RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/where-is-hillarys-indictment-on-the-same-charges-as-trump/

On December 12, 2016 (or D12), the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsed a call by Christine Pelosi, the daughter of then House Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi, as well as other electors to receive an “intelligence briefing” on how “Russian interference was performed to help Donald Trump get elected” from Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Hillary Clinton and her senior campaign officials were aware that they had concocted the lie that the Russians had gotten Trump elected, outsourced it to a former British intelligence operative, Christopher Steele, who produced the infamous Steele dossier, and distributed it through the FBI and were exploiting it to subvert the Electoral College and hijack the presidential election.

The Clinton campaign was endorsing a move to influence members of the Electoral College to set aside their duty and corrupt the electoral votes. Electors are bound to vote in accordance with the ballot count. There was no purpose to a “briefing” on the conspiracy theories that were manufactured by the Clinton campaign except to persuade them to corrupt the vote.

The Wall Street Journal correctly described the move as an “Electoral College Coup”. Pelosi’s daughter and other Democrat electors were requesting “a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States.” And they were asking it from Clapper who would go around pushing the Steele dossier and defending its conspiracy theories as based on facts.

Clapper, using similar language to the Democrat electors, would describe Trump as unfit.

The Clinton campaign endorsed this proposed Electoral College coup by claiming that the “electors’ letter raises very grave issues involving our national security. Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/prosecutors-targeting-trump-gave-fbis-mccabe-a-pass/

Meet Molly Gaston.

“It is difficult to imagine a public interest stronger than the one in this case,” assistant special counsel Molly Gaston wrote in a court document filed Thursday, “in which the defendant — the former President of the United States — is charged with three criminal conspiracies intended to undermine the federal government, obstruct the certification of the 2020 presidential election, and disenfranchise voters.”

You may remember Molly Gaston from passes for Russiagate figures such as these.

In early 2021, Mr. Cooney pressed federal law enforcement officials to turn their attention to people in Mr. Trump’s orbit, including his flamboyant political adviser Roger J. Stone Jr., according to The Washington Post. He would eventually work on the successful prosecutions of Mr. Stone and another Trump adviser, Stephen K. Bannon.

He joined Mr. Windom’s team in mid-2022, then moved into Mr. Smith’s office late last year.

The assistant U.S. attorney in federal court on Tuesday, when a grand jury handed up a four-count indictment against Mr. Trump, was Molly Gaston, who has worked closely with Mr. Cooney on the Stone and McCabe cases.

See if you can spot the difference between the handling of the Stone, Bannon, and McCabe cases.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4146449-the-new-york-times-seems-puzzled-by-bidens-low-approval-ratings-let-me-explain/

Peter Baker, White House correspondent for the New York Times, appears genuinely puzzled that President Biden’s approval ratings are not higher.  

He writes recently that many things are heading in the right direction: “Inflation at long last is down. So are gas prices and Covid deaths and violent crime and illegal immigration. Unemployment remains near record lows. The economy, meanwhile, is growing, wages are climbing, consumer confidence is rising and the stock market is surging.”

One negative trend, Baker notes, is Biden’s approval ratings which, in the latest New York Times/Siena poll, are at 39 percent, the lowest of any president at this point in his term but Jimmy Carter.  

In all of Baker’s lengthy exploration of the president’s prospects and standing, he mentions not one word about ongoing investigations into likely Biden corruption. No hint of the fastidious hearings being held by the House Oversight Committee under Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.). No reference to Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s past business partner, who blew up any remaining pretense that Joe Biden was not engaged in his son’s nefarious business activities in China, Ukraine and other countries.

Does Baker think that the Democratic Party’s “hear no evil” stonewalling on credible accusations that Joe Biden took a bribe from Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky will erase that charge from the nation’s consciousness? Do supporters of the president think it’s perfectly normal that Hunter Biden used dozens of shell companies to funnel money to family members, and also employed 14 encrypted apps and burner phones? That’s not normal.

The New York Times and Washington Post may not be reporting on these activities, but Democrats must know that the truth is seeping out. Thanks to the openness of Twitter, courtesy of Elon Musk, and to pervasive commentary elsewhere, Americans now know that Joe Biden is not the honest, moderate and likable person he pretended to be while running for president.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/davidhasanyi/2023/08/11/bidenomics-has-been-a-disaster-n1718157

After 40 years of “trickle-down economics,” President Joe Biden says, “Bidenomics is just another way of saying restoring the American Dream.”

It’s not often that a politician openly pledges to bring the country back to a time of crippling inflation, high energy prices and stifling interest rates. But this president is doing his best to keep that promise.

Unsurprisingly, “Bidenomics” is failing to gain traction among voters. This has caused consternation in the media. One thing to remember, though, is that “Bidenomics” isn’t really a thing. Unlike, say, “Reaganomics,” which helped bring about the largest expansion of the middle class in world history, the president does not subscribe to any coherent or tangible set of economic theories or principles. The White House defines its economic policy as being “rooted in the recognition that the best way to grow the economy is from the middle out and the bottom up,” which is just platitudinous gibberish.

