RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-growing-india-is-good-for-the-us-modi-state-visit-8-percent-reform-65f1047d?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

When India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits the U.S. this week, Americans should pay careful attention to his vision for 8% growth. Both countries would benefit greatly from faster growth.

India has entered the 25-year period leading to the 100th anniversary of its independence with a growth plan. Called Amrit Kaal, which roughly translates to “Golden Era,” it is Mr. Modi’s rallying cry and blueprint for India to reach 8% growth and a much higher median income. Faster growth in India would help the U.S. by allowing new opportunities for trade and investment, less dependence on China, and better balance for the bipolar world economy.

Eight percent sounds out of reach in a world of weak growth, but India has grown by 6% or more in recent years and is building from a relatively low base ($2,200 per capita). When offered sound policies and the tolerance inherent in rules-based government, people from anywhere in the world can achieve fast compound growth rates. China’s economy grew 10% a year throughout its 1993-2012 era of currency stability, market and price liberalization, and tolerance for growing businesses.

India has shown that it can hold down external indebtedness and that the rupee can be relatively stable. It should build on that. Key reforms would shrink spending and bureaucracy and allow increased investment and jobs in medium-size companies. India’s job creation is shaped like a barbell, with startups and small businesses on one side facing daunting barriers to expansion from overgrown government, regulation and high taxes. On the other side are the government and a few big companies as massive employers. While Mr. Modi’s budget calls for more government investment, it is critical that investment shift to the private sector, particularly so small businesses can grow. Reforms offer big potential upside in three particular areas.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers-alito-gifts-disclosure-alaska-singer-23b51eda?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Editor’s note: Justin Elliott and Josh Kaplan of ProPublica, which styles itself “an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force,” emailed Justice Alito Friday with a series of questions and asked him to respond by noon EDT Tuesday. They informed the justice that “we do serious, fair, accurate reporting in the public interest and have won six Pulitzer Prizes.” Here is Justice Alito’s response:

ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclose Report. Neither charge is valid.

• Recusal. I had no obligation to recuse in any of the cases that ProPublica cites. First, even if I had been aware of Mr. Singer’s connection to the entities involved in those cases, recusal would not have been required or appropriate. ProPublica suggests that my failure to recuse in these cases created an appearance of impropriety, but that is incorrect. “There is an appearance of impropriety when an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant facts would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties” (Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices appended to letter from the Chief Justice to Senator Durbin, April 25, 2023). No such person would think that my relationship with Mr. Singer meets that standard. My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups. On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the Court. On two occasions, he introduced me before I gave a speech—as have dozens of other people. And as I will discuss, he allowed me to occupy what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat on a private flight to Alaska. It was and is my judgment that these facts would not cause a reasonable and unbiased person to doubt my ability to decide the matters in question impartially.

Second, when I reviewed the cases in question to determine whether I was required to recuse, I was not aware and had no good reason to be aware that Mr. Singer had an interest in any party. During my time on the Court, I have voted on approximately 100,000 certiorari petitions. The vast majority receive little personal attention from the justices because even a cursory examination reveals that they do not meet our requirements for review.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/06/_us_military_leaders_prioritizing_protecting_emthemselvesem_rather_than_the_nation.html

The Intercept recently revealed that high-ranking U.S. military officials have intelligence resources charged with protecting their physical well-being…and also their egos…from criticism and potential subsequent “embarrassment,” in particular due to comments posted on social media. This is not a joke. (Okay, it is in one sense, but not literally.)

Yes, according to the left-leaning online newspaper, a new U.S. military unit has apparently been tasked with monitoring social media for mean posts about current and former high-ranking officers. Presumably, stuff like this from Twitter:

This fairly reeks of dictatorships, juntas, and other authoritarian regimes.

Forget defending against China, Iran, North Korea, et. al., the Obiden administration has fundamentally transformed what was previously the world’s most powerful and capable fighting force. It has emasculated it—and tasked it with defending against nationalism, climate change, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, misgendering, “disinformation,” “domestic terrorists” (i.e. patriots and parents)…and now posts critical of military heads themselves.

