RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stephen-kruiser/2023/09/27/senate-forces-fetterman-to-wear-big-boy-pants-passing-a-formal-dress-code-n1730465

Our seemingly long national nightmare is over: Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) will no longer be able to dress like a homeless crackhead at work.

After Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) made a unilateral decision to relax the unwritten dress code to accommodate Pennsylvania’s most notorious outpatient, his colleagues decided to get it in writing.

CBSNews.com:

The U.S. Senate has passed a resolution formalizing business attire as the proper dress code for the floor of the chamber by unanimous consent.

This comes after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer chose to stop enforcing the unwritten requirement, and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman’s casual dress became a flashpoint in the Capitol.

The bipartisan bill from Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney requires that members abide by a real dress code – rather than an unwritten custom – when on the Senate floor, that includes a coat, tie, and slacks for men.

“Though we’ve never had an official dress code, the events over the past week have made us all feel as though formalizing one is the right path forward,” Schumer said. “I deeply appreciate Senator Fetterman working with me to come to an agreement that we all find acceptable, and of course I appreciate Sen. Manchin and Sen. Romney’s leadership on this issue.”

Savor the moment, my fellow Americans, this may be the last reach-across-the-aisle, Kumbaya vote we see on either side of Capitol Hill for a while.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/bidens-booby-trap-for-a-republican-president/

The Biden administration is setting a booby trap in case a Republican wins the presidency in 2024.

Last Friday, the White House unveiled a proposed rule that would make it even harder than in the past for an incoming Republican president to wrestle control of the left-leaning federal bureaucracy and actually implement the conservative policies promised to voters.

Of the 2.2 million federal civil workers, only 4,000 are presidential appointees. The rest stay in their jobs, from one administration to the next, protected by rules that make it nearly impossible to discipline or replace them.

They overwhelmingly favor the Left. A staggering 95% of unionized federal employees who donate to political candidates give to Democrats, according to Open Secrets. Only a tiny 5% support Republicans.

Some federal workers in high positions slow-walk or even derail a Republican president’s agenda — and get away with it.

Why bother to vote if the left-leaning deep state stays in charge no matter who wins the presidency?

GOP candidates Donald Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis are vowing to conquer this obstructionism.

Everett Kelley, union president of the American Federation of Government Employees, claims GOP contenders want to “politicize routine government work.” Nonsense. We’re not talking about mail carriers. It’s time to make lawyers, PhDs and other top-level career bureaucrats implement the president’s agenda, not their own.

After Trump won in 2016, they went to town neutralizing him on almost every policy front, explains James Sherk, special assistant to the White House Domestic Policy Council under Trump.

Career lawyers in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division flat out refused to challenge Yale University’s discrimination against Asian American applicants. Trump had to recruit lawyers from other divisions. After Joe Biden became president, the DOJ dropped the case. But the same career lawyers who refused to sue Yale made the losing argument in support of affirmative action before the U.S. Supreme Court.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/09/28/biden-menendez-and-michelle-birds-of-a-bribery-feather/

Q: What is the difference between what Sen. Bob Menendez is charged with, what President Joe Biden is being investigated for, and the speech Michelle Obama gave in Germany on Monday?

A: Only the dollar amounts.

Just as Democrats were ramping up calls for Menendez to step down over bribery charges filed against him, and as House Republicans started their impeachment inquiry into whether Joe Biden used son Hunter to bribe foreign officials, Obama was reportedly getting paid an obscenely large amount of money for a one-hour talk on “diversity.”

These are all variations on a theme. Call it bribery, or extortion, or abuse of power, or whatever you want. This is how Democrats get rich these days. They expand the size and power of the federal government, then sell access and favors to the highest bidders.

Think about Michelle’s speech for a minute. According to the Daily Mail, she was paid $741,000, which means that by the time she was six minutes into her speech, she’d made more money than 50% of households in the United States make in a year.

This reported fee is also more than three times the already criminally large amount she normally gets paid to read words someone else wrote for her.

So, what makes Michelle suddenly three times more valuable? Did she discover a cure for cancer? A limitless, free, source of clean energy? An end to world hunger? Did she unlock the secrets of faster-than-light space travel? Or announce a plan to bring world peace?

Hardly. She is a talentless woman who happens to be married to a former president. The organizers of the event and 5,000 people in attendance most likely have already forgotten whatever it was she said.

The one and only reason she commanded that price is because of the current buzz that she might run for president next year, given that Biden seems unlikely to last until November 2024, let alone January 2029. The organizers of the event were buying political influence, not insights.

How is this different from what Biden was doing when he was selling access through his drug-addled son?

How is it any different from what the money-grubbing Clintons were doing with their bogus “Clinton Foundation,” which saw donations skyrocket when people thought she might be the next president. As we reported when we were with Investor’s Business Daily, donations to the Clinton Foundation cratered as soon as Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in 2016.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/philadelphia-looting-target-store-closing-retail-theft-crime-1ee6de3c?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

You may have heard that a mob of teenagers looted stores in downtown Philadelphia on Tuesday night, and Target said the same day it is closing nine stores in four states because of rampant crime. Rack up more victories for progressive prosecutors.

