RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/10/biden-makes-us-energy-dependent-again-joseph-klein/

President Biden was not done humiliating the United States with his disastrous withdrawal of all American troops from Afghanistan. Now he is literally begging Saudi Arabia and other OPEC cartel countries for more oil.

Gas prices at the pump are at a seven-year high. The average retail gasoline price is now more than one dollar per gallon higher than it was a year ago. Americans are feeling the pain every time they fill up their gas tanks.

During his softball CNN town hall on October 21st, Biden conceded that “we’re about $3.30 a gallon most places now,” noting that the price had previously been “down in the single digits — I mean single digits, a dollar-plus.”

What is Biden’s explanation for the incredible rise in gas prices over the last year? He blamed Americans’ plight on the supply of oil “being withheld by OPEC.”

Import petroleum prices have increased 70.5 percent from September 2020 to September 2021, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. There is no sign that this trend will be reversed anytime soon.

Thus, it is unsurprising that Biden admitted he doesn’t see gas prices coming down until “into next year, 2022,” at the earliest. “I don’t see anything that’s going to happen in the meantime that’s going to significantly reduce gas prices,” Biden said.

What Biden did not say, of course, is that his own war on fossil fuels largely caused this problem. Biden turned the clock back to the time when the United States was dependent on Middle East oil — before former President Donald Trump had managed to make the U.S. energy-independent.

“There’s a possibility to be able to bring it down, depends on — a little bit on Saudi Arabia and a few other things that are in the offing,” Biden said without specifying what those “few other things” are.

Trump had managed to wean the country off of dependence on Middle East oil. During the Trump administration, the United States became the number one producer of oil in the world while maintaining America’s position as the number one producer of natural gas. For the first time in nearly 70 years, the United States had become a net energy exporter.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/10/is_the_national_strategy_on_gender_equity_and_equality_just_a_start_for_the_biden_administration.html

Vice-President Kamala Harris proudly took to Twitter to announce that the White House has issued “the first ever National Gender Strategy.”

 No wonder she and President Biden haven’t had time to visit the border with Mexico.

The official document, adorned with a miniature White House under which the words “The White House” and “Washington” appear, is officially titled “National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality.”

Rumor has it that administration officials also considered naming the vital strategic document “National Strategy On Gender Equality And Equity” before opting for “National Strategy On Gender Equity And Equality.” One unnamed official reportedly said heated debate ran on for many hours between those who thought one or the other title was itself more equal and equitable.

In any case, Americans should thank God — well, actually, Uncle Sam — that their federal government now has an official Gender Strategy. And the administration isn’t expected to take much time to savor its accomplishment before attempting to put together a comprehensive blueprint for the consumption of baked goods. Insiders say a “National Strategy On Pastries And Bagel Eating” could be unveiled as early as next month. And that, they say, could be followed by a program detailing a national strategy for the advancement of origami.

Some “MAGA” types, and other opponents of the administration, have mocked the creation of a “national gender strategy,” and have suggested that a strategy for dealing with China, Russia, Iran or North Korea would have been more pertinent, timely, and beneficial. Other critics claim that many Americans would have preferred the rollout of programs for dealing with the border crisis, economy, national debt, and ongoing pandemic with the subsequent loss of their personal liberty.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/10/what_wokeness_really_means.html

“I am an American. I have no skin color worthy of note, no particular geographical heritage I care to claim as my own. My race is called Freedom, my People come in every hue. I will stand with my brothers and sisters of all skin hues against every tyranny known to man. I will not back down. I refuse to be afraid. I’m an American, the most fearsome ethnicity ever devised.”

The tacit premise of Wokeness is that minorities are intellectually deficient and hopelessly oppressed by everything around them (thanks to the inherent racism of all White people and the irredeemably xenophobic the institutions that they created).

The problem with calling Wokeness an anti-racism movement is self-evident. Black, Brown, Red, and Yellow people are not dumber than White people. Some of my favorite brainy individuals could never be mistaken for a White Supremacists (except maybe by the delusional NPR).  Moreover, of all the minorities I’ve known and befriended during my lifetime, not a single one has ever expressed any belief that Whitey is on the hunt for them, rigging everything from Math to English against them. I’m the type to specifically ask questions like:

“Hey, Bro… with all the talk of racism everywhere, do you feel like your life is consumed by White folks oppressing you at every turn?”

