RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bidens-fact-free-infrastructure-fact-sheet/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=second

On June 24, the White House put out a fact sheet on the much-celebrated bipartisan infrastructure deal. The purpose of these fact sheets is not to present a full, detailed explanation of proposed legislation, and we don’t have an actual bill yet. Indeed, the purpose is more political — to set the narrative and give the public a reference point from which to start debate on whether the proposals are good ideas. It would be unfair to expect full details from a fact sheet, but we should expect some details. Especially when the White House prefaces the whole thing with the notion that it’s “showing that democracy can deliver results.”

The only thing the American people know about this infrastructure deal is that politicians want to spend $1.2 trillion of their money. On what? Infrastructure. It should be said that this is an improvement over the Democrats’ proposed plan, wherein everything was infrastructure. At least we’ve narrowed down to actual infrastructure. But Congress agreeing to spend money on a broad category is a pretty low standard for celebration.

https://fee.org/articles/restaurants-are-now-adding-equity-charges-to-customers-che

“Where should we eat tomorrow?” my wife asked me excitedly as we sat on our deck Friday evening.

She had locked down a babysitter for Saturday night, and we were both eager for our first dinner date alone together in months.

“Broders’,” I answered without hesitation.

Located in southwest Minneapolis, Broders Pasta Bar is a local gem. It has a great outdoor patio and the best Italian cuisine in the Twin Cities. We had not eaten there since the pandemic began.

My wife nodded and started to make a reservation on her phone. Then her jaw dropped.

“You’re not going to like this,” she said.

An Equity Charge?

She was right.

On its website, Broders’ has a notice to customers notifying them of a new 15 percent “benefits and equity” charge they’ve instituted. They justify the charge, first, by explaining that “many states have allowed reduced minimum wages for service staff in the form of a tip credit.” (More on this in a minute.)

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/republicans-mustnt-get-hoodwinked-on-defund-the-police-pivot/

And by the way, if you go to the Black Lives Matter website, you will still find this: “#DefundThePolice: . . . We call for a national defunding of police. . . .” (Compare now-vice president Kamala Harris in 2020 praising Black Lives Matter as “the most significant agent for change within the criminal justice system”).
Democrats might be making the case for funding once more, but it comes with a big catch.

O bviously, it makes sense for Republicans to denounce the Biden administration over Jen Psaki’s ridiculous claim that it was the GOP that wanted to cut police funding, the White House’s . . . um . . . rationale being that opposition to the president’s economic wrecking ball of a stimulus proposal equals opposition to every individual item in that boondoggle — as if deciding not to buy the manse you can’t afford in the tony school district means you oppose public-school education.

Everyone knows it was Democrats who made “defund the police” a mantra — occasionally, even a litmus test of what it means to be a viable Democratic candidate or official these days (even as Democrats who championed the scrapping of police departments spent taxpayer funds on security guards for themselves).

Nevertheless, as I have pointed out before, the smarter progressives have never been in favor of defunding the police, never mind zeroing out their budgets to achieve a wholesale elimination of the police. They not only want full funding, but significantly increased funding levels.

But here’s the catch: They want to change the definition of what policing is.

The savvy Democrats know that, as violent-crime rates surge, the party is getting killed over its “defund the police” madness. There is nothing to be done about that in the short term: The Bolshevik Left has insisted that Democrats are dead serious about gutting law enforcement (AOC: “Defunding the police means defunding the police” — not “budget tricks or funny math”); and the “defund the police” rhetoric is associated in the public mind with the months of lethal rioting that began last spring, and that was led by Black Lives Matter and Antifa, for whom Democrats continue to provide cover.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pelosis-jan-6-commission-11625005856?mod=opinion_lead_pos4

Nancy Pelosi is giving her plan to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol riot one more try, and this one looks even less likely to find a common set of credible facts and conclusions.

The Speaker on Monday introduced legislation to create a new select House committee to probe the Capitol riot and may hold a vote this week. This follows her attempt to establish a commission with members from outside Congress. That failed amid Republican concern that the structure of the commission gave Democrats the ability to appoint and control the commission staff.

Her new plan is even more lopsided. Mrs. Pelosi would appoint all 13 members and the chairman. Eight spots would go to Democrats, and five to Republicans—despite a closely divided House. Mrs. Pelosi would retain authority to veto GOP members named by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. The committee chairman would have unilateral subpoena power, as well as the ability to order depositions in consultation with the (Pelosi-approved) ranking Republican.

