RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/04/09/david_mamet_when_people_with_an_opposing_view_are_canceled_were_going_to_end_up_with_a_totalitarian_state.html

Playwright, screenwriter-director, and author David Mamet appeared on Bill Maher’s HBO program to discuss his latest book, “The Recessional On The Death of Free Speech and the Cost of a Free Lunch,” and what the impact of cancel culture could mean for the future of America.

“Let’s be honest, a lot of your book is calling out the left for their goofiness,” Maher said to his guest.

“I’m not here to flog the book, which is called ‘The Recessional On The Death of Free Speech and the Cost of a Free Lunch,’ people, but the point is we have to have free speech,” Mamet said. “Without free speech we have nothing because if one group takes the high road. It doesn’t matter which group it is. If they’re in power long enough, we’re going to have a police state. So when it’s not acceptable to have an opposing view, when people who state an opposing view are not disagreed with but are marginalized and canceled, we’re going to end up with a totalitarian state because that’s the way human nature works.”

“We see in the book that you do like Trump, which is fine,” Maher said to Mamet. “We’re not there together on that one but I’ve said many times on this show you cannot hate everyone who likes him. It’s half the country and I understand why people are driven into his arms because of the goofiness.”

https://amgreatness.com/2022/04/10/the-debasement-of-our-professional-and-political-classes/

The left-wing professional and political classes bequeathed a number of new protocols during the Trump derangement years. And it will be interesting to watch whether the Republicans abide by them in November should they take back the House and perhaps the Senate—and the presidency in 2024 as well. 

Will they follow the New Testament’s turn-the-other-cheek forbearance, or go for Old Testament style eye-for-an-eye retribution? 

What Are the New Rules?

Will Republican magnanimity suffice to shame the Democrats to be more professional in the future? Or will tit-for-tat deterrent reciprocity alone ensure a return to norms? Specifically, will Biden be impeached Trump-style, after losing the House in November? Say, to give just one possible example, for deliberately not enforcing and, indeed, undermining U.S. immigration law? 

Will Speaker Kevin McCarthy, in Pelosi-fashion, start yanking troublesome radical Democrats off House committees? 

Will a conservative Robert Mueller-like “wise man” head a $40 million, 22 month-long special counsel investigation of the Biden-family influence-selling syndicate—arrayed with a “dream-team,” “all-star,” and “hunter-killer” right-wing lawyers to ferret out “Big Guy” and “Mr. Ten Percent” quid pro quo profiteering? 

Would a Republican-led House set up a special committee to investigate the racketeering and “conspiracies” across state lines that led to a near “coup” and “insurrection” marked by “the riots of 2020?” Would such watchdogs offer up criminal referrals for all those responsible for attacking a federal courthouse and torching a police precinct or for setting an historic church afire? Or causing $2 billion of damage, over 30 deaths, and 1,500 law enforcement officer injuries—while carving out illegal no-go zones in major downtowns? 

Given the need for “accountability,” the “threats to democracy,” and a need for “transparency,” would another congressional committee investigate the Afghanistan fiasco of summer 2021? Will it learn who was lying about the disaster—Joe Biden or the Joint Chiefs—and how and why such a travesty occurred? 

Would a rebooted January 6 committee reconvene under new auspices—with Democratic members limited to those selected by a new Speaker McCarthy—to revisit the lethal shooting of Ashli Babbitt, to review thousands of hours of released surveillance video, to subpoena all email communications between the previous congressional leadership and the Capitol police, to demand the lists of all the FBI informants in the crowd, and to interrogate the sadistic jailers and overzealous prosecutors who have created America’s first class of political prisoners subjected to punishment without trial? Such a multifaceted legal inquiry would eat up most of Biden’s final two years in office. As accomplished leakers, Republicans then would also supply “bombshells” and “walls or closing in” special news alerts on cable TV, the fuel of supposedly “imminent” and “impending” indictments, based on special counsel leaks to conservative media. 

Following the Democratic cue, should the Republican-majority Senate consider ending the “disruptive” and “anti-democratic” filibuster? Should there be a national voting law rammed through the Congress, overriding state protocols, and demanding that all national election balloting must require a photo ID? 

Will Speaker McCarthy, Pelosi-style, in furor at more of Joe Biden’s chronic lies, tear up the president’s State of the Union address on national television? 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/04/gmail_is_hiding_emails_from_conservatives.html

It’s not uncommon for the American Thinker staff to learn that emails from readers and writers have vanished into Gmail’s automatic spam filter. It’s extremely irritating but is it deliberate? One study suggests that it probably is. That’s either because the email’s content is obviously conservative or because the email comes from Proton Mail, a site to which conservatives gravitated after the FBI’s partisan crackdown following January 6.

