RUTHFULLY YOURS

From: Beto O’Rourke

Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019, 9:22:19 PM EDT
Subject: Rose and Eliza

I was recently given documents showing that both Amy and I are descended from people who owned slaves. Along with other possessions listed in their property log were two human beings, Rose and Eliza.

A paternal great-great-great grandfather of mine, Andrew Cowan Jasper, owned these two women in the 1850s. There are also records showing that a maternal great-great-great grandfather, Frederick Williams, most likely owned slaves in the 1860s (“most likely,” because we are not certain that the Frederick Williams who is my ancestor and the Frederick Williams who owned slaves are the same person, but there’s enough circumstantial data to lead me to conclude that it’s likely).

Records also showed that Amy had an ancestor who owned slaves and another who was a member of the Confederate Army.

Something that we’ve been thinking about and talking about in town hall meetings and out on the campaign — the legacy of slavery in the United States — now has a much more personal connection.

Ownership of other human beings conferred advantages not just to Andrew Jasper and Frederick Williams, but to Jasper’s and Williams’ descendants as well. They were able to build wealth on the backs and off the sweat of others, wealth that they would then be able to pass down to their children and their children’s children. In some way, and in some form, that advantage would pass through to me and my children.

That those enslaved Americans owned by my ancestors were denied their freedom, denied the ability to amass wealth, denied full civil rights in America after slavery also had long term repercussions for them and their descendants.

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

“The most important thing to keep in mind about reparations is that it is never going to happen.No Congress is going to pass, and no President is going to sign, a bill that takes money from the great majority of American voters to pay a debt they don’t feel they owe.” Thomas Sowell “Risks of Slave Reparations Campaign” aUGUST 4, 2001                                                                                     

Periodically, the issue of reparations resurfaces, brought on not by those who might stand to gain, but by politicians who see political advantage in issues that never come to fruition, like immigration or climate, neither of which they would like to resolve, as long as they serve a higher purpose – their re-election.

Slavery was the blemish on our founding. Most of the Founding Fathers understood that. Nevertheless, the decision made was to proceed with unification of thirteen separate states under a Constitution and Bill of Rights to which all attendees agreed. Was it perfect? No, because it allowed the practice of slavery to continue. But liberty was the essence of our founding. It was understood by the Founders that at some point a Civil War would have to be fought, but they wanted to delay that inevitability until the Union had solidified into a unified and respected country. They knew it would have to be able to withstand the rending of its heart, which a civil war would cause. As the first half of the 19thCentury advanced, it became obvious that the cancer that was slavery did not fit a country whose values were based on individual freedom. The abolitionist movement grew stronger and advocates of slavery more isolated. It was felt that if the curse of slavery persisted it would mean dissolution of the union. But if it were abolished the union would be preserved, even though the cost would be high and the time for healing long.

In 1775, slavery was to be found in most of the northern states. As late as 1820, there were still an estimated 20,000 slaves in New York. But by 1860, slavery had been abolished in the north. Virginia had fewer slaves in that year than they did in 1820. It was not that they had been freed but were sold to cotton plantations in the deep south. And, while northerners railed against slavery, some were conflicted. For example, cotton brokers in New York became wealthy selling the slave-produced commodity to buyers in England.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/15/john-roberts-citizenship-decision-legally-politically-corrupt/

Are we a nation of laws or a nation of men? Previously, the most radically leftist federal judges had failed this test on cases pertaining to the Trump administration. Now the highest court in the land has joined them.

The fight over whether the simple question, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” could appear on the 2020 U.S. census already implicated major issues of public policy, including immigration, national sovereignty, and voting rights. But the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the matter has now transcended these issues to challenge the rule of law itself, once again raising the question: Who is really “violating norms,” “undermining institutions” and creating “constitutional crises”—President Trump, or his Resisters?

The majority opinion in Department of Commerce v. New York, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, reads like former FBI director James Comey’s infamous statement regarding former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s email server. It presents a methodical, compelling case that should result in a just decision, only to undo the case on the most baseless of grounds.

It’s Constitutional, But We Don’t Care

Roberts’ opinion affirms that including a question about citizenship in the decennial census is constitutional, writing that the “Enumeration Clause…permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary [of Commerce], to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire.” It affirms that the process by which it was to be reinstated was “reasonable, and reasonably explained,” consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). That should have been the end of it.

As Justice Clarence Thomas put it in a separate opinion: “Our only role in this case is to decide whether the Secretary complied with the law and gave a reasoned explanation for his decision. The Court correctly answers these questions in the affirmative…That ought to end our inquiry.”

But just as Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s finding of “no collusion” did not end his inquiry into obstruction, in the case of the census citizenship question, the Supreme Court soldiered on in its farcical quest. Stealing defeat from the jaws of victory for the Constitution and the country, Roberts said that in spite of the census citizenship question’s lawfulness, the Trump administration could not ask it.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/265965

US President fires back following tweets in which he told Democratic congresswomen to “go back” to the countries that they came from.