Mrs. Pelosi has already made clear what she thinks happened on Jan. 6. She said the committee’s job will be to explore the “root causes of [Jan. 6]—the white supremacy, the anti-Semitism, the Islamophobia, all the rest of it that was so evident.” Nothing like prejudging. It will also look at Capitol security and “what it means to be ready for such an insurrection.”

Her real goal is to keep Jan. 6 alive in the public mind to use against Republicans to maintain control of the House in 2022. Democrats also hope the committee will divide Republicans. Mrs. Pelosi said this week she might name a Republican as one of her eight picks. She’s betting Reps. Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger will sign up, and in the process highlight the GOP divide over Donald Trump.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-racial-discrimination-11625006066?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

The Supreme Court recently put off whether to hear a case accusing Harvard of discriminating by race in admissions. The Court asked the Biden Administration for its view of the case, punting a decision to next fall or later. We hope the Justices realize that sooner or later they will have to decide whether the new wave of racial discrimination is constitutional.

President Biden’s emphasis on “equity” as a dominant policy goal is already creating new challenges in the federal courts. By equity, Mr. Biden means preferences for some racial groups over others to achieve equal outcomes. A federal judge in Wisconsin recently issued a temporary restraining order against a $3.8 billion Department of Agriculture program that allocates loan forgiveness by race. And last week another federal judge, this one in Florida, issued a preliminary injunction.

This program, part of Covid-19 relief, is aimed at helping “socially disadvantaged farmers.” A USDA fact sheet boasts that it steers benefits to those who are “Black, Native American/Alaskan Native, Asian American or Pacific Islander, or are of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.” The legislation further includes $1.01 billion in funding “to USDA to create a racial equity commission and address longstanding discrimination across USDA.”

https://www.nysun.com/national/bidens-baking-an-orwellian-upside-down-cake/91557/

It’s bad enough that President Biden and the Democratic congressional leaders essentially double-crossed the GOP bipartisan infrastructure package including the democrats who participated, And it’s really bad that Speaker Pelosi & Co. are holding the infrastructure package hostage, to a tsunami of tax hikes and massive entitlement increases all of which will do great damage to the economy.

Now, though, President Biden is now comparing his multi-trillion dollar boatload of new entitlements to tax cuts. It’s an Orwellian upside-down-cake. Here’s what the President said:

“I think it’s time to give ordinary people a tax break … Why is this not a tax break for working folks when the stuff we give to the super wealthy are called tax breaks? Look, major action on clean energy, housing, caregiving, on child and paid leave, universal pre-k, free community college. The human infrastructure is intertwined with our physical infrastructure.”

Huh? They’re not tax cuts. They’re spending. Permanent spending. Remember what the great Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman said. “Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending, because that’s the true tax …”

And Mr. Biden wants government cash payments without any work qualifications or other employment incentives. They are middle class entitlements.

If you have a moment take a look at today’s Wall Street Journal editorial: “It’s the Entitlements, Stupid.” Then if you have a moment more, read the op-ed piece from my old friend and Reagan budget office colleague John Cogan entitled “Biden’s plan for an entitlement society.”

https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/28/did-cops-attack-and-provoke-peaceful-protesters-on-january-6/

If the American people deserve the truth about an “attack on our democracy” then they deserve the truth about the way law enforcement handled the crowd on January 6. Release the tapes.

Joe Biden’s Justice Department is using every legal maneuver at its disposal to keep under wraps more than 14,000 hours of surveillance footage captured by the United States Capitol Police security system on January 6. Prosecutors insist the recordings are “highly sensitive” material; USCP’s general counsel warns that releasing the videos would provoke another “attack” on the Capitol complex.

But the trove of footage held by USCP isn’t the only video used as incriminating evidence in court proceedings, particularly hearings where prosecutors argue that a January 6 defendant should remain behind bars awaiting trial. The Justice Department also has footage recorded by body cameras worn by D.C. Metropolitan Police officers. (According to the USCP’s general counsel, Capitol police officers don’t wear body cameras. Interesting.)

Federal prosecutors routinely petition the court for pre-trial detention of January 6 defendants; judges have concurred in dozens of cases. Proof that the accused is a “danger” to society largely rests on cherry-picked video clips created by the government from video footage exclusively held by the government.

After news organizations complained their reporters could not see the clips during virtual court hearings, Beryl Howell, the chief judge of the D.C. District Court handling each one of the 500 or so Capitol breach cases, set up a way for journalists to access video evidence on a case-by-case basis.

The Justice Department now is using that ruling to perpetuate the idea that law enforcement officials were savagely attacked by bloodthirsty Trump “insurrectionists” on January 6. Earlier this month, the agency released a brief clip of a former New York City police officer angrily confronting a D.C. cop at around 2:30 p.m. on January 6. CNN, which obtained the clip, described the 56-second video as “horrifying.”