Somewhere, George Washington weeps. And Patton rages.

https://dianebederman.com/we-have-been-normalizing-child-sacrifice-for-far-too-long/

June 12 is recognized globally as the World Day Against Child Labour. By definition, child labour is “work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development.”

I recently spoke to a young woman who is planning to buy a Tesla. To save the planet, of course. Great, I said. But, what about the child labour involved in creating the batteries; mining the lithium?

Well, she answered, child labour has been with us a long time – Nike, Adidas and so many others have their products made in China and third world countries using child labour.

True. Sad, but true. And very astute. But, just because child labour already exists, do we just turn a blind eye and carry on?

At what point do we say no?

Why are we normalizing child sacrifice?

Why do we not speak up against evil when first confronted?

Why do we remain silent?

To what end?

Money, in the case of product; and for child suicide bombers…?

Let’s start with child labour for cheap product.

Child labour laws were implemented in the USA with the federal child labor provisions, authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), also known as the child labor laws. They were enacted to ensure that when young people work, the work is safe and does not jeopardize their health, well-being or educational opportunities.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/barack-obama-tim-scott-nikki-haley-republicans-democrats-2024-race-9400eac?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

As America’s first black President, Barack Obama entered office with a promise of improving race relations and reducing political discord. Eight years later, rancor was worse as Mr. Obama’s Administration exploited race as a political weapon on voting rules, criminal justice, and preferences for jobs and much more. This explains why the former President is now attacking South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott.

Last week Mr. Obama, who doesn’t riff by accident, went after Mr. Scott and Nikki Haley, two of the GOP’s minority candidates for President. “I think there’s a long history of African-American or other minority candidates within the Republican Party who will validate America and say, ‘Everything’s great, and we can all make it.’ I mean, Nikki Haley, I think, has a similar approach,” Obama said on David Axelrod’s podcast.

“I’m not being cynical about Tim Scott individually. I am maybe suggesting that the rhetoric of ‘Can’t we all get along’” has to be “undergirded with an honest accounting of our past and our present,” Mr. Obama said. He added that people can be “rightly skeptical” when a Republican, “who may even be sincere in saying, ‘I want us all to live together,’ doesn’t have a plan for how do we address crippling generational poverty that is a consequence of hundreds of years of racism in this society.”

Ms. Haley and Mr. Scott both rebutted the former President’s patronizing comments. “There’s no higher compliment than to be attacked by President Obama,” Mr. Scott said. “Whenever the Democrats feel threatened, they pull out—drag out—the former President, have him make some negative comments about someone running, hoping that their numbers go down.”

Mr. Scott is right, and it’s worth asking why.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/dems-trash-u-s-constitution/

If you own a business, the leftists in Congress are coming after you. The only thing standing in their way is the U.S. Constitution.

Whether you own a mom-and-pop diner, an auto repair shop or shares in a multinational corporation, your property is at risk.

The Constitution’s takings clause was designed to protect us from government grabbing our property without paying fairly for it. But last year, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, they rammed through the Inflation Reduction Act, boasting that it would enable Medicare to “negotiate” lower prices for medications for seniors.

“Negotiate” is a lie. Under the new law, government can strong-arm companies to sell their most popular medications at a price Uncle Sam dictates, or be taxed out of existence in a matter of weeks. On June 6, the pharmaceutical giant Merck sued, claiming the law violates its constitutional rights.

Amen. This lawsuit is a red flag for everyone in America who owns anything or hopes to.

The actual language of the law is breathtakingly coercive, but let’s face it, most members of Congress don’t bother to read bills before voting on them.

