RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2020/08/08/148-billion-in-federal-fun

Open The Books: Transparent Government Spending
www.openthebooks.com

After the George Floyd protests broke out across major U.S. cities, some mayors and police chiefs were accused of issuing stand-down orders to their police officers. Nightly news streamed video footage of the looting, rioting, and general mayhem that ensued in the absence of a civil order.

“Autonomous zones” sprung up in progressive cities and were described as part of a “summer of love.” Mayors pushed to defund local police departments. Center-right politicians called these cities “lawless” for refusing to protect the life, liberty, and property of its residents.

In Seattle, the highly compensated city council voted to defund their police department. In Congress, an effort led by U.S. Sens Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Joni Ernst (R-IA) pushed to defund these cities of their federal aid.

President Donald Trump indicated a willingness to review the situation. However, nobody knew exactly how much federal funding was “at stake.”

Our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com quantified $14.8 billion in federal contracts and grants flowing into five major cities where civil unrest looms and policing is restrained: Seattle, Portland, New York, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco.

We mapped the flow of federal funds during fiscal year 2019 to all units of government based within the city location. Here’s how it breaks down:

Portland, Oregon (Federal awards: $252.5 million | pop. 653,115) A family of four, on average, received $1,548 in federal subsidies ($387 per person).

https://amgreatness.com/2020/08/11/last-gasp-of-the-mensheviks/

Will the signers of the Harper’s letter realize that only an alliance with the Right can save liberal values?

Some note has been taken of a letter appearing in Harper’s titled “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate.” Signed by an impressive array of eminent left-leaning literary and academic figures, it challenges the intolerance of the new radical Left. While denouncing “right-wing demagogues” and, of course, Donald Trump, its main focus is to call out the broader “intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.”

The letter points generally to recent incidents where researchers and writers have lost positions and platforms for routine actions which aired even small deviations from the new orthodoxy of the radical Left. It concludes by refusing “any false choice between justice and freedom,” and calls for a culture that preserves “the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.” 

The letter has not been well-received by the woke Left. Nonetheless, close on the heels of the Harper’s letter came a poll from the Cato Institute revealing that 62 percent of all American respondents say that the current political climate inhibits them from expressing their honest views. 

Pertinent to the Harper’s Letter, 37 percent of those under 30 and 44 percent of those with postgraduate degrees feel that their careers could be harmed by expressing their sincere political beliefs. Even centrist liberals feel the increasing hostility to open expression, with 52 percent feeling the need to self-censor, an increase from 45 percent only a few years ago. Only those with strongly held liberal views showed a majority who did not feel inhibited. 

This is not the first time that luminaries of the Left have found themselves outflanked by intolerant radicals even further to the Left. Examples from the last century suggest three possible approaches for dealing with this dilemma.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/08/covert-covid-lloyd-billingsley/

“Is the Chinese government leveling with you? Are they telling you the truth?  Have they given you the straight dope, so to speak, as to what you need to know about the coronavirus?”

That was Craig Fiegener, a reporter with KNX radio in Los Angeles, in a February 25 telebriefing update on COVID-19 hosted by Dr. Nancy Messonnier, Director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD).

“In terms of the Chinese government,” Messonnier responded, “there has been a WHO team on the ground in China as well in Wuhan.  There are data coming out from those efforts.  We have a lot of information from China.” Reporters would not get any of that information, and they had good cause to wonder about Dr. Messonnier, who received her MD from the University of Chicago.

As the CDC explains, Messonnier began her career with the CDC in 1995 as “an Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer in the Deputy Director for Infectious Diseases (DDID).” Messonnier’s EIS connection was not publicly announced, and the EIS was also missing from the CDC organizational chart, along with its budget and the name of the official who runs it. 

As Diana Robeletto Scalera of the CDC Foundation explains, the EIS “works day and night domestically and globally to ensure epidemics in other countries do not hit American soil.” This same EIS failed to prevent the Wuhan virus from hitting American soil. No identified EIS veteran has publicly explained the failure, so Americans have a right to wonder. They can find insight from UC Berkeley molecular and cell biologist Peter Duesberg, and his inside knowledge of the government-medical complex

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2020/08/11/anti-lockdown-dr-scott-atlas-joins-coronavirus-task-force-is-fauci-finally-out-n776616

President Trump announced Monday that Dr. Scott Atlas is joining the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Dr. Atlas is a former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center and a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. Before joining the team, Atlas penned an op-ed in The Hill that showed his approach to the coronavirus outbreak is much different than that of Anthony “Chicken Little” Fauci, who favors draconian lockdowns and now wants people to wear goggles to avoid getting a virus that most people recover from easily.

