RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2025-3-23-the-kennedy-assassination-and-the-persistence-of-conspiracy-theories-part-ii

“Conspiracy theory” — the label evokes connotations of something so preposterous that it couldn’t possibly be true. With an obvious simple explanation for some incident easily at hand, generally involving a single perpetrator or a natural cause, the alternative “conspiracy theory” posits that a large group of people plotted to bring the incident about. The very size of the posited group alone makes the conspiracy theory seem unlikely, because such a large group could never hope to keep the secret. And then, in the classic conspiracy theory, the large group of conspirators consists mostly or entirely of agents of the government, who have allegedly acted in nefarious and illegal ways against the interests of the people they are sworn to serve, and have then also covered up their illegal conduct. Our government employees and officials may not be perfect, but surely they would not carry out, and then cover up, massive illegal conspiracies against the interests of the people.

Put these factors together, and you can see why sticking the label “conspiracy theory” on a hypothesis has long been an effective way to dismiss that hypothesis out of hand. It’s a “conspiracy theory” — and therefore it is so preposterous that there is no need to deal with its specifics. And, generally speaking, far more often than not, the obvious simple explanation of the incident is likely to be correct.

But not always. And indeed over the last several years we have seen one after another hypothesis initially branded as a “conspiracy theory” later established to be true, at least within the limits that truth can be known in our imperfect world. In multiple cases the conspiracy theories have been vindicated after years of having been vociferously denounced and belittled and censored by the media. To list just a few of the most notorious:

The theory that members of the FBI conspired to obtain illegal warrants and then to spy on the 2016 Trump campaign for President.

The theory that members of the Hillary Clinton campaign, together with friendly law firms and campaign consultants and researchers, conspired to produce and pay for and spread to the media fake opposition research painting Donald Trump as having “colluded” with Russia during the 2016 campaign.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/03/25/shed-no-tears-for-fired-federal-workers/

When the Trump administration announces the next round of government layoffs, the wailing, the gnashing of teeth, the sob stories will be deafening. For what? A bunch of overpaid, underworked bureaucrats?

Estimates about how many jobs have been cut so far differ. The press claims DOGE has eliminated around 100,000 federal jobs. Challenger, Gray & Christmas says 62,530 were let go in January and February. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded a net loss of only 6,700 federal jobs in February.

Whatever the case, Donald Trump wants big numbers. The Department of Education already said it will chop its workforce in half. Veterans Affairs says it is targeting 80,000 workers.

The White House is currently reviewing plans for a second wave of layoffs after getting recommendations from Cabinet officials.

Terrible, right?

Wrong. Consider the context missing from every one of these sky-is-falling stories:

This is just a haircut.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/03/24/big_law_gets_back_to_business_152545.html
Frankly this sounds mean and vindictive to me….rsk

The top law firms in New York City gave Donald Trump the high hat for years, despite his wealth, fame, and standing. But Big Law is finally putting politics aside and getting back to business.

Last month, Sullivan & Cromwell agreed to handle President Trump’s appeal in the egregious criminal case brought by posing partisan prosecutor Alvin Bragg. Last week, Paul Weiss agreed to provide $40 million of legal work on “mutually agreeable matters” in support of the Trump administration’s policy initiatives, and agreed to boot DEI too, in exchange for Trump’s agreement to terminate his Executive Order “Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss.”

Some decry Paul Weiss’ agreement as craven – and one young associate at another firm threatened to quit unless her law firm fights with Trump to her satisfaction. She’s missing the point, as have most of Trump’s other critics in the legal profession.

Until relatively recently, Big Law is all about business – and avoiding political risks. Leading partners at the mega-firms are practical people who behave rationally, not ideologically. And that’s how it’s supposed to work.

So, when Democratic Party lawyers tried to overwhelm Trump with egregious and extra-legal lawfare, Americans rallied around him and helped him retake the presidency. Even then, Big Law refused to represent him because the risk-adjusted return of helping Donald Trump was less than shunning him. Nothing personal, just business – or so they thought.

It’s true that most lawyers, including those who pursue careers in the elite law firms, are Democrats. Two of the three law firms singled out by President Trump are among the most unbalanced of the largest 100 firms. And while Paul Weiss was closer to average, its partners donated more money to Democratic Party campaign committees in a recent cycle than any other large law firm – and one of its partners prepped Kamala Harris for her debate with Trump.

It’s also true that big law firms perceive left-wing activist groups as an outsize risk to their ability to recruit top talent, mostly from elite institutions that are also left. To mitigate that risk, firms have for many years catered to the groups’ requests for financial, policy, and legal support.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/03/24/california-and-its-collapsing-blue-state-democrat-model/

While the media and the new Democrat Party grow hysterical over the Trump counter-revolution, they are missing some of the most revolutionary and insidious changes in American society of the last century.