The reason I’ve never received a “yes” answer to any such question is that I tend to have responsible friends — skin color in no way part of the equation. What Woke really rests on is people who don’t take personal responsibility, the victim mentality type.

https://spectator.org/john-durhams-salad-shooter/

This is the sixth in a series of articles analyzing the federal grand jury indictment charging lawyer Michael Sussmann with making a materially false statement to the FBI’s General Counsel. The indictment spelled out Sussmann’s involvement in a thus-far uncharged conspiracy to create a false narrative that was calculated to demonstrate a secret channel of internet communications between the Trump Organization and the Russian Alfa-Bank.

Recently Sussmann’s lawyers moved for a bill of particulars alleging that the indictment lacks sufficient detail and clarity for their client to prepare his defense.

Special Counsel John Durham’s brief in opposition pointed out that the 27-page indictment amply satisfies the legal requirement that it need only include a plain, concise, and definitive written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. Moreover, Durham’s opposing brief also points out that the prosecution has already provided the defense with ample clarification by way of expansive and massive discovery.

According to Durham, on October 7, the government “made its first production of discovery to the defense” which “included more than 6,000 documents, comprising approximately 81,000 pages.” The documents were “received in response to grand jury subpoenas issued to fifteen separate individuals, entities, and organizations — including among others, political organizations, a university, university researchers, an investigative firm, and numerous companies.”

The prosecution is also “working expeditiously to declassify large volumes of materials” which it expects to provide to the defense “[w]ithin approximately two weeks” which will include, “among other things,” the following:

More than 30 declassified reports of interviews conducted in the course of Durham’s investigation;
Emails and other documents shown to witnesses during the interviews;
Investigators’ notes taken during the interviews;
Transcripts of grand jury testimony for multiple witnesses;
The majority of the FBI’s electronic “case file” pertaining to its investigation of the now discredited Trump-Alfa Bank allegations which Sussmann is accused of presenting to the FBI’s General Counsel;
Emails, memoranda, reports, and other records obtained from “Agency-2” (identified elsewhere as the CIA), including “write-ups” of Sussmann’s meetings with CIA personnel in which Sussmann is accused of providing the false Trump-Alfa Bank allegations.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/slippery-semantics-anthony-fauci-gain-function-coronavirus/

“I do not have any accounting of what the Chinese may have done, and I’m fully in favor of any further investigation of what went on in China. However, I will repeat again: the NIH and NIAID categorically has not funded ‘gain-of-function’ research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” 

That was Dr Anthony Fauci during a May 2021 congressional hearing. It kicked off a months-long national media effort to frame questions around gain-of-function research and US-taxpayer-funded virus manipulation as a Royal Rumble between Fauci and Senator Rand Paul.

When he testifies or sits for friendly network interviews, Fauci depends on semantics. He relies on the naivety of the interviewer and the audience, employing terminology and definitions he believes only he understands.

But like the ponytailed Chad in Good Will Hunting attempting to flex his big brain, Fauci’s arguments fall apart in front of the initiated.

Last week, Lawrence Tabak, the principal deputy director of the NIH, sent a letter to Congress saying that EcoHealth Alliance failed to report certain aspects of the experimental work it had been conducting in China on bats and bat-borne viruses. Tabak pledged that the NIH and Fauci’s NIAID would take administrative action, but not much more than that.

So Fauci’s absolutist answer from May has proven to be false. At the very least, the doctor needs to answer directly why he chose to deflect questions on gain-of-function research, something his own agency is claiming it had no idea was happening. How could have Fauci have denied back in May something so “categorically” if EcoHealth Alliance, run by Fauci ally Peter Daszak, had failed to report the full extent of their experiments?

When Fauci sat for a cozy Sunday interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, he once again deployed his semantic game on the interviewer. Stephanopoulos framed the revealing letter from Tabak as “critics pouncing”:

“Some critics and analysts have seized on that to say you and others have misled the public about US funding of this so-called gain-of-function research. The NIH says that’s false.”