RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-smithsonian-review-woke-america

The White House announced plans last month to conduct an “internal review” of Smithsonian museums to determine whether they “reflect the unity, progress, and enduring values that define the American story.” A chorus of left-wing critics claimed that the Trump administration was trying to stifle free speech and whitewash history. New York Times culture reporter Robin Pogrebin, for example, characterized the efforts as part of “a wholesale attack on the arts” that could have “lasting, chilling effects,” as Trump attempts to “impose his vision of American history.”

In truth, it is the Left that has imposed its idiosyncratic vision of American history on the Smithsonian museums. Rather than a misguided attempt to control these museums, the Trump administration’s review is a necessary step to reclaim for the American people institutions that have long been controlled by the Left.

Consider, for example, one of the Smithsonian’s recent depictions of “American history.” In 2020, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History opened an exhibit called Girlhood (It’s Complicated). Per its chief curator, this 5,000-square-foot display partially reflects the curatorial team’s thoughts “about how intersex and transgender stories illuminate and complicate ideas about girlhood and what it means to grow up female in the United States.”

This is the kind of “history” Smithsonian visitors have come to expect. But according to Pogrebin, it is Trump who wants “a simplified version of America, a story with kind of less nuance and complexity.” In fact, however, the Left has pressured these museums to present a one-dimensional story of oppression, denying the splendor of a nation whose creation British author Paul Johnson describes as “the greatest of all human adventures.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/no-lives-matter-unless-democrats-can-exploit-them/

George Floyd was a saint, probably better than you could ever even imagine being, a wonderful father, and was murdered by police because he was black. OK, none of that is true. George Floyd was a junkie criminal who died of a drug overdose in police custody, and the best thing he ever did for his daughter was live far away from her so she didn’t have to see her addict, criminal father steal her toys to sell for drugs. Which version do you believe says everything about your politics? If it’s the latter, you’re likely a conservative; if it’s the former, you’re probably an idiot.

On whichever side you fall, the reality is that Floyd’s death was a political opportunity of a generation for the Democrats. If you cut out the drugs and the passing off of counterfeit money, the violence, and all the other crimes, you have a wonderful man there. Of course, George was not a wonderful man; he was a bad one who died because he took too many drugs and didn’t tell the police who were arresting him that he had ingested them. It’s pretty simple.

Now he’s a mural, an abstract idea where Democrats project only good thoughts and ideals onto, ignoring the reality that they’d call the police themselves if they’d seen him walking down the street in their neighborhood. For all the “Black Lives Matter” talk, if any of those people raising money or virtue signaling off his memory had given a single damn about him while he had a life to matter, he likely wouldn’t have died of an overdose.

Hell, if any of those liberals cared beyond Floyd being a weapon, he may well have been a productive member of society who could live with, or at least near, his daughter.

Iryna Zarutska was a productive member of society, as much as any 23-year-old can be. If a junkie’s life, after decades of bad, deliberate choices, mattered, Iryna’s life mattered too. Even more.

But you aren’t allowed to say that. Left-wing media outlets lined up staff to tattoo George Floyd’s likeness on their lower backs, but couldn’t bring themselves to mention Zarutska because of her skin color.

https://goudsmit.pundicity.com/28821/generation-remigration

 goudsmit.pundicity.com  and website: lindagoudsmit.com 

In an extraordinary moment in the history of Western civilization, two defining events happened––the assassination of Charlie Kirk in the United States on September 10, 2025, and Tommy Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom rally in England on September 13, 2025. These two momentous events bookended the 24th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, Islamic attack on the United States of America killing 3,000 innocents.

These seemingly unrelated events are, in fact, intimately connected.

Consider the fact that before the United States of America, political power was shared between religion and state in every nation in the world. The United States of America is the greatest experiment in individual freedom the world has ever known because it separated church (religion) and state (government), specifically limited government power, and formalized the inalienable individual rights of its citizens. The United States of America broke the historical binary mold of rulers and ruled when our founding fathers created a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people––and created an upwardly mobile middle class.