Here are some excerpts of the piece Atlas wrote, titled “The data is in-stop the panic and end the isolation.”

The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be entering the containment phase. Tens of thousands of Americans have died, and Americans are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts. Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened, rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections; combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function.

Five key facts are being ignored by those calling for continuing the near-total lockdown.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/11/how-forced-isolation-makes-huge-power-grabs-possible/

Social isolation has always been the primary weapon in the totalitarian arsenal. Tyrants know how to manipulate the primal human terror of isolation through threats of defamation, firings, and worse.

Pick a dictator, any dictator—Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Jim Jones (dictator of his own realm)—and you’ll find a common pattern of imposing aloneness and the terror of it on their prey. You can probably name more examples from the world stage as well as from smaller domains. They may vary in their methods and territories, but all use social pressure to live out the ancient principle of divide-and-conquer. As political philosopher Hannah Arendt noted, totalitarians must first get people isolated against one other in order to rule over them.

Tactics for grabbing power always involve some form of imposed isolation through social pressures: mob swarming, forced false confessions; struggle sessions; hostility towards family, religion, and history; snitch culture; censorship; constant propaganda; and more. “Cancel culture” is just a new term for an old custom of tyrants who use social pressures to go after the raw power they crave. Former New York Times columnist Bari Weiss aptly described cancel culture as social murder.

We should keep all of this in mind as we navigate the fallout of today’s leftist war on reality. Social murderers on Twitter will swarm and attack anyone who states sex distinctions are real, as author J.K. Rowling showed. The hit men of “white fragility” will tell you it’s racist to be colorblind in the tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/opinion/susan-rice-africa.html

In its 2011 World Report, Human Rights Watch noted the following about Ethiopia under the rule of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi: The ruling party had won parliamentary elections with 99.6 percent of the vote. Supporters of opposition parties endured months of constant intimidation. Journalists and human-rights activists had been forced to leave the country. And hundreds of political prisoners were “in jail and at risk of torture and ill-treatment.”

Meles died the following year. Susan Rice, then the Obama administration’s ambassador to the United Nations, flew to Addis Ababa to deliver a eulogy. 

“Prime Minister Meles was an uncommon leader, a rare visionary, and a true friend to me and many,” she said. While briefly allowing that the two could disagree on issues of democracy and human rights, she showered the deceased strongman with praise. He was, she said, “uncommonly wise,” “brilliant” and “selfless.”

“I suspect we all feel it deeply unfair, to lose such a talented and vital leader so soon, when he still had so much more to give,” she said.

Days later, the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was set ablaze by terrorists; four Americans were killed; and Rice became notorious for offering some factually challenged talking points regarding the cause of the attack. That performance likely sank her chances of succeeding Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. But it’s her overall record as a U.S. diplomat in Africa that should be examined more closely as she is among the final few whom Joe Biden is considering as a running mate.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/swirsky/200810

In 1984, David S. Wyman, a professor of history at Amherst College, published The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust 1941–1945, in which he documented the degree to which leftist icons like President Franklin Delano Roosevelt were presented with irrefutable evidence of Jewish genocide and did nothing to stop the mass murder of six-million Jews in Hitler’s Europe.

Jewish leaders who were given an “audience” with FDR implored him, beseeched him to intervene in this unprecedented annihilation, and showed him graphic evidence of:

Jews being herded into asphyxiating cattle cars on their way to concentration camps,
Jewish infants and children being ripped from the arms of their parents,
Jews clawing at the walls of gas chambers until their last-gasp deaths.

But FDR did nothing! If there is blood on the hands of any politician in the last thousand years, it is on the hands of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

And yet, leftist American Jews––to this day––celebrate his presidency.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16331/new-york-attorney-general-nra

If the evidence were to show selective investigation of the NRA, that would be part of a larger problem: the weaponization of our justice system for partisan and ideological purposes.

“Who will guard the guardians?” Who is investigating the decision by the Attorney General of New York to try to shut down the NRA?

Are there governing standards for conducting such investigations or shutting down first amendment-protected organizations? Or does the Attorney General claim the power to pick and choose which charitable organizations to investigate and shut down?

These and other questions should be addressed by the media, by lawyer’s groups in New York, by the ACLU and by others interested in the equal application of the law.

The announcement that the Attorney General of New York is investigating the National Rifle Association and looking to shut it down raises potentially serious constitutional concerns. I am no fan of the NRA. Politically, I think it wields too much influence against reasonable gun control, which I support as consistent with the Second Amendment. It is too closely connected with the profitability of gun manufacturers. It advocates positions and supports candidates, even if indirectly, that I believe undercut our safety.