RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/columns/philip-carl-salzman/2021/03/07/is-america-at-risk-from-domestic-terrorists-n1430573

Seriously, can we possibly believe anything that Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats say? Has anything that they have said during the past four years been true?

The collusion in the Russian collusion scandal was between the Hillary Clinton Campaign, the Democrat leadership, the entire Democrat press, networks, and cable news, and our own intelligence and security agencies. Nor was there any predicate for the accusations against President Trump, but rather it was a rationalization of “The Resistance” that Democrats proudly announced, as if it were not a violation of the most basic principle of democracy: a peaceful transition of power. From 2016 through 2018 there were enthusiastic daily reports confirming President Trump’s collusion with the Russians, him being an agent of Putin, and claims that the definitive evidence was about to be revealed. Of course, as we know, there never was any evidence, in spite of two years of investigation by a special prosecutor and a platoon of partisan Democrat lawyers. Since 2018, there have only been sporadic outbursts claiming that Trump was doing Putin’s bidding by Pelosi and her minions, for why let a good lie die? 

Then there were the two—two!—impeachments of Trump, for entirely imaginary offenses, one being a telephone call with the leader of Ukraine, and the other for urging his followers to express their concerns “peacefully and patriotically.” The impeachments of course were really for Trump having beaten the female Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton, and having pro-America policies that clashed with Democrat pro-Chinese and pro-United Nations policies from which Democrats have gotten rich, e.g. the Biden crime family. In other words, the impeachments were just the next initiatives in the unconstitutional “Resistance.” 

For the 2020 presidential election, the Democrats activated a wide array of dirty tricks, many unconstitutional in the states where they were carried out, which undermined election security and opened many opportunities for manipulation of the vote. Was the election stolen from Trump? We cannot know for certain, because the substantial evidence has not been considered and adjudicated. Rather than take up the challenge to protect American democracy, courts, including the Supreme Court, flinched and dodged. And now the Democrats are hoping to pass H.R.1, a bill that would put control of elections into the hands of the Democrats in perpetuity, so that there would never be an honest election in America. 

https://townhall.com/columnists/scottmorefield/2021/03/08/the-covid-hypochondriacs-think-theyre-saving-the-world-but-theyre-actually-destroying-it-n2585854

The United States recently passed a grim “milestone” of sorts with over 500,000 deaths being attributed in some way to COVID-19. What this really means, of course, is that more than 500,000 mostly super-old and/or mostly super-sick people have died who, at some point prior to or at their deaths, discovered COVID-19 in their systems thanks to super-sensitive PCR testing that may or may not have been correct. Sadly, that’s the extent of what we know for sure at this point, though our overlords pretend they know everything while consistently being proven wrong weeks later.

Half a million is a big number, for sure, but around 3 million people die in this country every year, to the tune of well over 7,000 every single day. Yes, there have been excess deaths caused by COVID, but those are probably two-thirds of that grim number we constantly see on the TV ticker. Further, overall deaths over the coming years are likely to be significantly lower as we find that COVID-19 took many people weeks and months earlier than they otherwise would have gone.

I don’t point these things out to be insensitive or disrespectful of the dead, but I do think society has lost all sense of perspective. All death is tragic and sad, especially for those who lose loved ones, and my intention is not to minimize any of it. It is, however, my responsibility to point out that, as absurd as it sounds, a significant proportion of the population of this country seems to have forgotten that we are all, at some point, going to die. Indeed, even as 500,000 were dying of or with COVID-19, 660,000 others were dying of heart disease, and 600,000 were dying of cancer. Where, pray tell, is the national memorial for them?

https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/08/shelby-steele-talks-race-relations-on-new-fox-news-podcast-with-ben-domenech/

Renowned author and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution Shelby Steele sat down as the first guest on the new Fox News podcast hosted by Federalist Publisher Ben Domenech.

On “Shelby Steele & The Consequences of Courage,” the public intellectual broke down the nation’s latest cultural revolution on race, decrying the social justice movement as one based on the pressure to prove white innocence exploited by the left.

“Critical race theory is bogus,” Steele says. “To me as a minority, demeaning, de-humanizing, I mean, you could go on forever. But it is a currency with which whites can buy innocence in the marketplace. It’s a currency which blacks and other minorities can exercise power in the political arena.”

Steele, who is black, said Americans need to find courage to reject the totalitarian impulses of the social justice movement that demonizes the population as exhaustively racist for exclusive benefits.

“White America has to find a way to restore its moral confidence,” Steele said, emphasizing it requires the courage to “say ‘look, I’m not a racist and I don’t care what you say, whether it agrees with your or doesn’t.’”

For Steele, the consequences of such courage have been far more personal.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/clarence-thomas-delivers-decisive-ruling-in-religious-free-speech-case/

The case, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, centered on how to address violations of civil rights that cause no economic damage.

  W hat could be more American than a religious-free-speech lawsuit with the name Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski? At issue in the case is state-funded Georgia Gwinnett College’s “free speech zone” policy, which Stanley Kurtz has aptly summarized elsewhere on this site:

Georgia Gwinnett’s two tiny speech zones occupy less than 0.0015 percent of the campus, and are open only 18 hours a week. If you want to speak in public or leaflet about politics or religion anywhere on campus on a Friday, for example, it had better be in those tiny zones between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. or you’re out of luck — and even then you’ll have to get authorization three business days in advance.

Student Chike Uzuegbunam, an Evangelical Christian, was told that if he wanted to evangelize his faith to his fellow students, he would have to apply three days in advance for a permit, and then confine his activities to one of the two free-speech zones. After receiving the permit, he was told by campus cops that he could not share his faith even in one of the speech zones, because doing so violated a campus ban on “disturb[ing] the peace and/or comfort of person(s).” (Of course, these days, almost any opinion, especially on matters of faith, will make someone on campus uncomfortable.) So he sued, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom and supported by Jeff Sessions and the Trump Justice Department. In response, the college changed the policy and tried to get the lawsuit dismissed as moot. Eventually, the issue reached the Supreme Court. And today, Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a clear victory for the plaintiffs.

A bit of background: Courts of law do not exist to issue pronouncements in the abstract about constitutional rights and wrongs; federal courts are restricted to deciding “cases or controversies” in which some particular person, entity, or group has suffered a particular injury and that injury can be relieved by the judiciary. Standing to sue is commonly described as having three elements: (1) injury, (2) traceability, and (3) redressability. Injury means that the plaintiff has suffered a concrete, proven harm. Traceability means that the plaintiff’s injury can fairly be said to have been caused by the defendant’s acts. Redressability means that the kind of relief the plaintiff seeks — e.g. money, an injunction, a declaratory judgment — is within the court’s power to provide.