American patriots have fought for our national sovereignty and individual freedom since our founding, and American patriots continue to fight to preserve our constitutional republic, while the enemies of freedom continue to try to restrict our most basic freedom––freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech there are no other freedoms. Today we are a world at war: Globalism vs Nationalism.

In a familiar divide-and-conquer strategy, the globalist elite social engineers are fomenting divisiveness in America because a house divided cannot stand. The globalist elite fund and foment the anti-American policies of the radical leftist Democrats including destruction of the family; destruction of children’s innocence; destruction of the middle-class; open borders; DEI; and Marxist collectivist indoctrination in American schools. The political objective is to create divisiveness that weaken America from within. Conflict between black/white, gay/straight, rich/poor, male/female, old/young, capitalism/socialism, individualism/collectivism, Judeo-Christian/Muslim, and Jew/Christian divisiveness are all intentionally exacerbated and exploited to weaken America.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/luigis-leftists-cheer-as-judge-throws-out-terror-charges/

A mob of leftists wearing green ‘Luigi’ caps and waving banners about ‘fascism’ celebrated, danced and hugged each other on a Manhattan street after terrorism and first-degree murder charges were thrown out against the leftist killer of a health care CEO.

Judge Gregory Carro argued that Luigi Mangione was wrongly being charged as a terrorist since the radical terrorist’s objective “was not to threaten, intimidate or coerce, but rather to draw attention to what he perceived as the greed of the insurance industry.”

Luigi’s means of drawing “attention” was murder which is the definition of terrorism.

The dozens of leftists crowding the narrow sidewalk outside the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse less than a dozen blocks from Ground Zero testified to the fact that Luigi Mangione was a political terrorist, part of a radical movement, killing on behalf of a larger cause. Why else was a mob wearing ‘Free Luigi’ t-shirts and caps associated with a Nintendo video game character hanging around an unappealing stretch of Center Street that not even a feeble attempt to stick a mostly unused park between the courthouses and government buildings could make livable.

It also brought home the ongoing leftist support for the “assassination culture” highlighted by Charlie Kirk before his murder and by the leftists cheering his killing across social media.

Luigi’s leftists had gathered early Tuesday morning, bringing sleeping bags, along with books about Communism and “Mansplaining’, and bottled water and Gatorade brought from nearby businesses in Chinatown run by elderly men and women who had fled Communist China.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/09/11/the-murder-of-charlie-kirk-cancel-culture-turns-lethal/

Charlie Kirk is dead, aged just 31, gunned down at Utah Valley University doing what the conservative firebrand had been doing for more than a decade. Arguing, debating, talking in public. For that, he’s gone.

A manhunt is still underway, to find the scumbag who put a bullet through Kirk’s neck and deprived his wife and two children of their husband and father. We don’t yet know the motive. But it is impossible to ignore the climate in which this senseless killing has taken place.

Kirk was wearing a white t-shirt, with the word ‘Freedom’ emblazoned on it, when he was slain. It’s been the cause of his career. Bounding on to the scene in 2012, a co-founder of student group Turning Point USA, he was a seminal figure in the young-conservative pushback against the blue-haired intolerance of the campus left.

He dropped out of university himself, but cut his debating teeth touring campuses and taking on all-comers. He built an enormous following doing that most shocking of things in America in the 2010s: taking right-of-centre views to college campuses, arguing his case unapologetically, taking no prisoners but also treating those he disagreed with seriously.

Minds have turned to the rising temperature in America. To the bleak rise in political violence. To the bullet that ripped through Donald Trump’s ear last year. To Luigi Mangione shooting Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, in the back with a 3D-printed pistol.

I dare say the college campus is where this rot took hold. When Kirk was coming to prominence, students were rioting at Berkeley because Milo Yiannopoulos had dared to show up, or were manhandling academics at Middlebury for interviewing Charles Murray. Now, campus cancel culture has turned deadly.

Speech is violence. Words wound. These are the toxic fictions that have infected the West’s universities, media and cultural elites. Now we are confronted with the bloody consequences of it. For if speech is violence then surely violence is a legitimate response to speech?