Much has been written about the collapse of the old orthodox Democratic Party, along with the growing irrelevance and dysfunction of the legacy media, elite universities, and state and federal agencies. But their growing unattractiveness is all related and was not just the result of top-down development.

Rather, current Democrat Party radicalism, street theater, and violence were merely reflections of its own preexisting cultural antipathy toward the middle class. The party is now a pyramidal coalition of the very wealthy and professional classes comprising the capstone, resting atop a vast, expanding bottom of the subsidized and working poor, strapped pensioners and retirees, angry indebted students, 30s-something urban wannabees, impoverished immigrants—including perhaps 30 million here illegally—and, increasingly, trapped residents of a dystopian big-city America.

The collapse of the blue-state/blue-city model and those who work within and promote it reflects the radical environmentalism of the college-educated, as well as an array of high taxes, high crime, endless government regulations, housing shortages, massive homelessness, illegal immigration, critical-legal-theory prosecutors, ethnic and racial chauvinism, defund-the-police city councils, and, most importantly, chronic budget deficits and vast, unfunded pension liabilities and obligations.

In response to this progressive implosion that accounts for Democrat Party unpopularity, under the radar are historic demographic shifts. They reflect two insidious phenomena.

One, the blue-state, urban/professional/college-educated profile has become antithetical to fertility.

No one knows exactly the contributory relative roles to childlessness played by the progressive embrace of abortion on demand or secularism and atheism. Certainly, the fixations on higher education certification, massive student loan debt, years of student limbo, prohibitive housing prices, and a cultural value system that places status, titles, careers, and degrees over children all further promote a declining birthrate.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/03/24/trump-chaos-or-the-gales-of-creative-destruction/

During President Donald Trump’s first term and again in his second, we have heard his critics indict him for the “chaos” he’s stirred up in Washington. They see disorder and confusion. But those not suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome recognize this as the needed shake-up of a government that had grown out of control and become a threat to those it was intended to protect and serve.

The “chaos” label has not been used as often as “Nazi,” “fascist,” “dictator,” “tyrant” and “authoritarian” to try to vilify Trump. But it’s been part of the campaign to – let’s be frank – dehumanize the man in an effort to cripple his administration, chase him from the public square and rile the unbalanced who would do him harm.

A week into his second term, Senate Democrats wanted the country to know about the “lawlessness and chaos in America” brought by Trump. A day later, an overwrought Charles Schumer, the Democratic Senate minority leader, said Trump “plunged the country into chaos” when he “announced a halt to virtually all federal funds across the country.”

On the same day, San Francisco Democrat and former House speaker – may she never hold that post again – made a similar accusation, wildly claiming that the “administration’s cruel decision to freeze federal funding for critical services across the country has unleashed chaos, confusion and fear for hardworking Americans.”

Sounds as if the pair and their staffs coordinated the attack. But give the Democrats credit. They know how to move in lockstep, even to the point of producing a political puppet show in which they posted “identical talking points to social media” that was widely ridiculed for its asininity. 

Even the Manchester Guardian, which daily cranks out copy scrawled by an assortment of cranks, has added its opinion, with its foreign affairs commentator whining about an “ensuing chaos” that “characterizes what may become the briefest honeymoon in White House history.” Le Monde, which bills itself as France’s “leading” newspaper, is also in the game, insisting that “Trump’s chaos” is the key to “revival” for the “unpopular and lost” Democrats.

https://www.thefp.com/p/inside-the-cult-of-luigi-mangione
A Columbia grad, a cashier from Utah, and a Lockheed Martin engineer have one thing in common: They believe the alleged killer is a progressive American hero.

For the past few months, Nicole Haedo, a 36-year-old logistics coordinator, has been walking around her small town of DeKalb, Illinois, wielding an act of “quiet defiance” at her fingertips: a fresh manicure dedicated to progressive causes.

Ten nails, each a proverbial middle finger. On her left hand, her thumb bears the word TRUMP with a slash through it. On her pinkie: BLM. Her middle digit is an ode to The Handmaid’s Tale—an avatar for abortion rights. And the nail on her pointer finger is painted black with the words FREE LUIGI painted on top in bright green.

“It’s my small way of showing support,” she told me. “This is my way of keeping his story alive.”

She is talking about Luigi Mangione—the 26-year-old man accused of murdering a healthcare CEO in Manhattan in the early hours of December 4, 2024.

Haedo said her mom was shocked when she first saw her tribute to the suspect.

“She was like, ‘But he’s a murderer,’ ” Haedo told me. “I’m like, well, first of all, ‘He’s innocent until proven guilty—and second, whoever the shooter was, if his actions start to change the healthcare system, it saves lives.’ ”

Sure, “nobody wants to see bloodshed,” she admitted to me. But “the shooting of the CEO was just a small tip of the iceberg of what’s to come in America.”