The law says that any company that refuses to sell at the government’s price will be hit with a tax that starts at 186% of the drug’s revenues on Day 1 and is hiked daily until it reaches a ruinous 1,900% of revenues — not just from government sales but all sales. That would mean hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes per day.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/06/15/americans-more-conservative-liberal-social-issues/70320558007/

A new poll from Gallup found that 38% of Americans say they are conservative or very conservative on social issues – a nearly 30% increase since 2021. Those identifying as liberals declined.

It’s rare for a day to go by without some headline insinuating that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is a fascist – or even a Nazi sympathizer. The Republican firebrand has “earned” the reputation by backing an agenda that pushes back against what he calls the “woke mob.” 

From critical race theory to gender ideology, DeSantis has built his brand on curbing the leftist agenda that has infiltrated K-12 classrooms and higher education. 

While liberals and many in the news media like to portray him as “dangerous,” it seems a growing number of Americans are empathetic to his cause. 

Conservatism is on the rise 

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/06/19/americans-say-no-thanks-to-woke-corporations-ii-tipp-poll/

Companies, schools, amusement parks and even professional sports teams that have gone “woke” and adopted “diversity, equity and inclusion” measures are alienating many customers, leading to a drop in business, reports indicate. The latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows why: A strong plurality of Americans oppose such social activism rather than support it.

In recent months, companies as varied as Anheuser-Busch, Disney, and Target; the Los Angeles Dodgers; and major universities have suffered financial and reputational damage for pushing controversial DEI social and cultural issues on customers, fans and students.

To get to the bottom of this backlash, we asked I&I/TIPP poll respondents to tell us “Which of these statements best describes how you feel about these companies’ actions?” The online nationwide poll was taken from May 31-June 2 from 1,358 adults, with a margin of error of +/-2.7 percentage points.

All told, 46% of Americans opposed the trend toward corporate social activism, compared to just 17% who supported it. But a large contingent, 29%, expressed indifference.

These totals came from reactions of those who took the poll to five separate possible responses.

Among those who opposed the “woke” corporate trend, the strongest reaction, at 29% approval, came in response to this statement: “Companies have no business promoting such radical, divisive ideas on their customers and shareholders.”

https://www.gingrich360.com/2023/06/17/newts-world-episode-571-alex-soros-takes-over/

Newt talks with Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of “The Soros Agenda” about the recent announcement by billionaire George Soros, that his son Alex will be taking over the family business.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/06/17/tearing-apart-the-governing-consensus/

We hear a lot about the loss of “institutional legitimacy” these days. One of the great ironies attendant on that loss is a revolution in sentiment among many—but by no means all—people who think of themselves as conservative. Hitherto, such people would have been staunch supporters of those institutions that, traditionally, had represented the rule of law, the continuity of our culture, etc. Nowadays, they look with a jaundiced eye upon once-respected institutions like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the CIA, and the rest of the national security/surveillance apparat. 

How could it be otherwise? Recent revelations that scores if not hundreds of figures from that world had insinuated themselves into media, social and otherwise, to push a partisan agenda must give us pause. The stories are legion. Here’s one that just appeared in The Federalist by Margot Cleveland. 

The month before Joe Biden’s inauguration, FBI sources collaborated with the New York Times’ Russia-collusion hoaxer Adam Goldman to falsely portray the investigation into Hunter Biden as a big ole nothingburger. Americans just didn’t know it at the time. However, revisiting Goldman’s article now, in light of recent whistleblower revelations and statements by former Attorney General William Barr, reveals this reality—and more.

That’s bad, right? The FBI fed faked news to our former “newspaper of record” about a partisan matter that might well have determined the outcome of a presidential election. And the response? A little feckless hand-wringing on the Right. Some clucking tongues. At the end of the day, though, expect crickets. 

In one of the very best pieces I have seen about the Horrors!-Trump-had-classified-documents-at-Mar-a-Lago indictment, also published at The Federalist, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Will Scharf minutes several disturbing features of that 37-count farce. Much of what he has to say is broadly exculpatory of Trump, but one of the most disturbing items concerns the 38th item in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s partisan cudgel: the indictment of Trump’s aide Walt Nauta.