“Bidenomics” encompass anything and everything that’s convenient for Democrats. And in this moment, it’s convenient for them to take credit for merely letting people go back to work. Biden, who once claimed that the Democrats $3.5 trillion Build Back Better plan cost “zero dollars,” isn’t exactly a math whiz. But when he says stuff like “13.4 million jobs have been added to our economy” under his watch, more than “any other president in a full 4-year term,” anyone with even a passing familiarity with the events of the years preceding 2023 knows it’s a lie of omission.

The notion that presidents “create” jobs is itself a fantasy. In this case, though, Biden supported efforts to shutter private businesses during the pandemic, basically closing the entire economy, not only while running for president but after winning office. When Florida, and other states, attempted to ease some restrictions, Biden told them to “get out of the way” so that people could “do the right thing.” The pressure exerted on states to “do the right thing” was immense.

https://acdemocracy.org/blame-george-soros-for-the-pot-stench-ruining-americas-cities-and-addicting-her-citizens/

A major part of billionaire activist and philanthropist George Soros’s legacy will be the decriminalization of drug use in America. 

In the early 1990s, at the height of the crack epidemic, it was Soros who funded “harm reduction” clinics to distribute drug pipes as part of “safe smoking kits.” Similar “safe user kits” were made available to addicts in 2022 via the Biden administration’s crusade to enable illicit drug consumption throughout America.  

In 1994, shortly after Soros established his Open Society Institute in Manhattan, the mega pollical philanthropist decided to test the American criminal justice system and undermine the public’s resolve to maintain long-held attitudes and moral values. The savvy speculator selectively targeted criminal laws that governed the use of illicit drugs. At the time, using illegal substances was deemed unacceptable by 90% of Americans. But the crafty Soros anticipated that Americans’ attitudes would change once marijuana was legalized, and many would be willing to use drugs. He was right.

In three decades, Soros had managed to flip Americans’ views completely. A Pew Research Center survey in November 2022 found that 88% of the U.S. population supported the legalization of marijuana. His stunningly successful propaganda claimed that the enforcement of laws prohibiting the abuse of dangerous drugs caused “more harm than the drugs themselves.” In 1995, he acknowledged that “Some drugs are addictive,’ but falsely proclaimed “others, like marijuana, are not.”

Using illegal substances was once deemed unacceptable by 90% of Americans. But Soros anticipated that Americans’ attitudes would change once marijuana was legalized, and many would be willing to use drugs. He was right.

https://victorhanson.com/the-u-s-is-in-real-decline-really-part-four-lawlessness-and-corruption/

Corruption and lawlessness destroy civilizations. The 20th-century American ability to curb both, at least on the everyday level, explains in part the American success story. But now?

On the street level, shoplifting is being redefined in blue cities and states as something like parity or equity, or some sort of Orwellian justified adjustment in income.

The attempt to enforce the law can be far more dangerous than breaking it. We have completely politicized the legal system on the violent end, using race and ethnicity as exemptions from full enforcement of statutes—exemptions that fall most heavily upon the inner-city people of color and poor.

Will the lawlessness continue, as carjacking, car-racing in intersections, smash-and-grab, and overt theft reach the suburbs? Are we more afraid of enforcing the law and being libeled as illiberal for it, or the lawbreaking itself that we cannot always any more avoid?

In Oakland, suburbanites of every race, along with inner-city blacks, now march on government to insist on refunding the police and enforcing the law? But is such a reawakening too little and too late, in the sense that industry, business, and the middle classes now choose instead to avoid the Oaklands of America, on the theory life is too short and dangerous to be martyred on the altar of ecumenicalism?

As Livy reminds us, the remedy for our vices is now deemed worse than the malady itself. Would an attorney general attempting to clean up the DOJ have to be hated and ostracized to succeed? Where and how would an FBI director even begin?

https://amgreatness.com/2023/08/10/who-will-say-no-more-to-the-current-madness/

Britain slept in the 1930s as an inevitable war with Hitler loomed.

A lonely Winston Churchill had only a few courageous partners to oppose the appeasement and incompetence of his conservative colleague Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

One of the most stalwart truth-tellers was a now little remembered politico and public servant Leo Amery, a polymath and conservative member of Parliament.

Yet in two iconic moments of outrage against the Chamberlain government’s temporizing, Amery galvanized Britain and helped end the government’s disastrous policies.

In the hours after Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, there was real doubt whether Chamberlain would honor its treaty and declare war on Germany.

A Labour Party member, surrogate Arthur Greenwood, got up in the House of Commons to announce that he would be speaking for Labour on behalf of his ill party leader Clement Attlee.

Immediately Amery interrupted, shouting out, “Speak for England, Arthur!”

He was met with overwhelming applause and soon public acclamation.

After all, Amery was a political voice in the wilderness warning that neither his own party nor opposition Labour was speaking or acting for the real interest of the British people.