US President Donald Trump on Sunday night doubled down on tweets telling a group of Democratic congresswomen that they should “go back” to the countries that they came from.

“So sad to see the Democrats sticking up for people who speak so badly of our country and who, in addition, hate Israel with a true and unbridled passion. Whenever confronted, they call their adversaries, including Nancy Pelosi, ‘RACIST,'” Trump wrote.

“Their disgusting language and the many terrible things they say about the United States must not be allowed to go unchallenged. If the Democrat Party wants to continue to condone such disgraceful behavior, then we look even more forward to seeing you at the ballot box in 2020!” he added.

The furor over Trump’s tweets offered an increasingly fractious Democratic Party the chance to unify in its criticism of the president. The party has been riven by infighting over the past week, sparked by an interview given to the New York Times by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) last Sunday in which she made remarks about the freshman congresswomen that were seen by some as dismissive.

The tensions within the party escalated after Ocasio-Cortez told the Washington Post that she felt Pelosi was targeting women of color, though the New York Democrat said she doesn’t believe the Speaker is racist.

Trump’s tweets, however, provided Democrats with an opportunity to show a united front, however temporary, noted The Hill.

Democrats across the spectrum, from Ocasio-Cortez’s fellow progressives to close Pelosi allies like Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), condemned the tweets, with Jeffries calling Trump a “racial arsonist.”

https://pjmedia.com/trending/trump-to-aoc-omar-and-tlaib-go-back-to-the-totally-broken-and-crime-infested-places-you-came-from/

President Donald Trump has angrily responded to Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s and Congresswoman’s Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s ridiculous accusations against the American people, calling them “racists” who treat “dogs” better than immigrants, and of forcing immigrant children to drink from toilets. In what’s truly an epic Twitter-rant, the president tells Omar and AOC that they’d do better to “go back” to the country they came from.

“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, and most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fils the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.”

“These places need your help badly,” he continued. Adding that “you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements.”

It is not exactly presidential in the traditional interpretation of that phrase, but who cares? This is glorious — and it’s also precisely why Trump won the elections in 2016 and will be reelected in 2020. He’s not sugarcoating any of it. Reps. Ilhan Omar and AOC hate America and routinely insult the American people; the very same people and country to whom they owe everything they have.

https://us20.campaign-archive.com/?u=2cf2a73e6220e59e3c1c4a60c&id=0a8b28dab1&e=0c8ccf8e98

In the past six months, two of our reports have shot to the top of our most-downloaded list. 

It comes as no surprise that they both contain eye-opening numbers about exactly how the federal government is spending your tax money… 

Like giving Ivy League schools $26 billion in federal funding over a six-year period.

Schools that already have a collective endowment that’s large enough to give their entire undergrad student body full-rides for the next 51 years… without any additional funding.

And that’s just the beginning. Use the links below to download two of our most popular reports – free of charge. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-case-double-jeopardy-rules/Double-jeopardy rules almost certainly prohibit settling a federal case and then prosecuting it again in federal court.

A lex Acosta did a bad job on the Jeffrey Epstein case. This column was nearly finished when news broke Friday that he would resign as labor secretary. I was going to argue that his lapses did not justify joining the nakedly political mau-mauing by Democrats who have no interest in exploring the behavior of Democrats who are neck-deep in a monstrous pedophile’s activities. My friend Jennifer Braceras has ably addressed that point in a Washington Examiner column. I was also going to add that I’d shed no tears if President Trump forced Acosta out — easy for me to say, since I think (a) he should never have been nominated in the first place, and (b) his commitment to Trump’s deregulation agenda has never been sufficiently ardent.

Under the circumstances, I’ll spare you a few hundred words of critique on Acosta’s indecorous performance. Instead, to cut to the chase, I do not believe we can yet total up the wages of the sweetheart deal he cut for Epstein while he was U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida (SD-Florida). The commentariat is glibly assuming the courts will give the feds a second bite at the apple by allowing the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) to prosecute the charges that Acosta forfeited. I don’t think so.

Double Jeopardy
On Monday, Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that his office has now charged Epstein. While the SDNY indictment may be new, Epstein’s crimes are not. They are the same offenses from which Acosta agreed to spare Epstein from federal prosecution if he pled guilty to state prostitution charges — which Epstein proceeded to do, in reliance on Acosta’s commitment. There is thus a very good chance, based on the Constitution’s guarantee against double jeopardy, that the SDNY case against Epstein will be voided by the SD-Florida non-prosecution agreement (non-pros).

To be sure, the SDNY has a counterargument, and it will be vigorously made. It has two components. First, there is language in the non-pros that appears to limit the agreement to SD-Florida, to wit: “prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida” (emphasis added). Here, “deferred” effectively means forfeited — the same effect for double-jeopardy purposes as a conviction or acquittal — because of Epstein’s compliance with the requirement that he plead guilty in the state case. Second, there is jurisprudence in the Second Circuit (which controls in the SDNY) holding that one federal district’s agreement does not bind another.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14536/epstein-acosta-resignation

Experienced lawyers with whom I have discussed the case — both prosecutors and defense attorneys — worry that the thumb of media and political pressure will be placed on the scales of justice when it comes to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and the decision to try or settle a case.