Thomas Webster, a decorated Marine and ex-NYPD officer with no criminal record, was arrested in February and charged with seven counts including assaulting the officer with a flag pole that was attached to his U.S. Marine Corps flag. (He did not hit the officer with the pole.) He’s been behind bars ever since.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2021/06/28/suck-it-liberals-manhattan-da-isnt-filing-charges-against-trump-n2591724

The media and the Democrats have attacked him so much, lobbed so many conspiracy theories, and propped up so many shoddy legal inquiries into Donald Trump and his entities that it’s hard to keep up. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance had been looking into the Trump Organization for months. The Left thought this would be it. The Left hoped this would be it, that Donald Trump would be charged over fraud allegations. Not the case. Don is still Teflon. Vance is not going to charge the former president and liberal America is going to lose it. Even out of office, Trump still owns the Left (via Politico):

Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance has indicated he does not currently plan to charge the Trump Organization with crimes related to allegations of “hush money” payments and real estate value manipulations, according to a personal lawyer for Donald Trump.

Ronald Fischetti, a New York attorney who represents the former president, said on Monday that in a meeting last week, he asked Vance’s team for details on charges they were considering.

According to Fischetti, members of Vance’s team said they were considering bringing charges against the Trump Organization and its individual employees related to alleged failures to pay taxes on corporate benefits and perks. It has been widely reported that those perks included cars and apartments and appear to only involve a small number of executives.

“We asked, ‘Is there anything else?’” Fischetti told POLITICO. “They said, ‘No.’”

“It’s crazy that that’s all they had,” he added.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/06/general-milley-leads-enemy-within-daniel-greenfield/

“Milley has spent his career telling politicians what they want to hear because it was good for his career. His endorsement of the divisive racism of critical race theory shows that there are no limits to what he will support as long as it’s good for his career. But this time the cost may not just be thousands of dead Americans abroad, but a defenseless nation at home.”

As the Black Lives Matter riots torched the country, Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, insisted that the violent assaults threatening the nation’s capital were merely protests, and berated Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller who warned, “These cities are burning”.

After the White House came under attack and a BLM mob set fire to the gatehouse, Trump aides, at the request of the president, drafted a document invoking the Insurrection Act that would have ended the nationwide reign of Democrat terror by putting troops on the street.

Milley vocally rejected the idea, claiming that the violent riots were just a protest, and it wasn’t appropriate for the military to be involved in political issues. Of course Eisenhower had sent the troops into Little Rock to integrate the schools, Kennedy had sent them to Mississippi to do the same, and George H.W. Bush had sent them to Los Angeles to put down the Rodney King riots.

After accompanying President Trump to Lafayette Square, where Black Lives Matter rioters had tried to set the ‘Church of the Presidents’ on fire, Milley quickly withered under media pressure.

“I should not have been there,” Milley recited in an apology video and defended the BLM-Antifa insurrections as responses to the “centuries of injustice toward African Americans.”

After scores of cities had been torched, statues pulled down, and hundreds of police officers wounded at the hands of racist Marxist hate groups, Milley argued that, “we should all be proud that the vast majority of protests have been peaceful.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/four-biden-proposals-would-dole-out-taxpayer-money-based-on-critical-race-theory

What happens when you mix toxic critical race theory with progressive economics? Thanks to President Joe Biden, we may soon find out.

Under Democratic leadership, the federal government is rolling out numerous race-based economic initiatives that explicitly dole out taxpayer money along racially discriminatory lines. Here are four examples, as identified by Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty attorney Dan Lennington.

A nearly $10 billion Treasury Department mortgage-assistance initiative plans explicitly to favor “socially disadvantaged individuals,” essentially defined as nonwhite people, in assigning the funds.
A $1 billion Department of Agriculture initiative targeting “socially disadvantaged farmers” would specifically dole out taxpayer money “based on race and ethnicity.”
Another USDA program would spend up to $400 million to buy food from “local, regional, and socially disadvantaged farmers,” with “socially disadvantaged” once again basically standing in for “non-white.”
A $10 billion Small Business Administration credit program intends to emphasize funding businesses with nonwhite ownership.

There are too many problems with this race-based approach to federal spending to count.

For one, the legality and constitutionality of these openly discriminatory government schemes are highly dubious. Some race-based government programs such as affirmative action have, unfortunately, been upheld by courts in the past. However, a federal appeals court ordered a halt to a similar Biden administration initiative that allocated COVID-19 relief funds based on race.