“People are getting fed up,” she said.

“It’s my small way of showing support,” Haedo says of her pro-Mangione manicure. “This is my way of keeping his story alive.” (Lyndon French for The Free Press)

When Americans learned that a man shrouded in black had fired three gunshots into the back of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a Midtown sidewalk, the first reaction for most was horror. But within hours, a different emotion began to surface: glee. By the afternoon, when UnitedHealthcare announced the death of its top executive on Facebook, more than 77,000 online commenters found it so funny they responded with a laughter emoji. Meanwhile, Reddit users were discussing how to start a legal defense fund for the gunman.

https://amg-news.com/incredible-judge-fines-pam-bondi-for-wearing-a-cross-then-tries-to-cancel-it-forgetting-she-knows-the-constitution-better-than-he-knows-his-own-job/

A judge tried to fine Pam Bondi for wearing a cross in court. Big mistake. She destroyed him with the Constitution, live in court. Now he’s under investigation — and the nation is watching what happens when tyrants get checked in real time.

Pam Bondi walked into the courtroom like she had thousands of times before. Calm. Prepared. Respected. But on this day, it wasn’t her case files or arguments that sparked tension — it was the cross around her neck.

A simple silver emblem of her faith became, in the eyes of Judge Martin Prescott, an “affront to courtroom neutrality.”

Within minutes, the judge halted proceedings and made an announcement that stunned the room:

“Ms. Bondi, you are in violation of decorum. You will be fined if the cross remains visible.”

A fine. For a symbol of faith. In a U.S. courtroom.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/5205602-trump-biden-saudi-arabia-oil

When it comes to energy, President Trump is playing chess, not checkers. Former President Joe Biden wasn’t even playing tic-tac-toe.

Consider: Why are U.S. officials traveling to Saudi Arabia to negotiate peace between Ukraine and Russia? Why not more traditional diplomatic venues like Geneva or Vienna?   

Because Trump knows that Saudi Arabia is critical to lowering oil prices and pressuring Russia to come to the bargaining table. He also knows that Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, craves acceptance as a global leader and that hosting these high-level meetings helps him achieve that end.

Biden had spurned bin Salman, promising in 2019 to make him “a pariah.” Trump won’t be making that mistake.

Gasoline prices are down 11 percent from a year ago, providing welcome relief to Americans worried about inflation and a boost for the Trump White House. Trump campaigned on lowering energy prices; nothing could be more important to the success of this administration. Biden’s approval ratings were clobbered when gasoline prices breached $5 per gallon in 2022; for Trump, the stakes are equally high.  

Gasoline prices are lower because crude oil is hovering around $67 per barrel, down from $84 a year ago. Why the drop? There are numerous factors, but the most important is that OPEC+, for the first time since 2022, has agreed to expand output in April. Between next month and September 2026, OPEC-plus has agreed to reverse its prior 2.2 million barrel per day cuts; unless demand strengthens unexpectedly, or there is a major disruption of production in the Middle East, the bump in output should keep prices steady, and below the $78 level posted on Inauguration Day. 

For that, you can thank Trump and his outreach to bin Salman. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/03/21/john_roberts_is_responsible_for_the_high_courts_self-delegitimization_152535.html

At his 2005 Senate confirmation hearing to be chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts famously invoked America’s national pastime in describing his view of the judicial role in our constitutional order: “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.”

If only!

Unfortunately, Roberts’ actual career on the high court has been one extensive repudiation of his lofty “umpire” proclamation. In exalting above all other concerns his personal conception of the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, and by extension the entire judiciary, Roberts has ironically done more than anyone else to delegitimize the courts. His recent wildly out-of-line criticism of President Donald Trump’s call for impeachment of a rogue lower-court judge is just the latest example. For the court’s own sake, in these politically tense times, Roberts must change course immediately.

Roberts first showed his hand in the landmark 2012 Obamacare case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. As was initially reported by CBS News’s Jan Crawford in the immediate aftermath of the decision and subsequently reported in later years by other court watchers such as CNN’s Joan Biskupic, Roberts initially intended to rule against the constitutionality of the health care law’s individual mandate — its most controversial feature.

But at some point during the court’s deliberations, Roberts changed his mind. He decided that he could throw a bone to the court’s conservative bloc by ruling against the mandate on Commerce Clause grounds, which the law’s drafters and the Obama administration alike had cited as its constitutional basis. But Roberts threw an even larger bone to the court’s liberal bloc, unilaterally opting to rewrite the statute so as to construe the mandate as a “tax” — which then-President Barack Obama himself had repeatedly told a skeptical public that it was not. Obama’s signature domestic achievement was thus upheld.