Consider the situation of a prosecutor today or tomorrow who has a weak federal case involving sexual allegations. He has two options: the first is he can try to make a deal based on the relative strength of his case and of the defense case. But if he makes that deal, he risks criticism for being too soft on sex offenders. His second option is to take the weak case to trial and risk losing. But even if he loses, the risks to him personally are less great because he can blame the loss on the judge or the jury. A deal, on the other hand, is totally attributed to the prosecutor, as evidenced by the Acosta resignation. So, a simple cost-benefit analysis will incline a prosecutor to litigate rather than settle.

In the post-Acosta world, prosecutors will bring cases to trial even if the likelihood of a conviction is questionable, as it was in the Epstein case. The result of this change will be more trials, more crowded courtroom dockets and fewer convictions. That is not good for defendants, victims or for the rule of law.

The forced resignation of Alex Acosta based on the plea deal that he made with Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyers (of which I was one) may have serious unintended effects on our system of criminal justice. The criticism of Acosta — whether warranted or not — for making the deal will cause other prosecutors to go to trial in relatively weak cases in which the chances of losing are considerable.

The deal accepted by Acosta was based on the weakness of the government’s federal case. In order for sex with underage persons to be prosecuted federally, as distinguished from prosecution by a state, there has to be compelling evidence of an interstate nexus. Merely having sex with underage females in a local context does not constitute a federal crime. In the Epstein case, this would have required credible testimony or documentary evidence proving transportation of underage females in interstate commerce, or the use of interstate communications such as telephone calls, emails, or the wiring of funds. There was scant evidence of such an interstate nexus in the Epstein case at the time the deal was made. Perhaps there is more now, but that remains to be seen.

https://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-millennials-religion-zodiac-tarot-crystals-astrology-20190710-story.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab

I love myself.

I am beautiful.

It was an unseasonably chilly night for June in Los Angeles. About three dozen people, mostly women in their 20s and 30s, were spending their Friday evening lying on yoga mats on the back patio of a shop a few blocks from Hollywood Forever Cemetery and the Paramount Pictures lot. Attendees had been invited to bring whatever they needed to make the space cozy: Blankets. Pillows. Crystals.

I am powerful.

Ana Lilia was leading them in affirmations, closing out a 90-minute breathwork session celebrating the summer solstice.

I am a bright light.

I am ready to be seen.

Most days, Lilia works with individual clients. In the evenings, she teaches classes or puts on events, such as the solstice gathering. She first got into breathwork four years ago and started taking classes to become a teacher six months later. If you’ve never done it before, it’s a mix of breathing exercises and guided meditations meant to relax you and help connect with your thoughts — a cross between the last 10 minutes of a yoga class and a therapy session that takes place entirely in your head.

A spiritual shift

She’s one of a growing number of young people — largely millennials, though the trend extends to younger Gen Xers, now cresting 40, and down to Gen Z, the oldest of whom are freshly minted college grads — who have turned away from traditional organized religion and are embracing more spiritual beliefs and practices like tarot, astrology, meditation, energy healing and crystals.

And no, they don’t particularly care if you think it’s “woo-woo” or weird. Most millennials claim to not take any of it too seriously themselves. They dabble, they find what they like, they take what works for them and leave the rest. Evoking consternation from buttoned-up outsiders is far from a drawback — it’s a fringe benefit.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boycotting-home-depot-11562960186

Seems like it’s getting easier every day to enrage a segment of politically active Americans. Witness the current effort to boycott Home Depot because of co-founder Bernie Marcus’ comments about President Donald Trump.

Boycotts are a great way to express customer displeasure and influence corporate decision-making. Such voluntary action by consumers to enforce market discipline is infinitely superior to government regulatory discipline, which is conducted in the name of consumers but inevitably reduces their freedom to make choices.

As for Home Depot, there’s nothing wrong with consumers deciding not to shop there. But in applying their new Marcus standard, such consumers may have trouble finding anywhere in America where they can shop. Here’s how Mr. Marcus triggered the latest political backlash against a U.S. business with a recent interview in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

In the course of describing how he plans to donate nearly all of his multi-billion-dollar fortune to charity—and also reflecting on the roughly $2 billion he’s already given to organizations concerned with the treatment of autism and traumatic brain injuries, among other causes—the Home Depot co-founder also mentioned that he planned to support President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign.

That was enough to light up social media with calls for shoppers to abandon Home Depot, even though Mr. Marcus hasn’t worked there in more than 15 years. It’s true that he remains a significant shareholder, but a closer look at his comments reveals that he was hardly offering an unqualified endorsement of Mr. Trump.