RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/4177/He-Took-an-Envelope.aspx

” He looted Nancy Pelosi’s Office and Bragged About It???”

No, Richard Barnett took an empty envelope, but more on that later.

For now, the following excerpt from the charging documents has caught my eye and fancy both. It describes the scene of the federal crimes Barnett has been charged with —   

Video surveillance from a camera positioned outside of the Speaker’s main office door captures individuals entering and exiting the office. At approximately 2:30 p.m., several unidentified individuals appear to try the door to the office however the door is locked.

At approximately 2:33 p.m. an unidentified individual pushes in the door to the office.

Got that? At around 2:30 p.m., several people tried the door to the Speaker’s main office and it was locked, according to the complaint. At 2:33 p.m., someone just pushes the door open. As written, it does not sound as this someone entered the main office.

What happened in those three minutes? It’s possible that the first several people unsuccessfully “to try the door” were too timid or otherwise unable to open what may have been a stiff or heavy unlocked door. But it’s also possible somebody unlocked the door in that brief interval. 

If so, the trap was set and waiting for a mouse. If not, a trap was waiting anyway. 

Seventeen minutes pass.

Enter mouse:

At 2:50 p.m. BARNETT is captured on surveillance video carrying an American flag and a cellular phone while entering the doors which lead to the Speaker’s conference room adjoining the main office space.

As he is entering it, he is following behind the unidentified individual in the brown jacket. At 2:56 p.m. BARNETT is captured leaving the main office doors of the Speaker’s office space with only a phone in his hand. 

https://jamieglazov.com/2021/01/31/glazov-gang-the-real-story-of-anthony-fauci/

This new Glazov Gang episode features Investigative Reporter Peter Barry Chowka.

Peter discusses The Real Story of Anthony Fauci, unveiling The disturbing track record of Biden’s new top dog in fighting the “pandemic”.

Don’t miss it!

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/01/29/the-billionaire-takeover-of-civil-society/

As the founder and operator of a pro-democracy civil-society organization, I’ve often been astounded at calls to give NGOs a greater say in rule-making, more visibility during negotiations and privileged access to decision-makers. Because I know what few people do – that small, member-driven, self-funded NGOs are relatively rare.

Instead, the kind of organization that tends to drive the political agenda is generally billionaire (or at least multimillionaire) funded. The most well-known examples here are groups funded by conservatives like the Koch brothers and large companies like ExxonMobil. I had naively assumed that others criticized these organizations for the same reasons I did – because their actions undermined the principle of democratic equality by giving the impression that their ideas enjoyed far more backing than they did.

However, I stand corrected.

A few months ago, I suffered a rare relapse into naivety and decided that it was about time I got on to the NGO ‘funding’ gravy train. Apparently, floods of money were out there waiting for me in the democracy world. Meanwhile, for incomprehensible reasons, I was stubbornly insisting on behaving like some old-fashioned grandmother, cackling things like, ‘In my day, we used to go around with a tin can collecting for Amnesty International at Christmas! We met in the basement of a pub and everyone paid for their own beer!’

People were so baffled at this attitude that I began to doubt myself and look into how to get funding for projects in the democracy space. And because I thought it would be a good idea to be organized about it, I made a database.

That turned out to be a good idea, because it revealed the influence exerted by a wealthy few over civil society. To illustrate this, I am going to show how just a tiny fraction of a small slice of one funding network starts, but definitely does not end, with eBay billionaire Pierre Omidyar.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/30/biden-brood-already-cashing-in-on-joes-presidency-goodwin/

They can’t quit the grift. No sooner had Joe Biden won the White House than his family went back to trying to make a buck off his name. 

The latest sordid example involves one of Joe’s younger brothers, Frank Biden, appearing in a Florida law firm’s ad — on Inauguration Day no less. The ad used the president’s name to draw attention to the Berman Law Group’s class-action suit against sugar cane growers.

“The two Biden brothers have long held a commitment to pushing environmental issues to the forefront,” says the ad. “The president-elect has vowed to rejoin the Paris Agreement and wants to set ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets.”

The ad, first reported by CNBC, appeared in the Daily Business Review and carried a picture of Frank Biden and quotes him saying, “My brother is a model for how to go about doing this work.”

How touching. And shameless. 

After the enormous political trouble Hunter Biden’s shady business ties caused during the campaign, Frank’s bid to piggy-back on Joe’s election sounds especially reckless. But here’s another way to look at it.

Biden family members are oblivious to conflicts and criticism because they’ve been swimming in swamp corruption for decades. The two brothers, Frank and Jim, and Hunter have made millions and millions based on selling the perception of access to Joe’s power. 

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17013/washington-tokenism

But what does the term “minority” mean in a democracy based on equal citizenship for all? The term minority denotes “less-ness” compared to the “more-ness” of another entity. However, how could one regard some citizens of a democratic state as “less” than other fellow citizens?

[T]he United States is about “We the People,” not “We the Minorities”. Democracy is a melting pot, not a salad bar.

America… started as a space for settlers from England but was put on the way of becoming a nation by “founding fathers”: Their “one nation under God” had the distinction of being the first constitutional democracy. Its motto became: Government of the People, by the People, for the People.

To pretend that this or that Cabinet minister was chosen because of his or her skin color, religious faith or other “minority” attribution is certainly not a compliment. If the choice is based not on the individual’s competence but on salad-bar considerations, it cannot be justified on democratic grounds. If, on the other hand, such considerations played no part in the choice, why make such a song-and-dance about “rainbowism” and progressive representation?

[F]ortunately, many members of the new Washington team have impressive academic and practical resumes. It is in everyone’s interest to hope that they will see themselves not as figures in a game of ethnic tokenism but the servants of the American demos at a difficult time.

Last month, as he started shaping his future Cabinet, President-elect Joe Biden promised to form a team that offers a better representation of America as it is. Judging by the welcome that his Cabinet has received across the globe, one may conclude that he has delivered on his promise.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/01/if_one_mask_doesnt_work_try_two_or_three_or_four.html

Once upon a time, my primary specialty of anesthesiology was the most scientific of all the medical specialties that actually touch patients. Then I saw that Dr. Scott Segal, chair of Anesthesiology at Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, North Carolina told NBC news that we should consider wearing four — count ‘em — four face masks at once. I had thought that the insanity would stop at double masking. Welcome to the new normal. Panic porn has taken over even the medical community that should know better.

Albert Einstein is credited with the maxim that “Doing something a second time and expecting a different result is insanity.” So the first step in “Will more masks help?” is to ask, “Do masks help at all?” Lots of people have done a lot of good work on the mechanics of masks. Jose-Luis Jiminez at the University of Colorado and Linsey Marr at Virginia Tech are two excellent scientists who study the mechanics of the aerosols that transmit COVID-19. Both have demonstrated that masks will markedly reduce droplets. Numerous YouTube videos have also demonstrated that quite dramatically. Masks may even slightly reduce — not eliminate — aerosols.

The problem with all this work is that it starts from two primary assumptions. First is the questionable idea that droplets are responsible for spreading the bug. The second is that if we stop droplets, we will necessarily stop the virus. When the epidemic started, we were told to worry about droplets from speaking, singing, and sneezing. But while those can travel many feet, they follow a spitball’s path to the floor, where they cause no further problems. Unless someone sneezes directly in your face from close range as you are inhaling, they can’t get inside your lungs to make you sick.