RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://nypost.com/2024/03/12/us-news/faa-audit-of-boeings-737-production-found-mechanics-using-hotel-card-and-dish-soap-as-makeshift-tools-report/

The Federal Aviation Administration found dozens of issues throughout Boeing’s 737 Max jet production process, including mechanics at one of its key suppliers using a hotel key card and dish soap as makeshift tools to test compliance, according to a report.

The FAA discovered “unacceptable” quality control issues during an audit into Boeing and supplier Spirit AeroSystems that was launched after a door plug flew off a 737 Max 9 mid-air at 16,000 feet on Jan. 5.

The agency did not release its findings to the public, but a presentation detailing the results reviewed by the New York Times reveals a troubling and inconsistent manufacturing process.

Boeing failed 33 out of 89 product audits — a review of specific aspects in the production line — with a total of 97 counts of alleged noncompliance, the auditors found, according to the newspaper.

Spirit AeroSystems, which makes the body of the 737 Max jets, failed seven out of 13 product audits conducted by the FAA, the publication reported. One of its failures dealt with the installation of the plane’s door plug.

https://nypost.com/2024/03/11/us-news/boeing-whistleblower-john-barnett-found-dead-after-testifying-against-company/

A Boeing whistleblower was found dead in his truck in the parking lot of his South Carolina hotel after he failed to show up for the second part of his testimony for a bombshell lawsuit against the company, a report said Monday.

John Barnett, 62, had raised safety concerns at the airline’s factories and provided his first testimony just days before he was found dead from an apparent “self-inflicted” gunshot wound, the Charleston County coroner told the BBC.

Barnett’s attorney, Brian Knowles, told TMZ that he had explicit doubt about the circumstances of his death, and called the self-inflicted gunshot “alleged.”

“Today is a tragic day,” Knowles told Corporate Crime Reporter. “John had been back and forth for quite some time getting prepared. The defense examined him for their allowed seven hours under the rules on Thursday.”

The whistleblower had been staying at the hotel to provide a deposition in a whistleblower lawsuit against the company.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/03/11/the-anti-democratic-democratic-left/

Joe Biden has claimed that his opponents are assaulting democracy on the basis of the January 6, 2021, buffoonish riot.

Aside from the fact that storming the Capitol Rotunda sometimes is apparently deemed permissible—as in the recent pro-Hamas takeover of it—or aside from the fact that disrupting a federal government proceeding is deemed exempt—as in the recent pro-Hamas throng that blocked the route of the presidential motorcade and thus delayed the State of the Union address to the nation by 26 minutes—who really is attacking democracy?

Take the Supreme Court. After the Court went to a 6-3 conservative majority, liberal law professors, progressive activist groups, and many ends-justify-the-means Democrats in Congress began advocating “packing the court” to gain additional new billets for left-wing judges.

In other words, the left had little confidence that it would hold the White House and the Senate when a judicial opening came up, so it sought to force the issue while it had the power in both.

Formerly, any such notion would have been written off as lunatic and dangerous, given that the nine-justice Supreme Court has been canonized for 155 years since 1869. Second, during the last time Democrats attacked the nine-justice Supreme Court over its supposedly too conservative rulings—Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 notorious court-packing scheme—even fellow liberals opposed the toxic gambit. They knew that it would only lead to a tit-for-tat fluid court every time a new administration took power.

Then there was the public demonization of the court, which saw efforts to scare it into “correct” rulings. The effort was multifaceted.

Sometimes the left-wing method was direct intimidation. So in 2020, then Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) led a throng of pro-abortion protestors to the court’s very doors, threatening Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by name. He was not subtle in his warnings: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you.” 

Hit you? Pay the price?

Later, when left-wing mobs thronged at the private homes of some conservative judges with the intention of intimidating them and leveraging their decisions—in violation of a 1950 federal law—the Biden administration did nothing. No wonder a potential assassin soon showed up near the home of Justice Kavanaugh, and, fortunately, did not go through with his planned attack.

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/03/12/bidens-budget-proves-what-an-epic-disaster-hes-been/

This is Biden’s true legacy. And if he’s allowed to dig the hole any deeper, we may never climb out.

President Joe Biden brags that the budget he released on Monday would cut the deficit by $3 trillion, even while offering truckloads of new goodies to Americans.

That will get headlines.

What won’t make the news is the fact that his Fiscal 2025 budget provides clear and incontrovertible evidence that he has caused a fiscal and economic disaster of epic proportions.

How do we know this? Because buried in the back of the annual budget document is a table called “Baseline by Category.” This is a forecast of spending, revenues, and deficits that would result if the government is left on autopilot.

So, we dug out Biden’s first budget — released in early 2021 — to see what the administration said would happen if Biden did nothing. In other words, what would spending, revenues and deficits look like if all of President Donald Trump’s policies remained in effect. Let’s call this the Trump baseline.

Then we compared that with the latest “Baseline” projection in Biden’s new budget — which assumes that all of Biden’s current policies remain in effect for the foreseeable future. We will call this the Biden baseline.

What did we find?

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20468/fani-willis-perjury

If Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis were prosecuting citizen Fani Willis and her former boyfriend Nathan Wade for perjury, conspiracy and obstruction of justice, she would have an extremely strong case.

Based on this and other incriminating evidence, the real issue is not whether this pair should be allowed to continue to prosecute the case against Trump, but instead whether this pair should be investigated, indicted and convicted of serious crimes.

The presiding judge in the case has no power to commence a criminal investigation or prosecution. But other law enforcement authorities do. If they fail, they will be damaging the rule of law, the integrity of the US legal system and the waning trust that many Americans already have in equal justice.

If Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis were prosecuting citizen Fani Willis and her former boyfriend Nathan Wade for perjury, conspiracy and obstruction of justice, she would have an extremely strong case. The evidence of perjury is overwhelming; many individuals have been convicted on far less evidence.

Recall that Willis and Wade testified under oath to the material fact that Willis did not hire Wade as special prosecutor while they were having a romantic relationship. They both testified that the romantic relationship began after the hiring decision was made. If that was a deliberate lie, it satisfies all the elements of perjury.

Let us look at the evidence. First, there is the testimony of two witnesses, both of whom have provided evidence that the relationship began before Wade’s appointment as special prosecutor. As Willis herself reminded us when she was challenged about having no corroboration that she paid Wade back in cash, the testimony of one witness is evidence – meaning her own self-serving testimony – certainly, the testimony of two witnesses is even better evidence. In addition, there is the text by another witness confirming that the relationship began earlier than testified to.