RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/03/27/the_real_insurrection_and_the_dirty_politics_of_jan_6_149032.html

The Democrats say that Jan. 6 was the worst attack on American democracy since the Civil War. They call it an insurrection, but if it was indeed the worst since 1865, no one but a fool would dare claim it even remotely approached the scale of the bloody war between the states.

And if you weren’t a fool, you might conclude that Jan. 6 was nothing like an insurrection. It wasn’t violent in the sense of an armed rebellion. It wasn’t organized. And it didn’t seek to overthrow the government, but to protect the Constitution. In more ways than not, it was a defense of American democracy, not an attack on it.

In every particular, Jan. 6 was a pale shadow compared to the Civil War. To start with, it lasted less than six hours, whereas the Civil War lasted four long years. The war between the North and South cost the lives of 620,000 soldiers and another 50,000 civilians. The Jan. 6 incursion at the U.S. Capitol, on the other hand, claimed the lives of just two women protesters, Ashli Babbitt and Roseanne Boyland. Among the defenders of the Capitol, police officer Brian Sicknick died after suffering two strokes the next day, but without a direct known connection to the riot. Two other protesters died of natural causes during the siege, and four law officers died by suicide in the months following the attack. If you count all of those as legitimate casualties of Jan. 6, then the total comes to nine compared to a minimum of 670,000 in the Civil War.

It would be impossible to exaggerate the stark differences between Jan. 6 and the Civil War.

https://www.axios.com/2023/03/25/aoc-tiktok-ban-viral-video

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-N.Y.) first and only TikTok video has gone viral — and in it, she outlines her case against banning the Chinese-owned social media app as its fate hangs in the balance.

Why it matters: With more than 150 million monthly active users in the U.S., TikTok is one of the most popular smartphone apps in the country. Lawmakers are pressing forward with bipartisan efforts to facilitate a ban in the U.S. amid scrutiny surrounding the firm’s relationship with the Chinese government.

State of play: Critics have highlighted the fact that Chinese law requires China’s companies to share information with the government.

TikTok has repeatedly said it operates independently and works with Oracle to ensure its algorithms and content moderation models aren’t manipulated by Chinese authorities.

What she’s saying: The video begins with Ocasio-Cortez listing concerns about Chinese surveillance. She then says that the discussion “doesn’t really address the core of the issue, which is the fact that major social media companies are allowed to collect troves of people’s personal data.”

Adding that the U.S. is one of the “only developed nations in the world” without data privacy protection laws, she argues that the solution is not to ban an individual company but to “actually protect Americans from this kind of egregious data harvesting that companies can do without your significant ability to say no.”
She also pointed out that the U.S. has never banned a social media company from operating within its borders, and that Congress hasn’t received a classified briefing on potential risks even though that’s protocol when it comes to national security issues.
“This case needs to be made to the public,” she says. “Our first priority should be in protecting your ability to exist without social media companies harvesting and commodifying every single piece of data about you without you and without your consent.”

The big picture: Ocasio-Cortez is one of several progressive members of Congress mounting a defense of the app. Her video garnered over 2.2 million views in 15 hours.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/03/27/the-woke-movement-is-assassinating-mlk-all-over-again/

A week from Tuesday we will mark the 55th anniversary of the day the murderous James Earl Ray took the life of Martin Luther King Jr. The civil rights leader should be allowed to rest in peace, but he is being slain yet again, this time by a mob of mediocre minds with rock-bottom character that seeks to overturn his life’s works.

In what is widely acknowledged as his greatest speech, King dreamed that his “four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” that “one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.”

King also damned the “dark and desolate valley” and “manacles” of segregation. He identified us all as “God’s children.”

He couldn’t have been clearer about his vision for a color-blind society. And in the 40 years that followed his death, our country moved in that direction, year by year, heart by heart.

But much has changed. The woke mob, critical race theory, and the DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) movement have reopened a once-gaping, raw wound that had almost closed. Consider just a few of the many instances in which our “leaders” and institutional luminaries not only reject King’s teaching but actively try to return this country to an era of segregation and ugly, unapologetic bigotry. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-big-business-married-big-government-biden-handouts-subsidies-chips-banking-svb-bailout-social-policy-59096477?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

When liberals look back on the Biden presidency, they may hail its greatest accomplishment as ushering in a new era of corporate government dependency. Without fail, and no matter the industry, the administration has hooked businesses on Washington handouts while attaching conditions that put taxpayers and consumers on the hook for leftist policy preferences.

