RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/the-democrats-plot-to-subvert-the-supreme-court-on-abortion/

The Biden administration is considering unilateral executive actions that would federalize abortion law, undermining democracy in the states.

If the Supreme Court, as expected, overturns Roe v. Wade later this month, the battle over abortion should return to the states. With Roe’s federal court-imposed national “solution” finally revealed as a fraud and a failure, each state will be free to ban abortion, to enshrine a right to abortion, or to find some middle ground between those two options. Some states already have pro-life or pro-choice amendments in their state constitutions, and some will have them on the ballot this year (or in 2023 or 2024). Others may choose a path on the issue legislatively, or have those choices made for them by state courts.

Or, that’s how it should be, anyway: Senate Democrats and the Biden administration are now openly plotting to undermine those democratic choices if and when the Court overturns Roe.

If the federal government abides by current law, it will have little say in the regulation of abortion in the states. Congress has not passed any law banning or protecting abortion nationwide outside of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007). Neither party has anywhere near the votes right now to pass further federal abortion laws. So, even aside from its desirability in the abstract, federal regulation one way or the other should be off the table unless and until there is a congressional majority sufficiently large enough to pass it, and a president willing to sign it.

Existing federally funded programs should likewise play only a minor role in what abortion laws states can enforce. The Hyde amendment bars federal funding of abortions in most federal programs, a prohibition that is incorporated by statute in some of those programs; states wishing to fund abortions have to do so with their own money.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/chris-queen/2022/06/15/whos-the-real-threat-to-democracy-n1605633

Today’s Democrat Party likes to call everything they don’t like a “threat to democracy.” If someone cuts a Democrat off in traffic, it’s a threat to democracy. And the list of threats grows longer every day.

Who’s the real threat to democracy? Democrats want you to think that the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, was an attempt to topple the framework of American government, that laws securing the votes of citizens are meant to suppress votes for Democrats, and that Republicans push the most extreme candidates into the spotlight.

But it doesn’t take much to figure out that the Democrats are the ones gaming the system with the goal of entrenching their own power. Let’s take a look at how the Democratic party is the threat to the democracy they claim to want to protect.

I’ll start by explaining how the Democrats are propping up Republican candidates whom they think will lose to Democrats in the midterms and beyond. Earlier this week, Josh Kraushaar wrote over at National Journal about this phenomenon.

“Democrats are intervening aggressively in Republican primaries, looking to promote MAGA-aligned candidates that have natural appeal to a right-wing electorate but are likely losers in a general election.” Kraushaar writes. “Their under-the-radar meddling is already paying dividends, potentially taking several big-state governor’s races off the table for Republicans, even given the historically strong political environment for the GOP. The outside engagement is also endangering Republican prospects in a sleeper Senate race.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/06/17/a-tyranny-brews-in-washington/

One of the hallmarks of authoritarianism is the crushing of free expression. Speaking against the state is not allowed. What, then, to make of the Biden’s administration’s efforts to silence Americans?

We’ve editorialized against the Disinformation Governance Board, which is wounded though not as dead yet as it should be. That’s but one example. Add to that the White House’s campaign to enlist the private sector in muzzling voices that dare oppose the loony green energy policies Democrats have been trying to force on the country for decades. It’s not just the Second Amendment this administration wants to erase, it’s the first one, too.

Many Americans are skeptical of the promises that renewables like wind and solar will not only meet this country’s energy needs but will do it at low cost. We have many times over the years shown why this distrust is warranted. So have our valued contributors, most recently when H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute wrote that “belief that wind, solar, batteries, and electric vehicles combined can effectively and cheaply power the nation … is foolish and belied by existing evidence.”

I&I has also made the case over and over, as we did last month, that the claims that man is overheating his only planet are, well, overheated themselves. Doing so has probably put us on a White House blacklist of dissenters whose ideas have to be squashed. We think of it as an honor.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/06/15/what-the-january-6-committee-might-have-been/

Congress should investigate fully the January 6 riot at the Capitol—and similar recent riots at iconic federal sites.

But unfortunately, it never will. Why not?

The current committee is not bipartisan. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) forbade Republican nominees traditionally selected by the House minority leader to serve on the committee. 

No speaker had ever before rejected the minority party’s nominees to a select House committee. 

Pelosi’s own cynical criteria for Republican participation were twofold: Any willing minority Republican members had to have voted to impeach Donald Trump while having no realistic chance of being reelected in 2022. 

Of some 210 Republican House members, that left just Representatives Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) who were willing and able to fit Pelosi’s profile. 

A real investigation would have ignited argumentation, cross-examination, and disagreements— the sort of give-and-take for which congressional committees are famous. 

In contrast, the January 6 show trial features no dissenting views. Its subtext was right out of the Soviet minister of Internal Affairs Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria’s credo: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”. 

If Donald Trump was not considering a third run for the presidency, would the committee even have existed?

Its slick Hollywood-produced optics demonstrate that the committee has no interest in inconvenient facts. Why did a Capitol officer lethally shoot a petite unarmed woman entering a Capitol window? And why was the officer’s identity and, indeed all information about his record, withheld from the public? 

Why did the committee not investigate whether large numbers of FBI agents and informants were ubiquitous among the crowd? After all, progressive New York Times reporter Matthew Rosenberg who was there January 6, claimed, “There were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.”