The mobs in Philly hit Apple,Lululemon and Foot Locker stores in Center City, which ought to be a safe space for civilized commerce. The Foot Locker store was “ransacked in a coordinated attack,” said police. Police have made more than 50 arrests and are investigating property damage and theft elsewhere in the city. Some 76 incidents have been reported.

and Foot Locker stores in Center City, which ought to be a safe space for civilized commerce. The Foot Locker store was “ransacked in a coordinated attack,” said police. Police have made more than 50 arrests and are investigating property damage and theft elsewhere in the city. Some 76 incidents have been reported.

Interim Police Commissioner John Stanford said police are looking into whether “there was possibly a caravan of a number of different vehicles that were going from location to location.” He added, “Everyone in the city should be angry.”

Anger is justified in particular toward District Attorney Larry Krasner, who waves away property crime. His office reports 424 retail theft charges so far in 2023—compared to more than 1,500 by the same date in 2017, the year before he took office. Reports of retail theft in Philly have increased by more than 30%—to 13,330—compared to a year ago, according to the city’s latest weekly crime report.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/09/michelle_obama_got_750000_for_a_single_speech_in_munich.html

Debate is raging about whether Michelle Obama will step in to save the day for Democrats if both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are yanked from the top of the ticket. Meanwhile, though, Michelle isn’t letting any grass grow under her feet. Instead, she jetted off to Munich to give a single speech, in exchange for which she collected 700,000 euros, which is equivalent to over $740,000. Given how rich the Obamas are, one has to wonder about her price tag…although I have some guesses.

I’m not a Michelle Obama fan. She came from an affluent black Chicago family; got into the Ivy Leagues (probably through affirmative action, given the childishly poor quality of her bachelor’s thesis); obtained jobs for which she was not qualified and that required no work but nevertheless paid her very, very well; and ended up as America’s First Lady for eight years. Along the way, she and her husband amassed at least $70 million, a wealth package that includes three mansions, one in D.C., one in Martha’s Vineyard, and one in Hawaii.

That level of wealth is impressive when you consider Barack Obama’s considered opinion that “I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” But of course, for leftists, enough is never really enough. The richest people in the world are leftists who squirreled away a bit of money for themselves—e.g., Hugo Chavez, Yasir Arafat, every Soviet dictator, Fidel Castro, and, now, the Obamas. Oh, and let’s not forget Bernie Sanders, who used to inveigh against millionaires and billionaires until he became a millionaire. Then, he only had a problem with billionaires.

But back to Michelle. Here’s the reason I don’t like her: Despite her wealth and prestige, Michelle Obama is a woman who feels that life has done her wrong. She’s a race hustler who waves her skin color around like an angry flag. If you don’t worship at her feet, it’s not because you dislike her values or her personality. It’s because you’re part of a systemically racist, capitalist, American system that offends her to the core, despite her having benefitted from that same capitalist, American system in a way few people ever have or will.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19999/menendez-indictment

In both the Menendez and Trump cases, prosecutors are engaging in the questionable tactic of seeking to influence the jury before trial.

Both show and tells [Menendez’s gold bars and Trump’s documents] are wrong. Both are intended to prejudice potential jurors and witnesses and to try the case in the court of public opinion before it is subject to the adversarial process to the courts of law.

Two wrongs do not make a right — nor do they cancel each other out. They simply compound the injustices and demonstrate that this Justice Department — and several others that came before it — are willing to violate the spirit if not the letter of the law, Justice Department regulations and legal ethics.

No one should rush to judgment before all the evidence is seen and heard. Nor should Menendez be compelled to resign his seat in the Senate based on allegations, photographs and the kind of one-sided testimony that is heard by grand jurors. The presumption of innocence means just that: at this point in time, Menendez should be deemed no more guilty than other officeholders who have been accused of wrongdoing.

One irony of the Justice Department’s publication of prejudicial photographs clearly intended to influence the jury and potential witnesses is the fact that the same Justice Department is seeking to impose a gag order on Trump, in part because of the claim that he will try to influence jurors and witnesses against the government.

Both Trump and Menendez have the constitutional right – under the 1st and 6th Amendments – to defend themselves in the court of public opinion. The government, on the other hand, has no constitutional right to try to influence jurors or witnesses. Its only legitimate role is just to seek objective and fair justice. In that regard, the Justice Department is starting off on the wrong foot in both the Menendez and Trump cases.

Many Democrats are claiming that the recent indictment of Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) proves that the current Justice Department provides equal justice to Democrats and Republicans. Although it is necessary to wait for the evidence to emerge before judgment is passed on this most recent indictment, what appears so far may be closer to equal injustice.

In both the Menendez and Trump cases, prosecutors are engaging in the questionable tactic of seeking to influence the jury before trial. The photographic display of gold bars and cash in the Menendez case is an image that will remain with everyone who saw it. The same is true of the contrived photographic display by the Justice Department of allegedly classified documents spread on the floor. This “show and tell “was produced by the Justice Department and published in virtually every media outlet in the country.