RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/01/25/elected-officials-no-longer-reflect-views-values-of-average-voters-ii-tipp-poll/

Washington, you have a problem, and elected officials should take note: Regardless of party affiliation, those who elected you no longer have faith in the idea that you actually represent them, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows.

It’s no surprise that many voters are turned off by the political class these days. As repeated polls show, voters from both parties agree that the results of recent years from Washington have been less than stellar. And the voters feel Washington is divorced from their everyday concerns.

In the most recent online I&I/TIPP Poll, taken Jan. 4-6 from 1,107 registered voters across the country, we asked voters two questions about their elected officials in Washington.

In the first we asked simply: “In general, do you believe that elected officials in Washington represent MOSTLY the views and values of … ” with the choices being “their constituents,” “Big Donors,” or “not sure.”

The answer was overwhelming and doesn’t bode well for official Washington. Two-thirds (66%) said elected officials represent mostly the views and values of their big donors, not average Americans. Just 16% said they felt their elected officials represented their constituents. Another 18% said they weren’t sure.

When it comes to the politics of those who took the poll, which has a margin of error of +/-3.0 percentage points, this was one of the most uniform responses in I&I/TIPP Poll history.

Among Democrats, 61% said “Big donors,” compared to 68% of Republicans and 73% of independents. “Constituents” garnered 20% of Democrats, 16% of Republicans and just 9% of independents.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/01/the_quixotic_quest_for_reparations.html

The idea of reparations for African Americans due to slavery began during the Civil War when General William Tecumseh Sherman, on January 16, 1865, issued Special Field Order No. 15 that called for allocating up to 40 acres and lending mules to newly emancipated slaves. President Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson, ignored the order but the idea has nevertheless lived on. Not much happened on reparations until 1988 when Representative John Conyers introduced HR 40, a bill to establish a national commission to study reparations, but this bill died in committee.

In 2019, however, with the murder of George Floyd and COVID-19 impact on communities of color, the dam has burst. The House of Representatives has again taken up the idea of a national commission and countless cities such as Boston, Chicago,  San Francisco plus the state of California have created official reparations commissions. Evanston, Ill has awarded $25,000 each to 15 Black resident to make amends for past housing discrimination.  The Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States in 2021 pledged $100 million in reparations for descendants of those enslaved by the order.

A major justification for reparations is to equalize the racial wealth divide. As the Brookings Institution, hardly a radical thinktank, put it, “Central to the idea of the American Dream lies an assumption that we all have an equal opportunity to generate the kind of wealth that brings meaning to the words ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’”

Will awarding large sums of money to Black people equalize the racial wealth gap? The answer is “no,” and the political damage that this effort will far outweigh its immense monetary cost.

This wealth gap is massive and enduring. According to recent Federal Reserve data, the average White family has eight times the wealth of the average Black family with the average Black family’s wealth being 15% of what the average White family possesses.  Nineteen percent of Black families have zero or negative net wealth. The gap extends far beyond income differences though this is significant. Differences exist in inheritances, multiple savings and investment plans, plus how Whites gravitate toward investments that appreciate over time, especially home ownership and education.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/01/23/police-injured-by-friendly-fire-on-january-6/

A New Jersey man will be sentenced on Friday for his participation in the events of January 6, 2021. Julian Khater, 33, faces up to eight years in prison for allegedly using pepper spray against three police officers, including the late Brian Sicknick, that afternoon.

Khater and his friend, George Tanios, were arrested in March 2021 in connection with the alleged assault. After spending more than 18 months in a fetid D.C. jail under pretrial detention orders—Judge Thomas Hogan repeatedly denied attempts by his family to post bail—Khater pleaded guilty to assaulting police officers with a dangerous weapon. (Tanios rejected numerous plea offers on the same charges; prosecutors finally dropped the assault counts, and he pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors.)

The Justice Department’s case was flimsy from the start, which I explained shortly after the pair’s arrest. Khater and Tanios are nothing more than human props to sustain arguably the biggest falsehood related to January 6—that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was killed in the line of duty. Even though a coroner concluded Sicknick died of two strokes caused by a blood clot near his brain, his death is still shamefully exploited by everyone from Joe Biden to congressional Democrats and even Sicknick’s own loved ones.

Capitol police announced Sicknick’s passing on January 7, 2021, with claims he was “injured while physically engaging with protesters.” Donald Trump and his supporters were immediately branded as cop killers.

The story, however, kept changing. First, the New York Times reported Sicknick had been bludgeoned to death by a fire extinguisher. After the paper retracted that story in February 2021, the media, no doubt prompted by the Justice Department, suggested Sicknick died of an allergic reaction to chemical spray.

In an attempt to salvage the credibility of its first bogus account, the Times published another lengthy report in March 2021 with cherry-picked clips and screenshots designed to reenact the assault. “New videos obtained by The New York Times show publicly for the first time how the U.S. Capitol Police officer who died after facing off with rioters on Jan. 6 was attacked with chemical spray.” 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/latest-arrest-shows-the-corruption-of-the-fbi/

On Saturday, the FBI arrested one of its own. Charles McGonigal, who used to head counterintel for the Bureau in New York and investigated Trump over Russiagate, was busted at JFK Airport and has been charged with violating the sanctions placed on Oleg Deripaska.

