the legions of woke social justice warriors to even greater extremes of political correctness, harassment, and suppression of free speech.

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2020/01/in-america-interfaith-bridge-building.html

According to a 2014 post on his apparently now discontinued blog here, Shi’ite Imam Ibrahim Kazerooni, born in 1958 in the city of Al-Najaf in southern Iraq, completed his theological studies in Iran and his secular studies in England.

He afterwards went to live in the United States, where he was

“the former Director of the Abrahamic Initiative Program at St. John Cathedral in Denver. Currently he serves as a member of the Board of Religious advisers to the Denver Police.
He has received a number of awards for his bridge building and peace initiative, including, Faith to Faith Award for interfaith works. (2007), Martin Luther King Award for services in peace building (2007), the “Iliff/D.U Joint Ph.D. Award for Community Service(2007), and Honored with Congressional Record for working to end the war in Iraq. (2004) ….”

Fast foreward to 2020, and this paragon of interfaith harmony has been caught on video by Memri.org (whose YouTube site has, I believe, yet again been taken down by YouTube) in a speech on 3 Janiary at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Michigan eulogising Qasem Soleimani and deploring his death, along with that of PMU Deputy Chairman Abu Mahdi] Al-Muhandis:

‘… He led a prayer for the souls of Soleimani and Al-Muhandis  and told the congregation that Soleimani had “brought hope to the marginalized [and] hatred and fear to the enemies of Islam.” He explained that Soleimani had been instrumental in keeping the Syrian regime in power despite American and Zionist attempts to destabilize it, in defending Iraq against ISIS alongside the PMU, and in ultimately defeating ISIS in Iraq, which Sheikh Kazerooni described as the “extended arm of American foreign policy.” He cited several examples from Islamic literature that speak of martyrdom as a virtuous act and added: “Let’s wait and see what happens next.”‘
https://www.memri.org/tv/iraqi-american-michigan-sheikh-kazerooni-eulogizes-soleimani-defended-iraq-zionist-american-isis-fear-enemies-islam/transcript

https://amgreatness.com/2020/01/18/democrats-consume-themselves/

Eventually, I am going to get around to saying something about CNN’s hostility to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—evidenced, most recently, by its energetic exertions on behalf of the campaign to elect Elizabeth Warren at last Tuesday’s Democratic debate. And I’ll say something, too, about the delicious exhibition of angst-filled hand-wringing that said hostility occasioned in many precincts of the leftwing media.

First, however, since CNN apparently undertook its cheerleading for Warren in order to declare its feminist bona fides, I would like to pose a few questions as a sort of prolegomenon, what Kierkegaard, in another context, called a “preliminary expectoration.” 1) Why are feminists so unpleasant? 2) Why do they insist on whining instead of getting on with the task at hand? 3) Why do they tend to blame other people for their failures?

I do not propose to answer these questions—I am writing a column, not a book—but I would like to register my suspicion that part of the answer to all three is the dim, imperfectly articulated awareness that feminism’s real complaint is not with men or “the patriarchy” but with reality, with human nature.

To illustrate this, ask yourself questions such as why are there not special programs to recruit more men in engineering programs? Why aren’t grants available to encourage men to study math, or physics, or—when you come right down to it—to study anything? Why do politicians announce to general applause that this year there are more female representatives, or judges, or senators than ever before? Why is it thought to be a badge of virtue to have more women in this profession or that but the same is never claimed for men?