RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&id=9c163aa19e

It was back in September 2019 that there sprang into the news the story of Hunter Biden and his million-dollar-per-year gig as a board member for Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Hunter’s gig began in April 2014 — shortly after his dad Joe, then sitting VP, took on the role of “point man” as to U.S. policy toward Ukraine. The gig then ran until some time in 2017 — shortly after Joe had left office. It just happened that Burisma had gotten the lion’s share of Ukraine oil and gas lease deals under ousted (and Russia-aligned) President Viktor Yanukovich, and had strong reason to fear prosecution under a new Ukrainian President and chief prosecutor. In early 2016 VP Joe Biden got the new prosecutor fired, and later was caught on tape bragging about it.

Essentially the entire story about these events in the state media since 2019 has been the story of minimization and/or suppression of the facts and their significance. The suppression went to a whole new level a year later, in October 2020, when the New York Post broke the story of a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that had been abandoned at a computer repair shop in Delaware. This was now just a few weeks before the 2020 election, with Joe Biden the Democratic candidate for President. The laptop contained extensive emails and other documents detailing Hunter’s business dealings in places where his father had major influence on U.S. foreign policy, including not just Ukraine, but also China, Kazakhstan, and other countries, as well as father Joe’s involvement in same.

Promptly, some 50 former U.S. intelligence officials issued a letter stating that the laptop had all the “earmarks” of “a Russian information operation.” The state media adopted that line as gospel. Most shamefully, all of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube (Google) explicitly suppressed the story by either banning any information about it or minimizing its distribution on their platforms.

https://dianebederman.com/canada-the-culture-of-death-and-the-death-of-culture/

Population control used to be the result of nature: natural disasters like hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, disease. Thomas Malthus gave us The Malthusian Theory of Population: the theory of exponential population and arithmetic food supply growth. Nature has its own ways of keeping a check on the increasing population. It brings the population level to the level of the available food supply. When the increasing population rate is greater than the food supply, disequilibrium exists. As a result, people will not get enough food even for survival. People will die due to a lack of food supply. Adversities such as epidemics, wars, starvation, famines and other natural calamities will crop up which are named as positive checks by Malthus because they increase mortality rates, thus keeping the population in check. They are countered by man-made “preventive checks,” which also control the population by reducing fertility rates; preventive checks include birth control and celibacy.

We have fired up preventive checks with a culture of death. In my view, this culture of death began with the promotion of abortion. Abortion started as safe and rare to safe and always. Change your mind in the third trimester – no problem – we can get rid of that fetus. Change your mind at birth – not a problem – you can have abortion at birth. I heard one young woman say that she felt it was kinder to abort a baby with severe deformities later in term than have the baby suffer at birth. Really? Does she know that the fetus is torn limb from limb to remove the baby; especially if performed by Planned Parenthood who harvest organs for sale? She had no concept of holding the baby and saying goodbye, lovingly with care and compassion. How did that happen? How did we get here?

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19171/san-francisco-discrimination

The City of San Francisco is a state actor that is constitutionally prohibited from disqualifying job applicants on the basis of race. That is precisely what occurred here, despite the phony claim that Arntz can reapply for his job.

There is one important benefit to the San Francisco decision — at least as compared to university admissions decisions. The San Francisco panel did not try to disguise the racial criteria they are employing, whereas most universities go to great length to deny that race alone is often a dispositive factor in ranking applicants. This will make it easier for the courts to hold Arntz’s firing as a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

In the bad old days, race was often used to discriminate against Black applicants. Today race is often used to discriminate in favor of Black applicants. I guess that is some sort of progress. But real progress will be achieved only if and when race is no longer a factor that trumps meritocracy. Only then will Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of how his children and ours should be judged become a reality.

John Arntz has held the job of San Francisco’s director of the Department of Elections for two decades. He has been repeatedly praised for his excellent performance at this increasingly important job — important because of so many election challenges and doubts. Just two years ago, the election commission commended him for his “incredible leadership.” But now they are essentially firing him because he is apparently of the wrong race to satisfy their “racial equity plan.”

https://amgreatness.com/2022/11/27/was-trump-our-captain-queeg/

The Left, the NeverTrump Right, and many independents are tiring of Donald Trump’s recitations of prior, however justified, grievances at the hands of the media, the Democratic Party, the administrative state, and hard-core Left.

The conventional wisdom runs that Trump’s whines and victimization recitations reveal deep paranoias, and increasingly to an obsessive degree. We are told that his near neurotic obsessions with the unfairness of his critics are alienating the independent voter, who finds Trump’s strolls down 2020-21 memory lane the same-old, same-old ad nauseam.

True, Trump’s occasional recklessness contributed to many of his misadventures. At least at some point, friendly critics suggest, he might have realized that his nationalist/populist agenda, his orphaned outsider status, his lack of prior political experience, and his estrangement from the Republican political hierarchy, bipartisan Washington, D.C. media and government fixtures gave him no margin of error—despite what prior presidents and our current commander-in-chief have been accorded.

The haters would have hated Trump regardless, But his tweets and ad hominem retorts served to disguise their peremptory venom while instead highlighting his own retaliatory crudity.

“Fact-checkers” doted on every Trump statement, nitpicking them to find some exaggeration, or untruth. Fine. But then these same hypercritics simply went comatose during the Biden Administration, with little care that Biden spins fantasies daily, from a son lost in the Iraq War to insulting claims that he passed his student loan amnesty in the Congress by a close vote, and on and on. With Trump, voters got real achievement with coarseness, with Biden utter failure with near senility.

The media lied about supposed felonious behavior of the two Trump sons during the Russian collusion mania. The same reporters snoozed when Hunter Biden all but served up a guilty writ of felonious behavior on his laptop. Yet Hunter and the Biden accomplices were given de facto exemption by the Department of Justice and “50 former intelligence officials” who were willing to lie about the laptop’s authenticity rather than risk the chance of seeing Trump reelected.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/11/the_coupattempt_party.html

A political light bulb went on regarding Adam Schiff’s remark on CNN’s “State of the Union” as reported by Breitbart’ s Pam Key.  In the interview, Schiff again mentioned the Russia hoax he has promoted for five years, if not longer.  (Note that Dana Bash did not call Schiff on this huge lie.).  With Schiff continuing to assert this gross falsehood, the Democrat Party has, for years, switched from being a loyal opposition party to priding itself as a party of the permanently-attempted coup.

How dumb of me not to have taken seriously the Democrat cries of “Resistance,” as of the Trump inauguration, January 20, 2017 — but I then understood such cries to be figurative and fanciful references of a politically romantic nature.

But where were the Republican political experts like House Speaker Paul Ryan back in early 2017 when the “Resistance” was gearing up?   Alas, the anti-Trump Ryan was silently supporting the Resistance.  How could the Democrats have succeeded with the Mueller probe if Ryan had spoken out forcefully against what was apparently a coup attempt to oust the legitimately-elected president?

CNN published a list of Democrats who announced that they would boycott the Trump administration.  The late Rep. John Lewis, citing, in effect, the Russia hoax, refused to accept President Trump’s legitimacy.  Rep. Zoe Lofgren accepted the fact Trump was president, but still, would not attend his inaugural, and went on to become one of the Nine Members of the phony-baloney House Select Committee Against President Trump.

If the GOP House leadership did not recognize, five years ago, that it was opposed by the coup-attempt party, the leadership has no excuse now for failing to see the Democrats for the permanent coup-attempt party they have become.  And how well to understand, now, that when the Democrats accused Russia of “sowing chaos and discord” in the U.S., the Democrats were (falsely) projecting their own bad conduct.