Six years ago, Russ Vaughn authored an American Thinker post revealing that his email box appeared to show a distinct bias in the way Google automatically sorted email:

I decided to clean out my email trash, and after completing the task, I turned to my spam to do the same.  But upon clicking into that folder, I made the interesting discovery that almost all of the emails relegated to spam by Gmail’s filters (I have no personal filters in place) had a common thread: Almost all were from conservative sources.  In fact, ninety percent of them were from Republican or conservative causes, most seeking contributions. 

It turns out that what Russ observed was not limited to his own inbox. North Carolina State University’s Department of Computer Science decided to look into the matter. Fox News reports that it recently published its findings in “A Peek into the Political Biases in Email Spam Filtering Algorithms During US Election 2020.” The results completely supported Russ’s suspicions:

“We made several important observations in our study. For example, as an aggregate trend, Gmail leaned towards the left while Outlook and Yahoo leaned towards the right. Yahoo retained about half of all the political emails in inbox (up to 55.2% marked as spam) while outlook filtered out the vast majority of emails (over 71.8%) from all political candidates and marked them as spam,” the proposed methodology section continued. “Gmail, however, retained the majority of left-wing candidate emails in inbox (< 10.12% marked as spam) while sent the majority of right-wing candidate emails to the spam folder (up to 77.2% marked as spam).”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/never-admit-anything-john-stossel/

“Apologizing for mistakes is something we teach little kids to do. Is that too much to ask of our media and social media giants?”

President Joe Biden says he never talked business with his son.

Maybe he didn’t.

Maybe that Ukrainian gas company paid Hunter Biden half a million dollars because he has unique business skills that no one else noticed.

It’s possible.

But unlikely.

Now a Justice Department investigation may tell us whether Hunter is a sleazy opportunist who broke the law and whether his father knew, or even helped.

But equally revealing is the arrogance and bias the reporting on Hunter’s laptop revealed among wide swaths of media and big tech gatekeepers.

Even today, most will not admit they were wrong.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/bill-clintons-corrupt-love-affair-putin-daniel-greenfield/

Bill Clinton, once the youngest governor in the country, now only four years younger than Biden, came out of the shadows with a defensive op-ed, titled, “I Tried to Put Russia on Another Path”.

While the Clintons, like Obama, fashionably embraced Putin-bashing when it served their agenda of inventing a Russia scandal as a pretext for discrediting the 2016 presidential election and spying on their Republican political opponents, Bill’s history tells a very different story.

In My Life, his 2004 memoir, Bill Clinton praises Putin and uses him to attack Republicans.

After his first meeting with Putin, Bill Clinton wrote that he came away believing “Yeltsin had picked a successor who had the skills and capacity for hard work necessary to manage Russia’s turbulent political and economic life” and the “toughness to defend Russia’s interests”. He called Putin’s appointment, which helped end democracy in Russia, a “wise and shrewd move”.

After Putin was elected, Bill Clinton recollects that he “hung up the phone thinking he was tough enough to hold Russia together.” Soon Clinton is using Putin to bash Republicans, sneering that “even the Russian Duma was more progressive on arms control than the U.S. Senate” and supporting Putin’s refusal to hold off on the anti-ballistic missile treaty because “Republicans had been enamored of missile defense since the Reagan era, and many of them wouldn’t hesitate to abrogate the ABM Treaty in order to deploy it.” Putin good, Republicans bad.

Why was Bill Clinton flattering Putin in his autobiography?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/joe-biden-still-talks-like-a-senator/

His Russia–Ukraine stumbles are the product of somebody who spent decades in a job where off-the-cuff statements have no consequences.

Over the course of the Ukraine–Russia conflict, President Biden has made a number of reckless statements that have undermined or confused American foreign policy. A popular explanation among critics has been that his propensity to make such statements reflects his being gaffe-prone in general and also that he is undergoing an age-driven mental decline. But another explanation is equally likely: He is not being as careful about what he says because his formidable political experience was as a senator, a position in which off-the-cuff statements do not matter as much.

The president’s extemporaneous comments repeatedly have created problems for his administration.

In a January news conference during the run-up to the invasion, Biden talked about the potential response to an offensive by Vladimir Putin and speculated, “It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion, and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do, etc.”

This created uncertainty about the resolve of NATO countries to hold Putin accountable, and top White House officials scrambled to do cleanup.

Last month, during a mostly restrained speech in Poland, Biden went off-script and added the line, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”

The statement reverberated around the world, as it appeared that the president of the United States was calling for regime change, which would represent a significant escalation in the conflict.

This statement, too, had to be walked back so the White House could tamp down the idea that the U.S. was pushing for Putin’s ouster.

Then there has been the loose talk around war crimes.

Last month, after the conclusion of an event at the White House, Biden initially responded “no” when a reporter asked if he thought Putin was a war criminal, and walked away. But then he made his way back to the reporter and said, “Oh, I think he is a war criminal.”