Deripaska, a Russian oligarch allied with Putin, has his name scrawled on parts of Russiagate. Before Christopher Steele was brought on board to produce the infamous dossier aimed at Trump, the British ex-agent had been working on a project for Deripaska to go after Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, who would also prove to be an FBI target.

In the tangled relationship that is an apt metaphor for Russiagate, the Russian billionaire appeared at times to be an FBI asset and at other times employed FBI personnel.

McGonigal is reportedly one of a number of ex-FBI agents who became freelance consultants, like American versions of Steele, under investigation. And connections between ex-FBI officials and the Russians have gone even higher than McGonigal. Louis Freeh, Bill Clinton’s former FBI director, represented a number of Russian oligarchs and his deceased predecessor, Director William Sessions worked for a top Russian mafia figure linked to Putin.

We may very well find that the retired FBI officials who haven’t gotten contracts as commentators for cable news have gone to work for the Russians. And McGonigal may be the first of a number of FBI figures who were tasked with fighting Russian influence who instead learned enough to go to work for the Russians.

If McGonigal is guilty, it’s because he was following in the footsteps of retired FBI directors and top elected officials. Deripaska had previously managed to purchase the services of former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole to “persuade U.S. officials his client isn’t a criminal” and of a firm linked to Hillary’s communications director and Bill Clinton’s deputy press secretary. When you can buy both sides of the 1996 presidential election, why quibble at a mere FBI official? Russia may be a mafia state, but unfortunately we’ve become one too.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19345/civil-criminal-line

There are two major reasons why criminal liability has been extended to cover negligent behavior. The first is evidentiary: it is often difficult or impossible to prove a specific intent to commit a crime, so the law takes a shortcut, substituting negligence, which is far easier to prove.

The second reason is to put the burden of preventing harms on the persons most able to do so.

Another consequence [of this expanding criminalization of what used to be civil violations], which we are currently experiencing in the political world, is the weaponization of the criminal justice system for partisan purposes.

There are two fundamental mechanisms of justice for wrongs committed. The first is civil, in which the wrong is compensated economically — by the payment of money. The second is criminal, in which the wrongdoer is punished — by imprisonment, probation or fine.

Our constitution recognizes this historic distinction by guaranteeing different rights in civil and criminal cases. The Bill of Rights provides that “in all criminal prosecutions,” a plethora of important procedural protections must be accorded the defendant. These include a “speedy and public trial by an impartial jury”, “the assistance of counsel”, the ability to confront adverse witnesses and call favorable ones, prohibitions against compelled self-incrimination and double jeopardy, reasonable bail and no “cruel and unusual punishment.”

In civil cases, on the other hand, there is little more than trial by jury and basic due process.

https://thespectator.com/topic/the-democrat-think-tank-implicated-by-bidens-classified-documents-penn-biden-center/

Joe Biden has become the Typhoid Mary of classified documents, spreading them as he goes. They keep turning up in batch after batch, everywhere but the floor at a Wilmington Starbucks. The president has said almost nothing about the mess, except to reassure us that “people know I take classified documents seriously.” That defense has since taken on a slight change of punctuation: “People know I take classified documents. Seriously.” He certainly does. He takes them everywhere.

Most recently, classified documents were found at the Penn Biden Center, a foreign policy think tank in Washington, DC established by Biden in partnership with the University of Pennsylvania. The documents raise additional questions. Why were Biden’s lawyers searching there in the first place? We still don’t know. More broadly, how was this center funded, and what were Joe Biden’s connections to the university? Again, we don’t know. Similar questions arise about the Biden Center at the University of Delaware, where Biden has stored over 1,800 boxes.

All these questions remain unanswered, and the White House is stonewalling anyone who dares to ask. The universities themselves are silent as a graveyard.

Important as these questions are, they are not the only ones surrounding Penn’s Washington-based Center. Two others have received little attention but point to deeper troubles at our politicized universities.

The first is that the Penn Biden Center was (and is) effectively an adjunct of one political party, based at a major research university. That’s wrong. No university should embrace such partisanship. It violates the university’s fundamental duty as an institution to maintain its scholarly neutrality. Of course, professors and students are welcome to take whatever political stances they wish, either as individuals or as voluntary groups. But the university itself (and its departments) should avoid them unless they bear directly on the university’s educational responsibilities.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/01/24/as-trust-in-elites-collapses-its-time-to-weave-a-new-social-fabric/

How optimistic are you about America’s future? How much do you trust the institutions that hold society together? Do you think that now is an ideal time to build wealth and set your family up for success?

If your answers were “not very, not much, and no,” then you are not alone.

Earlier this month, the global communications firm Edelman released its annual barometer of trust survey, which found that trust in societal institutions is plummeting around the world. At the same time, economic anxiety is rising in the world’s top economies, including Japan, France, Germany, Singapore, and the U.S., resulting in record-setting levels of global pessimism.

In short, people in the developed world believe the social fabric of their countries is unraveling before their very eyes.

While this may seem grim, the survey also provides some clues as to how we can weave a new, more resilient social fabric.

Let’s take a look at some of the findings: In the 28 countries surveyed by Edelman, only 40% of people agree with the statement “My family and I will be better off in five years.” This is a staggering 10-point drop from last year, with 24 of the 28 countries registering all-time lows. Economic optimism is lower than the average in the United States, with only 36% who agree. This represents a one-point drop from 2022.

This economic anxiety is so intense that people fear job loss and inflation more than they fear nuclear war, food shortages, and energy shortages.