The latest example is the banking panic. The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act provided an implicit taxpayer guarantee for the country’s largest banks. With Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse, midsize banks are now arguing they’re also too big to fail and lobbying the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to guarantee all uninsured deposits for two years to prevent more bank failures. In other words, they want the government to backstop poorly managed banks.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has lent support to the idea but demands that a government guarantee be tied to increased regulation. And don’t think she has only stronger capital and liquidity standards in mind. Like-minded officials will surely demand a ban on stock buybacks and dividends, executive compensation caps and perhaps even growth restrictions.

Government help is never free, as semiconductor companies are learning. Chip makers lobbied Congress for enormous subsidies to build plants in the U.S., which they claimed would shore up supply chains and protect national security. Republicans joined Democrats last year in approving some $39 billion in direct financial aid, plus a 25% investment tax credit.

NO POSTING UNTIL MONDAY MARCH 26

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19511/national-lawyers-guild-stanford-law

Let us understand what the National Lawyers Guild is.

The Guild, in addition, refused to support Soviet or Cuban dissidents.

The Guild has never abandoned its Marxist-Leninist provenance. It supports Antifa, which also employs violence to disrupt speakers.

The National Lawyers Guild is not a liberal organization. It does not support civil liberties, due process or freedom of speech. It is the epitome of “free speech for me but not for thee.”

Many decent people question whether hateful, offensive and even speech deemed “dangerous” by some, should be protected. The answer resides in history. Whenever governments are empowered to ban such expression, they use that power expansively, to censor speech critical of their leaders or partisans. The appetite of the censor is voracious. What are seen as legitimate opinions by dissenters are deemed by others — especially those in power — as hateful, offensive or dangerous. Freedom of speech for all is anything but free. It can be hurtful and risky. But in the end, it is worth the costs.

It deplores capitalism and the free market: “don’t fund capitalism, fund the groups working to dismantle it.” And it opposes due process for those with whom it disagrees, for instance, declaring of a “Mass Defense Program” that sends out “legal workers, law students, and lawyers providing legal support for protests”: “We will only show up to actions and in support of movements that directly align with our values.”

Since its inception, the National Lawyers Guild has relied on “useful idiots” – well-meaning left-wingers and liberals who have no idea what the Guild really represents. It disguises its most extreme positions when presenting itself to the public, but advertises them to its members. It also hides from the public the fact that despite its name, the membership Guild consists primarily of non-lawyers. When it was truly a lawyers’ organization, it was slightly more centrist. And then in the 1970s, the Guild opened its membership to “jailhouse lawyers” (who are not lawyers), legal workers (who are not lawyers), law students (who are not yet lawyers) and anyone else who works with or for lawyers or law firms.

The Guild has more than 100 chapters in American law schools. Its membership includes many law professors. It apparently plans to organize nationwide disruptions of the kind we have seen at Stanford. The Guild creates the illusion that these disruptions are spontaneous reactions to conservative provocations. They are anything but.

As the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall observed: “The freedom to speak and the freedom to hear are inseparable; they are two sides of the same coin.” These disrupters violated both rights.

Thus far disruptions have occurred at Yale, Stanford and Georgetown law schools. But you can be sure that they are coming to a law school near you. The NLG will not be satisfied until no conservative speaker is allowed to speak at any law school. That is its objective, and it may well succeed, because cowardly administrators — especially deans of diversity, in order to avoid the embarrassment of what happened at Stanford, Yale and Georgetown — will try to make sure that conservative speakers are not invited. They understand that it is much harder to object to the less visible non-invitation of conservative speakers than to publicly disrupting them.

We who support freedom of speech for all sides must organize as well. We cannot count on the American Civil Liberties Union anymore: its silence supports the censorship of the National Lawyers Guild. Our voices must be heard against censorship-by-disruption, by non-invitation or by any other improper means.

It turns out that the disruption by several dozen Stanford University law school students of a speech to be given by federal judge Kyle Duncan was not a spontaneous exercise of freedom to protest.